I work for a Wall Street firm.This was an EXCELLENT MOVE if her manager doesn't get a large cut, and I'll tell you why. If she just takes HALF of that money and puts it into an S&P 500 fund,leaves it alone for 10-15 years,she'll be a BILLIONAIRE without lifting a finger to do a d*mn thing. I hope she's incorporated because taxes will be 21% on a corporation, but 37% on an individual. I hope she had good legal counsel BEFORE she made the sale.She's only 38 years old,but she's set for life if she has an intelligent financial advisor.The music business has changed greatly in the last fifteen years,and unless you're doing KPOP,Jazz,or Classical music, NO ONE is selling massive amounts of cd's or downloads (unless you're Taylor Swift or Beyonce) . This was a great move on her part.
I always wonder why would artists care for the masters cause you’re basically just making some money off of streaming and it’s not like every month there are companies begging to use your music for commercials, tv, and movies…
@@silvergolden4284 That's an excellent question. The payments for "sync" rights can be quite lucrative. There's an entire business built around helping writers place their songs with advertisers and film and tv producers. Not to mention the extra income that you can get if people hear your song in a movie ,or tv show,or a video gameand want to stream it or buy it..I had a song ("I PROMISED NOT TO DO IT")placed with Volkswagen back in 2008 for their car the "EOS",and I received checks for almost five years. The commercial didn't air in the states,but it did quite well in Europe,Africa,and Asia. If you're signed to a label,the label gets the money and not you. THAT is why Taylor Swift re-recorded her albums. She controls who uses her songs and the money they generate.
Owning the rights to your music costs management fees, even after you die, so selling it all now means you can use that cash-out to create a pension for yourself. If managed well, the money they make from these sales can be put aside for when the artist retires. I don't think Perry or Biebz plan to perform past middle age, so it's a smart move. Gaining royalties from past catalogues is also a huge risk that these investment companies take on. What if something comes out about Justin or Katy that makes their catalogues next to useless? What happens if that music just isn't popular anymore, like Doo-Wop? That's especially considering royalties only make up a small fraction of their total income. On top of all of that, a lot of artists are still reeling from the pandemic, and they have whole armies that are dependent on them, which costs millions to keep alive. It's complicated, to say the least.
I understand that music can “get old”, and you can do a lot with the money. But selling your royalties is like selling your soul as an artist. And we’re not talking about a genre. If an artist is an icon like Katy Perry, they’re royalties are invaluable. Name all the dead genres you want, but an iconic artist from that dead genre still gets their music played today, and always will. Edit: Besides, crazy things have came out about Chris Brown, James Brown, Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, etc. and they still get their music played. You also mentioned touring in their 30s. Well, with their royalties, they could just sit on the money, they wouldn’t have to tour.
@@fosminclorin The exact Opposite. I also think a giant shift is coming in the Music Industry where selling catalogues now will make sense for certain artists. Katy Perry is a current Star and former Superstar but she’s not an Icon. Taylor achieved Icon status probably with her last 3 releases and the Power Moves she’s orchestrated in between Tours/Albums. I could see why their paths are Divergent.
@@DualityUnlimited yeah, I knew she wasn't gonna recover her status and wasn't gonna make new music, so it's smart of her to sell it to invest it in other things
@@dylono.t.2509 Not really. Katy Perry's career is going downhill fast that's why she even accepted to be judge of American Idol. She sold her catalogue NOW cause she knows that's the best offer she can get and in a few years the price will just go down. She was smart in taking the money now and it doesn't affect her career since she can still make new music 🤷🏻♀️
I find it strange for these young artists to sell, Katy isn't even 40. I mean I understand Bruce Springsteen and others looking into estate planning, but she is so young. Sure the music industry is changing but to my mind it speaks to either a lack of confidence in the longevity of her music or a lack of emotional investment in her songs or both.
Glad MARIAH owns her OWN catalog "Own her Master Recordings". If you have kids, let them have all your royalty when you're gone. If you're greedy sell it and dont care for ur kids...
I heard Bieber didn't get the lion's share of his music catalogue and he's pissed but it might just be a rumour I'm thinking he might rerecord the catalogue 🤭🤭 I want that so bad😂
The reason why an artist would want to to own the rights is pretty much to say its theirs and to get properly compensated for their work... i would say 225Ms is fair enough especially if you just want alot at once instead of little by little through royalties... as for the owning it part, maybe some artists are satisfied knowing that people know who made them and their music did what it was intended to do, being given credit for what you do and getting properly paid is all most artist really ask for, owning your music is is good for making sure you dont get fkd over or just too proud of your work to let anyone else say they own it
So, they sell the music because the music doesn’t make as much money as it does when it first came out, but keeping the catalogue allows for steady income by way of streaming, vinyls, compact discs, etc, but does it take away from music royalties-I would imagine that it doesn’t, but if artists sell their catalog, are they not also selling their copyrights as well? If selling the catalog involves selling their copyright of the music, then I would keep the music. You never know who may take your song and sample it, like Doja Cat and Dionne Warwick for example. I would imagine that Ms. Warwick still makes some money off of that song IF she owns her masters to it. According to Prince and Michael Jackson, it’s best to own your music rather than sell it
As a business man, I prefer keeping the catalog. Treat it like commercial real estate: charge companies and people who want to use any song 🎵. Samples can earn cash 💸. Puff Daddy pays Sting every time I'll Be Missing You is on the air. I use this example partly because Every Breath You Take turned 40 years old 🎂 this year, 2023.
Found it: Litmus was founded in 2022 by Hank Forsyth and Dan McCarroll, along with Carlyle’s Global Credit platform. Carlyle’s Global Credit platform manages $152 billion in assets across the risk return spectrum: from liquid, to private credit, to real asset strategies. _____ So basically 2 snakes from a giant snake company had the genius idea to take every pop song and use it as a moneymaker to back billionaire inventment portfolios. So now they can engage in even riskier investments and speculations because they will always have money coming in to cover it when something goes wrong.
Depends, if i had family that’s another thing that would be considered. Let remember prince and his estate fiasco and Michael Jackson when he died all the estate that his family was left with. I’m not to in tuned with Katy’s personal life but it seems like she’s done with music. Unlike Taylor Swift who wanted to keep her catalog. The steady income seems appealing than just a large chunk that can be burn through quickly. Sometimes I think some artists are just to free, they live for the now which is a double edge sword to live. But then again I’m a Capricorn we’re not as openly free to be creative when building a foundation for long term investments.
Taylor's songs are like her diary's. She wrote or co-wrote every song and plays an instrument on almost everyone. They are very personal to her. She wrote a book at age 7 just for herself. It will never be published. For her it is something that should be passed down as an heirloom through generations. Her Grandmother was a famous Opera singer. How cool for her kids kids to listen to Taylor's music, look through photo albums and tell family stories. That is something I could never sell.
??? She literally just did her Vegas residency and a lot of private shows... She makes $1 million dollars per private show + she did like 80 residency shows. She's filthy rich. And she has a lot more going on with businesses, American idol, etc.
You called "Fireworks" meaningless?! She got tons of non singles songs that you never listen but you concluded "meaningless" Just say you're a hater, and make unreasonable critic. It's like saying Taylor songs are meaningless bc you use Shake It Off and ME! to conclude her. Sure, it's pop songs, not meant to be Shakespeare poetry, but meaningless is desperate discrediting move
It’s important to remember that a lot of artists never owned their catalogs to begin with. Only the ones who got fair deals do.
You are right record labels usually take 20% managers take 10% and
And every artist is supposed to pay 35% of it to there music as well
I work for a Wall Street firm.This was an EXCELLENT MOVE if her manager doesn't get a large cut, and I'll tell you why. If she just takes HALF of that money and puts it into an S&P 500 fund,leaves it alone for 10-15 years,she'll be a BILLIONAIRE without lifting a finger to do a d*mn thing. I hope she's incorporated because taxes will be 21% on a corporation, but 37% on an individual. I hope she had good legal counsel BEFORE she made the sale.She's only 38 years old,but she's set for life if she has an intelligent financial advisor.The music business has changed greatly in the last fifteen years,and unless you're doing KPOP,Jazz,or Classical music, NO ONE is selling massive amounts of cd's or downloads (unless you're Taylor Swift or Beyonce) . This was a great move on her part.
This was such a good comment
I always wonder why would artists care for the masters cause you’re basically just making some money off of streaming and it’s not like every month there are companies begging to use your music for commercials, tv, and movies…
@@silvergolden4284 That's an excellent question. The payments for "sync" rights can be quite lucrative. There's an entire business built around helping writers place their songs with advertisers and film and tv producers. Not to mention the extra income that you can get if people hear your song in a movie ,or tv show,or a video gameand want to stream it or buy it..I had a song ("I PROMISED NOT TO DO IT")placed with Volkswagen back in 2008 for their car the "EOS",and I received checks for almost five years. The commercial didn't air in the states,but it did quite well in Europe,Africa,and Asia. If you're signed to a label,the label gets the money and not you. THAT is why Taylor Swift re-recorded her albums. She controls who uses her songs and the money they generate.
U scammer I have no respect for you
Katy has a net worth of 340 million dollars, even if she wastes her money she and her future grandkids are already set for life 🤷🏻♀️
Owning the rights to your music costs management fees, even after you die, so selling it all now means you can use that cash-out to create a pension for yourself. If managed well, the money they make from these sales can be put aside for when the artist retires. I don't think Perry or Biebz plan to perform past middle age, so it's a smart move. Gaining royalties from past catalogues is also a huge risk that these investment companies take on. What if something comes out about Justin or Katy that makes their catalogues next to useless? What happens if that music just isn't popular anymore, like Doo-Wop? That's especially considering royalties only make up a small fraction of their total income. On top of all of that, a lot of artists are still reeling from the pandemic, and they have whole armies that are dependent on them, which costs millions to keep alive. It's complicated, to say the least.
I understand that music can “get old”, and you can do a lot with the money. But selling your royalties is like selling your soul as an artist.
And we’re not talking about a genre. If an artist is an icon like Katy Perry, they’re royalties are invaluable. Name all the dead genres you want, but an iconic artist from that dead genre still gets their music played today, and always will.
Edit: Besides, crazy things have came out about Chris Brown, James Brown, Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, etc. and they still get their music played.
You also mentioned touring in their 30s. Well, with their royalties, they could just sit on the money, they wouldn’t have to tour.
@@dylono.t.2509she literally did the opposite of what Taylor is doing
@@fosminclorin The exact Opposite. I also think a giant shift is coming in the Music Industry where selling catalogues now will make sense for certain artists. Katy Perry is a current Star and former Superstar but she’s not an Icon. Taylor achieved Icon status probably with her last 3 releases and the Power Moves she’s orchestrated in between Tours/Albums. I could see why their paths are Divergent.
@@DualityUnlimited yeah, I knew she wasn't gonna recover her status and wasn't gonna make new music, so it's smart of her to sell it to invest it in other things
@@dylono.t.2509 Not really. Katy Perry's career is going downhill fast that's why she even accepted to be judge of American Idol. She sold her catalogue NOW cause she knows that's the best offer she can get and in a few years the price will just go down. She was smart in taking the money now and it doesn't affect her career since she can still make new music 🤷🏻♀️
Having only watched your shorts till now, your voice is even smoother than expected.
I wonder if any of them are being forced to. This industry has its secrets.
Exactly. The mafia runs the music industry anyway, so they're the ones profiting in the end. Who owns Litmus music? That's the real question.
wild assumptions
@@gladitsnotmemafia? 😂😂😂
What a strange way to spell Jews
iTs uH cOnSpiRaCy mAAn
@@user-pn3im5sm7kpssst.....TRUMP LOST 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I find it strange for these young artists to sell, Katy isn't even 40. I mean I understand Bruce Springsteen and others looking into estate planning, but she is so young. Sure the music industry is changing but to my mind it speaks to either a lack of confidence in the longevity of her music or a lack of emotional investment in her songs or both.
The digitization of music! 🤷🏽♀️ Who remembers Ashton Kutcher punking Justin Timberlake for IRS TAXES on MTV? 😩
It’s a great idea for her to sell the catalog and get to creating new music if music is her biggest passion
wow so he does speak :0
his voice is fire
Fine*** 😊😊
I was just listening to Hot n Cold....
Glad MARIAH owns her OWN catalog "Own her Master Recordings". If you have kids, let them have all your royalty when you're gone. If you're greedy sell it and dont care for ur kids...
Taylor Swift is also in the process of owning her music, but I doubt she'll have any kids
That's not how it works 😂.
I mean, Katy’s kids will be fine too. She’s got over $200 million to leave to them if she chooses!
I heard Bieber didn't get the lion's share of his music catalogue and he's pissed but it might just be a rumour I'm thinking he might rerecord the catalogue 🤭🤭
I want that so bad😂
The reason why an artist would want to to own the rights is pretty much to say its theirs and to get properly compensated for their work... i would say 225Ms is fair enough especially if you just want alot at once instead of little by little through royalties... as for the owning it part, maybe some artists are satisfied knowing that people know who made them and their music did what it was intended to do, being given credit for what you do and getting properly paid is all most artist really ask for, owning your music is is good for making sure you dont get fkd over or just too proud of your work to let anyone else say they own it
So, they sell the music because the music doesn’t make as much money as it does when it first came out, but keeping the catalogue allows for steady income by way of streaming, vinyls, compact discs, etc, but does it take away from music royalties-I would imagine that it doesn’t, but if artists sell their catalog, are they not also selling their copyrights as well?
If selling the catalog involves selling their copyright of the music, then I would keep the music. You never know who may take your song and sample it, like Doja Cat and Dionne Warwick for example. I would imagine that Ms. Warwick still makes some money off of that song IF she owns her masters to it.
According to Prince and Michael Jackson, it’s best to own your music rather than sell it
Some people don’t Make classics.
That cannot be said about Katy
This is probably the moat valuable her catalogue will be sales wise
This is the first time I’m hearing bro’s voice! 🤯
Ur voice woah
Bad bunnys catalogue worth?
What does that even mean though? She can't use them anymore?
that means she now gets no money from streaming, vinyls, etc, but she still can play these songs live
@@TaylorSwift363I mean on Spotify many artist have said that they get about one cent for every one hundred stream
Interesting info!
Only time will tell
i love your face when you are like surprised
Love your voice so much
They often don’t even own their catalogs to begin with.
As a business man, I prefer keeping the catalog. Treat it like commercial real estate: charge companies and people who want to use any song 🎵.
Samples can earn cash 💸. Puff Daddy pays Sting every time I'll Be Missing You is on the air. I use this example partly because Every Breath You Take turned 40 years old 🎂 this year, 2023.
Did she retired?
Who owns Litmus?
Found it: Litmus was founded in 2022 by Hank Forsyth and Dan McCarroll, along with Carlyle’s Global Credit platform. Carlyle’s Global Credit platform manages $152 billion in assets across the risk return spectrum: from liquid, to private credit, to real asset strategies.
_____
So basically 2 snakes from a giant snake company had the genius idea to take every pop song and use it as a moneymaker to back billionaire inventment portfolios. So now they can engage in even riskier investments and speculations because they will always have money coming in to cover it when something goes wrong.
Jake paul
Ex president of Capitol Records
Cause they spend all their money in coke.
Btw your channel is very good
Ok
Because they were all fabrications in the industry. They're not artists, but acting singers.
Why tho????? 😢😢😢
And that’s the true definition of “selling out”
Just reading Google
Wiz khalifa selling till i see you again is a very interesting choice
She never had control over her music so really she isn’t seling it the record label is that sucks but it’s true
From a business perspective selling a catalog makes more sense for artists at her level
Nooo Katy..... Is this for real?? How did I not know this?? I'm usually up to date with Katy's information
Boom well deserved
🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤
He talks?
I wanted your opinion you basically read article you didnt even write
Depends, if i had family that’s another thing that would be considered. Let remember prince and his estate fiasco and Michael Jackson when he died all the estate that his family was left with.
I’m not to in tuned with Katy’s personal life but it seems like she’s done with music. Unlike Taylor Swift who wanted to keep her catalog.
The steady income seems appealing than just a large chunk that can be burn through quickly.
Sometimes I think some artists are just to free, they live for the now which is a double edge sword to live. But then again I’m a Capricorn we’re not as openly free to be creative when building a foundation for long term investments.
First to comment
.. what a choice ! Taxes are the reason..
Perry is going broke and irrelevant.
She had a networth of 350 mil dollars before this sale lol
What? Why? Did Taylor wants the rights for herself but Katy Perry selling it's instead?
Taylor's songs are like her diary's. She wrote or co-wrote every song and plays an instrument on almost everyone. They are very personal to her. She wrote a book at age 7 just for herself. It will never be published. For her it is something that should be passed down as an heirloom through generations. Her Grandmother was a famous Opera singer. How cool for her kids kids to listen to Taylor's music, look through photo albums and tell family stories. That is something I could never sell.
@@ameliadavis1979 yes I agree
@@ameliadavis1979your right and wrong kity Perry changed the game in pop
Katy, noooooooooo
Cause they broke and willingly to for money
🎉
I was thinking…its an easy way to make money
How can they be broke if they're getting massive royalties?
??? She literally just did her Vegas residency and a lot of private shows... She makes $1 million dollars per private show + she did like 80 residency shows. She's filthy rich. And she has a lot more going on with businesses, American idol, etc.
Congrats to all who is early and found this comment 💫
Her music is meaningless but catchy enough to get retooled for Taco Bell and prescription drug commercials
You called "Fireworks" meaningless?! She got tons of non singles songs that you never listen but you concluded "meaningless"
Just say you're a hater, and make unreasonable critic. It's like saying Taylor songs are meaningless bc you use Shake It Off and ME! to conclude her.
Sure, it's pop songs, not meant to be Shakespeare poetry, but meaningless is desperate discrediting move
@@NN-vg3ou anything can have meaning I guess...like people who form their hands into a heart shape. Meaningful redundancy