The buyer being Sony is of importance: they're going to use the catalog for movies and various media without paying a nickel any longer. I'd bet 50% of Sony movies in the coming 5 years will have Queen music somewhere.
I wouldn't be surprised if they do some accounting trickery where they can sell the music licence for a property from one division to another to show 'income' to please shareholders while also claiming losses to dodge taxation.
@@AlanWit is unfortunately not of the realm of the imagination. Tax management leads companies to do some extreme things. A conversation for a less public forum
On the tax point tho I think they have way more methods for everything to do with that. I mean there are a lot of options there that are open loop holes, they might get frowned upon, the fact is the law could be changed to close them but interestingly the government doesn’t, they might know some very wealthy ppl who also exploit similar grey areas and want to keep their donations. But I just speculate lol
What looked like the natural order of things - i.e. each generation would produce musicians who would become very successful, very wealthy and become household names - may turn out to be a golden age never to be repeated. Now that we seem to place such little value on music it's hard to imagine the same thing happening to more than a very small number of artists starting out now.
This is why Sony and the other investors are only buying proven legacy artists. Modern music in the age of AI will be worthless and disposable ending up in the digital rubbish bin of musical history.
Art in general is being devalued.Technology is looking to replace artists, but keep us grafting at menial work. Festival headliners are all full of acts from 40 years ago, so when they die there will be a massive void, becasue the money men didn't bother to nurture any new classics. They just wanted the safe bet of known names.
Time to start buying CD’s again. All this music will be behind a paywall soon or something. Gonna be $3.99 p/month for “Sony’s” Queen Channel. Honestly all these Artists selling their catalogs is sad. Cultural Icons became Corporate Icons. Yah! 🙁
One revenue stream not mentioned in this video is the licensing of kick arse songs for film, TV and video games. It is not uncommon for film directors to put a famous song on the sound track of a scene, send it to their score composer with a note to the effect of "I want something like this". The reason they don't actually license "this" instead is because it would, in some cases, cost a fortune. But sometimes a film or TV series is so good, so box office, and a certain track goes with a certain scene so amazeballs that they go for it and cough up anyway. Think The Doors track The End in the helicopter scene in Apocalypse Now for example. Or Kate Bush's Running Up That Hill in Stranger Things. Indeed Kate Bush had a worldwide hit all over again with that song decades after the release of Hounds of Love because of it. Kerching!. One of the features of pairing a kick arse song with a brilliant cinematic creation is that the song cranks up the emotional intensity of the scene but the scene also cranks up the emotional impact of the song in a positive feedback loop, it becomes more than the sum of it's parts. Sometimes it goes so far that the song redefines the scene and at the same time the scene redefines the song. If the scene is good enough and likewise the song is good enough. Then there is advertising................. Really, really good songs are very difficult to write and they have a quality of timelessness. Film directors love really, really good songs. Queen recorded a lot of really, really good songs. They will be featured in many films and TV shows and video games over the next century. That will account for a fair chunk of how Sony will recover their $1.27bn investment I would think.
Informative video. The algorithm has been reading my emails. I'm in the process of selling a part of my catalogue at the moment, it's just 3 songs I'm selling and at an absolute fraction of the queen deal, but it's the sort of money that going to enable me to look after my family and take the stress off. The usual worries about "selling out" and selling off your IP were there for me but with so much uncertainty in being a music creative financially, let alone the uncertainty in the world right now I feel like its the most sensible option right now.
It is interesting that you said they are like prostitutes, Freddie always said, " I am just a musical prostitute". He said, " When I am gone do what you want to do with my music but please don't make me boring". I think Freddie will NEVER be boring!
Im convinced that since we’re entering the ai/digital world that these corporations want to own sound. If you buy enough catalogues, you could literally own almost any sound and therefore literally control sound. I don’t think corporations really care about money, they already have it all, I think this is about control. If Sony buys 100 catalogues and an artist comes out and either has a message the system doesn’t like or are doing so well independently that the artist doesn’t need them… they can just copyright strike that artists music. I believe this is about controlling public speech and communication more than anything. Also, when they buy the catalog, they can just flood the market with products and place the music in every movie and show on god’s green earth. A few years of having a queen song in every coke commercial and a dozen or so Sony movies… they’ll get their money back.
I like your thinking… And I appreciate the fact that everyone already has a gloomy outlook on AI. Somehow I think the reality can be 10 times or 100 times as bad.
I think you've got a really good point here. It's not about money "now" but more money when AI music will become mainstream. If someone owns an artist catalog and think one AI song is "trained" or sounding "too much" like of the old song, that company could sue the AI companies etc for copyright. In a sense...if it's the idea here, that could put some control on the AI threat on creativity. And that would push musician to really reinvent genres etc...because I didn't see anything big and new since the 90's with grunge, hip hop, electronic music. I hope that will push people to experiment more and stop using all digital solutions for composing/recording. Think out of the box etc.
@@FractalFab you know what? I wasn’t even thinking about the money aspect. I was thinking more of the control/censorship aspect of the long game. You raise a really good point. This good force artists to try something new, you’re correct. Regardless of how they act with it, this is definitely a long game situation. These deals may lose them money in the first say 5 years or so, but the intent of these deals is certainly a long play.
@@johnnyxmusic I’m hoping I’m wrong, but all I’ve seen from technology over the last 41 years of my life is replacement of humans. I grew up in the 80’s in the metro Detroit area, and as a kid I can’t tell you how many times I lost friends/classmates cuz of the big 3 car companies letting people go and getting rid of departments. Computers replaced dad so dad had to move the family. It’s been happening in every sector since. Now, I’m a high school history teacher, with the supposed teacher shortages out there… I thinks going to be used as an excuse to just replace us with RUclips and just have security guards in each class. I’m amazed it hasn’t happened yet actually. It would be nothing for school districts to have a security guard in each class to just press play on a video and that’s your lecture for the day. I’ve seen it happen a few times with long term subs in the building. The regular teacher just sends in a quick 15-20 minute video, the sub passes out the assignment that goes with it and calls security for misbehavior. Technology will end up killing us all, I’m convinced of it. I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.
Hard not to feel like the math aint mathing when these studios keep shelling out massive money for catalogues and then artists (non-legacy who have good existing contracts) get nothing. All of the major studios seem to have near-infinite money and they aren't running insane debt levels...
The "right to use their likeness" part of the deal is something stand out here from many other deals. KISS did a similar deal a few months ago, but for supposedly around $300 million, which is much less. Once the band has passed on, an official tribute act could be put together to tour. AI could be used to create new Queen songs, etc.. Bands like KISS and Queen could have a traveling show paying homage to the legacy of these great bands for decades to come.
Recently saw a cringy ass commercial for Applebee's (vomit) with KISS music and it's so terrible. However, I can totally see Gene Simmions selling it to them for a lot of money.
Future licensing of the music and the royalties from that is what Sony is banking on. Queen is one of the bands that have a lot of future earning potential. The music tends to transcend the generations very well. The bean counters at Sony have examined all the predictions extensively I imagine.
@@robertewalt7789 Popular music was still in it's years and rapidly evolving back then. That evolution has slowed down dramatically. Rhapsody came out in '75, that was 50 years ago - it's still a popular heavy played song throughout the mediums. Bing (who I love) was an early member of popular music's scene. By the 1960's, music had changed so much, that he was no longer part of the mainstream. His relevant lifespan of popularity was coming to an end. I don't see Queen fading like Bing did. Obviously the research and prognosticators at Sony are banking on that.
You’re close. It’s licensing the music generated through ‘ethical’ AI trained on #Queen, and suing the sh*t out of anyone who vaguely sounds like them.
My nephew who just turned 9 yesterday is a fan of Queen since he was a toddler. Since he loved watching movies. That’s how he was introduced to Queen’s music through movies. Kids today don’t watch TV or listen to radio. They watch only RUclips and movie streaming.
@@itslikethesamebutdifferent8020 I think most people have no idea that they are alive, what it really means to be alive or what to do about it except to try to keep it that way. My evidence comes from a lifeti e of watching people behaving like dangerous morons and sociopaths for financial reward.
I agree with a lot of what you’ve said. But, I think for Queen. The band, their brand , their image and their legacy this is a great deal (obviously). I don’t see it as them selling out. More, cashing out. Queen, unlike other bands of the rock era have expanded on their original success as just a band. They have done this By creating a successful west end musical stage show called “We Will Rock You “ that has run for years. They created the very successful musical biopic “Bohemian Rhapsody”. They have licensed their music to official tribute acts that travel the world like “It’s a kind of magic”. Plus all the licensing of their songs for use on tv shows, movies, video games. and for use in countless product advertisements all over the world 🌍. So yess, I agree 💯 they are a highly valuable brand and ip. So why did Sony buy them? Yes obviously they will be using Queen’s catalog of songs across their whole company. Movies, tv shows, Sony products will be advertised using Queen songs. Then of cause there is PlayStation, need I say more? And let’s not forget about Sony music themselves. They still have acts that they have on their roster who could cover a Queen song or two for radio 📻 play. And let’s not forget the members of Queen may be in their later years now but Roger and Brian are still touring with Adam Lambert. Which apparently isn’t a part of the Queen deal.
Queen always thought big. Their image and their music will now live on in perpetuity. Beyond all of our lifetimes Queen will continue to have an immense impact on culture/arts. Sony will have infinite Queen related projects where only the sky is the limit. Over the past 30 years movies, TV ads, and Streaming numbers have proven Queen to be a most valuable brand. The biopic Bohemian Rhapsody made $1B worldwide; the song has more streams than any other track not to mention being the most streamed song from the 20th Century. And Queen Greatest Hits has recently hit week #600 on the US Billboard Chart. As a lifetime fan I see this to be a positive situation. Music is a business. You must possess immense talent to thrive. Queen has this in spades. I look forward to all that is coming down the road.
I really don't know much about this kind of topic, but thinking back I assume Brian May and Roger Taylor (Not John deacon as he retired and wanted out) thought carefully about this back in the early 90's when Freddy passed away, I assume they knew the brand would be worth something and they knew dam well after Freddy passing the band would get more popular which they did. Brain May is a very intelligent man and he knew this pay day would come in the future, and here we are! Or I may have it completely wrong. John Deacon was happy with his fortune he made and quit, but the other two guys knew the potential, greedy? probably, the more you have the more you want.
Well John have always been getting royalties, as have Freddie - the split was always 4 ways even after Freddie's death. Freddie's share went to the people he mentioned in his will. John albeit not being public is still very much involved in the business side of things. He never stopped getting his share of money and he will get about 300mil from this too. As for the reason to sell, Brian and Roger mentioned that all 3 of them are getting old so they decided to sell it instead of leaving their families who know nothing about music management and publishing to deal with this empire after them, the family dealing has historically never worked out.
I appreciate the effort to showcase the intentional incompetence at Disney. But there's nothing they could do to destroy their IP like Disney unless they start rewriting the music and lyrics. The worse they can do is use the music in more movies and commercials. Having a Queen song during a PeptoBismol commercial is nowhere close to what they did to Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, Dr Who, etc...
I'm a fan of Queen, but this disturbs me. Most (even talented) musicians make nothing, whereas dead rockstars make billions? There's something fundamentally wrong about this IMO.
Queen sold approximately 300 million albums through the years, the music has aged well. Unfortunately music today isn't anything that will even be remembered in a few short months or maybe in a year.
I would imagine that as AI continues it's advance into our world, then the value of 'real' music and iconic bands/brands is going to be worth far more than before. I think that this is a clear indication of that and that the people at the top will want more of the share of what cannot, or will never, be repeated.
That's exactly what I think. AI is going to open up a whole load of new money fountains for song rights - especially for those from legendary bands like Queen. People think Sony Music are crazy for paying such a sum of money. I don't think they are.
Some good points...i was involved in the negotiations which have been going on for a few yesrs..the deal was Universals to lose and they stopped just shy of £960 million or thereabouts, Queen productions turns over £50 million a year and their publishing arm Queen Musiciv £18-£20 million ...a Queen Avatar show would be a huge draw and i would love to see the albums revisited with new tracks and demos that fo exist and finally a live box set,the highlander remake will also use new versions of those iconic songs
Note that Bjorn & Benny (ABBA) has said they will not sell their catalogue. Instead they created the ABBAtars (a massive investment). And Bjorn is involved in areas relating to AI and how to let the songwriters/artists get a bigger share of the revenues of music.
The question is, how will that music be used. The thought of Freddie Mercury selling toilet rolls or some product, may change how fans react to the music. If used for adverts, they will appear over and over again until people get sick of them. Playing your favourite track for your own enjoyment is one thing, but incessant repeats will kill not only the enjoyment but also the brand, as it descends into the corporate money grabbing greedy world. What Sony do with the Queen music remains to be seen but also how soon they want a return on their investment which may twist the corporate arm to take liberties. What is also important is how it may affect the fans in the way of pay to play, and it will be interesting to hear if Brian May has to pay a fee to play his own music if he performs live.
There’s a really key component of Queen compared to many other bands. Queen were huge everywhere but the USA which is one of the largest markets for music. Sony must be thinking the USA is massive untapped market.
It's also worth remembering that value can be created in a sale (or a merger). The Queen catalogue may be more valuable in the hands of Sony than in those of the founders since Sony are bigger experts in the business of using and curating for music. The business unit of a company may have more value if it's owned by someone else and Mbappe has more value at Real Madrid than at my local football club. Same company, same football player, same music catalogue but different value because of the nature of the new owner. Value must be nurtured or it degrades.
$1.27bn sounds like a gigantic sum of money and it is. However, I think that in the next decade Queen's back catalogue will be worth a lot more. The last 15 years have been rough for artists and streaming royalties are pitiful. Yet, it is also probable that there will be lots of new ways for artists to make money via their song rights. I think those artists who sold all their song rights will really regret it in the coming years and it will be so much more expensive for them to purchase them back.
Do these assets not have a shelf life? (Ok, I guess all assets do.) Right now, everyone in the world recognizes them. But we will die over the coming few decades. It seems like Sony needs to exploit them and get its return fairly quickly, or else find a way to extend their value. Many of us know and love Zeppelin and Clapton, for example, but the Taylor Swift / Katy Perry generation doesn't.
Absolutely! The same is true for the artist- Springsteen's kids probably care a lot about his legacy. His grandkids will too but probably less so, and so on. Those subsequent generations won't care about preserving the "musical integrity" of the artist so much as cashing in wherever they can. So far better for him and other artists to put that $ in the hands of those close to them now. Let Sony worry about whether people will listen to Queen in 75 years. We don't know if people will even listen to rock music in 75 years. If they do, I'm sure there will be plenty of future bands making music that the young people will like. I will say though that Queen has a look that lends itself to t-shirts and other merch that will likely have a bit longer shelf-life. Brian's fuzzy hair is pretty iconic in and of itself, though admittedly it's iconic to us now because we are alive to see him and his hair, the future will have their own contemporary fuzzy-haired heroes.
I will say this, the reason we like Led Zeppelin and Eric Clapton is because we are rock fans so of course we love them. There’s a difference between them and Queen tho. Clapton is a blues purist. He has done stuff outside of it but for the most part he’s a blues/rock guitarist. Led Zeppelin were always determined to not do any publicity, no TV shows, no singles, said no to woodstock & a bunch of other opportunities which would’ve given them good exposure. They were a band very much built by word of mouth which worked in the 70s but times have changed. Jack black had to beg them to let him use immigrant song in school of rock cos Led Zeppelin have a policy of never letting their music appear in movies. Queen on the other hand was very much about exposure. Singles, music videos, tv shows, commercials you name it they did it. They were also more varied music wise than Clapton or zeppelin, enough to continue to have popularity 50 yrs later and still going strong by reaching younger audiences. They play rock, metal, vaudeville, jazz, blues, pop and this last one is important. Their music is popular, reaches more people in a way that Clapton of zeppelin don’t. Thus they remain relevant. They’re kinda like the Beatles, they remain fresh past their expiration date and immensely popular.
@@itslikethesamebutdifferent8020Guitarists will continue to look up to clapton and page as legends, but queen will be legendary in a broader way that relies less on having a musical background
@@itslikethesamebutdifferent8020 You forgot to mention another important thing related to the last point you made my friend. Don't get it twisted there's no doubt Queen's music kicks-azz that reached millions of music fans around the world. Yet, to believe by saying Queen's music has reached more people in a way that Led Zeppelin & Eric Clapton's music doesn't is a little silly, don't ya think? In case you're unaware or forgot let me remind you that Led Zeppelin reached one of the most important figures & iconic vocalist's ever in such a huge way of his own music career by the influence & inspiration they had on a dude named "Freddie Mercury." Not only did LZ & Cream influence every band member in Queen, but Freddie himself stated Robert Plant was his cat & all that & Freddie's favorite singer of all-time. Mercury also thought that Led Zeppelin was the greatest classic rock band in music history. Even in the early 70's Queen's music was heard by the music scene as across between Led Zeppelin & Yes. Just saying... If any difference seperates the 2 bands from each other. It'd be that Queen leaned more on the showbiz side of music whereas Zeppelin were more on the raw side of R&R music. Either way I get it & understand music is subjective to one owns personal opinion which I can also respect, so you do you, ya dig? I'm just grateful to have all 3 of those bands & many others in my life to vibe on & listen too! Personally IDGAS what anyone say's, everyone of those musicians in Queen, Cream & Led Zeppelin are some of the greatest, most iconic Rockstar's too kick out the jams! ++Peace & Rock n' Roll 4 Your Soul My Friend++ 🤘😜🤘
@@216Numbskull i hear ya man and i agree that Led Zeppelin is one of the greatest rock bands ever and Clapton is also a world renowned guitarist. My point is that when it comes to today’s music scene, they are often cited by a lot of the younger crowd. It doesn’t have anything to do with who’s better but with who makes their music more accessible and that’s the difference. Whereas Led Zeppelin were scared of releasing a single cos they found it to be beneath them, Queen took full advantage of it and released singles .where Led Zeppelin hated TV appearances Queen performed in front of TV audiences and where Led Zeppelin doesn’t like to have their music played in movies, Queen practically released two music soundtracks as part of their repertoire. So it is inevitable that the most accessible to the general public would be the most mentioned or the most revered years after so this Sony deal makes sense because they see in Queen longevity and revitalization that can take up many forms. Last time i heard Led Zeppelin mentioned in the media was a couple of years ago when a documentary called Becoming Led Zeppelin was close to being released only to be scrapped when it received a lukewarm response from the test screening.
NOt more worrying than $1000 olivia rodrigo tickets in philly on July 19th, not Michael Jackson, not a Beatles reunion tour, but 19 year old Olivia Rodrigo, you telling me Parents are paying a 1000 dollars a seat for Olivia Rodrigo in Philly? Yea, the music industry is a racket.
For those that don’t understand the why of the purchasers: Cheap fiat money chasing returns. I don’t know the specifics of this deal, but tapping in to the details of similar deals: They put up, say, $100million, and borrow the rest at, say, 8%. They have no intent on paying back the principle, just the interest in perpetuity. They use every nasty trick they can to squeeze revenue out of we enjoyers of Queen’s music. $10 million or so goes to interest, the rest is ROI on their $100 million. They can generate 10% and higher returns on their money. Because music is “perishable,” it is assured that they will attempt to squeeze us at every turn for every penny they can extract from us. I see one day not too far in the future we receiving demand-to-pay notices over having played a Queen song at a backyard BBQ. _Our drone detected on June 5th. Bohemian Rhapsody emanating from your backyard…_
A song can't be "iconic," nor can any Sound at all, for that matter. Only Imagery is iconic - i.e., a person or thing whose Image is famous, often with the connotation that is has become emblematic. (The word Icon, in orginal Greek, Means image.) In addition to being the most overused word on RUclips, "iconic" is also the most MISused. Misusers seem to think the word means simply "widely known," "instantly recognizable," "memorable," etc. But just as flavors, scents, ideas, emotions, bodily sensations, et al. can't be iconic, neither can Sounds (songs, beats, bass lines, guitar tones, etc.). No one (hopefully) would ever think to speak of "iconic ice cream flavors," the "iconic smell of sulfur," Marx's "iconic theories," the "iconic bliss of first love," or the "iconic pain of a toothache." Misusers do seem to understand intuitively that Iconic has some inherent relation to the human sense of sight - to the exclusion of the other senses referenced above. For some reason, though, misusers appear to unconsciously stipulate a special exception for the sense of Hearing - so that, in their minds, "iconic' can properly apply to the products of precisely Two human senses, namely sights AND Sounds. This error has become rampant due to the RUclips Feedback Loop, wherein video-makers parrot and propagate eachother's mistakes. Indeed, if the word meant what misusers seem to think it means, we could call this common case of misuse an Iconic Linguistic Error.
Procter and I daresay the entire Ad business been using the word iconic to describe sounds (think something like "The Best a man can get") well before RUclips was even a glint in Jawed Karim's eye. Ultimately language evolves and getting pedantic about the original meaning of words is ultimately futile
You should appreciate, since the launch of MTV in the 80s, and use of music video in marketing the song, for many, their first hearing of a song was while watching the video. MJ's Billy Jean is remembered with the visual image of him dancing. Difficult to disasosociate Bohemian Rhapsody from images of the video, especially the intro.
Very simple in most countries there’s a limit to how long copyright lasts. 50 years from first publication or death of performer plus 70 years. Depends on the nation, a lot classical recordings are output of copyright, the early works of Bing Crosby most of the catalog of people like Mario Lanza. So rights to Elvis Presley or solo recordings of John Lennon might be worthless in 20 years.
Not every band will sell their souls for money. Plenty of bands are doing their own thing and platforms and some even are selling things individually. In the case of Queen I doubt Bryan and Roger agreed to it, more likely Deacon who is running the business side of the band and Mary decided for one reason or another to sell the catalog to support their families and charities. Pink Floyd tried to do the same but Roger Waters went against it and all fell apart. The same happened to Hall and Oates where now Darry Hall is in a court fight with Oates over the rights of the song rights and catalog. Music created in the last five years with some exceptions has no monetary value in the long run.
Brian and Roger are likely to be the main driving force behind this, Deacon wasn't cashing in endlessly promoting the West End Show and the Movie, DVD's,etc., or flogging his home made guitars, amps, 3D viewers, books, etc. Mary and John have conducted themselves with quiet dignity for the longest time since Freddie's death.
Music can be an expression of emotion. Let's take the concept of love, with music you can express love. But when you pay for love is is no longer an expression of love but an expression of trademanship and exploitation. The opposite of love. So, now suddenly it is no longer what is should be, it becomes meaningless and contradicting itself. By selling a virtue it becomes a vice.
Super star musicians will dominate with massive pay days as they should. Now a day they can self promote, usually supported by family members with no restrictions in their way, the sky is the limit. There's a young lady in Ireland that will hit the stage in about 2 years who has so much potential she will generate billions in revenue for herself and trillions for other artists over the next few decades. By the way, Jack White's 7 Nation Army is the biggest and greatest World Hit, but yeah, Freddie is not bad!!!!!!!! Have a wonderful day.
I’m curious about record labels investment in back catalog versus new artists. Both absolute size and growth rates. I expect new artist investment has a negative growth rate
QUEEN is one of those bands that everybody knows the hits. But none of the none album tracks. There's a reason why the first greatest hits is a multi platininum album.
Queen borrowed their name from her majesty for the brand recognition it had, and they were granted a near lifetimes lease...now the Crown is taking back her property value added.:).
I like Queen because John Deacon is one of my favorite bassist. But I have a problem with 'Radio Ga Ga' because that track ripped off the Italian Disco song 'Can't You Feel It?' Did Queen pay royalties?
While Freddy was alive I believe he wouldn't allow any of their songs to be used in advertisements as he thought it would 'cheapen' the band. I wonder if this deal would have happened if he was still alive?
It means that Sony will be starting their own music streaming service soon. There is no other reason to do this. These numbers can't be justified by normal music licensing revenue, even if the Queen catalogue doesn't enter the public domain for a century. Sony can start a streaming service. When these private equity firms buy music catalogues, they are just clueless about the economics. They will never make their investment back.
Imagine using the latest deep-fake technology to put Mercury in an advertisement for the latest Sony television or computer. That has got to be worth millions.
What Happened to Music? 1 Records have fake ai autotuned vocals 2 Sales have crashed since 1999, that's 24 years straight. 3 The Big Three Labels, 3 old men CEOs, control the industry. 4 No hits! Can't get a real hit song!
To be honest with your watchers, you should talk about the Big Three Labels that control and have ruined music.The MUSIC LOVERS I talk to tell me LOUD AND CLEAR: I want to keep the musicians I love and cherish from careers in music. I want them blocked from being heard on major radio stations, I want the mainstream media to concentrate on corporate acts, I want these musicians that I like to get low low streaming rates, and be denied fair reviews in all mainstream music media, I want them to all make less than minimum wage ; just as long as those 10 multi millionaire aging generic pop stars that I see promoted every year over and over, and the Big 3 Labels that control the entire music industry, get all the money. (Warner, Universal, Sony,) I know that the handful of promoted pop stars are 100,000 times better than all the musicians I listen to combined, and that they deserve to have 100,000 times more money; while they watch and see all the rest of the musicians in the world in poverty. Seriously, I can search out those poor poor musicians - so why should I do anything to help them. Clearly buying a t-shirt or cd now and then, or watching them in a half empty dive should be enough money for decades of practice and work right? Then I respond HUH??? Join the music revolution against the Big ThreeLabels, and for all musicians. Start by sharing the news with the people and media you like.
The music industry is just one more instance of monopolistic concentration of wealth across the world. Not unique: all the accumulated value from the past ends up in a few hands, and future generations are shut out.
The musicians are cashing out while they can. I’m cool with that. It’s their property. What is going to happen is after all the people now are dead, there will be no market for Queen. It’ll be old music like Benny Goodman is for us. Irrelevant. The companies that buy these catalogs are going to lose in the end. As for now, buy your music now while you can.
considering that Queen essentially disappeared with Freddie's death 33 years ago not sure how they are still relevant today. Yes there are couple catchy songs that are played at sports events, but if you ask people from young demographics I doubt many will be able to tell the name of the band behind those two songs.
@@fenian123 exactly. Mostly die hards who grew up in 1970-80s listen to Queen and they already bought and downloaded all Queen albums. I guess Sony can start putting Queen music into movies and commercials, still not sure how much money they can make from that.
So Sony music, burnt down their warehouse that contained all of their masters. So they can't legitimately prove that they own anybody's music. So what they're going to do next is, re-record all of the music that they hold, with female voices using AI. And now they will own the Masters. However, the age of the record label is, over. We didn't develop this technology to make, record companies Great again. Musicians are taking back the record industry. And they're doing it better than the record labels. They are not necessary anymore. The age of The starving artist, is over.
With the advances in AI video and graphics, and music creation, no doubt companies will soon be offering 'live' AI stage perfomances available, from bands like Queen, Beatles, with the original line up, viewer decides which songs they perform, viewer could have a spoken conversation with AI versions of band members. Chance to 'join' the band yourself, on screen. Future tech will open new opportunities for revenue
I think they will end up in court You cannot copy anything that is copyrighted That’s the law F Ai This technology will have to be shut down due to the many illegal things it can do . Collect data and redistribute is illegal I hope nobody forgot what happened to Napster file sharing Shut the f down
This stuff becomes public domain in 30 years, (anything usable by them was recorded early 90's at the latest, and the best stuff is already 40 - 50 years old). But there is a lot of product placement and Movie Soundtrack opportunities in that time. Freddy left too soon. sound recordings such as compact discs, records, and tapes, the copyright lasts for 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the first fixation (recording) of the sound recording occurs.
Queen played Sun City.During Apartheid. Disgusting. And they pleaded ignorance.Yet, they got off on their fans knowing how educated they are. So everything else just fits.
Wasn't Queen playing Sun City one of the reasons Little Steven Van Zandt had all of those musicians participate on the (Ain't Gonna Play) Sun City song and video?
Sounds like their play selection is predictable and algorithm selected. Queen have done everything from ragtime, Tin Pan Alley, football terrace chants, ballads, lullabies, heavy metal, disco, funk, opera, gospel, jeez, I don't think there's a single band with a more diverse back catalogue.
I couldn’t almost understand half of the words because of your extremely strong accent, maybe better use a robot voice and type the words in? Or maybe work on your accent if you really want to be a public speaker?
The buyer being Sony is of importance: they're going to use the catalog for movies and various media without paying a nickel any longer. I'd bet 50% of Sony movies in the coming 5 years will have Queen music somewhere.
That’s a very good point. I should have mentioned that in the revenue streams
I wouldn't be surprised if they do some accounting trickery where they can sell the music licence for a property from one division to another to show 'income' to please shareholders while also claiming losses to dodge taxation.
@@AlanWit is unfortunately not of the realm of the imagination. Tax management leads companies to do some extreme things. A conversation for a less public forum
I was thinking holograms lol
On the tax point tho I think they have way more methods for everything to do with that. I mean there are a lot of options there that are open loop holes, they might get frowned upon, the fact is the law could be changed to close them but interestingly the government doesn’t, they might know some very wealthy ppl who also exploit similar grey areas and want to keep their donations. But I just speculate lol
What looked like the natural order of things - i.e. each generation would produce musicians who would become very successful, very wealthy and become household names - may turn out to be a golden age never to be repeated. Now that we seem to place such little value on music it's hard to imagine the same thing happening to more than a very small number of artists starting out now.
Sad but true
Very true, will likely never happen again
This is why Sony and the other investors are only buying proven legacy artists. Modern music in the age of AI will be worthless and disposable ending up in the digital rubbish bin of musical history.
Could this be the case with virtually everything?
Art in general is being devalued.Technology is looking to replace artists, but keep us grafting at menial work.
Festival headliners are all full of acts from 40 years ago, so when they die there will be a massive void, becasue the money men didn't bother to nurture any new classics. They just wanted the safe bet of known names.
Another one bites the dust 😢
Time to start buying CD’s again. All this music will be behind a paywall soon or something. Gonna be $3.99 p/month for “Sony’s” Queen Channel. Honestly all these Artists selling their catalogs is sad. Cultural Icons became Corporate Icons. Yah! 🙁
truth, here- the more catalogues these companies own , the more you'll have to pay to enjoy them (a CD is "forever")...
How about piracy?! And queen is overrated because they on every streaming front page and fresh biopic without it’s boomer music
I concur. CD’s are a good thing.
Vinyl for me
Soulseek is your friend
I'm pretty sure many people bought Queen's entire catalog for way,way,way less?😜
I know everything's a billion dollars.
Think of one century of Queen songs streamed globally.
I knew a Queen fan at school and I bugged him and bugged him until he taped ALL of their albums for me. Never gave him a red cent.
I trust you at least gave him the blank tapes to record on them?🤔
@@mybachhertzbaud3074 I did.
One revenue stream not mentioned in this video is the licensing of kick arse songs for film, TV and video games. It is not uncommon for film directors to put a famous song on the sound track of a scene, send it to their score composer with a note to the effect of "I want something like this". The reason they don't actually license "this" instead is because it would, in some cases, cost a fortune. But sometimes a film or TV series is so good, so box office, and a certain track goes with a certain scene so amazeballs that they go for it and cough up anyway.
Think The Doors track The End in the helicopter scene in Apocalypse Now for example. Or Kate Bush's Running Up That Hill in Stranger Things. Indeed Kate Bush had a worldwide hit all over again with that song decades after the release of Hounds of Love because of it. Kerching!. One of the features of pairing a kick arse song with a brilliant cinematic creation is that the song cranks up the emotional intensity of the scene but the scene also cranks up the emotional impact of the song in a positive feedback loop, it becomes more than the sum of it's parts. Sometimes it goes so far that the song redefines the scene and at the same time the scene redefines the song. If the scene is good enough and likewise the song is good enough.
Then there is advertising.................
Really, really good songs are very difficult to write and they have a quality of timelessness. Film directors love really, really good songs. Queen recorded a lot of really, really good songs. They will be featured in many films and TV shows and video games over the next century. That will account for a fair chunk of how Sony will recover their $1.27bn investment I would think.
Fully agree
Thor and Immigrant Song.
Such a perfect fit. They had to pay whatever it took to get the song in the movie.
Informative video. The algorithm has been reading my emails. I'm in the process of selling a part of my catalogue at the moment, it's just 3 songs I'm selling and at an absolute fraction of the queen deal, but it's the sort of money that going to enable me to look after my family and take the stress off. The usual worries about "selling out" and selling off your IP were there for me but with so much uncertainty in being a music creative financially, let alone the uncertainty in the world right now I feel like its the most sensible option right now.
It is interesting that you said they are like prostitutes, Freddie always said, " I am just a musical prostitute". He said, " When I am gone do what you want to do with my music but please don't make me boring". I think Freddie will NEVER be boring!
I just remembered that quote of Freddy when you mentioned it
Im convinced that since we’re entering the ai/digital world that these corporations want to own sound. If you buy enough catalogues, you could literally own almost any sound and therefore literally control sound. I don’t think corporations really care about money, they already have it all, I think this is about control. If Sony buys 100 catalogues and an artist comes out and either has a message the system doesn’t like or are doing so well independently that the artist doesn’t need them… they can just copyright strike that artists music. I believe this is about controlling public speech and communication more than anything. Also, when they buy the catalog, they can just flood the market with products and place the music in every movie and show on god’s green earth. A few years of having a queen song in every coke commercial and a dozen or so Sony movies… they’ll get their money back.
I like your thinking… And I appreciate the fact that everyone already has a gloomy outlook on AI. Somehow I think the reality can be 10 times or 100 times as bad.
I think you've got a really good point here. It's not about money "now" but more money when AI music will become mainstream. If someone owns an artist catalog and think one AI song is "trained" or sounding "too much" like of the old song, that company could sue the AI companies etc for copyright.
In a sense...if it's the idea here, that could put some control on the AI threat on creativity. And that would push musician to really reinvent genres etc...because I didn't see anything big and new since the 90's with grunge, hip hop, electronic music.
I hope that will push people to experiment more and stop using all digital solutions for composing/recording. Think out of the box etc.
Very salient point.
@@FractalFab you know what? I wasn’t even thinking about the money aspect. I was thinking more of the control/censorship aspect of the long game. You raise a really good point. This good force artists to try something new, you’re correct. Regardless of how they act with it, this is definitely a long game situation. These deals may lose them money in the first say 5 years or so, but the intent of these deals is certainly a long play.
@@johnnyxmusic I’m hoping I’m wrong, but all I’ve seen from technology over the last 41 years of my life is replacement of humans. I grew up in the 80’s in the metro Detroit area, and as a kid I can’t tell you how many times I lost friends/classmates cuz of the big 3 car companies letting people go and getting rid of departments. Computers replaced dad so dad had to move the family. It’s been happening in every sector since. Now, I’m a high school history teacher, with the supposed teacher shortages out there… I thinks going to be used as an excuse to just replace us with RUclips and just have security guards in each class. I’m amazed it hasn’t happened yet actually. It would be nothing for school districts to have a security guard in each class to just press play on a video and that’s your lecture for the day. I’ve seen it happen a few times with long term subs in the building. The regular teacher just sends in a quick 15-20 minute video, the sub passes out the assignment that goes with it and calls security for misbehavior. Technology will end up killing us all, I’m convinced of it. I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.
For once I would like to see a rich artist donate their music to the public that made them so rich:)
Didn't U2 try that?
@@pageyjjjyeah, and the public made a big fuzz about it and demanded their album be removed immediately. Can’t please people.
Well U2 can never be worth the same as the Queen @HRBJHD
They forced a not very good record on Apple users. They didn’t donate their entire song catalog to the public domain, that’s a big difference.
@@itslikethesamebutdifferent8020 Can you stop lying and distorting facts, please? Thanks.
Lots of things in the world are worrying. This is not.
did he even address the "worrying" part?
This is exactly like the sale of Star Wars to Disney, it is a sad day ineed
Yeah it's a good parallel
Hard not to feel like the math aint mathing when these studios keep shelling out massive money for catalogues and then artists (non-legacy who have good existing contracts) get nothing. All of the major studios seem to have near-infinite money and they aren't running insane debt levels...
Any musician getting paid is good news. A billion, good for them!
Congrats to the members of Queen.
The "right to use their likeness" part of the deal is something stand out here from many other deals. KISS did a similar deal a few months ago, but for supposedly around $300 million, which is much less. Once the band has passed on, an official tribute act could be put together to tour. AI could be used to create new Queen songs, etc.. Bands like KISS and Queen could have a traveling show paying homage to the legacy of these great bands for decades to come.
I think this is usually present in these details as opposed to just selling masters
But agree there will definitely be some terrifying use of it
Recently saw a cringy ass commercial for Applebee's (vomit) with KISS music and it's so terrible. However, I can totally see Gene Simmions selling it to them for a lot of money.
“Paying homage” ??
Ffs listen to yourself.
Future licensing of the music and the royalties from that is what Sony is banking on. Queen is one of the bands that have a lot of future earning potential. The music tends to transcend the generations very well. The bean counters at Sony have examined all the predictions extensively I imagine.
But how long will that last? Bing Crosby was a hugely popular singer, movie star in 30’s, 40’s, 50’s. Does anyone play his music now?
@@robertewalt7789 Popular music was still in it's years and rapidly evolving back then. That evolution has slowed down dramatically. Rhapsody came out in '75, that was 50 years ago - it's still a popular heavy played song throughout the mediums. Bing (who I love) was an early member of popular music's scene. By the 1960's, music had changed so much, that he was no longer part of the mainstream. His relevant lifespan of popularity was coming to an end. I don't see Queen fading like Bing did. Obviously the research and prognosticators at Sony are banking on that.
@@robertewalt7789 his music plays all the time for a month or so at Christmas.
You’re close. It’s licensing the music generated through ‘ethical’ AI trained on #Queen, and suing the sh*t out of anyone who vaguely sounds like them.
My nephew who just turned 9 yesterday is a fan of Queen since he was a toddler. Since he loved watching movies. That’s how he was introduced to Queen’s music through movies. Kids today don’t watch TV or listen to radio. They watch only RUclips and movie streaming.
Makes sense
More music does not equal ‘better’. As with any currency, if everyone had a billion, what would its value really be?
Everyone has a life, i’m sure they value it.
@@itslikethesamebutdifferent8020 I think most people have no idea that they are alive, what it really means to be alive or what to do about it except to try to keep it that way. My evidence comes from a lifeti e of watching people behaving like dangerous morons and sociopaths for financial reward.
I agree with a lot of what you’ve said. But, I think for Queen. The band, their brand , their image and their legacy this is a great deal (obviously). I don’t see it as them selling out. More, cashing out. Queen, unlike other bands of the rock era have expanded on their original success as just a band. They have done this By creating a successful west end musical stage show called “We Will Rock You “ that has run for years. They created the very successful musical biopic “Bohemian Rhapsody”. They have licensed their music to official tribute acts that travel the world like “It’s a kind of magic”. Plus all the licensing of their songs for use on tv shows, movies, video games. and for use in countless product advertisements all over the world 🌍. So yess, I agree 💯 they are a highly valuable brand and ip.
So why did Sony buy them? Yes obviously they will be using Queen’s catalog of songs across their whole company. Movies, tv shows, Sony products will be advertised using Queen songs. Then of cause there is PlayStation, need I say more?
And let’s not forget about Sony music themselves. They still have acts that they have on their roster who could cover a Queen song or two for radio 📻 play. And let’s not forget the members of Queen may be in their later years now but Roger and Brian are still touring with Adam Lambert. Which apparently isn’t a part of the Queen deal.
Queen always thought big.
Their image and their music will now live on in perpetuity.
Beyond all of our lifetimes Queen will continue to have an immense impact on culture/arts. Sony will have infinite Queen related projects where only the sky is the limit.
Over the past 30 years movies, TV ads, and Streaming numbers have proven Queen to be a most valuable brand. The biopic Bohemian Rhapsody made $1B worldwide; the song has more streams than any other track not to mention being the most streamed song from the 20th Century. And Queen Greatest Hits has recently hit week #600 on the US Billboard Chart.
As a lifetime fan I see this to be a positive situation. Music is a business. You must possess immense talent to thrive. Queen has this in spades. I look forward to all that is coming down the road.
I really don't know much about this kind of topic, but thinking back I assume Brian May and Roger Taylor (Not John deacon as he retired and wanted out) thought carefully about this back in the early 90's when Freddy passed away, I assume they knew the brand would be worth something and they knew dam well after Freddy passing the band would get more popular which they did. Brain May is a very intelligent man and he knew this pay day would come in the future, and here we are! Or I may have it completely wrong. John Deacon was happy with his fortune he made and quit, but the other two guys knew the potential, greedy? probably, the more you have the more you want.
Well John have always been getting royalties, as have Freddie - the split was always 4 ways even after Freddie's death. Freddie's share went to the people he mentioned in his will. John albeit not being public is still very much involved in the business side of things. He never stopped getting his share of money and he will get about 300mil from this too. As for the reason to sell, Brian and Roger mentioned that all 3 of them are getting old so they decided to sell it instead of leaving their families who know nothing about music management and publishing to deal with this empire after them, the family dealing has historically never worked out.
@@a.m.5541 Arhh yes , I see now you explained that. But what a stress in life for their families dealing with a billion pound empire eh? lol
@@ABritishGuyAndAFilipina lol yeah a stress I could only hope to have in my dreams
To understand what they might do with the Queen catalogue, just take a look at what Disney did with Star Wars... Disastrous!
I completely agree . Great point
I appreciate the effort to showcase the intentional incompetence at Disney. But there's nothing they could do to destroy their IP like Disney unless they start rewriting the music and lyrics. The worse they can do is use the music in more movies and commercials. Having a Queen song during a PeptoBismol commercial is nowhere close to what they did to Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, Dr Who, etc...
If they own the songs and likenesses, is there anything to stop them from making “new” AI albums and songs?
To be honest, what Disney did to Star Wars was a tour de force (pun intended). I don't think anyone will ever be able repeat that level of stupidity.
I'm a fan of Queen, but this disturbs me. Most (even talented) musicians make nothing, whereas dead rockstars make billions? There's something fundamentally wrong about this IMO.
Same issue with the art market, dead painters art making billions while artists alive make very little. Few at the top.
Queen sold approximately 300 million albums through the years, the music has aged well. Unfortunately music today isn't anything that will even be remembered in a few short months or maybe in a year.
I would imagine that as AI continues it's advance into our world, then the value of 'real' music and iconic bands/brands is going to be worth far more than before. I think that this is a clear indication of that and that the people at the top will want more of the share of what cannot, or will never, be repeated.
That's exactly what I think. AI is going to open up a whole load of new money fountains for song rights - especially for those from legendary bands like Queen. People think Sony Music are crazy for paying such a sum of money. I don't think they are.
Some good points...i was involved in the negotiations which have been going on for a few yesrs..the deal was Universals to lose and they stopped just shy of £960 million or thereabouts, Queen productions turns over £50 million a year and their publishing arm Queen Musiciv £18-£20 million ...a Queen Avatar show would be a huge draw and i would love to see the albums revisited with new tracks and demos that fo exist and finally a live box set,the highlander remake will also use new versions of those iconic songs
Thank you for sharing the information. Interesting to know that Queen already have such a large revenue stream
Note that Bjorn & Benny (ABBA) has said they will not sell their catalogue. Instead they created the ABBAtars (a massive investment). And Bjorn is involved in areas relating to AI and how to let the songwriters/artists get a bigger share of the revenues of music.
The question is, how will that music be used. The thought of Freddie Mercury selling toilet rolls or some product, may change how fans react to the music. If used for adverts, they will appear over and over again until people get sick of them. Playing your favourite track for your own enjoyment is one thing, but incessant repeats will kill not only the enjoyment but also the brand, as it descends into the corporate money grabbing greedy world. What Sony do with the Queen music remains to be seen but also how soon they want a return on their investment which may twist the corporate arm to take liberties. What is also important is how it may affect the fans in the way of pay to play, and it will be interesting to hear if Brian May has to pay a fee to play his own music if he performs live.
There’s a really key component of Queen compared to many other bands. Queen were huge everywhere but the USA which is one of the largest markets for music. Sony must be thinking the USA is massive untapped market.
It's also worth remembering that value can be created in a sale (or a merger). The Queen catalogue may be more valuable in the hands of Sony than in those of the founders since Sony are bigger experts in the business of using and curating for music. The business unit of a company may have more value if it's owned by someone else and Mbappe has more value at Real Madrid than at my local football club.
Same company, same football player, same music catalogue but different value because of the nature of the new owner.
Value must be nurtured or it degrades.
Agree, from a business perspective. But the idealistic fan in me still protests
$1.27bn sounds like a gigantic sum of money and it is. However, I think that in the next decade Queen's back catalogue will be worth a lot more. The last 15 years have been rough for artists and streaming royalties are pitiful. Yet, it is also probable that there will be lots of new ways for artists to make money via their song rights. I think those artists who sold all their song rights will really regret it in the coming years and it will be so much more expensive for them to purchase them back.
Do these assets not have a shelf life? (Ok, I guess all assets do.) Right now, everyone in the world recognizes them. But we will die over the coming few decades. It seems like Sony needs to exploit them and get its return fairly quickly, or else find a way to extend their value. Many of us know and love Zeppelin and Clapton, for example, but the Taylor Swift / Katy Perry generation doesn't.
Absolutely! The same is true for the artist- Springsteen's kids probably care a lot about his legacy. His grandkids will too but probably less so, and so on. Those subsequent generations won't care about preserving the "musical integrity" of the artist so much as cashing in wherever they can. So far better for him and other artists to put that $ in the hands of those close to them now.
Let Sony worry about whether people will listen to Queen in 75 years. We don't know if people will even listen to rock music in 75 years. If they do, I'm sure there will be plenty of future bands making music that the young people will like. I will say though that Queen has a look that lends itself to t-shirts and other merch that will likely have a bit longer shelf-life. Brian's fuzzy hair is pretty iconic in and of itself, though admittedly it's iconic to us now because we are alive to see him and his hair, the future will have their own contemporary fuzzy-haired heroes.
I will say this, the reason we like Led Zeppelin and Eric Clapton is because we are rock fans so of course we love them. There’s a difference between them and Queen tho. Clapton is a blues purist. He has done stuff outside of it but for the most part he’s a blues/rock guitarist. Led Zeppelin were always determined to not do any publicity, no TV shows, no singles, said no to woodstock & a bunch of other opportunities which would’ve given them good exposure. They were a band very much built by word of mouth which worked in the 70s but times have changed. Jack black had to beg them to let him use immigrant song in school of rock cos Led Zeppelin have a policy of never letting their music appear in movies. Queen on the other hand was very much about exposure. Singles, music videos, tv shows, commercials you name it they did it. They were also more varied music wise than Clapton or zeppelin, enough to continue to have popularity 50 yrs later and still going strong by reaching younger audiences. They play rock, metal, vaudeville, jazz, blues, pop and this last one is important. Their music is popular, reaches more people in a way that Clapton of zeppelin don’t. Thus they remain relevant. They’re kinda like the Beatles, they remain fresh past their expiration date and immensely popular.
@@itslikethesamebutdifferent8020Guitarists will continue to look up to clapton and page as legends, but queen will be legendary in a broader way that relies less on having a musical background
@@itslikethesamebutdifferent8020 You forgot to mention another important thing related to the last point you made my friend. Don't get it twisted there's no doubt Queen's music kicks-azz that reached millions of music fans around the world. Yet, to believe by saying Queen's music has reached more people in a way that Led Zeppelin & Eric Clapton's music doesn't is a little silly, don't ya think? In case you're unaware or forgot let me remind you that Led Zeppelin reached one of the most important figures & iconic vocalist's ever in such a huge way of his own music career by the influence & inspiration they had on a dude named "Freddie Mercury." Not only did LZ & Cream influence every band member in Queen, but Freddie himself stated Robert Plant was his cat & all that & Freddie's favorite singer of all-time. Mercury also thought that Led Zeppelin was the greatest classic rock band in music history. Even in the early 70's Queen's music was heard by the music scene as across between Led Zeppelin & Yes. Just saying... If any difference seperates the 2 bands from each other. It'd be that Queen leaned more on the showbiz side of music whereas Zeppelin were more on the raw side of R&R music. Either way I get it & understand music is subjective to one owns personal opinion which I can also respect, so you do you, ya dig? I'm just grateful to have all 3 of those bands & many others in my life to vibe on & listen too! Personally IDGAS what anyone say's, everyone of those musicians in Queen, Cream & Led Zeppelin are some of the greatest, most iconic Rockstar's too kick out the jams! ++Peace & Rock n' Roll 4 Your Soul My Friend++ 🤘😜🤘
@@216Numbskull i hear ya man and i agree that Led Zeppelin is one of the greatest rock bands ever and Clapton is also a world renowned guitarist. My point is that when it comes to today’s music scene, they are often cited by a lot of the younger crowd. It doesn’t have anything to do with who’s better but with who makes their music more accessible and that’s the difference. Whereas Led Zeppelin were scared of releasing a single cos they found it to be beneath them, Queen took full advantage of it and released singles .where Led Zeppelin hated TV appearances Queen performed in front of TV audiences and where Led Zeppelin doesn’t like to have their music played in movies, Queen practically released two music soundtracks as part of their repertoire. So it is inevitable that the most accessible to the general public would be the most mentioned or the most revered years after so this Sony deal makes sense because they see in Queen longevity and revitalization that can take up many forms. Last time i heard Led Zeppelin mentioned in the media was a couple of years ago when a documentary called Becoming Led Zeppelin was close to being released only to be scrapped when it received a lukewarm response from the test screening.
NOt more worrying than $1000 olivia rodrigo tickets in philly on July 19th, not Michael Jackson, not a Beatles reunion tour, but 19 year old Olivia Rodrigo, you telling me Parents are paying a 1000 dollars a seat for Olivia Rodrigo in Philly? Yea, the music industry is a racket.
It's always about the $$$. Always.
For those that don’t understand the why of the purchasers: Cheap fiat money chasing returns.
I don’t know the specifics of this deal, but tapping in to the details of similar deals: They put up, say, $100million, and borrow the rest at, say, 8%. They have no intent on paying back the principle, just the interest in perpetuity. They use every nasty trick they can to squeeze revenue out of we enjoyers of Queen’s music. $10 million or so goes to interest, the rest is ROI on their $100 million. They can generate 10% and higher returns on their money.
Because music is “perishable,” it is assured that they will attempt to squeeze us at every turn for every penny they can extract from us.
I see one day not too far in the future we receiving demand-to-pay notices over having played a Queen song at a backyard BBQ. _Our drone detected on June 5th. Bohemian Rhapsody emanating from your backyard…_
What??
A song can't be "iconic," nor can any Sound at all, for that matter. Only Imagery is iconic - i.e., a person or thing whose Image is famous, often with the connotation that is has become emblematic. (The word Icon, in orginal Greek, Means image.)
In addition to being the most overused word on RUclips, "iconic" is also the most MISused. Misusers seem to think the word means simply "widely known," "instantly recognizable," "memorable," etc. But just as flavors, scents, ideas, emotions, bodily sensations, et al. can't be iconic, neither can Sounds (songs, beats, bass lines, guitar tones, etc.).
No one (hopefully) would ever think to speak of "iconic ice cream flavors," the "iconic smell of sulfur," Marx's "iconic theories," the "iconic bliss of first love," or the "iconic pain of a toothache."
Misusers do seem to understand intuitively that Iconic has some inherent relation to the human sense of sight - to the exclusion of the other senses referenced above. For some reason, though, misusers appear to unconsciously stipulate a special exception for the sense of Hearing - so that, in their minds, "iconic' can properly apply to the products of precisely Two human senses, namely sights AND Sounds.
This error has become rampant due to the RUclips Feedback Loop, wherein video-makers parrot and propagate eachother's mistakes. Indeed, if the word meant what misusers seem to think it means, we could call this common case of misuse an Iconic Linguistic Error.
Procter and I daresay the entire Ad business been using the word iconic to describe sounds (think something like "The Best a man can get") well before RUclips was even a glint in Jawed Karim's eye. Ultimately language evolves and getting pedantic about the original meaning of words is ultimately futile
You should appreciate, since the launch of MTV in the 80s, and use of music video in marketing the song, for many, their first hearing of a song was while watching the video. MJ's Billy Jean is remembered with the visual image of him dancing. Difficult to disasosociate Bohemian Rhapsody from images of the video, especially the intro.
Why didn't this happen with the music performers from before the rock era? Surely there were iconic songs and stars in the early 20th century, too.
Very simple in most countries there’s a limit to how long copyright lasts. 50 years from first publication or death of performer plus 70 years. Depends on the nation, a lot classical recordings are output of copyright, the early works of Bing Crosby most of the catalog of people like Mario Lanza. So rights to Elvis Presley or solo recordings of John Lennon might be worthless in 20 years.
But not iconic enough. Demand n supply. Plus, after a certain amount of years the copyright expires.
The was no quality recording.
They expect to use the music in tv shows and movies and at sporting events
Not every band will sell their souls for money. Plenty of bands are doing their own thing and platforms and some even are selling things individually.
In the case of Queen I doubt Bryan and Roger agreed to it, more likely Deacon who is running the business side of the band and Mary decided for one reason or another to sell the catalog to support their families and charities.
Pink Floyd tried to do the same but Roger Waters went against it and all fell apart. The same happened to Hall and Oates where now Darry Hall is in a court fight with Oates over the rights of the song rights and catalog.
Music created in the last five years with some exceptions has no monetary value in the long run.
Brian and Roger are likely to be the main driving force behind this, Deacon wasn't cashing in endlessly promoting the West End Show and the Movie, DVD's,etc., or flogging his home made guitars, amps, 3D viewers, books, etc. Mary and John have conducted themselves with quiet dignity for the longest time since Freddie's death.
SONY has ever stood for
Standard Oil of New York.
Rockefeller cartel money also part of the medical cartel world bank and IMF along with other illegal things
Queen is a special case where they have so many songs that can be licensed for tv and movies forever.
True
On the other hand Kiss is iconic but they are still shit.
Hard to think of a kiss song that ever really caught fire. It was always about their looks. And the ridiculous rumors that followed them around.
You don't sell over 200million albums when you are sh#t(your words). You talking complete nonsense, Kiss are not sh#t
Music can be an expression of emotion. Let's take the concept of love, with music you can express love. But when you pay for love is is no longer an expression of love but an expression of trademanship and exploitation. The opposite of love. So, now suddenly it is no longer what is should be, it becomes meaningless and contradicting itself. By selling a virtue it becomes a vice.
Roger Waters is against the sale of the Pink Floyd catalog and as long as he is alive I don’t expect it to be sold as he knows as long as he is alive.
A similar scenario to what is done with live abba in London.
Thank you for your musings on what the marketing of popular music means !
Super star musicians will dominate with massive pay days as they should. Now a day they can self promote, usually supported by family members with no restrictions in their way, the sky is the limit. There's a young lady in Ireland that will hit the stage in about 2 years who has so much potential she will generate billions in revenue for herself and trillions for other artists over the next few decades. By the way, Jack White's 7 Nation Army is the biggest and greatest World Hit, but yeah, Freddie is not bad!!!!!!!! Have a wonderful day.
Brian May can finally retire from his astronomer job!
I’m curious about record labels investment in back catalog versus new artists. Both absolute size and growth rates. I expect new artist investment has a negative growth rate
Thank you so much for another insightful video.
They proved there IP was culturally relevant with the Freddie film. The Broadway play is probably on the way
probably
Superb channel......fascinating analysis
Thank you
QUEEN is one of those bands that everybody knows the hits. But none of the none album tracks. There's a reason why the first greatest hits is a multi platininum album.
@3:12 Trump is NOT in his 80s, he just turned 78
Queen borrowed their name from her majesty for the brand recognition it had, and they were granted a near lifetimes lease...now the Crown is taking back her property value added.:).
I like Queen because John Deacon is one of my favorite bassist. But I have a problem with 'Radio Ga Ga' because that track ripped off the Italian Disco song 'Can't You Feel It?' Did Queen pay royalties?
While Freddy was alive I believe he wouldn't allow any of their songs to be used in advertisements as he thought it would 'cheapen' the band. I wonder if this deal would have happened if he was still alive?
Cool, maybe now Brian can quit his second job.
It means that Sony will be starting their own music streaming service soon. There is no other reason to do this. These numbers can't be justified by normal music licensing revenue, even if the Queen catalogue doesn't enter the public domain for a century. Sony can start a streaming service. When these private equity firms buy music catalogues, they are just clueless about the economics. They will never make their investment back.
Imagine using the latest deep-fake technology to put Mercury in an advertisement for the latest Sony television or computer. That has got to be worth millions.
I think so
That was my first thought, the future AI market will be in the trillions.
What Happened to Music?
1 Records have fake ai autotuned vocals
2 Sales have crashed since 1999, that's 24 years straight.
3 The Big Three Labels, 3 old men CEOs, control the industry.
4 No hits! Can't get a real hit song!
Does 「The Cosmos Rocks 」include in this deal?
they must need the money... I wonder what they'll do with it
I'm worried, so so worried, about this and AI too. I have an ulcer now, thanks.
Great analysis
To be honest with your watchers, you should talk about the Big Three Labels that control and have ruined music.The MUSIC LOVERS I talk to tell me LOUD AND CLEAR:
I want to keep the musicians I love and cherish from careers in music. I want them blocked from being heard on major radio stations, I want the mainstream media to concentrate on corporate acts, I want these musicians that I like to get low low streaming rates, and be denied fair reviews in all mainstream music media, I want them to all make less than minimum wage ; just as long as those 10 multi millionaire aging generic pop stars that I see promoted every year over and over, and the Big 3 Labels that control the entire music industry, get all the money. (Warner, Universal, Sony,)
I know that the handful of promoted pop stars are 100,000 times better than all the musicians I listen to combined, and that they deserve to have 100,000 times more money; while they watch and see all the rest of the musicians in the world in poverty.
Seriously, I can search out those poor poor musicians - so why should I do anything to help them. Clearly buying a t-shirt or cd now and then, or watching them in a half empty dive should be enough money for decades of practice and work right?
Then I respond HUH???
Join the music revolution against the Big ThreeLabels, and for all musicians. Start by sharing the news with the people and media you like.
The music industry is just one more instance of monopolistic concentration of wealth across the world. Not unique: all the accumulated value from the past ends up in a few hands, and future generations are shut out.
I agree
Haha!, someone bought Don't Lose Your Head (1986) as part of the deal.
Reading comments, it`s important to say that 1.27 Billion USD is for Europeans "One thousand two hundred and seventy millions" USD
Unrelated. I think I’m going to get into Music Man guitars. I noticed your very into PRS
Queen has gotten a lot bigger than they were in their prime
Yes they are one of those bands that seem to transcend nationalities and generations
Because they're going to use it for programing AI. Ask to see a bank statement cause a billion dollars my ass.
The musicians are cashing out while they can. I’m cool with that. It’s their property. What is going to happen is after all the people now are dead, there will be no market for Queen. It’ll be old music like Benny Goodman is for us. Irrelevant. The companies that buy these catalogs are going to lose in the end. As for now, buy your music now while you can.
I beg to differ. It is a huge possibility that the opposite happens and those song rights become even more valuable in the future.
considering that Queen essentially disappeared with Freddie's death 33 years ago not sure how they are still relevant today. Yes there are couple catchy songs that are played at sports events, but if you ask people from young demographics I doubt many will be able to tell the name of the band behind those two songs.
Freddie.
They were really out by the early 80s
@@fenian123 exactly. Mostly die hards who grew up in 1970-80s listen to Queen and they already bought and downloaded all Queen albums. I guess Sony can start putting Queen music into movies and commercials, still not sure how much money they can make from that.
@@williamtm1965 I can see their catalog being worth quite a bit, but in The Beatles league? No
Bohemian Rhapsody gets a new life on RUclips by people getting creative, like having cat heads meowing it.
This purchase is 1% of Sony's market cap.
So Sony music, burnt down their warehouse that contained all of their masters. So they can't legitimately prove that they own anybody's music. So what they're going to do next is, re-record all of the music that they hold, with female voices using AI. And now they will own the Masters.
However, the age of the record label is, over. We didn't develop this technology to make, record companies Great again.
Musicians are taking back the record industry. And they're doing it better than the record labels. They are not necessary anymore.
The age of The starving artist, is over.
Good video, but the spider-web/dust on the microphone was distracting.
God bless you, and of course I will subscribe to this fine channel sir :)
Thank you. Appreciate it
With the advances in AI video and graphics, and music creation, no doubt companies will soon be offering 'live' AI stage perfomances available, from bands like Queen, Beatles, with the original line up, viewer decides which songs they perform, viewer could have a spoken conversation with AI versions of band members. Chance to 'join' the band yourself, on screen. Future tech will open new opportunities for revenue
I think you are spot on
I think they will end up in court You cannot copy anything that is copyrighted That’s the law F Ai This technology will have to be shut down due to the many illegal things it can do . Collect data and redistribute is illegal I hope nobody forgot what happened to Napster file sharing Shut the f down
I have to set the speed of your videos to 0.75 to be able to follow you. ;-)
If only Freddie had got his teeth fixed they could have held out for $2 billion.
His unique dental structure contributed to his unique voice.
i missed it. why was i supposed to be worried about this?
Can I get my $7.00 back for the 1977 concert ticket I bought? I would've never bought if I knew they were going to be sellouts. :)
*if I had known
Sure. If you can show the ticket 😊
@@wolfgangdevries127 I have the stub!
This stuff becomes public domain in 30 years, (anything usable by them was recorded early 90's at the latest, and the best stuff is already 40 - 50 years old). But there is a lot of product placement and Movie Soundtrack opportunities in that time. Freddy left too soon.
sound recordings such as compact discs, records, and tapes, the copyright lasts for 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the first fixation (recording) of the sound recording occurs.
Queen played Sun City.During Apartheid.
Disgusting.
And they pleaded ignorance.Yet, they got off on their fans knowing how educated they are.
So everything else just fits.
They have always been the most overrated band in rock history.
Wasn't Queen playing Sun City one of the reasons Little Steven Van Zandt had all of those musicians participate on the (Ain't Gonna Play) Sun City song and video?
Nonsense, that would have been in the Biopic if true.
Queen has a great collection of songs so they are easily worth it, especially today's music is so blah
Well ya duh, you put one song on one commercial and you made a million dollars
Are Brian, Roger and John short of cash?
not sure if that will happen to pink floyd and black sabbath
I can only name 4 Queen songs maybe, zero Queen records.
Don't worry, you're not missing much.
I only know about 3 songs
That's probably The Greatest Hits compilation, which did so well they did about 4 volumes of them
Sf classic rock station play Queen every other song. And it makes me barf. Everythingis so cliche.
So switch the dial. Listen to something else. Problem solved.
Sounds like their play selection is predictable and algorithm selected. Queen have done everything from ragtime, Tin Pan Alley, football terrace chants, ballads, lullabies, heavy metal, disco, funk, opera, gospel, jeez, I don't think there's a single band with a more diverse back catalogue.
How did queen get more than MJ?
They don’t it’s bs Mj is far more recognizable than any male artist I know of.
Kudos for Queen, but Sony overpaid
What’s Kudos?
@@19film80 congratulations
Originality seems to be dead..
Queen were a rock band for their first two albums…after that they’re a kitschy music group.
Well said.
considering that you worked for 14 years for PG, you did struggle to explain top of mind
You should spell FREDDIE'S name properly.
over rated band anyway
Not at all.
No there overrated , Period
LOL! These comments are dumb!
OF COURSE SONY WILL MAKE THE MONEY BACK.....AND MUCH MORE, IT'S CALLED BUSINESS!!
I couldn’t almost understand half of the words because of your extremely strong accent, maybe better use a robot voice and type the words in? Or maybe work on your accent if you really want to be a public speaker?