Jump to content
Greasy Lake Community

Bruce in Talks to Sell His Music Catalog?


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Jimmy James said:

How many different commercials can be made out of this line? 

Barefoot girl sitting on the hood of a Dodge
Drinking warm beer in the soft summer rain

@65pacecar, very disappointed in you! 

At least I was posting about the Hemi Powered Drones the same time as you posted this :-) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frank said:

The day he sells his catalogue, is the day I’ll stop caring about his music. I’ve got nothing against authors selling their catalogue (Bob Dylan being the case in point), but to me Bruce’s songs are not up for sale (even if it makes a lot of sense, as I said before).

I mean, when I put on the Born to Run album, I like to think this is art. And it only belongs to its creator. It’s priceless. It’s not up for grabs because albums don’t sell anymore. I understand it’s mostly a legal/financial matter, but it would make a huge difference to me. Some things cannot be sold (and preserve the same meaning at the same time). I mean, if he sells Thunder Road, Backstreets or even I’ll See you in my Dreams for money he hardly needs, how can I still pretend what he sings in those songs is something more than a cover song? 

Excellent post Frank ! Plus all that talk and pages over the last 40 years about fighting for the rights to his own songs might as well go in the bin

mind you think it would need to be some hell of bin to take such bullshit from one person.

its a passing shot 

-up yours for taking it all in having faith in something real and believing in it folks, its only music anyway plus I need the money and times have change.

 

Don't let it get to personal will be the cry to the likes of myself and Frank - yep very easy to do when you have the song Thunder Road 

running in your soul since the day it came out and then see it in a 

advert between some cheap programme on t.v advertising a car driving down a dusty road. 

 

''Its fill your boots time you car advertising suits ''

I'm off to vomit in a bucket. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CmonMrTrouble said:

One need only look at the mess Prince's family has been involved in to understand why Bruce is taking care of these things

Yes this make sense. It is not Bruce the artist who is doing this, but Bruce the control freak.

I'm a little puzzled now does this mean the chances of a Jimi Hendrix-like deluge of posthumous releases are higher or lower with this deal, compared to leaving this to the estate (depending on the contract, probably). But I would also say some of these things (control of music after death) could be in the will, no need to sell the catalogue for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jertucky said:

Bruce loves the middle ground (when the Democrats are in charge)!!!

i think if this has come in part due to taxes, its a lot eaiser being a right wing fan today

  • Like 1
  • Bruuuuce! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to one report I read, between his music publishing and record catalog, Bruce's work could fetch something on the far side of $450MM. According to that same report, many artists are choosing this payout option as a way to pass down the value of their work without burdening their heirs with the need to administer it. Apparently publishing and catalog licensing takes a lot of work to administer properly and ensure profitability. That said, I really don't know how these deals work other than the seller usually gets the fattest paycheck they've ever seen. Also, there have been other deals for high-value assets that had conditions built into the deal. When the Playboy Mansion West was sold, for example, the deal stipulated that Hugh Hefner, who was still alive at the time, be allowed to continue living there until his death, which was only a year or two later, if memory serves. Bruce could potentially set conditions on how certain assets were used while he is still alive. He could also include retaining ownership of his new material for a specified period of time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think this has anything to do with taxes or money. The best way to manage taxes is to defer them indefinitely.

I think this is about not saddling his children with the burden - emotional and otherwise - of spending their lives managing his legacy. Would dad use this song for that movie, this commercial, that charity?  Two kids aren’t even in the business.  They can live their own lives.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Frank said:

The day he sells his catalogue, is the day I’ll stop caring about his music. I’ve got nothing against authors selling their catalogue (Bob Dylan being the case in point), but to me Bruce’s songs are not up for sale (even if it makes a lot of sense, as I said before).

I mean, when I put on the Born to Run album, I like to think this is art. And it only belongs to its creator. It’s priceless. It’s not up for grabs because albums don’t sell anymore. I understand it’s mostly a legal/financial matter, but it would make a huge difference to me. Some things cannot be sold (and preserve the same meaning at the same time). I mean, if he sells Thunder Road, Backstreets or even I’ll See you in my Dreams for money he hardly needs, how can I still pretend what he sings in those songs is something more than a cover song? 

Actually, all art is for sale. Artists like to make money just like lots of people in other occupations, and they have every right to sell their work if they feel like it. 

Just as one example, paintings can be purchased. Once purchased, the artist has no control over what the purchaser does with the painting. David Hockney’s painting “The Splash” sold for about $29 million last year. Nobody thinks less of David Hockney because he sold his work. He’s an artist and that’s how he makes his living, and he is a modern master and can get millions. If the purchaser wants to use that painting to advertise something tasteless, there is nothing whatsoever stopping them. (The painting would actually make a good ad for a swimming pool company…).  Nobody thinks less of David Hockney because he sold his work.

Same with Bruce. He’s an artist and that is how he makes his living. If he can get millions for his catalog, why not? Who are any of us to decide if he “needs” the money.  If the purchaser of Bruce’s catalog uses the work for tacky ads, that is not Bruce’s fault. I certainly won’t think less of Bruce if he sells and I think it’s unfair to hold him to a higher standard than any other multi millionaire who decides to make even more money.  It’s his product and it’s solely his decision what to do with it. 

Here’s David Hockney’s The Splash:

 

 

4D9EEC63-765C-428A-83FC-D145E3D1486F.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, judyg said:

Actually, all art is for sale. Artists like to make money just like lots of people in other occupations, and they have every right to sell their work if they feel like it. 

Just as one example, paintings can be purchased. Once purchased, the artist has no control over what the purchaser does with the painting. David Hockney’s painting “The Splash” sold for about $29 million last year. Nobody thinks less of David Hockney because he sold his work. He’s an artist and that’s how he makes his living, and he is a modern master and can get millions. If the purchaser wants to use that painting to advertise something tasteless, there is nothing whatsoever stopping them. (The painting would actually make a good ad for a swimming pool company…).  Nobody thinks less of David Hockney because he sold his work.

Same with Bruce. He’s an artist and that is how he makes his living. If he can get millions for his catalog, why not? Who are any of us to decide if he “needs” the money.  If the purchaser of Bruce’s catalog uses the work for tacky ads, that is not Bruce’s fault. I certainly won’t think less of Bruce if he sells and I think it’s unfair to hold him to a higher standard than any other multi millionaire who decides to make even more money.  It’s his product and it’s solely his decision what to do with it. 

Here’s David Hockney’s The Splash:

 

 

4D9EEC63-765C-428A-83FC-D145E3D1486F.jpeg

Judyg,

it’s not about making money out of art. That’s normal. And over the years he has made money every time a radio played one of his songs or one of his albums was sold. What I’m referring to is the intellectual property of the “piece of art”. Of course Bruce can do whatever he wants with his catalogue, and nobody can tell him, “Look, you hardly seem so destitute you urgently need half a billion dollars”. But as fans, we’re still free to care more to his legacy than to his heirs’ bank account. How goes the line?, “When the promise was broken, I cashed in a few of my dreams”…

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...