Business
Page: 279
As part of our continuing efforts to serve the music industry and its creators, Billboard now features a royalty calculator for Spotify and Apple Music for readers. Explore Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news Created by Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a legal and consulting firm that specializes in […]
As part of our continuing efforts to serve the music industry and its creators, Billboard now features a royalty calculator for Spotify and Apple Music for readers. The calculator below was created by Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a legal and consulting firm that specializes in music industry law; and is based on the firm’s analysis […]
Mr. Pauer has teamed up with Orianna, Sony Music Latin’s electronic label, for the release of his upcoming studio album, Inevitable, Billboard can exclusively announce today (Oct. 30). The set—marking Pauer’s fourth album following Soundtrack (2014), Orange (2015), and Fiera (2022) — is slated for release in the first quarter of 2024 as the first […]
While Taylor Swift has been racking up billions of streams with updated “Taylor’s Version” re-recordings of her original hits over the past couple years, making cultural moments out of old material and simultaneously driving down the value of those original recordings that were sold away from her, record companies have been working to prohibit this sort of thing from happening again.
The major labels, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group, have recently overhauled contracts for new signees, according to top music attorneys, some demanding artists wait an unprecedented 10, 15 or even 30 years to re-record releases after departing their record companies. “The first time I saw it, I tried to get rid of it entirely,” says Josh Karp, a veteran attorney, who has viewed the new restrictions in UMG contracts. “I was just like, ‘What is this? This is strange. Why would we agree to further restrictions than we’ve agreed to in the past with the same label?’”
For decades, standard major-label recording contracts stated artists had to wait for the latter of two periods to expire before they could put out re-recorded versions, Swift-style: It could have been five to seven years from the release date of the original, or two years after the contract expired. Today, attorneys are receiving label contracts that expand that period to 10 or 15 years or more — and the attorneys are pushing back. “It becomes one of a multitude of items you’re fighting,” Karp says.
“I recently did a deal with a very big indie that had a 30-year re-record restriction in it. Which obviously is much longer than I’m used to seeing,” adds Gandhar Savur, attorney for Cigarettes After Sex, Built to Spill and Jeff Rosenstock. “I think the majors are also trying to expand their re-record restrictions but in a more measured way — they are generally not yet able to get away with making such extreme changes.”
Until June 2019, when Swift announced she would re-record her first six albums, the concept of drawing fans to new versions of old songs was a music-business niche. Frank Sinatra rerecorded a number of his biggest hits in the ’60s, but in recent years, new Def Leppard and Squeeze versions had minimal commercial success. But after venture capitalist and longtime Justin Bieber manager Scooter Braun purchased Swift’s original label, Big Machine Music Group, she failed to re-obtain her original master recordings. The business transaction was personal to Swift — she has accused Braun of “incessant, manipulative bullying” — and she encouraged her huge fanbase and sympathetic radio programmers to exclusively play new Taylor’s Versions of Fearless, Red and others.
Suddenly, the concept of re-recording masters has evolved from archaic fine print buried in record deals to a widely scrutinized cause celebre. “Obviously, this is a big headline topic — the Taylor Swift thing,” Savur says. “Labels, of course, are going to want to do whatever they can to address that and to prevent it. But there’s only so much they can do. Artist representatives are going to push back against that, and a certain standard is ingrained in our industry that is not easy to move away from.”
Adds Dina LaPolt, a music attorney with a long history of grappling with labels over contracts: “Now, because of all this Taylor Swift sh–, we have an even new negotiation. It’s awful. We’re seeing a lot of ‘perpetuity’ sh–. When we were negotiating deals with lawyers, before we would get the proposal,, we’d get the phone call from the head of business affairs. We literally would say, ‘If you send that to me, it will be on f—ing Twitter in 10 minutes.’ It never showed up.”
Swift has her own reasons — in addition to dominating the charts and racking up millions of dollars in streaming revenue — for emphasizing her re-recordings. Smaller artists have more modest goals. Alt-rock band Switchfoot recently put out an “Our Version” of its 2003 album The Beautiful Letdown, as frontman Jon Foreman said recently, “for everyone who’s supported us the last 23 years, for everyone who’s sung along with these songs.” After superstar pop-and-R&B trio TLC negotiated a separation agreement from its label, Sony Music, in the early 2000s, Bill Diggins, the band’s manager, negotiated a re-recording clause allowing the group to use hits such as “Waterfalls” and “No Scrubs” for TV and movie synchs. “Anytime you negotiate with a label, it’s a difficult proposition,” he said.
Reps for Universal, Warner and Sony did not respond to requests for comment, but some music attorneys are sympathetic to labels’ concerns about re-recordings. Although “the contracts have gotten reasonably artist-friendly over time,” longtime music attorney Don Passman said recently, “they don’t want you to duplicate your recordings — like ever — and then they will limit the other types of recordings you can do.”
Josh Binder, an attorney who represents SZA, Gunna, Doechii, Marshmello and others, says the Taylor Swift scenario is rare, and most artists never have to exercise their re-recording rights. “It doesn’t offend me so much. Rarely does it come into play where the re-record treatment is even used,” he says. “[The labels’] position is, ‘Hey, if we’re going to spend a bunch of money creating this brand with you, then you should not try and create records to compete with us.’ We try and fight it. We try and make it as short as possible. But I don’t find it to be the most compelling issue to fight.”
Once artists get past the weeds of re-recording restrictions, Binder says, the bigger issue is controlling their master recordings — that was Swift’s primary concern in putting out her new versions, after Braun purchased her catalog from Big Machine. Artists and their attorneys have recently moved towards licensing deals — retaining ownership of their masters and signing with labels to distribute music for a limited period — rather than traditional recording contracts where the label owns everything.
But Ben McLane, an attorney who has worked with dozens of artists, from Donovan and DMX to new label signees such as the Toxhards and We the Commas, says traditional deals remain more common than licensing deals, so battles over new re-recording restrictions still come up.
“I always ask for less. Some labels, at a negotiating point, might be fine with it. It always depends on what your leverage is,” he says. “If you’re an unknown artist, and you really need the deal, the label doesn’t have a lot of motivation to give in on things like that. They’re strict.”
President Joe Biden on Monday will sign a sweeping executive order to guide the development of artificial intelligence — requiring industry to develop safety and security standards, introducing new consumer protections and giving federal agencies an extensive to-do list to oversee the rapidly progressing technology.
The order reflects the government’s effort to shape how AI evolves in a way that can maximize its possibilities and contain its perils. AI has been a source of deep personal interest for Biden, with its potential to affect the economy and national security.
White House chief of staff Jeff Zients recalled Biden giving his staff a directive to move with urgency on the issue, having considered the technology a top priority.
“We can’t move at a normal government pace,” Zients said the Democratic president told him. “We have to move as fast, if not faster than the technology itself.”
In Biden’s view, the government was late to address the risks of social media and now U.S. youth are grappling with related mental health issues. AI has the positive ability to accelerate cancer research, model the impacts of climate change, boost economic output and improve government services among other benefits. But it could also warp basic notions of truth with false images, deepen racial and social inequalities and provide a tool to scammers and criminals.
The order builds on voluntary commitments already made by technology companies. It’s part of a broader strategy that administration officials say also includes congressional legislation and international diplomacy, a sign of the disruptions already caused by the introduction of new AI tools such as ChatGPT that can generate new text, images and sounds.
Using the Defense Production Act, the order will require leading AI developers to share safety test results and other information with the government. The National Institute of Standards and Technology is to create standards to ensure AI tools are safe and secure before public release.
The Commerce Department is to issue guidance to label and watermark AI-generated content to help differentiate between authentic interactions and those generated by software. The order also touches on matters of privacy, civil rights, consumer protections, scientific research and worker rights.
An administration official who previewed the order on a Sunday call with reporters said the to-do lists within the order will be implemented and fulfilled over the range of 90 days to 365 days, with the safety and security items facing the earliest deadlines. The official briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, as required by the White House.
Last Thursday, Biden gathered his aides in the Oval Office to review and finalize the executive order, a 30-minute meeting that stretched to 70 minutes, despite other pressing matters including the mass shooting in Maine, the Israel-Hamas war and the selection of a new House speaker.
Biden was profoundly curious about the technology in the months of meetings that led up to drafting the order. His science advisory council focused on AI at two meetings and his Cabinet discussed it at two meetings. The president also pressed tech executives and civil society advocates about the technology’s capabilities at multiple gatherings.
“He was as impressed and alarmed as anyone,” deputy White House chief of staff Bruce Reed said in an interview. “He saw fake AI images of himself, of his dog. He saw how it can make bad poetry. And he’s seen and heard the incredible and terrifying technology of voice cloning, which can take three seconds of your voice and turn it into an entire fake conversation.”
The possibility of false images and sounds led the president to prioritize the labeling and watermarking of anything produced by AI. Biden also wanted to thwart the risk of older Americans getting a phone call from someone who sounded like a loved one, only to be scammed by an AI tool.
Meetings could go beyond schedule, with Biden telling civil society advocates in a ballroom of San Francisco’s Fairmont Hotel in June: “This is important. Take as long as you need.”
The president also talked with scientists and saw the upside that AI created if harnessed for good. He listened to a Nobel Prize-winning physicist talk about how AI could explain the origins of the universe. Another scientist showed how AI could model extreme weather like 100-year floods, as the past data used to assess these events has lost its accuracy because of climate change.
The issue of AI was seemingly inescapable for Biden. At Camp David one weekend, he relaxed by watching the Tom Cruise film “Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One.” The film’s villain is a sentient and rogue AI known as “the Entity” that sinks a submarine and kills its crew in the movie’s opening minutes.
“If he hadn’t already been concerned about what could go wrong with AI before that movie, he saw plenty more to worry about,” said Reed, who watched the film with the president.
With Congress still in the early stages of debating AI safeguards, Biden’s order stakes out a U.S. perspective as countries around the world race to establish their own guidelines. After more than two years of deliberation, the European Union is putting the final touches on a comprehensive set of regulations that targets the riskiest applications for the technology. China, a key AI rival to the U.S., has also set some rules.
U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak also hopes to carve out a prominent role for Britain as an AI safety hub at a summit this week that Vice President Kamala Harris plans to attend.
The U.S., particularly its West Coast, is home to many of the leading developers of cutting-edge AI technology, including tech giants Google, Meta and Microsoft and AI-focused startups such as OpenAI, maker of ChatGPT. The White House took advantage of that industry weight earlier this year when it secured commitments from those companies to implement safety mechanisms as they build new AI models.
But the White House also faced significant pressure from Democratic allies, including labor and civil rights groups, to make sure its policies reflected their concerns about AI’s real-world harms.
The American Civil Liberties Union is among the groups that met with the White House to try to ensure “we’re holding the tech industry and tech billionaires accountable” so that algorithmic tools “work for all of us and not just a few,” said ReNika Moore, director of the ACLU’s racial justice program.
Suresh Venkatasubramanian, a former Biden administration official who helped craft principles for approaching AI, said one of the biggest challenges within the federal government has been what to do about law enforcement’s use of AI tools, including at U.S. borders.
“These are all places where we know that the use of automation is very problematic, with facial recognition, drone technology,” Venkatasubramanian said. Facial recognition technology has been shown to perform unevenly across racial groups, and has been tied to mistaken arrests.
BMG terminated about 40 employees on Thursday (Oct. 27), sources within the company tell Billboard. The layoffs cut effectively the entirety of its film/TV, theatrical, and international marketing department for recordings as well as its Modern Recordings label, according to sources and an internal memo obtained by Billboard. It took place on the day of the New York office’s annual Halloween party, says a source.
The eliminations include company leaders like Fred Casimir (executive vp, global repertoire) and Jason Hradil (senior vp, global repertoire) and affected employees in its Berlin, New York, and Los Angeles offices. A source within the company fears there are more layoffs to come and believes the layoffs may be a result of the company hiring the consulting firm McKinsey & Company in recent months.
After employees were notified they were being laid off, the company hosted a call with the U.S. recorded music team — including those who were let go — according to a source within the company.
“Everyone at BMG says it feels like a venture capital firm now and not a record label,” laments an employee. “Things got dark real fast, and it bums me out watching a lot of amazing people lose their jobs right before the holidays.”
In a video call hosted by CEO Thomas Coesfeld, the leader explained that the restructuring was part of the implementation of its new strategy, BMG Next, according to an internal memo shared with Billboard. “The international marketing team was set up five years ago in response to the needs of the company at the time,” he said to senior managers. “Our talented team has done a great job, driving international campaigns for artists including Lenny Kravitz, Kylie Minogue, and Louis Tomlinson, but unfortunately on a business level, expectations from this novel structure were not met and it created duplication of functions with local teams. The clear business decision is to instead give artists a single contact point with their local repertoire teams.”
A BMG spokesperson declined to comment beyond providing the memo.
In the last year, BMG — which represents talent like Jelly Roll, Halsey and Lainey Wilson as well as certain rights to the catalogs of Tina Turner, Peter Frampton, Mötley Crüe, and more — has made a number of significant business changes. In January, its longstanding chief executive Hartwig Masuch announced he would retire and would be succeeded by then-CFO Coesfeld, effective Jan. 1, 2024. On April 18, BMG claimed it would be the first music company to fully integrate its catalog and frontline music operations. On May 17, Masuch announced he would accelerate Coesfeld’s transition to CEO to July 1 instead.
In September, BMG announced it was winding down its agreement with Warner Music Group’s ADA and would be taking over direct management of its 80-billion-stream digital distribution later this year. (Digital revenues contributed 70% of BMG’s overall revenues in 2022.) Last week, BMG also announced it would be partnering with UMG’s commercial services division for the distribution of its physical recorded music. Coesfeld described the deal as the first project of a burgeoning “alliance” between the two music companies.
Spotify’s third-quarter earnings results helped give investors confidence about the company’s path and sent its shares up 10.3% to $170.63 on Tuesday before closing at $159.35 on Friday — up 6.3% for the week. Not only did the streaming giant turn an operating profit of 32 million euros ($34.8 million) — compared to a $247 million euro ($269 million) operating loss a year earlier — it added 6 million subscribers in the same quarter a price increase went into effect.
That third-quarter growth will help the NYSE-listed, Swedish company exceed its expectations for subscriber gains this year. “We walked into 2023 thinking we would do just over 20 million in net subscriber adds for the full year,” CEO Daniel Ek said during Tuesday’s earnings call, “but we’re actually on track to deliver 30 million.”
Morgan Stanley analysts raised their Spotify price target from $190 to $200 on Wednesday, writing in an investor note that the company is “a superior product with pricing power” that will continue to expand gross margins. Likewise, analysts at JP Morgan increased their Spotify price target from $190 to $205 with a belief that the operating margin and free cash flow milestones reached in the quarter will attract more investors to the company.
Led by Anghami’s 11.5% improvement to $1.07, six music streaming companies had an average gain of 4.3% this week. China’s Tencent Music Entertainment, which will report third-quarter results on Nov. 14, gained 7.2% to $7.13, while another Chinese music streamer, Cloud Music, gained 3.3% to 85.50 HKD ($10.93). Meanwhile, U.S.-based LiveOne gained 1% to $1.00.
Overall, the 21-stock Billboard Global Music Index dropped 0.7% to 1,304.74 this week, marking its third consecutive weekly loss and tenth down week in the second half of 2023. The slight decline dropped the index’s year-to-date gain to 11.7%. Of its 21 stocks, 13 finished the week in negative territory, seven posted gains and one, Round Hill Music Royalty Fund, was unchanged. (Round Hill’s purchase by Concord for $469 million was approved by shareholders on Oct. 18.)
Despite the widespread losses across the music business, the Billboard Global Music Index fared better than many indexes. In the United States, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq composite each declined 1.9%, while the United Kingdom’s FTSE 100 dropped 1.5% and South Korea’s KOSPI composite index fell 3%.
The Nasdaq has slipped 10.3% from its peak on July 31, officially putting it in correction territory — a 10% decline from a high — on Wednesday. The Billboard Global Music Index hasn’t entered a correction yet, but it’s close, having declined 9.9% from its peak of 1,447.32 on July 21.
Shares of Universal Music Group (UMG) fell 4.2% to 23.31 euros ($24.46) this week, with the company’s third-quarter results on Thursday preceding a 7.2% decline on Friday. Guggenheim analysts maintained both their buy rating on UMG’s stock and their 27.00 euro ($28.56) price target. But the analysts dropped their fourth-quarter forecasts for UMG’s streaming revenue (from 4.4% to 3.5%) and subscription revenue growth (13.0% to 12.8%).
Radio stocks were hit particularly hard in the wake of Cumulus Media’s third-quarter earnings, which showed that the company’s revenue declined 11% year-over-year, to $207.4 million. That was chalked up to “weakness in national markets,” the company said on Friday. Cumulus Media’s share price fell 11.7% to $4.77 on Friday and finished the week down 5.4%. iHeartMedia, which will report earnings on November 9, fell 4.9% on Friday and finished the week down 12.7%.
K-pop stocks had a tumultuous week following Wednesday’s arrest of Lee Sun-kyun — an actor and member of the group BIGBANG known as G-Dragon — on charges of using illegal drugs. Lee, whose exclusive contract with YG Entertainment ended in June, denied the charges. Following his arrest, shares of YG Entertainment fell 7.9% to 50,200 won ($37.01) on Thursday, though they recovered most of the loss to finish the week down 2% to 52,600 won ($38.78).
News of Lee’s arrest sparked days of frenetic media coverage in South Korea, hurting other K-pop stocks and eliciting statements from K-pop agencies to quash any speculation their artists might be involved. Shares of HYBE fell 10.7% to 204,000 won ($150.42) on Thursday. The company issued a statement to the local press saying “BTS is in no way related to the rumors spreading online,” according to reports. HYBE shares recovered some of Thursday’s losses with a 3.9% gain on Friday and finished the week down 5.6% to 212,000 won ($156.32).
SM Entertainment, home to K-pop groups NCT and Red Velvet, fell 5.1% on Thursday and closed the week down 8.4% to 103,900 ($73.61). JYP Entertainment, the agency behind Stray Kids and Twice, lost 6.2% on Thursday but finished the week up 2.7% to 103,600 won ($76.39).
One of the most popular albums in the United States, Taylor Swift’s 1989, is about to lose significant market share to a newer version, Swift’s re-recorded 1989 (Taylor’s Version).
It’s happened three times before. 1989 (Taylor’s Version), a re-recorded and expanded version of the nine-times platinum 2014 album, with five previously unreleased tracks, follows the insanely successful formula of the three preceding albums: Fearless, Red and Speak Now. If 1989 (Taylor’s Version) enjoys the same trajectory as its predecessors, the Big Machine-era version of 1989 will lose a majority of its weekly consumption and forever get crowded out by the more popular, Swift-endorsed re-recordings.
To understand what could happen to 1989, consider its predecessor, Red. Average weekly consumption of Red — measured in equivalent album units, which combines physical and digital album sales, track sales and streams — dropped 40% in the 12 weeks following the release of Red (Taylor’s Version), according to Billboard’s analysis of Luminate data for the United States. The original version of Speak Now took an even bigger hit, losing 59% of its average weekly consumption in the 12 weeks after the re-recordings were released. Given those two trajectories, the original version of 1989 could very well lose half its average weekly consumption.
Consumption of the original 1989, which includes Hot 100 chart-toppers “Shake It Off” and “Bad Blood,” has soared this year as Swift reached a Michael Jackson-level of media coverage. As Swift Mania heated up, thanks to her record-setting Eras Tour and steady output of new and rerecorded material, 1989’s average weekly album equivalent units (AEUs) climbed from 16,000 in January to 29,000 in May to 39,000 in August, peaking at 46,000 in the week ended Aug. 17. On the latest Billboard 200 albums chart, the original 1989 ranked No. 20 — one spot behind Speak Now (Taylor’s Version) and two spots ahead of Reputation, Swift’s final album for Big Machine.
That has been great news for Shamrock Holdings, which acquired Swift’s Big Machine master recordings in 2020 for a reported $300 million. In the year before Shamrock Holdings acquired Swift’s catalog, 1989 averaged about 10,000 AEUs per week — 70% below the current level. While Swift’s previous three albums of re-recordings ate into the Big Machine originals, 1989 was spared and got to benefit from Swift’s success — that is, until she got around to releasing her Taylor’s Version.
The original version of 1989 — Swift’s best-selling album to date — has more to lose than its predecessors: 1989 has averaged 33,000 equivalent album units over the previous 12 weeks, nearly 1.8 times more consumption than the 19,000 AEUs Speak Now averaged in the 12 weeks before Speak Now (Taylor’s Version) was released. The original versions of Fearless and Red had even less consumption in the 12 weeks before Swift’s re-recordings came out: 7,000 AEUs for Fearless and 9,000 AEUs for Red.
If 1989’s weekly AEUs drop by 50%, Billboard estimates the gross sales from purchases and streams will drop by nearly $120,000 per week — equal to more than $6 million per year. That’s gross sales, not wholesale. Shamrock pockets less than wholesale after paying royalties, distribution and manufacturing.
And if 1989 (Taylor’s Version) performs like the other three albums of re-recordings, it will far outperform Swift’s Big Machine originals. Through the first 41 weeks of 2023, the re-recordings of Fearless and Red have respectively averaged 4.8 times and 4.1 times the weekly consumption of the original albums. Speak Now (Taylor’s Version), which has just 14 weeks of sales history since its July release, currently has 5.3 times the average weekly consumption of the original.
The original version of Reputation also has a lot to lose. In the past 12 weeks, Reputation has averaged 27,000 AEUs per week. And just as 1989 consumption skyrocketed this year, Reputation’s weekly AEUs have more than doubled since January. Shamrock Holdings will enjoy those spoils, too — that is, until Reputation (Taylor’s Version) inevitably arrives.
Lizzo’s attorneys are firing back at a bombshell sexual harassment lawsuit filed by three of her former dancers, calling the allegations a “fabricated sob story” launched by “opportunists” seeking “a quick payday.”
In a motion to dismiss the case filed Friday (Oct. 27) in Los Angeles court, Lizzo’s team argued that the lawsuit — claiming sexual harassment discrimination, and fat-shaming — came from three women with “an axe to grind” who had shown “a pattern of gross misconduct and failure to perform their job up to par.”
“Plaintiffs embarked on a press tour, vilifying defendants and pushing their fabricated sob story in the courts and in the media. That ends today,” wrote Martin D. Singer, a well-known Hollywood attorney. “Instead of taking any accountability for their own actions, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants out of spite and in pursuit of media attention, public sympathy and a quick payday with minimal effort.”
In support of their motion, Lizzo’s attorneys also filed sworn statements from 18 members of her touring company who dispute many of the lawsuit’s specific factual accusations. That included several who challenged the headline-grabbing claim that Lizzo fat-shamed some of her dancers — a particularly loaded allegation against a singer who has made body positivity a key part of her brand.
“I never saw anyone, including plaintiffs, being weight shamed or body shamed,” one dancer wrote in Friday’s legal filings. “Far from it. Lizzo inspired all of us to celebrate and love ourselves and our bodies as we are.”
In their motion, Lizzo’s lawyers argued that the case should be dismissed immediately under California’s so-called anti-SLAPP statute — a special type of law enacted in states around the country that makes it easier to quickly end meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech.
It’s unusual to see an anti-SLAPP motion aimed at dismissing a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by former employees against their employer. Such motions are more common in defamation cases, where a defendant argues that a powerful plaintiff is abusing the court system to silence them from speaking out.
But in Friday’s motion, Lizzo’s lawyers argued that the anti-SLAPP law could also apply to the current case because of the creative nature of the work in question.
“The complaint — and plaintiffs’ carefully choreographed media blitz surrounding its filing — is a brazen attempt to silence defendants’ creative voices and weaponize their creative expression against them,” Singer and Lizzo’s other lawyers wrote.
The case against Lizzo, filed in August by dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez, accuses the singer (real name Melissa Jefferson) and her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. of creating a hostile work environment through a wide range of legal wrongdoing, including not just sexual harassment but also religious and racial discrimination. The alleged weight-shaming, the lawsuit claims, amounted to a form of disability discrimination.
In one particularly vivid allegation, Lizzo’s accusers claimed she pushed them to attend a live sex show at a venue in Amsterdam’s famed Red Light District called Bananenbar, and then pressured them to engage with the performers, including “eating bananas protruding from the performers’ vaginas.” After Lizzo herself led a chant “goading” Davis to touch one performer’s breasts, the lawsuit says, Davis eventually did so.
But in Friday’s filings, Lizzo tour manager Molly Gordon sharply called into question that version of the evening.
“When I was at Bananenbar, I spoke with Davis. She did not say that she felt uncomfortable, that she felt forced to be there, or that she wanted to leave but felt that she could not do so,” Gordon said in the filing. “There would have been no question about whether she could leave if she was uncomfortable. I did not witness her engaging with any of the Bananenbar performers.”
Another key allegation in the August complaint was that Shirlene Quigley, the captain of Lizzo’s dance team, forced her religious beliefs on the plaintiffs and took repeated actions that made them uncomfortable, including commenting about their sexual virginity and simulating oral sex on a banana in front of them.
In sworn statements filed Friday, several members of the touring company disputed those allegations. Chawnta Van, a dancer, said the lawsuit’s description of Quigley was “not an accurate portrayal of her at all.”
“Quigley never treated anyone differently because of their religious or spiritual beliefs or actions,” Van said. “I never witnessed her bullying anyone about Jesus or about not having the same religious beliefs as she does, and that is completely contrary to who she is.”
The August complaint also detailed alleged outbursts by Lizzo, including an “excruciating re-audition” during which one dancer claims she wet herself because she feared she would be fired if she left the stage. The case also claims Lizzo repeatedly told dancers “none of their jobs were safe” and, most notably, raised “thinly veiled concerns” about Davis’ weight gain.
But according to Asia Banks, a dancer who described herself in Friday’s filings as “the biggest dancer on the tour,” she never experienced anything like that. “Lizzo always went out of her way to make me feel secure and confident in my body, including by making sure I was comfortable in every single costume for the show.”
Other statements from tour members alleged behavior and performance issues with Lizzo’s accusers. Zuri Appleby, a bass player, claimed Davis had been “lax about her performances, her hygiene and her health.” Gordon, the tour manager, said Williams had been terminated because she was “frequently late for rehearsals” and had missed a flight.
A representative for the plaintiffs did not immediately return a request for comment on Friday.
Even amid the streaming-driven spectacular recovery of the music business, rights management organizations are thriving. Music rights collections reached €10.83 billion ($11.4 billion) in 2022, according to CISAC, the trade organization of collective management societies, a historic high that represents 28% growth over 2021 revenue, partly because the live business is recovering so fast.
“It’s an excellent result,” CISAC director general Gadi Oron told Billboard. “It’s record-breaking in terms of collections, since we exceeded €12 billion” — CISAC member societies racked up €12.1 billion ($12.7 billion) in revenue, counting audiovisual, literary and other collections — “and it’s record-breaking in terms of year-on-year growth.”
This arguably undervalues the rights business, because it only counts money that goes through rights management organizations — both collective management societies and private businesses that license the same rights — and not revenue from direct deals with publishers. In the U.S., the world’s biggest market, for example, it counts public performance royalties but not the mechanical royalties handled by the Mechanical Licensing Collective. Add in that money and, although an apples-to-Apple Music accounting would get complicated, the total is almost certainly more than half of the $26.2 billion global recorded music revenue that IFPI reported for the same year. That’s a lot of money flowing through organizations with unpronounceable initials.
At first glance, it looks like revenue from collections is growing much slower than those from recordings — music rights collections are up 31% since 2018, while recording revenue is up nearly 50%. But that may not paint a full picture. Most of the growth in the recording business is tied to streaming — much of its future growth will come from streaming in the developing world. The same is true of collections, except that digital only became the biggest source of revenue this year, representing 38% of the total. Most other sources of collections revenue are growing slower, except for live, which was whipsawed by the pandemic and will only recover fully this year. And since 2018, digital collections grew by150% while global digital revenue grew by just under 100%.
The current pace of growth is unsustainable, since it includes the once-in-a-century recovery of revenue collected from live performance, which grew 185.7%. But digital collections alone grew 33.5%, and that revenue will make up a larger share of total revenue in the coming years, which implies faster growth overall. In five years, “the one thing I’m certain of is that digital will become more than a third of the pie,” Oron says. It could even be half — presumably without much erosion in live revenue and other sources of income.
As in the recorded music business, the larger amount of that money will come from countries that thus far have had small, or even negligible, music industries. The countries that brought in the most revenue in 2022 aren’t so different from the usual — the U.S. in the lead with €2.6 billion ($2.7 billion, up 30.5%), then France with €1.3 billion ($1.3 billion, up 39.3%), the U.K. with €1 billion ($1 billion, up 24.3%), Germany with €903 million ($951 million, up 17.9%) and Japan with €848 million ($893 million, up 10.1% in local currency). That’s similar to the biggest markets for recorded music, only France does better in collections, comparatively, while Japan fares a bit worse. (Europe still accounts for 51% of collections revenue, with another 27% coming from the U.S. and Canada.) “The countries in the top 10 have always been the biggest collectors,” Oron says.
The balance of power will tilt even more toward some of these markets, however, as the biggest and most important European societies — SACEM in France, PRS for the U.K. and GEMA in Germany — sign more affiliates to collect more digital revenue. Those societies now have the repertoire, and thus the leverage, to negotiate better deals with big platforms that cover much of the globe. Some of the growth in collections is fueled by the fact that “many societies renegotiated,” Oron says, and he predicts that “hubs” will become more popular over the next decade.
At the same time, the fastest growth is coming from developing markets that are almost entirely digital: Vietnam, India, Indonesia and Thailand. Collections in Latin America grew almost 65% in 2022. As in recorded music, these markets never accounted for much revenue of any kind, so their emergence is almost entirely pure growth. And since not all of the countries with fast-growing music businesses have collecting societies that function well, rights organizations could face a stark choice: Reform them or work with them in order to collect a range of royalties; or try to license streaming services that operate in those markets from outside the countries to ensure that the fastest-growing stream of revenue will flow more directly to songwriters and publishers?
One of the questions around the future of collections is artificial intelligence, the industry’s favorite savior or bogeyman, depending on the day, and the CISAC report devotes most of two pages to it, in the form of forewords by Oron and CISAC President Björn Ulvaeus. “There is no question that the way we address it now will have a huge bearing on collections in the future,” writes Oron, who calls the technology an “existential issue” that presents both “threats” and “amazing opportunities.”
Ulvaeus takes the same tone. “Fresh from COVID and the economic squeeze, what we now face is a potentially far more serious, existential challenge — that of Artificial intelligence,” he writes. “I think of it as having the power to extend the human mind and potentially create wonderful art. But it brings dangers too, and without hard rules protecting human creators it could also threaten their livelihoods on a huge scale.”
Both Oron and Ulvaeus say CISAC intends to play a leading role in making sure AI helps, rather than hurts, creators. Collecting societies could be an important part of any such solution, given the amount of material that would need to be licensed. Right now, “you don’t know what you’re licensing and to whom,” Oron says. “The most important issue is transparency.”