Business
Page: 449
The Ledger is a weekly newsletter about the economics of the music business. An abbreviated version of the newsletter is published online. The Ledger is sent to Billboard Pro subscribers. You can also sign up here to receive The Ledger and many other Billboard newsletters.
A youth movement of sorts hit music’s top 10 tracks in the U.S. last year, even as music consumption generally shifted toward older recordings.
The average age of a track in the top ten on-demand streaming songs in the U.S. was nearly five months younger in 2022 (346 days) than in 2021 (492 days), according to a Billboard analysis of Luminate data. In 2021, the top 10 tracks were evenly divided between current (defined by Luminate as younger than 18 months) and catalog (older than 18 months), as of Dec. 31, 2021. Glass Animals’ “Heat Waves,” released in June 2020, was No. 5 that year. The No. 1 track, Dua Lipa’s “Levitating,” was released in March 2020. The No. 10 track, The Weeknd’s “Blinding Lights,” was released in 2019.
In 2022, nine of the top 10 tracks were current releases, meaning they were less than 18 months old on Dec. 31, 2022. “Heat Waves” was the lone catalog track in the top 10. The top track, Harry Styles’ “As It Was,” was a spry 276 days old. Steve Lacy’s “Bad Habit,” the No. 9 track, was youngest at 185 days. “Levitating” still resonated with listeners but slipped to No. 20.
Outside of the top 10, however, the most popular music of the year continued to get older.
From 2021 to 2022, the average age of the top 25 on-demand tracks increased about a month and a half to 470 days old, excluding a notable outlier: Kate Bush’s 1985 recording “Running Up That Hill,” the No. 16 track of the year. Including Bush’s 13,620-day-old (as of Dec. 31, 2022) surprise hit, the average age of the top 25 tracks more than doubled.
Aging was more pronounced beyond the top 25. The average age of the top 1,000 on-demand audio streaming tracks increased from 3,287 days in 2021 to 3,462 days in 2022 — an increase of 176 days, or nearly six months. Notably, some younger catalog titles continued to defy gravity. Chris Stapleton’s 2014 track “Tennessee Whiskey” rose from No. 43 in 2021 to No. 33. Morgan Wallen’s “Whiskey Glasses,” from 2016, climbed from No. 62 to No. 32. The Neighborhood’s 2012 track “Sweater Weather,” a TikTok hit way back in Nov. 2020, improved from No. 76 to No. 34.
The aging of on-demand audio streams mirrors the continuing trend of catalog tracks accounting for a larger share of what Americans stream and purchase. According to Luminate, catalog’s share of total consumption — across all formats — climbed to 72.2% in 2022, up from 69.8% in 2021 and 65.1% in 2020.
Years ago, the line between current and catalog music meant more, since it usually followed the way stores shelved music. “That timeframe makes sense when you are talking about an artist’s typical album release cycle,” says Andy Moats, executive vp and director of music, sports and entertainment at Pinnacle Financial Partners.
In a financial sense, however, current music transitions to catalog over a long period of time. After an initial burst of earnings, music will earn less over some number of years — called “decay” — before settling at a consistent amount of annual royalties. “Most new release decay will occur in the first 36 to 48 months from release,” says Moats, and tracks typically level off and show growth from years 7 to 10.
Outliers like “Running Up That Hill” aside, increased catalog consumption stems mostly from music remaining popular beyond the 18-month mark. (Billboard wrote about the longevity of this “shallow catalog” in April 2022.) Today, catalog is as much about Fleetwood Mac’s 1977 song “Dreams” as The Weeknd’s 2020 song “Save Your Tears,” which remains popular on streaming services and was the No. 19 on-demand audio streaming track in the U.S. last year (down from No. 4 in 2021).
To the experts who value music assets, the ability of a relatively young catalog to increase its market share makes it more attractive. While older songs are typically more appealing to buyers because their earnings potential is more predictable than newer songs still experiencing annual decay, the trends seen in Luminate’s data suggest there could be more deals like Hipgnosis Capital Fund’s $200 million acquisition of Justin Bieber’s songwriting catalog and recorded music royalties. Nari Matsuura, partner at Citrin Cooperman, sees the catalog trends in Luminate’s data as a good sign for relatively young music. “This suggests that the value of newer catalogs should increase since their earnings will not decline as much in the near term but will be sustained at a higher level over a longer period.”
A federal judge ruled Friday that hundreds of artists cannot join forces to sue Universal Music Group to regain control of their masters, saying the case raised big questions about “fairness” but that it was ill-suited for class-action litigation.
The ruling came in a closely-watched case brought by “Missing You” singer John Waite and others over copyright law’s “termination right.” The rule is supposed to let authors take back control of their works, but the lawsuit claims UMG has flatly ignored that requirement when it comes to sounds recordings.
Waite wanted to certify the case as a class action — a make-or-break move that would have allowed hundreds of UMG artists to bring their claims as a single lawsuit, represented by a single set of lawyers.
But in a crucial ruling issued Friday, Judge Lewis Kaplan denied that request, citing the complex and unique questions raised by each individual artist’s relationship with UMG.
“Plaintiffs’ claims raise issues of fairness in copyright law that undoubtedly extended beyond their own grievances,” the judge wrote. “However, the individualized evidence and case-by-case evaluations necessary to resolve those claims make this case unsuitable for adjudication on an aggregate basis.”
Waite and other artists sued UMG in February 2019, claiming the label had effectively refused to honor the termination right. The case was filed as a proposed class action, aiming to eventually represent hundreds of others in a similar situation. A nearly-identical case was filed on the same day by the same attorneys against Sony Music Entertainment, claiming it had adopted a similar stance on terminations.
According to the lawsuits, the labels have long claimed that sound recordings – unlike the underlying musical compositions controlled by music publishers – are effectively never subject to the termination rule. The basic argument is that most recordings are so-called works for hire, meaning the label essentially creates them itself and simply hires artists to contribute to them.
In seeking to pull hundreds of other artists into the lawsuit, lawyers for the artists argued that UMG has made those “fictitious” and “erroneous” arguments “in every instance” that an artist invokes the termination right – meaning they represent the kind of “systematic wrongful conduct” that is best addressed by a huge class action.
But in Friday’s decision, Judge Kaplan disagreed. “The … analysis requires understanding for each artist the circumstances in which the recordings were produced, the creative involvement, if any, of the record label, and the types of resources and payments the record label provided the artist.”
To decide if a record really was produced simply as a work for hire, the judge said tricky questions would need to be answered for each separate artist. Judge Kaplan said the evidence indicated that UMG sometimes only provided “big picture approval authority,” which could help an artist prove their right to terminate. But for other artists, he said the label was “more involved in the creative process.”
“Did the record label agree on the lyrics and music with the artist?” the judge asked. “Did the record label select the producers and sound engineers to work on the sound recordings? What level of substantive artistic feedback, if any, did the record label provide?”
The ruling is not necessarily a death-knell for the lawsuit against UMG, which will now proceed on behalf of Waite and a handful of others. Evan Cohen, the attorney who represents the artists, did not immediately return a request for comment.
The case could still make a big impact, class-or-no-class. Countless other artists have similar arrangements with record labels over highly-lucrative masters, but the legal arguments about when sound recordings are subject to the termination right have thus far only been lightly tested in court. A final ruling in favor of Waite could provide key legal ammo for those other artists, even if they need to bring their own cases.
A representative for UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.
But it will doubtless be a severe logistical hurdle for such cases actually being filed, since they’re expensive to litigate and artists typically lack the same kind of legal resources as the major labels who have denied their termination requests. A class action would have allowed the artists to pool their resources and secure a sweeping decision with only a single set of legal costs.
Friday’s decision will not directly apply to the similar proposed class action against Sony, which has been on pause for months as the two sides attempt to strike a settlement. But the new ruling, issued by a judge in the same federal court district as the Sony case, certainly does not bode well for that case being certified as a class action.
Read the entire decision here:
In retrospect, 2022 will be remembered as the year of Bad Bunny. And while his album Un Verano Sin Ti dominated much of the year after its May 6 release, the boost that it gave to Latin music’s share of the overall market — with the highest growth in percentage year over year of any genre, going from 5.39% in 2021 to 6.33% in 2022, an increase of 28.8% — is not simply a one album, or even one year, phenomenon.
Between 2020 and 2022, Latin music grew 55.29% in album consumption in the U.S., according to Luminate, far outstripping the overall industry’s 21.61%, as well as the growth of the four biggest genres in the U.S. over that time: R&B/hip-hop (12.17%), rock (22.28%), pop (20.64%) and country (19.22%). And Latin isn’t alone: World Music has also made tremendous strides over that time period, growing 47.67% from 2020 through 2022 on the Stateside growth of K-Pop and Afrobeats, among other ex-U.S. genres, and up 25.8% in 2022 over 2021. Both genres have seen over 20% growth in on-demand audio streams dating back to 2019, while the overall industry has grown in that sector in the mid-teens each year during that time.
Those are two of just four genres (of the 15 tracked by Luminate) that grew at a faster rate than the overall music industry in 2022, which increased consumption 9.2% year over year. (The other two were children’s music, at 30.0%, and dance/electronic, at 11.7%; new age grew essentially in line with the business). And it speaks to how significant that growth has been, and could continue to be moving forward as the business becomes increasingly more global.
With 2023 fully underway, here are four more trends to watch this year:
How Big Is a Hit?
Children’s music (1.38%) overtook holiday music (1.26%) as the ninth-biggest genre in the U.S. this year due to the runaway success of Encanto, which helped boost the genre by 30% in consumption year over year (35.5% in on-demand streams). How significant was the effect of that hit? Growth for the genre year over year was 6.7% in 2020, and actually declined -3.7% in 2021, with on-demand streaming dropping 2.8% in each of those years. The growth is almost certainly unsustainable, but it shows the value of a surprise mainstream hit. For a related analog, comedy was the only genre to actually decline year over year, due to the sector coming back down to earth after the huge gains from Bo Burnham’s Inside (The Songs) album in 2021. From 2020 to 2021, overall comedy consumption ballooned 27.3%, with total on-demand streams growing 28.4%; those numbers fell to -11.3% and -5.0% in 2022, as the effect of the album receded.
Major Genres Shrinking in Share
As a statement of fact, year over year the four biggest, most dominant genres in the U.S. all declined in terms of their share of the overall market: R&B/hip-hop (from 27.72% in 2021 to 26.82% in 2022), rock (20.01% in 2021 to 19.95% in 2022), pop (13.05% in 2021 to 12.68% in 2022) and country (8.09% in 2021 to 7.76% in 2022). But there are a few ways of looking at that.
The first is that, when a genre is as dominant as R&B/hip-hop, for example, maintaining the same percentage growth gets harder every year. And the growth is still huge: the top four genres accounted for 67.21% of the market in 2022, even if down slightly from the 68.87% they held in 2021, and just shy of 50% of the gains year over year. And rock and R&B/hip-hop saw the two biggest increases in raw consumption numbers over 2021, with the former claiming 19.37% of the growth in 2022 over the year prior and the latter 17.13% of it.
The other way to look at it is that the market is, slowly but steadily, diversifying. Latin, the fifth-biggest genre in the country, was third in percentage of growth in the market, up 16.38% year over year; less than 1 million units separated its increase from R&B/hip-hop’s in 2022. Pop was fourth (8.67% of industry growth), but world music — the seventh-biggest genre overall — claimed the fifth-highest share of the market’s growth, at 5.53% year over year. And country, which claimed 4.17% of the growth, was run a close race by Dance/Electronic, at 4.14%. Just three years ago, in 2020, Latin made up 4.95% of the overall market and World Music 1.88%. That doesn’t seem like regular fluctuation, but a true growth trend.
R&B/Hip-Hop Report
Over the last few years, there has been an accepted fact of the marketplace: In a streaming world that reflects not just what people are buying, but what people are continuing to stream and listen to, R&B/hip-hop dominates. That is still, unquestionably, the case. But lately there has been some hand-wringing about the slowing growth of the genre and what that could mean for the broader marketplace, a fair question for others to answer.
Here are some facts: R&B/hip-hop is now 26.82% of consumption. It’s been growing consistently — up around 6% per year the last few years — though not as much as the marketplace overall for several years now percentage-wise. And its share of total on-demand streams dropped from 30.11% in 2021 to 28.61% in 2022. In raw numbers it’s still growing massively, though, second only to rock in share of the industry’s total unit growth in 2022. And compared to 2017 — the year that Luminate predecessor Nielsen first declared that R&B/hip-hop had become the biggest genre in the industry — it still claims a higher share of the market. So while it displays a higher variance year to year than some other genres, the sky isn’t falling just yet.
R&B/Hip-Hop Share of Consumption By Year:2017: 24.52%2018: 25.94%2019: 28.62%2020: 29.07%2021: 27.72%2022: 26.82%
Country Streaming Sputters, Rock’s Resilience
Country’s streaming growth is slowing down. After big gains in audio on-demand streaming the past two years (22.1% in 2020 and 16.5% in 2021) as more of its audience began to embrace the format, that figure slipped below the audio streaming growth of the overall industry in 2022, 11.1% vs. 12.2%, respectively. And total on-demand Country streaming (audio plus video) grew at 9.8%, compared to 12.2% for the overall industry. (Yes, overall and audio on-demand streaming grew at the same rate.) That isn’t the end of the world — R&B/hip-hop on-demand audio streaming has grown less than the overall market percentage-wise in the past few years, though its raw numbers are still massive — but it’s worth noting that the growth is slowing year over year after outpacing the market recently, and its percentage of the growth in on-demand streaming in 2022 was just 6.01%, by far the lowest of the five biggest genres. In total consumption, country grew just 4.8%, slightly over half the rate of growth of the overall industry (9.2%), with its share of the market slipping from 8.09% in 2021 to 7.76% in 2022.
It’s notable compared to the fortunes of rock music. For all the “Rock Is Dead” talk, the format is essentially keeping pace with industry trends overall (up 9.0% in consumption, 14.3% in on-demand streams) and actually grew its share of overall on-demand streaming year over year, from 16.30% in 2021 to 16.62% in 2022, while continuing to flat-out dominate in sales (43% of the market). Again, rock was the genre that showed the most growth in 2022 over 2021: at 19.37%, it outpaced R&B/hip-hop (17.13%) and Latin (16.38%) for the biggest share of growth year over year.
Music “as we know it” has been prematurely pronounced dead several times over. The cassette tape, MIDI digital synthesizers, Napster, Auto-Tune and streaming were all received with apocalyptic hysteria. The current existential threat is artificial intelligence (AI), a software leviathan with a voracious appetite for copyrighted works, and a prolific capacity for human-free creative processes. Whether AI will kill the humanity of music remains debatable. What is not up for debate is that AI raises many legal issues. While courts have yet to weigh in, the U.S. Copyright Office has issued instructive decisions and made AI-related copyright issues a 2023 priority.
The proliferation of AI in music
AI in music is not new. Alan Turing, the godfather of computer science, created a simple melody-making machine in 1951. Experimental trombonist and composer George Lewis improvised a live quartet with three Apple II computers in 1984. David Bowie experimented with a digital lyric randomizer in the 90s. Hello, World, the first AI composed pop album, was released in 2018.
Today’s AI is more evolved and exponentially more impactful. Indirect enhancements (personalized playlists, music recommendations, etc.) have given way to direct creation tools. For example, Google’s Magenta wrote a new “Nirvana” song by analyzing the melody, chord changes, guitar riffs and lyrics of the band’s past works. ChatGPT receives text instructions to compose lyrics superior to those that IBM Watson wrote for Alex da Kid in 2016. Authentic Artists leases AI-powered artists-for-hire. MUSICinYOU.ai generates tailored compositions from a 300-question personality test. Bandlab’s Songstarter is an “AI-powered idea generator” capable of creating royalty-free music in seconds. Startup Staccato pitches itself as “an AI Lennon to your McCartney” given its ability to bounce ideas off human songwriters.
Only “sufficient human creative input” supports copyright ownership
The Copyright Act protects “works of authorship” – a concept derived from the U.S. Constitution’s Copyright Clause, which empowers Congress to secure “exclusive rights” for “authors.” Courts have held that authors must be human. Consequently, animals (including the famed monkey selfie) and natural forces (a naturally growing garden) cannot be authors of copyrighted works.
While current legal precedent suggests that AI also cannot “author” copyrighted works, the critical issue is what amount of human creative input or intervention suffices to make AI-generated musical works copyrightable (and by whom)?
U.S. courts have yet to answer this question decisively. The Copyright Office has drawn some basic boundary lines. AI-advocate Steven Thaler filed a copyright application for AI-generated artwork. The Board rejected his applications three times, finding that the artwork was not “created with contribution from a human author” and thus failed to meet the human authorship requirement. (Thaler has since sued.)
Conversely, copyright protection was afforded to David Cope’s 1997 work Classical Music Composed by Computer (and, again, to his 2010 album From Darkness, Light). Cope successfully demonstrated that his works only partially used AI and were the result of sufficient human creative input and intervention. More recently, the Copyright Office granted a first-of-its-kind copyright to a comic book created with the assistance of text-to-image AI Midjourney (though the Copyright Office is now reconsidering its decision).
In the absence of bright line rules for ascertaining how much input or intervention by an AI’s user is needed, each work must be individually evaluated. It is a question of degree. Under traditional principles, the more human involvement, and the more AI is used as a tool (and not as the creator), the stronger the case for copyright protection. A song created with the prompt: “create a song that sounds like The Weeknd” will not suffice. But a copyright application which both: (i) demonstrates that a human controlled the AI and (ii) memorializes the specific human input in the creative process is more likely to succeed.
A word of caution: the Copyright Office has made clear that misrepresenting the use of AI in the music generation process is fraudulent. And although the Copyright Office solely relies on facts stated in applications, both it and future litigants are likely to soon deploy AI-detecting software to verify the extent to which AI was used to generate the musical work.
AI “training” looms as the first major battle ground
Generative AI software (like Magenta) is “trained” by feeding it vast quantities of content – text, lyrics, code, audio, written compositions – and then programming it to use that source material to generate new material. In October 2022, the RIAA shot a warning flare by declaring that AI-based extractors and mixers were infringing its members’ rights by using their music to train their AI models. Those that side with the RIAA argue that AI’s mindboggling ingestion of copyrighted music violates the Copyright Act’s exclusive rights to reproduce and create “derivative works” based upon one or more preexisting works. Because generative AI produces output “based upon” preexisting works (input), copyright owners insist that a license is needed.
On the other hand, AI-advocates argue that the use of such data for training falls within copyright law’s “fair use” exception, claiming that the resulting work is transformative, does not create substantially similar works, and has no material impact on the original work’s market. They contend that the training data has been sufficiently transformed by the AI process to yield musical works beyond the copyright protection of the original works.
These competing views are likely to be tested in the class action lawsuit just filed on behalf of a group of artists against Stability AI, DeviantArt, and Midjourney for allegedly infringing “billions of copyrighted images” in creating AI art. (Getty Images recently filed a comparable lawsuit against Stability AI in the U.K.).
Proving infringement with AI-works
How exactly the AI was trained and operates will be issues in copyright infringement litigations. Proving infringement is a two-step process. The plaintiff must demonstrate that copying occurred; and that the copying is unlawful, because the defendant copied too much of the plaintiff’s protected expression and is, therefore, substantially similar.
The first of these inquiries can be proven by direct evidence of copying or circumstantially by establishing access to a specific, allegedly infringed musical work. With art, there is a Spawning AI software called “Have I Been Trained” which allows users to search through the images used to train AI art generators. While no known current analog exists for music, the technology is likely imminent.
The nature of the AI instructions will also be crucial to showing an awareness of the original work and substantial similarity between the AI-generated music and the allegedly infringed music. Prompts that intentionally draw on copyrighted works (i.e., create a work in “the style of _”) undoubtedly bear on the issue of substantial similarity. The marketplace is pivoting in advance of anticipated rulings: Songmastr has, for example, stopped marketing its ability to create songs based on the styles of Beyonce and Taylor Swift.
AI is evolving faster than the courts can evaluate how laws apply to it. The just-filed art litigation may provide some clarity; however, while in the fog, those creating AI-generated music are well-advised to stay cognizant of the legal risks and guide the artificial music making process with a genuine human touch.
James Sammataro is a partner and Nicholas Saady an associate at Pryor Cashman LLP.
Is there anything more delicious and envy-inducing than poring over a “highest-paid DJs” list? The thought of earning millions by providing people with music to dance to — off a USB stick, no less — comes with its own special degree of fascination.
The truth is, the percentage of upper-echelon DJs annually earning seven-plus figures is tiny, about 1%. The next tier of DJs comes in at about 100 times less than that amount at minimum, according to an established promoter. Indeed, most DJs whose names grace the top half of festival flyers are earning a living wage — but only if they’re sensible.
Most DJs are generally stratified into earning $500/$2,000/$5,000/$10,000 per club gig and between $2,000/$5,000/$10,000/$25,000 per festival gig. Meanwhile, festival headliners can command over $100,000, with multiple factors contributing to this jump.
“At this level, performance fees aren’t always determined as a simple dollar value per show,” says Saleem Amode of Amode Agency regarding festival headliners. “Agents, promoters and artist teams evaluate metrics like touring history, ticket history [and] region exclusivity. Of course, the music and recent content comes into play to determine the estimated value and risk of a fee offer. The costs of putting on the event itself are the large[st] factor in determining the risk for the promoter.”
Such dollar amounts are also just gross earnings, before the DJ has paid their agent, manager, business manager, lawyer and flight and hotel costs — which are increasingly being covered by artists’ fees rather than the promoter. After taxes, a DJ’s net pay is often less than 40% of their fee.
“There is a public misunderstanding of how much money DJs are making,” says Orlando Higginbottom, professionally known as producer Totally Enormous Extinct Dinosaurs. “You can do the math on the back of a postcard. If you’re a DJ who is grossing $20,000 a month, what you’re ending up with is $10,000. No one’s going to turn up their nose at that, but a $120,000 annual salary is not the celebrity lifestyle people think DJs are having. It’s not rich money. It’s not house (in L.A.) money. It’s rent money.”
These earnings also don’t come with health insurance, unemployment insurance, retirement plans, human resources support or even job security. “DJs are CEOs of their own company — even if no one views them that way,” says Higginbottom. As such, the unsexy parts of the business are often left to DJs to set up for themselves — or not.
This situation is not exclusive to DJs, but artists across the board. Steve Braines, who manages producer Maya Jane Coles, shares, “I took over a touring rock artist’s career and he filed for bankruptcy. During that time, he was still trying to buy jewelry and had never bought a house despite the huge amounts previously earned.
“There is a sense sometimes that the money will last forever,” Braines continues, “but it’s such a tiny percentage of touring artists that’s true of. DJs also have that same time period of being hot, and then it decays for many. If you can afford to buy a house, buy one, and also get a pension, just as a teacher, doctor or anyone else would. Ultimately, objectively, it’s a job, and the bank doesn’t care how you make your money.”
Though widespread touring has since resumed, the pandemic brought the instability of the profession into even sharper focus for a lot of DJs, particularly because many weren’t eligible for unemployment. Billboard spoke with several about how they’re working to establish a secure future for themselves — even if/when the money in their chosen field dries up.
Put your money in higher-yield accounts
As a headlining artist who says he’s very prudent with his money, 12th Planet (born John Dadzie) exercises the tried-and-true practice of putting aside 25% of his earnings. This percentage is put into certificates of deposit (CDs), which have a fixed term length that typically falls between three months and five years. Though most of these accounts assess penalties for withdrawing your money before the end of the term, they earn a higher interest rate than a conventional savings account. Other options are money market accounts that pay interest based on the market rate, or bonds, for which the issuer pays back the principal plus interest after a set time period.
“It took me a long time to learn that when your money just sits in the bank, you’re actually losing on it,” says Dadzie. “Once I learned that, I moved everything over to other types of accounts. I’m not doing anything aggressive. … I’d rather post a positive 1% or 2% than a negative risky 10%.”
After taking on a business manager early in his career and a wealth manager soon after, Dadzie began putting his money into individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and 401Ks, which are personal pension accounts. The funds in these types of accounts cannot be touched until maturity, which is usually what would be considered “retirement age.” He also recommends starting a retirement plan early, saying “Not only does that money go to you, but it also goes against taxes paid to the government and can move you from being in the highest tax bracket.”
Keep your overhead low
Jennifer Lee, professionally known as TOKiMONSTA, experienced not just the slowdown of the pandemic, but the slowdown of her entire life after brain surgeries to treat Moyamoya disease in 2016. Lee says keeping her spending in proportion to her earnings was a key factor in weathering these unforeseen occurrences.
“It’s being cognizant of how much money you’re making, and how much money you’re spending on a monthly basis,” she says. “A lot of very successful people spend a lot of money and have massive teams and multiple employees. People who have a high overhead are spending that money even when they’re not touring. My operation is fairly simple with two full-time employees. When I’m 60, I don’t know if I [will] want to, or will be able to, DJ every single weekend. I have to set up my whole lifestyle so I’m comfortable at that age.” (She adds that she’s also put her money in investment portfolios.)
Diversify your financial interests
Brothers Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike, who have topped DJ Mag’s Top 100 DJs list multiple times — have diversified their finances into multiple arenas. Together, they have a company encompassing artist services, booking and management in a joint venture with their own manager, Nick Royaards, and Michiel Beers, the co-founder of Belgium mega-fest Tomorrowland. They also have their Smash the House record label and its various sub-labels, and each have their own clothing line and were early investors in esports and entertainment company FaZe Clan. Vegas’ particular funding focus is on content creation via his production company, which is focused on the development of films, television series, graphic novels and books.
“Most of my investments go to something I have control over,” says Vegas. “When the pandemic started, I was trying so many different things, because I was a bit scared shows weren’t coming back. There are a lot of people with beautiful decks and crazy ideas and promises. You need to be able to filter out what is going to work, and even then, it’s always risky. It’s about surrounding yourself with people who know what they’re doing or making sure you yourself know what you’re doing.”
Pioneering DJ Richie Hawtin famously invested in the electronic digital download store Beatport early on, a move he considers one of his best. Currently, his Plus8 Equity Partners venture capital firm, which he started with partners John Acquaviva and Rishi Patel, has an investment portfolio that includes Splice, Subpac, Landr, Lynq, Rap Tech Studios and other creative entertainment technology disruptors. As he puts it, the venture allows him to “re-invest back into our own culture.”
Barry Ashworth of Dub Pistols has had his share of financial knockbacks over his more than three-decade career. He went from a $1.5 million record deal for the second Dub Pistols album, Six Million Ways To Live and making $25,000 per remix — which he was doing at a clip of three a day — to his accounts being overdrawn.
After a five-year stretch of living gig-to-gig, Ashworth began making wiser moves, including starting up a healthy Dub Pistols merchandise business. This extends beyond conventional clothing and paraphernalia into a range of branded CBD oil, Minirig portable speakers and pale ale. The latter three items have a high sell-through rate and are manufactured, produced and distributed by companies Ashworth has partnered with. They provide him with wholly passive income.
Ashworth also purchased the U.K.’s Mucky Weekender Festival, which is growing under his leadership and is looking to expand into additional events. When he was unable to source a tour bus amidst the pandemic shortages, he purchased a couple to rent out and launched a touring logistics company. Says Ashworth of his various ventures, “It’s taking every little opportunity you see and feeling confident enough to do it.”
Invest in real estate (if you can afford it)
Property is one of the mainstay investments for DJs, as globally, real estate rarely drops in value. Most DJs purchase their own home(s) as soon as they can afford to. Rental property is the next step for those who can extend to that option. Producer Nicole Moudaber stepped into the rental arena back in 2003 when she bought an estate in Ibiza, upgrading it to a villa aimed at weekly rentals.
“It was like a hotel operation,” says Moudaber. “I did that for 10 years in Ibiza and gained an understanding of architecture and property management. I bought a place in Miami, but I panicked and sold it during COVID. I lost my nerve. I’m mourning it. But lesson learned: Never panic when there’s a crash in the market, and that goes for people who invest in stocks as well.”
Hawtin has also invested in a few real estate properties with significant financial rewards, a move he says is “definitely not as sexy or exciting as sitting with engineers dreaming up new creative tech, but definitely safe and secure.”
If DJs have the disposable income, investing in building development projects can have a significant return, particularly if you invest a large sum. This is what Ashworth has done in the UK. “Property developers are building flats, renovating flats. They need money to do it,” he says. “The return has been quite ludicrous.”
Consider self-releasing your music
Like most DJs, Moudaber owns her own record label, In the Mood, as does Ashworth with Cyclone Records, Lee with Young Art Records and Higginbottom with Nice Age. While DJs owning their own record label is a default of the dance music community, the real value is in owning your music.
While many artists find it tempting to sign a big figure recording or publishing deal at the start of their career, for the long game this choice is not always optimal. Higginbottom found this out the hard way when he signed to Universal Music in the early part of his career. His takeaway from his experience is, “I don’t think it’s a good idea to release through a label, unless you do a very, very good deal and you are getting your masters back in five years or something.”
Higginbottom considers his music an investment, and the only way to retain that investment for the long-term is to self-release it. “That,” he says, “is your pension, your money flow and your passive income.”
“There’s loads of money to be made through streaming, but you have to own the masters,” he continues, “Look how rich the record labels are. Look how much money there is out there. Artists just don’t know how to access it. From streaming, you could make a few hundred, a few thousand or $10,000, $20,000 or $30,000 a month. If you sign with a major label, you’re never going to see it. If you sign with an indie on a 50/50 deal, you’ll see it eventually. Eighty-five percent of my income was through touring. When we lost touring for two years during COVID, that royalty income saved my business.”
Set up different LLCs for each aspect of your business
In a further safety move, Higginbottom recommends setting up different LLCs for each section of an artist’s professional activities. For example, one for touring, one for royalties from your own releases, one for income from songwriting for others. This way, if an artist ends up being liable for something that happens during one of their shows, they won’t get cleared out of their entire income — just the touring LLC. Additionally, when one of the LLCs is having a lull, it can be propped up by the others.
“It’s really hard to make enough as a musician to save or invest,” says Lee. I’m always grateful to be in [the music business] for as long as I have, but I’m very aware of the lack of stability that comes with entertainment, and I’ve steered my career in the direction of stability. You never know when the rug can get pulled out from under you.”
TV producer and recording industry executive Roey Hershkovitz was named vp of sound & picture at Universal Music Group (UMG), a newly-created position. In the role, Hershkovitz will lead visual content capture across UMG’s studios, develop new programming and build on the company’s immersive audio efforts. Alongside head of video services Joe McCrossan, he will also develop new strategies to build on the company’s multimedia services and capabilities available to record labels, artists and songwriters. In addition to his vp of sound & picture title, Hershkovitz will also serve as head of West Coast studios, where he will continue to oversee Capitol Studios and its ongoing renovation. He was also appointed to UMG’s audio leadership team to drive innovation and audio quality, including Dolby Atmos Music adoption across a broad array of consumer products. Now based out of Santa Monica, Hershkovitz will report to executive vp of digital studios Christopher Jenkins and senior vp of recording studios & archive management Pat Kraus. Prior to his promotion, Hershkovitz was vp of Capitol Studios & Digital Studios.
Rapper Papoose was named head of hip-hop at TuneCore, where he will lead the Believe-owned company’s artist ambassador program for hip-hop and rap, scouting emerging talents, overseeing artist education and career advice workshops and acting as a brand advisor for new programs and technology launches. He’ll report to CEO Andreea Gleeson. In addition to his new executive role, Papoose also announced the release of his new single, “Making Plays” featuring Jim Jones and Jaquae, which drops Feb. 10. He can be reached at papoose@tunecore.com.
Colton McGee was named senior vp of business and legal affairs at Concord Label Group. Based at the company’s Nashville headquarters, McGee will work with executive vp of business and legal affairs Gregg Goldman as a key member of the business and legal affairs team for Concord’s recorded music division. McGee previously spent 13 years at BBR Music Group in Nashville, handling business and legal affairs for both BBR and BMG (the latter since 2017). He can be reached at colton.mcgee@concord.com.
Warner Chappell Production Music (WCPM) will expand into Brazil with a new team based in São Paulo, headed by Renato Moraes. In his role, Moraes will lead a team focused on building out a local repertoire and work to expand the company’s footprint by servicing the region’s film, TV, radio and advertising clients with WCPM’s catalog. The team will also provide custom music services and work to broaden creative partnerships. Moraes will report to vp of licensing & music creative Sinéad Hartmann and work closely with director of strategic, commercial, film, synch and licensing Flávia Cesar. He joins the company from Music Branding Brazil, where he was head of recordings and publishing. Moraes can be reached at Renato.Moraes@warnerchappellpm.com.
Adam Gardiner was named senior vp of international synch at Concord Music Publishing; he joins the company from Universal Music Group’s creative division, Globe, where he served as head of film & TV. In his new role, Gardiner’s purview will include all music publishing synch activity outside the U.S., with the U.K., Germany and Australia synch teams reporting directly to him. He will also coordinate all of the company’s third-party synch activity. Based in London, he reports to president of international publishing John Minch.
Music scholar and musician Jason King was named dean of the USC Thornton School of Music, effective July 1. He currently serves as chair of the Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music at Tisch School of the Arts, New York University and also serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Popular Music Studies.
Joe Conyers III was named senior advisor to global growth investor Warburg Pincus in their technology group, specifically focusing his efforts on new investment opportunities in music and entertainment companies. Conyers was formerly executive vp and global head of NFT at Crypto.com and chief strategy officer of Downtown Music Holdings; he also co-founded Downtown subsidiary Songtrust. Conyers can be reached at jc@joeconyers.com and his website is joeconyers.com.
Erika Montes was named president at Rostrum Records, where she will lead the company’s growth strategy and oversee frontline label operations. Montes most recently led artist and label relations at SoundCloud, where she served as global vp. She reports to Rostrum founder Benjy Grinberg and can be reached at em@rostrumrecords.com.
Artist manager Andy Robinson and cross asset speculator Sean Stockdale launched Interstellar Music Services, a rights management company that “will primarily be made available to those qualifying artists and songwriters who wish to retain full control of their recordings and compositions,” according to a press release. The company will work to maximize the collection of royalties via a suite of services that includes digital distribution, sync and brand partnerships, metadata cleaning, neighboring rights, publishing administration, DSP repitching and detailed analysis and reporting. Joining Interstellar at launch are David Wille and Sarah Bargiela, who join as global head of sync and brand partnerships and head of copyright and royalties, respectively. Robinson formerly launched Interstellar Music and Interstellar Publishing, which informed the establishment of Interstellar Music Services; Stockdale has 13 years of experience in asset management, with a particular expertise in saber metrics. Wille most recently served as senior vp at Kobalt Music Publishing, while Bargiela was senior income tracking manager at BMG Rights Management.
Ru Ping Gan was named vp of digital, Asia Pacific at Warner Chappell Music, where she will oversee Warner Chappell Music Asia Pacific’s digital strategy and commercial operations while working closely with the global digital and WCM Asia leadership team to help shape international policies that support local songwriters. She will also be tasked with driving digital strategic planning initiatives. Gan, who was most recently vp of revenue and deal strategy, joined WCM Asia Pacific in 2013.
Butch Spyridon, longtime head of the Nashville Convention & Visitors Corp (NCVC) who has served as president and CEO since 2003, will retire from the organization on June 30, 2023, following 32 years as its top executive. He’ll be succeeded by current president Deana Ivey, who will be promoted to president and CEO effective July 1, 2023. On that date, Spyridon will transition into a role as a strategic consultant to the NCVC under a two-year contract that will see him recruiting major global events to the city, including the Rugby World Cup and, if an enclosed stadium is approved, the Super Bowl.
Patra Sinner was named general counsel at Symphonic Distribution, where she will advise the company’s senior management team on both internal and external legal needs and manage and negotiate partner contracts including DSPs, industry organizations and contractors, as well as record labels, ambassadors and artists. Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Sinner has been in private practice for nearly 20 years and is also the co-founder of Nashville-based artist management, distribution and label services company Vista 22. She can be reached at patra@symdistro.com.
Meike Nolte was appointed business development manager for b:electronic, the dance & electronic division of Believe. Reporting to b:electronic global director Leigh Morgan, Nolte will be tasked with defining and executing the sourcing and acquisitions strategy for labels and artists within the electronic division. She most recently led Beatport’s artist services department.
Dave Felipe was named director of publicity at Zach Farnum‘s 117 Entertainment, where he will oversee all publicity initiatives for 117’s roster. He was most recently public relations manager for the Mechanical Licensing Collective (the MLC). Felipe can be reached at Dave@117group.com.
Ra-Fael Blanco was promoted to senior vp of media relations & communications for Universal/Virgin Music’s SRG-ILS Group; he was previously vp of media relations. Blanco will continue overseeing PR and media efforts for SRG-ILS clients including Chaka Khan, Brian McKnight and Erica Campbell, among others. He reports to general manager Michael Cusanelli and founder/CEO Claude Villani. Blanco can be reached at Ra-Fael@2rsentandmediapr.com.
Austin-based publicist Trey Hicks launched his own PR agency, Painting Pictures. Joining Hicks in the new venture is Allison Winkler. Hicks previously worked as an account director at Giant Noise and founded Trey Hicks PR. He can be reached at trey@paintingpictures.co.
Lauren Branson joined River House Artists as vp of publicity, where she will develop and execute PR strategies for the company’s roster. She reports to founder and CEO Lynn Oliver-Cline and vp and gm Zebb Luster. Branson joins from BMI, where she served as senior director of media relations for eight years. She can be reached at lauren@riverhouseartists.com.
Amber Morris was hired as global account director – TikTok at Songtradr. In the role, Morris will build and maintain the company’s relationship with TikTok, working with their team to expand the video-sharing platform’s partnership with Songtradr.
When does a soundalike song sound a little too much alike?
Rick Astley is suing Yung Gravy over the rapper’s breakout 2022 hit that heavily borrowed from the singer’s iconic “Never Gonna Give You Up,” alleging that the new track — an interpolation that sounded a whole lot like an outright sample — broke the law by impersonating Astley’s voice.
In a lawsuit filed Thursday (Jan. 26) in Los Angeles court, Astley claims that Gravy’s “Betty (Get Money),” which reached No. 30 on the Hot 100 last year, violated the singer’s so-called right of publicity because it closely mimicked the distinctive voice Astley used in the chart-topping 1987 hit.
“In an effort to capitalize off of the immense popularity and goodwill of Mr. Astley, defendants … conspired to include a deliberate and nearly indistinguishable imitation of Mr. Astley’s voice throughout the song,” Astley’s lawyers wrote. “The public could not tell the difference. The imitation of Mr. Astley’s voice was so successful the public believed it was actually Mr. Astley singing.”
Pulling heavily from a song that boomed in recent years thanks to “Rickroll” internet memes, “Betty” was a major hit for Yung Gravy. But it often drew attention largely for its connections to Astley; the New York Times called it “a real-life rickroll that functioned as a comedy song, a TikTok trend and a nostalgia trip all at once.”
In their new lawsuit, Astley’s lawyers said the singer was “extremely protective over his name, image, and likeness,” meaning the unauthorized use of the soundalike voice had caused him “immense damage.”
Representatives for Gravy (real name Matthew Hauri) and Universal Music Group’s Republic Records (also named in the lawsuit as the label that released “Betty”) did not immediately return a request for comment.
Thursday’s new lawsuit raises big questions about the methods used in the music industry to legally borrow from older songs, an ever more popular tactic in a nostalgia-heavy age.
When they created “Betty,” Gravy and his team allegedly cleared the underlying musical composition to “Give You Up.” That gave them the legal right to recreate music and lyrics from the original in their new track — a process known as “interpolating.”
But the lawsuit says Gravy and his team weren’t able to secure a license to use the actual sound recording of the famous track — the better-known process of “sampling.” That would mean they didn’t have any right to directly copy the exact sounds, including Astley’s voice.
Instead, Astley says they hired Popnick (real name Nick Seeley) to imitate Astley’s “signature voice” on the track. At one point, the lawsuit quotes from an Instagram video in which Popnick said he wanted the song to “sound identical” to Astley voice.
By doing so without permission, the lawsuit claims that Gravy and Popnick violated Astley’s right of publicity — the legal right to control how your name, image or likeness is commercially exploited by others.
“A license to use the original underlying musical composition does not authorize the stealing of the artist’s voice in the original recording,” Astley’s lawyers wrote. “So, instead, they resorted to theft of Mr. Astley’s voice without a license and without agreement.”
Astley’s allegations rely heavily on a 1988 federal court ruling, in which Bette Midler successfully sued the Ford Motor Co. for violating her right of publicity by running a series of commercials featuring a Midler impersonator. In that case, the court sided with Midler even though Ford had obtained a license to the underlying song.
The new lawsuit was filed by Richard Busch, a prominent music litigator best known for winning the blockbuster copyright case over “Blurred Lines.” In a statement to Billboard, Busch said: “Mr. Astley owns his voice. California law is clear since the Bette Midler case more than 30 years ago that nobody has the right to imitate or use it without his permission.”
In addition to violating Astley’s right of publicity, the lawsuit also accuses Gravy of violating federal trademark law by making false statements that made it appear that the singer had endorsed the new song. In an interview with Billboard, Gravy said he had spoken with Astley and that the singer had approved of the new song — that he “fucks with the song.”
“These statements were all false,” Astley wrote in his lawsuit.
In December, Barclays Center and BSE Global chief executive Sam Zussman arranged a meeting with officials at SeatGeek and offered the ticketing company an ultimatum: Either terminate the seven-year contract they signed with his predecessor, John Abbamondi, the year before, or else Zussman would publicize SeatGeek’s tech failures as they happened, multiple sources tell Billboard.
SeatGeek quietly complied and the ticketing company’s third NBA contract would come to an end, losing one of New York’s most popular venues. Starting this month, all new concerts at the arena are now ticketed by the team’s previous ticketing provider, Live Nation’s Ticketmaster — the world’s biggest ticketing service — under a deal term that runs for three to five years, according to sources familiar with the situation.
“The Barclays Center team met with our execs to figure out a way to amend the contract which would offer us the ability to continue ticketing the teams, but not third party events,” a SeatGeek spokesperson told Billboard in a statement. “Several months later we offered Barclays the opportunity to simply end the agreement, in consultation with our other clients, on good terms.”
A separate statement from Barclays Center confirmed that BSE Global and SeatGeek’s partnership would “wind down” beginning with the New York Liberty’s 2023 season in May. “SeatGeek provided our fans with a first-class gameday ticketing experience,” the statement reads, “and we’re appreciative of the time and energy they put into our work together.”
“They Just Aren’t Designed for High-Demand Ticket Sales”
A Barclays Center representative would not comment on the reason behind the arena’s dramatic turn face, or why Zussman had been frustrated with SeatGeek’s fulfillment of its contract — most ticketing agreements have clearly defined “service level agreements” governing response expediency and site uptime — but an incident from October 2021 provides insight into the issues SeatGeek may have been struggling to rectify.
Booking agents Jared Arfa and Marsha Vlasic at Artist Group International whose agency represents New York indie rock icons The Strokes, claim SeatGeek mishandled an October 2021 presale that cost the group several hundred thousand dollars. That concert, originally scheduled for Dec. 31, 2021, was postponed to April 2022 due to concerns over the omicron COVID-19 variant and ended up selling 13,548 tickets and grossing $1.57 million. That total was 2,000 tickets and $400,000 less than the band’s 2019 New Year’s Eve show at Barclays Center, which Arfa and Vlasic blame on SeatGeek’s user interface— not The Strokes’ popularity.
“They just aren’t designed for high-demand ticket sales, like concerts,” says Arfa, who describes SeatGeek as “a secondary ticketing company that dabbles in primary ticket sales” and struggled during large sales. “There’s things that we have become accustomed to in the music business that SeatGeek can’t do that as well.”
By contrast, says one prominent Brooklyn concert promoter familiar with both ticketing systems, “Ticketmaster has a ton of marketing power and reach in New York” through its huge email lists, search engine optimization and decades of work in the city. “For better or worse,” the booker adds, “Ticketmaster sells the most tickets in New York hands down.”
This wasn’t a one-time instance, either. Sources tell Billboard that concert promoters S2BN booked and then cancelled a Genesis 2022 tour date for Barclays Center due to issues with SeatGeek. The show, which was to be a surprise fourth New York date of the band’s Last Domino run (Genesis played two nights at Madison Square Garden and one at UBS Arena in Belmont), suffered from technical issues after going on sale and never came close to hitting the promoter’s sales goals.
The SeatGeek Deal Points
SeatGeek officials dispute the claims about problems with their system, telling Billboard in a lengthy statement, “Being the fastest growing tech company and a newer entrant to the primary ticketing space, SeatGeek is unencumbered by legacy technology, historical relationships, and outdated biases, allowing us to invest where the most impact can be felt.”
“In the last twelve months,” SeatGeek’s statement continues, “we’ve bolstered our entertainment team with key hires and have completely revamped our entertainment product offering, including making a number of fan-friendly strides in how we handle onsales, from utilizing state-of-the-art 3D view-from-seat imagery to providing ‘similar seat’ recommendations when multiple customers are vying for the same inventory.” The changes have resulted in “resounding appreciation from both AEG and Live Nation’s teams.”
Abbamondi signed the SeatGeek deal in 2021 with a $10 million signing package, sources say, that included cash, savings on the fees SeatGeek charged and a lucrative sponsorship agreement. The contract was seen as a means of helping reduce owner and Alibaba co-founder Joe Tsai’s $50 million to $100 million annual losses operating the team and arena since he bought out majority owner Mikhail Prokhorov in 2019. Just seven months later, however, Tsai agreed to accept Abbamondi’s resignation, despite the executive signing a record number of sponsorship agreements for the Nets that brought in an additional $30 million in annual revenue.
For SeatGeek, one of the largest ticket resale services in North America, the Barclays Center deal marked a major win in the company’s move from secondary ticketing into the primary, direct-to-consumer ticket business. Partnering with venues for primary ticketing services also drives significant traffic to SeatGeek’s secondary marketplace. That’s because ticket buyers don’t generally know if they are buying tickets from the team or from a reseller, since all primary and secondary tickets are listed together without any differentiation. The company’s other clients include the NBA’s New Orleans Pelicans and Cleveland Cavaliers, the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys and Arizona Cardinals, most of Major League Soccer and a growing number of Broadway theaters due to an alliance with Shubert Tickets.
Ticketmaster Regains Control
Ticketmaster has been under scrutiny this week, following a high-profile hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, examining competition in the ticketing industry and the company’s disastrous Nov. 15 ticket sale for Taylor Swift’s record-breaking The Eras tour. SeatGeek chief executive Jack Groetzinger testified during the hearing that Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s 2010 merger should be unwound due to a monopolistic behavior, saying it “it stifles competition completely.” (He was not, however, asked about his company’s own outages selling tickets to five of the concert dates for which the company has exclusive deals — including one reported instance where it charged a woman’s credit 14 times for $9,000 in total.) With Barclays Center’s move back to Ticketmaster, and the opening of the UBS Arena in late 2021, Ticketmaster now tickets all four of New York’s major arenas.
Barclays Center’s switch is likely to be examined by the Department of Justice, which monitors Ticketmaster as part of a 13-year-old consent decree dating back to Live Nation’s 2010 merger with Ticketmaster. One area of inquiry will likely be the drop in the number of concerts brought to Barclays Center in 2022, compared to 2019, the last full year of concerts prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Six months after signing with SeatGeek, Barclays Center saw the number of especial events and concerts at the building drop 13% from 2019 to 2022. The number of Live Nation concerts at the building fell 23% compared while the revenue generated from those Live Nation 2022 shows — $14.6 million — was less than half of the $31 million Live Nation concerts generated at Barclays Center in 2019.
The precipitous drop in Live Nation content, if done to retaliate against the venue for signing with Ticketmaster, could be a serious violation of the consent decree and could be grounds for challenging the merger in court.
Billboard found that other major buildings experienced similar fluctuations, though, including Madison Square Garden, which saw its total show count from 2019 to 2022 drop 11%. Revenue from Live Nation touring shows dropped 20% during that same period, while the number of touring shows brought to the arena was only down 2%. The 02 Arena in London, Scotiabank Arena in Toronto and FTX Arena in Miami each also experienced double-digit event night declines at their venues in 2022 compared to 2019.
The arena shows that Live Nation did bring to Barclays Center were some of the company’s most popular tours, according to Boxscore data, including Kendrick Lamar ($3.7 million gross), My Chemical Romance ($4.4 million gross) and Arcade Fire ($1.3 million gross). Barclays Center was also likely impacted by the opening of the OVG-managed UBS Arena, which booked $50 million in shows in 2022. Often the opening of a new venue can temporarily affect older venues as touring shows line up to be among the first to play the new facility. Barclays Center was able to make up for much of the loss caused by the decrease in Live Nation shows with higher grossing events from other promoters. By doing so, executives were able to minimize the venue’s drop in revenue from 2022 to 2019 to a difference of only $2 million, according to Boxscore data. Among those were Elton John’s March 1-2 concerts that generated $4.9 million in sales and Tame Impala’s March 14-15 shows that generated $1.9 million in sales, both promoted by AEG Presents. As well, Bad Bunny’s March 19-20 dates from Latin promoter Henry Cardenas generated more than $7.9 million in sales.
Looking ahead to 2023, Barclays Center already has three of the year’s biggest shows on the books – Madonna, as well as Blink-182 and Bruce Springsteen. Blink and Springsteen are both Live Nation tours booked at the venue prior to the switch back to Ticketmaster.
With all the many fan theories bouncing around the internet in the weeks since Miley Cyrus released her Billboard Hot 100-topping new single “Flowers,” a particular amount of attention has been paid to its relationship to Bruno Mars‘ own No. 1 hit from a decade earlier, the torch song ballad “When I Was Your Man.”
Countless fans have pointed out the lyrical similarities between the two songs — particularly their respective choruses — with “Flowers” echoing many of Mars’ regretful sentiments from an opposing, unmoved perspective. (For example, Mars laments on “Your Man,” “I should’ve bought you flowers… take you to every party, ’cause all you wanted to dance,” while Cyrus protests on “Flowers,” “I can buy myself flowers… I can take myself dancing.”) Speculation behind the extended reference has centered around the song being a favorite of Liam Hemsworth’s, furthering the idea of the song as a kiss-off to Cyrus’ real-life ex. The buzz over the two songs was even enough to give “Your Man” a nearly 20% bump in weekly streams in the frame following the release of Cyrus’ new single.
With the relationship between the two songs appearing obvious to fans, many have wondered over social media whether Mars or “Your Man” co-writers Andrew Wyatt, Philip Lawrence and Ari Levine deserve writing credits on “Flowers.” To a degree, this sort of thing — offering writing credits to obvious sources of musical inspiration — has become common practice in new songs by popular artists, even if a direct sample is not present and the use of an interpolation is an arguable matter of interpretation. Well-publicized cases of that phenomenon include Olivia Rodrigo adding Paramore’s Hayley Williams and Josh Farro to the credits of her “Good 4 U” due to the song’s musical similarities to their “Misery Business,” and Beyoncé including “Show Me Love” scribes Fred McFarlane and Allen George in the credits to her “Break My Soul” due to some overlapping sonic elements with the Robin S. smash.
The case of “Flowers” and “When I Was Your Man” is a little different, though. Those previously mentioned examples were mostly based around sonic similarities — melodic, rhythmic and textural — which were close enough in nature that a case could have been made that the original’s copyright was infringed upon. However, not only are there no direct samples or obvious interpolations between “Flowers” and “Your Man,” there are no major sonic overlaps either — no obvious shared melodies or rhythms, no major similarities in production textures. When Cyrus sings “I can buy myself flowers,” for instance, she does so in a cadence and melody of her own, without any significant similarity to how Mars sang “I should’ve bought you flowers.”
The only obvious similarities, then, are in the songs’ lyrics — which are not identical, but do share elements and ideas — and merely using some of the same words as an older song is not considered grounds for infringement.
“This is great fodder for fan theories, but lawyers should have nothing to do with it,” says Joseph Fishman, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School in Nashville and an expert in music law. “There are no songwriter credits for the ‘When I Was Your Man’ writers because no license should be necessary.”
Cyrus’ arguable use of Mars’ lyrics as a reference point for her own expression is certainly not without precedent, with the “answer song” serving as a longtime staple of popular music. Famous examples include any number of responses (The Miracles’ “I Got a Job,” The Heartbeats’ “I Found a Job”) to The Silhouettes’ ’50s doo-wop staple “Get a Job,” Lynyrd Skynyrd’s rejoinder to Neil Young’s “Southern Man” in their ’70s southern rock classic “Sweet Home Alabama” (“I hope Neil Young will remember/ Southern man don’t need him around anyhow”) and countless rap diss records dating back to the ongoing “Roxanne Wars” of the mid-’80s, when male rap group U.T.F.O. and female rappers Roxanne Shanté and The Real Roxanne (among others) all traded barbs with new singles. While many of these singles included lyrical references to their predecessors, most did not include additional writing credits for those songs’ performers.
“Lyrically, sure, there’s enough similarity to make listeners think that ‘Flowers’ is deliberately responding to the earlier song,” Fishman offers. “But even if we assume that’s true, so what? Using one song to issue a retort to an earlier song is not, by itself, infringement. John Mayer and Taylor Swift don’t need to cross-license anything when they write songs at each other.”
Does all this mean that there’s no chance of Mars and his co-writers eventually being added as co-writers to the “Flowers” credits? Not necessarily: Whether or not Cyrus is protected legally from legal recourse from the “Your Man” writers, she may ultimately decide to add them anyway as an act of goodwill and out of a desire to avoid further conflict, particularly with all the media attention the similarity between the songs has received. It’s not uncommon for additional songwriting credits to be added to a song after its initial release — as was the case with “Good 4 U” in 2021 — often following a period of negotiations between the concerned parties. But if the names of Mars and his co-writers stay absent in the credits, Cyrus is not likely to have any legal responsibility to give them their “Flowers” there.
Reservoir Media has purchased the catalog of Bronx-born talent Dion Francis DiMucci, better known as Dion. The deal includes his publishing catalog and future works as well as synchronization rights to his master recordings.
Best known for releasing defining, R&B-infused rock in the 1950s and ’60s, Dion’s catalog includes “Runaround Sue,” “The Wanderer,” “Ruby Baby” and “Dream Lover,” which he released with his band Dion and the Belmonts. Over the course of his career, he has accrued 11 top 10 Billboard Hot 100 hits and was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1989 and the Grammy Hall of Fame in 2002.
Despite his many decades of success, Dion continues to tour and release music today. In 2021, he released the album Stomping Ground featuring Eric Clapton, Peter Frampton, Bruce Springsteen, Mark Knopfler and more.
Dion’s songs have continued to permeate pop culture, particularly via their placement in films and TV shows, including Diner, Peggy Sue Got Married, Little Big League, The Sopranos, Behind Enemy Lines, The West Wing, The Wire and Ozark. Additionally, his life and songbook inspired the creation of The Wanderer, a musical that had a successful pre-Broadway run at Paper Mill Playhouse in April 2022.
“I am most pleased to enter into this great new relationship with Reservoir,” Dion said in a statement. “I know how much the Reservoir team appreciates my work, and I am looking forward to some exciting times ahead with them. I want to thank the entire Reservoir team for helping to make it happen, particularly Rell Lafargue, Jonathan Sturges and Faith Newman. I also want to thank Marvin Katz, my attorney, who introduced me to Reservoir and represented me in the transaction.”
Reservoir’s executive vp of A&R and catalog development, Faith Newman, added, “Dion is a pillar of early rock and roll music and wrote and recorded songs that are universally loved and recognized. He continues to make music with and inspire the genre’s biggest names today. It’s an honor to support both his evergreen catalog and future hits.”