private equity
Private equity’s involvement in the active market for music catalogs continues to be a sore subject at one of America’s finest literary outlets.
“There are vested interests now that don’t want new music to flourish,” music historian Ted Gioia told The Atlantic. “The private-equity funds just want you to listen to the same songs over and over again, because they own them.” A similar argument — or warning — came last year from The New York Times, which bemoaned that “private equity is destroying our music ecosystem” and “gobbling up the rights for old hits and pumping them back into the present.” Gioia made the same argument in 2022 at his Substack publication, The Honest Broker, which The Atlantic later republished.
Not only are these big investors contributing to old music’s dominance, the arguments go, but record companies’ dedication to the past is hurting the music of the present — both in terms of quality and its share of listening on streaming platforms. Record labels “don’t spend any money on research and development to revitalize their business, although every other industry looks to innovation for growth and consumer excitement,” Gioia dubiously wrote in 2022.
Okay, so private equity has a bad reputation — sometimes deservedly so — for its involvement in unbridled capitalism. Think of the infamous leveraged buy-out, in which investors borrow money to acquire an underperforming company. The buyer inevitably makes drastic changes, often including mass layoffs and selling off subsidiaries. The company may be resuscitated. But if the endeavor fails, it may also go bankrupt (see iHeartMedia) or be sold for parts by the creditors (see EMI Music).
But blaming private equity for the current state of music — whatever it might be, but I’ll get to that below — shows a misunderstanding of institutional investments in music assets. Private equity firms aren’t interested in making their purchases popular — they invest in catalogs that never stopped being popular. The rise of streaming platforms made music an attractive asset class because the royalties became more predictable, and that evergreen nature of desirable catalogs fits into institutional investors’ desire for steady, low-risk returns. It’s true that new releases account for a minority of on-demand music streams. In 2024, the share of catalog — releases more than 18 months old — stood at 73.3% of on-demand audio streams, according to Luminate. That was up from 66.4% in 2020.
But, as Billboard noted in 2022, the rise in catalog’s share of streaming can be attributed to “shallow catalog” rather than legitimate oldies. Shallow catalog is relatively young music that has aged out of the current category but, with the help of streaming platforms’ playlists, remains relevant far longer than radio hits of decades past.
According to Luminate’s 2024 recap, nearly half — 49.6% — of U.S. on-demand audio streams were songs released in the 2020s, and about 90% of streams came from songs released this century, the same percentage as when Billboard ran the numbers three years ago.
To believe that old catalog is crowding out new releases, you’d have to think that the major labels’ partnerships with private equity have infected their desire to develop and break new hits. In 2024, Universal Music Group invested in Chord Music Partners, which was co-founded by Dundee Partners and KKR (the latter exited Chord last year). This year, Warner Music Group bought a majority stake in Tempo Music, while founder Providence Equity Partners retains a minority stake.
If these owners of music portfolios are trying to sabotage young artists, they’re doing a lousy job. The old catalogs prized by private equity-backed investors — music from the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s — accounted for just 5.7% of streams in 2024. That’s roughly 1 in 19 streams coming from music that originated before the Gulf War.
To say that old classics crowd out new music assumes the music business is a zero-sum game with an equal number of winners and losers. It’s not. An opportunity won by an old song doesn’t necessarily equate to a loss for a younger song. A Post Malone track might work fine for an action scene in a Vietnam War-era film, but the director is going to prefer Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Run Through the Jungle” almost every time.
Catalog valuation expert Citrin Cooperman recently ran across an example that shows music’s value isn’t finite. Between 2022 and 2024, after an older generation started streaming music during the pandemic, catalogs from the ‘80s outperformed music from other decades. But the surge in ‘80s music “has not crowded out newer music,” says Citrin’s Barry Massarsky. “It’s just added more value to the supply of music on streaming.”
The touring business offers more proof that young artists aren’t being hamstrung by their predecessors. Billboard Boxscore’s top tours of 2024 includes numerous newcomers whose careers took off after private equity fell in love with music. The No. 3 artist on the list, Zach Bryan, released his first major label album in 2022. Bad Bunny, who finished at No. 9, released his breakthrough album, YHLQMDLG, in 2020. Elsewhere in the Top 40 are several relatively young artists, including Luke Combs (No. 11), Karol G (No. 12), Travis Scott (No. 13) and Olivia Rodrigo (No. 14).
The top tours list does feature legacy acts that have — or easily could — sell their catalogs for large sums, such as Coldplay (No. 1), Bruce Springsteen (No. 5), The Rolling Stones (No. 6) and U2 (No. 7). But there’s also Noah Kahan (No. 29), who broke just three years ago, and K-pop group SEVENTEEN (No. 31), who didn’t land on a U.S. album chart until 2022.
But what about claims that the quality of today’s pop music is lacking? Since I’m not the best person to make qualitative statements about the state of pop music, I talked to some Billboard co-workers who follow trends, interview artists, review concerts and generally have their fingers on pop music’s pulse. They gave me sober assessments of current music that contrasts with The Atlantic’s naysaying.
One reason today’s pop music could seem suffocated by the past is because listening has become personalized and fractured. Numerous co-workers point out that radio- and MTV-driven hits have been replaced by countless niches and sub-genres. Dig deep enough and you’ll find innovative and meaningful music that isn’t surfaced by TikTok and Spotify algorithms.
Catalog’s apparent dominance could also be the result of newer ways to measure popularity. “Streaming has made catalog success stories more visible,” says Billboard’s Jason Lipshutz. “We can see how long the classic Christmas singles linger around the top of streaming playlists every holiday season or hear The Neighbourhood’s ‘Sweater Weather’ soundtrack more TikTok clips with every new autumn.”
And as Billboard’s Andrew Unterberger notes, the revival of old songs didn’t start in either the private equity or TikTok-streaming eras. The Everly Brothers’ 1965 hit “Unchained Melody” re-entered the Hot 100 chart due to its inclusion in the 1990 motion picture Ghost. In 1992, the movie Wayne’s World breathed new life into Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody.” The Dirty Dancing soundtrack, filled with songs from the early ‘60s, was a huge success in 1987. People have always relived the past — especially on radio — but now it’s more obvious.
Maybe the quality of today’s music isn’t a problem in the first place. “In the last 18 months or so, I think we’re actually in the healthiest time for pop music of the last decade — definitely of the 2020s,” says Unterberger. Since the pandemic, which Unterberger believes coincided with a drought in future superstars, artists such as Chappell Roan, Sabrina Carpenter, Kahan and Bryan became hitmakers and arena-fillers without following traditional industry blueprints. “People like that are saying something a little different or saying something a little bit more specific to their times,” he says.
There’s some evidence that pop music was especially potent in 2024. MIDiA Research noted last week that from 2016 to 2023, the top tracks in the U.K. had a decreasing share of total audio streams, with the top 10’s share falling from 2.0% in 2016 to 0.7% in 2023 while the top 100 dropped from 10.3% to 3.7%. But both figures reversed course in 2024: the top 10 inched up to 0.8% and the top 100 rose slightly to 3.8%. What’s behind the increase? MIDiA attributes it to a particularly notable year for superstar releases (Taylor Swift, Beyonce) but also “a new class of superstars” (Carpenter, Roan, Gracie Abrams) and an A&R process that puts developing stars over signing TikTok viral hits.
It’s not a stretch to say today’s pop music isn’t as deep as, say, Joni Mitchell’s “Big Yellow Taxi.” The opening line, “They paved paradise, put up a parking lot,” provides more social commentary than the average pop song. But maybe critics like Gioia are expecting too much from stars of the current era. Billboard’s Lyndsey Havens notes that artists seem unwilling or uninterested in commenting on potentially divisive issues and are instead focusing on relationships rather than cultural or political commentary. “Sabrina Carpenter’s ‘Espresso’ is catchy, and it was obviously a huge hit, but it’s not saying anything,” she says.
That’s not private equity’s fault, though. That’s the era we live in. People don’t get their politics from musicians the way they did when the U.S. had only three national TV networks and people received their news from one or two local papers. In the internet age, politics and cultural issues permeate everything. Infusing controversial themes into music is like talking politics during Thanksgiving dinner — somebody is likely to feel alienated. Popular artists don’t want to divide people. At the end of the day, says Havens, pop songs “are doing their job.” Maybe the best lesson here is not to over-romanticize the past. The classic catalog sales that grab headlines don’t necessarily represent the most popular music of their day. “Big Yellow Taxi” — which Mitchell has not sold, by the way — has become a timeless classic, but was less popular than dozens of other tracks while reaching No. 67 on the Hot 100 in 1970 and No. 24 in 1975. “Even at the most innovative moments in pop music history,” says Unterberger, “there was still dreck on the charts.” Additional reporting by Liz Dilts Marshall.
A Blackstone-led group of investors is buying a majority stake in Citrin Cooperman, which owns one of music’s most important valuation firms. The Financial Times has reported that this deal gives the target an enterprise value of $2 billion. As part of the transaction, Blackstone is acquiring New Mountain Capital’s stake in the firm.
As the music industry’s catalog market grew red hot over the last decade, Citrin Cooperman has become a leading expert, helping buyers and sellers determine the value of musical IP. Its Music Economics and Valuation Services practice is co-led and founded by Nari Matsuura. It is also co-led by Barry Massarsky, who joined the firm after it acquired his own company, Massarsky Consulting, in 2022. The team’s many clients include power players like Hipgnosis Songs Fund, Primary Wave and Reservoir Media, and it has reportedly overseen roughly 750 catalog valuations worth more than $15.5 billion between 2021 and 2022 alone.
But the firm does far more than just music catalog valuations. Founded in 1979, Citrin Cooperman is a trusted advisor to more than 15,000 clients globally through various tax advisory and accounting services.
Trending on Billboard
In late 2023, Citrin Cooperman was involved in a controversy surrounding its client, Hipgnosis Songs Fund. At the time, Hipgnosis announced that it would cancel a planned quarterly dividend payment to shareholders, due to a decision it said was made by Citrin Cooperman to reduce its expectations of retroactive payments from the Copyright Royalty Board’s Phonorecords III ruling by more than 50%, which it called an “industry-wide” issue. Billboard spoke to other catalog owners at the time who disputed the claim that this was “industry-wide,” saying there had been no recent updates regarding Phono III and that it seemed like a situation unique to Hipgnosis and Citrin Cooperman.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is serving as financial adviser to Blackstone in the transaction, while Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP are serving as its legal advisers. Guggenheim Securities, LLC is serving as lead financial advisor to New Mountain and Citrin Cooperman, with Koltin Consulting Group serving as an additional financial adviser to both parties. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Zukerman Gore Brandeis & Crossman, LLP, and Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP are serving as legal advisers to New Mountain and Citrin Cooperman.
Alan Badey, CEO of Citrin Cooperman, said of the deal, “We are excited to have reached an agreement for Blackstone to invest in Citrin Cooperman as we enter our next chapter of growth. Blackstone will help us make additional investments in expanded service offerings and technology as we deliver on our continued commitment to best-in-class firm culture and providing an exceptional client experience. We thank New Mountain for their years of partnership in helping to build and support our business.”
Eli Nagler, a senior managing director at Blackstone, and Kelly Wannop, a managing director at Blackstone, said, “The Citrin Cooperman partners and staff have done an exceptional job making the firm a leader through an unwavering commitment to excellence and client service. We are excited to invest in the business to help it continue to provide the highest quality offerings moving forward.”
Andre Moura and Nikhil Devulapalli, managing directors at New Mountain, added, “We are proud of our successful partnership with Citrin Cooperman, and we thank the management team, partners and staff of Citrin Cooperman for all we have accomplished together over the last three years. We look forward to seeing Citrin Cooperman continue to thrive for the benefit of all its clients and stakeholders.”
Chicago-based private equity firm Flexpoint Ford said on Tuesday that it invested $165 million in Create Music Group in a funding round that a source said values Create as worth $1 billion. Create plans to use the money to scale operations, expand services and fund acquisitions, said CEO & founder Jonathan Strauss. “Flexpoint’s investment will […]
Let me start this column the way I ended the last one: Private equity isn’t destroying the music business. But it’s worth wondering: How will so much outside investment change the way the music industry works?
Obviously, we’re going to see more documentaries, Broadway shows and box sets, both to make money and to promote catalogs. But will this lead to significant changes to royalty distribution or the industry’s balance of power? And is there even a small chance of what might be called a subprime publishing meltdown?
As Cyndi Lauper sang, though, money changes everything — and that was before her recent rights sale. So I spoke with a half dozen serious players — music publishers and private-equity-backed catalog buyers of rights, plus lawyers and consultants who have been working on these deals since investment started flooding into the music business at the end of the 2010s, about how these new players are changing the business. Any new investment sector will have successes and failures — a new report from Shot Tower Capital says Hipgnosis Songs Fund overstated its revenue and overpaid for catalogs, although Hipgnosis has said it disputes this — but what does all of this mean for music in the long term?
Trending on Billboard
One of the few points of agreement is that this has been great for creators so far, especially songwriters. These deals involve creators who are already making money, but the ability to sell their catalogs lets them replace a steady stream of revenue with a one-time cash infusion — it’s “allowed artists the ability to have more liquidity opportunities,” according to one buyer. This is helpful if they need cash, want to diversify their assets, or have to think about estate planning. The emergence of outside buyers has also spurred traditional music companies to buy more publishing assets, especially in cases where they already own related rights, for reasons that can be either strategic (“we can bundle rights”) or defensive (“we can monetize this without interference”). That competition implies that prices will rise, which is good for creators.
It also means that potential investors will bid for a wider range of catalogs, including more recent songs in more genres — which is already happening. So what happens when some of the world’s biggest investment entities own so many catalogs? They will push — using the various tools at their disposal — to raise the value of their assets. They will not do this out of goodwill, of course; they will do it out of self-interest. But any move that raises the value of the song catalogs that they own will also raise the value of the song catalogs that they do not, and this could be very good for songwriters.
“Investors now stand in the shoes of the songwriter,” as one buyer of catalogs told me, “and will use their political clout to help make how a songwriter is paid fairer.” An executive who works for another company that buys catalogs is skeptical of some private-equity-backed ventures, because “their incentives are misaligned with those of creators.” But that doesn’t seem to be the case here. To the extent that some aspects of copyright regulation involve political power, the influence of private equity could counter that of the big technology companies that generally lobby to undermine copyright. Two executives even suggested that private equity could serve as an engine of reform to make collective management organizations more transparent. “We put up with all of this,” the argument goes, “but Wall Street won’t stand for it!”
Right now, some of the catalog acquisition business rests on the idea that new buyers can do more to promote songs than the current owners, especially with film or theater projects. Eventually, though, at least some of that advantage could disappear. Executives can see what works, and some of them will inevitably bring that knowledge to other companies. Plus, as we reach Peak Rock Doc, catalog owners — traditional publishers and private equity players alike — could start to see diminishing returns.
What about the downsides? The reason private equity has such a bad reputation is that it usually buys assets with considerable leverage and holds them for a limited amount of time, which can often result in layoffs at companies in which they invest. Although deal structures vary, a source familiar with many deals told me that buyers generally don’t borrow more than half the purchase price of copyright assets, which seems reasonable.
Eventually, of course, some buyers will become sellers, presumably because their funds have run their course, or perhaps because they do come under pressure. In some cases, operators will be able to attract other investment. In others, “secondary sales will just expand the field for what is in play,” a publishing executive pointed out. A market for publishing assets inevitably means that not everyone will succeed — but it should also provide other buyers. A certain amount of consolidation may be inevitable, but it might not be so bad. Some writers will worry about how the new owner of their songs will treat them, but realistically — and this might sound cold, but it’s also true — that’s something creators need to think about before they sell.
Is there any chance of a broader market failure — a subprime copyright crisis, of sorts? Music copyrights generate steady cash the way mortgages once did, but while individual investments can rise or fall, it’s harder to imagine that a financial squeeze would lead to a selling frenzy that would send prices downward across the board. This isn’t a massive liquid market the way housing is, plus there’s less leverage and far more due diligence about the assets being purchased. (One lawyer said that this market is encouraging creators and publishers to improve their contracts and document-retention practices.)
Although it might seem counter-intuitive, the market for music copyrights might actually be more solid than that for housing. So far, on-demand streaming has proved pandemic-proof, and it seems recession-proof, so the only danger would be a collapse of the copyright system — and it’s hard to imagine how that would happen, especially now that the music business survived illegal file-sharing. Outside investment in music rights will change, like everything else in the business, but it looks like we’re going to see steady, long-term change — most of which creators have good reason to be optimistic about.
If you believe everything you read — and the state of U.S. politics suggests that, unfortunately, many people do — private equity has replaced money as the root of all evil. The truth, as usual, is a bit more complicated.
The latest piping hot take comes from The New York Times opinion section, in a piece that argues that “private equity is destroying our music ecosystem.” (No, not the ecosystem!) The problem seems to be that private equity, which often loads companies up with debt and can be unrealistic in its goals for returns — this much is true, although it’s not clear that public companies or other sources of capital are better — is “gobbling up the rights for old hits and pumping them back into our present.” This sounds downright grotesque, what with the gobbling and the pumping and so on, but it’s really just an ostentatious way to say that companies with money are buying creators’ rights as an investment.
This is bad for the ecosystem, the Times says, because the investors behind these deals — the most prominent example in the piece is Primary Wave’s purchase of 50% of Whitney Houston’s music and other rights — promote the songs they own in a way that somehow squeezes out new music. If that’s the case, though, they’re doing a terrible job of it. In 2023, a full 48% of U.S. on-demand audio streaming came from music released between 2019 and 2023, according to Luminate. A Billboard analysis of 2021 music consumption in the United States showed that music from after 2010 accounted for 78.7% of on-demand streaming, music released in or after 2000 accounted for 90% and all music recorded before 1980 accounted for fewer streams than Drake.
Trending on Billboard
This idea that new music is losing ground to old songs seems to come from a misunderstanding of catalog music, which consists of tracks released more than 18 months ago. The market share of catalog has never been higher — it was 72.6% last year, up from 65.1% in 2020, and it was much lower before streaming took off. But while many people associate catalog with classic rock — AC/DC, the Eagles and the ’60s and ’70s acts that dominated the category in the CD era — that’s an outdated idea. The music that drives this category isn’t that “deep catalog,” but rather what many executives call “shallow catalog” — releases from the last five or 10 years, often from artists who are still active. Some journalists see the size of some private equity deals and jump to the conclusion that classic rock is killing new music. Even by music business standards, though, this is bad math. When it comes to on-demand streaming, Drake isn’t only bigger than the Beatles — he’s more popular than all the music from the ’60s, plus the ’70s and the ’50s, combined.
The Times opinion essay gets the trend backward: Private equity doesn’t make songs popular, it buys songs that are steady in the popularity they already have. Even before music streaming got big, some investors realized that classic songs generate steady royalties that are far less vulnerable to market cycles than most assets. U.S. songwriters got more interested in selling their rights after 2006, when the IRS began to treat income from catalog sales as a capital gain, which is subject to a lower tax rate than personal income from publishing royalties. Streaming simply smoothed out the peaks and valleys of reissue revenue into predictable returns that appeal to investors — especially for songs that have stood the test of time.
Although private equity invests in song catalogs, it rarely manages them, and most of the executives who do come from the music business. (At least some of what they do now is not so different from what they did then.) For that matter, most of the ways the opinion piece says investors are “building extended multimedia universes around songs” aren’t quite as new as they seem. The Monkees and Alvin and the Chipmunks were both “multimedia universes” in their day, as was Tom T. Hall’s “Harper Valley PTA,” a country hit (for Jeannie C. Riley) that inspired a movie, a TV show, Spanish and Norwegian translations, and a sequel song. Nicki Minaj built her hit “Super Freaky Girl” around Rick James’ “Super Freak” — with encouragement from the 50% owner Hipgnosis Songs Fund, according to the Times — but James’ song was the basis for a hit back in the CD era. Remember “U Can’t Touch This?” Hammer time?
The radical thing about on-demand streaming is that most of the music ever made is now easily available, in a way that its popularity can be measured by consumption rather than purchase. And it has become clear that music from the last few years is more popular with listeners than industry executives thought, especially relative to brand-new and older music. When older songs do blow up big on streaming services, it often has less to do with promotion than serendipity — Fleetwood Mac’s “Dreams” returned to the Hot 100 in 2020 after a TikTok video of a skateboarder went viral and Kate Bush’s “Running Up That Hill hit No. 3 two years later after Stranger Things music supervisor Nora Felder decided it would be the perfect song to use as a plot device. And although many adults consider those songs classics, one reason they became hits again is that, from the perspective of younger fans, they are new. Isn’t this a good thing?
There are plenty of problems with streaming, including its low payments to most creators and the difficulty of breaking new acts. But neither of these has anything to do with private equity — the first comes from the way royalties are distributed and the reluctance of consumers to pay more for subscriptions, while the latter has more to do with how hard it is to stand out amid the sheer volume of new music that comes online every day. More serious discussion about these issues is important, but lamenting the fact that important creators earn so much money for the rights to their work isn’t the right way to start it.
BMI is being sold to a New Mountain Capital-led shareholder group in a deal that is expected to close by the end of the first quarter of 2024, a company spokesperson confirmed with Billboard.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
While terms of the deal were not disclosed, the buyer announced that as part of the deal BMI’s current shareholders will allocate $100 million of the sale’s proceeds to songwriters and publishers affiliates “in recognition of [their] creativity.” That planned payout will adhere to BMI’s distribution methodologies.
The deal still needs to be approved by the broadcaster shareholders that have long owned the performance rights organization and will also need regulatory approval.
“Today marks an exciting new chapter for BMI that puts us in the best possible position to stay ahead of the evolving industry and ensure the long-term success of our music creators,” BMI president and CEO Mike O’Neill said in a statement. “New Mountain is an ideal partner because they believe in our mission and understand that the key to success for our company lies in delivering value to our affiliates.”
As part of the agreement, New Mountain is reserving additional capital to fund growth investments and technology enhancement to help BMI’s long-term plan to maximize distributions for its affiliates and improve the service it provides to songwriters and publishers.
“BMI has been a trusted guide and champion of music creators from the beginning, and we are privileged to work with the company and its 1.4 million affiliates to build on that incredible legacy,” New Mountain managing director Pete Masucci said in a statement. “There are numerous growth opportunities ahead for BMI with significant potential to generate more value for the work of its songwriters, composers and publishers. We look forward to working together alongside Mike and his team to capitalize on those opportunities for the benefit of all BMI stakeholders.”
In emphasizing the buyer’s commitment to investment in next generation technology platforms, New Mountain director Mike Oshinsky said in a statement, “There is tremendous opportunity to modernize this critical part of music infrastructure and ensure that long term royalty collections for songwriters, composers and publishers continue to grow. With our support, BMI is ideally positioned to drive this transformation as the only PRO in the world to combine an open-door policy to all music creators with the innovation and commercial drive of a for-profit business.”
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC served as financial advisor to BMI and Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP served as its legal advisor. Moelis & Company served as financial advisor to New Mountain, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP served as its legal advisor. As part of New Mountain’s investment, CapitalG will also invest a passive minority stake in BMI.
-
Pages