Glee: 2.21 "Funeral" (open spoilers)

[Sampiro]

One of my favorites was the one where Schue asked her out on a date and she wore a track suit and a string of pearls.

[Lamia]

@Eats_Crayons

For example, for a completely unknown independent artist, I would accept no less than $10,000 if you wanted to use his song on a TV show as background music for a 30 second scene of a romantic dinner. If you wanted the song as background music for a violent rape scene, you will pay more. You want one of the actors to put a vinyl record on a record player and the audience actually sees the source of the music? That will cost you even more! What’s that? Someone is going to actually SING the song onscreen? Oh then that uptick is going to make you bleed money.

Bumping this thread to say that I had a little free time today and decided to see what I could find out about what Glee spends on licensing. I found a February 2011 article titled “The Business of Glee” from Hollywood Reporter that had this to say:

While synch rates are down – the price tag for a hit song is in the vicinity of $25,000 (a fee the songwriter splits with his or her music publisher) – exposure through Glee often results in a dramatic jump in catalog sales. After September’s Britney Spears episode, the pop star sold 35,000 incremental units among five songs, one of which, “Stronger,” saw a spike of 1,160 percent, according to David Bakula, senior vp analytics at Nielsen Entertainment, who recently submitted a 70-page report titled “The Power of Glee” to Sony Music for analysis. Spears’ 2004. greatest-hits album also saw increased sales of 413 percent. “The halo effect is pretty significant,” Bakula says. “It isn’t all about tracks. Our research found that it was more about the artist as a whole.”

Still, even with Glee’s undeniable popularity and selling power, certain artists demand a premium for their songs. “We went after Eminem’s ‘Lose Yourself,’ and it was jaw-droppingly expensive,” Murphy says. “Around $200,000. We couldn’t do it because the episode would’ve been so over budget.”

Elsewhere in the article it says it cost from $3.2 million to $3.8 million to produce each of the second season episodes of Glee (season one was somewhat cheaper), and I assume this includes the licensing fees.

The Columbia label (a division of Sony Music) is also described as having a “50-50 partnership” with the show when it comes to handling the songs recorded by the Glee cast. This isn’t really explained, but I take it to mean that half the money (gross) from sales of the songs goes to Columbia. I don’t know if that’s a standard arrangement or if Columbia was able to get a larger than usual cut. Several labels had reportedly passed on the opportunity to handle the Glee releases, but the Columbia chairman is quoted as saying he was on board right away and that “Nothing in my mind thought it was a gamble.”

[Sampiro]

So if you sing, sing a song, sing out loud… sorry-

If you sing a song that’s in the public domain- let’s say the centuries old but well known Greensleeves, and let’s say your version sells well, since the song is not in copyright does the singer get the money that would usually go to the songwriter?

[Lamia]

@Sampiro

So if you sing, sing a song, sing out loud… sorry-

If you sing a song that’s in the public domain- let’s say the centuries old but well known Greensleeves, and let’s say your version sells well, since the song is not in copyright does the singer get the money that would usually go to the songwriter?

I would assume so, but I have heard that the person credited as doing the arrangement of a traditional song is entitled to royalties. Apparently in the '60s it was fairly common for record producers, etc., to push artists to record a public domain folk song or blues song as filler for an album, with the song credited as “Trad., arrangement by [producer].” Then the producer would get an extra cut of the money.