Two questions with this one. Let me be more in depth with what I’m getting at with this.
I was listening to “Classic Rewind” on Sirius (by the way, if you don’t have Sirius, you’re missing out, plain and simple) and Chicago came on, then Journey.
I started thinking, *"BOTH of these bands probably get a fat royalty check still to this day since BOTH have written at least 10 to 20 top hits that get tons of airplay.’’ *
Now, this first question might not be answerable, because it will be hard to find out this information, but I know that it has a factual answer, just a very, very hard one.
So, which classic rock band(s) get the highest amount on a royalty check to this day? Do you think Chicago beats Boston with the amount they get in their check? Does Journey beat Boston and Chicago put together? Does Springsteen beat’em all? Which Classic Rock band is still the highest paid to date royalty wise?
If I write a song and it becomes a hit, yet my band’s catalog gets sold to…I dunno…Bill Gates, twenty years later as Bill being the owner, do I still get royalty payments for it being played on the radio as long as I am down as the songwriter?
In other words, is Paul McCartney still getting paid for The Beatles songs that Michael “come here little boy” Jackson owns?
It would seem likely the Beatles are in the top, royalty wise.
Depends on the contract. McCartney always made money from his songs; he got the songwriter royalties. It looks like someone once explained the details.
Actually, if you believe this article from Rolling Stone, bands make more from touring than from album sales or radio airplay. In fact, if you look at just the top 10, “classic rock” bands fill pretty much all but one slot, depending on how you define “classic rock”. So there’s that.
And, truthfully, there is something of an issue with diminishing returns in terms of “classic rock”. Singles that still get airplay on classic-rock radio may not be played as often as, I dunno, Miley Cyrus’s latest song. Most top-40 stations pretty much stick with that, while classic rock station libraries often have 200-300 songs that are rotated in and out, and outfits like Sirius, XM and MusicChoice have libraries that are bigger than that. Album sales may also be pretty flat once everyone who wants it buys it, and occasionally, songs find their way onto compilation albums which may have different royalty rates.
Finally, I don’t think there is a truly factual answer to your first question. It depends a lot on how the artist’s contract was written, who wrote the songs on the albums, and frankly, how much clout the artist has with the label. For example, an artist with the power to negotiate a higher royalty rate may make more than an artist who sells more albums but whose contract specifies a lower royalty rate, so absolute royalty numbers are not a good indicator of much of anything. There are also additional issues with licensing for TV, movies and commercials. And doing a comparative study is an impossible logistical feat.
The answer to your second question is, yes, that you’d still get royalties as the songwriter. Whoever buys the catalog simply buys the right to publish the music; he doesn’t automatically get the songwriting credit. (See [url-“Did Michael Jackson Own the Rights to All Beatles Songs? | Snopes.com”]this Snopes page for information about the Michael Jackson/Paul McCartney thing since it explains this better than I can.) But again, it depends on the contract and how it’s negotiated.
Some bands make more money from touring, but if you can’t fill an arena, you’re lucky to break even. The last I looked, total concert receipts from all venues were still only a small fraction of the receipts from CD sales. There are about 40-50 groups that can make serious money with concerts, but thousands more depend on music sales for income.
Which is true, as far as it goes. But there are also classic rock acts that have pretty much hit the nostalgia circuit and who basically trade on name recognition. They don’t play the huge arenas anymore and thus don’t make the same kind of money as the acts on the Rolling Stone list, but they still do fairly well.
Just want to add that any and every time a composer’s works are used in musical theatre, they get a separate royalty called the “grand rights.” Musicals cannot be done without paying the grand rights. It is non-negotiable, and one way to get very very rich.
In this day of jukebox musicals, the people who wrote songs for the groups like ABBA (Mamma Mia!) and The Four Seasons (Jersey Boys) are pulling in some big grand rights. Benny Andersson and Bjorn Ulvaeus will probably make more from “Mamma Mia!” that they did in ABBA, just for letting the creative team use their songs.
Not to be snide, but I think what you really mean is that “thousands more don’t have a pot to piss in.”
Some very successful artists may have arranged a better royalty rate on record sales (Michael Jackson comes to mind), but depending on music sales for income is, in my limited understanding, a loser’s game. Unless you’re self-distributing like Ani DiFranco.
On preview, I suppose you’re right. Although I thought **“Songwriters and publishers, however, do earn royalties in these instances – as well as a small portion of the recording sales” ** did in fact answer the part about songwriters continuing to receive royalties. Perhaps not if they don’t own the songs anymore. Now I’m not sure…
