Why buying Bob Dylan's songwriting catalog is a boon for Universal Music Group
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In almost 60 years, Bob Dylan has created a staggering body of work: wistful folk ballads, earnest anti-war anthems, fiery rock tracks, laid-back country tunes and even some gospel.
The artistic worth of his catalog — newly acquired by Universal Music Group in a blockbuster deal — is hard to overstate.
But the value of Dylan's songwriting oeuvre is not just a matter of his contributions to culture, according to music industry experts. Universal, a unit of the French media conglomerate Vivendi, stands to reap enormous rewards after it takes control of both the income Dylan receives as a songwriter, as well as more than 600 song copyrights.
Universal will collect royalties any time Dylan's music — from era-defining favorites like "Blowin' in the Wind" to this year's epic John F. Kennedy tribute "Murder Most Foul" — is sold, streamed, broadcast or featured in other media, such as a TV series.
"If you hear a song in a television commercial or you stream it on Spotify or you hear it in a movie, the publisher of that work is getting paid, no matter who is performing it," said Jeff Slate, a songwriter and music journalist who has written for The New Yorker, Esquire and other publications.
Universal is contractually barred from revealing how much it paid as part of the deal, but a source told NBC News that the sale price was "a sizable 9 figure amount, north of $200 million." Dylan's spokesperson said he could not comment on any numbers involved in the deal, adding that Dylan himself would not make a statement about it.
The potential windfall for the record company is even bigger when you consider what makes Dylan rare among professional recording artists, the experts said.
The first reason is that Dylan, who was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his "lyrical compositions of extraordinary poetic power," is the sole writing credit on most of his songs — which means Universal will not have to split royalties with collaborators or other interested parties, according to George Howard, an associate professor of music business management at the Berklee College of Music in Boston.
"Bob Dylan is arguably the greatest songwriter in history, and unlike [John] Lennon and [Paul] McCartney, [Mick] Jagger and [Keith] Richards, or others in the rock canon, he wrote the vast, vast majority of them by himself," Howard said.
The second reason is that Dylan's work is so widely covered by other artists. Universal, which said in a statement that Dylan's songs have been recorded more than 6,000 times, will reap royalty rewards every time musicians put their own spin on his lyrics.
"Everybody covers Bob Dylan songs: Coldplay, Adele, Bettye LaVette. I've covered his songs," Slate said.
"We're not talking about a second-tier artist from the golden age of rock-and-roll. We're talking about an artist who will be covered by others for many years to come," Slate added.
Lucian Grainge, the chief executive of Universal Music Group, echoed that sentiment in a statement announcing the deal: "I have no doubt that decades, even centuries from now, the words and music of Bob Dylan will continue to be sung and played — and cherished — everywhere."
The third reason is that tracks composed by Dylan are frequently used in movies, TV shows and advertisements. The Internet Movie Database lists more than 800 soundtrack credits for Dylan, with songs he has written used to memorable effect in "Easy Rider," "Dazed and Confused," "Forrest Gump," "The Royal Tenenbaums" and many other films.
But the revenue from licensing agreements won't just pour into Universal every time a new Hollywood production pays a fee to use one of his original compositions. The licensing revenue extends to every "public performance" of a Dylan track, covers and remixes included.
In other words, when the cult classic comedy "The Big Lebowski" (featuring Dylan's 1970 track "The Man in Me") airs on basic cable, "more money will pour into Universal," Howard explained.
"It's a dark art in the music industry, but it's a huge revenue stream. The public performance revenues on the Dylan catalog are incredibly vast," he added.
Tags
Who is online
475 visitors
He's an awesome American icon.
If the article above is exactly the same as the seed, it did not even mention the fact that Dylan was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. I wonder how many NT members have watched Dylan perform live on stage.
This article says why buying the rights was a good deal but doesn't say why selling them was a good deal also. Universal Music Group has the ability to collect the money, they probably have hundreds of employees who do nothing but track use and chase payments. Dylan doesn't and his estate won't either so he's been paying someone else to do it and it probably costs him the lion's share of his royalties for this service not to mention the lawyers fees every time he strikes a new deal to have his songs used or covered in a film, album, or music book. Universal Music Group has their own lawyers on staff so it costs them much less. So now Dylan has cash which is much easier and cheaper to invest and manage and when the time comes it's easier to divide a cash estate and his heirs won't be arguing about the management of a trust or one wanting to sell and others not, it's done Dylan has settled his affairs.
As well, sometimes users of the compositions have to be sued because they don't pay for the useage, and now that's going to be Universal's expense. And then there are those who use a musician's music without permission, even after being told to stop doing it - an example of which is Trump being sued by Neil Young and the Estate of Leonard Cohen for doing just that.
I'm disappointed - just read that Neil Young dropped his lawsuit.
I don't think he could have won. It's not like Trump was putting his songs in a movie he was just playing them at rallies, there's a fee for use but I don't think an artist can forbid the use of their work by a radio station, DJ, or network who wants to play those songs just because the artist doesn't like them. I think once you put a "For Sale" sign on it it's fair game to anyone, it's not like Trump was forcing him to write a pro Trump song he was just playing the songs at a public gathering like thousands of others that Neil Young isn't suing. I think the suit was more of a political statement. If Trump had adopted "Keep on rocking in a free world" as a campaign slogan it would be different. Neil Young took the "Thousand points of light" line from Bush but used it in satire so it was alright on that end but Bush didn't write that phrase it was Arthur C Clarke so maybe Bush and Neil owe Clarke's heirs some cash.
I'll bet Trump didn't even pay the standard fee for playing Neil's songs at the rallies, etc. It was a commercial use.
He's written 600 songs but probably no more than 10 or 15 of them are well known enough to the general public to be used in commercials and in movies.
I'm not aware of any Dylan songs that have been used as commercial jingles. I would imagine that Universal would want to exploit the copyrights in that manner, but at the same time I wonder if Dylan might have tried to, or succesfully did, negotiate a clause in the contract forbidding his music's use in commercials as some songwriters feel that the use of their music in commercials diminishes their stature as artists.
A number of musicians, Tom Petty (or his estate), The Rolling Stones, the Estate of Leonard Cohen, Neil Young and others have sent cease and desist letters to politicians and/or sued them for using their music at rallies, etc. without their permission.
The only commercial use of a Bob Dylan song I recall hearing was for a product (can't remember what it was) that used the "Come you mothers and fathers from throughout the land....." verse from Dylan's song "The Times They Are A-Changin'"
That depends on whether you were a folkie or not.
I don't get into his music but he wise to get our right now.