The band’s allowing Sony to use its image “likenesses” presumably leaves the way open for
endless juke box musicals and franchise tours.
Wonder how – or even if – they’ll cover Syd’s role in the band’s history
The rise of the Perma band – Pink Floyd sell catalogue, name and ‘likenesses’ to Sony for US$400 million
That said, US$400 mill looks a good bit of business on Sony’s part
https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/sony-strikes-deal-to-acquire-pink-floyd-catalog-in-400-million-deal-say-sources/
Was it good business? Maybe – they’ve paid 10x the last year’s income stream, which is a fairly long payback. They didn’t acquire the songwriting rights which makes it different from some / most of the other deals done. But it looks like they are free and clear to flog Floyd T shirts, mouse mats, mugs and babygrows so maybe that’s where they will clean up.
‘Syd’ bicycles? Pink stethoscopes? Garden gnomes in the likeness of Rog? ‘Eugene’ axes? Psychedelic breakfast cereals? Windy pillows? The possibilities are endless.
“Garden gnomes in the likeness of Rog?”
I’d buy that for a dollar…
I thought when watching Abba Voyage how much more I would have enjoyed it if it was based on a band I actually liked. A carefully chosen show going through by all eras of the Floyd’s music with top-notch lights and sound would be an excellent night out.
The question is whether anyone would be prepared to make a similar upfront investment. ABBA have a much broader appeal.
The Australian Pink Floyd Show seem to have done OK for themselves.
Wonder what – if any – impact the “likenesses” element of this deal will have on such tribute acts
It is relevant if a band has a distinct face / look/ personality at the front. For an act when it’s about the spectacle, I’m not so sure. A Bowie avatar show is a no brainer. Prince and Kate Bush, too. But a robo Joni Mitchell?
“Buy a robot Joni Mitchell for your own home – TODAY!!”
Nah, you need tunes and fun! And stuff to sing along and dance along to
Does anyone know what the shy and retiring Uncle Rog has to say about this news?
Money being the only thing he and DG seem to agree on, he was presumably on board with it.
It’s a gas…
I read an interview with Gilmour in which he said he wanted to sell the catalogue not for the money (and I believe him, he doesn’t need it) but to be able to put Pink Floyd business affairs behind him and no longer have to deal with its various lawyers and accountants, which he described as like swimming through mud.
In fairness to DG, he gives an awful lot to charity so maybe I was a bit harsh in my earlier post.
That said, when Clare Torry agitated for a decent retroactive royalty on her ad libbed vocals on Great Gig in the Sky didn’t the whole band try and wheedle their way out of paying.
IIRC, the case was settled out of court and CT has been credited as a co-composer of the song ever since – seems only fair as her contribution elevates the tune and surely merist far more than the standard session fee they paid at the time.
A day doesn’t pass without my drifting slightly further away from the big-hitters.
The recent Mojo psych CD was tremendous from beginning to end, and boasted for its title the name of a song by The Pink Floyd, but not the song itself.
Why not? It didn’t matter, it wasn’t remotely missed.
Does this signal the end for Nick Mason’s current lot? It would be a crying shame if it did.
Well, they’re not called Pink Floyd…
More confusingly still, not one of them looks remotely like Pink
I don’t think so – he was co-signatory to the deal for one thing, and as far as I know you don’t need permission to perform songs. Tribute bands generate some money for the rights holders there are performance royalties payable.
If Sony own the rights to the name and decide that a tribute act like the Australian PF Show are eating into their revenue stream, they could presumably charge TAPFS for usage rights or demand they cease and desist using the words PF in their name
The use of the band name and how it’s covered under these deals isn’t clear to me. But whoever it belongs to could make the claim you outline above – I think it was this kind of thing that Gail Zappa pissed away a lot of the family fortune trying to ringfence.
I assume in most cases tribute band names are designed to avoid such risks, making it clear they aren’t the original, which would be where most legal objections would reside. I think each time TAPFS play a Floyd song, the rights owners get paid, so they could only object if they weren’t. Otherwise I think powers are limited.
As we’ve seen with President Bonespurs, bands can tell him to stop using their songs, issue cease and desist letter etc, largely to no effect. I think the Foos saying they will donate royalties for any use of their songs by Trump to the Harris campaign is far more of an elegant solution even if it’s only a few dollars.
Are Pink Anderson and Floyd Council likely to benefit from this arrangement?
Pink Floyd music generated £40 million pounds in revenue last year. So if it keeps on doing that, in theory it’s an eight to ten year payback for Sony. In ten years time every Pink Floyd fan, apart from Gary, will be either gaga or dead. None of these mega back catalogue deals make sense to me. I am no doubt missing something …….
Struggle to understand it myself but when 50% of Michael Jackson’s catalogue cost US$600 mill, US$400 mill looks like a bargain
The $600m wasn’t just for half of the Jackson songs. Jackson still owned the rights to songs by Sly & The Family Stone, Dion, Jerry Lee Lewis, Ray Charles and a few others, and these were thought to part of the deal.
How did it generate £40m? Surely not from HMV’s overpriced sales of DSotM vinyl.
There was an anniversary super deluxe edition of DSotM last year. Well, there’s one most years, but you know what I mean.
I believe that until fairly recently even the non-deluxe version of DSotM was still selling a few hundred thousand copies a year worldwide. And WYWH and The Wall are probably still good earners. Add on the box sets, airplay and streaming royalties for Another Brick and a few others, a few percent for every T-shirt, poster, etc., and it must pile up.
And that’s before any music appears in a TV show or film, which can bring in serious dough. Led Zep, by various accounts, can expect six- or seven-figure sums for the use of one of their songs (Immigrant Song, usually, based on films I’ve seen), and I imagine Floyd must be in or near that sort of bracket. They’re not often heard on screen, but when they are (Time at the beginning of the superhero film Eternals, Comfortably Numb in Scorsese’s The Departed, Hey You really effectively in the so-so Due Date, etc.), I don’t expect they came cheap.
There was a recent episode of the Rockenteures podcast that discussed merch, T-shirts in particular, in case you were wondering about who gets the money from all those Ramones T shirts.
Yes, I found that really interesting, especially the news that a lot of merch was first sold by bootleggers before artists cottoned on to just how much money they could make from, say, a new T-shirt for every tour.
I recall Stewart Copeland describing it as a “despicable amount of money, and all cash”. The Merch Stand take was instant payment at the end of the show.
It seems amazing that The Beatles didn’t bung on a few Bing Crosby tracks for ‘A Hard Day’s Night’.
They were behind the curve there.
My nephew Daniel is in his early 40s and a big PF fan.
As he’s Vegan and into running, hiking, cycling etc. he’ll probably live forever.
Mind you, he’s also a bit of a tightwad, so there might not be much income for Sony from him.
If he’s like other vegans of my acquaintance, he’ll be too busy boring people rigid about the perceived benefits of his chosen lifestyle to listen to any records