near
Member
No one posted this?
The total offer was $22.5k for the song, split amongst the 3 rights holders.
He counter offered $75k (I hope he doesn’t mean $225k total!?)
He knew what he was doing when he made that initial tweet. Get fucked.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Martyn Ware, a member of 80's synthpop band Heaven 17, was offered by Rockstar $7,500 to license the song Temptation in perpetuity [He lied, $22,500]
- Thread starter ManaByte
- Start date
He knew what he was doing when he made that initial tweet. Get fucked.
FunkMiller
Banned
Ha ha. What a performative, lying prick 
This was all one big effort to drag the evil corporation on social media.
He’s an even dumber cunt that it initially appeared.
This was all one big effort to drag the evil corporation on social media.
He’s an even dumber cunt that it initially appeared.
Last edited:
freefornow
Member
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Roughly, it's pretty close on a per trio writer split. But that's his problem. The song is split 3 ways. He could also say the song would generate about $3,000-4,000 per 1M streams, but chipping it down to his share makes it look more like he's being stomped on. Next time be the sole writer and he'd get it all.
It's like a Sally Struthers charity donation site saying if you donate 99 cents/day it's a drop in the bucket. But in total it's over $300/yr which is suddenly not chump change anymore.
It's all about positioning.
Music Royalty Calculator
Use our online music royalty calculator to work out the revenue you can earn through streaming services Spotify, Apple Music, Deezer and DSPs
www.musicgateway.com
Last edited:
ozz ex machina
Member
Radios in GTA are iconic. But the idea that they are remotely worthy of being correlated to the money the series makes is insanity. I suspect a lot of younger artists will happily have their shit in GTA for fuck all because...it's fucking GTA.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Apple makes about $400B in sales per year, and annual profits are almost $100B.
Using Ware's logic on a 40 year old forgotten song, instead of Apple paying 50 cents for each cardboard box for power adapters, they should pay $500 because they can afford it. Makes perfect sense.
What Martyn Ware wants is his 50 cent boxes more than tripled to $1.75. Apple said forget it, and they'll find someone else who'll do it for 50 cents.
Last edited:
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
The lolz
To those saying its too law, the market dictates this and unless some other bigger AAA game is coming out that might sell 200 million copies, this man is a moron for not taking the offer. No other film, show etc is beating out GTA6 at its release to really think this song makes sense to go back and forth with Rockstar over.
So even if some company offers to pay more money, would they even get the same exposure that a GTA would bring?
So...while he watches those other 80's hits get introduced to a whole new generation via GTA6, he can hug the $0 he got from Rockstar lol
Unless you guys know of some other AAA game moving 200 million units that will give him more money and more exposure, this is a massive L.
To those saying its too law, the market dictates this and unless some other bigger AAA game is coming out that might sell 200 million copies, this man is a moron for not taking the offer. No other film, show etc is beating out GTA6 at its release to really think this song makes sense to go back and forth with Rockstar over.
So even if some company offers to pay more money, would they even get the same exposure that a GTA would bring?
So...while he watches those other 80's hits get introduced to a whole new generation via GTA6, he can hug the $0 he got from Rockstar lol
Unless you guys know of some other AAA game moving 200 million units that will give him more money and more exposure, this is a massive L.
Guerilla Munch
Member
"I don't want hundreds of millions of people who have never heard of me to be exposed to my music"
lol ok boomer
lol ok boomer
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Called it on the first page.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
The guy is supposed to be a musician with 50 years of experience. I highly doubt he's raking in tons of money now, especially from one 40 year old song being discussed. He's done other stuff, but he's no U2.
If big time musical acts are willing to go through the cost and hassle to do superbowl shows for free (or as Heisenberg FX4 I think said at least a $1000 minimum union fee), then you'd think he would get the hint that giant exposure can lead to big rewards later.
as per my royalty link I posted earlier today, the big streaming sites approx pay $3000 - 4,000 per 1M streams. You never know it can add up over time across all the apps.
Problem is he wants a big up front fee, and he brings up his share is gimped because he only gets 1/3rd of it since the song is split 3 ways. That's his problem. Not R*. Next time, write the song yourself and you can collect 100% of it.
It would be like three people co-owning a house. The market value is $1M. Someone wants to buy it for $1M and the guys complain they only get $333,333 each. So they counter the buyer saying they want $3M, so each can get $1M.
Makes zero sense.
Last edited:
justiceiro
Marlboro: Other M
I thought the case reminded me of the situation with the previous voice actress of Bayonetta, but this is too much, wow.
FunkMiller
Banned
Disingenuous prick. It's not a 'buyout'.
He's not handing all rights to Rockstar. It's a fee for the use of the song in their game. Nothing else. It literally costs him nothing to accept the deal.
This is all entirely about his idiotic fucking ego over his dull techno song from 1983, that he's already earned a lot of money from when it was released. The money offered was more than enough. If they ask Taylor Swift in the game, it would cost them millions.
ComputerBlue
Member
The amount of people who pay that much and still don’t get the type of exposure they would get from GTA, look what Stranger Things did for Kate Bush, people go back and listen to the classics all the time but you’re not getting that type of exposure unless there’s a reason for your song to go mainstream or it goes viral. Not to mention he lied and it was three times as much, what an idiot.
Anyway, Let Me Go by them is such a great track and I’d like to imagine it was that song, shame it won’t be included. On the plus side, we know there’s going to be an 80s radio station so that makes me happy.
Anyway, Let Me Go by them is such a great track and I’d like to imagine it was that song, shame it won’t be included. On the plus side, we know there’s going to be an 80s radio station so that makes me happy.
Last edited:
Neff
Member
They pretty much were in the greater scheme of things but 'Come Live with Me' and 'Let me Go' are also great and got a lot of play back in the day.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
For the people crying corporate-bootlicker for not immediately siding with Ware:
The state and economics of the music industry is a huge debate on its own, it is what it is though, so we all may as well all judge in light of that being the present-day norm for valuation.
I immediately picked up on the fact that the $7500 was likely a share of royalties, not the totality, which is a very substantial difference to any impartial observer.
Lastly, the "in-perpetuity" aspect is understandable in this instance on practical grounds, not simply as a matter of greed or desire to control. When a track is embedded in a game it requires actual work to remove/replace it after the licensing period expires; its not like its a simple matter of removing a tickbox on back-end database like it is on a streaming service. A limited term deal has real cost implications on the publisher, and a potentiality for negative impact on consumers.
Its a very specific set of circumstances where objectively speaking I didn't think the offer was unreasonable, especially as the upside for increased exposure was so massive.
The state and economics of the music industry is a huge debate on its own, it is what it is though, so we all may as well all judge in light of that being the present-day norm for valuation.
I immediately picked up on the fact that the $7500 was likely a share of royalties, not the totality, which is a very substantial difference to any impartial observer.
Lastly, the "in-perpetuity" aspect is understandable in this instance on practical grounds, not simply as a matter of greed or desire to control. When a track is embedded in a game it requires actual work to remove/replace it after the licensing period expires; its not like its a simple matter of removing a tickbox on back-end database like it is on a streaming service. A limited term deal has real cost implications on the publisher, and a potentiality for negative impact on consumers.
Its a very specific set of circumstances where objectively speaking I didn't think the offer was unreasonable, especially as the upside for increased exposure was so massive.
trikster40
Member
Yikes, no offense, but he did me a solid by refusing. Just watched the video, and they are tone deaf even for an 80s synth band. That lady’s voice made my ears bleed.
Funny tweet though.
Funny tweet though.
Peroroncino
Member
Welp, not surprised he tried to be sneaky in order to drum up the drama circles.
@ Rockstar, hey, before you send an offer to artists, do a quick social media check, if their avatar looks like this:
Unless you offer them a 10% cut for 0 work, you're gonna be put on blast, just friendly reminder. :}
@ Rockstar, hey, before you send an offer to artists, do a quick social media check, if their avatar looks like this:
Unless you offer them a 10% cut for 0 work, you're gonna be put on blast, just friendly reminder. :}
Last edited:
Soodanim
Gold Member
No one posted this?
The total offer was $22.5k for the song, split amongst the 3 rights holders.
He counter offered $75k (I hope he doesn’t mean $225k total!?)
I'm glad you shared that.
Interestingly, the top comment on that Reddit post:
Last edited:
ZoukGalaxy
Member
Bluecondor
Member
I'm 54 and love 80s music. I just went and found this song on YouTube, and I don't recognize it at all. I could see it if this song was released in the 2000s or 2010s when I was older and I just missed it, but an 80s song has to be pretty obscure for me to not recognize it at all.
bender
What time is it?
I first heard it in Trainspotting.
edit: I knew I'd heard it in something major before. Looks like it was also in The Fully Monty which was probably a more well-known film but I've never seen it.
Last edited:
Bluecondor
Member
I remember that movie, but I definitely didn't watch all of it, as it was really depressing.
LOL - now if this song had been in The Wedding Singer, I'd probably know all the words.
Wildebeest
Member
I was a big fan of 90s rock music and didn't hear anything from Tool until much more recently, and I don't like them, nothing about them vibes with me. So what?
Last edited:
Bluecondor
Member
It's not an indictment on them.
I'm just observing that I have been listening to 80s music for 40+ years, and don't recognize the song at all.
bender
What time is it?
Haint
Member
Yeah it's not well known at all. I've consumed an inordinate amount of media and have never heard the song once, completely foreign. Maybe it's a British only thing, cause I'm pretty confident 99% of America couldn't identify this song.
Last edited:
Wildebeest
Member
Different things just work in different markets. The way music markets are homogenised today by consolidation of things like radio stations and streaming services is actually super fucked, and bad for culture, which is something you should know first hand at your age.
Bluecondor
Member
For this reason, it just seems logical that they would want their song to be on a GTA VI radio station.
Another example of an older song getting new fans is the 22-year-old song "Murder on the Dance Floor" by Sophie Ellis-Baxter recently being used in the film Saltburn on Netflix.
I don't even have Netflix and have never seen the movie Saltburn. But, due to the song's recent spike in popularity, the original video for the song now appears in my YouTube playlist regularly.
I'm not sure how much Sophie Ellis-Baxter got paid for this, but you would think this spike in popularity has to be beneficial for her.
bender
What time is it?
Bluecondor
Member
I'm following your point. Again, if we were talking about a song from the 2000s/2010s, I agree that trends toward consolidation in the music industry would be the probable explanation for me not knowing a song.
But, back in the 80s/90s, there were two independent radio stations in Pittsburgh where I live that played alternative music from several different genres for many years, not to mention there was a college radio station at my university back in the late-80s that I listened to pretty regularly that played lots of independent artists.
Again, I'm not indicting the song or the artist. I just find it surprising that I have never heard it before.
Wildebeest
Member
I guess that they were signed to Virgin Records. I don't know if at that time, Virgin was still considered an independent label or a major label. Their discog before then was acts like Gong, Japan, Tangerine Dream and Mike Oldfield. Who I'm sure you are aware of.
Bluecondor
Member
I must admit - I don't know the songs connected to the artists you mentioned - Gong, Japan, Tangerine Dream and Mike Oldfield. But, if they are in the broad genre of 80s synthpop, I would think that I heard songs from them before.
Again, in the broad genre of 80s synthpop, back in the day, I would hear songs like Yaz "Situation," Gary Numan "Cars" (although that was in the classic 80s movie Last American Virgin), and New Order "Blue Monday" - along with more pop mainstream synthpop songs.
Of course, now that I think about it, maybe the reason why I recognize these songs is that they are replayed on YouTube and the like, whereas songs that I might have only heard a couple times back in the 80s might be just completely forgotten for me.
Wildebeest
Member
Out of those, Japan are quintessential 80s sythpop. Tangerine Dream are like foundational German 70s electronic music. Gong and Mike Oldfield are maybe a bit more 70s prog, but still very well known.
bender
What time is it?
I actually preferred when GTA radio stations were filled with more obscure songs. That and when Lazlow wasn't atrocious.
Bluecondor
Member
While I see your case for 0.01%, if it costs studios $860,000 to have a song used in games, movies, TV shows and other forms of media, then my fear is that pop music will rarely, if ever, be used.
This isn't speculation either. For years, Warner Chappell owned the rights to "Happy Birthday to You" and charged $700 for a single use/$1000s if it was going to be used in a movie/tv show, etc. This is why you rarely saw the song used in movies and TV shows (until the copyright was struck down in 2015):
Warner Music Settles 'Happy Birthday' Lawsuit
Warner Music's publishing wing has settled a $14 million lawsuit over "Happy Birthday," with the song expected to soon enter the public domain.
www.rollingstone.com
There has to be a reasonable fee for licensed music.
FunkMiller
Banned
Just because a company makes something worth 8 billion, it doesn’t therefore mean that company must pay way over the odds for a licensed piece of music.
You think they should be paying a thousand bucks for a Big Mac too?
The worth of his song has fuck all to do with the worth of Rockstar.
Last edited:
MarkMe2525
Banned
Well, he got a bunch of exposure with his obfuscation of the facts and making a stink about it. Unfortunately, his BS worked.
Yerd
Member
Well, this turns out to be about the value he believes rockstar offered for his song. Because this exposure is miniscule compared to what he could have had if he got his song in the game.
ItsGreat
Member
I doubt he gives a shit. He was a big part of Tina Turners return in the eighties.
www.theguardian.com
Tina Turner remembered by Martyn Ware
The producer and Heaven 17 musician recalls the humble star who gave him tea and biscuits, and who could record a hit track in one take
www.theguardian.com
Last edited: