Photo Credit: Jack White’s YouTube

The White Stripes have dropped their federal lawsuit against Donald Trump and his campaign, as well as his aide Margo Martin.

The White Stripes, Meg and Jack White, have dropped their federal lawsuit against Donald Trump, his campaign, and his aide Margo Martin. The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning they could choose to refile.

Jack White had openly threatened to sue Trump over his campaign’s use of the White Stripes’ hit “Seven Nation Army” in videos posted on social media. In September, he and his ex-wife and former bandmate Meg White made good on that threat, filing their lawsuit in New York federal court.

The lawsuit stated the pair “vehemently oppose the policies adopted and actions taken by Defendant Trump when he was President and those he has proposed for the second term he seeks.” Jack White threatened to sue on Instagram, alongside a copy of Trump aide Margo Martin’s post of a video including the White Stripes’ track, writing “Oh, don’t even think about using my music, you fascists.”

Many musicians have publicly expressed their disdain for the Trump campaign’s use of their music in rallies and videos posted to social media. These include ABBA, Celine Dion, and Foo Fighters.

Meanwhile, a long list of musicians have put their names to an open letter by the Artist Rights Alliance calling on US political parties to establish “clear policies requiring campaigns to seek consent” for the music they want to use in their events. Musicians who have signed so far include Aerosmith, Elton John, The Rolling Stones, R.E.M., Pearl Jam, Green Day, Blondie, Elvis Costello, Sheryl Crow, Alanis Morissette, Courtney Love, Lionel Richie, and many more.

Jack White has long been an outspoken critic of Trump, and released a lengthy statement on Instagram following the outcome of the US presidential election. But whether he and Meg White will opt to refile their lawsuit against the Trump campaign remains to be seen.

Other musicians who have released statements expressing disdain for the results of the presidential election include Ariana Grande, Bruce Springsteen, Ethel Cain, Cardi B, Jack Antonoff, and King Gizzard & The Lizard Wizard.

Live Nation president and CEO Michael Rapino. Photo Credit: Live Nation

Live Nation (NYSE: LYV) has posted a slight YoY revenue decrease for Q3 2024 – including due to a 17% falloff in ticketing. However, execs appear optimistic that the DOJ’s antitrust suit could soon be in the rearview, and LYV jumped during after-hours trading.

The Ticketmaster parent posted its third-quarter financials this afternoon, amid, among other things, a high-stakes DOJ antitrust lawsuit. Predictably, given the forthcoming administration change, the topic quickly came up during Live Nation’s Q3 earnings call.

“It’s still very early in the transition process, so we’re hesitant to say too much,” relayed Live Nation CFO Joe Berchtold. “But absolutely, we are hopeful that we’ll see a return to the more traditional antitrust approach. Where the agencies have generally tried to find ways to solve problems they see with targeted remedies, that minimize government intervention in the marketplace.

“And without getting into specifics, at least some parts of the case, we think – believe reflect a much more interventionist philosophy today than you’d expect of a Republican administration. Obviously, the request to break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster would be an example of that highly interventionist approach. So we’ll obviously be ready to engage as soon as they are,” proceeded Berchtold.

Back to the business’s core Q3 financials – Live Nation, which has teed up an investor presentation for Wednesday, kept the conference call relatively short – overall revenue came in at $7.65 billion on the quarter (down 6% YoY), per the report.

As a pertinent aside, Live Nation revised the Q3 2023 figures as well. “For context, what we had is a non-cash, non-operating-tax adjustment that we had to make,” elaborated Berchtold. “This has to do with when we purchased Ocesa and the difference between statutory and U.S. GAAP accounting on some non-consolidated investments.

“So it was just on the U.S. side – we paid the taxes in Mexico, we missed it in the U.S. … Working through with the auditors, we made the decision, it made sense to restate those numbers,” the CFO continued.

Within Q3 2024’s revenue, concerts, as usual, led the pack with a $6.58 billion contribution (down 6% YoY); ticketing’s aforementioned 17% YoY decline resulted in a sum of $693.7 million for the quarter.

Rounding out total revenue, sponsorship and advertising reached $390.3 million in Q3 (up 6% YoY), with a loss of $13.5 million attributed to other and eliminations. On the volume front, Live Nation pointed to a 13% YoY hike to approximately 40,000 Q3 events, “fueled by arenas and amphitheaters and double-digit growth in theater and club shows.”

Notwithstanding the revenue dips, though, Live Nation adjusted operating income neared $910 million during Q3 2024 – up 4% YoY, including a 39% YoY spike for concerts to a “record” $474.1 million, the breakdown shows. Nevertheless, ticketing’s operating income slipped roughly 33% YoY to $235.7 million, the resource relays.

Shifting to Live Nation’s performance across 2024’s initial nine months, total revenue grew 3% YoY to $17.47 billion, $14.45 billion of which stemmed from concerts (up 4% YoY), the document indicates.

Lastly, CEO Michael Rapino took the opportunity to predict “an even bigger 2025” for Live Nation, shares in which were up 6.1%, at about $130 a pop, during after-hours trading at the time of writing.

The Euronext Amsterdam building. Photo Credit: Bootuitjes

Billionaire businessman Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square has a long history of investor activism – but can it compel Universal Music Group to exit the Euronext Amsterdam?

As things stand, the major label appears to maintain that the answer is “no.” We previously explored the multifaceted situation at length, including details pertaining to Pershing Square’s UMG ownership (which currently sits at 10.25% and, for a time years back, was expected to involve a SPAC play), the push for a pivot from the Euronext Amsterdam, and UMG’s response.

“Pershing has the right to request a listing in the US subject to a Pershing entity selling at least $500 million in UMG shares as part of the listing,” Universal Music spelled out in a formal release. “Pershing does not have any right to require UMG to become a US domiciled company or delist from Euronext Amsterdam.”

(In his initial tweet on the subject, Ackman, who’s also pursuing Pershing Square Holdings’ departure from the Euronext Amsterdam, confirmed plans to spearhead Universal Music’s U.S. listing “no later than some time next year” in any event.)

The leading label intends to “endeavor in good faith to comply with its contractual obligations with respect to undertaking the process of a US listing at the request of Pershing,” per the straightforward remarks.

However, any non-contractually-obligated decisions regarding UMG’s country of domicile and more “will be based on an analysis taking into account what is value maximizing and in the best interests of all the shareholders of the company.”

In other words, Universal Music isn’t quite on board at present – though it’s worth reiterating a couple key points on this front.

First, the UMG board member Ackman emphasized the “highly material benefits” of shifting the music company to the States and attributed the business’s stock-price woes in part to its listing status.

“UMG trades at a large discount to its intrinsic value with limited liquidity in significant part due to it not having its primary listing on the @NYSE or @NasdaqExchange and not being eligible for S&P 500 and other index inclusion,” Ackman relayed on X.

We’ve already covered those stock-price woes extensively – referring to a roughly 20% falloff between UMG’s peak over the summer and its present value. Particularly into the new year, it’ll be interesting to see if a possible resolution lies at the intersection of Ackman’s goal and the business’s inherent objective of maximizing shareholder value.

Next, the prior activist-investor maneuvers of Ackman and Pershing Square are insightful.

There’s ample ground to cover here, with a whole lot having changed since the 2000s. But perhaps the most pertinent example can be found in the decades-old spinoff of Tim Hortons from Wendy’s.

“Back then – because we couldn’t get a return phone call,” Ackman explained in a Bloomberg interview. “We were a tiny little fund circa 2004, we hired Blackstone, which had an investment bank at the time. And we hired them to put together a fairness opinion, if you will, of what Wendy’s would be worth if they spun off Tim Hortons.

“And then we wrote a letter to the board, we attached the Blackstone valuation (which was nearly double where the stock was trading). And then six weeks later, magically they spun off Tim Hortons,” he proceeded.

As highlighted, there’s a lot more to chart in this area – with the bigger takeaway being that Ackman and Pershing Square have a track record of successful activist-investor moves. Time will tell whether that track record translates into a big shift (geographical and otherwise) for UMG.

Photo Credit: YouTube (Tyler, The Creator)

Tyler, the Creator has taken to social media to reassure fans he is working to get copyright strikes against reactions to his new album ‘Chromakopia’ lifted. Here’s the latest.

‘Chromakopia’ dropped at the end of October, with fans sharing their reactions on social media like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube. However, many of these fans said their reactions were copyright stricken and blocked—either with the sound being removed or the video removed completely.

After a fan posted their frustration about having the video removed, Tyler commented personally, “Gonna make sure the block gets lifted man, hit my squad up early this am.” The fan Tyler originally responded to replied to his comment stating, “Video is up and all blocks lifted. Appreciate you helping.”

The Instagram account SleepingonGems reported the news, “Many fans were experiencing issues when uploading videos of them listening to ‘Chromakopia,’ so Tyler decided to step in and remove the copyright strikes,” the report reads. “More artists need to do this. Kendrick did the same with ‘Not Like Us.’ Love to see it.”

Both Kendrick Lamar and Drake removed copyright strikes on their respective diss tracks, helping the rap beef explode to national attention earlier this year. The back-and-forth dropping of new diss tracks created a situation in which fans of either artist were waiting online with bated breath for the next diss track to drop. Those with a YouTube or TikTok presence covering the hidden meanings behind the lyrics made a killing—notably because artists released their copyright claims so social media posts could proliferate.

Tyler, the Creator wants to create hype online about his new album and one of the best ways to do that is to allow fans to create reaction videos discussing the lyrics. It involves snippets of the songs behind made available in YouTube videos and on TikTok—but most works discussing an album are purely reactions to a specific lyric rather than a wholesale streaming of the song or album. The distinction here is allowing people to discuss the music while sharing bits of it creates more conversation around the track and album, rather than silencing it completely with copyright strikes.

Hipgnosis has revealed a nearly $1.5 billion asset-backed securitization (ABS). Photo Credit: Hipgnosis

Another day, yet another asset-backed securitization – this time from Blackstone’s Hipgnosis, which has formally announced a $1.47 billion deal.

The appropriate catalog investor reached out with word of the securitization, which arrives on the heels of similar moves from Concord as well as Duetti. However, as many know, the newest ABS also follows a hard-fought battle for Hipgnosis Songs Fund, or the Merck Mercuriadis-founded fund that scooped up all manner of prominent song rights during a much-publicized landgrab.

Multiple twists and turns later, the Hipgnosis Songs Fund saga concluded earlier this year, when Blackstone topped the aforementioned Concord with a roughly $1.6 billion bid to take the company private.

Royalties from the over 45,000-track catalog in question, featuring works from Neil Young, Christine McVie, Rodney Jerkins, Dierks Bentley, and more, are backing the $1.47 billion ABS, per Blackstone and Hipgnosis.

(Technically, several other high-profile catalog deals, including with the likes of Justin Bieber, were spearheaded by Hipgnosis Song Management, which had been under Blackstone’s control long before the HSF privatization. Those distinct song rights don’t appear to have factored into today’s asset-backed securitization, though HSM itself rolled out a smaller ABS back in August 2022.)

As we’ve charted in detail, a surprising number of Hipgnosis entities, including but definitely not limited to the main Hipgnosis Songs Fund as well as its Hipgnosis Song Management “investment advisor,” were making moves at the brand’s peak.

But with the take-private dust having largely settled, and with Blackstone now fully behind each of the involved companies, the release pertaining to the securitization refers to the overarching operation simply as “Hipgnosis.”

Returning to the actual MUFG Securities-structured ABS, the notes at hand, having received an A- rating from KBRA, attracted 25 investors, per Hipgnosis and Blackstone.

Therefore representing “one of the most diversified ABS issuance for music rights to date,” the securitization will enable Hipgnosis to pay down “existing debt in full and support future acquisitions,” higher-ups indicated.

“With this ABS refinancing completed,” Hipgnosis CEO Ben Katovsky and CFO Dan Pounder elaborated in a joint statement, “we will continue to work on expanding the investor base with further institutionalisation of the asset class leveraging Hipgnosis’ proprietary technology and data analytics platform across underwriting, monitoring and reporting.”

On the debt front, the previously highlighted Hipgnosis Songs Fund buyout also saw Blackstone assume the company’s sizable pile of debt, which had prevented the business from exploring additional IP purchases (and complicated operations in different ways) for some time before it was taken private.

And when it comes to future acquisitions, it will, of course, be interesting to see which bodies of work Hipgnosis buys down the line. As things stand, the sub-sector is populated by more deep-pocketed potential purchasers than ever, and Hipgnosis remains entangled in an ugly payments-related battle with Barry Manilow.

How much do artists make per stream? Reported per-stream payouts from top music streaming services (updated for 2021; click to enlarge)

How much do artists make per stream on the most popular streaming music services? Here’s a breakdown for Pandora, Napster, Spotify, Apple Music, Deezer, and more (updated for 2022).

Based on information directly received from artists and indie labels, as well as various published sources, we can rank streaming music services according to their per-stream rate. So how much do artists make per stream? Given extreme variations in payouts, the answer largely depends on the platform involved. Take a look.

Napster remains king of streaming music payouts, but total usage is lower.

With Microsoft’s Groove Music shutting down, Napster became king of streaming music service payouts.

The service had paid $0.01682 per play.  According to two sources – Information Is Beautiful and David Crosby – that number has steadily risen.  On average, Napster now pays out $0.019 per stream.  To meet the monthly minimum wage amount in the US of $1,472, an artist would need 77,474 total plays.

With 5 million paying subscribers, the service loses around $7.00 per user.  Unlike its rivals, however, Napster remains a profitable streaming music service.

Jay-Z’s beleaguered TIDAL remains a top player, at least in terms of payouts.

This year, Jay-Z’s streaming music platform, TIDAL, has remained embroiled in multiple controversies.  These include accusations of hacking users’ accounts to inflate Beyoncé and Kanye West’s total streams.

Nevertheless, the service had remained friendly to artists. But the service reportedly paid out $0.01284 per stream earlier this year. That number has fallen slightly to $0.0125, according to more recent data. Artists on TIDAL now need 117,760 total plays to earn $1,472.

Jay-Z’s streaming music service reportedly loses $6.67 per user with an annual loss of $28 million.

Apple Music takes third place.

How much does Apple Music pay per stream? Historically, Apple Music has paid artists much better than its streaming music rival, Spotify.

Back 2017, the service paid $0.0064 per stream. By last year, that number had risen to $0.00783. Now, Apple Music has upped its rate further: in April of 2021, the platform announced that its artists would receive a royalty rate of 1 cent ($0.01) per stream.

Artists on Apple Music would need around 147,200 plays to earn the US monthly minimum wage amount.

With Apple closely guarding its user metrics, it remains unclear how much Apple Music loses each year on the service as well as per user.

Deezer falls to fourth place.

Launching several years ago in the US, French-based streaming music service Deezer still doesn’t have an established presence in the country.

Back in 2018, at $0.0056, the service topped GPM in terms of payouts. By 2019, Deezer paid $0.00624. That number has slowly risen to $0.0064, placing it right behind GPM. Artists will need 230,000 total plays to earn the US monthly minimum wage amount.

Deezer recently reported an annual loss of $27 million, losing $1.69 per user. Deezer reportedly has 16 million users, with around 9.12 million – or 57% – paying for the service.

Amazon falls behind.

As with Napster, Apple, and Google, Amazon closely guards its user metrics.

Earlier this year, The Trichordist found Amazon paid indie artists $0.0074 per play. That number has now plummeted to $0.00402, placing it just above Spotify. Artists will now need around 366,169 total streams to earn the monthly minimum wage amount in the US.

How much do artists make per stream on Spotify?

Spotify’s per-stream rate ranks as one of the worst, and it appears to be falling. According to the latest data, Spotify pays most artists between $.003 and $.005 (one-third of a penny to one-half of a penny) for each stream. 

Back in December 2019, you may have read our report on cellist Zoe Keating’s receiving a $753 check from Spotify, as compensation for 206,011 streams. Rounding up, the sum represents a per-stream royalty rate of $0.0037 – down from Keating’s 2018 Spotify royalty rate of about $0.0054. Separately, mechanical royalty firm Audiam also suggested that Spotify royalties have decreased despite rising subscriber counts and revenue.

Of course, there are plenty of Spotify alternatives. But as of 2022, Spotify remains the largest streaming music platform worldwide — which means you have little choice but to play ball with them.

Pandora continues to struggle.

Back in 2018, despite having the second-highest amount of total users in the US, Pandora paid artists $0.0011 per play. By 2019, the digital radio service slightly increased that rate to $0.00134. The company has now settled at paying artists $0.00133 on Pandora Premium. Artists will now need 1,106,767 total plays on Pandora Premium just to earn $1,472.

YouTube pulls a U-Turn.

Historically, YouTube hasn’t ever been an artist-friendly platform, thanks to its horrendous payouts.

In 2017, the popular video platform paid $0.0006 per play. By 2019, the company had increased its rate to $0.00074.

But YouTube executives have now pulled a U-Turn, choosing to pay artists $0.00069. To earn the monthly minimum wage amount in the US, artists will need around 2,133,333 total plays on YouTube.

The video platform reportedly loses $174 million each year, with loss per user calculated at $0.17.

So, what’s our advice?

Once again, please don’t ever make a career out of your earnings on the popular video platform.  Trust us.  You’ll regret it.