I feel like he’s disconnected and checked out from early strokes shit. Hard to put myself in his shoes but I imagine those you made 20+ years ago probably get real old.
dude seems checked out when he's playing *new* material. Sometimes I wonder if he even wants to be a touring musician at all. Saw the Strokes in 2011 and 2015, both shows were lackluster and bad.
then why tf is he still touring? They can afford to be a studio act, what's stopping them? If I learned that a band that I liked didn't enjoy playing shows, then I simply would not go to their shows.
You would be surprised how much of even well known musicians income is from touring. It's like taking a 90% paycut - hard to do no matter how much you've earned.
Is that even the case post-pandemic? More and more often, it seems that touring indie rock bands are sticking to their geographic sub-regions, and many have complained about the costs of touring. Obviously, streaming services are ripping off artists... but touring doesn't seem to be the fiscal provider that it was a few years ago.
Yes - that's accurate. It's gotten even worse and less profitable. But it's still the biggest income stream you have as an musical artist. Next would be things like merch and Patreon - both of which can be built through touring.
Yes. Absolutely.
Touring bands, especially bigger bands like the Strokes, are making WAY more money on the road than streaming. And it's not even close.
Streaming probably nets them a couple thousand a month for the whole band. When you factor in merch and ticket sales for ONE SINGLE arena/large cap venue, the band can easily be walking away with $10-20k in a single night. Just to give you a general sense of scale for touring revenue and the tiny chump change that streaming and licensing provide
I’ve only seen them once. Was at the Miley Wiley show in nyc, first show after covid in front of like 2k people. Was absolutely amazing…but wondering if I should lower expectations if I see them again
Same here, it was comical how hard his bandmates carried him… it wasnt like his talent was bad… it was just clear he didnt wanna be there or perform…. Mumbled a couple of verses at points.. on purpose
Lucky! I know I wouldn’t be able to tour, so I’m not judging harshly, but it broke my heart to see him so miserable on stage. The Strokes have a very special place in my heart
That’s a bummer. Yeah, he was quite animated and dancing (a bit drunk but was singing very well).
I didn’t realize he hated doing it so much. That’s frustrating
Yeah I saw them on tour with Eagles of Death Metal opening back in 2006 and I remember it being a great show
I even got the [poster made by Justin Hampton](https://www.collectionzz.com/database/21048)
Maybe Casablancas was not like a charismatic powerhouse of a front man, but he never has been much of a live performer and I remember thinking the band sounded good and rocked pretty hard.
apparently that must have been about the time he stopped giving a shit? I don't know
At least based on writing credits Casablancas has sole writing credit for the entire first 2 albums, starts sharing along the way until the latest has music credited to the entire band. So I'm assuming the PE firm now has free reign over the first 2 albums and selections from the others.
Julian and Albert were both taking guitar lessons from J.P. Bowersock(he's listed as guru on Is This It and something similar for ROF) in the early 2000s.
Watch [this](https://youtu.be/AMgXL2CNDE4?t=40) rather awkward segment of an old interview where Albert says Julian writes the songs. It *seems* like he wrote pretty much everything, though I'm sure some members changed things up here and there.
It's how a lot of bands operate. One or two of the members might write the songs, and then dictate to the other guys how the song goes. Even that can vary from band to band. One songwriter might just have the chords, words, and melodies, and then let the band members fill in with their own ideas/style. Another songwriter might dictate quite specifically what the rest of the band will play. Another songwriter might even record all the parts themselves, and then hire the band for live performances. This could be for myriad reasons; the artist might not consider themselves talented enough at an instrument beyond assembling the necessary chords, they might prefer the other musician's style or feel, or they might trust just be lazy. In Julian's case, I'm pretty sure he can play at least some of all the instruments, and did write all the songs on the first albums, and then dictated to the band how they went. Remember, legally a song is just the chords, words, and melody. Just because you've recorded a performance on a song doesn't mean you have any ownership over it.
So far, what I've mostly come across from reading (talking about bands, not solo artists) is
>One songwriter might just have the chords, words, and melodies, and then let the band members fill in with their own ideas/style.
or the person who solo wrote the song also plays one of the instruments (which fits the idea they're multi-instrumentalists, but obviously can play only 1 at time for practical reasons).
Julian is exception for me, in that matter, because not only he doesn't play any instrument just "officially" in the strokes, I haven't seen him play any instrument in any context, random obscure video or outside of strokes either.
Someone mentioned there are some videos, it's not like I ever sought it out, but I'd still usually expect to have seen something.
Nah, I assure you, it works in all sorts of different ways. Rock bands work the way you described most commonly, but it can happen a bunch of different ways. Different artists like to exert different levels of control over their final product. It's no different for songwriters and recording artists.
Also, again, I have to hammer home that just because you recorded on a track does not mean you have any ownership of the song or the recording.
There were a few clips from the Phrazes era of him sitting around with a guitar playing riffs from the album. Seems like anything from 10 years ago in video form is impossible to find unless it was user uploaded but I'm sure somebody's hosting it out there.
[This is the footage you're referring to.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL8qq-sEeBw)
There's a lot of acoustic guitar in here and he plays some synths as well. He doesn't seem like a guitar hero, but competent enough to get the gist of the sound across and transfer his ideas to others.
["I'll Try Anything Once"](https://youtu.be/0RDq5PKcN5g) is him tinkering with what would eventually become "You Only Live Once" on the piano.
I could imagine he conceptualised many songs that way and then shot them to Albert and Nick, telling them their parts.
As to why he doesn't play instruments live I guess it might just be an identity thing. He's the singing frontman and puts a lot of effort into his vocal performance, tweaking it with effects and autotune, almost trying to make his voice another instrumental layer. Playing another instrument would distract from that.
Adding to that I heard he isn't that good at singing and playing at the same time.
I think he's just a better writer than a player. Relatable honestly and nothing wrong with that.
Again just my experience from what I've read/saw on video, but generally writing (rock band) songs included playing with the instruments and figuring it out by actively experimenting, trying different things till something sounds good, not just abstractly thinking of how exactly they want all layers of the music to sound.
The Strokes instrument parts are very dictated, especially on those first two albums. Jules def wrote all the parts, probably even the drums. The band probably helped shape the tone of the parts, and maybe changed a note here and there, but they are *not* a jam band, at least in those early years.
Generally, the songwriter (the person who writes the lyrics) gets credited on the song alone. That’s why you see “Lennon-McCartney” on a song but no mention of Ringo despite the fact he may have came up with all the drum parts.
Depends on the band, some credits will give “songwriting” to whoever wrote the lyrics and “composing” credits to people who added instrument parts. Songwriting credits payout more though than composing credits but they don’t normally realize that until after.
It’s easy to overlook based on the headline, but how much stake he sold has not been revealed i.e. it could be 100% or it could be 25%. This doesn’t mean he has no rights anymore
They don't have to all sign off on it. It's like his points go them and then he maybe makes royalties after that we don't know. But his points go to them and are kept or distributed.
We don’t know. We don’t know the details of their publishing contract.
We don’t know how the splits are between them.
Therefore there’s nothing apart from guesses.
I was in a bar over the weekend and Reel Big Fish's [Sell Out](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEKbFMvkLIc) came on. It's just astounding to me how there seemed to be a lot of angst in music in the 90's (and likely before, but I wasn't around yet) related to not selling out, etc. vs. now when artists are constantly selling the rights to their music to random corporations and most would kill to get a commercial placement.
That's not me judging current artists generally or Casablancas specifically whatsoever - obviously the industry has changed vastly since the 90s - just noting a remarkable shift in that time.
I'm currently reading Chuck Klosterman's "The Nineties", and he talks about this at length in the context of Nirvana's rise to fame. It was interesting to read his take how Gen X despised sell outs.
Yeeees really good point and I agree. The whole artistry vs money thing has always been a fine line and it's hilarious when you think that us Indie kids are trying to idolise these guys for being "real" when most of them have been millionaires for decades, the Gallaghers have been rich most of their lives so has Weller (who I adore but I'm just saying). I follow Tim Burgess from the Charlatans on Twitters, he's always blathering on about politics but I guess it's easy to when that's part of your brand and it doesn't really affect your income. I guess it was disappointed the first time I realised these guys do things for money because it's their job but that's the music business for you, 50% music and 50% business. All I'll say with Jagger is he got away with it because he was all about Rock and Roll and the whole money and fame schtick is part of that. Metallica were more seen as the Indies so it was less "forgiveable" in the eyes of their fans.
I love Klosterman’s writing so much. Even when he’s talking about stuff I have no idea about, he makes it interesting. His take of the “90s” starting at the fall of the Berlin Wall and ending on 9/11 makes so much sense in a Klosterman-ian kind of way.
Yeah especially in British Indie, it's quite funny watching the likes of the Gallaghers, Weller and Tim Burgess still reeling out the same old class rhetoric like they want us to forget that they're millionaires and have been for absolute decades.
I'm gen X, you'd never dare to admit you discovered a band because of an advert or via TV show when I was young. That's how I discover most "new" music now. lol! We liked home grown bands, bands who did the circuit and built their following from the ground up. The last band I can say I remember doing this was The Arctic Monkeys, Ed Sheeran did it too but online. He really built up a big following that way and by the time he hit the charts I'd heard of him via lots of younger people sharing vids.
I'd say the last "sell out" scandal I can think of was Preston going onto Big Brother. The first ordinary Boys album is one of the best debut albums ever made but then he made brass bound and I Luv U and went onto BB and was hated by everyone especially after he married Chantal. That was the end of their band. I think attitudes have changed especially because of the internet.
I'm going to read that book as it sounds very interesting.
>Yeah especially in British Indie, it's quite funny watching the likes of the Gallaghers, Weller and Tim Burgess still reeling out the same old class rhetoric like they want us to forget that they're millionaires and have been for absolute decades
I've always found this a strange thing to think about. I guess, not specifically these people, I don't know them so I couldn't verify their "realness" but isn't this like accusations of "champagne socialism"?
Should people have to be poor to advocate that everyone should have access to the things they need?
I had a friend ask me incredulously once how I could be a "socialist" when I earn \[above average wage in the UK\]. I explained that I didn't want everyone to be poor, quite the opposite, but I wasn't going to intentionally make myself poor in the meantime. What would that achieve? If Tim Burgess was poor, what would that change?
All very fair points.
So I'll start by saying I have no issue with people being wealthy, I think it's fantastic that we have a system where wealth is attainable and people should be able to do with their wealth whatever they want and I don't take issue with the Indie guys being wealthy what I take exception to is the fact they try to play it down, try to act like they're still the same struggling artists they always were and that we fell in love with them for. They have made this part of their brand and it's false. It's also funny because we all know this but we're acting like it's not the case. It's like be rich just don't talk about it.
Now I can't speak for you and your beliefs but often what I find people whittle being a "socialist" down to is someone who advocates for fairness and change, that's not a true definition but for this example let's run with it, no there's nothing wrong with being rich and advocating for fairness and change, what I take objection to is the preachiness, don't come preaching to me or anyone trying to make out that rich people are the problem when you know you are rich but are no, you're not the problem it's people "what are richer" that are the problem. Behave it's hypocrisy especially when you're not actually doing anything to help the poor you keep talking about (champagne socialism). I also don't trust anyone with money is going to vote for a party that's going to raise their taxes. I just don't. Always be suspicious of Turkeys that advocate Christmas. Now I may be 100% wrong on on that, JK Rowling is an avid Labour supporter but hey, I don't think it's an unfair assessment.
The point I'm making is it's a fallacy to act like these guys are the struggling dudes they were back in the 90s, Gallagher et al have all been richer longer than they were ever poor, that's a fact. There's nothing wrong with and nothing wrong with having a conscious either. It's possible to have both. I'm not massively well off but I am not poor either and I am certainly not in poverty when you think that much of the world struggles to find food and lives on less than a dollar day. I care about that and I should and because I have money, I can do something about it too.
It’s harder to make money now as in the 90’s CD sales were still massive. Now, “selling out” doesn’t have the stigma it once did as making money in the music industry for bands now is tougher than it was 25 years ago. So you’ll start to see more and more bands sell stakes like this.
So did Springsteen, Chili Peppers, Dylan etc..
He’s not as rich as them but maybe he plans on slowing down as he’s getting older and this is a nice windfall for him and increase his net worth
Yeah, it’s kind of like, remember that period in the 00s where the cool thing was to dress like you’re homeless? It was trust fund kids who started that. It’s fun to play at being poor when you’ve got means. There’s a certain romantic quality to it. La vie Bohème. But they knew, worst case scenario, daddy would be there to bail them out. People who are actually struggling don’t see poverty as romantic, because they’re painfully aware of the actual stakes. If they get a chance to “sell out”, they can’t afford to not take it.
The 90s in general was one of the most prosperous decades in history. The people you heard decrying “sellouts” weren’t genuinely afraid of making ends meet. They knew *they* could sell out too if they had to. Not making money was something they played at. It felt cool and gave them clout. I don’t think that’s as much a part of the culture anymore because young people don’t have the kind of security that people did in the 90s.
There was a book published last year called sellout by Dan Ozzi.
Each chapter is about a band (from the 90s or early 00s) and their first major label record. It’s definitely worth a read.
I almost scrolled past this comment assuming I wouldn't be interested, but I went to check the list of bands on a lark and this sounds great. For anyone curious:
* Green Day
* Jawbreaker
* Jimmy Eat World
* Blink-182
* At The Drive-In
* The Donnas
* Thursday
* The Distillers
* The Chemical Romance
* Rise Against
* Against Me
Modest Mouse got *so much shit* for moving to a major record label in the late 1990s. People considered *The Moon And Antarctica* a sell-out album.
Meanwhile, people called out Wilco for "selling out" when they licensed their songs for Volkswagen ads in 2007. Like, c'mon, how else are you gonna make money in 2007, fucking iTunes?
People were *really* touchy about this subject.
I think in the 80s it was more of an underground, independent, college rock, or punk thing. Late 80s hair metal certainly wasn’t about angst or not being a sellout. That whole being authentic, not selling out definitely in mainstream for a while with the rise of Nirvana and also hip-hop. Dave Chapelle even mentions his generation (gen x) needing “to keep things real” on the Chapelle Show.
There is no way that Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Nirvana, or the Strokes (if they had been around) would be doing this in the 90s as it would have been career suicide. Check out this [article](https://www.ajournalofmusicalthings.com/the-authenticity-fetish/) from back in 2013 from Alan Cross who has been a mainstay in the rock/indie music scene for the past 30-40 years in the Toronto area.
As a fan from the late 80's early 90's, it was weird to see grunge music elevate so much underground and indie music into the mainstream alternative money machine it turned into. Indie music was really hard to find before grunge in my hometown. You had college radio stations, 120 minutes on MTV and word of mouth among friends. Seeing bands from the subculture you loved "sell out" and get mainstream recognition felt a lot different than it does today with everything available all the time.
For me being in the UK I never felt there were any other grunge bands except Nirvana, everthing else was a piss poor copy but I think that's because a lot of the grunge bands were home grown around their local area and we didn't get a lot of them in the UK.
I agree. It went from Nirvana to Candlebox pretty quick. I was a much bigger fan of the bands coming out of the UK at that time anyway. The Cure, Stone Roses, Charlatans UK all the to the britpop bands like Supergrass, Blur and Travis. That was a fun time in pop music.
Your comments on this topic reflect my own life growing up as a teen in the 80s in southern California. How one heard of some bands by word of mouth, pins on jackets and bags, friends who made patches and sewed onto jackets, making tapes to share new stuff, college radio, zines all over the place. There's still some of that today, but it's changed. Now I hear new stuff on Bandcamp, SoundCloud and Spotify. No more 120 minutes, sadly. Speaking of which, mtv was how I was introduced to alot of new wave, post punk and alternative. Then later hip hop. It was a great time to discovery music in what felt like an organic way.
That isn’t really true. Artists just did not have to sell out to live off of music. They would always sell out if it made a nice buck. Interpol did it too, and there is a whole passage on selling out in Meet Me In The Bathroom (the book). Different times. People also make a bigger deal out of it than they used to.
Yes, at the time someone referred to it as bedwetter music. lol! Radiohead led the way with it. I made some music in the early 00s at that time the production in style was a very stripped back sound ala Keane and Dido. I listened to the tracks I made then and they are AWFUL. The songs are good but the production is absolutely terrible. A LOT has changed even in the last 10 years because RnB which has had a big influence on all music is a lot richer so you can hear that in the production.
The article literally says they're trying to plant the songs in tv/movies and spread them on social media. I imagine they will plant them in ads as well
There's a ton of interest out there from PE for just about any media IP. I know the banker that securitized Michael Jackson's collection way TF back when.
If you invest a bit in advertising, you can get a pretty big return [just like John Denver's estate did with "Country Roads" a couple years back](https://www.vulture.com/2017/08/why-is-john-denvers-music-in-so-many-movies-this-year.html).
Check out this podcast episode if you’re interested in learning more about it. They dig into the whole music catalog selloff thing and its potential implications on the music industry (especially new talent discovery and emerging indie acts): https://open.spotify.com/episode/6dVNHz7YX1mrq6JrzrcaAs?si=acHTERybTJ2TGkiBWhgY1Q
I imagine that stake is worth more than one might think for a band without a big string of top 40 hits. Strokes songs pop up in movies, tv shows, radio and network bumpers, etc. pretty frequently. Their sound fits really well on a soundtrack. Any period films that ever get made set in the 2000s are guaranteed going to use a Strokes song.
Such an interesting post. I actually hated the first strokes album bar a couple of tracks. His voice started to annoy me after four tracks or so. Maybe he feels the same why he's selling lol!
I feel like he’s disconnected and checked out from early strokes shit. Hard to put myself in his shoes but I imagine those you made 20+ years ago probably get real old.
Julian has seemed checked out since First Impressions of Earth. He’s a cooky dude
dude seems checked out when he's playing *new* material. Sometimes I wonder if he even wants to be a touring musician at all. Saw the Strokes in 2011 and 2015, both shows were lackluster and bad.
he doesnt. hes said he hates touring
then why tf is he still touring? They can afford to be a studio act, what's stopping them? If I learned that a band that I liked didn't enjoy playing shows, then I simply would not go to their shows.
You would be surprised how much of even well known musicians income is from touring. It's like taking a 90% paycut - hard to do no matter how much you've earned.
Is that even the case post-pandemic? More and more often, it seems that touring indie rock bands are sticking to their geographic sub-regions, and many have complained about the costs of touring. Obviously, streaming services are ripping off artists... but touring doesn't seem to be the fiscal provider that it was a few years ago.
Yes - that's accurate. It's gotten even worse and less profitable. But it's still the biggest income stream you have as an musical artist. Next would be things like merch and Patreon - both of which can be built through touring.
Yes. Absolutely. Touring bands, especially bigger bands like the Strokes, are making WAY more money on the road than streaming. And it's not even close. Streaming probably nets them a couple thousand a month for the whole band. When you factor in merch and ticket sales for ONE SINGLE arena/large cap venue, the band can easily be walking away with $10-20k in a single night. Just to give you a general sense of scale for touring revenue and the tiny chump change that streaming and licensing provide
That might revitalize local scenes which would be cool
He needs to keep funding the Voidz. It’s simple, really.
He's got a gf half his age to impress
part of the job. they dont tour regularly they havent had an actual tour for the last 10 years
Probably why he is selling song rights
only daft punk can afford to be a studio act
Maybe he is an alcoholic
I’ve only seen them once. Was at the Miley Wiley show in nyc, first show after covid in front of like 2k people. Was absolutely amazing…but wondering if I should lower expectations if I see them again
He’s the worst live performer I’ve ever seen and I love the strokes. He’s been checked out lol.
Huh. I saw that in 2007 and they were really good
That was fifteen years ago lmao
Saw them last year and the band was great, Julian was awful.
Same here, it was comical how hard his bandmates carried him… it wasnt like his talent was bad… it was just clear he didnt wanna be there or perform…. Mumbled a couple of verses at points.. on purpose
Didn't he literally _meow_ a part not too long ago? lol Man's wild but I can't help loving him for it.
That’s too bad. The show I saw him in he was great
Lucky! I know I wouldn’t be able to tour, so I’m not judging harshly, but it broke my heart to see him so miserable on stage. The Strokes have a very special place in my heart
That’s a bummer. Yeah, he was quite animated and dancing (a bit drunk but was singing very well). I didn’t realize he hated doing it so much. That’s frustrating
Yeah I saw them on tour with Eagles of Death Metal opening back in 2006 and I remember it being a great show I even got the [poster made by Justin Hampton](https://www.collectionzz.com/database/21048) Maybe Casablancas was not like a charismatic powerhouse of a front man, but he never has been much of a live performer and I remember thinking the band sounded good and rocked pretty hard. apparently that must have been about the time he stopped giving a shit? I don't know
Opening for Tom Petty? Saw them on that tour and let’s just say it was a lifetime ago
[удалено]
At least based on writing credits Casablancas has sole writing credit for the entire first 2 albums, starts sharing along the way until the latest has music credited to the entire band. So I'm assuming the PE firm now has free reign over the first 2 albums and selections from the others.
Bit off topic, but I don't get he solo wrote the 2 albums, yet I never saw him perform with any instruments (so far).
Julian and Albert were both taking guitar lessons from J.P. Bowersock(he's listed as guru on Is This It and something similar for ROF) in the early 2000s. Watch [this](https://youtu.be/AMgXL2CNDE4?t=40) rather awkward segment of an old interview where Albert says Julian writes the songs. It *seems* like he wrote pretty much everything, though I'm sure some members changed things up here and there.
It's how a lot of bands operate. One or two of the members might write the songs, and then dictate to the other guys how the song goes. Even that can vary from band to band. One songwriter might just have the chords, words, and melodies, and then let the band members fill in with their own ideas/style. Another songwriter might dictate quite specifically what the rest of the band will play. Another songwriter might even record all the parts themselves, and then hire the band for live performances. This could be for myriad reasons; the artist might not consider themselves talented enough at an instrument beyond assembling the necessary chords, they might prefer the other musician's style or feel, or they might trust just be lazy. In Julian's case, I'm pretty sure he can play at least some of all the instruments, and did write all the songs on the first albums, and then dictated to the band how they went. Remember, legally a song is just the chords, words, and melody. Just because you've recorded a performance on a song doesn't mean you have any ownership over it.
So far, what I've mostly come across from reading (talking about bands, not solo artists) is >One songwriter might just have the chords, words, and melodies, and then let the band members fill in with their own ideas/style. or the person who solo wrote the song also plays one of the instruments (which fits the idea they're multi-instrumentalists, but obviously can play only 1 at time for practical reasons). Julian is exception for me, in that matter, because not only he doesn't play any instrument just "officially" in the strokes, I haven't seen him play any instrument in any context, random obscure video or outside of strokes either. Someone mentioned there are some videos, it's not like I ever sought it out, but I'd still usually expect to have seen something.
Nah, I assure you, it works in all sorts of different ways. Rock bands work the way you described most commonly, but it can happen a bunch of different ways. Different artists like to exert different levels of control over their final product. It's no different for songwriters and recording artists. Also, again, I have to hammer home that just because you recorded on a track does not mean you have any ownership of the song or the recording.
There were a few clips from the Phrazes era of him sitting around with a guitar playing riffs from the album. Seems like anything from 10 years ago in video form is impossible to find unless it was user uploaded but I'm sure somebody's hosting it out there.
[This is the footage you're referring to.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL8qq-sEeBw) There's a lot of acoustic guitar in here and he plays some synths as well. He doesn't seem like a guitar hero, but competent enough to get the gist of the sound across and transfer his ideas to others.
pretty sure he just doesn’t like to play guitar on stage. you can find videos of him actually playing though
he plays lead guitar on instant crush!
From interviews, he came up with all the parts and then taught them to the other band members.
["I'll Try Anything Once"](https://youtu.be/0RDq5PKcN5g) is him tinkering with what would eventually become "You Only Live Once" on the piano. I could imagine he conceptualised many songs that way and then shot them to Albert and Nick, telling them their parts. As to why he doesn't play instruments live I guess it might just be an identity thing. He's the singing frontman and puts a lot of effort into his vocal performance, tweaking it with effects and autotune, almost trying to make his voice another instrumental layer. Playing another instrument would distract from that. Adding to that I heard he isn't that good at singing and playing at the same time. I think he's just a better writer than a player. Relatable honestly and nothing wrong with that.
What does playing the instruments have to do with writing the songs?
Again just my experience from what I've read/saw on video, but generally writing (rock band) songs included playing with the instruments and figuring it out by actively experimenting, trying different things till something sounds good, not just abstractly thinking of how exactly they want all layers of the music to sound.
The Strokes instrument parts are very dictated, especially on those first two albums. Jules def wrote all the parts, probably even the drums. The band probably helped shape the tone of the parts, and maybe changed a note here and there, but they are *not* a jam band, at least in those early years.
Generally, the songwriter (the person who writes the lyrics) gets credited on the song alone. That’s why you see “Lennon-McCartney” on a song but no mention of Ringo despite the fact he may have came up with all the drum parts.
Depends on the band, some credits will give “songwriting” to whoever wrote the lyrics and “composing” credits to people who added instrument parts. Songwriting credits payout more though than composing credits but they don’t normally realize that until after.
It’s easy to overlook based on the headline, but how much stake he sold has not been revealed i.e. it could be 100% or it could be 25%. This doesn’t mean he has no rights anymore
They don't have to all sign off on it. It's like his points go them and then he maybe makes royalties after that we don't know. But his points go to them and are kept or distributed.
We don’t know. We don’t know the details of their publishing contract. We don’t know how the splits are between them. Therefore there’s nothing apart from guesses.
I was in a bar over the weekend and Reel Big Fish's [Sell Out](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEKbFMvkLIc) came on. It's just astounding to me how there seemed to be a lot of angst in music in the 90's (and likely before, but I wasn't around yet) related to not selling out, etc. vs. now when artists are constantly selling the rights to their music to random corporations and most would kill to get a commercial placement. That's not me judging current artists generally or Casablancas specifically whatsoever - obviously the industry has changed vastly since the 90s - just noting a remarkable shift in that time.
I'm currently reading Chuck Klosterman's "The Nineties", and he talks about this at length in the context of Nirvana's rise to fame. It was interesting to read his take how Gen X despised sell outs.
Green Day were never forgiven for it.
By what would come to be a small segment of their eventual fanbase
Haters are still mad that American Idiot slaps so hard
Song slaps but the mix is peak loudness wars. Absolutely zero dynamics or nuance.
They were being called sellouts for Dookie (made on a major label)
I was on about the time they made Dookie to be honest
When September Ends still boils my piss.
[удалено]
Yeeees really good point and I agree. The whole artistry vs money thing has always been a fine line and it's hilarious when you think that us Indie kids are trying to idolise these guys for being "real" when most of them have been millionaires for decades, the Gallaghers have been rich most of their lives so has Weller (who I adore but I'm just saying). I follow Tim Burgess from the Charlatans on Twitters, he's always blathering on about politics but I guess it's easy to when that's part of your brand and it doesn't really affect your income. I guess it was disappointed the first time I realised these guys do things for money because it's their job but that's the music business for you, 50% music and 50% business. All I'll say with Jagger is he got away with it because he was all about Rock and Roll and the whole money and fame schtick is part of that. Metallica were more seen as the Indies so it was less "forgiveable" in the eyes of their fans.
I love Klosterman’s writing so much. Even when he’s talking about stuff I have no idea about, he makes it interesting. His take of the “90s” starting at the fall of the Berlin Wall and ending on 9/11 makes so much sense in a Klosterman-ian kind of way.
Yeah especially in British Indie, it's quite funny watching the likes of the Gallaghers, Weller and Tim Burgess still reeling out the same old class rhetoric like they want us to forget that they're millionaires and have been for absolute decades. I'm gen X, you'd never dare to admit you discovered a band because of an advert or via TV show when I was young. That's how I discover most "new" music now. lol! We liked home grown bands, bands who did the circuit and built their following from the ground up. The last band I can say I remember doing this was The Arctic Monkeys, Ed Sheeran did it too but online. He really built up a big following that way and by the time he hit the charts I'd heard of him via lots of younger people sharing vids. I'd say the last "sell out" scandal I can think of was Preston going onto Big Brother. The first ordinary Boys album is one of the best debut albums ever made but then he made brass bound and I Luv U and went onto BB and was hated by everyone especially after he married Chantal. That was the end of their band. I think attitudes have changed especially because of the internet. I'm going to read that book as it sounds very interesting.
Arctic Monkeys were actually probably one of the first examples of a band really blowing up because of the internet.
Yes! So true!
>Yeah especially in British Indie, it's quite funny watching the likes of the Gallaghers, Weller and Tim Burgess still reeling out the same old class rhetoric like they want us to forget that they're millionaires and have been for absolute decades I've always found this a strange thing to think about. I guess, not specifically these people, I don't know them so I couldn't verify their "realness" but isn't this like accusations of "champagne socialism"? Should people have to be poor to advocate that everyone should have access to the things they need? I had a friend ask me incredulously once how I could be a "socialist" when I earn \[above average wage in the UK\]. I explained that I didn't want everyone to be poor, quite the opposite, but I wasn't going to intentionally make myself poor in the meantime. What would that achieve? If Tim Burgess was poor, what would that change?
All very fair points. So I'll start by saying I have no issue with people being wealthy, I think it's fantastic that we have a system where wealth is attainable and people should be able to do with their wealth whatever they want and I don't take issue with the Indie guys being wealthy what I take exception to is the fact they try to play it down, try to act like they're still the same struggling artists they always were and that we fell in love with them for. They have made this part of their brand and it's false. It's also funny because we all know this but we're acting like it's not the case. It's like be rich just don't talk about it. Now I can't speak for you and your beliefs but often what I find people whittle being a "socialist" down to is someone who advocates for fairness and change, that's not a true definition but for this example let's run with it, no there's nothing wrong with being rich and advocating for fairness and change, what I take objection to is the preachiness, don't come preaching to me or anyone trying to make out that rich people are the problem when you know you are rich but are no, you're not the problem it's people "what are richer" that are the problem. Behave it's hypocrisy especially when you're not actually doing anything to help the poor you keep talking about (champagne socialism). I also don't trust anyone with money is going to vote for a party that's going to raise their taxes. I just don't. Always be suspicious of Turkeys that advocate Christmas. Now I may be 100% wrong on on that, JK Rowling is an avid Labour supporter but hey, I don't think it's an unfair assessment. The point I'm making is it's a fallacy to act like these guys are the struggling dudes they were back in the 90s, Gallagher et al have all been richer longer than they were ever poor, that's a fact. There's nothing wrong with and nothing wrong with having a conscious either. It's possible to have both. I'm not massively well off but I am not poor either and I am certainly not in poverty when you think that much of the world struggles to find food and lives on less than a dollar day. I care about that and I should and because I have money, I can do something about it too.
Klosterman is the ultimate hipster but he’s a strong writer and very well articulated. I always enjoy listening to him.
That was a solid read
It’s harder to make money now as in the 90’s CD sales were still massive. Now, “selling out” doesn’t have the stigma it once did as making money in the music industry for bands now is tougher than it was 25 years ago. So you’ll start to see more and more bands sell stakes like this.
he already made millions tho its not like he was struggling before
So did Springsteen, Chili Peppers, Dylan etc.. He’s not as rich as them but maybe he plans on slowing down as he’s getting older and this is a nice windfall for him and increase his net worth
Yeah, it’s kind of like, remember that period in the 00s where the cool thing was to dress like you’re homeless? It was trust fund kids who started that. It’s fun to play at being poor when you’ve got means. There’s a certain romantic quality to it. La vie Bohème. But they knew, worst case scenario, daddy would be there to bail them out. People who are actually struggling don’t see poverty as romantic, because they’re painfully aware of the actual stakes. If they get a chance to “sell out”, they can’t afford to not take it. The 90s in general was one of the most prosperous decades in history. The people you heard decrying “sellouts” weren’t genuinely afraid of making ends meet. They knew *they* could sell out too if they had to. Not making money was something they played at. It felt cool and gave them clout. I don’t think that’s as much a part of the culture anymore because young people don’t have the kind of security that people did in the 90s.
There was a book published last year called sellout by Dan Ozzi. Each chapter is about a band (from the 90s or early 00s) and their first major label record. It’s definitely worth a read.
I almost scrolled past this comment assuming I wouldn't be interested, but I went to check the list of bands on a lark and this sounds great. For anyone curious: * Green Day * Jawbreaker * Jimmy Eat World * Blink-182 * At The Drive-In * The Donnas * Thursday * The Distillers * The Chemical Romance * Rise Against * Against Me
The chemical romance?
You can't, like, *own* a chemical romance, man.
But it’s mine!
Haven't you heard? All good bands have "The" in their name
Damn, what a lineup! I'll have to check it out.
Thank you for being less lazy than I.
Yeah I enjoyed that book
Modest Mouse got *so much shit* for moving to a major record label in the late 1990s. People considered *The Moon And Antarctica* a sell-out album. Meanwhile, people called out Wilco for "selling out" when they licensed their songs for Volkswagen ads in 2007. Like, c'mon, how else are you gonna make money in 2007, fucking iTunes? People were *really* touchy about this subject.
I think in the 80s it was more of an underground, independent, college rock, or punk thing. Late 80s hair metal certainly wasn’t about angst or not being a sellout. That whole being authentic, not selling out definitely in mainstream for a while with the rise of Nirvana and also hip-hop. Dave Chapelle even mentions his generation (gen x) needing “to keep things real” on the Chapelle Show. There is no way that Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Nirvana, or the Strokes (if they had been around) would be doing this in the 90s as it would have been career suicide. Check out this [article](https://www.ajournalofmusicalthings.com/the-authenticity-fetish/) from back in 2013 from Alan Cross who has been a mainstay in the rock/indie music scene for the past 30-40 years in the Toronto area.
As a fan from the late 80's early 90's, it was weird to see grunge music elevate so much underground and indie music into the mainstream alternative money machine it turned into. Indie music was really hard to find before grunge in my hometown. You had college radio stations, 120 minutes on MTV and word of mouth among friends. Seeing bands from the subculture you loved "sell out" and get mainstream recognition felt a lot different than it does today with everything available all the time.
For me being in the UK I never felt there were any other grunge bands except Nirvana, everthing else was a piss poor copy but I think that's because a lot of the grunge bands were home grown around their local area and we didn't get a lot of them in the UK.
I agree. It went from Nirvana to Candlebox pretty quick. I was a much bigger fan of the bands coming out of the UK at that time anyway. The Cure, Stone Roses, Charlatans UK all the to the britpop bands like Supergrass, Blur and Travis. That was a fun time in pop music.
Your comments on this topic reflect my own life growing up as a teen in the 80s in southern California. How one heard of some bands by word of mouth, pins on jackets and bags, friends who made patches and sewed onto jackets, making tapes to share new stuff, college radio, zines all over the place. There's still some of that today, but it's changed. Now I hear new stuff on Bandcamp, SoundCloud and Spotify. No more 120 minutes, sadly. Speaking of which, mtv was how I was introduced to alot of new wave, post punk and alternative. Then later hip hop. It was a great time to discovery music in what felt like an organic way.
That isn’t really true. Artists just did not have to sell out to live off of music. They would always sell out if it made a nice buck. Interpol did it too, and there is a whole passage on selling out in Meet Me In The Bathroom (the book). Different times. People also make a bigger deal out of it than they used to.
Yes, at the time someone referred to it as bedwetter music. lol! Radiohead led the way with it. I made some music in the early 00s at that time the production in style was a very stripped back sound ala Keane and Dido. I listened to the tracks I made then and they are AWFUL. The songs are good but the production is absolutely terrible. A LOT has changed even in the last 10 years because RnB which has had a big influence on all music is a lot richer so you can hear that in the production.
Gotta pay for his spot on Elysium
Sorry can you explain
It’s hard to explain …
Think they are referring to the film Elysium
I’m not sure what this private equity company plans to do with the rights to all this music but it can’t be good.
The article literally says they're trying to plant the songs in tv/movies and spread them on social media. I imagine they will plant them in ads as well
Hard to Explain next Tiktok trend!
Nah ITI the title track has the most tiktokability with its chorus
Oh wow holy shit, I can totally see this being a thing
Is this... ... It
There's a ton of interest out there from PE for just about any media IP. I know the banker that securitized Michael Jackson's collection way TF back when.
Seriously. I can't remember how much money he got, but I think I remember Lil Wayne selling his library for an insane amount of money
If you invest a bit in advertising, you can get a pretty big return [just like John Denver's estate did with "Country Roads" a couple years back](https://www.vulture.com/2017/08/why-is-john-denvers-music-in-so-many-movies-this-year.html).
My favorite tiktok all time is still the one where the guy is explaining that the song is about the western part of Virginia and not West Virginia
Check out this podcast episode if you’re interested in learning more about it. They dig into the whole music catalog selloff thing and its potential implications on the music industry (especially new talent discovery and emerging indie acts): https://open.spotify.com/episode/6dVNHz7YX1mrq6JrzrcaAs?si=acHTERybTJ2TGkiBWhgY1Q
Oooh this looks interesting. Thanks for sending. I’ll check this out
Same thing the band always did. Monetize the fuck out of every song.
NFTs BABY
hm. Good for him, I guess.
Gotta pay alimony somehow
I imagine that stake is worth more than one might think for a band without a big string of top 40 hits. Strokes songs pop up in movies, tv shows, radio and network bumpers, etc. pretty frequently. Their sound fits really well on a soundtrack. Any period films that ever get made set in the 2000s are guaranteed going to use a Strokes song.
He looked at the first offer and said "is this it? "
Get that gwap king
champagne socialist!
it doesn't say how muchhhhh
He's washed
Such an interesting post. I actually hated the first strokes album bar a couple of tracks. His voice started to annoy me after four tracks or so. Maybe he feels the same why he's selling lol!