I have been wondering why many classic rock artists mismanage their catalog. Why do these artist sit on their unreleased audio and video material? In the case of Bob Dylan, 2026 approaches the 50th anniversary of material made in 1976. An active year for Dylan as his rolling thunder review would be documented by audio and video. My beef is why sit on this material so long, so long in fact that the very people who have interest in this material and would be willing to pay for it are no longer around to appreciate it. This applies to the Stones too. What interest/market will there be for unreleased stones material after the deaths of Jagger and Richards? What market will there be once a majority of long time fans have passed?

Its good for their kids. Or they just never got around to it. Realistically, you can't release everything but yes, as a big Bruce Springsteen fan there's so much stuff that is too little too late. Same with the Stones, same with Rush. Sad.

Quote
illyad1960
I have been wondering why many classic rock artists mismanage their catalog. Why do these artist sit on their unreleased audio and video material? In the case of Bob Dylan, 2026 approaches the 50th anniversary of material made in 1976. An active year for Dylan as his rolling thunder review would be documented by audio and video. My beef is why sit on this material so long, so long in fact that the very people who have interest in this material and would be willing to pay for it are no longer around to appreciate it. This applies to the Stones too. What interest/market will there be for unreleased stones material after the deaths of Jagger and Richards? What market will there be once a majority of long time fans have passed?

Because there are aspects that people like you and me will never understand. To use a modern term: the algorithms of the catalog + name + heritage + make money now is what it is for some, long haul "legacy" acts vs current and huge acts like Sabrina Carpenter.

Gee, which one is going to get more now? Sabrina or AC/DC? Teddy Swims or The Beatles? Taylor Swift or The Rolling Stones? Etc.

In regard to your beef, it's very likely that that material is now not owned or delegated by Bob Dylan. If the deal is for recorded material.. well, it's for recorded material.

What neither of us yet alone quite a few million people don't understand is the details in the regard to owning Dylan's publishing.

Does it cover unreleased studio material? Very likely.

Does it cover live recorded performances? Very likely.

How much is "very likely" compared to a definite? I don't know. It's very likely I'll clear the bugs off my windshield if...

There's a common misperception at iorr.org that the fan base is dying OH NO who is going to buy it: unfortunately it's simply streaming that is preserving yet not paying when it comes to big labels. By the time whatever money is figured out the artist gets the least amount.

But they're streaming!!!

A movie is made about... and then... and then it goes away but they got what they wanted at that moment.

It's not much different than the 1970s-1990s when artists/bands would get ABC amount of money. Whatever figure you can look at in the past for someone getting a "record breaking" contract they never saw that amount in reality. Janet Jackson didn't get $40 million in her pocket.

When the Stones signed with Virgin for $44 million they didn't get $44 million.

Dylan sold his publishing up through... well, at the moment, I don't think his newest album was part of the deal but basically everything. So you see a commerical on TV with a Dylan song - not his decision and he has zero control over it.

What I have not read anywhere is if he still makes money from whatever, performance or mechanical royalties from what he sold. Probably not since he sold it.

That's my $0.004 Spotify worth. It's possible you might get someone's point that's worthy of Tidal's $0.01284 worth.