Martyn Ware tells Rockstar Games to do one!

  • Thread starter Thread starter DHR
  • Start date Start date
DHR said:
An interesting one cropped up on my feed this morning that has sparked some debate. Quoting Martyn Ware (Human League / Heaven 17) ...



So, would you walk with the $7500 and take the exposure which in this day and age for Temptation would be minimal, I may be wrong?

Would you take the $7500 knowing you're a cultural part of something huge?

Would stand by your principles, your work, and refuse?

I was solely on the side of the "do one" fence at first, but when you take into consideration they put about 300-400 songs in the last game, even at that sort of money that's what £2-3 million spent right there?

Still, compared to Spotify, YouTube revenue etc. I'm still thinking it's not actually a bad idea, do wonder whether a 5 figure sum would have been a bit more appalling though!
Click to expand...

So he takes $7500 for a song on a GTA radio amongst many - or he gets significantly more publicity for him and his track by publicly condemning Rockstar?

How many people will now go and listen to the tune through piqued interest? As it's now of interest, we'll get cover versions, remixed into other tracks and the usual influencers doing something with the track too :)

Smart move considering the low offer from R*
 
Last edited:
Hotwired said:
All I'm taking away from this is that I don't know the going rate for selling music.

Except the time someone was talking about wannabe film makers having ideas about using famous songs in a really prominent way and not realising it's unaffordable.
Click to expand...
From what I understand the going rate for a song in a film starts at around £500 for a small song in a low budget film. It's one of the reasons there are entire music libraries of royalty free, or very cheap music that film and TV make heavy use of.

I remember the fuss about 20 years ago when a load of TV programmes and films were being delayed in regards to DVD release, or were being released with changed sound tracks because their contracts only had the rights to use the music for broadcast or at the very best "home video" as in Video Tape. Any series that used a lot of popular, even if they were older songs had real issues, one of the highest profile at the time was Roswell High which IIRC basically lost all of it's popular contemporary music that it had aired with with the exception of "here with me" for the theme, and apparently that cost them a fortune.
 
mattyfez said:
It's not, lol, 0.0005% of £8600000000 = £43000

Plus as a percentage, if the game does well, so does the artist, so whatever they negociate as a fair percentage, I'd demand a percentage, rather than a one off payment of £7.5k, it seems like a bit of a mickey take.
Click to expand...

You're a zero, 9 zeros on a billion, although my Maths is also off :D
 
Raymond Lin said:
$7500 to an already rich person is peanuts, pocket change. In a way, if that’s the value they are putting on his work, in his shoes, it can come across like an insult.

If the pitch is also “but you get exposure and potential stream sales on another platform”, I’s tell them “I can’t pay bills with potential.”

I mean they don’t tell their devs “work for free, you get to say you work for Rockstar on your CV.”
Click to expand...

The thing is the guy made a fortune when music was at its peak in terms of monetary value. Music is just dirt cheap now and to make money now it is all down to touring rather than the actual music itself. You look at the majority of the richest people in music are from the 60's-80's. With the advent of the internet everything has changed.

I can go onto Spotify and listen to anything I want for £10 a month. To acquire the catalogue I listen to on a daily basis would have cost me thousands in the 90's.

I can remember when Frank Skinner was talking about footballs coming home and despite the amount of streams it has during tournament time he made £800.
 
adam cool dude said:
The thing is the guy made a fortune when music was at its peak in terms of monetary value. Music is just dirt cheap now and to make money now it is all down to touring rather than the actual music itself. You look at the majority of the richest people in music are from the 60's-80's. With the advent of the internet everything has changed.

I can go onto Spotify and listen to anything I want for £10 a month. To acquire the catalogue I listen to on a daily basis would have cost me thousands in the 90's.

I can remember when Frank Skinner was talking about footballs coming home and despite the amount of streams it has during tournament time he made £800.
Click to expand...

That doesn’t mean the song is only worth $7500, it cheapens to what is already a devalued mentality on music. As someone in his shoes who doesn’t need that amount of money, why should he add fuel to this fire?

Clearly he disagree with your take on it. Hence his reply to them to go do one.
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
From what I understand the going rate for a song in a film starts at around £500 for a small song in a low budget film. It's one of the reasons there are entire music libraries of royalty free, or very cheap music that film and TV make heavy use of.

I remember the fuss about 20 years ago when a load of TV programmes and films were being delayed in regards to DVD release, or were being released with changed sound tracks because their contracts only had the rights to use the music for broadcast or at the very best "home video" as in Video Tape. Any series that used a lot of popular, even if they were older songs had real issues, one of the highest profile at the time was Roswell High which IIRC basically lost all of it's popular contemporary music that it had aired with with the exception of "here with me" for the theme, and apparently that cost them a fortune.
Click to expand...

Marholm in the middle got hit by the rights thing. I think they had to change the soundtrack and title song for the dvd re-release.

Hmm. I might see if I can pick that series up...
 
Raymond Lin said:
That doesn’t mean the song is only worth $7500, it cheapens to what is already a devalued mentality on music. As someone in his shoes who doesn’t need that amount of money, why should he add fuel to this fire?
Click to expand...

I'm being a bit facetious here, but Rockstar don't give me a lifetime right to play their game on all platforms when I pay for it once.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I mean they don’t tell their devs “work for free, you get to say you work for Rockstar on your CV.”
Click to expand...
If Rockstar went up to a dev and said "Hey, you know that BASIC program you wrote in 1984, we want to show it on a screen in GTA6 along with hundreds of other lines of code, can we do it for $7500" I think we all know what the answer would be. The same answer it would be for $75 as well.

Martyn Ware is a serial online whinger though.
 
Last edited:
Em3bbs said:
If Rockstar went up to a dev and said "Hey, you know that BASIC program you wrote in 1984, we want to show it on a screen in GTA6 along with hundreds of other lines of code, can we do it for $7500" I think we all know what the answer would be. The same answer it would be for $75 as well.

Martyn Ware is a serial online whinger though.
Click to expand...
That however is a very different thing though, as it's not doing anything apart from being a bit of decoration, it's not playing an active part in the actual game.

If that bit of code was still in use and required licencing to use (and rockstar wanted it working), and they said "hey we want to use your code" it would be a far better analogy...

And guess what, even a lot of "open source" code requires payment if it's used in commercial applications even though the terms of the licence may say it's free to use non commercially.

There is also an element of once the person says to one company "hey you can use this really cheap/free" it sets the bar lower for other companies that want to do the same. It's a similar reason that celebs on charity shows might get "paid" for their work, but they'll often only be getting the minimum money that any unknown would get for what they're doing (and will often then give it straight back or to another charity*) - they're not devaluing their work, or devaluing the work of others even for a charity.


*IIRC there are for example minimum set rates for both musicians and actors set by agreements between their guilds/unions and production companies, so a famous, world class musician doing charity work might well get "paid" but at the same rate as someone doing their first professional gig.
 
Last edited:
mattyfez said:
It's not, lol, 0.0005% of £8600000000 = £43000

Plus as a percentage, if the game does well, so does the artist, so whatever they negociate as a fair percentage, I'd demand a percentage, rather than a one off payment of £7.5k, it seems like a bit of a mickey take.
Click to expand...
Rockstar would never agree to a revenue share they would rather have no music at all.

They'll probably consider profit sharing but only because they'd emulate Hollywood and pay nothing out because it made 'no profit'.
 
It is his music he gets to say how much he wants to license it for.
He is not holding them to ramson or anything and the game will not materially different with or without his music.

Edit: if they do not like it they can offer more or just chose some different music (not like it is in limited choice)
 
Last edited:
Em3bbs said:
If Rockstar went up to a dev and said "Hey, you know that BASIC program you wrote in 1984, we want to show it on a screen in GTA6 along with hundreds of other lines of code, can we do it for $7500" I think we all know what the answer would be. The same answer it would be for $75 as well.

Martyn Ware is a serial online whinger though.
Click to expand...
You reckon Nintendo would happily let Rockstar directly import Super Mario Bros into GTA VI for 7.5k?

Or how about an in game cinema that shows the entirety of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, reckon Paramount would be up for that?

Hell what about including San Andreas as a playable game within the next Sims game?

FFS these are the guys that DMCA'd mods for GTA V that included assets from a 20 year old game lmao
 
StriderX said:
Rockstar would never agree to a revenue share they would rather have no music at all.

They'll probably consider profit sharing but only because they'd emulate Hollywood and pay nothing out because it made 'no profit'.
Click to expand...

Every time I hear of that hollywood arrangement it sounds like a sick joke played on the uninformed to scam them out of fair payment.
 
Dalandius said:
It is his music he gets to say how much he wants to license it for.
He is not holding them to ramson or anything and the game will not materially different with or without his music.

Edit: if they do not like it they can offer more or just chose some different music (not like it is in limited choice)
Click to expand...

Instead he chose to whine like a ***** on social media.
 
Werewolf said:
7.5k Is tiny,
Click to expand...
It's money for old rope.

Lets face it no one under 30 probably even heard the song.


I think I only know it from some animated cat movie and I'm over 40

It's basically free advertising. I wonder what the GTA Vice city soundtrack cost and if that had residuals
 
Last edited:
Dalandius said:
It is his music he gets to say how much he wants to license it for.
He is not holding them to ramson or anything and the game will not materially different with or without his music.

Edit: if they do not like it they can offer more or just chose some different music (not like it is in limited choice)
Click to expand...
They aren't the ones whinging about it.

Interesting the ones that are defending him are the ones that probably agree with his very vocal politics as well. (I don't mean you Dalandius, I don't know your politics :D)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom