According to this information, why did the song writer Berry said that the he couldn't sign the contract because it's a high interest loan ? Why is that?

Beyoncé received "Sandcastles" in February 2015, more than a year after the song was written. Berry, who was homeless at the time when the song was included on the track listing of Lemonade did not want to sign a publishing agreement and opted out for keeping ownership of the track, saying: "I wanted to own it and that's a harder road. That meant being homeless and sleeping in cars and garages and studios and that's what I was willing to do. I knew I couldn't sign a publishing deal knowing what they are - essentially a high-interest loan. Why would I take that kind of deal?"[1] Eventually, he received a call from the singer's team notifying him that the song he wrote was included on the album, along with a production credit he would share with Beyoncé.

closed as unclear what you're asking by user6726, K-C, BlueDogRanch, Nij, Dale M Feb 22 '17 at 9:25

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.


A recording contract surrenders all future income from the song except as stated in the contract, in exchange for the record company expending money up front to distribute the recording.

If you can raise enough money to distribute the recording yourself without the record company, then you don't have to surrender all the future income net of royalties from the song to a middleman like the record company.

In the case of a successful song, the up front expenditure from the record company can be quite modest relative to its future receipts net of royalties, so that it is economically equivalent to a high interest rate loan on the initial investment of the record company in distributing the song.

Of course, a record company would argue that this is fair because most of the time the song is not successful and the record company barely breaks even or loses money on its investment. Also, the record company, because it distributes lots of songs, gains efficiencies of scale that are not available to a self-publishing artist. The fact that its doesn't invest a lot of dollars into promoting each song does not mean that a self-publishing artist wouldn't have to spend much more money to generate the same gross revenues that the record company does.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.