Residuals on OBCRs?

[oldfriends]

Posted: 7/9/25 at 4:22pm

Hi all - just saw the news about the Wicked OBCR going quadruple platinum, which led me to wonder: do any of the original cast members on the recording get residuals from its (obvious) sales success? And if so, is that the norm in general? Like is Norbert Leo Butz getting checks every few months? Or do all of the proceeds go to producers/Schwartz/etc. Just curious!

[witchoftheeast2]

Posted: 7/9/25 at 5:49pm

Did a quick Google search:

"Broadway cast recordings can indeed generate residuals for performers, but it's not a standard, across-the-board system like film and television. While actors don't typically receive residuals for re-runs or syndication as they do in other mediums, they may earn residuals from cast album sales, streaming, and potentially from workshop productions."

[JSquared2]

Posted: 7/9/25 at 6:46pm

Per the AEA Production contract, in addition to receiving one week of the then current scale Production Contract salary (which is currently $2,638.00) for each 8 hours the actor spends at the recording studio (and it's usually kept at just a single day per actor), the actors who are on the album receive "residuals" on a pro-rata basis sharing 15% of the Producers' income from the album (which varies greatly depending on who paid for the recording).  If a label (like Concord) paid for the album, then the label gets the lion's share of the profits.  If the producer pays for it, then the producer gets a higher share.  So even for monster hits like HAMILTON, WICKED, etc., it's unlikely that the actors have received more than a few thousand dollars over the years (if that much).

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 7/9/25 at 7:16pm

JSquared2 said: "Per the AEA Production contract, in addition to receiving one week of the then current scale Production Contract salary (which is currently $2,638.00) for each 8 hours the actor spends at the recording studio (and it's usually kept at just a single day per actor), the actors who are on the album receive "residuals" on a pro-rata basis sharing 15% of the Producers' income from the album (which varies greatly depending on who paid for the recording). If a label (like Concord) paid for the album, then the label gets the lion's share of the profits. If the producer pays for it, then the producer gets a higher share. So even for monster hits like HAMILTON, WICKED, etc., it's unlikely that the actors have received more than a few thousand dollars over the years (if that much)."

Thanks for this, that’s interesting. I wonder if the actors are paid in 8 hour minimums - as in, if someone had to return a few days later to do a retake for whatever reason, singing with the orchestral track, and only spent an hour of their time, I wonder if they’d get the full $2638. 

[Laurapattifan]

Posted: 7/9/25 at 11:16pm

The streaming era has decimated the music industry and most artists do not make money from their music, but from touring. It used to be an artist made 80% of their revenue from album sales and 20% from touring, now it’s pretty much the opposite. Cast recordings, like musicals, are often money losing ventures. The albums benefit licensing more than anything. I think Hamilton, Six, and Wicked are the most recent mega albums and even then only Hamilton really behaved like a mainstream album chart wise. Anyway to try and answer your question, a streaming payout is on average $6 per every 1,000 streams. When you split this between everyone involved nobody is making any real money. I’d imagine the resurgence of vinyl has helped traditional album sales a bit, but I can’t imagine it makes a significant change where most cast albums are breaking even. There is a lot of love behind these albums and I appreciate the record companies and producers for their commitment to preservation.