|
Post by FreeRider on Sept 18, 2014 10:46:52 GMT -5
So all that Warner's can sink their teeth into is the royalties from the songs, the ownership of them, which would make them money??? Actually, that's the one thing they can't touch, the songwriting royalties. Most modern-era songwriters own their own songs, and I'm pretty certain Paul does. Jer, thanks for clearing things up a bit. Yes, I am aware of the songwriting royalties and performance royalties. But does the label own the copyright to the songs as well? And I'm trying to analyze what Paul meant when he said this: we did not sign anything with our first independent label (Twin Tone). Nor did I sign anything when it was licensed over to someone else. So at this point now I'm going to contest the validity of what they're calling a contract, because I had a lawyer advise me when I was 19 years old not to sign it, and I didn't. So I've never signed anything....and then he says he believes the label has made their money tenfold. Is he being a little naive? Or does he have a valid point and the rec co has been screwing him and the band all these years? I guess I'm not sure if he's referring to Twin Tone or Warner/Sire! Moreover, I tend to think that if he went along and had Twin Tone doing recording and distribution for the Mats, it's an implied contract. What he can argue is the terms of the implied contract, I guess? Something for the lawyers to argue over. And what is he referencing with licensing? So I take it that means they, the label, own the copyright of the recordings? Also, didn't REM get control of all of their master tapes from the get go or did they have to negotiate? hey, whatever works to help them get around the label. Jeez, talk about an uneven playing field. The artist or band is always running up hill against the label.
|
|
|
Post by bigbak on Sept 18, 2014 11:15:22 GMT -5
Musicians get paid in myriad ways, depending on how a contract was negotiated. One of the better ways a musician can get paid is via royalties from commercial uses of their work. I once walked into a recording studio and saw a check for a hefty sum sitting on a desk - it was the composer and performer's royalties for a song used in a beer commercial (not for me, for a musician friend). A few years back when PW's cover of Mr. Rabbit was used for a shoe store commercial I was happier than all get out for PW, as I knew he was probably getting a decent payday as performer/arranger/producer, etc.
I know this will sound shallow, but I keep hoping a large company picks up a PW tune for a nationwide advertising campaign and pays him well for it. I've never quite understood the whole "selling out" claim that some people make, NY's This Notes For You included. Why shouldn't musicians trade on their craft to secure their financial future?
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Sept 18, 2014 13:15:26 GMT -5
I've had the impression that Paul owned the publishing rights to his songs, at least post-Mats. During that period between the end of his first solo run (SG) and before the basement period, when he was still writing songs but didn't seem interested in recording and performing, he mentioned several times that he'd like to get some of his songs covered by other artists, hopefully on albums that sold well, as a source of income.
|
|
Jer
Beagle Scout
Posts: 1,182
|
Post by Jer on Sept 18, 2014 13:20:00 GMT -5
Jer, thanks for clearing things up a bit. Yes, I am aware of the songwriting royalties and performance royalties. But does the label own the copyright to the songs as well? And I'm trying to analyze what Paul meant when he said this: we did not sign anything with our first independent label (Twin Tone). Nor did I sign anything when it was licensed over to someone else. So at this point now I'm going to contest the validity of what they're calling a contract, because I had a lawyer advise me when I was 19 years old not to sign it, and I didn't. So I've never signed anything....and then he says he believes the label has made their money tenfold. Is he being a little naive? Or does he have a valid point and the rec co has been screwing him and the band all these years? I guess I'm not sure if he's referring to Twin Tone or Warner/Sire! Moreover, I tend to think that if he went along and had Twin Tone doing recording and distribution for the Mats, it's an implied contract. What he can argue is the terms of the implied contract, I guess? Something for the lawyers to argue over. And what is he referencing with licensing? I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Twin/Tone stuff here. What he's saying is that he (they) never had a contract with Twin/Tone, but apparently TT is saying they did (ie - it needs to be contested). That part should be pretty easy to figure out. At some point, I think in the late 80s or very early 90s, TT sold their catalog to a bigger company, which may or may not have been Restless, which I believe is (or was) owned by one of the WEA group (Warner, Elektra, Atlantic i think). That means that the new company bought the licenses to print/distribute the catalog, which was just before all those shitty colored-vinyl pressings came out around 91/92. I'm not positive it was Restless. So what Paul is saying is that they never had a contract with TT, and they certainly never had a contract with Restless (or whoever the TT catalog was sold to) so he feels like a bunch of shady shit has been done with his music that he never authorized and he is entitled to some consideration for that, either in back-pay or getting his catalog back, or whatever. I don't think Paul's being naive when he says the label made their money back. The Replacements probably didn't get all the money they had coming to them, but a) shame on them for not having a contract that protected them and b) it couldn't have been that much money anyhow. They were the big stars on TT, but they didn't sell so many copies that there were piles of cash everywhere. I do think, however, that getting your tapes back (legally/licensing) is a way more difficult task than most people think. Sometimes it can be easy - like when Wilco was just given the record that the label didn't like (in the movie), but sometimes it can be a nightmare, like what the Huskers are going through, with tons of legal costs and trying to remember and provide documentation about things said in back rooms of punk clubs in 1982, all while the members can barely even stand each other. There comes a point where it's just not worth the cost and effort. Clearly Paul would like to own the records, but what effort is worth it? It's easier for REM than it would be for Paul for sure. So I take it that means they, the label, own the copyright of the recordings? Also, didn't REM get control of all of their master tapes from the get go or did they have to negotiate? The label owns the record and the recordings on it - so I guess that's basically the copyright for the record. Paul owns the songs - lyrics/melody/music. Obviously I haven't seen the contracts or anything, but that's usually how it works. I am not sure what happened with REM, if they got those early records from IRS or whatever, but there almost certainly had to be some negotiations. There's value there - money to be made. The Wilco scenario is rare - "just take your record...." hey, whatever works to help them get around the label. Jeez, talk about an uneven playing field. The artist or band is always running up hill against the label. There were a lot of bad record deals, and I think the talk about the big debt and all that was for the Sire records. It's true that bands were basically funded for a record, then charged back against the cost. Touring and all that was also often funded, then charged back. The debt could be staggering. The worst is when you're under contract and the label refuses to release the record and refuses to release you from the contract - like Tom Petty had to deal with. So now, they're doing business as The Replacements again, and there could be some vultures just waiting to collect, and legally, they may be entitled to collect the debt owed to them by the business (The Replacements) that signed the contract. Now days it's actually a lot better for indie bands as far as the relationships with their labels. There's less money to be made, less people buying less music, all that, which sucks, but bands have gotten a lot better at working with labels who are fair and honest and just good people. Contracts are better too. Take Merge, for example, or ATO or ANTI (a bunch of others - Vagrant, etc). There are bands on those labels who certainly would have signed to a major in the 90s, but now they can get all the benefits (distribution, marketing, even tour support sometimes) and deal with cool people and fair contracts instead of the suits. It's a good thing in this day of a tough, shitty business. And I do think it's a little naive to proclaim that the labels should just "give" these old bands a break, give them their tapes, forgive their debt, all that. It's a nice thought, that people should just be nice, but it's not real world business. Obviously we would love to see the catalog in the right hands, but Sire has a really strong argument. They paid the band a signing bonus and funded 4 records. They took on that risk. The band never sold well, pissed away opportunities to reach a bigger audience, and fizzled out, never reaching their potential. But Sire doesn't care - for every 15 Replacements they have a Madonna, they're not crying that The Replacements didn't pan out, but at the same time, they're not in the business of forgiving debt, and if every crappy band they ever signed that didn't add up to their potential came calling for their tapes they would be out some serious cash.
|
|
|
Post by thematsarealive on Sept 18, 2014 13:26:47 GMT -5
I read the article yesterday as I was browsing through the local book store. One line threw me a bit: Tommy lives in Hudson, NY "with his daughter." Like most people here, I don't like to pry too much into the personal affairs of the band members, but what about his wife? Am I reading too much into that one line? According to a fellow Mats fan at Shaky Knees Fest they have split up. I had read something on here about PW's wife writing she was "separated" on Facebook and this other fan from NYC mentioned at the show that both Paul and Tommy were on the outs with their wives. He said, "Do you really think they would let them do this??" Not to get gossipy, just an FYI. She seemed like a nice enough person so this seems unfortunate. Anyone care to post the full article in this thread or the articles thread? It would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by FreeRider on Sept 18, 2014 15:15:37 GMT -5
Thanks again for analyzing that out for me. Yeah, that's what I kinda thought he meant. that's what he meant by "licensing", that the catalog was sold and some other entity was able to release material without any input from the band. I would have to agree. They really needed to have an advocate on their behalf back then. And I guess that is what is meant as "recoupable"....the albums/CDs didn't sell that well so Warner's didn't get a return on their investment. If I understand this correctly, it's a GARGANTUAN task because you're taking away the label's future profits of having the back catalog that will sell. That is a huge asset to have, let's say, the Beatles back catalog as part of your inventory. But also, I read somewhere that Prince fought Warner's to retain his masters. There is the 1976 Copyright Act whereupon the artist, after 35 years can retain and be granted ownership of the work when the copyright expires. And this is what he did to get ownership, by filing termination notice with the label. But as you said, this is not so clear cut....I just read this article that the RIAA is not going down without a fight: www.techdirt.com/articles/20131217/11534325590/hidden-within-tpp-plan-help-riaa-complete-its-previously-failed-plan-to-screw-over-musicians.shtml I just read that they had a 5 record deal with IRS records and then were negotiating, after having their break through. And of course, they had leverage over IRS. The advances they negotiated with Warner was for $10 mill for 5 records, royalties would be over 20 points, and REM would retain ownership of their masters and would lease them to the label for a negotiated time period (!). IRS and Miles Copeland just didn't have deep enough pockets for the label to retain REM. (source: Perfect Circle: The Story of REM by Tony Fletcher) yeah, I know, I'm not saying the label should give them back the masters just out of the blue. But debt can be restructured, perhaps some can be written off. I mean, pizzas were sent to them during a business meeting with the band while in studio. You really gonna hold that to their total debt? That's the least of the worries. But owing for videos and studio time, those should be major expenses that need to be paid. Having said that, I think it cuts both ways...Paul has said that it was useless and a waste of time to have more than 5 takes, and every time the producer or suit from the rec co wants them to do it another way, it builds in unnecessary costs. And that's waste on the part of the rec co and them just adding to the band's bill. Moreover, the suits that didn't know what to do with them should've been fired. What they could've done was to let them be who they were.....and you market that. "Drunken buffoons? Going from the sublime to self implosions? Want one good dose of thunder in your face? Come out and see the Mats! You never know what you're gonna get!" The songs were there to be radio hits or at least radio friendly. Now as to shooting themselves in the foot with promotion and supporting the albums...that's another matter. So I'd have promoted and marketed them as is.....hell, Reprise Records let Neil Young be who he was. True. And the situation is what it is, the past still haunts the present. There's so much leverage that the rec co has, that they can just dump you and it's "Next!"
|
|
bside
Star Scout
Posts: 356
|
Post by bside on Sept 18, 2014 20:53:12 GMT -5
I read the article yesterday as I was browsing through the local book store. One line threw me a bit: Tommy lives in Hudson, NY "with his daughter." Like most people here, I don't like to pry too much into the personal affairs of the band members, but what about his wife? Am I reading too much into that one line? I heard they were a match made in hell...
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Sept 18, 2014 21:41:23 GMT -5
I absolutely love the idea of Tommy and Paul both breaking up with their wives around the same time, talking to each other on the phone, and coming up with "maybe we should just go play some shows"...
|
|
Chris
First Class Scout
Posts: 156
|
Post by Chris on Sept 19, 2014 6:27:03 GMT -5
I love the idea of them as brothers who are there for each other when things get tough. Don't love the thought of their respective personal relationships deteriorating, and really don't care to know about such matters.
|
|
|
Post by chisel93 on Sept 20, 2014 11:42:09 GMT -5
Tommy's daughter is older than 6....unless he has another?
|
|
|
Post by Kathy on Sept 20, 2014 16:10:43 GMT -5
He has 2 daughters, the other daughter Ruby is a singer and in her twenties.
|
|
|
Post by mudbacktodirt on Sept 21, 2014 13:30:09 GMT -5
|
|
pj
Tenderfoot
Posts: 11
|
Post by pj on Sept 22, 2014 11:43:22 GMT -5
|
|
nazareth
Star Scout
All men are Liars.......
Posts: 537
|
Post by nazareth on Sept 22, 2014 16:22:39 GMT -5
I think you're all missing the craziest part of this article....Johnny is 16!!!
How old am I? How long have i been here?
Seriously though...great article...but damn...has it been that long?
|
|
|
Post by ClamsCasino on Sept 22, 2014 16:43:00 GMT -5
It's a pretty tough trick to pull off the O.G. Mats fan pose when claiming that they broke up in the mid-1980s. I'd also say he's way off in his estimation that their live heyday was "from, like, 1981 to 1983, if we're being generous."
|
|
|
Post by jess on Sept 22, 2014 17:14:37 GMT -5
It's a pretty tough trick to pull off the O.G. Mats fan pose when claiming that they broke up in the mid-1980s. I'd also say he's way off in his estimation that their live heyday was "from, like, 1981 to 1983, if we're being generous." Yeah... I was pretty offended by that glaring error. Really? Mid-80s break up? What kind of Mats fan hates Let It Be, Tim, AND Pleased to Meet Me? Their "heyday" was over by then according to RS. *eyeroll*
|
|
|
Post by someguyiniowa on Sept 22, 2014 18:06:31 GMT -5
It's a pretty tough trick to pull off the O.G. Mats fan pose when claiming that they broke up in the mid-1980s. I'd also say he's way off in his estimation that their live heyday was "from, like, 1981 to 1983, if we're being generous." the review of the show seems to be written by someone who believes the Replacements didn't quite exist without Bob, so maybe saying they broke up in the mid-80s isn't that far off. i'd disagree with that basic premise though on a related note, the in-depth article had a nice paragraph about Slim and what he brought to the band
|
|
|
Post by Veets on Sept 23, 2014 16:18:03 GMT -5
Kinda funny that the interviewer took the bait about the "new songs" ("Are You in It for the Money?" and "Dead Guitar Player", ha ha)
|
|
|
Post by leftofthedial09 on Oct 16, 2014 10:18:36 GMT -5
"We Love The Mat's" Facebook page has posted some amazing alternative shots fro, the Rolling Stone article. Here
|
|
|
Post by wecantgetanybetter on Oct 18, 2014 23:16:31 GMT -5
|
|