Quote
MCDDTLC
Yeah - GNAT - Taylor did "NOTHING" to help the Stones get where they are..

what a A_Hole!

MLC

NOT AGREE WITH THAT!! The best 5 stones albums are with Mick Taylor!! bleed, sticky, exile, goats and it's only..

Bill Wyman once said that he was "cleverer" than Mick Taylor. He kept his shares while Taylor wanted to be bought out. Therefore, Bill will get royalties from every copy sold of the records as he gets from each song played on the radio. He preferred the regular income.

Quote
Sir Craven of Cottage

Quote
skipstone
I'm still trying to figure out what the significant Stones stock on the shelves line means.

the last couple of years (not months) there hasn't been an awful lot of Stones CDs available. Usually 40 Licks, Live Licks. You could never go into such a store and hope to pick up Emotional Rescue for example.

I would think that's a good thing. Now if you said you couldn't find Beggars or Sticky then you would have more of a point.

Quote
JJHMick
Bill Wyman once said that he was "cleverer" than Mick Taylor. He kept his shares while Taylor wanted to be bought out. Therefore, Bill will get royalties from every copy sold of the records as he gets from each song played on the radio. He preferred the regular income.

Unfortunately Bill doesn't really know what he's talking about. Not when it comes to the reasons that MT is not getting his legitimate share of the Artist Royalties (which would be 20% of A.R. for all the albums he played on).
It's not something MT did, it's something the other Stones did (more specifically Mick Jagger, in close liaison with Rupert Loewenstein).
MT never did put forward a proposal to be bought out. He knew that his right to receive artist royalties was in principle everlasting and he had no desire to let go of that. They would have had to come up with an impressive offer to make it even worth considering for MT.
Because he's quite introverted you might not realise after meeting Taylor once, but he's far from stupid. (To be honest, I don't think Bill is on the same level intellectually).

That kind of offer was never made, nor did Taylor ever receive a large sum of money from the Stones.
What Jagger/Loewenstein did was simply instruct the accountants working for the Stones to stop paying out Taylor's share (they started splitting everything four ways instead of five ways). This was in 1981. Over the years 1975 to 1980 nobody ever contested his entitlement to artist royalties. (How could they, since he was still a company director in the businesses they founded together in 1970, including Rolling Stones Records).
Then, all of a sudden, there were no royalty cheques anymore.
Anyone that has followed MT's career a little bit, knows he was fairly busy in the early 80's (touring the world with Mayall and the "reunited Bluesbreakers", then studio work and European Tour with Dylan)
He had to keep working to pay his bills. The fees he was paid for these projects enabled him to do that. It was not like he could rest on his laurels after having been paid a couple of million quid from some kind of "buy out deal" he'd signed with the Stones.
- There never was a "buy out deal". Anyone stating that there was, should get their facts straight.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-04-17 19:06 by Lightnin'.

Ive often wondered if Brian Jones (or rather His Estate) ever got paid out , after he "left" the band.
Perhaps the 1972 ABKCO "settlement" dealt with it? But presumably his heirs are getting monies from ABKCO Records product, also.

Quote
JJHMick
Bill Wyman once said that he was "cleverer" than Mick Taylor. He kept his shares while Taylor wanted to be bought out. Therefore, Bill will get royalties from every copy sold of the records as he gets from each song played on the radio. He preferred the regular income.

Those royalties are called Performance Royalties. Every time a song is broadcast on the radio, TV, played in a public place like a bar/restaurant, or performed live, a couple of pennies are collected by the Performing Rights Society (PRS, in UK). They do the accounting and pay the money out to the artist.
Not only songwriters are entitled to these type of royalties, every member of the band gets them. At least, that's the situation in England and Europe.
(In US the bandmembers get nothing but there are plans to introduce a similar system there).

As opposed to Mechanical Royalties (for CD's - paid to the recording artist for every copy printed of an album) and Publishing Royalties (paid by the recordlabel to the songwriters, usually via a music publishing company), these can not be transferred to somebody else.
So even if you would sell your royalties, the Performance Royalties will still be paid to the musician whose work can be heard on the original recording, nobody else can claim them on behalf of that musician (only when the musician is deceased, in that case the performance royalties will be paid to the estate of the musician).

So if you are assuming that Wyman gets something from radio airplay that Taylor is not getting, then you're mistaken. All comments made by Wyman that he's "cleverer" only demonstrate his ignorance with regard to the injustice that Taylor was done when they cut him out (Interestingly, Wyman's percentage went up as a result, so maybe that explains why he would prefer that people didn't know how it ended up this way).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-04-17 16:21 by Lightnin'.

Oh, I'm sure they will be taken of fairly. Mick T will probably even get his writing credits on CYHMK and TWFNOne. Mick J has never been about the money afterall....:-)))

So when artists whinge about "never making a penny " and so on...they are being economical with the truth (in terms of performance royalties that is).
The Samll Faces and The Animals come to mind.
They were probably ripped off by crooked mangers but should have still earned a reasonable income, by anyones standards?

My guess is that Taylors contribution was priceless.

... I think they'll both be lucky if they don't get airbrushed out of the original artwork...
WOEHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHH!
Sorry 'bout that. It's been a stressful week.

Here's to a rock'n'roll weekend, y'all!!

Quote
jlowe
So when artists whinge about "never making a penny " and so on...they are being economical with the truth (in terms of performance royalties that is).
The Samll Faces and The Animals come to mind.
They were probably ripped off by crooked mangers but should have still earned a reasonable income, by anyones standards?

It depends. Things can be very tough, especially among American performing artists. If you happen to be a great pianist or an incredible guitarist but you have never been a very good songwriter then you can end up living in abject poverty. This seems very unfair if the songs you were involved with (including your trademark solo's, which often "make" the hit) get played on the radio every day.
Even for English/European performing artists this scenario is far from impossible. Compared to the kind of money that goes around in the Mechanical Royalties and Publishing Royalties world (Not to mention Synchronisation Rights - if you're lucky enough and a song you composed winds up being used in a film or TV commercial, this can be very lucrative !) the income that an artist gets from Performance Royalties is rather small.
In other words: "Just enough to scrape by" if you've been in a band that has gained worldwide fame and popularity (which means lots of airplay in all territories). If you were in band that has had only moderate success or is known in just a couple of countries, then there's no way you can make a living from that.

In actual fact, this is the reason that many artists (the ones that don't have a hit behind their own name) are forced to keep on playing live. This happens more often than most fans realise and will be a growing problem as the income generated by record sales is dwindling (free downloads etc).
In the absence of a pension plan (majority of cases) they will have no choice but to continue touring. Even when they no longer want to, or when it becomes very difficult physically - due to age related ailments.

Quote
Lightnin'
Anyone that has followed MT's career a little bit, knows he was fairly busy in the early 80's (touring the world with Mayall and the "reunited Bluesbreakers", then studio work and European Tour with Dylan)
He had to keep working to pay his bills. The fees he was paid for these projects enabled him to do that.

what changed, contractually, after the early 80s? You're right, he doesn't seem to have been as busy after that.

Quote
jlowe
Ive often wondered if Brian Jones (or rather His Estate) ever got paid out , after he "left" the band.
Perhaps the 1972 ABKCO "settlement" dealt with it? But presumably his heirs are getting monies from ABKCO Records product, also.

No, the settlement doesn't specifically deal with that.
For reasons of simplicity, you should see it like this: The Stones' legal representatives worked out a deal to severe their ties with Allen Klein which specified, from that point on, the percentage the band was to receive per record sold and how much the label gets. The Stones formed their own companies in 1970 and, per the documents they had drawn up, any income generated from any of their activities would be divided between the 5 directors. At any point in time there were only 5 official band members, so each gets 20%.
The artist (mechanical) royalties that ABKCO pays to the band for each ABKCO record are split between the directors. Of the 1/5 share allocated to Jones/Taylor, the money gets split between his estate and Taylor, per ratio of the number of ABKCO songs that each of them played on (compared to the total number of songs in that catalogue).
So for each ABKCO album, Jones' heirs get paid a percentage (the lion's share) of the 1/5 share of the artist royalties.

Thanks Lightnin'
One imagines then, that although Brian died heavily in debt (presumably mainly monies owed to the tax man), this will have been paid off by now ( think the final sums owed by band members ended up being less than quoted at the time).
So the Estate should be getting a pretty reasonable income by now.
And of course, The Stones didn't directly have to pay off Brian as was "agreed" at the time he left.

Quote
Lightnin'
Anyone that has followed MT's career a little bit, knows he was fairly busy in the early 80's (touring the world with Mayall and the "reunited Bluesbreakers", then studio work and European Tour with Dylan)
He had to keep working to pay his bills. The fees he was paid for these projects enabled him to do that.

Quote
cc
what changed, contractually, after the early 80s? You're right, he doesn't seem to have been as busy after that.

Nothing changed contractually, that's the crazy thing. They just stopped paying him overnight, despite all the written agreements that were there since 1970 - which were very clear about Taylor's ongoing entitlement to royalties.
Taylor's father died quite suddenly from cancer in 1984, only a couple of months after he attended the Dylan concert at Wembley (Mr Taylor Sr was invited backstage and got to meet Dylan, who complimented him on his son).
After that, Mick Taylor went into a deep depression for about a year. Never touched a guitar and just lived off his savings from the Mayall/Dylan projects while coming to terms with losing his father. In 1985 he was invited by Arlen Roth to record an instructional video. In the studio, with the camera's rolling, he picked up the guitar for the first time since his father's death.
All this time he didn't receive any money from the Stones and to this day he doesn't get any royalties for the records that were released on Rolling Stones Records (almost all the records he helped to make).
He got screwed in a terrible way by the Stones who made use of the fact that they were the record company and the recording artist at the same time. Had they signed with another label, they would never have got away with cutting Taylor out.

Quote
Lightnin'
Anyone that has followed MT's career a little bit, knows he was fairly busy in the early 80's (touring the world with Mayall and the "reunited Bluesbreakers", then studio work and European Tour with Dylan)
He had to keep working to pay his bills. The fees he was paid for these projects enabled him to do that.



As Mathijs stated some time ago: Mick still gets his monthly Rolling Stones cheque bigger than ours.. Maybe he can shine a more detailed light on it?

Quote
Amsterdamned
Quote
Lightnin'
Anyone that has followed MT's career a little bit, knows he was fairly busy in the early 80's (touring the world with Mayall and the "reunited Bluesbreakers", then studio work and European Tour with Dylan)
He had to keep working to pay his bills. The fees he was paid for these projects enabled him to do that.



As Mathijs stated some time ago: Mick still gets his monthly Rolling Stones cheque bigger than ours.. Maybe he can shine a more detailed light on it?

Amsterdamned: As if he knows anything about the cheques that MT receives... You do know that when MT gets sent royalty cheques they do not get forwarded by Mathijs or anyone else on this board, don't you ?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-04-17 21:59 by Lightnin'.

The truth is that none of us know the facts. We know what we've been told or what we've read. We choose what to believe and what not to believe. If Mr. Taylor mysteriously stopped getting his checks one day, why didn't the introverted, but very intelligent man see a solicitor and speak to the press about it?

Rocky - I've heard him say in interviews that he's been told it would be taken care of, and he isn't yet ready to burn the bridge between himself and the Stones's as he considers most of them: Friends and filing a lawsuit would do
just that. But who know's - one day he might..

MLC

Don't even think Taylor cares about the CD's being reissued / remastered. Just think he could care less, for that matter the same is for Bill.
They don't get more or less with the new deal.

Bum - I never gotten the impression Taylor doesn't give a shi"t" about his work
with the Stones or whats happening with the release or re-release of recorded
material.( Audio/Video) I think he cares a great deal, especially about the
$$ getting generated and he's NOT getting any of....

MLC

You're right about that MCDDTLC, it's still an enormous source of discontent for Taylor and at times he gets very bitter about not getting paid a penny for the work he's most widely recognised for (by the fans, at least).
This is also why it can be such a drag for him to get people coming up to him everywhere he goes with Stones CD's that they want his autograph on.
I know that he sometimes makes comments to people in his circle (when the fans are out of earshot) about wanting to burn those albums or that he won't sign another copy until he gets paid for the CD's he played on.
Knowing this it makes it all the more remarkable that he doesn't let on about his real feelings when he's taking the time to meet fans after a gig, he's always courteous and patient with them (as long as they show some manners, that is).

Quote
Rocky Dijon
If Mr. Taylor mysteriously stopped getting his checks one day, why didn't the introverted, but very intelligent man see a solicitor and speak to the press about it?

Thats the bottom line of the whole story. Yes, if its true, WHY?

Because he did not want to destroy he "friendship" with Mick and Keith? Taylor, the introverted, very intelligent and also very romantic man?

Surely the sudden stop of Stones income (if its really true!) did not piss him off enough to prevent him joining the sessions for Keiths Talk Is Cheap album only three or four years later.

Anyway, this is just one story, and in this version the Stones -again- play the role of the bad guys who rip their fellow musicians off.

Other circulating stories are that after leaving the Stones, Taylor did not believe in the bands future and therefore opted for a one-time buyout instead of everlasting royality checks. Needless to say that according to this version, Taylor very well believed in his own superstar future, probably with the supposed supergroup that also featured Jack Bruce. However, it turned out that the Stones were far from being finished after his departure and also his venture with Jack Bruce was an extremely short-lived affair - and from then on things turned bad for Mr. Taylor.

Then there is the version that Taylor still receives Stones cheques to this very day and that the Stones income alone helps him to stay over the water, so to speak. I personally think that this is very likely, if only there must be a reason for Taylors laziness to start a career to speak of - instead he only recorded two studio albums after he left the Stones (in 35 years!) and plays small clubs with a seemingly never-changing setlist whenever hes up for it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-04-17 22:30 by alimente.

Lightnin - The time I went to one of his signing, early 90's when: Stranger in this Town was released, he was very courteous to the people who handed him Stones albums to sign, he even asked one of them: Am I on this Album?

I hit him with something different, on the Japanese release of his 1st album
they included a inner sleeve of pictures and lyrics (at least what they thought
were the English words...) He looked at it a long time before stating:
I've never seen this before... then he signed it - felt like offering it to him
but he didn't ask for it..


MLC

Quote
alimente
Surely the sudden stop of Stones income (if its really true!) did not piss him off enough to prevent him joining the sessions for Keiths Talk Is Cheap album only three or four years later.

As I explained above, it was Jagger & Loewenstein who were largely responsible for coming up with a shrewd plan to rob Taylor from his royalties. Keith might not have had the faintest idea about what was going on business wise. After all, he got through most of the 80's without ever looking at any fine print.
The fact that Taylor maintainted a friendship with Richards when they both lived in NY (he was regularly hanging out at Keith's apartment on top of Tower Records in NYC, plus they'd sometimes go out in town) can serve as circumstancial evidence that Taylor may not have wanted ruining any remaining comradery between him and former bandmates over a business conflict. (Anyway, Richards can hardly be regarded as the mastermind behind any business tactics).

Quote
alimente
Anyway, this is just one story, and in this version the Stones -again- play the role of the bad guys who rip their fellow musicians off.

The fact that it can get pretty tedious reading about the number of incidents and victims there have been, doesn't mean that it can't be true. Quite the opposite, I would say.

Quote
alimente
Other circulating stories are that after leaving the Stones, Taylor did not believe in the bands future and therefore opted for a one-time buyout instead of everlasting royality checks. Needless to say that according to this version, Taylor very well believed in his own superstar future, probably with the supposed supergroup that also featured Jack Bruce. However, it turned out that the Stones were far from being finished after his departure and also his venture with Jack Bruce was an extremely short-lived affair - and from then on things turned bad for Mr. Taylor.

The fact that Taylor continued to receive artist royalties (in accordance with the details set forth in various written agreements in 1970) for about 6 years after his departure, proves that it was nothing to do with him taking a gamble on the band's future versus any expectations he had for his solo career. In fact Taylor never set out to be a solo artist, he simply wanted to join a different type of band. When the Jack Bruce project ended it seemed like the only way forward was to record his own album, he didn't really have the desire to become a solo artist but, due to circumstances, was more or less forced to do so.
If you believe in the story that Taylor was given a lump sum, could you please indicate at which point (approximately will do) this tidy amount of money was deposited in his bank account ?
If there was a couple of million quid in his account then how is it that throughout his career he's had such a modest lifestyle and has needed to keep on playing small to medium sized venues in order to make ends meet (in terms of royalties he has received very little, ever since the cheques stopped in 1981).

Quote
alimente
Then there is the version that Taylor still receives Stones cheques to this very day and that the Stones income alone helps him to stay over the water, so to speak.

I already gave you the facts on that above. When it comes to the albums that were released on Rolling Stones Records, he receives ZERO royalties from the Stones.
The only label that pays him royalties for Stones records is Decca/ABKCO (Europe/US), but this is a negligible amount because that recording contract expired less than a year after Taylor joined the band. Almost all of the records that feature Taylor's playing were released on RSR and he doesn't get ANY accounting (or money) for that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-04-17 23:23 by Lightnin'.

Quote
MCDDTLC
Bum - I never gotten the impression Taylor doesn't give a shi"t" about his work
with the Stones or whats happening with the release or re-release of recorded
material.( Audio/Video) I think he cares a great deal, especially about the
$$ getting generated and he's NOT getting any of....

MLC

Stones don't sell records anymore - go in to a record shop a search for Stones - barely sold. Other bands hae much more space in the shop than Stones, so come on - there is not that much money in Stones record / CD selling anymore - that's why I say, it doesn't generate that much money.

Lightnin',

Im not saying that your version of the story cant be true but theres still a feeling of disbelief when I hear of Jaggers & Loewensteins supposed responsibility for this royality mess, and Keiths supposed "clean soul" in this affair - despite the fact that he too, just like Jagger, Wyman and Watts benefitted from the robbery through an increased profit share. Its even harder to believe that Taylor stayed friends with Keith, believing he had nothing to do with it. Even if this was indeed the case initially, dont you think that Taylor must have at last once discussed this with Keith when he was regularly hanging out at Keith's apartment in NYC? And Keiths reaction to this?

You indicate that Jaggers power in the band was so strong that he could do almost anything, even ripping off former band members, breaking contracts with them and getting away with it? It is highly unlikely that any other Stones members - including Keith! - did not have the faintest idea about what was going on business wise - they all benefitted from such a robbery. My guess is that even if this was started by Jagger & Loewenstein sooner or later EVERYBODY in the Stones got wind of it and let it happen for their own financial benefits - playing the fool like Keith by claiming to not knowing all too much business details and effectively leaving Mr. Jagger the role as the bad guy.

The Stones are a multi-million dollar business, and to suggest that any member does not know the business is, sorry, naive to the highest degree.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-04-18 02:03 by alimente.

Bill and Mick T. were both very important.
Any musician would properly acknowledge this.

As for the actual question...
Well, Bill was on more of the albums, but Taylor has a writing credit on Exile. Bill's only Stones writing credit was on an ABKCO album.

Would Bill make the same as Charlie?
Or do only current memebers with 'shares' in the band profit from band album sales? Only an insider or one with access to this sensitive financial info wuold know for sure I'd guess.

Of course... how much ANY of them make depends on how well they sell, right?

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
Lightnin'
You're right about that MCDDTLC, it's still an enormous source of discontent for Taylor and at times he gets very bitter about not getting paid a penny for the work he's most widely recognised for (by the fans, at least).
This is also why it can be such a drag for him to get people coming up to him everywhere he goes with Stones CD's that they want his autograph on.
I know that he sometimes makes comments to people in his circle (when the fans are out of earshot) about wanting to burn those albums or that he won't sign another copy until he gets paid for the CD's he played on.
Knowing this it makes it all the more remarkable that he doesn't let on about his real feelings when he's taking the time to meet fans after a gig, he's always courteous and patient with them (as long as they show some manners, that is).

It can´t be that dramatic. I recommend a recent interview. It is called: "Mick Taylor - why did you quit the Rolling Stones?". it was also posted here last November. He says, that there is no ill will on his side. If he felt so bitter he would hardly talk so nice about them. Why should he want to keep a friendship with people he hardly meets?

You can't agree over: Who knew what? Who did what?
This confirms my post quoting from Bill that it was most likely that Mick was paid out after leaving the band (how much and the exact point of time might be another discussion) - because he wanted it.
As he knows that he got what he wanted he still can keep a positive relation with the remaining band members and even ask them for money from time to time! (And I am sure they give him something if he is in need).
His only Rolling Stones related income remains to be royalties from air play - as somebody corrected me/Bill this is not contradictory to Bill's statement. Mick played on some famous singles that I hear at least once a week on my radio. No matter how much this is, this must have allowed him to stop making music over lengthy periods of time.