Tell Me :
Talk
Many thanks Rocky for your very detailed summary, as always.
I liked your comment...."the band are required to deliver like professionals....". I guess one wonders if there is any date when Universal would really step up the pressure (I am sure they would with newer acts.) Legacy Acts presumably are given more rope!
"Certainly not just a distributor."
Well, we had this discussion sometime ago already, in the "New album"-thread, with our one and only Ian Billen.
Traditionally, an artist gets signed to a record company - which usually does not only produce the records, but also distributes them through a preferably worldwide network of local subsidiaries or sister companies - see The Beatles.
The Stones, however, were from the start treated to a different model: Instead of having the Stones sign directly with DECCA Andrew Oldham and Eric Easton set up a company, Impact Sound, which retained ownership of the group's master tapes, which were then leased to Decca; an idea learned from Phil Spector. Enter Allen Klein in 1965 - who first "helped" to get rid of Eric Easton and, after Oldham sold his share to him, became sole owner of the Stones master tapes.
After their divorcement from Allen Klein, the Stones continued exactly this role model: Never sign directly with a record company, instead form your own company who retains ownership of the masters and instead just lease them to record companies for a limited period of time - Atlantic, EMI, Virgin and currently Universal.
Instead of Impact Sound and later ABKCO it's Promotone from 1971 and onwards. Just like the Stones never directly signed with DECCA, they never signed directly with Atlantic, EMI, Virgin and Universal. All these companies never "owned" the Stones master tapes. They pressed the discs and distributed them.
However, that's just the copyright situation. Everything else is contractual detail. Furthermore, it's not just black and white, like the Stones can do whatever they want and the other partner can only distribute each and every bullshit. Contractual law requires contractual partners to work together and also to respect the other partner's best interests. So if one partner fears that the use of the original title for Star Star or the inclusion of Claudine might cause serious trouble, a cooperative solution has to be found. Otherwise the non-cooperative partner (the Stones, for example) might risk later claims for damages which could be substantial. So if Decca feared that the ugly toilet cover for Beggars could have hurt the sales of the album considerably, a solution had to be found.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-22 23:16 by retired_dog.
This model is fine when the "partner" who holds the copyrights/masters are the artists themselves - and that's exactly what the Stones did with Promotone since 1971.
As for Oldham/Easton's "Impact Sound" - Impact Sound received a 14% royalty from Decca but paid only 6% to the Stones, out of which Oldham and Eric Easton received a 25% management fee - well, that's the perfect "artist exploitation" model. They would have been better off signing directly with Decca: Receive full 14%, and paying their management the usual 25% share, instead of losing 8% royalties to Impact Sound (=Oldham/Easton), receiving the rest 6% from Impact Sound and paying another 25% management fees (Oldham/Easton) out of this 6%...
In the end, what was left for the Stones from the 14% Decca royalty payments? A mere 4,5 %...
In the end, these are the deals you sign when you are young and unexperienced and have no money and better choices. Add to that the tough british tax regime of more than 90%+ income tax at the time that was simply evil for artists who usually earn a lot of money in a short time in the usually short-lived music business...
In a climate like this, the true value of your artistic doings is not what you can earn in royalties in a given year, but the ownership of your masters and songwriting copyrights.
That is exactly the lesson the Stones learned and executed from 1971 onwards to this very day...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-23 18:40 by retired_dog.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Track Talk: C o c k sucker Blues
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 19, 2019 22:21
He released more albums, obviously. But some of those albums weren't DECCA?
Here's the one I have (Thanks, RobberBride!).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-19 22:31 by DandelionPowderman.
Here's the one I have (Thanks, RobberBride!).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-19 22:31 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Track Talk: C o c k sucker Blues
Posted by:
jlowe
()
Date: December 20, 2019 12:33
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Atlantic rejected the original titles for "Star, Star" and "Short and Curlies." Likewise, the inclusion of "Hide Your Love" was because Ahmet Ertegun was a fan of Mick's tossed-off piano boogies. The addition of strings on "Angie" and "Winter" was the input of Atlantic. Several years later, Atlantic had to be talked into releasing the title track for SOME GIRLS. They rejected "Claudine" on the grounds it was litigious just as they had insisted on overdubbing/remixing to obscure a potentially litigious line in "Star, Star." Certainly not just a distributor.
In September 1985, CBS told The Stones and Steve Lillywhite they felt DIRTY WORK could be stronger and rejected the early mixes. Much overdubbing with sidemen followed. CBS also required Mark Marek to scratch out one of his doodles featuring the word "@#$%&" on the sleeve for DIRTY WORK. CBS required Mick hire a manager with a proven track record to guide his solo career resulting in Roger Davies' hiring for PRIMITIVE COOL and helping set up Mick's solo tour. Likewise, Q Prime was hired to oversee STEEL WHEELS to appease CBS.
Virgin Records were uncomfortable with the amount of profanity on VOODOO LOUNGE. Atlantic and Virgin both required clean versions be prepared for certain tracks to ensure airplay. CBS and Virgin (as well as Universal) contractually required the use of outside producers and had approval over who was hired. This extended to producers brought aboard for Additional Production. Mick's vision for GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY was much closer to what the ALFIE soundtrack became. He was directed by Virgin to aim for a more commercial release with many guest collaborators.
Universal has been very hands-on regarding the album-in-progress and the decision for BLUE AND LONESOME to become a standalone release when previous suggestions had been for a download-only release as a bonus when the new studio album was finished or a possible double album release or even limiting the selections to only 3 or 4 cover versions mixed with new material. Likewise Sony were responsible for paring FLASHPOINT down from the planned double album and Virgin demanded LIVE LICKS be expanded to a double album to include a Greatest Hits Live disc.
The Stones cannot just walk away from the deal in the result of a creative disagreement. Doing so would result in a two-year moratorium while the label sells down physical stock. It would also prove costly with the band having to return an advance and facing stiff penalties for defaulting. Atlantic, EMI, CBS, Sony, Virgin, and Universal license their product for a term and receive new product during that term. The band are required to deliver like professionals. Another example is that if the band provided CBS or Sony with a live album or a package of outtakes, there was a requirement of at least two label-approved singles that the band agree to fully promote with music videos. They couldn't simply fulfill their contractual obligations with minimal effort. The label wanted a presence on MTV and the radio to help move product. This was especially critical at a time when band relationships were at a low ebb.
Many thanks Rocky for your very detailed summary, as always.
I liked your comment...."the band are required to deliver like professionals....". I guess one wonders if there is any date when Universal would really step up the pressure (I am sure they would with newer acts.) Legacy Acts presumably are given more rope!
Re: Track Talk: C o c k sucker Blues
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: December 22, 2019 22:35
Quote
Rocky Dijon
Atlantic rejected the original titles for "Star, Star" and "Short and Curlies." Likewise, the inclusion of "Hide Your Love" was because Ahmet Ertegun was a fan of Mick's tossed-off piano boogies. The addition of strings on "Angie" and "Winter" was the input of Atlantic. Several years later, Atlantic had to be talked into releasing the title track for SOME GIRLS. They rejected "Claudine" on the grounds it was litigious just as they had insisted on overdubbing/remixing to obscure a potentially litigious line in "Star, Star." Certainly not just a distributor.
In September 1985, CBS told The Stones and Steve Lillywhite they felt DIRTY WORK could be stronger and rejected the early mixes. Much overdubbing with sidemen followed. CBS also required Mark Marek to scratch out one of his doodles featuring the word "@#$%&" on the sleeve for DIRTY WORK. CBS required Mick hire a manager with a proven track record to guide his solo career resulting in Roger Davies' hiring for PRIMITIVE COOL and helping set up Mick's solo tour. Likewise, Q Prime was hired to oversee STEEL WHEELS to appease CBS.
Virgin Records were uncomfortable with the amount of profanity on VOODOO LOUNGE. Atlantic and Virgin both required clean versions be prepared for certain tracks to ensure airplay. CBS and Virgin (as well as Universal) contractually required the use of outside producers and had approval over who was hired. This extended to producers brought aboard for Additional Production. Mick's vision for GODDESS IN THE DOORWAY was much closer to what the ALFIE soundtrack became. He was directed by Virgin to aim for a more commercial release with many guest collaborators.
Universal has been very hands-on regarding the album-in-progress and the decision for BLUE AND LONESOME to become a standalone release when previous suggestions had been for a download-only release as a bonus when the new studio album was finished or a possible double album release or even limiting the selections to only 3 or 4 cover versions mixed with new material. Likewise Sony were responsible for paring FLASHPOINT down from the planned double album and Virgin demanded LIVE LICKS be expanded to a double album to include a Greatest Hits Live disc.
The Stones cannot just walk away from the deal in the result of a creative disagreement. Doing so would result in a two-year moratorium while the label sells down physical stock. It would also prove costly with the band having to return an advance and facing stiff penalties for defaulting. Atlantic, EMI, CBS, Sony, Virgin, and Universal license their product for a term and receive new product during that term. The band are required to deliver like professionals. Another example is that if the band provided CBS or Sony with a live album or a package of outtakes, there was a requirement of at least two label-approved singles that the band agree to fully promote with music videos. They couldn't simply fulfill their contractual obligations with minimal effort. The label wanted a presence on MTV and the radio to help move product. This was especially critical at a time when band relationships were at a low ebb.
"Certainly not just a distributor."
Well, we had this discussion sometime ago already, in the "New album"-thread, with our one and only Ian Billen.
Traditionally, an artist gets signed to a record company - which usually does not only produce the records, but also distributes them through a preferably worldwide network of local subsidiaries or sister companies - see The Beatles.
The Stones, however, were from the start treated to a different model: Instead of having the Stones sign directly with DECCA Andrew Oldham and Eric Easton set up a company, Impact Sound, which retained ownership of the group's master tapes, which were then leased to Decca; an idea learned from Phil Spector. Enter Allen Klein in 1965 - who first "helped" to get rid of Eric Easton and, after Oldham sold his share to him, became sole owner of the Stones master tapes.
After their divorcement from Allen Klein, the Stones continued exactly this role model: Never sign directly with a record company, instead form your own company who retains ownership of the masters and instead just lease them to record companies for a limited period of time - Atlantic, EMI, Virgin and currently Universal.
Instead of Impact Sound and later ABKCO it's Promotone from 1971 and onwards. Just like the Stones never directly signed with DECCA, they never signed directly with Atlantic, EMI, Virgin and Universal. All these companies never "owned" the Stones master tapes. They pressed the discs and distributed them.
However, that's just the copyright situation. Everything else is contractual detail. Furthermore, it's not just black and white, like the Stones can do whatever they want and the other partner can only distribute each and every bullshit. Contractual law requires contractual partners to work together and also to respect the other partner's best interests. So if one partner fears that the use of the original title for Star Star or the inclusion of Claudine might cause serious trouble, a cooperative solution has to be found. Otherwise the non-cooperative partner (the Stones, for example) might risk later claims for damages which could be substantial. So if Decca feared that the ugly toilet cover for Beggars could have hurt the sales of the album considerably, a solution had to be found.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-22 23:16 by retired_dog.
Re: Track Talk: C o c k sucker Blues
Posted by:
jlowe
()
Date: December 23, 2019 01:53
"Contractural law requires contractural partners to work together and also respect the other partners interests".
This fine until the contract expires and one partner holds the copyrights/ masters.
So for example early 70s Decca seemed free to issue the most awful of Compilations, with of course the agreement of ABKCO.
Until some sort of compromise was negotiated by Prince Rupert.
In reality the Impact /ABKCO arrangement for the Stones seemed no better for the musicians than bands signed up to the big labels (who got such a bad press).
Was signing up to Spector's label, or Oldham's Immediate label so great for the musicians? I don't think so. Just they were more 'hip' I guess.And in the latter case, didn't get paid (just ask Kenny Jones).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-23 01:53 by jlowe.
This fine until the contract expires and one partner holds the copyrights/ masters.
So for example early 70s Decca seemed free to issue the most awful of Compilations, with of course the agreement of ABKCO.
Until some sort of compromise was negotiated by Prince Rupert.
In reality the Impact /ABKCO arrangement for the Stones seemed no better for the musicians than bands signed up to the big labels (who got such a bad press).
Was signing up to Spector's label, or Oldham's Immediate label so great for the musicians? I don't think so. Just they were more 'hip' I guess.And in the latter case, didn't get paid (just ask Kenny Jones).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-23 01:53 by jlowe.
Re: Track Talk: C o c k sucker Blues
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: December 23, 2019 18:35
Quote
jlowe
"Contractural law requires contractural partners to work together and also respect the other partners interests".
This fine until the contract expires and one partner holds the copyrights/ masters.
So for example early 70s Decca seemed free to issue the most awful of Compilations, with of course the agreement of ABKCO.
Until some sort of compromise was negotiated by Prince Rupert.
In reality the Impact /ABKCO arrangement for the Stones seemed no better for the musicians than bands signed up to the big labels (who got such a bad press).
Was signing up to Spector's label, or Oldham's Immediate label so great for the musicians? I don't think so. Just they were more 'hip' I guess.And in the latter case, didn't get paid (just ask Kenny Jones).
This model is fine when the "partner" who holds the copyrights/masters are the artists themselves - and that's exactly what the Stones did with Promotone since 1971.
As for Oldham/Easton's "Impact Sound" - Impact Sound received a 14% royalty from Decca but paid only 6% to the Stones, out of which Oldham and Eric Easton received a 25% management fee - well, that's the perfect "artist exploitation" model. They would have been better off signing directly with Decca: Receive full 14%, and paying their management the usual 25% share, instead of losing 8% royalties to Impact Sound (=Oldham/Easton), receiving the rest 6% from Impact Sound and paying another 25% management fees (Oldham/Easton) out of this 6%...
In the end, what was left for the Stones from the 14% Decca royalty payments? A mere 4,5 %...
In the end, these are the deals you sign when you are young and unexperienced and have no money and better choices. Add to that the tough british tax regime of more than 90%+ income tax at the time that was simply evil for artists who usually earn a lot of money in a short time in the usually short-lived music business...
In a climate like this, the true value of your artistic doings is not what you can earn in royalties in a given year, but the ownership of your masters and songwriting copyrights.
That is exactly the lesson the Stones learned and executed from 1971 onwards to this very day...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-23 18:40 by retired_dog.
Re: Track Talk: C o c k sucker Blues
Posted by:
jlowe
()
Date: December 24, 2019 01:03
What's interesting to me is not just the financial side of 'ownership' of your product, but how you 'manage' your assets.
So ABKCO's stewardship of the 'golden period' comes in for lots of comment, usually negative...but would the musicians have handled matters any better? In fact would Mick and Keith have found something else to disagree about? Has the post 1971 material been handled any better?
I do wonder if RRCircus would ever have been released if The Stones had had 100% control.
So ABKCO's stewardship of the 'golden period' comes in for lots of comment, usually negative...but would the musicians have handled matters any better? In fact would Mick and Keith have found something else to disagree about? Has the post 1971 material been handled any better?
I do wonder if RRCircus would ever have been released if The Stones had had 100% control.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
a bigger nut , audun-eg , Bastion , crawdaddy , drwatts , john lomax , jsz1002 , Lynd8 , mattstones , mrD , novica , padre69 , pg592003 , resotele , soundboard , steffialicia , TumblinDice76 , TW2019
Guests:
2365
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10