Classy indeed...

It's all about internal and external agreements/deals. Record companies usually don't pay the individual artists, they pay to the band as a whole on the grounds of a recording or licensing contract - which are external deals.

How the incoming royalities are divided between the individual band members is always fixed in an internal agreement between the band members. The internal agreement cannot be changed or altered by switching from one record label or distributor to another. It makes no difference wether ABKCO, Atlantic, EMI, CBS, Virgin or Universal pays roaylities to the band - these payments are incoming payments and how they are divided still depends on the internal agreement.

Taylor obviously does not know much about these very basic legal things. However, a basic legal knowledge is or should be part of your profession as a professional musician. Otherwise, you are just a musician - but not a professional musician.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-13 18:56 by retired_dog.

>> Hey folks, this article is 100% malarkey <<

i guess you mean the pitiful-sounding bits - i would be very glad indeed to hear
that Mick T is pissed off at the Mail for making it sound like he's practically a derelict -
i mean i sure hope he isn't in as pathetic shape as this article would have us think.
but the statements about the royalties owed him and the songwriting credits aren't things the Mail made up -
they've been stated before in different articles.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-13 19:18 by with sssoul.

I'm getting a vibe that fans of the band may start getting pissed off at each other over an article published in a Tabloidish newspaper. This is best taken care of in the courts. Although, things get written does not mean it is or is not fact. One thing is for sure, during his days with the band some of the best Rock n Roll / RnB music was released and performed. Exactly how it was created is yet to be determined.

Vendetta's can be one helluva thing to disprove in the court of public opinion. Not saying Mick Taylor has one but someone in the overall picture may.

CBII

Quote
with sssoul
>> Hey folks, this article is 100% malarkey <<

i guess you mean the pitiful-sounding bits - i would be very glad indeed to hear
that Mick T is pissed off at the Mail for making it sound like he's practically a derelict -
i mean i sure hope he isn't in as pathetic shape as this article would have us think.
but the statements about the royalties owed him and the songwriting credits aren't things the Mail made up -
they've been stated before in different articles.

That's true, with sssoul ... I revise my statement ... the article is 95% malarkey.

Drew

Quote
retired_dog
It's all about internal and external agreements/deals. Record companies usually don't pay the individual artists, they pay to the band as a whole on the grounds of a recording or licensing contract - which are external deals.

How the incoming royalities are divided between the individual band members is always fixed in an internal agreement between the band members. The internal agreement cannot be changed or altered by switching from one record label or distributor to another. It makes no difference wether ABKCO, Atlantic, EMI, CBS, Virgin or Universal pays roaylities to the band - these payments are incoming payments and how they are divided still depends on the internal agreement.

Taylor obviously does not know much about these very basic legal things. However, a basic legal knowledge is or should be part of your profession as a professional musician. Otherwise, you are just a musician - but not a professional musician.

You're a bit quick to judge here. Taylor has a bright intellect and a very good understanding of the legalities involved.
While the Stones were in the process of setting up their own label, the group was having a meeting with Mr Loewenstein. Mick T took this opportunity to point out some omissions in a contract that had been drawn up by Rupert Loewenstein. Jagger looked on in amazement and said to the other guys: "Whoa! I think I'm going to appoint HIM (MT) as my business advisor...".

It would have been impossible for the Stones to get away with not paying Taylor if they had not formed their own recordcompany in 1970. The problem for Taylor is that the five bandmembers were also the company directors of Rolling Stones Records. If they had been signed to a random recordcompany, then nobody could have made any changes to the way the artist royalties were divided after the licensing deal with Atlantic expired. Don't forget that the accountants were also hired by the Stones so they followed the instructions of Jagger/Loewenstein (without wanting to argue too much about the underlying reasons).
There was a clause that was part of the extensive original agreement, dating from 1970, between the five members that specified how the payments (artist royalties) from "Atlantic Records" were split (1/5 share for each bandmember). Had this instead said "the distributor/licensee" they would have been in immediate legal trouble when they stopped sending Taylor's royalty cheques in 1981.
In order to rectify the situation Taylor would have had to take the Stones to court. Since the Stones were able to put solicitors from the most exclusive lawfirms on the payroll, it would have been very expensive for Taylor to pursue this.
If you go and talk to some lawyers, you will find that being right and and getting justice are not the same things.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-14 00:07 by Lightnin'.

This article is probably exaggerated a lot in parts.

But Mick Taylor -- or at least the reports about him -- comes off as a little schitzophrenic to me. On the one hand you got the laid-back guitarist who sound a little like Bill Wyman -- happy with playing small-time gigs, being friendly with the Stones, not regretting his decisions and talking positively about the great music that came out of his time with the band, despite some reservations mostly centered around royalties and credits. On the other hand you got an overweight semi-retired musician man who can barely pay his bills, who's bitter and regretful and doesn't seem to be friendly with Mick and Keith.

Only a few things can be said for sure:
Mick T doesn't really regret leaving the Stones.
He deserves more money and more credit than he's received, and if he's pissed about it, he's rightly so.
He really did have a drug problem, which surely influenced his decisions.
He's definitely friendly with Bill and Charlie; always was, as far as I know.
His talents haven't come forth as much as they should have since leaving the Stones.

Interesting post, Lightnin'. Surely sheds some light (pun intended) on how things were arranged. Also interesting how Jagger escaped Allen Klein's dungeon, but kind of turned into the Stones' own Allen Klein.

But how do you know so many details about MT and the Stones, Lightnin'?

If you go and talk to some lawyers, you will find that being right and and getting justice are not the same things.


and that what makes the lawyers the most money is what they say is right.

What came to my mind was the Dallas Taylor story. He was the drummer for CSN&Y. Left the band because of being a heroin addict. Sold his royalty rights to Stephen Stills, who warned him not to do it. But as he was desperate for drug money, insisted, so Stills at least wanted to keep it in the band and gave him a generous lump sum in the late seventies, that later was obviously much less than what it paid out over time. Stills sobered up. Decided it was a bad idea after all, and sued to get it back. With no luck.

Presumably the royalties owed Mick are worth millions, so it would surely be worth pursuing in the court. Unless of course there is more to the story, as Doubledoor suggests; is it possible that Mick signed away his rights long ago?

Quote
Bliss
Presumably the royalties owed Mick are worth millions, so it would surely be worth pursuing in the court. Unless of course there is more to the story, as Doubledoor suggests; is it possible that Mick signed away his rights long ago?

How can it be worth millions? Even if he is given a songwriting credit for a few songs, the publishing would be split 3 ways on back sales of the catalog, and so would the songwriter share for the performing rights income. All thats left is the artist royalty monies which are a very small piece of the pie. Even factoring in the years gone by, these songs in question were not performed in concert often, nor did they generate the radio play that the warhorses get. That article is doubtful, and if said all this, it is only his version. He should have taken the 6 month break, it was a nice offer if true.

Artist royalty monies not worth millions? Oh well...

But Mick and Keith are notorious for appropriating others' work (Bill, Ry Cooder, Gram Parsons), so obviously it's worth their while.

I agree, Mick should have taken the 6 month hiatus. But perhaps for a recovering junkie, returning to the drug milieu was not a risk he could take.

Quote
Bliss
Artist royalty monies not worth millions? Oh well...

But Mick and Keith are notorious for appropriating others' work (Bill, Ry Cooder, Gram Parsons), so obviously it's worth their while.

I agree, Mick should have taken the 6 month hiatus. But perhaps for a recovering junkie, returning to the drug milieu was not a risk he could take.

Yeah, my thought is he could have used that time( 6 months) to clean up and work things out, but maybe being in the Stones orbit would just be too risky to sustain a recovery.

I think borrowing and appropriating others work is very widespread. Didn't Chuck Berry himself mutter, "well there's nothing new under the sun" when confronted with his taking from Johnnie Johnson? It doesn't make it right, thats for sure, and I think there must be more to this whole Stones/MT story.

an interesting read, but one that saddened me.

... performers' royalties and songwriting royalties are not the same thing.
this article outlines the general idea: [entertainment.howstuffworks.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-13 23:32 by with sssoul.

Quote
with sssoul
>> Hey folks, this article is 100% malarkey <<

i guess you mean the pitiful-sounding bits - i would be very glad indeed to hear
that Mick T is pissed off at the Mail for making it sound like he's practically a derelict -
i mean i sure hope he isn't in as pathetic shape as this article would have us think.
but the statements about the royalties owed him and the songwriting credits aren't things the Mail made up -
they've been stated before in different articles.

You are right With Sssoul on several accounts.
Mick T did not know about this article and would not have wanted it to be printed. Furthermore, he's very disappointed with Bob Graham (an old schoolfriend from Hatfield who went on to become a journalist).
Over 10 years ago Mick T discussed with Bob the possibilities of doing a book or a feature in The Observer. Bob G had one lengthy conversation with Mick on the condition everything they talked about would remain private.
In January 2007 the Daily Mail published an awful article accompanied by a photograph (taken with a long lens) which showed Mick T walking back from the Post Office. Bob Graham passed on a message to Mick in which he condemned what the tabloid had done.
Early 2009 Bob talked Mick's manager into letting him spend some time on the road with the band. Mick's German booking agent paid for the hotelrooms and expenses. The article for The Times that BG claimed he was working on was going to help raise the band's profile, he said. Bob sat down to talk with each of the musicians in the band. For some reason, Mick T didn't feel comfortable about the situation so he decided against giving an interview.
BG subsequently stabbed Mick T in the back by selling his story to the Daily Mail - and the newspaper altered it to make it as sensational as possible. Mick T is now considering legal action because of the slanderous nature of the article.

>> Mick T is now considering legal action because of the slanderous nature of the article. <<

thanks, Lightning - i'm glad to hear he's not in the dire state the article claims,
but sorry he's being horsed around so much. that's a drag.

The unfortunate thing about Mick Taylor is that he left the Stones a broken man and never recaptured the inspiration that helped create all those classics from 69-74. And he never worked with two such outstanding songwriters as Mick and Keith again!

Quote
CBII
I'm getting a vibe that fans of the band may start getting pissed off at each other over an article published in a Tabloidish newspaper. This is best taken care of in the courts. Although, things get written does not mean it is or is not fact. One thing is for sure, during his days with the band some of the best Rock n Roll / RnB music was released and performed. Exactly how it was created is yet to be determined

How the music was created is an interesting subject for a scholarly essay but has no bearing on the lawsuit that Taylor could bring regarding the non payment of artist royalties. Taylor's entitlement to artist royalties is the result of him being a fully-fledged bandmember (which is a fact that nobody can deny so it doesn't really require any further examination). The magnificent solos he played on stage or the songs he wrote together with Jagger in the studio are priceless but do not come into this.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-14 00:32 by Lightnin'.

>>BG subsequently stabbed Mick T in the back by selling his story to the Daily Mail - and the newspaper altered it to make it as sensational as possible. Mick T is now considering legal action because of the slanderous nature of the article

How do you know this? The article was published in the last day or so. Were Mick's quotes inaccurate? The photo showed his living circumstances and anyone can see he is living modestly, but is not derelict. It's possible that the comments about the interior of Mick's house and the unpaid bills are untrue. If Mick has the money to sue the Daily Mail for libel, then he must have the means to sue the Stones for royalty payments.

I hope these matters will become sorted out because this is Micks rights. I dont believe even half on that article, the journalist maybe should have bothered to get some real facts before putting it to print because I see obvious faults in it. Just another attempt to run over Mick. Yes his career might not have been in blossom after leaving Stones but that gives no right to behave like this. As I said, I hope both this and the money issue will be solved and that he will recover fine from his illness.

Sorry for bad english :/

Very sad to hear it's this way for our great MT.

> And he never worked with two such outstanding songwriters as Mick and Keith again

Bob Dylan is a pretty outstanding songwriter I'd say.

Still not as sad as the raw deal the Rolling Stones received at the Klein's hands

Micks a superb natural player and a nice fella (met him back in the 90's) but he hasnt seemed really committed to his career in a long long time. Every so often, his profile would go up with a Dylan or Mayall tour and then nothing. The last time I checked he was still playing the same live set he'd been doing for years and years frequently in some real dives. His first solo LP was absolutely top notch and I hoped he would continue in that vein. It would be nice if some proceeds from the Ya Ya's and Exile re-releases find their way to Mick. He gave the band some of their very best moments in the studio and onstage.

Quote
Lightnin'

Quote
retired_dog
It's all about internal and external agreements/deals. Record companies usually don't pay the individual artists, they pay to the band as a whole on the grounds of a recording or licensing contract - which are external deals.

How the incoming royalities are divided between the individual band members is always fixed in an internal agreement between the band members. The internal agreement cannot be changed or altered by switching from one record label or distributor to another. It makes no difference wether ABKCO, Atlantic, EMI, CBS, Virgin or Universal pays roaylities to the band - these payments are incoming payments and how they are divided still depends on the internal agreement.

Taylor obviously does not know much about these very basic legal things. However, a basic legal knowledge is or should be part of your profession as a professional musician. Otherwise, you are just a musician - but not a professional musician.

You're a bit quick to judge here. Taylor has a bright intellect and a very good understanding of the legalities involved.
While the Stones were in the process of setting up their own label, the group was having a meeting with Mr Loewenstein. Mick T took this opportunity to point out some omissions in a contract that had been drawn up by Rupert Loewenstein. Jagger looked on in amazement and said to the other guys: "Whoa! I think I'm going to appoint HIM (MT) as my business advisor...".

It would have been impossible for the Stones to get away with not paying Taylor if they had not formed their own recordcompany in 1970. The problem for Taylor is that the five bandmembers were also the company directors of Rolling Stones Records. If they had been signed to a random recordcompany, then nobody could have made any changes to the way the artist royalties were divided after the licensing deal with Atlantic expired. Don't forget that the accountants were also hired by the Stones so they followed the instructions of Jagger/Loewenstein (without wanting to argue too much about the underlying reasons).
There was a clause that was part of the extensive original agreement, dating from 1970, between the five members that specified how the payments (artist royalties) from "Atlantic Records" were split (1/5 share for each bandmember). Had this instead said "the distributor/licensee" they would have been in immediate legal trouble when they stopped sending Taylor's royalty cheques in 1981.
In order to rectify the situation Taylor would have had to take the Stones to court. Since the Stones were able to put solicitors from the most exclusive lawfirms on the payroll, it would have been very expensive for Taylor to pursue this.
If you go and talk to some lawyers, you will find that being right and and getting justice are not the same things.

From my legal knowledge, I am pretty sure that a judge would interpret this specific contract clause that "the payments (artist royalties) from Atlantic Records are split (1/5 share for each bandmember)" as

"the payments (artist royalties) from the distributor/licensee - currently Atlantic Records - are split (1/5 share for each bandmember)"

because this interpretation reflects the band members' obvious intentions. Just think of the possibility that "Atlantic Records" changed their name to "Pacific Records" - this would without doubt not have affected the internal "1/5 share for each bandmember" agreement.

I mean, really, it is a very basic juristic principle that changes in external deals can't affect internal agreements. "Atlantic Records" is only mentioned in their original agreement because it was their distributor at the time.

Anyway, Lightnin', you must have been present at the time when you know details like Taylor correcting the contract that was set up by Prince Rupert!

However, I seem to remember that some time ago on this board it was mentioned that Taylor sold away his royality share for a lump sum because he was in need of money sometime after he left the Stones. Could that be the reason why the Stones "suddenly" stopped royality payments?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-14 03:53 by retired_dog.

I'd rather the news be about Taylor's recovering health, a new tour forecast, a new album release date or something positive. Unfortunately, the tabloid press and dubious club owners seem to provide the Taylor-related news these days and that news tends to be (ultimately) negative.

Quote
Bliss
If Mick has the money to sue the Daily Mail for libel, then he must have the means to sue the Stones for royalty payments.

Don't understand this at all. In the UK, the party losing a lawsuit pays the winner's legal fees. Every lawsuit has its own risks and rewards.

Quote
doubledoor
Still not as sad as the raw deal the Rolling Stones received at the Klein's hands

Two wrongs and three lefts make a right?

If he's truly been not paid any royalties since 1982, I can't imagine his owed royalties NOT being in the millions of dollars.
Tommy

Whether the article is entirely true or not, Taylor's story needs to be told. He could also use some back-room diplomacy exerted upon Mick and Keith by Charlie and perhaps Bill. Going directly to Mick or Keith would likely not work at this point.
It's at times like this that I wish big name musicians would come out of the woodwork and either publicly and/or privately support Taylor. Maybe Mick and Keith would give in a little bit and at least throw him a little money his way.
The personal politics that Mick and Keith have been exhibiting towards Taylor has got to stop. You'd think he would be getting some help as a result of his pleurisy and bloodclot diagnosis.
Taylor needs to personally empower himself by cutting out the cigarettes and drinking. He needs to start exercising and get back in shape. Once that foundation has been established, he needs to find a lawyer who won't rip him off and see if he can cut a decent deal for him.
On top of it, he's not a spring chicken anymore. These constant one-nighters he does when he's on the road has to stop. I saw his schedule from 2001 after I saw him here in Eugene and it frightened the hell out of me. He was doing these one-nighters which required a lot of driving from one gig to the next. When he was here in Eugene, he did not arrive by bus. He was being driven in a small cramped car. That's insane. He should not have to be subjecting himself to something like this-ever. He should be doing two nights on and at least one night off-preferably two.
When I read this article earlier today, I had tears well up in my eyes. I saw some of the usual inaccuracies, but I was reminded of the situation that Taylor has dealt with for the past 35 years since he left the band. I'm trying to figure out how Mick and Keith live with themselves knowing that they don't give a little something back to a guy who gave them their best live performance era. The fans don't tell it their faces when they happen to meet them out of a sense of respect and decorum. After reading some things at another forum about Taylor, it was mentioned that Mick and Keith have mentioned how great the albums are that Taylor on. But do they really acknowledge Taylor? Or is it all just lip-service? But it is about time that fans and famous friends start speaking out on his behalf and try to make things at least a little bit right. 35 years of hell is long enough, don't you think? When I saw him and spoke to him, he gave me the impression of a man who fell from a great distance and is still attempting to recover from the fall.