If Mick T. is owed royalties, are we sure that it's actually the Stones who owe them to him?

The royalties for some of the records he played on are owned by ABKCO, not Mick and Keith.

As for the EOMS through IORR albums and singles, songwriting royalties for the few tunes he co-wrote would be paid to Taylor via BMI or another service, right?

Regarding any payment to Taylor for units sold of albums on which he played (whether co-writing songs or not), it presumably gets more complicated. His contract with Rolling Stones Records (or whomever) could have allowed payments to be voided if he left the band, or if the Stones signed with a new label, etc.

Not that it wouldn't be nice for Mick and Keith to help him out, but is there evidence that they legally owe him? As for owing him morally, that comes down to a matter of perspective (i.e., the fact that he at times may have been mistreated by Mick and Keith vs. the fact that they invited him to join and that he ultimately left on his own accord, reportedly with Mick asking him not to go).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-15 22:26 by scaffer.

Mick T's manager, Jeff Allen, has spoken to NME.com and essentially issued a statement denying MT is suing the band and challenged the veracity of the Mail on Sunday article:

[www.nme.com]

I agree with many IORR posters on this thread that this is a moral matter, more than a legal one. Nobody can dispute MT's contribution to the band in that golden era. In principle, if he was entitled to royalty payment up until 1982, one would have thought he is entitled to them subsequently.

The main moral point lies in that if Jagger and Richards both have personal wealth in excess of £130 million (highly conservative estimate), then regardless of the whys and wherefores of the historical situation, it ain't gonna trouble their Bank Managers or Accountants if they each handed over £2 million to Mick Taylor as FURTHER (assuming there have been other hand outs in the past) moral settlement.

Jagger and Richards need to remind themselves who actually made them wealthy, i.e. their fans, by buying their records, merchandise and attending their concerts year after year. Sure the band invested an enormous amount of energy, effort and time to be able to offer this entertainment and pleasure to their fans, but it is their fans' hard graft in their "ordinary" lives/careers that has afforded them the luxury they have and seem to think is a God-given entitlement.

SonicD

[www.nme.com]

looks like that might have been some classic English creative journalism then

Quote

Re: The Rolling Stone who's stony broke
Posted by: dougie ()
Date: September 15, 2009 00:41

Quote
boogie69

Quote

If you believe the article, Taylor said he would argue with them a lot. That does not help his case. And, he did seem to throw a lot of mud at both Keith and Mick also. What do you expect?

The fact is, he put himself in this position. He did very little with his talents for almost 35 years. Now he wants everyone to feel sorry for him (given doing the interview and the content).

Sure, it would be nice if they gave him some money- but that gets harder with what he says about our boys.I am sure Jagger does not like him saying he did not give him credit for writing songs. Pissing off Keith and Jagger will not help your case.

Though, talking about the lows of the band is in vogue with them all recently- mainly for money.


I think he has gotten what is owed. IF he did not, he should do something about it and quit whinning like some people are.

What he says about "our boys"? Are you f-ucking kidding me? Is he serious, does he really think what Mick T. has said justifies, or is a valid excuse, for Mick and Keith's behavior in any way? I suppose people like this who like their music so much think there is justification for all their bad behavior. It doesn't matter what Mick T. says, or how he has lived his life, if he is owed money by the Stones, again IF, then they should pay him, end of story. What he does with it afterwards, if he pisses it away or whatever, is not their problem. But if they legally owe him they should pay, and there is no justification not too. How would this guy feel if he quit a job and his boss refused to give him his last paycheck because of something he said, or how he lived his life? I can't believe what the sheep on this board come up with sometimes.

Besides, regardless of what he has said over the years, he has still shown unbelievable restraint in keeping his mouth shut. I'm sure there is plenty he could say about them, especially in a tell-all book, which he has yet to do, and which I think he should. AFTER he gets what he is owed.


You say he is owed something? I will wait til a REAL judge makes that decision. Until then, it is just a bunch of whinning and nothing else.

I apologise for not stating it again at the end of my post, but earlier on I clearly stated IF they owe him. I even put it in bold, which I have done to a greater degree this time for your benefit since you must not have seen it the first time (it's in my original post if you go back and look). And while I can see how it could be misconstrued, "AFTER he gets what he is owed" is not a statement defining he is owed something. It simply means he should get what he is owed, if he is owed nothing, then he should get nothing. Why don't people on here pay attention to what they read, this is where half of the arguments on here, or any online forum really, come from.

Quote
S.T.P
Ok, We've done Charlie, and now Mick T. -What's next, Keith playing keyboards...?

Good question!

Anyway, I'm glad things aren't as bad as they seemed right there in the article.
Good to see NME clearing things up.

Nice to see Taylor quickly issuing a statement so directly obliterating the article. Wonderful to see the lovely soul behind the soulful music. What a high class act he remains.

Quote
Smokey
Nice to see Taylor quickly issuing a statement so directly obliterating the article. Wonderful to see the lovely soul behind the soulful music. What a high class act he remains.

exactly...well said

I agree there is still so much left in him, for us to enjoy.

Mick T. would get Stones-related BMI payments (or ASCAP, or whichever collection agency he's affiliated with) for "Ventilator Blues", the only cut he ever got a co-write credit on. BMI only pays songwriters and have nothing to do with sales royalties. And since they pay based on airplay, his checks are probably not very impressive.

Tommy

I´m sorry if this have been brought up already (I have very bad memory due to epilepsy) but have anyone of you guys seen a rather fresh interview with Mick? I cant remember when its from right now but in it, he says that he really shouldnt be getting credit for ventilator blues, that is a misunderstanding that he had such big influence on it?

I have difficulty seeing why The Stones should stop paying Mick Taylor for those six albums. Makes me sad that my band are such ***holes.

Oh-kay, so according to Taylor's manager Jeff Allen "there's absolutely no animosity between Mick and the Stones". I hope so, but he doesn't say that they still pay Taylor for those six albums. And if they don't pay him, how can there be no animosity?

"Mick's got a very good relationship with the Stones"

OK then, case c-l-o-s-e-d.


Lightnin's story about the Stones ripping him off with unpaid royalities since 1982 is obviously total bullshit.

How about a compromise: Mick T. agrees to 'standby' status as insurance against Ronnie not being sober/alive enough for another tour. Mick T. attends rehearsals and doesn't play loud enough to aggravate Keith. I bet Mick J. would agree to let the Stones' next corporate sponsor retain Mick T. for £500,000 ... with said £ to come out of Ronnie's pay, naturally!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-16 09:12 by scaffer.

Just noticed this article on PollStar. Did not see it already posted here. If it is please delete.

[www.pollstar.com]


Former Rolling Stone Living Life Of Simplicity

Posted on Tuesday September 15, 2009 at 11:01 AM Add |

Mick Taylor, who replaced Brian Jones on lead guitar in The Rolling Stones in 1969, has recently surfaced, telling a London newspaper he does not regret leaving the band in 1974.

The Mail On Sunday recently caught up with Taylor, describing his two-bedroom house as in “serious need of repair and redecoration,” and noted an “unopened stack of bills and threats to cut off the water, electricity and gas,” as well as a dilapidated car that has sat in the driveway so long that weeds are growing through the wheels.

Taylor played on six Stones albums – Let It Bleed, Get Yer Ya-Yas Out, Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main Street, Goats Head Soup and It’s Only Rock ‘n Roll. His guitar work also appeared on compilation releases Through The Past, Darkly (Big Hits Vol. 2), Hot Rocks, 1964-1971, Made In The Shade and Metamorphosis.

However, it’s been years since Taylor received any royalties for his work, saying the band’s management used a contract loophole to stop paying monies owed to him.

It’s been a long time since Taylor’s life of limos, mansions and Keith Richards. The one-time slim guitarist is rather hefty these days, his hair more gray than black and his jowls have succumbed to the effects of gravity over the years.

But when it comes to the Stones, Taylor is pretty much telling the same story as when he left the group in the ‘70s – that the band’s partying lifestyle and his own drug problems were threatening his life.

“People are always asking me whether I regret leaving the Rolling Stones,” Taylor told the Mail On Sunday. “I make no bones about it – had I remained with the band, I would probably be dead.

“I was having difficulties with drug addiction and couldn’t have lasted. But I’m clean now and have been for years.

“My life is so much better now than being a drug-ravaged member of the Stones. So no, I don’t regret leaving.”

Taylor was already an up-and-coming guitar slinger on the ‘60s Brit music scene and had played with John Mayall’s Bluesbreakers when the Stones came a-knockin in 1969. The band had just fired Brian Jones and was looking to fill the opening, hiring Taylor for what the guitarist thought was a simple day’s work.

“At the first session, I overdubbed the guitar on “Honky Tonk Women,” but I thought they were all a little bit vain and full of themselves,” Taylor remembers.

“After doing guitar parts on three songs, I said to Mick and Keith, ‘If you guys are just going to sit and mess around, I’m going home. I’ve got things to do.”

Taylor says Jagger called the next day with an offer to join the band. “He came and picked me up in his Bentley,” Taylor said. “I wasn’t impressed by all that and I think they kind of liked that attitude.”

Taylor said the Stones in those days were “not technically very good,” but were a “very raw” band with “great ideas.”

Taylor also described the band’s hedonistic way.

“There was as much sex as you wanted,” Taylor said. “That was part of being a rock musician, especially in America. And they always had people around them telling them how great they were and to try some of this or that. I hated that.”

According to Taylor, Richards’ drug use became an issue sometime around 1972-73.

“Several times the band almost broke up,” Taylor said. “Keith had his own separate social scene and it was obvious there was a lot of drug-taking. There were also problems traveling to certain countries because of all the drug convictions.”

By 1974 Taylor decided he had enough of the band and its lifestyle. These days he plays the occasional gig with friends. As to royalties, he claims the band’s management used a loophole in his contract to cease paying him royalties.

“I should have got a lawyer,” Taylor said. “But instead I called them rude words and asked how they could just stop paying me. They all know it’s not right. In fact it’s outrageous. They get all the money and I get the plaudits and praise, even from Mick.”

Taylor also said hiring a lawyer might be the only way to get the band to take his royalties complaints seriously.

“I’m going to have to do something about it,” said Taylor, “because it’s morally wrong to cut my royalties from those six albums.”

Click here to read the complete Mail On Sunday article.

--Jay Smith

Ugh! Everytime it's reprinted something changes or gets added, and you can tell people not familiar with the band's history are writing this stuff. This time it's "his hair more gray than black" I know it's a small detail, but black hair? Come on, he has never had black hair.

Quote
retired_dog
"Mick's got a very good relationship with the Stones"

OK then, case c-l-o-s-e-d.


Lightnin's story about the Stones ripping him off with unpaid royalities since 1982 is obviously total bullshit.

Again, a bit quick to judge. There are some of us among here ... that know more than others. If you read the statement from Jeff Allen carefully you will notice he does not say that Taylor is not owed money.
You might be able to imagine that Taylor is not the kind of guy that wants to fight over wrongfully withheld royalties through the English tabloids. He wants to straighten things out with Mick and Keith directly. If that's not possible then he will still have to go to court - regardless of whatever statements are being made in the press now.
Mick T was very unhappy and horrified on seeing the cobbled up article in the Daily Mail and when serious newspapers (like The Guardian) started taking over the story, some action had to be taken because he feels incidents like that harm the relationship he has with his former bandmates.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-16 19:44 by Lightnin'.

Sort of a relief that it was mostly bullshit in that article. Still, it's pretty disturbing how much crap the papers actually make up and put out. I just googled "Mick Taylor" + "royalties" and it's not a pretty sight -- even serious papers picked up on that shit.

Either way, I seem to remember that Taylor, commenting on the royalties issue, said something like "I do receive some", but added that he deserved more. I guess he just meant the Stones songs he got credited for and the ones he didn't (CYHMK, Sway, Time Waits for No One, etc.). Nothing new, really. He's said it before.

Lastly, I definitely think he deserves more credit and I also think he should get his shit together and do something new -- play some heavy rock or something. Not just the same ol' blues and jazz with boring backing bands. He'd be a killer lead guitar player in a band with a real good singer...

* guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 16 September 2009 13.52 BST


Taylor's manager has denied reports that the musician was planning to sue his former bandmates for unpaid royalties, claiming he has a very good relationship with the Stones

Mick Taylor is rich, happy and loves the Rolling Stones. The manager for the Stones' former guitarist has denied reports Taylor is down on his luck and wants to sue his old band, insisting they have "a very good relationship".

According to manager Jeff Allen, Taylor felt "shock, horror and disbelief" reading a recent article in the Mail on Sunday. The piece depicted Taylor as full of regrets and vitriol, living in a "ramshackle cottage" in Suffolk. Despite playing on albums such as Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main St, Taylor had allegedly been denied royalties since 1982. "Hiring a lawyer is probably the only way they'll take me seriously," he was quoted as saying.

But that's simply not true, Allen told the NME yesterday. "He certainly didn't say that he was going to sue the Stones," Allen said. "He doesn't feel any need to sue ... Mick's got a very good relationship with the Stones."

"In fact, the last time we met up with them, him and Keith [Richards] were like long-lost lovers – hugging each other and happy to see each other. When Mick was ill either six or eight weeks ago with some kind of chest complaint, Mick Jagger had his office phone up to see what was going on, and then he phoned up the hospital just to check on Mick because they were worried about him. So there's absolutely no animosity between Mick and the Stones."

Not only are Taylor and his former bandmates best buddies, Taylor is living the life you would expect of the man who plays the guitar solo on Can't You Hear Me Knocking. "Mick is living in Holland at the moment with his girlfriend," Allen said. Rather than being "some kind of run-down, down-and-out tramp ... Mick's having the house done up."

The Mick Taylor Band will tour Germany and France in October.

I'm very happy to hear that and I hope that is is true...

That's great news if Mick T. is well off financially. Really hope it's truly the case.

Good news...though I could have done without the "long lost lovers" imagery....

Seems to be the silly season for wildly exaggerated press stories about the Stones which soon end up being laughed off.

Good to read that things are Ok after all.

Yes, ok, alright, but where is Lightnin', this board's member supposedly "in the know" about so many things Taylor to explain all this?

I mean, he mentions contract details and other facts that, if true, only people very close to Taylor could know. How does he explain the public statement of Taylor's management? Lightnin's email adress here is "[email protected]"....



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-17 00:21 by retired_dog.

Even though Lightnin's addy was not hidden before, it may need to be now.

I don't know, don't laugh but maybe we should take some kind of
collection for him. Start something up. I mean that time in the 70's
brought me so much joy. That music is timeless. I'm broke myself but
if everyone gave a little, We are Rolling Stones fans. We ARE FAMILY.

Even though the Daily Mail article has been denied, one thing is for sure: if Mick had any desire to recover lost royalty payments at this late date, the very worst stategy for success would be to slag off the Stones in the tabloid press. I don't know, of course, but I bet the journo didn't pull all those quotes out of a hat.

And Mick has stated around the Licks tour that he was unhappy about unpaid royalties and expressed his intention to write a tell-all book.

(From [www.micktaylor.net] )

From today's Daily Express (no url)
Taylor plans to reveal all in Stones book

Former Rolling Stone Mick Taylor is preparing to lift the lid on the group's 70s secrets in a tell all autobiography. While MJ and the rest of the legendary combo continue their mammoth, round the world tour, guitarist Mick Taylor is writing his memoirs and promises to reveal some "home truths" about the band. And although he remains tight lipped on the exact contents of the tome, the shy Taylor is forthcoming with his views on Jagger, Richards, Watts and Wood. "They're still just as arrogant as they ever were," he says, before explaining why he left the group. "I left because I was peeved at not getting the credit for various songs, plus some other things."

How hard would it be to schedule an appointment with an entertainment lawyer who could tell him if he has any basis for negotiating a settlement? I bet he could even find one who would only charge a success fee.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-16 22:59 by Bliss.

Quote
retired_dog
Yes, ok, alright, but where is Lightnin', this board's member supposedly "in the know" about so many things Taylor to ecplain all this?

I mean, he mentions contract details and other facts that, if true, only people very close to Taylor could know. How does he explain the public statement of Taylor's management? Lightnin's emal adress here is "[email protected]"....

What makes you so sure "Lightnin' is a *He* ?

Quote
Ringo
Oh-kay, so according to Taylor's manager Jeff Allen "there's absolutely no animosity between Mick and the Stones". I hope so, but he doesn't say that they still pay Taylor for those six albums. And if they don't pay him, how can there be no animosity?

Good questions. And at last someone who knows how to read between the lines.
If anyone else is wondering: Taylor's manager spoke to NME without checking if MT wanted the whole article to be squashed or only parts of it.

If Taylor sues the Stones, I will sue Taylor; just haven't figured out what for yet.