We love you. We love your music. Exile was a masterpiece. Mick Taylor was instrumental in its creation. Mick has not fared as well as you since his self-imposed exile. But, rock gods, life is short. Balance your karma accounts while you can. Give Mick Taylor full credit, and payments, when the album is reissued. If you do it right - warm media statement, show up at a couple of his gigs (he'll be on tour just before the re-release date), etc. - you can create big buzz and increase sales. Just saying. Can anyone out there give me an amen?

sorry...i'm not aware that he's owed anything...

he's owed respect (and i suppose some mechanical royalties etc...)

for being a super hero of the rock/blues world, soaring in, and driving on the best rock and roll band that ever existed, with creative totally original character that actually defined the much, most, almost all, of the 'golden' period, especially eoms, as much as any of the others in that fabulous historic rhythm section... like duh

Hi, greetings from sunny LA.... Mick's over here right now, we're outside playing a game of tennis in the warm sun - Eric and Rod and Vedder are hanging out too. Mick read your post and agree's to all of it, so, no worries, your message has gotten through..... sorry man, gotta go back out and finish the game. We have some extra people here so the BBQ and Sangria are next, then everyone gets nekked and jumps in the pool - some of the babes have excellent racks, should be a sight for sore eyes....

Mick Taylor has already achieved artistic validation that will last forever. Like Beelyboy says, his contributions to the 'golden' era assure him a prominent permanent reputation.

Quote
Beelyboy
he's owed respect (and i suppose some mechanical royalties etc...)

Some royalties ? Ever tried to calculate how much the Stones got paid in "transfer sums" since 1981 every time they changed record labels ? Technically speaking, Mick T is entitled to a percentage of those payments - namely
1/5 X tracks he played on / total tracks in the Stones catalogue (at the time of switching labels)
How much do you think that amounts to ?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-15 03:46 by Lightnin'.

Quote
Lightnin'

Quote
Beelyboy
he's owed respect (and i suppose some mechanical royalties etc...)

Some royalties ? Ever tried to calculate how much the Stones got paid in "transfer sums" since 1981 every time they changed record labels ? Technically speaking, Mick T is entitled to a percentage of those payments - namely
1/5 X tracks he played on / total tracks in the Stones catalogue (at the time of switching labels)
How much do you think that amounts to ?

are you crazy??? he owns no rights. leave alone 1/5th. he got payed a certain amount for the job but he has no credit points.
he will not get anything later or when the stones switch labels.
he doesn´t own any of it!!!!

the credit he gets is his name mentioned in the booklet but he owns no inventor royalties.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-15 04:03 by stoneswashed77.

some of the babes have excellent racks, should be a sight for sore eyes....

Hope ya havin' a goooooood time Helter ...........





ROCKMAN

Quote
HelterSkelter
Hi, greetings from sunny LA.... Mick's over here right now, we're outside playing a game of tennis in the warm sun - Eric and Rod and Vedder are hanging out too. Mick read your post and agree's to all of it, so, no worries, your message has gotten through..... sorry man, gotta go back out and finish the game. We have some extra people here so the BBQ and Sangria are next, then everyone gets nekked and jumps in the pool - some of the babes have excellent racks, should be a sight for sore eyes....

He he....

Quote
Rockman
some of the babes have excellent racks, should be a sight for sore eyes....

Hope ya havin' a goooooood time Helter ...........

You make me laugh,Rockee .You're a real scream !



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Monday morning and a bit of good ol' MT worship!

Life just wouldn't be the same......

Stonewashed, it's okay if you don't get it but MT was not a hired hand. He was one of 5 directors in all the companies they founded, including Rolling Stones Records.
Why do you think musicians that are full bandmembers are not getting paid artist royalties ?
Every time the Red Hot Chili Peppers release an album the bandmembers get an equal share of the artist royalties, which in their case is the percentage negotiated with the record company when they signed. (This percentage will range from 9-13% for a new artist, but a superstar might be able to demand 20% from their major label). If their bassplayer Flea leaves tomorrow you think he won't get paid anymore for the albums that will continue to be sold all around the world ?
Even if he had never been given any credit as a composer he would still be entitled to royalties (just not to publishing royalties).

In the case of the Stones - they were their own recordcompany which means they get all the profit, not just a measly percentage. When they decided to take control of their business in 1970, the way they were going to split the proceeds was all set out in extensive legal documents. It was agreed that each bandmember receives a 1/5 share from each subcompany. The only exception is publishing royalties (which go to Jagger/Richards) - in UK this is 8,5 % of the publisher dealer price (PDP) of each copy pressed. After this is taken care of and the production costs, packaging etc is paid for the rest is profit. So Mick T is entitled to 1/5 of that over all the records he played on.
I don't know what you mean by "inventor rights", that is not a term that is used in royalty computations.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-15 14:47 by Lightnin'.

Texas fan rhymes with douche bag....

Quote
duke richardson
Mick Taylor has already achieved artistic validation that will last forever. Like Beelyboy says, his contributions to the 'golden' era assure him a prominent permanent reputation.

That's all very well (and I agree with you) but he can't put any of that in the bank. Everlasting artistic validation does not pay the bills unfortunately. After helping to create some of the band's best records he should at least be financially secure and not be forced to do tours just to make ends meet. It's outrageous that he doesn't stand to earn a penny from the upcoming reissue of Exile for example.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-15 14:43 by Lightnin'.

Quote
Lightnin'
Stonewashed, it's okay if you don't get it but MT was not a hired hand. He was one of 5 directors in all the companies they founded, including Rolling Stones Records.
Why do you think musicians that are full bandmembers are not getting paid artist royalties ?
Every time the Red Hot Chili Peppers release an album the bandmembers get an equal share of the artist royalties, which in their case is the percentage negotiated with the record company when they signed. (This percentage will range from 9-13% for a new artist, but a superstar might be able to demand 20% from their major label). If their bassplayer Flea leaves tomorrow you think he won't get paid anymore for the albums that will continue to be sold all around the world ?
Even if he had never been given any credit as a composer he would still be entitled to royalties (just not to publishing royalties).

In the case of the Stones - they were their own recordcompany which means they get all the profit, not just a measly percentage. When they decided to take control of their business in 1970, the way they were going to split the proceeds was all set out in extensive legal documents. It was agreed that each bandmember receives a 1/5 share from each subcompany. The only exception is publishing royalties (which go to Jagger/Richards) - in UK this is 8,5 % of the publisher dealer price (PDP) of each copy pressed. After this is taken care of and the production costs, packaging etc is paid for the rest is profit. So Mick T is entitled to 1/5 of that over all the records he played on.
I don't know what you mean by "inventor rights", that is not a term that is used in royalty computations.

if all that was true, why is he not getting 1/5th ???????????????????

just because you play an instrument on a recording doesn´t mean you own that recording. if he would own what he played he would get the money and we wouldn´t have to talk about it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-15 14:52 by stoneswashed77.

Because they told their accountants in 1981 to stop paying out his share of the recordsales (over the albums he was involved in). And it is true. It is one of the biggest scandals in the history of popular music. Mick T has been far too much of a gentleman about the appalling treatment he received.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-15 15:19 by Lightnin'.

Quote
Lightnin'
Because they told their accountants in 1981 to stop paying out his share of the recordsales (over the albums he was involved in). And it is true. It is one of the biggest scandals in the history of popular music. Mick T has been far too much of a gentleman about the apalling treatment he received.

yes but obviously this is legal. MT should have made a better contract with them or not play. nonetheless he is still the lucky one in that constellation and involvement with the stones. without the stones who is he???

i don´think this is the biggest scandal ever. it happened and still happens every day. the role of mick taylor is more or less being a session musician.

nicky hopkins for example in my eyes would by your logic deserve a lot more than mick taylor.

Quote
stoneswashed77

if all that was true, why is he not getting 1/5th ???????????????????

just because you play an instrument on a recording doesn´t mean you own that recording. if he would own what he played he would get the money and we wouldn´t have to talk about it.

The term own is relative when you work with a band of five. Each bandmember co-owns the copyright in the recording. The authors of the song own the copyright in the composition.

Mick T did not just play an instrument on a recording. He was not a session musician that was hired for the day.
He had exactly the same rights as MJ, KR, CW and BW when it comes to their companies and the profit generated. All of this was officially agreed on, documented and notarised etc.
If this is a new concept that you are trying to get your head around after having believed for years MT has no rights and was paid a salary or something, I can appreciate it is mind boggling.

The label the records were released on was called Rolling Stones Records - which he owned with the other four guys.

Quote
Lightnin'

Quote
stoneswashed77

if all that was true, why is he not getting 1/5th ???????????????????

just because you play an instrument on a recording doesn´t mean you own that recording. if he would own what he played he would get the money and we wouldn´t have to talk about it.

The term own is relative when you work with a band of five. Each bandmember co-owns the copyright in the recording. The authors of the song own the copyright in the composition.

Mick T did not just play an instrument on a recording. He was not a session musician that was hired for the day.
He had exactly the same rights as MJ, KR, CW and BW when it comes to their companies and the profit generated. All of this was officially agreed on, documented and notarised etc.
If this is a new concept that you are trying to get your head around after having believed for years MT has no rights and was paid a salary or something, I can appreciate it is mind boggling.

The label the records were released on was called Rolling Stones Records - which he owned with the other four guys.

a lot of players in a lot of band do not own what they play in the studio.
if you want that it has to be written down in a contract.
but often you have to give away the rights before anything gets recorded.
even composers often have to give all their rights away if they want to be on a label.

if it is true that mick taylor has a contract that he owns 1/5th then again
i don´t understand the discussion. he should simply take a lawyer and get his money.

i would furtherore find it very strange if mick and keith would accept bill and charlie and also mick t. to have the same share.

that would be a mistake from their side.

Quote
Lightnin'

Quote
duke richardson
Mick Taylor has already achieved artistic validation that will last forever. Like Beelyboy says, his contributions to the 'golden' era assure him a prominent permanent reputation.

That's all very well (and I agree with you) but he can't put any of that in the bank. Everlasting artistic validation does not pay the bills unfortunately. After helping to create some of the band's best records he should at least be financially secure and not be forced to do tours just to make ends meet. It's outrageous that he doesn't stand to earn a penny from the upcoming reissue of Exile for example.

Lightnin' I've always thought (hopefully) that Mick and Keith were better than that. you are posting what are purported to be hard financial facts of their callous dealing with Taylor. Have they, Mick and Keith, done anything to help him financially, that is not widely known or reported? just curious.

Quote
stoneswashed77
i don´think this is the biggest scandal ever. it happened and still happens every day. the role of mick taylor is more or less being a session musician.

nicky hopkins for example in my eyes would by your logic deserve a lot more than mick taylor.

It doesn't matter if you want to see Mick T as a session musician, because legally he was not and had all the rights I described above. Bill Wyman, to this day still gets 1/5 royalties over the albums he played on but Mick T does not.
There are not that many cases in popular music where a bandmember has been ripped off at this scale by a world famous band.
Nicky Hopkins, as brilliant as he was, never had an official status as a bandmember, never mind a company director entitled to a 20% cut of the profit.
I've done my best to explain this in a way that everyone can understand. I will cease my attempts for today. Got other things to do.

i understand what you say but why doesn´t he just get a lawyer then if all you say is true.

he doesn´t have to wait for mick to give him generously some charity, it is his and he should simply take it or let a lawyer do that for him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-15 15:23 by stoneswashed77.

Duke, the answer to that question is no. Mick T does not want their "help" or charity, he feels this thing should be resolved by them instructing their accountants to re-instate his royalties. That is what he's entitled to.

Why haven't they? petty vindictiveness because he quit the band? you said earlier that Taylor has been too gentlemanly...doesn't he have a clear legal case?

guess he's unwilling to go against them in court, or is hoping they'll 'do the right thing'?

ah, Lightnin' I was reading back over the July 2008 posts on this subject. its one I've been interested in, and missed those earlier posts but what it comes down to is: Mick Taylor is owed a lot of money. This reality reflects really bad on the 'Glimmers'.

thanks for your posts and information.

I wish that MT would be able to resolve the money problems because he's had some tough times and he can use the money. I can't believe that the Stones wouldn't just GIVE him his due and move on. Why would they want it to be known that they've basicly stolen his money all these years?? MT seems like such a sweet, meek man. Maybe MT can't afford a good lawyer.

IF Mick T played on the recent Exile reissue, that is a big, big step in reinstating him. Even if he played at just a few shows on an upcoming tour, that would generate a great deal of money for him. Not by RS mega-wealth standards, but by normal standards, which most of us, including Mick T, now live under.

The Stones (well, MJ & KR actually) are known as being rather ruthless in their business dealings. They also have harbored a grudge against MT for leaving when he did. After all this time it would be nice if they could put that aside and be generous. It wouldn't cost them much. For God's sake, what's the limit to holding a grudge? Will they take it to their graves?

Wait a second buddy:

Exile is their masterpiece, their legacy and their painting, if you understand what I mean. It is only up to them to work, rework and once again work on it.

You don't like it? You don't have to take it, right?

I think it is beyond hilarious that anyone here thinks Mick Jagger gives a hoot and a sh*t about the requests of fans on these boards.

You people are delusional. The Stones kicked ass before Taylor arrived and after Taylor left. If he's due money from the boys, he should jolly well go collect it.

The fact that you have an opinion about his guitar playing isn't going to help him get "his" money.

Deal with it.