Tell Me :
Talk
at least I do anyway. and I ain't delusional.
thats the issue--legally...apparently they do, according to the info from Lightnin'...and he/she sure seems to be in the know...
Lightnin' says Mick and Keith know they owe him big money but won't pay it, instucting their accountants to not pay Taylor. that sucks, in my book..
i don´t believe this just because lightnin´ says so.
if he legally has to get anything i think he would get it then.
he wouldn´t even have to pay or find a lawyer, the lawyers would find him.
However they have withheld his artist royalties (equal share from Rolling Stones Records for the albums he played on), in other words they breached the agreement signed at the incorporation of their companies 1970. From that year on, the Stones did not have a regular record deal but were in fact their own label. They only licensed their records to labels like Atlantic, but retained ownership.
yeah I know its what Lightnin' says but I believe he/she knows the facts. I haven't heard anyone dispute this.
something is not right...
I agree with you, Taylor should get 'lawyered up' if thats what it takes to get what is legally his. I hope he has it in writing...that would sure help. as Lightnin has said, it is a huge scandal and Taylor has been far too 'gentlemanly' about it..
Charlie's every bit as much a Rolling Stone as Mick & Keith are, and thats always been the case. Likewise with Bill until he left the band.
The only thing they get that he doesnt get is songwriting/publishing royalties.
this is what i am talking about publishing royalties (also songwriting royalties but that´s not the topic of that thread)
i don´t think mick taylor has publishing royalties.
I don't know why you're calling me names. If you disagree with me, then tell me what he's owed. Since you didn't, I assume you also cannot point to anything he's owed.
beely -- there's no way to thank you for all of your posts, including this one. I meant that I'm not aware that he's owed anything legally -- I was responding to ruby's assertion that he should get "full credit and payments." I keep hearing people claim that he's been ripped off on writing credit and royalties for this or that song, but I've just never seen any evidence of it, and certainly his solo career gives no indication he could produce a "Sway" or "Moonlight Mile" or whatever. Unlike some people, I do not agree that adding a unique character or texture to a song merits a songwriting credit. Where are all the people yelling for George Martin credits?
As to the rest of your post -- I agree, Taylor was a great lead guitarist who almost always added a sympathetic and appropriate touch to that important body of work. Even the Taylorites don't talk enough about how difficult it is to play intelligent lead guitar that coordinates with those spaces Keith leaves in the sound. I certainly respect his contributions -- sometimes I'm just in awe of them. Where we may part, though, is that I don't think he was driving the train...
So you think everything is just right and that Mick T. gets what he's entitled to? This issue seems difficult to be clarified.
I agree that Charlie's every bit as much a Rolling Stone as the Glimmers, but I don't think that he interferes in Rolling Stones business matters.
One should think so indeed. But maybe he has his reasons not to do that. It's part of the clarification I would like to have.
Where did I say it was 'right'? . Im correcting the previous poster's inaccurate remark that Charlie is not on the same percentage as the rest of the band.
You're making wild assumptions about his role in business matters. To say he doesnt interfere is nonsense. He has the same number of 'votes' as Mick Jagger has.
Nor should he have, if he hasnt written the songs and the band's contract has been renegotiated several times after his departure.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-18 03:25 by Gazza.
Take it easy, Gazza. You're always so cool, calm & collected. Be so this time too. I was just asking a question. Of course I understand Charlie's position. But he could have been outvoted, he's a minority in the band.
There's constantly confusion about songwriting credits and salesnumbers of records. I just don't know how things are, so I need some clarification. I can't have an opinion on this issue without knowing the facts. But it seems that no one here exactly knows how things are.
I'm perfectly calm. You're making assumptions on what I may have as an opinion, when all I'm doing is stating something thats a fact.
They're ALL a minority in the band. There have been occasions before when band decisions have been taken against the will of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Eg releasing 'Satisfaction' as a single, postponing the 1998 UK tour for tax reasons etc.
That story was discredited within days of it being printed. Its worthless.
Gazza, do you know if this is true (from the link):
"Taylor (...) hasn’t seen a penny in royalties from the Rolling Stones since 1982.
(...)
‘In 1982 they stopped paying me. They’d signed to a different record company and had new contracts and were advised they didn’t need to pay me any more,’ explained Taylor with a shrug.
‘Until then, I’d had a contract with Rolling Stones Records which was licensed to Atlantic Records – the same contract as the rest of the band.’
The deal gave him an equal share of performing royalties, though Jagger and Richards shared the writers’ royalties. But when the Atlantic contract expired, the band’s management used a loophole in Taylor’s contract to stop all payments.
‘I should have got a lawyer,’ he 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 is outrageous. They get all the money and I get the plaudits and praise, even from Mick.
‘I’ve tried to talk to Mick a couple of times, but I realise that hiring a lawyer is probably the only way they’ll take me seriously. But they figure I’m not going to do anything about it.’
Taylor thinks for a moment, then adds: ‘I’m going to do something about it because it’s morally wrong to cut my royalties for those six albums.’ "
morally i don´t think mick taylor deserves 1/5th of a brand he did not develop or for the publishing of songs other people wrote and produced and played concerts the last 35 years and made promotion for. morally mick and keith deserve the most part of songwriting and publishing.
morally mick t. got all he deserves and more. legally anyway.
I'm glad to hear that you're perfectly calm as always. Stick to that. But I'm sorry that you made a mistake by saying that I was making assumptions while I only asked a question. It seems as if you say (you see, I'm careful with my statements) that this whole question is as clear as glass (a Dutch saying), but in my very humble and neutral opinion it's not, just like Texas Fan said: "Kleermaker, I think you are right. Nobody knows how things are about this."
Maybe I'm a dumbo, but to me this issue isn't clear. Maybe to you, because you know more than I do and/or because you're smarter than I am.
No, I wouldn't know that, Ringo. Other people on here may have more of an insight into it, though. However, the Daily Mail article was posted here a few months ago and it was soon established that it was a very old interview with lots of inaccuracies and outright lies added. I'm sure someone can find a link to the relevant thread.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: March 17, 2010 21:52
we just go on and post what we think whether Jagger or anyone else in the Stones gang reads it...Quote
saulsurvivor
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.
at least I do anyway. and I ain't delusional.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: March 17, 2010 21:55
yeah, but it is a bit naive to think that the stones really owe taylor money legally speaking.
i doubt he has any right to ask for that money.
i doubt he has any right to ask for that money.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: March 17, 2010 22:02
Quote
stoneswashed77
yeah, but it is a bit naive to think that the stones really owe taylor money legally speaking.
i doubt he has any right to ask for that money.
thats the issue--legally...apparently they do, according to the info from Lightnin'...and he/she sure seems to be in the know...
Lightnin' says Mick and Keith know they owe him big money but won't pay it, instucting their accountants to not pay Taylor. that sucks, in my book..
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: March 17, 2010 22:04
The open letter is directed to Charlie too. But I don't think he plays any role in this matter. It's widely known that he's not only a gentleman, but he also likes MT. In the Uncut interview he once more stated how he enjoyed Taylors's playing and it maybe my fantasy, but I think they liked each other as well. MT was always standing close to Charlie and I remember him laughing when Jagger said something nice about Charlie in L&G. Charlie is nice and a gentleman, but I doubt if he's a strong character as well. I tend to deny that.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: March 17, 2010 23:07
Quote
duke richardsonQuote
stoneswashed77
yeah, but it is a bit naive to think that the stones really owe taylor money legally speaking.
i doubt he has any right to ask for that money.
thats the issue--legally...apparently they do, according to the info from Lightnin'...and he/she sure seems to be in the know...
Lightnin' says Mick and Keith know they owe him big money but won't pay it, instucting their accountants to not pay Taylor. that sucks, in my book..
i don´t believe this just because lightnin´ says so.
if he legally has to get anything i think he would get it then.
he wouldn´t even have to pay or find a lawyer, the lawyers would find him.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: March 17, 2010 23:25
Quote
stoneswashed77Quote
duke richardsonQuote
stoneswashed77
yeah, but it is a bit naive to think that the stones really owe taylor money legally speaking.
i doubt he has any right to ask for that money.
thats the issue--legally...apparently they do, according to the info from Lightnin'...and he/she sure seems to be in the know...
Lightnin' says Mick and Keith know they owe him big money but won't pay it, instucting their accountants to not pay Taylor. that sucks, in my book..
i don´t believe this just because lightnin´ says so.
if he legally has to get anything i think he would get it then.
he wouldn´t even have to pay or find a lawyer, the lawyers would find him.
However they have withheld his artist royalties (equal share from Rolling Stones Records for the albums he played on), in other words they breached the agreement signed at the incorporation of their companies 1970. From that year on, the Stones did not have a regular record deal but were in fact their own label. They only licensed their records to labels like Atlantic, but retained ownership.
yeah I know its what Lightnin' says but I believe he/she knows the facts. I haven't heard anyone dispute this.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: March 17, 2010 23:34
that they have their own label is one thing, but do you really think that bill and charlie and mick t. hold the same rights as do mick and keith?
i mean the rolling stones , mick and keith were famous long before mick t. joined, i doubt they offered him 1/5th of everything.
i don´t think bill and charlie get 1/5th of everything.
i mean the rolling stones , mick and keith were famous long before mick t. joined, i doubt they offered him 1/5th of everything.
i don´t think bill and charlie get 1/5th of everything.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: March 17, 2010 23:48
Quote
stoneswashed77
that they have their own label is one thing, but do you really think that bill and charlie and mick t. hold the same rights as do mick and keith?
i mean the rolling stones , mick and keith were famous long before mick t. joined, i doubt they offered him 1/5th of everything.
i don´t think bill and charlie get 1/5th of everything.
something is not right...
I agree with you, Taylor should get 'lawyered up' if thats what it takes to get what is legally his. I hope he has it in writing...that would sure help. as Lightnin has said, it is a huge scandal and Taylor has been far too 'gentlemanly' about it..
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: March 17, 2010 23:53
Quote
stoneswashed77
that they have their own label is one thing, but do you really think that bill and charlie and mick t. hold the same rights as do mick and keith?
i mean the rolling stones , mick and keith were famous long before mick t. joined, i doubt they offered him 1/5th of everything.
i don´t think bill and charlie get 1/5th of everything.
Charlie's every bit as much a Rolling Stone as Mick & Keith are, and thats always been the case. Likewise with Bill until he left the band.
The only thing they get that he doesnt get is songwriting/publishing royalties.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: March 18, 2010 00:20
Quote
GazzaQuote
stoneswashed77
that they have their own label is one thing, but do you really think that bill and charlie and mick t. hold the same rights as do mick and keith?
i mean the rolling stones , mick and keith were famous long before mick t. joined, i doubt they offered him 1/5th of everything.
i don´t think bill and charlie get 1/5th of everything.
Charlie's every bit as much a Rolling Stone as Mick & Keith are, and thats always been the case. Likewise with Bill until he left the band.
The only thing they get that he doesnt get is songwriting/publishing royalties.
this is what i am talking about publishing royalties (also songwriting royalties but that´s not the topic of that thread)
i don´t think mick taylor has publishing royalties.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
texas fan
()
Date: March 18, 2010 02:32
Quote
Who's Driving Your Plane?
Texas fan rhymes with douche bag....
I don't know why you're calling me names. If you disagree with me, then tell me what he's owed. Since you didn't, I assume you also cannot point to anything he's owed.
beely -- there's no way to thank you for all of your posts, including this one. I meant that I'm not aware that he's owed anything legally -- I was responding to ruby's assertion that he should get "full credit and payments." I keep hearing people claim that he's been ripped off on writing credit and royalties for this or that song, but I've just never seen any evidence of it, and certainly his solo career gives no indication he could produce a "Sway" or "Moonlight Mile" or whatever. Unlike some people, I do not agree that adding a unique character or texture to a song merits a songwriting credit. Where are all the people yelling for George Martin credits?
As to the rest of your post -- I agree, Taylor was a great lead guitarist who almost always added a sympathetic and appropriate touch to that important body of work. Even the Taylorites don't talk enough about how difficult it is to play intelligent lead guitar that coordinates with those spaces Keith leaves in the sound. I certainly respect his contributions -- sometimes I'm just in awe of them. Where we may part, though, is that I don't think he was driving the train...
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: March 18, 2010 02:47
Quote
GazzaQuote
stoneswashed77
that they have their own label is one thing, but do you really think that bill and charlie and mick t. hold the same rights as do mick and keith?
i mean the rolling stones , mick and keith were famous long before mick t. joined, i doubt they offered him 1/5th of everything.
i don´t think bill and charlie get 1/5th of everything.
Charlie's every bit as much a Rolling Stone as Mick & Keith are, and thats always been the case. Likewise with Bill until he left the band.
The only thing they get that he doesnt get is songwriting/publishing royalties.
So you think everything is just right and that Mick T. gets what he's entitled to? This issue seems difficult to be clarified.
I agree that Charlie's every bit as much a Rolling Stone as the Glimmers, but I don't think that he interferes in Rolling Stones business matters.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: March 18, 2010 02:50
Mick Taylor is an adult. Don't you think he should be the one to straighten out any problems?
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: March 18, 2010 02:57
Quote
stonesrule
Mick Taylor is an adult. Don't you think he should be the one to straighten out any problems?
One should think so indeed. But maybe he has his reasons not to do that. It's part of the clarification I would like to have.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: March 18, 2010 03:21
Quote
kleermakerQuote
GazzaQuote
stoneswashed77
that they have their own label is one thing, but do you really think that bill and charlie and mick t. hold the same rights as do mick and keith?
i mean the rolling stones , mick and keith were famous long before mick t. joined, i doubt they offered him 1/5th of everything.
i don´t think bill and charlie get 1/5th of everything.
Charlie's every bit as much a Rolling Stone as Mick & Keith are, and thats always been the case. Likewise with Bill until he left the band.
The only thing they get that he doesnt get is songwriting/publishing royalties.
So you think everything is just right and that Mick T. gets what he's entitled to? This issue seems difficult to be clarified.
I agree that Charlie's every bit as much a Rolling Stone as the Glimmers, but I don't think that he interferes in Rolling Stones business matters.
Where did I say it was 'right'? . Im correcting the previous poster's inaccurate remark that Charlie is not on the same percentage as the rest of the band.
You're making wild assumptions about his role in business matters. To say he doesnt interfere is nonsense. He has the same number of 'votes' as Mick Jagger has.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: March 18, 2010 03:23
Quote
stoneswashed77Quote
GazzaQuote
stoneswashed77
that they have their own label is one thing, but do you really think that bill and charlie and mick t. hold the same rights as do mick and keith?
i mean the rolling stones , mick and keith were famous long before mick t. joined, i doubt they offered him 1/5th of everything.
i don´t think bill and charlie get 1/5th of everything.
Charlie's every bit as much a Rolling Stone as Mick & Keith are, and thats always been the case. Likewise with Bill until he left the band.
The only thing they get that he doesnt get is songwriting/publishing royalties.
this is what i am talking about publishing royalties (also songwriting royalties but that´s not the topic of that thread)
i don´t think mick taylor has publishing royalties.
Nor should he have, if he hasnt written the songs and the band's contract has been renegotiated several times after his departure.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-18 03:25 by Gazza.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: March 18, 2010 03:31
Quote
GazzaQuote
kleermakerQuote
GazzaQuote
stoneswashed77
that they have their own label is one thing, but do you really think that bill and charlie and mick t. hold the same rights as do mick and keith?
i mean the rolling stones , mick and keith were famous long before mick t. joined, i doubt they offered him 1/5th of everything.
i don´t think bill and charlie get 1/5th of everything.
Charlie's every bit as much a Rolling Stone as Mick & Keith are, and thats always been the case. Likewise with Bill until he left the band.
The only thing they get that he doesnt get is songwriting/publishing royalties.
So you think everything is just right and that Mick T. gets what he's entitled to? This issue seems difficult to be clarified.
I agree that Charlie's every bit as much a Rolling Stone as the Glimmers, but I don't think that he interferes in Rolling Stones business matters.
Where did I say it was 'right'? . Im correcting the previous poster's inaccurate remark that Charlie is not on the same percentage as the rest of the band.
You're making wild assumptions about his role in business matters. To say he doesnt interfere is nonsense. He has the same number of 'votes' as Mick Jagger has.
Take it easy, Gazza. You're always so cool, calm & collected. Be so this time too. I was just asking a question. Of course I understand Charlie's position. But he could have been outvoted, he's a minority in the band.
There's constantly confusion about songwriting credits and salesnumbers of records. I just don't know how things are, so I need some clarification. I can't have an opinion on this issue without knowing the facts. But it seems that no one here exactly knows how things are.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: March 18, 2010 03:45
I'm curious, how does lightnin' know all this stuff?
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
texas fan
()
Date: March 18, 2010 04:00
Kleermaker, I think you are right. Nobody knows how things are about this.
Earlier I wrote about songwriting royalties -- on the issue of publishing royalties, there probably is an answer; if we had the relevant agreement(s) between all of the relevant parties, we probably could achieve some level of understanding about Taylor's rights at various points in time. Until we see it, though, it's speculative.
If these agreements establish Taylor's right to publishing royalties, then it is a separate issue of whether there is proof that these rights were violated -- that the Stones failed to pay specific payments that were due.
There is, I think, a legitimate point to be made that the twins, in telling their own history, tend to (perhaps subconsiously) minimize the role of both Brian Jones and Mick Taylor. If they really believe that the contributions of these others were negligible, it might explain their apparent coldness about royalties and such.
Having said all that -- yes, Ruby, I'd like to see the Stones do something to give Mick a boost. If there's some final 50 year thing, he and Bill should be a part of it, somehow.
Earlier I wrote about songwriting royalties -- on the issue of publishing royalties, there probably is an answer; if we had the relevant agreement(s) between all of the relevant parties, we probably could achieve some level of understanding about Taylor's rights at various points in time. Until we see it, though, it's speculative.
If these agreements establish Taylor's right to publishing royalties, then it is a separate issue of whether there is proof that these rights were violated -- that the Stones failed to pay specific payments that were due.
There is, I think, a legitimate point to be made that the twins, in telling their own history, tend to (perhaps subconsiously) minimize the role of both Brian Jones and Mick Taylor. If they really believe that the contributions of these others were negligible, it might explain their apparent coldness about royalties and such.
Having said all that -- yes, Ruby, I'd like to see the Stones do something to give Mick a boost. If there's some final 50 year thing, he and Bill should be a part of it, somehow.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: March 18, 2010 04:51
Quote
kleermakerQuote
GazzaQuote
kleermakerQuote
GazzaQuote
stoneswashed77
that they have their own label is one thing, but do you really think that bill and charlie and mick t. hold the same rights as do mick and keith?
i mean the rolling stones , mick and keith were famous long before mick t. joined, i doubt they offered him 1/5th of everything.
i don´t think bill and charlie get 1/5th of everything.
Charlie's every bit as much a Rolling Stone as Mick & Keith are, and thats always been the case. Likewise with Bill until he left the band.
The only thing they get that he doesnt get is songwriting/publishing royalties.
So you think everything is just right and that Mick T. gets what he's entitled to? This issue seems difficult to be clarified.
I agree that Charlie's every bit as much a Rolling Stone as the Glimmers, but I don't think that he interferes in Rolling Stones business matters.
Where did I say it was 'right'? . Im correcting the previous poster's inaccurate remark that Charlie is not on the same percentage as the rest of the band.
You're making wild assumptions about his role in business matters. To say he doesnt interfere is nonsense. He has the same number of 'votes' as Mick Jagger has.
Take it easy, Gazza. You're always so cool, calm & collected. Be so this time too. I was just asking a question. Of course I understand Charlie's position. But he could have been outvoted, he's a minority in the band.
I'm perfectly calm. You're making assumptions on what I may have as an opinion, when all I'm doing is stating something thats a fact.
They're ALL a minority in the band. There have been occasions before when band decisions have been taken against the will of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Eg releasing 'Satisfaction' as a single, postponing the 1998 UK tour for tax reasons etc.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: March 18, 2010 04:52
That story was discredited within days of it being printed. Its worthless.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
Ringo
()
Date: March 18, 2010 05:25
Quote
Gazza
That story was discredited within days of it being printed. Its worthless.
Gazza, do you know if this is true (from the link):
"Taylor (...) hasn’t seen a penny in royalties from the Rolling Stones since 1982.
(...)
‘In 1982 they stopped paying me. They’d signed to a different record company and had new contracts and were advised they didn’t need to pay me any more,’ explained Taylor with a shrug.
‘Until then, I’d had a contract with Rolling Stones Records which was licensed to Atlantic Records – the same contract as the rest of the band.’
The deal gave him an equal share of performing royalties, though Jagger and Richards shared the writers’ royalties. But when the Atlantic contract expired, the band’s management used a loophole in Taylor’s contract to stop all payments.
‘I should have got a lawyer,’ he 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 is outrageous. They get all the money and I get the plaudits and praise, even from Mick.
‘I’ve tried to talk to Mick a couple of times, but I realise that hiring a lawyer is probably the only way they’ll take me seriously. But they figure I’m not going to do anything about it.’
Taylor thinks for a moment, then adds: ‘I’m going to do something about it because it’s morally wrong to cut my royalties for those six albums.’ "
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: March 18, 2010 09:01
Isn't stoneswashed77 a lot of fun? Like a long day in the dentist chair.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: March 18, 2010 12:54
"skippy" you obviously have a problem. just read my posts correctly. and don´t always post something yourself that you always take back when criticized for it and pretend you never said it this way or meant it differently.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
stoneswashed77
()
Date: March 18, 2010 13:04
Quote
Ringo
They’d signed to a different record company and had new contracts and were advised they didn’t need to pay me any more,’ explained Taylor with a shrug.
if the stones were advertised like that than it´s quite likely it´s legal
‘I’ve tried to talk to Mick a couple of times, but I realise that hiring a lawyer is probably the only way they’ll take me seriously. But they figure I’m not going to do anything about it.’
the stones know mick t. will not do anything because they now he has got no rights.
Taylor thinks for a moment, then adds: ‘I’m going to do something about it because it’s morally wrong to cut my royalties for those six albums.’ "
morally i don´t think mick taylor deserves 1/5th of a brand he did not develop or for the publishing of songs other people wrote and produced and played concerts the last 35 years and made promotion for. morally mick and keith deserve the most part of songwriting and publishing.
morally mick t. got all he deserves and more. legally anyway.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: March 18, 2010 13:05
Quote
GazzaQuote
kleermakerQuote
GazzaQuote
kleermakerQuote
GazzaQuote
stoneswashed77
that they have their own label is one thing, but do you really think that bill and charlie and mick t. hold the same rights as do mick and keith?
i mean the rolling stones , mick and keith were famous long before mick t. joined, i doubt they offered him 1/5th of everything.
i don´t think bill and charlie get 1/5th of everything.
Charlie's every bit as much a Rolling Stone as Mick & Keith are, and thats always been the case. Likewise with Bill until he left the band.
The only thing they get that he doesnt get is songwriting/publishing royalties.
So you think everything is just right and that Mick T. gets what he's entitled to? This issue seems difficult to be clarified.
I agree that Charlie's every bit as much a Rolling Stone as the Glimmers, but I don't think that he interferes in Rolling Stones business matters.
Where did I say it was 'right'? . Im correcting the previous poster's inaccurate remark that Charlie is not on the same percentage as the rest of the band.
You're making wild assumptions about his role in business matters. To say he doesnt interfere is nonsense. He has the same number of 'votes' as Mick Jagger has.
Take it easy, Gazza. You're always so cool, calm & collected. Be so this time too. I was just asking a question. Of course I understand Charlie's position. But he could have been outvoted, he's a minority in the band.
I'm perfectly calm. You're making assumptions on what I may have as an opinion, when all I'm doing is stating something thats a fact.
They're ALL a minority in the band. There have been occasions before when band decisions have been taken against the will of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Eg releasing 'Satisfaction' as a single, postponing the 1998 UK tour for tax reasons etc.
I'm glad to hear that you're perfectly calm as always. Stick to that. But I'm sorry that you made a mistake by saying that I was making assumptions while I only asked a question. It seems as if you say (you see, I'm careful with my statements) that this whole question is as clear as glass (a Dutch saying), but in my very humble and neutral opinion it's not, just like Texas Fan said: "Kleermaker, I think you are right. Nobody knows how things are about this."
Maybe I'm a dumbo, but to me this issue isn't clear. Maybe to you, because you know more than I do and/or because you're smarter than I am.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: March 18, 2010 14:15
Quote
RingoQuote
Gazza
That story was discredited within days of it being printed. Its worthless.
Gazza, do you know if this is true (from the link):
"Taylor (...) hasn’t seen a penny in royalties from the Rolling Stones since 1982.
No, I wouldn't know that, Ringo. Other people on here may have more of an insight into it, though. However, the Daily Mail article was posted here a few months ago and it was soon established that it was a very old interview with lots of inaccuracies and outright lies added. I'm sure someone can find a link to the relevant thread.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
Grison
()
Date: March 18, 2010 15:17
Totally agree with Soulsurvivor.
And respect: the albums he played on did not yet make much money even with the own Rolling Stones Records compare to Black and Blue and especially Some Girls. At those times bands didn't really make much of contracts but have been pushed by the Record companies. The Stones have been in deep depth at that time when Taylor was there.
If despite there is any legal right to go for it he would or should do. If not it was a bad time.
And respect: the albums he played on did not yet make much money even with the own Rolling Stones Records compare to Black and Blue and especially Some Girls. At those times bands didn't really make much of contracts but have been pushed by the Record companies. The Stones have been in deep depth at that time when Taylor was there.
If despite there is any legal right to go for it he would or should do. If not it was a bad time.
Re: Open letter to Mick, Keith and Charlie
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: March 18, 2010 15:19
The question I would be asking is if Mick Taylor is too much of a gentleman to sue his former bandmates for unpaid royalties for the past 35 years, why would he then return to the studio with them to rework EXILE outtakes?
Did the phone conversation go something like this?
JAGGER: Mick, we'd love to have you back to finish the tunes. And once you finish the session we'll sort everything out with the millions we've owed you. Sorry about the wait, but you know how time waits for no one.
TAYLOR: Gosh, Mick...I don't know what to say, mate. Of course I'll be there. I knew you'd come through eventually if I only waited long enough. Till the next time we say goodbye, I'll be thinking of...
<click> JAGGER hangs up on him and immediately dials Keith
MICK: Keith? I just rung up Mick. He took the bait. Bwhahahahahahahaha!
KEITH: Gnnaarll baarll narraalllabaghhh
My point in all this silliness is that I don't believe Mr. Taylor is a fool.
Anyone can get ripped off, but to be ripped off continuously for 35 years and then put yourself in the same situation willingly--sorry, I just don't buy it. Taylor isn't a poor uneducated blues musician from the 1930s getting ripped off by unscrupulous business men. He would have to be the Rain Man of rock to let what is alleged happen to him. He may be owed uncredited songwriting royalties, that's entirely plausible, but if there's anything else he's owed and done nothing to correct, its because there's more to the story than any of us know.
Did the phone conversation go something like this?
JAGGER: Mick, we'd love to have you back to finish the tunes. And once you finish the session we'll sort everything out with the millions we've owed you. Sorry about the wait, but you know how time waits for no one.
TAYLOR: Gosh, Mick...I don't know what to say, mate. Of course I'll be there. I knew you'd come through eventually if I only waited long enough. Till the next time we say goodbye, I'll be thinking of...
<click> JAGGER hangs up on him and immediately dials Keith
MICK: Keith? I just rung up Mick. He took the bait. Bwhahahahahahahaha!
KEITH: Gnnaarll baarll narraalllabaghhh
My point in all this silliness is that I don't believe Mr. Taylor is a fool.
Anyone can get ripped off, but to be ripped off continuously for 35 years and then put yourself in the same situation willingly--sorry, I just don't buy it. Taylor isn't a poor uneducated blues musician from the 1930s getting ripped off by unscrupulous business men. He would have to be the Rain Man of rock to let what is alleged happen to him. He may be owed uncredited songwriting royalties, that's entirely plausible, but if there's anything else he's owed and done nothing to correct, its because there's more to the story than any of us know.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1530
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10