There's many different kind of royalties, and depending on how the contract is drawn up, one specific type can play out in different ways. It all comes down to the CONTRACT (which can be renegotiated when it's up for renewal). One problem most young songwriters had in the early '60s (The Beatles included) is that while they received SONGWRITING royalties for their self-penned tunes (sometimes at an appallingly low percentage), they didn't own the far more lucrative PUBLISHING rights...this usually happened because someone older and shrewder was there to ensure the naive young songwriters were told "it's a good deal for now, so just sign it". A similar situation often occurred with the MATERIAL (or RECORD or PERFORMANCE) royalties...bands would agree to being payed a very low percentage because they were in no position to negotiate at the time.

As far as all the specualtion on whether or not Taylor gets paid RECORD royalties for the recordings he played on while in the Stones...he was indeed quoted as saying (last Fall) that all that stopped in the early '80s, when the Stones signed a new deal with CBS. Below is a link to the article in question. My guess (and hope) is that along with playing new overdubs on "PMS", this issue is in the process of being rectified (I wouldn't doubt if Jagger saw the article and has since been trying to negotiate a settlement with Taylor, and bringing him into the studio for the "Plundered" session may be part of the attempt to foster some "goodwill" between the two parties, and get some extra dough to MT).

[www.dailymail.co.uk]

Interesting article, CMan!
This clears up a lot for me. So the stones did nothing legally wrong but morally it's very far from pretty, to say the least...

Cheers,
Wuudy

Here we go again - I thinbk it's been pretty conclusively established that the Daily Mail article is a (typical)load of rubbish - MT himself has rubbished it. You can find it all on a million threads on this site...

OK, I didn't know that.

Cheers,
Wuudy

Quote
kingkirby
Here we go again - I thinbk it's been pretty conclusively established that the Daily Mail article is a (typical)load of rubbish - MT himself has rubbished it. You can find it all on a million threads on this site...

So Mick Taylor has since claimed that he does indeed still get paid his Stones royalties? I tried doing a search of this forum on "Daily Mail" and "Mick Taylor", but it produced no results. If someone could point me to the specific threads or better yet actual messages where his repudiation of the article is discussed, I'd sure appreciate it!

Hi,

Can't find the thread (It was called Taylor - there's gotta be a million of those, right...) but here's a link to MT's denial:

[www.guardian.co.uk]

Quote
kingkirby
Hi,

Can't find the thread (It was called Taylor - there's gotta be a million of those, right...) but here's a link to MT's denial:

[www.guardian.co.uk]

But what to think of Taylor's management, keeping Lightnin's comment on it up here in mind? As for me things are far from clear. The whole Exile rerelease project hasn't shown much affection between the Glimmers and Taylor, eventhough Taylor has played on PMS (but was pinched off in the bonus cd version) and did some interviewing.

Can't comment on the bigger picture; I guess it will continue to be one of those stories that runs and runs on this site...

I was just pointing out that the Daily Mail story was denied by MT's camp; my personal assumption is that MT still gets some kind of payments from his Stones days or why else would he be working with them again (even if it's only for one song).

Of course Whether it's a fair deal is another matter entirely...

Quote
kingkirby
Hi,

Can't find the thread (It was called Taylor - there's gotta be a million of those, right...) but here's a link to MT's denial:

[www.guardian.co.uk]

Thanks for that, kingkirby. What to make? The Mail is indeed notorious for misquotes...if that's what they did, then MT should sue, alright...he should sue THEM. More likely, he did sorta say those things, they were blown up by the Mail, and MJ's camp contacted him quickly to work out a settlement, the terms of which included a swift denial from MT's camp. Or something like that.

Quote
andy js
I always presumed (wrongly no doubt) that the Stones would've bought out Taylor's royalties many moons ago. Maybe when he was short of cash

But why anyone would think Ronnie would make any money from albums he's had nothing to do with is quite bizarre

Ok, I've taken a bit of abuse on this thread and I'll tell you all what I was thinking when I asked the question.

If the Stones recorded a brand new album tomorrow and Ronnie didn't play on any of the tracks, but continued to be a band member and tour with the band, would he get royalties from this new album? I think that he would.
Last month the Stones released an album with 10 "new" (if you can call them that) songs on it. Obviously these 10 tracks were released while Ronnie is a full band member but he never played on any of them.

I know nothing about music contracts and laws but it did make me wonder if Ronnie would make any money from the sales of the new edition of exile.

I don't think that it is that mad a question but thankyou all for your help anyway.

I think I've bust a button on my trousers....

Quote
skelly
If the Stones recorded a brand new album tomorrow and Ronnie didn't play on any of the tracks, but continued to be a band member and tour with the band, would he get royalties from this new album? I think that he would.

No. He's not on the album.

Quote
skelly
Last month the Stones released an album with 10 "new" (if you can call them that) songs on it. Obviously these 10 tracks were released while Ronnie is a full band member... but it did make me wonder if Ronnie would make any money from the sales of the new edition of exile.

Oops. Fixed it.

No, he won't. He's not on the album. Just as any other band has members that were not on some previous album, do you think the newer members make money on a recording they're not on? Of course not. So to speak the "band" makes the money but not all of the individuals.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-02 00:07 by skipstone.

Quote
skipstone


No, he won't. He's not on the album. Just as any other band has members that were not on some previous album, do you think the newer members make money on a recording they're not on? Of course not. So to speak the "band" makes the money but not all of the individuals.

I didn't think that newer members make money from songs that were released before they joined the band, the subtle difference here is that these songs were released after Ronnie joined the band. That's why I wondered what I did.

I think I have my answer now.

Thanks again.

I think I've bust a button on my trousers....

Skelly, I'm only saying what seems obvious to me: Ronnie's not on Exile therefor he doesn't make any money from Exile - reissue or not, regardless that he's in the band as the newest member for 3000 years. The same reason he doesn't make money on sales of Sticky Fingers or Beggars Banquet or Aftermath - he's not on the albums.

A team has a great player for years, they don't win a championship. He gets traded or retires, they win the next year or a few years later. He's not on the team - his name is not on the trophy (or whatever). Same thing.

Ha ha. Then again, who knows - the Stones can't even keep their masters as it is.

Quote
Brue

Quote
Lightnin'

Quote
skelly
so, can i assume that mr wood, as a band member, is earning money from the latest exile release?

No, he's not. And that is a fact. He doesn't play on it so he doesn't even get performance royalties. And all other forms of royalty income are not applicable for Mr Wood when it comes to Exile.

The Rolling Stones Corp. sold 164,000 copies of Exile on Main Street, and all shareholders in the company get a cut of the sales. Best case - they sell them all at $160 apiece, gross 26 million.

Ronnie's not getting royalties in that case, but shareholder dividends assuming they are paid.

Quote
skelly
If the Stones recorded a brand new album tomorrow and Ronnie didn't play on any of the tracks, but continued to be a band member and tour with the band, would he get royalties from this new album? I think that he would.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. IN ANY BAND IN THE WORLD

You only get record royalties if you've participated in the actual record. Tour and Merchandise royalties are soemthing else entirely

And I doubt Ronnie gets much from the merch either

Quote
andy js

Quote
skelly
If the Stones recorded a brand new album tomorrow and Ronnie didn't play on any of the tracks, but continued to be a band member and tour with the band, would he get royalties from this new album? I think that he would.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. IN ANY BAND IN THE WORLD

You only get record royalties if you've participated in the actual record. Tour and Merchandise royalties are soemthing else entirely

And I doubt Ronnie gets much from the merch either

If Ronnie gets royalties from Exile, I think I should too!

You only get record royalties if you've participated in the actual record.


YEAH them early Monkees recordings musta been a royalty night-mare ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
dtklamf
Hopefully Taylor gets $100 so he can handle June 2nd to June 7th. Thats as far as he deserves.

Don't insult Mick Taylor no more!