Just curious. I came across that John Fogerty vs. Fantasy/Warner/Zaentz story,
when JF had no rights on his own songs, he wasn´t earning anything at times.

So what if the Stones had lost their rights completely to ABKCO by some
stupid mistake? Imagine a tour from 1970 to now without any pre 1969 stuff.
Would they have gathered the same fame and fortune? Would they have been
more creative with recording more often and releasing more material?

What do you think?

What exactly is their agreement with ABKCO ?

I don´t know...my question what would have happened
if they had no rights to their pre 1969 songs on later tours.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-10 18:26 by TooTough.

In the 70's it wouldn't have mattered for they din't play much old stuff in those yrs anyway, though even then they were famous with the bigger audience for their old Brian Jones era hits, though they didn't play them (or hardly) live. This old hits were still released by ABCKO (Hot Rocks 72, Rolled Gold 75 and Stones Story 76, who all mostly sold better than the actual new Stones tour release, and caused proberlay most people to actually come to those tours), still the Stones hardly played them and nobody complained nor did the audience attendence drop. so no i don't think it would have mattered, people mostly come to see the name anyway and as long as they give a good show ofcourse. Good example of this is actually the 69 tour (yes i know this is pre 70, but i mean it as an example) because before that tour kicked off they topped the US charts with Through the Past with half the songs from 67, and they only released Let It Bleed at the end of that tour. so people came expecting some Through the Past stuff, but instead the Stones played mainly new yet unreleased stuff, yet this is considered by many as one of their greatest tours ever. So people come because of your name and old hits but don't mind if you play something totally different and new as long as it is a good show.
Having said this it does require good new songs ofcourse to be written

Quote
TooTough
Just curious. I came across that John Fogerty vs. Fantasy/Warner/Zaentz story,
when JF had no rights on his own songs, he wasn´t earning anything at times.

So what if the Stones had lost their rights completely to ABKCO by some
stupid mistake? Imagine a tour from 1970 to now without any pre 1969 stuff.
Would they have gathered the same fame and fortune? Would they have been
more creative with recording more often and releasing more material?

What do you think?

John Fogerty was still making a lot of money during his dispute with Fantasy Inc.
He was still entitled to 50% of whatever revenue Saul Z. collected. This is the songwriter share that the law mandates, even though he was no longer the copyright holder. He was also making artist royalty monies on record sales, as well as performing rights income as collected by the relevant agencies. It was as much about ego and personal animosity between SZ and JF as it was about money.

They would have had to change their setlists drastically!
If I have a look at my top 10 most seen songs since going to Stones concerts in 1982, they would be reduced to three of them... (or 8 out of the 20 most frequently played)

this would never have happened, because it was in Abkco's interest to have the Stones perform those songs--free promotion for their back catalogue. It was the Stones' choice not to play so many of those songs. As MKJan says, the Fogerty situation was more unusual, I believe, and based on emotions rather than business.

Quote
behroez
In the 70's it wouldn't have mattered for they din't play much old stuff in those yrs anyway, though even then they were famous with the bigger audience for their old Brian Jones era hits, though they didn't play them (or hardly) live. This old hits were still released by ABCKO (Hot Rocks 72, Rolled Gold 75 and Stones Story 76, who all mostly sold better than the actual new Stones tour release, and caused proberlay most people to actually come to those tours), still the Stones hardly played them and nobody complained nor did the audience attendence drop. so no i don't think it would have mattered, people mostly come to see the name anyway and as long as they give a good show ofcourse. Good example of this is actually the 69 tour (yes i know this is pre 70, but i mean it as an example) because before that tour kicked off they topped the US charts with Through the Past with half the songs from 67, and they only released Let It Bleed at the end of that tour. so people came expecting some Through the Past stuff, but instead the Stones played mainly new yet unreleased stuff, yet this is considered by many as one of their greatest tours ever. So people come because of your name and old hits but don't mind if you play something totally different and new as long as it is a good show.
Having said this it does require good new songs ofcourse to be written

I think your premise is interesting as they did tend to pack their shows with new material in the 70's but you picked the wrong tour as an example I think.

For most of the 69 tour they actually played old released material which they may not have played live yet, as they had not toured the U.S in three years, but the fans would have had previous exposure if they bought their singles and albums.

As far unreleased material from the "Let It Bleed" album they actually only played 3 songs out of the 9 on the album that tour. Gimme Shelter, Midnight Rambler, and Live with Me. They also played Loving Cup that tour which was not released unil the "Exile" album and Brown Sugar at Altamont.You are also forgetting they released "Beggars Banquet" back in August 68 and they played 4 songs off of that album during the 69 tour. So out of a 15 song setlist less a 5th was new stuff off of the "LIB" album.

Starting with the 72 Tour your theory sounds a little more likely as I think they played 8(?)new songs off of the "Exile" album that tour out of a 16-18 song set so they could possibly have filled the set with other album songs and covers.

Back then they could have gotten by not playing the 60's stuff as they were, along with Led Zeppelin, the one of the two biggest bands in the 70's...........

In 1982, eight out of 24 songs had an Abkco copyight, among them "warhorses" Satisfaction, HTW,JJF and Brown Sugar (plus Time Is On My Side, Under My Thumb, YCAGWYW, let's Spend the Night Together).

Quote
JJHMick
In 1982, eight out of 24 songs had an Abkco copyight, among them "warhorses" Satisfaction, HTW,JJF and Brown Sugar (plus Time Is On My Side, Under My Thumb, YCAGWYW, let's Spend the Night Together).

Allen Klein was a smart man in that he would never have preveneted the Stones from playing the hits in concert as it sold more albums for him and he got paid every time the song was played.

The Stones could have screwed him if they wanted and not played any of the Abkco songs but they also benefited from them as it drew fans to their shows.

My question is what money did the Stones make off of the Abkco songs? did Sir Mick and Keef also sign away their publishing rights to those songs? I have to assume they still made some money off of them?

Just imgaine the Stones weren´t allowed to play their pre-1969
stuff from 1970 onwards. Would they have recorded more songs than
they actually have? Would they have broken up before 1980?

You are confusing different things. Fogerty lost his publishing rights, not the right to perform the songs.

Neither Allen Klein or Saul Zaentz could have prevented the Stones or JF from performing the respective catalogs here. As artists(Stones and JF) they could opt not to perform them, but as publishers Klein and Zaentz couldn't prevent them from
being performed.

Oh man, "what if"!!

Quote
TooTough
Oh man, "what if"!!

yeah, that part wasn't lost on me, I can't come up with anything yet, it's a good question.

Fogerty CHOSE not to perform CCR songs for years as a protest to what happened with Zaentz and his publishing. i.e., he didn't want to earn royalties for Zaentz. But he in no way lost rights to perform his own songs.

Quote
71Tele
Fogerty CHOSE not to perform CCR songs for years as a protest to what happened with Zaentz and his publishing. i.e., he didn't want to earn royalties for Zaentz. But he in no way lost rights to perform his own songs.

So do the Stones get any $$$ for playing the Abkco material or does the Klein estate pocket all that $$$? Inquiring fans want to know!!

I would have been nice if the Stones had not been allowed to play Satisfaction all these years. I've yet to hear a live version I like, and I absolutely cringe every time they play it. Have they ever played a live show w/o it since 1965?

Quote
ajc68
I would have been nice if the Stones had not been allowed to play Satisfaction all these years. I've yet to hear a live version I like, and I absolutely cringe every time they play it. Have they ever played a live show w/o it since 1965?

it's a rhetorical question but anyway: of course, most of the time during the 70s.

Quote
oldschool

Quote
71Tele
Fogerty CHOSE not to perform CCR songs for years as a protest to what happened with Zaentz and his publishing. i.e., he didn't want to earn royalties for Zaentz. But he in no way lost rights to perform his own songs.

So do the Stones get any $$$ for playing the Abkco material or does the Klein estate pocket all that $$$? Inquiring fans want to know!!

Songs performed live are reported to the appropriate performance rights groups (ASCAP or BMI mostly) who then pay the publishing companies or rights holders. So ABKCO gets a little piece every time Satisfaction is performed.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
oldschool

Quote
71Tele
Fogerty CHOSE not to perform CCR songs for years as a protest to what happened with Zaentz and his publishing. i.e., he didn't want to earn royalties for Zaentz. But he in no way lost rights to perform his own songs.

So do the Stones get any $$$ for playing the Abkco material or does the Klein estate pocket all that $$$? Inquiring fans want to know!!

Songs performed live are reported to the appropriate performance rights groups (ASCAP or BMI mostly) who then pay the publishing companies or rights holders. So ABKCO gets a little piece every time Satisfaction is performed.

Amazing isn't it!!

Quote
oldschool

Quote
71Tele
Fogerty CHOSE not to perform CCR songs for years as a protest to what happened with Zaentz and his publishing. i.e., he didn't want to earn royalties for Zaentz. But he in no way lost rights to perform his own songs.

So do the Stones get any $$$ for playing the Abkco material or does the Klein estate pocket all that $$$? Inquiring fans want to know!!

What is unfortunate here, is that in his choosing not to perform CCR songs, JF effectively hurt his brother and bandmates because they relied on artist royalties and tour money, as they were not songwriters and didn't participate in the publishing.

Quote
MKjan

Quote
oldschool

Quote
71Tele
Fogerty CHOSE not to perform CCR songs for years as a protest to what happened with Zaentz and his publishing. i.e., he didn't want to earn royalties for Zaentz. But he in no way lost rights to perform his own songs.

So do the Stones get any $$$ for playing the Abkco material or does the Klein estate pocket all that $$$? Inquiring fans want to know!!

What is unfortunate here, is that in his choosing not to perform CCR songs, JF effectively hurt his brother and bandmates because they relied on artist royalties and tour money, as they were not songwriters and didn't participate in the publishing.

Very true. he was quite bitter about his bandmates (include his brother) lack of support in the dispute with Zaentz. He never reconciled with Tom Fogerty or the other two. He also refused to perfrom with Cook and Clifford at CCR's induction into the Rock 'n Roll HOF.

Quote
oldschool

Quote
behroez
In the 70's it wouldn't have mattered for they din't play much old stuff in those yrs anyway, though even then they were famous with the bigger audience for their old Brian Jones era hits, though they didn't play them (or hardly) live. This old hits were still released by ABCKO (Hot Rocks 72, Rolled Gold 75 and Stones Story 76, who all mostly sold better than the actual new Stones tour release, and caused proberlay most people to actually come to those tours), still the Stones hardly played them and nobody complained nor did the audience attendence drop. so no i don't think it would have mattered, people mostly come to see the name anyway and as long as they give a good show ofcourse. Good example of this is actually the 69 tour (yes i know this is pre 70, but i mean it as an example) because before that tour kicked off they topped the US charts with Through the Past with half the songs from 67, and they only released Let It Bleed at the end of that tour. so people came expecting some Through the Past stuff, but instead the Stones played mainly new yet unreleased stuff, yet this is considered by many as one of their greatest tours ever. So people come because of your name and old hits but don't mind if you play something totally different and new as long as it is a good show.
Having said this it does require good new songs ofcourse to be written

I think your premise is interesting as they did tend to pack their shows with new material in the 70's but you picked the wrong tour as an example I think.

For most of the 69 tour they actually played old released material which they may not have played live yet, as they had not toured the U.S in three years, but the fans would have had previous exposure if they bought their singles and albums.

As far unreleased material from the "Let It Bleed" album they actually only played 3 songs out of the 9 on the album that tour. Gimme Shelter, Midnight Rambler, and Live with Me. They also played Loving Cup that tour which was not released unil the "Exile" album and Brown Sugar at Altamont.You are also forgetting they released "Beggars Banquet" back in August 68 and they played 4 songs off of that album during the 69 tour. So out of a 15 song setlist less a 5th was new stuff off of the "LIB" album.

Starting with the 72 Tour your theory sounds a little more likely as I think they played 8(?)new songs off of the "Exile" album that tour out of a 16-18 song set so they could possibly have filled the set with other album songs and covers.

Back then they could have gotten by not playing the 60's stuff as they were, along with Led Zeppelin, the one of the two biggest bands in the 70's...........

nice read thank you. i agree. tho personally i really, i mean REALLY adore the first Several studio albums and compilations!!!
but....
promoting songs from sf, the bs and htw singles!!!!!!...any covers they made famous again....always striking hot..
and ALL, or any of EOMS...even into some lovely stuff on ghs and beyond...including start me up, only rock and roll etc....great grand lovely powerful holy material...heavy magical dimensional rocking true...

imo they are a phenom to even last longer (as commercial functioning enterprise) than most of their most excellent contemporaries...like Animals, and sturdy real great invasion bands...i mean it's a phenom to last longer than Herman's Hermits in the pop rock world, to get real about most bands w some hit singles...

so in my endless meandering way ima sayin' that from releases post '69 they are totally realized, uber hot and heavy...and could have, and DID, fill any venue
in the known universe...

love the early early stones so much; but they are so realized and hot and full of great soul and rootedness in the early to mid seventies that it's a blessing...and great great material....
lots of times they only to nodding acquintance with an 'oldie' anyway...if that...
always precious and full of memories but they really ever do one or two live anyway mostly....

damn good thing they did sfm so much in the seventies and in the OO's too!!
cause there are so many stunning peak moments in their versions of same...

I know the original question was a what-if scenario, but I don't think it would really be possible for them to ever not be able to perform any of their songs live. If I'm not mistaken, and please, if anyone knows better correct me, anyone can perform any song they want live as long as they either own it, or pay for the privilege. I don't think you can stop anyone from playing a song live, just like a radio station cannot be stopped from playing an official release, they pay for that privilege (unofficial releases excepted obviously). So it would have been more a question of whether or not the Stones would have chosen not to play pre-70 songs because they didn't want to pay. Obviously, I guess they chose to pay since they play those songs live.

Tele71 is correct, Fogerty chose not to play his songs because of the dispute he had with his label and its owner. JF has stated this himself many times if I am not mistaken.

Quote

people mostly come to see the name anyway and as long as they give a good show of course

I think the Stones have proven that putting on a good show isn't even necessary, given how bad they have been at times over the past few tours. People will come to see them regardless.

As far as the poster's what if aspect goes (and I feel your frustration buddy, most people on here just don't pay attention), IF they were not allowed to play their songs for some reason, I can't see it making them work harder in the studio. The deal/lawsuit/settlement/whatever with ABKCO happened in 70, they released Sticky Fingers in 71, Exile in 72, Goats Head Soup in 73, IORR in 74, Taylor quit in December of that year so no album in 75 is understandable, and Black and Blue came in 76. Since they were already doing an album a year, I don't think it could of made them more productive (and Exile was a double remember, although it did contain some older songs/recordings). There is quite a bit of unreleased stuff that has come out, and some feel the vaults are stuffed with even more. They were pretty prolific in that period already, so while it could have affected their creativity, I don't see how it could have made them any more so.

But, I can't see them being quite the same band if they completely lost a huge chunk of their past either. It's possible it could have ended their career, but like others have said, they haven't always done a lot of those songs anyways. The 72 tour would have been the first big one after losing the pre-70 songs, and they didn't do a lot of them on that tour. I counted only 5 from the standard 72 set list listed on Wikipedia, out of 16-17 songs that were usually played. Honky Tonk Women surprisingly was not played very often, and Brown Sugar is owned by both the Stones and ABKCO, so you could argue they would have had the rights to it regardless. Since we're only talking 5 out of 16-17 songs, I think they could have gotten through that tour okay.

Again, it may have changed their overall attitude, which could certainly have affected their creativity to some degree, but if it didn't actually end their career, then I don't think it would have had much of an effect on them in the long run.

Thinking Klein could prevent them to play anything on stage is utter BS. The question in the stones camp was : "do we want to release a live album from the tour we've just done put all the warorses on it and give 70% of the fees to that crook/leech"?

Generally Klein NEVER prevented the Stones from doing anything. He would have loved to see a live lp from the 72 75 78 tours. It would have made him even richer...



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-11 12:58 by dcba.