Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Stoneburst
I'd like to take a moment to interrupt this thread and say how much I like MT's shoes in the photograph above.

i don't know how you can mention the shoes without mentioning the socks...

Ah Turner, I didn't read your post before replying, but I guess we at least agree on MT's socks.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Stoneburst
I actually have a pair of socks like that.

As a true taylorite you have to. Time to buy a pair of blue suede shoes too.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Turner68

Quote
HearMeKnockin

Quote
Turner68

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
Naturalust
As far as his royalties for record sales is concerned, it's been pretty well established that they quit paying him outright in 1982 when they signed a new distribution deal with CBS. What's strange about it, if true, is that Taylor never hired a lawyer to claim what was due to him in all this time. It seems that 20% of sales of those records would be a tidy sum. Perhaps they reached a back room settlement with Mick when he was vulnerable or something, it just seems like we never get the whole story about such things.

peace

Well, the re-issue of Exile has sold over 1.2 million copies worldwide since 2010, if he gets $1 from each album sold that's $1.200,000 in royalties, only from Exile.

GRRR! has sold 1.5 million worldwide, that's $1.500,000 at least too.

This year alone, Hot Rocks has sold close to 100k only in the U.S and the Sticky Fingers re-issue has sold close to 100k worldwide during the first week, MT's royalties from both albums, so far, should be close to $200,000 at least and counting.

And we are talking about the last 5 YEARS, we can include all the DVD releases, the Hyde Park live album, etc...

There's no way he gets near $1 per album no matter how good his deal is.

Well, I say he should get 1/5 of Exile's sales (i.e. more than $1 per album sold), same for SF/GHS/IORR, since he was 1/5 of the Stones at the time. No way he gets $1 per Grrr! or Hot Rocks, since he doesn't even play on half the tracks of either, but the other ones... the Stones should give him his money, and they still need to give him songwriting credits on Sway, Moonlight Mile, Winter, Till the Next Goodbye, and Time Waits for No One.

The stones get far less than the price of the lp or cd. If you pay say 12 bucks the retailer gets at least half, so then that's 6 dollars to pay for the production and marketing of the media, profit to record company, distribution to retail outlets, etc. after all that is paid for the band might be entitled to split what is left. That's why i said there's no way he gets $1 per album even if he has the same deal as the other stones - which he says he doesn't.

If what he says is true he was very silly not to get a lawyer.

If MT gets good royalty payments, he certainly deserves it. He contributed with lots of good guitar on GYYYO, SF, EOMS, GHS and partially IORR. Why should he just give away his money he has the right too?

i agree, i assume your points are addressing someone else.

Quote
DoomandGloom
Taylor can not confront this without a lawyer. I can see now why he was excluded from this tour. He is clearly being manipulated by false hope and promises but he will get more respect if he stands up for himself. If he has a case any lawyer will take this case on payment after collecting. Being one of the world's great guitarists doesn't mean you're the sharpest person. I hope he gets some advice and stops chasing The Glimmer's carrot. The lure of this band and the big stage however is highly magnetic. What devils they are.

Quote
OpenG
Even Dylan told MT to get a lawyer when Dylan and Taylor were together in the studio and on tour in the 80's.

play the guitar boy

Quote
Turner68

Quote
OpenG
Even Dylan told MT to get a lawyer when Dylan and Taylor were together in the studio and on tour in the 80's.

play the guitar boy

you don't need bob dylan to know you need a lawyer if you're working the music business. lennon and mccartney were cheated out of owning their own songs, allen klein cheated the stones out of much of their 60s work, heck brian cheated the rest of the band out of that infamous 5 pounds a week in the beginning... it's a dog eat dog world in the music business.

not hiring a lawyer when you're 16 or 18 or 20 may just be youthful naivete, not hiring a lawyer when you're 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, or 70 is just irresponsible.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68

Quote
OpenG
Even Dylan told MT to get a lawyer when Dylan and Taylor were together in the studio and on tour in the 80's.

play the guitar boy

you don't need bob dylan to know you need a lawyer if you're working the music business. lennon and mccartney were cheated out of owning their own songs, allen klein cheated the stones out of much of their 60s work, heck brian cheated the rest of the band out of that infamous 5 pounds a week in the beginning... it's a dog eat dog world in the music business.

not hiring a lawyer when you're 16 or 18 or 20 may just be youthful naivete, not hiring a lawyer when you're 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, or 70 is just irresponsible.

Who knows what Taylor's legal situation is with those old contracts or his motivation is/was for inaction. It's just as possible (how ever hard to believe it may be), that the loophole the Stones used to quit paying his is legally valid and could not be beat with the best lawyers in the business. It's also possible that Taylor never pursued the legal path for other reasons like he valued the Stones friendship over money, or dislikes and distrusts lawyers. It's certainly possible with the Stones immense legal capabilities that the lawyers would come out the big winners in the end and it's just not worth it.

It's all pure speculation and without knowing the details or hearing from Taylor himself, we shouldn't get too worked up over this one, imo.

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
mtaylor
Somehow a person acting like MT. A person that doesn't like RS.

Taylor has openly stated how much he loves the Stones and loved recently playing with them. I believe the "bitterness" in the posts may just reflect the posters feelings on how he was treated concerning the royalty issues and the decision not to include him on a SF themed tour, and rightly so. I'm glad someone is sticking up for him, he is just probably to much of an English gentleman and genuinely sweet guy to do so for himself.

As far as royalty rates go they are typically between 12% and 20% of the actual price of the records. Taylor would be theoretically entitled to 1/5 of that, around 4% on the high side. Definitely less that $1 per record. And it's my understanding that all Taylor's royalties from all Stones record sales were cut off in 1982. He probably still gets his writers royalties for Ventilator Blues, those are administrated separately and checks probably go directly to him from the publishing company.

peace

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
mtaylor
Somehow a person acting like MT. A person that doesn't like RS.

Taylor has openly stated how much he loves the Stones and loved recently playing with them. I believe the "bitterness" in the posts may just reflect the posters feelings on how he was treated concerning the royalty issues and the decision not to include him on a SF themed tour, and rightly so. I'm glad someone is sticking up for him, he is just probably to much of an English gentleman and genuinely sweet guy to do so for himself.

As far as royalty rates go they are typically between 12% and 20% of the actual price of the records. Taylor would be theoretically entitled to 1/5 of that, around 4% on the high side. Definitely less that $1 per record. And it's my understanding that all Taylor's royalties from all Stones record sales were cut off in 1982. He probably still gets his writers royalties for Ventilator Blues, those are administrated separately and checks probably go directly to him from the publishing company.

peace

It reflects the posters feelings on how they THINK he was treated concerning the royalty issues and the decision not to include him on tour again...

Facts please...anyone?

Objection: to conclude with "and rightly so" is leading the witness...

Posts filled with fact free stuff like 'may just reflect' 'he is just probably' 'between 12% and 20%' 'its my understanding' 'he probably still gets' and 'checks probably go' do not prove this is an intellectual or factual discussion.
All those opinions, suggestions and assumptions...and the casual readers are supposed to believe you guys are the true MT fans and trying to help him..??

Quote
Dreamer
Unlike you, I suppose. Who would have thought your incessant ranting about the 'church of Taylorology' actually stemmed from a concern for MT's wellbeing.

You obviously did not but then again you don't think about a lot of things: just about the only concern you seem to have is the posts you write...not how all those assumptions by too many here look or would be received. Doesn't seem to concern you how ridiculously strange and often hateful they actually are all together: accusing all sorts of other RS members of the most ridiculous things. You just once in a while jump on other posters defending in an offensive and aggressive way 'the right to'...well whatever...while accusing them of incessant ranting
Posts like this do make it look more like a church and not less...

Edit: So about my "incessant ranting about 'the church Taylorology'"...I never attack MT but the people like you in the church do deserve my attention oh yes.

Quote
Dreamer
Unlike you, I suppose. Who would have thought your incessant ranting about the 'church of Taylorology' actually stemmed from a concern for MT's wellbeing.

You obviously did not but then again you don't think about a lot of things: just about the only concern you seem to have is the posts you write...not how all those assumptions by too many here look or would be received. Doesn't seem to concern you how ridiculously strange and often hateful they actually are all together: accusing all sorts of other RS members of the most ridiculous things. You just once in a while jump on other posters defending in an offensive and aggressive way 'the right to'...well whatever...while accusing them of incessant ranting
Posts like this do make it look more like a church and not less...

Edit: So about my "incessant ranting about 'the church Taylorology'"...I never attack MT but the people like you in the church do deserve my attention oh yes.

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
mtaylor
Somehow a person acting like MT. A person that doesn't like RS.

Taylor has openly stated how much he loves the Stones and loved recently playing with them. I believe the "bitterness" in the posts may just reflect the posters feelings on how he was treated concerning the royalty issues and the decision not to include him on a SF themed tour, and rightly so. I'm glad someone is sticking up for him, he is just probably to much of an English gentleman and genuinely sweet guy to do so for himself.

As far as royalty rates go they are typically between 12% and 20% of the actual price of the records. Taylor would be theoretically entitled to 1/5 of that, around 4% on the high side. Definitely less that $1 per record. And it's my understanding that all Taylor's royalties from all Stones record sales were cut off in 1982. He probably still gets his writers royalties for Ventilator Blues, those are administrated separately and checks probably go directly to him from the publishing company.

peace

It reflects the posters feelings on how they THINK he was treated concerning the royalty issues and the decision not to include him on tour again...

Facts please...anyone?

Objection: to conclude with "and rightly so" is leading the witness...

Posts filled with fact free stuff like 'may just reflect' 'he is just probably' 'between 12% and 20%' 'its my understanding' 'he probably still gets' and 'checks probably go' do not prove this is an intellectual or factual discussion.
All those opinions, suggestions and assumptions...and the casual readers are supposed to believe you guys are the true MT fans and trying to help him..??

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
mtaylor
Somehow a person acting like MT. A person that doesn't like RS.

Taylor has openly stated how much he loves the Stones and loved recently playing with them. I believe the "bitterness" in the posts may just reflect the posters feelings on how he was treated concerning the royalty issues and the decision not to include him on a SF themed tour, and rightly so. I'm glad someone is sticking up for him, he is just probably to much of an English gentleman and genuinely sweet guy to do so for himself.

As far as royalty rates go they are typically between 12% and 20% of the actual price of the records. Taylor would be theoretically entitled to 1/5 of that, around 4% on the high side. Definitely less that $1 per record. And it's my understanding that all Taylor's royalties from all Stones record sales were cut off in 1982. He probably still gets his writers royalties for Ventilator Blues, those are administrated separately and checks probably go directly to him from the publishing company.

peace

It reflects the posters feelings on how they THINK he was treated concerning the royalty issues and the decision not to include him on tour again...

Facts please...anyone?

Objection: to conclude with "and rightly so" is leading the witness...

Posts filled with fact free stuff like 'may just reflect' 'he is just probably' 'between 12% and 20%' 'its my understanding' 'he probably still gets' and 'checks probably go' do not prove this is an intellectual or factual discussion.
All those opinions, suggestions and assumptions...and the casual readers are supposed to believe you guys are the true MT fans and trying to help him..??

My post was based on the pretty well known royalty rates for musicians and Taylor's known 20% of that. Taylor himself has said his payments were cut off in 1982 so that's public knowledge at this point. And as far as I know, loopholes in contracts have little to do with someone getting writers credits, unless the actual credit is disputed (which we can see from the re-issue that it wasn't) it's a fair assumption he is still getting paid for it. It's not rocket science. Sure there were some guesses involved, but educated ones. The guessing part no different from you saying the Stones will play 4 more shows in the US and 5 in SA.

As far as my comments on the posters feelings concerning Taylor's treatment of certain issues by the Stones, those posts speak for themselves. The feelings on the issues of his not being paid and not being invited are right there for everyone to see. No opinions, suggestions or assumptions required really.

And, as much as I'd love to help Taylor, I don't think that's really the purpose of some of these discussions. We are just trying to understand what has transpired in the past.

As much as you may disagree, I still think Taylor could have added a hell of a lot to this tour and that leaving him out of any Sticky Fingers celebration was bad form. Cutting his royalty payments 32 years ago obviously upset Taylor, and no matter how legally prudent it may have been, as a Taylor fan it upsets me too.

peace

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
mtaylor
Somehow a person acting like MT. A person that doesn't like RS.

Taylor has openly stated how much he loves the Stones and loved recently playing with them. I believe the "bitterness" in the posts may just reflect the posters feelings on how he was treated concerning the royalty issues and the decision not to include him on a SF themed tour, and rightly so. I'm glad someone is sticking up for him, he is just probably to much of an English gentleman and genuinely sweet guy to do so for himself.

As far as royalty rates go they are typically between 12% and 20% of the actual price of the records. Taylor would be theoretically entitled to 1/5 of that, around 4% on the high side. Definitely less that $1 per record. And it's my understanding that all Taylor's royalties from all Stones record sales were cut off in 1982. He probably still gets his writers royalties for Ventilator Blues, those are administrated separately and checks probably go directly to him from the publishing company.

peace

It reflects the posters feelings on how they THINK he was treated concerning the royalty issues and the decision not to include him on tour again...

Facts please...anyone?

Objection: to conclude with "and rightly so" is leading the witness...

Posts filled with fact free stuff like 'may just reflect' 'he is just probably' 'between 12% and 20%' 'its my understanding' 'he probably still gets' and 'checks probably go' do not prove this is an intellectual or factual discussion.
All those opinions, suggestions and assumptions...and the casual readers are supposed to believe you guys are the true MT fans and trying to help him..??

My post was based on the pretty well known royalty rates for musicians and Taylor's known 20% of that. Taylor himself has said his payments were cut off in 1982 so that's public knowledge at this point. And as far as I know, loopholes in contracts have little to do with someone getting writers credits, unless the actual credit is disputed (which we can see from the re-issue that it wasn't) it's a fair assumption he is still getting paid for it. It's not rocket science. Sure there were some guesses involved, but educated ones. The guessing part no different from you saying the Stones will play 4 more shows in the US and 5 in SA.

As far as my comments on the posters feelings concerning Taylor's treatment of certain issues by the Stones, those posts speak for themselves. The feelings on the issues of his not being paid and not being invited are right there for everyone to see. No opinions, suggestions or assumptions required really.

And, as much as I'd love to help Taylor, I don't think that's really the purpose of some of these discussions. We are just trying to understand what has transpired in the past.

As much as you may disagree, I still think Taylor could have added a hell of a lot to this tour and that leaving him out of any Sticky Fingers celebration was bad form. Cutting his royalty payments 32 years ago obviously upset Taylor, and no matter how legally prudent it may have been, as a Taylor fan it upsets me too.

peace

having a writer's credit does not mean you're receiving royalties for a song. nor does it mean that the reason you aren't getting a royalty is because of a "loophole". you might have sold your interest in the song to someone else. e.g. lennon and mccartney have writer's credit on "hard days night" but get a small fraction of the songwriting royalties for it. one key element here is who has the *publishing* rights to the song.

it's entirely possible that mick taylor fair and square signed a deal when he joined the band and when RS records was founded that treated him poorly (in retrospect) but at the time looked like a great deal to him. e.g. let's say his contract said (and this is just an example) a flat $100,000 for every album he performed on more than half the songs, but in return for the payment he waived all future royalties on the songs.

we just don't know what's what here. it is the jobs of lawyers and courts to figure out what is legally enforceable. as far as what is the "right" thing that is a matter of opinion and of little relevance in contract law.

Quote
Stoneburst


The ethics of all this are indeed subjective (to a point) and certainly irrelevant in contract law, no argument there, but they are relevant to a great many fans, and that's what this conversation is about.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Stoneburst


The ethics of all this are indeed subjective (to a point) and certainly irrelevant in contract law, no argument there, but they are relevant to a great many fans, and that's what this conversation is about.

i wish it was. some people are throwing around legal and financial assumptions with little nor basis in fact like they are used guitar picks. if we agreed to stick to the ethics of all this, it would be a better (IMO) conversation. we just can't speculate on the rest because we have no idea. that was the point i was making.

Quote
Turner68
having a writer's credit does not mean you're receiving full (or any) royalties for a song. nor does it mean that the reason you aren't getting a royalty is because of a "loophole". you might have sold your interest in the song to someone else. e.g. lennon and mccartney have writer's credit on "hard days night" but get a small fraction of the songwriting royalties for it. one key element here is who has the *publishing* rights to the song.

additionally, as far as performance royalties go, it's entirely possible that mick taylor fair and square signed a deal when he joined the band and when RS records was founded that treated him poorly (in retrospect) but at the time looked like a great deal to him. e.g. let's say his contract said (and this is just an example) a flat $100,000 for every album he performed on more than half the songs, but in return for the up front cash payment he waived all future performance royalties on the album.

we just don't know what's what here. it is the jobs of lawyers and courts to figure out what is legally enforceable. as far as what is the "right" thing that is a matter of opinion and of little relevance in contract law.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Stoneburst


The ethics of all this are indeed subjective (to a point) and certainly irrelevant in contract law, no argument there, but they are relevant to a great many fans, and that's what this conversation is about.

i wish it was. some people are throwing around legal and financial assumptions with little nor basis in fact like they are used guitar picks. if we agreed to stick to the ethics of all this, it would be a better (IMO) conversation. we just can't speculate on the rest because we have no idea. that was the point i was making.

Agree, and I should point out that in posting that thing from his Facebook I wasn't trying to revive the pointless discussion on the legality of it, but rather point out that MT has decided to bring this subject up again, which would seem significant vis a vis his relationship to the band. We can say with some certainty that what happened in 1982, legal or otherwise, was not good, and that the situation remains unresolved and acrimonious (irrespective of whether Taylor genuinely thinks he has a prospect of winning a court case).

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Dreamer
Unlike you, I suppose. Who would have thought your incessant ranting about the 'church of Taylorology' actually stemmed from a concern for MT's wellbeing.

You obviously did not but then again you don't think about a lot of things: just about the only concern you seem to have is the posts you write...not how all those assumptions by too many here look or would be received. Doesn't seem to concern you how ridiculously strange and often hateful they actually are all together: accusing all sorts of other RS members of the most ridiculous things. You just once in a while jump on other posters defending in an offensive and aggressive way 'the right to'...well whatever...while accusing them of incessant ranting
Posts like this do make it look more like a church and not less...

Edit: So about my "incessant ranting about 'the church Taylorology'"...I never attack MT but the people like you in the church do deserve my attention oh yes.

Lucid, coherent stuff as always, Dreamer. Keep it up.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
OpenG
Even Dylan told MT to get a lawyer when Dylan and Taylor were together in the studio and on tour in the 80's.

play the guitar boy

you don't need bob dylan to know you need a lawyer

Quote
Nikkei
Yeah, judging from his recollections he found a ragged detuned bunch and pulled them back together. Got to count for something.