Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: exilestones ()
Date: November 10, 2016 18:56

[www.rollingstone.com]

The Rolling Stones: Paris, April 11th, 1967
One of the Rolling Stones' last shows with Brian Jones was recorded on a soundboard tape that leaked out many years ago, but the quality is pretty turgid. Still, you can hear them play "Paint It Black," "Ruby Tuesday" and "Let's Spend the Night Together" right around the time they began work on Their Satanic Majesties Request. This was a major period of transition for the group, and they'll have to release the recording before the end of next year or lose the copyright.

Rolling Stone

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: Monsoon Ragoon ()
Date: November 10, 2016 19:01

I don't think this will happen. I'm quite satisfied with the bootleg 2cd from Goldplate incl. all 60s Olympia tapes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-11-10 19:50 by Monsoon Ragoon.

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Date: November 10, 2016 19:07

Not necessarily. If they choose not to release it, then I'd say you should expect to see the marketplaces flooded with independent record labels releasing their editions of this tape. I don't see the Stones releasing this simply because there isn't enough material to warrant box sets and jacked up prices. Also, if I understand their contracts correctly, they wouldn't receive a full check for songwriting- those songs are either covers or belong to ABKCo.

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: TheGreek ()
Date: November 10, 2016 20:06

Bring it on home to me thumbs up

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: AntoineParis ()
Date: November 10, 2016 20:20

this is happening cool smiley

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: slewan ()
Date: November 10, 2016 22:10

well, Bob Dylan (or his record company) started doing this in 2012. They used to call it "copyright extension collection". EU law says that you lose the copyright of stuff that was recorded 50 years ago and has not been commercially used since it was recorded. After 50 years unused recordings become public domain.(Same goes for all recording made before 1962). Thus the only way to keep the copyright is to release everything. A few examples: Bob Dylan' first "copyright extension collection" were four CDs that looked much like amateur made CDRs and came just with very cheap aesthetics – in fact just a track sheet and the CDs in some kind of plastic bag. No more than a few hundred copies very thrown on the market and there were sold in only a few shops in Europe (only one German record shop got a handful of copies – see: [www.searchingforagem.com])
Last year all Bob Dylan recordings form 1965 and 1966 were released in an 18 (!)-CD box featuring ALL studio recordings from that year. A download code for all 1965 live recording came with that box, too. For those who weren't able (or willing) to afford the very expansive 18CD-box a two CD set with highlight were released as well as a 6CD box.
These days they are releasing a 36(!)CD box with all live recording from the 1966 tour they could find (this time for a very reasonable price, i.e. $/£/Euro 120).

I guess the Rolling Stones might do a similar move.

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: DGA35 ()
Date: November 10, 2016 23:16

I would think it would be up to ABKCO to release it?

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: Blueranger ()
Date: November 10, 2016 23:17

Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
Not necessarily. If they choose not to release it, then I'd say you should expect to see the marketplaces flooded with independent record labels releasing their editions of this tape. I don't see the Stones releasing this simply because there isn't enough material to warrant box sets and jacked up prices. Also, if I understand their contracts correctly, they wouldn't receive a full check for songwriting- those songs are either covers or belong to ABKCo.

Please, not that old ABKCO vs. Stones arguments again.
It hasn't been like that for over 30 years.
Read something other than old books...

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: jlowe ()
Date: November 11, 2016 00:14

Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
Not necessarily. If they choose not to release it, then I'd say you should expect to see the marketplaces flooded with independent record labels releasing their editions of this tape. I don't see the Stones releasing this simply because there isn't enough material to warrant box sets and jacked up prices. Also, if I understand their contracts correctly, they wouldn't receive a full check for songwriting- those songs are either covers or belong to ABKCo.

I would have thought that ABKCO are legally obliged to renumerate the songwriters, be it Mick/ Keith, Nanker Phelge, Chuck Berry or whoever. Actual rates dependent on what agreements are in place.

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: The Worst. ()
Date: November 11, 2016 00:27

Blueranger, I don't understand what you're aiming at. What exactly are you referring to that supposedly happened between Stones and ABCKO 30 years ago that changed their relations?

As far as I know (from reading books released in the last 30 years), ABCKO still owns the rights to all pre-1970 recordings. (The only exception seems to be the Muscle Shoals recordings that ended up on Sticky Fingers, but that's another story.) How would you otherwise explain that no compilations before 2002 contained songs from before AND after 1970? (except Stripped, you might argue, but those songs were re-recorded and didn't include the originals).

ABCKO/DECCA vs. The Rolling Stones Records had a rivalry going on for decades. Metarmorphosis and Made in the Shade were released on THE SAME DAY in June 1975. When The Rolling Stones Records released Time Waits for No One, ABCKO/DECCA released Solid Rock. When ABCKO/DECCA released Slow Rollers, The Rolling Stones released Sucking in the Seventies. ABCKO/DECCA released The Singles Collection, and The Rolling Stones followed up with Jump Back. And so forth.

Forty Licks was the first ever compilation that compiled pre and post ABCKO recordings. Still, the first disc (counting as an individual disc in the sales numbers) only had pre-1970 ABCKO owned recordings (and interesting enough, included Wild Horses from Muscle Shoals), whilst the second disc was only containing post 1970 songs. This was most certainly a deal done with ABCKO.
The same argument can be used to explain why two seperate box sets were made when all studio albums were re-released on vinyl in 2010 - one for the ABCKO years and one for the rest.

Another example that ABCKO was still alive in recent years, is that infamous lawsuit about Bitter Sweet Symphony in 2000.

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: November 11, 2016 03:01

Quote
The Worst.
Blueranger, I don't understand what you're aiming at. What exactly are you referring to that supposedly happened between Stones and ABCKO 30 years ago that changed their relations?

As far as I know (from reading books released in the last 30 years), ABCKO still owns the rights to all pre-1970 recordings. (The only exception seems to be the Muscle Shoals recordings that ended up on Sticky Fingers, but that's another story.) How would you otherwise explain that no compilations before 2002 contained songs from before AND after 1970? (except Stripped, you might argue, but those songs were re-recorded and didn't include the originals).

ABCKO/DECCA vs. The Rolling Stones Records had a rivalry going on for decades. Metarmorphosis and Made in the Shade were released on THE SAME DAY in June 1975. When The Rolling Stones Records released Time Waits for No One, ABCKO/DECCA released Solid Rock. When ABCKO/DECCA released Slow Rollers, The Rolling Stones released Sucking in the Seventies. ABCKO/DECCA released The Singles Collection, and The Rolling Stones followed up with Jump Back. And so forth.

Forty Licks was the first ever compilation that compiled pre and post ABCKO recordings. Still, the first disc (counting as an individual disc in the sales numbers) only had pre-1970 ABCKO owned recordings (and interesting enough, included Wild Horses from Muscle Shoals), whilst the second disc was only containing post 1970 songs. This was most certainly a deal done with ABCKO.
The same argument can be used to explain why two seperate box sets were made when all studio albums were re-released on vinyl in 2010 - one for the ABCKO years and one for the rest.

Another example that ABCKO was still alive in recent years, is that infamous lawsuit about Bitter Sweet Symphony in 2000.

"Belonging to ABKCO" does not mean that the Stones don't receive royalties for their performances and Jagger/Richards don't receive royalties for their songwriting. How much they actually recieve is determined by contract details, but it is simply wrong to say that ABKCO does not have to pay them because the material "belongs to ABKCO". However, it's a fair guess that the mechanical and publishing royalty rates are considerably higher for their 1971 and onwards recordings and compositions.

Apart from that, the band and ABKCO do indeed cooperate. Otherwise, releases like GYYYO Expanded Edition and Charlie Is My Darling - Live in England 1965 (to name a few) would not have been possible. It's simply not the case that ABKCO can grab any unreleased pre-1971 recordings and release them without the band's agreement.

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: Deltics ()
Date: November 11, 2016 03:09

Both ABKCO and the Stones are well aware of the situation regarding out of copyright recordings and it would appear that they're really not bothered about it.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: November 11, 2016 05:30

Quote
Deltics
Both ABKCO and the Stones are well aware of the situation regarding out of copyright recordings and it would appear that they're really not bothered about it.

Right! And why should they? These "out-of-copyright"-releases appeal only to a very small market and don't offer anything new or better quality than existing bootlegs. Even when ABKCO/Stones decide to release the very same material in future, it will be mastertape-quality and additional non-circulating material so everybody will buy it again. That's what collectors always do! And they are very aware of that!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-11-11 05:31 by retired_dog.

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: The Worst. ()
Date: November 11, 2016 08:57

"Belonging to ABKCO" does not mean that the Stones don't receive royalties for their performances and Jagger/Richards don't receive royalties for their song writing."

I've never said that, not even implying it. My point was that ABCKO owns the rights to the recordings. That has nothing to do with credits and royalties.

"It's simply not the case that ABKCO can grab any unreleased pre-1971 recordings and release them without the band's agreement."

Yes, that actually is the case. While Jagger/Richards received royalties, how much money do you think Bill and Charlie got from Milestones, Solid Rock, Stone Age etc.? Let me use one recent example: If ABCKO and Stones collaborate on every release and split the money, why on earth aren't the mono box sets advertised for and made available for sale on rollingstones.com?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-11-11 08:57 by The Worst..

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: November 11, 2016 09:52

Quote
The Worst.
"It's simply not the case that ABKCO can grab any unreleased pre-1971 recordings and release them without the band's agreement."

Yes, that actually is the case. While Jagger/Richards received royalties, how much money do you think Bill and Charlie got from Milestones, Solid Rock, Stone Age etc.? Let me use one recent example: If ABCKO and Stones collaborate on every release and split the money, why on earth aren't the mono box sets advertised for and made available for sale on rollingstones.com?

I was talking about unreleased recordings. Please read properly to avoid confusion. Metamorphosis and Circus are part of the legal settlement between the Stones and ABKCO in the 70's, btw. - apart from those two, for any further unreleased material new agreements with the band were/are required.

Milestones, Solid Rock and Stone Age consist entirely of previously released material, that's a different thing. Believe it or not, the band received performance royalties and the songwriters publishing (mechanical) royalties even for these compilations. The sound recordings belong to ABKCO, but still they have to pay the performers and songwriters.

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: Blueranger ()
Date: November 19, 2016 17:13

All I know is that since 1984, there has not been any ABKCO-related product released without agreement from the band.

The Stones and ABKCO settled in court in 1984 that there would not be any release anywhere in the world without The Stones signing it off for release.
It was reported in Billboard back then. Incredible people still think that there is "war" between ABKCO and the band.

So EVERYTHING since then, "Singles Collection", "Rolling Stones In Mono", "Charlie Is My Darling" and "Rock And Roll Circus" and so on, have been released with the band's own blessing. It's not like ABKCO can just release what they want.

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: dcba ()
Date: November 19, 2016 23:15

Quote
The Worst.


As far as I know ABCKO still owns the rights to all pre-1970 recordings. (The only exception seems to be the Muscle Shoals recordings that ended up on Sticky Fingers, but that's another story.)

Is it because the Stones did the session "on the sly" having no permit to record on the US soil?

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: Deltics ()
Date: November 20, 2016 00:56

Quote
dcba
Quote
The Worst.


As far as I know ABCKO still owns the rights to all pre-1970 recordings. (The only exception seems to be the Muscle Shoals recordings that ended up on Sticky Fingers, but that's another story.)

Is it because the Stones did the session "on the sly" having no permit to record on the US soil?

ABKCO own them as well, that's why they could use them on Hot Rocks.
They could probably have also used "You Gotta Move" if they wanted to.
They also own the publishing for all of Sticky Fingers (except YGM) and quite a lot of Exile.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Re: Stones to Release Paris 1967?
Posted by: Blueranger ()
Date: November 20, 2016 11:43

Quote
Deltics
Quote
dcba
Quote
The Worst.


As far as I know ABCKO still owns the rights to all pre-1970 recordings. (The only exception seems to be the Muscle Shoals recordings that ended up on Sticky Fingers, but that's another story.)

Is it because the Stones did the session "on the sly" having no permit to record on the US soil?

ABKCO own them as well, that's why they could use them on Hot Rocks.
They could probably have also used "You Gotta Move" if they wanted to.
They also own the publishing for all of Sticky Fingers (except YGM) and quite a lot of Exile.

And they also used "Sway" and "Bitch" for their Singles 1965-67 boxed set...



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 931
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home