For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Rockman
…. you's a very understanding fellow keithsman … are you a linesman ????
Quote
DoxaQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
IanBillenQuote
jlowe
Yes, it surprises me too that Universal Execs would be that concerned about the progress, or lack of it regarding The Stones album.
In their latter career The Beatles seemed to have very little involvement with EMI, they had Apple of course but I'm sure that wasnt a factor. And of course The Beatles and Paul continued to have a long professional relationship with EMI long after the groups break up. They had meetings of course, contract renewals and royalty rates. And later on, numerous lawsuits.
As far as I am aware Universal is merely their Distributor and I assume manufactures the product. Maybe a bit of marketing also.It's an Agreement by licence. The Stones hold the copyrights and can easily go elsewhere. They pay their own recording costs, presumably.
The Beatles in contrast were on a long term contract and their record company controlled the recording copyrights...which is still the case today.
Much to Macca's chagrin of course. Recording companies held all the aces in the old days.
__________________________________
A distribution deal comes with the contract (normally .. for large name acts).
As well .. I highly doubt The Stones are paying for the recording costs, session musicians, and engineers hired for the album. Small acts .. it is part of the advance (a loan .. in which mechanical and digital royalties pay that back to the label). For major acts .. the record company usually foots the bill. I'm sure they footed the bill with The Stones.
Their 2008 deal with UMG: The worldwide contract covers three new albums and the rights to release the band’s valuable catalog of music recorded since 1971 for about five years, according to people with knowledge of the negotiations who were not authorized to speak about them publicly. The contract calls for an advance of $15 million and brings the Rolling Stones’ entire output under Universal’s roof, since the company had already distributed the band’s pre-1971 music through the Abkco label.
EMI will retain the band’s lucrative publishing rights.
[www.nytimes.com]
So far one new album has been released, BLUE AND LONESOME. A double album doesn't count as 2 new albums, nor do any live releases or reissue extra discs.
The updated UMG deal will "continue to distribute the band’s celebrated recorded music catalogue globally with future projects and reissues to be released through UMG’s labels and networks around the world."
[www.universalmusic.com]
So, from reading what that says, UMG is paying for recording sessions/production/distribution and the Stones owe UMG $15 million. How they pay it off may not be the way it used to be.
Hmm.. from the base of those articles, I don't see anything mentioned about UMG paying for recording sessions/production/distribution, just that the Stones should provide them three new albums (the deal of 2008). That deal of $15 millions in advance includes three new albums and the rights to release their past catalogue since 1971. The Stones succeeded providing Universal two new albums - GRRR! and BLUE & LONESOME (both great sellers). However, they've have provided also three extra bonus albums to company their catalogue releases (don't know how those actually count). There have been talks, here and elsewhere, them owing one new studio album to Universal - but I recall that talk starting already before them came up with BLUE & LONESOME.
But the deal was re-newed in 2018. There is no mention of any numbers in bucks, but neither was mentioned about any new albums any longer, but only of the rights to their past 1971 catalogue, which seem to include "new projects" and "reissues". But the new UMG deal considerably was extended to include Bravado to "handle global merchandising rights, retail licensing, brand management and e-commerce on behalf of the band, including their iconic tongue logo, one of the most universally recognized symbols in entertainment". Plus the usual expansion of Eagle Rock deal.
However, we do not know the exact details of these deals (at least those articles doesn't provide them), but I don't think the Stones 'owe' any money Universal due to their 2008 agreement. That deal is dead and gone, and Universal most likely was satisfied what they got with their $15 million investment (including two hit albums, three bonus-album deluxe editions of catalogue albums, one of which was a million seller, 'normal' re-issues, Eagle Rock's DVD releases, etc.). And if they were not, that was most likely sorted out in the new deal.
Now pure speculaton: my picture is that The Stones are free of the third new album demand set by the old deal by now (even though I am sure we will see a brand new greatest hits collection as they reach 60). If they get the thing done, it will be included to those "new projects" as the upcoming greatest hits-collection, but they are not obliged to do that. I don't think it is a co-incidence that after the deal was re-newed last year, the pressure from Universal's side has seem to have gone minimal in regard to a new studio album. There surely wasn't too strong deadlines earlier either, but at least the upcoming expiration date in July 2018 of the old deal should have made UMG a bit worried back then. My gut feeling is that the Bravado extension in the new deal was the extra cake to enrich the usual 'take care of our post-1971 catalogue' offer. It looks like the tongue logo was the product the Stones still were able to 'sell', not any new music...
Anyway, I recall someone here claiming that UMG has especially paid them some millions in advance for a new album. I'd like to know more about that.
- Doxa
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
matxil
I don't know but it seems to me that the battles between GasLightStreet and HMS (where is that guy?) were a lot funnier. But keep on trying guys.
HarlemShuffle is a trolling dolt and people keep responding to the idiocy. There are proper ways to respond to such infantile troglodyteism.
Quote
georgemcdonnell314
Maybe they will release the new album when this thread gets to 300 pages!
Quote
GasLightStreet
Certainly it will be the longest time between albums... as well as the amount of time spent on recording a new album.
Quote
doitywoik
Just imagine: the thread reaching 500 and not even a single ... we don’t want to consider this possibility, do we?
Quote
GasLightStreet
Certainly it will be the longest time between albums... as well as the amount of time spent on recording a new album.
So... ha ha, there's no getting away from that.
Look at their spans between albums - at one point, it was between... IORR and BAB.
Then it was DW and SW.
Then...
SW and VL.
BTB to ABB.
ABB to LAB.
It doesn't matter anymore. It hasn't for eons.
Quote
Rockman
What is LAB??
Lonesome And Blue ........... Blue And Lonesome arse about ….
Quote
Rockman
spinnin' wrong way like the plug-hole ...
Quote
GasLightStreet
I'm going to just... Doxa - on a limb here - based on what I've read and how I understand record deals and what you said - the deal they have with UMG regarding the 15 million hence 3 new albums being that The Rolling Stones have to give them 3 new albums - per the deal - uh, well, the deal says this... 3 new albums. Period.
UMG is a bank. The $15 million is only a loan.
BLUE AND LONSESOME is one album.
But. As with what happened with, I may be wrong with this so anyone that wants to lay me out about it go ahead, but their deal with Sony? that started with... uhhhh, Sony for DIRTY WORK plus 2 new albums, I think, they managed to arrange for STEEL WHEELS and FLASHPOINT, because they were free to sign elsewhere after, hence Virgin.
That was when it still mattered.
The Stones, regarding their deal with UMG, owed UMG $15 million.
The 3 new albums plus backlog etc however you want to put it... there's no telling how what was said in 2008 and what happened later changed - we don't know.
If we, as fans, go by what was said, The Rolling Stones owe UMG two more studio albums.
Quote
Hairball
... and if so my response will be GRRRR....lol
Quote
35love
Makes me wonder if they got any work done at all as it has been silent since they were in L.A.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
GasLightStreet
I'm going to just... Doxa - on a limb here - based on what I've read and how I understand record deals and what you said - the deal they have with UMG regarding the 15 million hence 3 new albums being that The Rolling Stones have to give them 3 new albums - per the deal - uh, well, the deal says this... 3 new albums. Period.
UMG is a bank. The $15 million is only a loan.
BLUE AND LONSESOME is one album.
But. As with what happened with, I may be wrong with this so anyone that wants to lay me out about it go ahead, but their deal with Sony? that started with... uhhhh, Sony for DIRTY WORK plus 2 new albums, I think, they managed to arrange for STEEL WHEELS and FLASHPOINT, because they were free to sign elsewhere after, hence Virgin.
That was when it still mattered.
The Stones, regarding their deal with UMG, owed UMG $15 million.
The 3 new albums plus backlog etc however you want to put it... there's no telling how what was said in 2008 and what happened later changed - we don't know.
If we, as fans, go by what was said, The Rolling Stones owe UMG two more studio albums.
The reported $15 million were an advance on licensing fees, not a loan. They were, as quite common with with major artists, non-recoupable.
Just two short examples to clarify this:
Scenario a: Good sales during the contracted licensing period earn the Stones, let's say $50 million in licensing fees. In this case UMG would have to pay them a further $35 million (grand total 50 minus advance payment 15 = 35).
Scenario b: Bad sales during the contracted licensing period earn the Stones only, let's say $10 million in licensing fees. One would think that in this case, the Stones would have to pay $5 million back to Universal because their advance was higher than what they actually earned. But, no. Because the advance was non-recoupable, in this case the Stones would not be contractually forced to pay back anything to UMG.
Quote
georgemcdonnell314
Maybe they will release the new album when this thread gets to 300 pages!
Quote
jlowe
Do we know if The Stones have provided Universal with a reasonable return on their investment overall?
Quote
doitywoikQuote
jlowe
Do we know if The Stones have provided Universal with a reasonable return on their investment overall?
Obviously I don't know the answer, but would Universal still talk to them if the last deal had been a major flop?
Quote
retired_dogQuote
GasLightStreet
I'm going to just... Doxa - on a limb here - based on what I've read and how I understand record deals and what you said - the deal they have with UMG regarding the 15 million hence 3 new albums being that The Rolling Stones have to give them 3 new albums - per the deal - uh, well, the deal says this... 3 new albums. Period.
UMG is a bank. The $15 million is only a loan.
BLUE AND LONSESOME is one album.
But. As with what happened with, I may be wrong with this so anyone that wants to lay me out about it go ahead, but their deal with Sony? that started with... uhhhh, Sony for DIRTY WORK plus 2 new albums, I think, they managed to arrange for STEEL WHEELS and FLASHPOINT, because they were free to sign elsewhere after, hence Virgin.
That was when it still mattered.
The Stones, regarding their deal with UMG, owed UMG $15 million.
The 3 new albums plus backlog etc however you want to put it... there's no telling how what was said in 2008 and what happened later changed - we don't know.
If we, as fans, go by what was said, The Rolling Stones owe UMG two more studio albums.
The reported $15 million were an advance on licensing fees, not a loan. They were, as quite common with with major artists, non-recoupable.
Just two short examples to clarify this:
Scenario a: Good sales during the contracted licensing period earn the Stones, let's say $50 million in licensing fees. In this case UMG would have to pay them a further $35 million (grand total 50 minus advance payment 15 = 35).
Scenario b: Bad sales during the contracted licensing period earn the Stones only, let's say $10 million in licensing fees. One would think that in this case, the Stones would have to pay $5 million back to Universal because their advance was higher than what they actually earned. But, no. Because the advance was non-recoupable, in this case the Stones would not be contractually forced to pay back anything to UMG.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Doxa
Hmm.. from the base of those articles, I don't see anything mentioned about UMG paying for recording sessions/production/distribution, just that the Stones should provide them three new albums (the deal of 2008). That deal of $15 millions in advance includes three new albums and the rights to release their past catalogue since 1971. The Stones succeeded providing Universal two new albums - GRRR! and BLUE & LONESOME (both great sellers). However, they've have provided also three extra bonus albums to company their catalogue releases (don't know how those actually count). There have been talks, here and elsewhere, them owing one new studio album to Universal - but I recall that talk starting already before them came up with BLUE & LONESOME.
But the deal was re-newed in 2018. There is no mention of any numbers in bucks, but neither was mentioned about any new albums any longer, but only of the rights to their past 1971 catalogue, which seem to include "new projects" and "reissues". But the new UMG deal considerably was extended to include Bravado to "handle global merchandising rights, retail licensing, brand management and e-commerce on behalf of the band, including their iconic tongue logo, one of the most universally recognized symbols in entertainment". Plus the usual expansion of Eagle Rock deal.
However, we do not know the exact details of these deals (at least those articles doesn't provide them), but I don't think the Stones 'owe' any money Universal due to their 2008 agreement. That deal is dead and gone, and Universal most likely was satisfied what they got with their $15 million investment (including two hit albums, three bonus-album deluxe editions of catalogue albums, one of which was a million seller, 'normal' re-issues, Eagle Rock's DVD releases, etc.). And if they were not, that was most likely sorted out in the new deal.
Now pure speculaton: my picture is that The Stones are free of the third new album demand set by the old deal by now (even though I am sure we will see a brand new greatest hits collection as they reach 60). If they get the thing done, it will be included to those "new projects" as the upcoming greatest hits-collection, but they are not obliged to do that. I don't think it is a co-incidence that after the deal was re-newed last year, the pressure from Universal's side has seem to have gone minimal in regard to a new studio album. There surely wasn't too strong deadlines earlier either, but at least the upcoming expiration date in July 2018 of the old deal should have made UMG a bit worried back then. My gut feeling is that the Bravado extension in the new deal was the extra cake to enrich the usual 'take care of our post-1971 catalogue' offer. It looks like the tongue logo was the product the Stones still were able to 'sell', not any new music...
Anyway, I recall someone here claiming that UMG has especially paid them some millions in advance for a new album. I'd like to know more about that.
- Doxa
I'm going to just... Doxa - on a limb here - based on what I've read and how I understand record deals and what you said - the deal they have with UMG regarding the 15 million hence 3 new albums being that The Rolling Stones have to give them 3 new albums - per the deal - uh, well, the deal says this... 3 new albums. Period.
UMG is a bank. The $15 million is only a loan.
BLUE AND LONSESOME is one album.
But. As with what happened with, I may be wrong with this so anyone that wants to lay me out about it go ahead, but their deal with Sony? that started with... uhhhh, Sony for DIRTY WORK plus 2 new albums, I think, they managed to arrange for STEEL WHEELS and FLASHPOINT, because they were free to sign elsewhere after, hence Virgin.
That was when it still mattered.
The Stones, regarding their deal with UMG, owed UMG $15 million.
The 3 new albums plus backlog etc however you want to put it... there's no telling how what was said in 2008 and what happened later changed - we don't know.
If we, as fans, go by what was said, The Rolling Stones owe UMG two more studio albums.
Quote
retired_dog
The reported $15 million were an advance on licensing fees, not a loan. They were, as quite common with with major artists, non-recoupable.
Just two short examples to clarify this:
Scenario a: Good sales during the contracted licensing period earn the Stones, let's say $50 million in licensing fees. In this case UMG would have to pay them a further $35 million (grand total 50 minus advance payment 15 = 35).
Scenario b: Bad sales during the contracted licensing period earn the Stones only, let's say $10 million in licensing fees. One would think that in this case, the Stones would have to pay $5 million back to Universal because their advance was higher than what they actually earned. But, no. Because the advance was non-recoupable, in this case the Stones would not be contractually forced to pay back anything to UMG.