Tell Me :
Talk
Lol, no not really, i'm just a fan who gets a little one sided and struggles to see why people see things a certain way, when i'm looking at it and it looks and sounds completely different, so i'd make the worst linesman in the world, although i do have a sense of fair play
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.
?? And that differs in what way to your constant responses to the trolling dolt, HMS?
We had similar hopes we we were approaching 200, and again when approaching 250. Didn't help. Meanwhile I'd rather suggest to have a bet what happens first: the album coming out or this thread reaching page 500. Seems more realistic, somehow. For the moment I’d prefer to disregard a potential single here. Just imagine: the thread reaching 500 and not even a single ... we don’t want to consider this possibility, do we?
I'm just wondering if this would still seem this way if taking into account only net recording time, i.e. only the days they actually spent in the studio recording. From what I read it seems that the recording of Exile lasted longer? (I may be wrong here, though.)
500 pages without even a single seems realistic doitywoik, and if so my response will be GRRRR....lol
As for the actual amount of time they've worked on this?
In total, a few weeks would be my estimate...maybe four weeks max.
They no longer hunker down like they used to - instead they get together maybe twice a year, and even then it's hard to say how much they actually accomplish.
As we just read of their recent time in L.A. - some of the time was dedicated to "meetings" (whatever the hell that means), some of it attending birthday parties, some of it Grammy parites, etc., etc.,...
Makes me wonder if they got any work done at all as it has been silent since they were in L.A. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but waiting for georgelicks to hopefully fill us in a little bit.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
What is LAB??
Rod
We're downunder and upside down. Gaslight Street must be northern hemisphere and backwards...
Rod
That'd be eloh-gulp !
Rod
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.
Seems like some at Universal came up with this response already back in 2012 …
Endgame (Rolling Stones version)
Keith: “Ronnie, let’s go check out that studio!”
Ronnie: “Sure, mate!”
Keith: “Ah, cute old place!” (Snaps fingers.) “Great sound!” (Struck by an idea: ) “Still got that flask in your boot, Ronnie?”
Mick (out of dustbin): “Dontcha, Keith! You go round telling everyone you stopped!”
Keith: “I just said I won’t before the sun is down. There is no sun in here!”
Charlie (mumbling out of neighbouring dustbin): “I don’t like ... write ... blimey, what was it? Why can’t I just sit in one of my cars?”
Mick: “Got the date painted, Ronnie?”
Ronnie: “Yeah, sure, Mick, but I can’t find the blue pen. I’ll add the finishing touches later!”
Keith (light cigarette, snaps fingers again): “Like the old days! I remember everything, y’know?”
Mick: “Gotta go, lads, I’m late for the party.”
Keith: “Me too, Theo’s waiting with supper! Family time, man, family time!”
Ronnie: “The twins ...”
Charlie (mumbling): “... fodder ... horses ...”
Mick: “OK, let’s call it a day then. We’ll come back after the tour!”
Do we know if The Stones have provided Universal with a reasonable return on their investment overall?
That's obviously not happening, but . . . . closer to 400?
In other words, the over/under is page 350. Over or under.
Not when a new album is released but when the name of the first new song (single) to be released appears on IORR. Before page 350?
Obviously I don't know the answer, but would Universal still talk to them if the last deal had been a major flop?
None of us knows, but the Stones have been a hugely successful business, regardless of not putting out much new material, and they have a lot of very smart people on both sides, so I imagine there is enough to go around and keep everyone happy. These people have figured out how to make fans paying $750 for a stadium ticket think they are getting a deal. I think they have figured out how to make the business work, even in these days of disappeared album sales.
Rather than non recoupable, the usual wording is "recoupable, but not returnable".
I think the problem is that when it is announced 'three new albums', one (you and me) is tempted to interpret that as three new studio albums. Probably that is what a fan likes to think. But from the point of view of record label it makes no difference what type of album the new release is. Of course, a new studio album is most preferable, since those most likely are good sellers. The great sale history of brandnew Stones albums verifies that. But the same goes for their greatest hits collections (which, technically, are as new albums as a new studio album, no reissues). I am sure every major record label in the world would every ten years to have their own new Rolling Stones greatest hits collection to distribute, and pick up the money from their safe and sure million sales.
When in 2008 The Stones made the deal with UMG I am sure the upcoming GRRR.. was part of the 'three album deal'. Knowing that both ABKCO and Promotone material would be under the same umbrella distributor (a great advantage of UMG in negotations) and that their 50th Anniversary was coming, it is very likely that a major high profile whole career-covering collection was a big part of the deal (like 40 LICKS never happened).
By contrast, to think the Stones to promise in 2008 three brand new studio albums to be released in ten years would have sounded science-fiction for anyone involved. At that time they had relesed just one album during the last decade. Like they would now having a sudden burst of creativity. Having just ended a three year tour, everyone seemingly not interested doing anything for some years, if ever (only 50th Anniversary there somewhere in horizon, not sure yet how to handle it). Their other main song-writer still healing from a brain accident, stopping guitar playing, considering retirement and the biggest creativity having at the time was that of considering writing a memo book. What they were looking after at the time (2008) was to find a new home for their post 1971 material. That was the biggest concern for the band. Of course, one could suggest that Mick & co were so clever that they were were fooling UMG at those negotations and making false promises there about three new studio albums, but, honestly, I don't think the folks at UMG were that stupid.
What actually happened after signing the deal was the high-profile reissues of their most celebrated Promotone era albums. I am sure that that was somehow part of the original deal, since that was something especially Mick Jagger committed himself to in 2009, him almost like working for a new album (technically being not much different to him as it was once for TATTOO YOU). I don't Mick just do it for the fun of it or having a sudden nostalgic feel, but he was somehow obliged to do it. UMG wanted to make big fuss about the re-issue of EXILE. They promoted like a new album, three of them, sometimes Keith - almost totally retired - alone even made TV shows to promote it, UMG-owned company Eagle Rock released a documentary of EXILE-story, produced by the Stones themselves, etc. And it paid back: the album re-entered the top of the charts. With SOME GIRLS that was re-done the following year, this time with a bit lesser effort by anyone, and with lesser success in charts and sales.
I don't know how these re-issues with bonus albums are connected to the 'three album deal' but I am sure it needs to be somehow, taken the amount of energy and effort they put to them. Was is compansating of not delivering any new material, or was it initially a substantial part of the original deal? My quess is the latter.
The fact is that it took over four years since signing the deal for the band to come up anything new and original. Two songs to help the sales of GRRRR.... Then about over seven years from singing the deal to start making a proper brandnew studio album, just two and a half years until the deal was about expire. They managed to come up with BLUE AND LONESOME, which probably wasn't something UMG was looking and hoping after, but it sales surely made everyone happy (and for UMG as a distributor, it doesn't matter if the song credits say "Jagger/Richards" or "Willie Dixon" if the bloody item just sells).
Summa summarum. Nothing factual (the context, the condition and the future of the Stones in 2008 and what they actually have accomplished since then) really supports the idea that the Stones back in 2008 were signing a deal to provide three brandnew studio albums in the upcoming ten years. That's just wish-talk in trying to interpret the claimed 'three new albums' deal in terms of the past.
But I would like very much to know what the new deal done last year says about the new album they are making at the moment (or have done since 2015). Nothing is mentioned about that (or any new albums) in UMG's official announcements. Does that still belong to the old deal (and the Stones still somehow owe it to UMG), or is it just some extra 'new project' to beef up the new deal. But like I mentioned in my post above the tongue trade-mark, the brand, the merchandise and whatever non-musical crap is an important addition to the re-newed deal with UMG. Seemingly that was much more important for UMG to announce than any option of possible new music. And probably offering the rights for those was the strongest (last?) selling point from the behalf of the Stones (to add to the usual 'take care of post 1971 catalogue' deal, which value probably isn't increasing as the years go by; rather the opposite, as its target audiences aren't getting any younger, and its biggest fishs are already utilized by major deluxe editions).
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2019-02-18 14:39 by Doxa.
Thank you for clarifying the nature of these advance deals. To me the $15 million in advance for ten years rights for post-1971 Stones catalogue with some new releases sounds rather moderate - and realistic - deal. And compared to their previous deals what is the nature of record business nowadays. And that was over ten yaers ago; it would be interesting to know what was the sum made last year (for some reason, they didn't announce that, unlike always like in the past: "the biggest, the best blah blah blah") Taking the million sales of EXILE re-issue, GRRR... and BLUE & LONESOME, I don't think UMG was losing any money there (but I don't think the Stones considerably gaining much more either, although Mick and Keith as song-writers yes).
But shit compare that $15 million deal for ten years to incomes they gain from any tour consisting of fourteen gigs or something done within a few months. One cannot wonder why they aren't that inspired releasing any new music. And why they are into touring as long as they somehow can. The development of concert vs. record business of the last twenty years have really worked for such huge concert drawers like the Stones. If in the past it was the record deals and sales that made them wealthy men, now for them those just start to be something extra. I guess it is pretty easy for Jagger & co to negotiate with any record company, since their real income doesn't derive from that source (although they need to realize that their days as a touring band starts to be numbered). And which also makes the position of record companies a bit shakey these days - they needing the Stones more than the Stones them (with lesser concert drawers they, of course, have better cards). The idea to blackmail the band with some sort of 'contract filler' (as like in the past) starts to be a bad tactics these days, knowing that they could any day receive a check with a note 'you can have the money, pal. But don't bother us anyway ever again.'
That said, it looks like the re-newed deal with the Stones and UMG is a sign that the relationship between the two is profitable and a good one for both parties. It has extended, like I said above, the realm of traditional recording deals. For example, the re-newed deal includes UMG taking care of their physical archives:
"In addition, UMG will provide The Rolling Stones with archival support and dedicated space for the band’s physical media assets, musical instruments and equipment across the company’s ecosystem of vaults positioned around the world."
To me it starts to sound like the Stones have found final home there for them and for their legacy. I wouldn't be too surprised that if some day the rights for ABKCO-era material would be somehow arranged to the deal. This was something Joyce Smyth hinted a bit some time ago (and I think that having ABKCO also at UMG had a some sort of role The Promotone-Stones choosing UMG in the first place).
- Doxa
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: February 17, 2019 01:03
…. you's a very understanding fellow keithsman … are you a linesman ????
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
keithsman
()
Date: February 17, 2019 01:42
Quote
Rockman
…. you's a very understanding fellow keithsman … are you a linesman ????
Lol, no not really, i'm just a fan who gets a little one sided and struggles to see why people see things a certain way, when i'm looking at it and it looks and sounds completely different, so i'd make the worst linesman in the world, although i do have a sense of fair play
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: February 17, 2019 01:49
take it easy man … just follow ya own mind ….….
they're always looking for linesmen in Wichita … but its a lonely job and ya got a lot ta live up to …
ROCKMAN
they're always looking for linesmen in Wichita … but its a lonely job and ya got a lot ta live up to …
ROCKMAN
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
georgemcdonnell314
()
Date: February 17, 2019 01:50
Maybe they will release the new album when this thread gets to 300 pages!
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: February 17, 2019 01:53
Hey in that case quickly get the guys together
and well talk crap till we push it ta the 3 double 0 mark …..
ROCKMAN
and well talk crap till we push it ta the 3 double 0 mark …..
ROCKMAN
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: February 17, 2019 02:04
Solo albums love aside, they should really have no influence on band fanism.
We all have our loves for whatever solo albums and why.
We all have our reasons for explaining their existences.
The reality is, for Keith, Mick, Ronnie, Charlie... Mick T, Bill - they decided to do something, in some cases, other because of.
That's all it is.
Press hoopla aside, it's just what it came to.
Being a band for how long? YAWN is right.
At this point, only Mick's solo "career" was handled funny. I won't go off and find anything but I'm pretty sure he got over it, hence WANDERING SPIRIT. And his last album. It's just "Whatever".
It really is.
So... that's just it. It's just whatever. They do what they do.
The Rolling Stones... it changed.
I laugh and make fun and am just as confused and whatever about them not putting out a new album and just touring, being a HOT ROCKS Beach Boys...
We all know it just doesn't matter, really. Their legacy has long been established, it really stopped after TATTOO YOU with UNDERCOVER and REWIND, with the birth of MTV and what they did with it. For me, The Rolling Stones as a band, creatively - at the height of what the could've done - ended in 1983 with U, and R in 1984 with the greatest hits, which, to this day, for me, is the other part of HOT ROCKS. Of course I've liked X since then but 1983-84 was really the end of "the band".
At this point, they will only be critically compared to what Bob Dylan has done, which is a lot more, obviously, but so what.
And that's just it. So what.
We're all waiting for the last tooth to be pulled. This new album, if they even get around to it, will be it, and we all know it.
Time waits for The Rolling Stones.
We all have our loves for whatever solo albums and why.
We all have our reasons for explaining their existences.
The reality is, for Keith, Mick, Ronnie, Charlie... Mick T, Bill - they decided to do something, in some cases, other because of.
That's all it is.
Press hoopla aside, it's just what it came to.
Being a band for how long? YAWN is right.
At this point, only Mick's solo "career" was handled funny. I won't go off and find anything but I'm pretty sure he got over it, hence WANDERING SPIRIT. And his last album. It's just "Whatever".
It really is.
So... that's just it. It's just whatever. They do what they do.
The Rolling Stones... it changed.
I laugh and make fun and am just as confused and whatever about them not putting out a new album and just touring, being a HOT ROCKS Beach Boys...
We all know it just doesn't matter, really. Their legacy has long been established, it really stopped after TATTOO YOU with UNDERCOVER and REWIND, with the birth of MTV and what they did with it. For me, The Rolling Stones as a band, creatively - at the height of what the could've done - ended in 1983 with U, and R in 1984 with the greatest hits, which, to this day, for me, is the other part of HOT ROCKS. Of course I've liked X since then but 1983-84 was really the end of "the band".
At this point, they will only be critically compared to what Bob Dylan has done, which is a lot more, obviously, but so what.
And that's just it. So what.
We're all waiting for the last tooth to be pulled. This new album, if they even get around to it, will be it, and we all know it.
Time waits for The Rolling Stones.
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: February 17, 2019 02:44
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
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.
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
JordyLicks96
()
Date: February 17, 2019 02:48
I've probably been following the new album page since it started up in 2016. I've enjoyed the discussion but I think its gone a bit overboard at this point. Yes, this is probably the longest its ever taken for them to record a new album. Do I expect the finished product to be among the best they've ever put out? Absolutely not. Do I expect it to be a quality album with classic Stones plus some new stuff we've never heard from them yet? Yes, absolutely. I'm extremely excited for this new album.
I want it to be eclectic, like BRIDGES TO BABYLON, but with more of a classic Stones sound. While I enjoyed parts of A BIGGER BANG, it was too "Stones by the numbers" and contained too much filler. I'd like this album to be 12 songs, with a few songs released on special editions. I've been alive for 3 studio album releases (I was only 1 when BRIDGES TO BABYLON came out). So I've gotten A BIGGER BANG and BLUE & LONESOME the day they came out. Knowing this will most likely be their last album, it's understandable they want to get it right and make it a great album. This album will be apart of their historic catalogue of albums, forever apart of their history. I'm still optimistic for a new song for the tour this Spring, if not, than I hope for the new album in late 2019 or Spring 2020.
"When the shit hits the fan, I'll be sitting on the can"
I want it to be eclectic, like BRIDGES TO BABYLON, but with more of a classic Stones sound. While I enjoyed parts of A BIGGER BANG, it was too "Stones by the numbers" and contained too much filler. I'd like this album to be 12 songs, with a few songs released on special editions. I've been alive for 3 studio album releases (I was only 1 when BRIDGES TO BABYLON came out). So I've gotten A BIGGER BANG and BLUE & LONESOME the day they came out. Knowing this will most likely be their last album, it's understandable they want to get it right and make it a great album. This album will be apart of their historic catalogue of albums, forever apart of their history. I'm still optimistic for a new song for the tour this Spring, if not, than I hope for the new album in late 2019 or Spring 2020.
"When the shit hits the fan, I'll be sitting on the can"
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: February 17, 2019 03:04
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.
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.
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: February 17, 2019 05:09
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.
?? And that differs in what way to your constant responses to the trolling dolt, HMS?
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
doitywoik
()
Date: February 17, 2019 06:15
Quote
georgemcdonnell314
Maybe they will release the new album when this thread gets to 300 pages!
We had similar hopes we we were approaching 200, and again when approaching 250. Didn't help. Meanwhile I'd rather suggest to have a bet what happens first: the album coming out or this thread reaching page 500. Seems more realistic, somehow. For the moment I’d prefer to disregard a potential single here. 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.
I'm just wondering if this would still seem this way if taking into account only net recording time, i.e. only the days they actually spent in the studio recording. From what I read it seems that the recording of Exile lasted longer? (I may be wrong here, though.)
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: February 17, 2019 08:33
Quote
doitywoik
Just imagine: the thread reaching 500 and not even a single ... we don’t want to consider this possibility, do we?
500 pages without even a single seems realistic doitywoik, and if so my response will be GRRRR....lol
As for the actual amount of time they've worked on this?
In total, a few weeks would be my estimate...maybe four weeks max.
They no longer hunker down like they used to - instead they get together maybe twice a year, and even then it's hard to say how much they actually accomplish.
As we just read of their recent time in L.A. - some of the time was dedicated to "meetings" (whatever the hell that means), some of it attending birthday parties, some of it Grammy parites, etc., etc.,...
Makes me wonder if they got any work done at all as it has been silent since they were in L.A. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but waiting for georgelicks to hopefully fill us in a little bit.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
35love
()
Date: February 17, 2019 08:57
Hairball wrote: As we just read of their recent time in L.A. - some of the time was dedicated to "meetings" (whatever the hell that means), some of it attending birthday parties, some of it Grammy parites, etc., etc.,...
Makes me wonder if they got any work done at all as it has been silent since they were in L.A. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but waiting for georgelicks to hopefully fill us in a little bit.
Hot of the Daily Mail LA press:
y CAROLINE GRAHAM FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY IN LOS ANGELES
PUBLISHED: 19:24 EST, 16 February 2019 | UPDATED: 20:43 EST, 16 February 2019
He made a commitment to Melanie when they were in Mustique over Christmas. He’s finally ready to settle down and be a one-woman man.’
Jagger and his lover attended a Universal Music party in Los Angeles last Sunday after the Grammy awards. A source who saw the couple said: ‘He seems very happy and content in her company. He didn’t look at another woman all night. It’s the happiest I’ve seen him in years.’
Jagger is in LA working on new music and preparing for the Stones’ No Filter US tour, which begins in April. Meanwhile, Ms Hamrick has taken a leave of absence from the prestigious American Ballet Theatre to write a ballet set to the Stones’ music.
Makes me wonder if they got any work done at all as it has been silent since they were in L.A. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but waiting for georgelicks to hopefully fill us in a little bit.
Hot of the Daily Mail LA press:
y CAROLINE GRAHAM FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY IN LOS ANGELES
PUBLISHED: 19:24 EST, 16 February 2019 | UPDATED: 20:43 EST, 16 February 2019
He made a commitment to Melanie when they were in Mustique over Christmas. He’s finally ready to settle down and be a one-woman man.’
Jagger and his lover attended a Universal Music party in Los Angeles last Sunday after the Grammy awards. A source who saw the couple said: ‘He seems very happy and content in her company. He didn’t look at another woman all night. It’s the happiest I’ve seen him in years.’
Jagger is in LA working on new music and preparing for the Stones’ No Filter US tour, which begins in April. Meanwhile, Ms Hamrick has taken a leave of absence from the prestigious American Ballet Theatre to write a ballet set to the Stones’ music.
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: February 17, 2019 09:34
Daily Mail....the same rag that brought us this article back in Nov. in 2017:
Mick
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Mick
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: February 17, 2019 09:47
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.
What is LAB??
Rod
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: February 17, 2019 09:52
What is LAB??
Lonesome And Blue ........... Blue And Lonesome arse about ….
ROCKMAN
Lonesome And Blue ........... Blue And Lonesome arse about ….
ROCKMAN
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: February 17, 2019 11:45
Quote
Rockman
What is LAB??
Lonesome And Blue ........... Blue And Lonesome arse about ….
We're downunder and upside down. Gaslight Street must be northern hemisphere and backwards...
Rod
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: February 17, 2019 11:50
spinnin' wrong way like the plug-hole ...
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: February 17, 2019 12:58
Quote
Rockman
spinnin' wrong way like the plug-hole ...
That'd be eloh-gulp !
Rod
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
runrudolph
()
Date: February 17, 2019 14:40
So,
i guess the Stones have returned home to get some rest and prepare for the rehearsals in March??
Jeroen
i guess the Stones have returned home to get some rest and prepare for the rehearsals in March??
Jeroen
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: February 17, 2019 15:10
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.
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.
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
Kurt
()
Date: February 17, 2019 18:24
Since this thread isn't a sticky and since I'm bored...
I was listening to a Spotify Rolling Stones playlist on shuffle play yesterday:
Rock Off
Beast of Burden
Start Me Up
Rough Justice
Honky Tonk Women
Harlem Shuffle
She's A Rainbow
Brown Sugar
Miss You
Get Off My Cloud
Angie
Saint Of Me
Just Your Fool
Play With Fire (Mono)
One Hit (To The Body)
Undercover (Of The Night)
Ride 'Em On Down
Rock and A Hard Place
Hot Stuff
Midnight Rambler
Tumbling Dice
Lady Jane
You Got Me Rocking
Sympathy For The Devil
Happy
Wild Horses
Anybody Seen My Baby?
Dance Little Sister
Mixed Emotions
It's All Over Now
Hate to See You Go
I have always loved this band because their catalog is so diverse.
Pop, Country, Punk, Disco, Rock.
Until the last few years, I've never thought about any song being a "Keith" or a "Mick"...always Jagger/Richards always Glimmer Twins always STONES to me.
Whenever a new single/EP/album drops from The Rolling Stones, I definitely WON'T BE READING THIS THREAD to tell me what to think about it.
Long live The Rolling Stones.
Keep Going and Keep Smiling.
I was listening to a Spotify Rolling Stones playlist on shuffle play yesterday:
Rock Off
Beast of Burden
Start Me Up
Rough Justice
Honky Tonk Women
Harlem Shuffle
She's A Rainbow
Brown Sugar
Miss You
Get Off My Cloud
Angie
Saint Of Me
Just Your Fool
Play With Fire (Mono)
One Hit (To The Body)
Undercover (Of The Night)
Ride 'Em On Down
Rock and A Hard Place
Hot Stuff
Midnight Rambler
Tumbling Dice
Lady Jane
You Got Me Rocking
Sympathy For The Devil
Happy
Wild Horses
Anybody Seen My Baby?
Dance Little Sister
Mixed Emotions
It's All Over Now
Hate to See You Go
I have always loved this band because their catalog is so diverse.
Pop, Country, Punk, Disco, Rock.
Until the last few years, I've never thought about any song being a "Keith" or a "Mick"...always Jagger/Richards always Glimmer Twins always STONES to me.
Whenever a new single/EP/album drops from The Rolling Stones, I definitely WON'T BE READING THIS THREAD to tell me what to think about it.
Long live The Rolling Stones.
Keep Going and Keep Smiling.
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
doitywoik
()
Date: February 17, 2019 18:42
Quote
Hairball
... and if so my response will be GRRRR....lol
Seems like some at Universal came up with this response already back in 2012 …
Quote
35love
Makes me wonder if they got any work done at all as it has been silent since they were in L.A.
Endgame (Rolling Stones version)
Keith: “Ronnie, let’s go check out that studio!”
Ronnie: “Sure, mate!”
Keith: “Ah, cute old place!” (Snaps fingers.) “Great sound!” (Struck by an idea: ) “Still got that flask in your boot, Ronnie?”
Mick (out of dustbin): “Dontcha, Keith! You go round telling everyone you stopped!”
Keith: “I just said I won’t before the sun is down. There is no sun in here!”
Charlie (mumbling out of neighbouring dustbin): “I don’t like ... write ... blimey, what was it? Why can’t I just sit in one of my cars?”
Mick: “Got the date painted, Ronnie?”
Ronnie: “Yeah, sure, Mick, but I can’t find the blue pen. I’ll add the finishing touches later!”
Keith (light cigarette, snaps fingers again): “Like the old days! I remember everything, y’know?”
Mick: “Gotta go, lads, I’m late for the party.”
Keith: “Me too, Theo’s waiting with supper! Family time, man, family time!”
Ronnie: “The twins ...”
Charlie (mumbling): “... fodder ... horses ...”
Mick: “OK, let’s call it a day then. We’ll come back after the tour!”
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
jlowe
()
Date: February 17, 2019 19:06
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.
Do we know if The Stones have provided Universal with a reasonable return on their investment overall?
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
Rokyfan
()
Date: February 17, 2019 19:10
Quote
georgemcdonnell314
Maybe they will release the new album when this thread gets to 300 pages!
That's obviously not happening, but . . . . closer to 400?
In other words, the over/under is page 350. Over or under.
Not when a new album is released but when the name of the first new song (single) to be released appears on IORR. Before page 350?
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
doitywoik
()
Date: February 17, 2019 19:13
Quote
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?
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
Rokyfan
()
Date: February 17, 2019 19:24
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?
None of us knows, but the Stones have been a hugely successful business, regardless of not putting out much new material, and they have a lot of very smart people on both sides, so I imagine there is enough to go around and keep everyone happy. These people have figured out how to make fans paying $750 for a stadium ticket think they are getting a deal. I think they have figured out how to make the business work, even in these days of disappeared album sales.
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
Wild Slivovitz
()
Date: February 18, 2019 12:59
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.
Rather than non recoupable, the usual wording is "recoupable, but not returnable".
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 18, 2019 14:27
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.
I think the problem is that when it is announced 'three new albums', one (you and me) is tempted to interpret that as three new studio albums. Probably that is what a fan likes to think. But from the point of view of record label it makes no difference what type of album the new release is. Of course, a new studio album is most preferable, since those most likely are good sellers. The great sale history of brandnew Stones albums verifies that. But the same goes for their greatest hits collections (which, technically, are as new albums as a new studio album, no reissues). I am sure every major record label in the world would every ten years to have their own new Rolling Stones greatest hits collection to distribute, and pick up the money from their safe and sure million sales.
When in 2008 The Stones made the deal with UMG I am sure the upcoming GRRR.. was part of the 'three album deal'. Knowing that both ABKCO and Promotone material would be under the same umbrella distributor (a great advantage of UMG in negotations) and that their 50th Anniversary was coming, it is very likely that a major high profile whole career-covering collection was a big part of the deal (like 40 LICKS never happened).
By contrast, to think the Stones to promise in 2008 three brand new studio albums to be released in ten years would have sounded science-fiction for anyone involved. At that time they had relesed just one album during the last decade. Like they would now having a sudden burst of creativity. Having just ended a three year tour, everyone seemingly not interested doing anything for some years, if ever (only 50th Anniversary there somewhere in horizon, not sure yet how to handle it). Their other main song-writer still healing from a brain accident, stopping guitar playing, considering retirement and the biggest creativity having at the time was that of considering writing a memo book. What they were looking after at the time (2008) was to find a new home for their post 1971 material. That was the biggest concern for the band. Of course, one could suggest that Mick & co were so clever that they were were fooling UMG at those negotations and making false promises there about three new studio albums, but, honestly, I don't think the folks at UMG were that stupid.
What actually happened after signing the deal was the high-profile reissues of their most celebrated Promotone era albums. I am sure that that was somehow part of the original deal, since that was something especially Mick Jagger committed himself to in 2009, him almost like working for a new album (technically being not much different to him as it was once for TATTOO YOU). I don't Mick just do it for the fun of it or having a sudden nostalgic feel, but he was somehow obliged to do it. UMG wanted to make big fuss about the re-issue of EXILE. They promoted like a new album, three of them, sometimes Keith - almost totally retired - alone even made TV shows to promote it, UMG-owned company Eagle Rock released a documentary of EXILE-story, produced by the Stones themselves, etc. And it paid back: the album re-entered the top of the charts. With SOME GIRLS that was re-done the following year, this time with a bit lesser effort by anyone, and with lesser success in charts and sales.
I don't know how these re-issues with bonus albums are connected to the 'three album deal' but I am sure it needs to be somehow, taken the amount of energy and effort they put to them. Was is compansating of not delivering any new material, or was it initially a substantial part of the original deal? My quess is the latter.
The fact is that it took over four years since signing the deal for the band to come up anything new and original. Two songs to help the sales of GRRRR.... Then about over seven years from singing the deal to start making a proper brandnew studio album, just two and a half years until the deal was about expire. They managed to come up with BLUE AND LONESOME, which probably wasn't something UMG was looking and hoping after, but it sales surely made everyone happy (and for UMG as a distributor, it doesn't matter if the song credits say "Jagger/Richards" or "Willie Dixon" if the bloody item just sells).
Summa summarum. Nothing factual (the context, the condition and the future of the Stones in 2008 and what they actually have accomplished since then) really supports the idea that the Stones back in 2008 were signing a deal to provide three brandnew studio albums in the upcoming ten years. That's just wish-talk in trying to interpret the claimed 'three new albums' deal in terms of the past.
But I would like very much to know what the new deal done last year says about the new album they are making at the moment (or have done since 2015). Nothing is mentioned about that (or any new albums) in UMG's official announcements. Does that still belong to the old deal (and the Stones still somehow owe it to UMG), or is it just some extra 'new project' to beef up the new deal. But like I mentioned in my post above the tongue trade-mark, the brand, the merchandise and whatever non-musical crap is an important addition to the re-newed deal with UMG. Seemingly that was much more important for UMG to announce than any option of possible new music. And probably offering the rights for those was the strongest (last?) selling point from the behalf of the Stones (to add to the usual 'take care of post 1971 catalogue' deal, which value probably isn't increasing as the years go by; rather the opposite, as its target audiences aren't getting any younger, and its biggest fishs are already utilized by major deluxe editions).
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2019-02-18 14:39 by Doxa.
Re: New Stones album for 2019?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 18, 2019 16:28
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.
Thank you for clarifying the nature of these advance deals. To me the $15 million in advance for ten years rights for post-1971 Stones catalogue with some new releases sounds rather moderate - and realistic - deal. And compared to their previous deals what is the nature of record business nowadays. And that was over ten yaers ago; it would be interesting to know what was the sum made last year (for some reason, they didn't announce that, unlike always like in the past: "the biggest, the best blah blah blah") Taking the million sales of EXILE re-issue, GRRR... and BLUE & LONESOME, I don't think UMG was losing any money there (but I don't think the Stones considerably gaining much more either, although Mick and Keith as song-writers yes).
But shit compare that $15 million deal for ten years to incomes they gain from any tour consisting of fourteen gigs or something done within a few months. One cannot wonder why they aren't that inspired releasing any new music. And why they are into touring as long as they somehow can. The development of concert vs. record business of the last twenty years have really worked for such huge concert drawers like the Stones. If in the past it was the record deals and sales that made them wealthy men, now for them those just start to be something extra. I guess it is pretty easy for Jagger & co to negotiate with any record company, since their real income doesn't derive from that source (although they need to realize that their days as a touring band starts to be numbered). And which also makes the position of record companies a bit shakey these days - they needing the Stones more than the Stones them (with lesser concert drawers they, of course, have better cards). The idea to blackmail the band with some sort of 'contract filler' (as like in the past) starts to be a bad tactics these days, knowing that they could any day receive a check with a note 'you can have the money, pal. But don't bother us anyway ever again.'
That said, it looks like the re-newed deal with the Stones and UMG is a sign that the relationship between the two is profitable and a good one for both parties. It has extended, like I said above, the realm of traditional recording deals. For example, the re-newed deal includes UMG taking care of their physical archives:
"In addition, UMG will provide The Rolling Stones with archival support and dedicated space for the band’s physical media assets, musical instruments and equipment across the company’s ecosystem of vaults positioned around the world."
To me it starts to sound like the Stones have found final home there for them and for their legacy. I wouldn't be too surprised that if some day the rights for ABKCO-era material would be somehow arranged to the deal. This was something Joyce Smyth hinted a bit some time ago (and I think that having ABKCO also at UMG had a some sort of role The Promotone-Stones choosing UMG in the first place).
- Doxa
This Thread has been closed