Quote
DGA35

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
shadooby
What I want to know is, did Perry and Tyler have to re-audition every time they left for various reasons/ailments over all these years.

Get rid of the drummer and divide all profits by 4 instead of 5...same story different band.

All I can say is watch out Hamilton and Whitford, profits split in half between 2 is much better (see Black Crowes)!

"Hey man, we got grandkids to look out for now...yeeeooow yaggiggigga geeeooowwwww!"

kramer is part of the bands share so he gets paid no matter what. i like when people who have no clue how contracts work make a post. there is a contract signed as to who is part of aerosmith incorporated


also when did tyler ever leave the band or miss a show? unless i'm mistaken they never played a show without tyler

So what happened when Joe Perry quit the band in 1980 and then Brad Whitford quit the following year? I don't think they would be part of any band shares back then or would replacement guitarists Jimmy Crespo and Rick Dufay be just salaried employees back then?

the band signed a new contract as aerosmith inc in 1984 when tim collins took over. so since 1984 the 5 original guys have been the parties in aerosmith inc.

herse an article when they fired collins and aerosmith inc had joe perry become chairman of the board as agreed to by all parties of aerosmith inc

[www.baltimoresun.com]



as far as i know since 1984 the parties of aerosmith inc have been the same and get the same per for concerts, tours, merch, etc. obviously the writing royalties are different but thats it

Quote
jbwelda
thank you Rocky Dijon.

That drummer may or may not be part of any "corporation" if there even is such a corporation (surely there would be).

However the purported fact that he was having to pay a drummer replacement, does seem to imply he is obligated by a contract somehow, and that obligation would probably be reciprocal.

Still, I doubt any of us know anyones true financial situation. A lot of it is smoke and mirrors.

jb

read my above post. usually there are 3 contracts, a management contract, a contact on who is part of the band, and then the contracts for record deals, etc. rarely does a smart band sign individual names on a recording, merch, etc contract. the usually sign as aerosmith inc. the reason is, lets say for example the stones, individually signed a contract for a tour and album if it fails for some reason instead of coming after rolling stones inc they could go after just mick jagger and make him pay out of pocket for the failures since they know what he's worth. its to protect all parties. in the case of the las vegas stuff aerosmith inc is signed and paid to play. kramer gets his share even if he doesn't play so the band said he has to pay for the fill in out of his share.

Joey returns to the stage
video: [www.youtube.com]

Well, glad it worked out. What a strange saga.

Feels like Aerosmith was pressured into bringing him back quicker than they anticipated after all the negative publicity ensued.

Quote
MisterDDDD
Joey returns to the stage
video: [www.youtube.com]

That was good

Quote
keefriffhard4life
read my above post. usually there are 3 contracts, a management contract, a contact on who is part of the band, and then the contracts for record deals, etc. rarely does a smart band sign individual names on a recording, merch, etc contract. the usually sign as aerosmith inc. the reason is, lets say for example the stones, individually signed a contract for a tour and album if it fails for some reason instead of coming after rolling stones inc they could go after just mick jagger and make him pay out of pocket for the failures since they know what he's worth. its to protect all parties. in the case of the las vegas stuff aerosmith inc is signed and paid to play. kramer gets his share even if he doesn't play so the band said he has to pay for the fill in out of his share.

There are an awful lot of assumptions here. When, for example, The Rolling Stones sign for a tour, if The Rolling Stones default, the legal entity is sued. No one would sue the lead singer personally because he's the wealthiest. That's madness. What none of us can speak of with certainty unless it becomes public knowledge is whether or not Joey gets a full share for Aerosmith gigs he doesn't play (particularly when it stretches on for more than six months). He may, he may not. We don't know how the agreement reads. If we did, "Black Crowes, Inc." (to use your phrase) would have turned out very differently.

In the case of Aerosmith, it would appear this was an intervention of some sort to get Joey back into shape or to quit the band. The latter extreme likely reflects directly on their band agreement, but for a variety of reasons band agreements are not generally made public. A band like CCR ended as a democracy with the resulting ownership of the name a problem for those hoping to trade off it in one fashion or another (including John Fogerty). A band like The Kinks or The Black Crowes clearly limits ownership to the siblings who fronted it. In both cases, it wasn't always that way, but it became the situation. We know from Steve Gorman that Chris Robinson attempted to make it even more one-sided.

None of us know what concessions The Stones have made to keep going. Did Mick lick Keith's boots? Fans like to pretend TALK IS CHEAP and it's U.S. tour of theaters and small halls was so amazingly huge that Mick playing stadiums and amphitheaters in Japan and Australia had to come back with his tail between his legs. In truth, Keith may have agreed to all sorts of concessions to get the Stones back together and get his hands on his share of Michael Cohl's payday. The concessions may have continued since then when you look at situations like Matt Clifford's growing involvement in pre-production and the language in his song publishing press release guaranteeing him representation in songs he writes for The Rolling Stones and Mick Jagger. All of these situations are unique because band agreements are unique and varied. This particular situation may very well have, as alleged, been a factor in delaying the mythical new Stones album. Not the same situation as Aerosmith or The Kinks or The Black Crowes or CCR, etc.

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
keefriffhard4life
read my above post. usually there are 3 contracts, a management contract, a contact on who is part of the band, and then the contracts for record deals, etc. rarely does a smart band sign individual names on a recording, merch, etc contract. the usually sign as aerosmith inc. the reason is, lets say for example the stones, individually signed a contract for a tour and album if it fails for some reason instead of coming after rolling stones inc they could go after just mick jagger and make him pay out of pocket for the failures since they know what he's worth. its to protect all parties. in the case of the las vegas stuff aerosmith inc is signed and paid to play. kramer gets his share even if he doesn't play so the band said he has to pay for the fill in out of his share.

There are an awful lot of assumptions here. When, for example, The Rolling Stones sign for a tour, if The Rolling Stones default, the legal entity is sued. No one would sue the lead singer personally because he's the wealthiest. That's madness. What none of us can speak of with certainty unless it becomes public knowledge is whether or not Joey gets a full share for Aerosmith gigs he doesn't play (particularly when it stretches on for more than six months). He may, he may not. We don't know how the agreement reads. If we did, "Black Crowes, Inc." (to use your phrase) would have turned out very differently.

In the case of Aerosmith, it would appear this was an intervention of some sort to get Joey back into shape or to quit the band. The latter extreme likely reflects directly on their band agreement, but for a variety of reasons band agreements are not generally made public. A band like CCR ended as a democracy with the resulting ownership of the name a problem for those hoping to trade off it in one fashion or another (including John Fogerty). A band like The Kinks or The Black Crowes clearly limits ownership to the siblings who fronted it. In both cases, it wasn't always that way, but it became the situation. We know from Steve Gorman that Chris Robinson attempted to make it even more one-sided.

None of us know what concessions The Stones have made to keep going. Did Mick lick Keith's boots? Fans like to pretend TALK IS CHEAP and it's U.S. tour of theaters and small halls was so amazingly huge that Mick playing stadiums and amphitheaters in Japan and Australia had to come back with his tail between his legs. In truth, Keith may have agreed to all sorts of concessions to get the Stones back together and get his hands on his share of Michael Cohl's payday. The concessions may have continued since then when you look at situations like Matt Clifford's growing involvement in pre-production and the language in his song publishing press release guaranteeing him representation in songs he writes for The Rolling Stones and Mick Jagger. All of these situations are unique because band agreements are unique and varied. This particular situation may very well have, as alleged, been a factor in delaying the mythical new Stones album. Not the same situation as Aerosmith or The Kinks or The Black Crowes or CCR, etc.

that's exactly what happened to dee snider from twisted sister though as detailed in his autobiography. in 1985 the band signed some huge contract for touring and merch and it was a failure and they owed lots of money. instead of signing as twisted sister inc or whatever they signed their individual names. when it came time to recoup their losses dee snider states since he was the face of the band, wrote all the songs so he got all the writing royalties, etc he was personally sued and had the repay hundreds of thousands of dollars back while the other 4 members paid back just a few thousand despite all 5 members signing and getting the same cut from the tour and merch deal



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-02-11 16:35 by keefriffhard4life.

Quote
keefriffhard4life

that's exactly what happened to dee snider from twisted sister though as detailed in his autobiography. in 1985 the band signed some huge contract for touring and merch and it was a failure and they owed lots of money. instead of signing as twisted sister inc or whatever they signed their individual names. when it came time to recoup their losses dee snider states since he was the face of the band, wrote all the songs so he got all the writing royalties, etc he was personally sued and had the repay hundreds of thousands of dollars back while the other 4 members paid back just a few thousand despite all 5 members signing and getting the same cut from the tour and merch deal

Didn't Dee Snider release a solo album under the Twisted Sister name at that time or have the band do a sponge job on his unreleased solo album? In any event, it is down to the individual agreement. It's still not one size fits all. I really don't seem much point in discussing this further. I've given examples. You have your conclusions and mine are different. I just reacted because you called someone ignorant for not knowing facts like you do.

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
keefriffhard4life

that's exactly what happened to dee snider from twisted sister though as detailed in his autobiography. in 1985 the band signed some huge contract for touring and merch and it was a failure and they owed lots of money. instead of signing as twisted sister inc or whatever they signed their individual names. when it came time to recoup their losses dee snider states since he was the face of the band, wrote all the songs so he got all the writing royalties, etc he was personally sued and had the repay hundreds of thousands of dollars back while the other 4 members paid back just a few thousand despite all 5 members signing and getting the same cut from the tour and merch deal

Didn't Dee Snider release a solo album under the Twisted Sister name at that time or have the band do a sponge job on his unreleased solo album? In any event, it is down to the individual agreement. It's still not one size fits all. I really don't seem much point in discussing this further. I've given examples. You have your conclusions and mine are different. I just reacted because you called someone ignorant for not knowing facts like you do.

first off ignorant never was typed by me in this thread. I said they have no clue the deal aerosmith has where as I have some first hand knowledge that Kramer was getting paid his share from the gigs he wasn't playing in and also know that no band can just kick someone out who is signed as part of that corporation.

second you are thinking of 1987 when dee snider made a solo album and the label refused to release it unless it was twisted sister so the other guys had to come in and overdub some parts. this was the 1985 come out and play tour and after that dee snider said he never allowed an attorney to represent him that wasn't well versed in music industry contracts

This is what I reacted to:

Quote
keefriffhard4life
i like when people who have no clue how contracts work make a post.

Not quite the same as this:

Quote
keefriffhard4life

I said they have no clue the deal aerosmith has where as I have some first hand knowledge that Kramer was getting paid his share from the gigs he wasn't playing in and also know that no band can just kick someone out who is signed as part of that corporation.

As far as "no band can just kick someone out who is signed as part of that corporation" goes, meet Brian Jones. Granted, you may see that as not a fair comparison.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
This is what I reacted to:

Quote
keefriffhard4life
i like when people who have no clue how contracts work make a post.

Not quite the same as this:

Quote
keefriffhard4life

I said they have no clue the deal aerosmith has where as I have some first hand knowledge that Kramer was getting paid his share from the gigs he wasn't playing in and also know that no band can just kick someone out who is signed as part of that corporation.

As far as "no band can just kick someone out who is signed as part of that corporation" goes, meet Brian Jones. Granted, you may see that as not a fair comparison.

yes i said they have no clue about any contract aerosmith has signed. about them removing Kramer and splitting the profits 4 ways instead of 5 I did not say they are an ignorant person.

then they also mentioned tyler auditioning to come back when they band never played a show that I know of without him. he did go do something about 10 years or so ago but the band was inactive when he tried out for zeppelin or whatever it was going to be called

I get it and sorry if you felt I was picking a fight with you.

Anyone who doesn’t think Joey has some serious skills behind the kit should watch this video of Hangman Judy last night

[m.youtube.com]

Judy?

Quote
letitloose
Shocking if true. He has been there all the way through (like Ian Paice in Deep Purple). He came up with the Aerosmith name. Why are there still so many bands out there who consider there drummers to be dispensible. AC/DC were never the same without Phil Rudd. The truth will out...

True. Phil Rudd is the best drummer to create the drum sound of AC/DC but they had no choice but to sack him. Twice. Phil was such a mess because of alcohol and drugs. I bet they wanted him to stay but sometimes you just can't do that.

Quote
ultimaterocker
Anyone who doesn’t think Joey has some serious skills behind the kit should watch this video of Hangman Judy last night

[m.youtube.com]

He's definitely got some chops...I've just always found his back beat to be kinda stiff. There are a lot of songs where he chokes the hi-hat too tight and the beat becomes stiff and mechanical.

I'm a Phil Rudd fanboy so I measure a lot of hard rock drummers against him and find them wanting.

Quote
ultimaterocker
Anyone who doesn’t think Joey has some serious skills behind the kit should watch this video of Hangman Judy last night

[m.youtube.com]

he also has been practicing with the band since right after the grammy show to get ready to play again last night