Tell Me :
Talk
Every time I'm reminded of this I get so mad.
Understood.
The key word in the posting is "unwillingly".
I am very reliably informed that they were not keen on it, but it was definitely a price that they were very prepared to pay in order to be rid of Klein.
I'd love to see the agreement. As we all know Klein was a master at screwing different meanings out of contracts etc, but with this one (where he signed to leave them alone) really does seem to have been kept to.
To be fair.... who in their wildest imaginations would have thought that the early Stones' stuff would be so valuable and for so long!
Captain Corella
That would have been so epic. I can't imagine it but it would have been insane.
Actually it sounds pretty tacky. "jump over the amps"? Come on...
My laugh out loud moment of the day.
I think the truth is a little hazy but I do believe the Stones were invited, but they were recording Exile in France and not really interested in jumping on a plane, rehearsing for a 3 or 4 song set, and then getting everyone back to france, seems improbable. The whole benefit concert thing was pretty popular, but I don't think the stones has any intention whatsoever to be part of it in 1971. We all know in 73 they did their share . . . but it seems the organizers if Doggett's reporting is correct simply did invite the Stones, but quickly understood that they were not coming and then disinvited them to save face. Possible. So, in a way that may be true from the organizers' point of view.
As for the silly google explanation, did the Stones have to travel from France to England before going to New Yrok? I'm sure in 1971 there was a direct flight from Paris to NYC, but maybe not. The google explanation falls flat.
I think the concensus is that the Stones simply were not interested and were entrenched in recording. But what if they did do it? Wow. I'm sure they would have played something like: Brown Sugar, Bitch, JJF or some other combination. Would have been interesting to see a post 1971 England and pre 1972 show . . . they probably would have blown everyone off the stage at that point.
Just fun to speculate.
"On 1 July 1946, Air France started direct flights between Paris and New York" - [en.Wikipedia.org] . "Pan Am followed on 26 October 1958 with a Boeing 707 service between New York and Paris" - [en.Wikipedia.org] .
How would Keith, partially unable to record EOMS (due to certain substances), travel to NYC for a concert? See also the '1971' documentary on [TV.Apple.com] .
The Stones/Klein timeline was underway. All copyright/publishing for STICKY FINGERS, not just Brown Sugar and Wild Horses, was under his contract - look at the liner notes, it's all ABKCO Music.
As it continued with EXILE - 5 songs are ABKCO Music. Which means that the recordings were Klein controlled, just like all the songs on SF (SF was completed in 1970 as well as the 5 ABKCO Music EOMS songs).
Quite strange - all they had to do were new recordings.
That's how you know EOMS was not only recorded in France.
Like the coconut tree myth, SFTD/Meredith Hunter's death at Altamont and Keith bashing the guy in the head in 1981 with his guitar, the misinformation continues to get regurgitated with zero quality control by, for 1981, Keith himself (100% exaggeration) as well as supposed journalists combined with people who simply repeat fake news/lies or use AI, which is complete garbage.
I thought the original settlement was that any songs first written while Klein was still manager were ABKCO. Not when they were finally recorded in the version that was released. Re-recording would not have "saved" those songs.
The best proof of when something was "written" would be the first recording or demo session.
The agreement to split ownership of Brown Sugar and Wild Horses was based on their settlement of various terms, including accepting the 5 year ban on re-recording songs issued under Klein's management. Thus no 1972 or 1973 live album was possible due to what the RS agreed to with Klein to settle things.
It's often confusing. However, the recordings were done while under Klein, who owned the copyrights. Shine A Light, Sister Morphine, Loving Cup, Brown Sugar, Wild Horses and (acoustic) All Down The Line were recorded in 1969. 1970 more SF and EOMS tracks were recorded. Klein owned the performing rights and neighboring rights. Any time any of those songs are bought or played ABKCO Music gets paid.
Maybe the copyright/publishing laws are or were different in the UK but recently Def Leppard and Taylor Swift have done new recordings of previously released songs and the previous record label and publishing company have zero control over the new versions because they don't own or have control of those masters.
For Swift it's about total control, for Def Leppard it was about digital rights to their back catalog.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
Mr. Jimi
()
Date: March 17, 2025 20:50
August, 1971 Concert for Bangladesh- Madison Square Garden.
According to Peter Doggett in his book, You Never Give Me Your Money (The Beatles after the Breakup), in Chapter 5, the Rolling Stones and Crosby, Stills, and Nash were invited to play the concert and then disinvited?!?!
A simple Google search gives the answer that Jagger was worried that the band would be arrested in England after they left for France. Not sure what the truth is . . . Anyone have any insight?
According to Peter Doggett in his book, You Never Give Me Your Money (The Beatles after the Breakup), in Chapter 5, the Rolling Stones and Crosby, Stills, and Nash were invited to play the concert and then disinvited?!?!
A simple Google search gives the answer that Jagger was worried that the band would be arrested in England after they left for France. Not sure what the truth is . . . Anyone have any insight?
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: March 17, 2025 20:57
Very interesting. I know there were many plans for it. Like I know that John Lennon was invited but the demand was Yoko stayed at home. John said that won't happen so it never materialized. If anything, I'm surprised George would be so open to more Beatles than just he and Ringo without the event turning into a Beatles reunion. In that way, the Stones and CSN feels like they would distract from the moment. I guess CSN less, and that could have been treated similar to the Bob Dylan set, but the Stones or John or Paul feel like it would overstuff the event. It would be have been awesome, but that event really was perfect the way it was. Hard to picture it done better, or what else George might have had in mind.
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
maidenlane
()
Date: March 17, 2025 22:05
Wasn't Allen Klein central to the Concert for Bangladesh?
Hadn't the RS had just begun to move forward without him (unwillingly leaving behind a giant chunk of the artistic and monetary rights to everything they had done in their career up to the point of Brown Sugar)?
And left England for tax exile because he hadn't paid their taxes for them?
Or maybe it was all just about a Stones versus Beatles rivalry?
Hadn't the RS had just begun to move forward without him (unwillingly leaving behind a giant chunk of the artistic and monetary rights to everything they had done in their career up to the point of Brown Sugar)?
And left England for tax exile because he hadn't paid their taxes for them?
Or maybe it was all just about a Stones versus Beatles rivalry?
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
Glimmerest
()
Date: March 17, 2025 22:17
Quote
maidenlane
Hadn't the RS had just begun to move forward without him (unwillingly leaving behind a giant chunk of the artistic and monetary rights to everything they had done in their career up to the point of Brown Sugar)?
Every time I'm reminded of this I get so mad.
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
Taylor1
()
Date: March 17, 2025 22:45
Maybe because they were recording Exile in France at the time.
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
CaptainCorella
()
Date: March 18, 2025 02:28
Quote
GlimmerestQuote
maidenlane
Hadn't the RS had just begun to move forward without him (unwillingly leaving behind a giant chunk of the artistic and monetary rights to everything they had done in their career up to the point of Brown Sugar)?
Every time I'm reminded of this I get so mad.
Understood.
The key word in the posting is "unwillingly".
I am very reliably informed that they were not keen on it, but it was definitely a price that they were very prepared to pay in order to be rid of Klein.
I'd love to see the agreement. As we all know Klein was a master at screwing different meanings out of contracts etc, but with this one (where he signed to leave them alone) really does seem to have been kept to.
To be fair.... who in their wildest imaginations would have thought that the early Stones' stuff would be so valuable and for so long!
Captain Corella
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
Sighunt
()
Date: March 18, 2025 02:46
Maybe some other Stones historians on this site can clarify, but I thought I read somewhere that the plan was for Mick to duet with Leon for Jack Flash, or was that just some rumor or myth?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-18 04:42 by Sighunt.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-18 04:42 by Sighunt.
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: March 18, 2025 11:23
Because the Stones just really didn't fit in. It really wasn't their scene.
Mathijs
Mathijs
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
bv
()
Date: March 18, 2025 12:38
The Concert for Bangladesh happened Sunday August 1, 1971 at Madison Square Garden, NYC, USA. Like stated by others here, The Rolling Stones were busy recording Exile on Main St. during the summer of 1971. Also, they were in tax exile, starting up a new life post DECCA and Allen Klein.
The Rolling Stones have not been active with all sorts of fund raising events. I think they have been doing their own career, being five individuals at the time, it would not be easy to jump on all sorts of charity or public events across the world.
However, they did some events that they did really care for, like environmental care concert related to global warming long time before the world in general started to worry about the planet going wrong (NRDC concert Los Angeles 2003. Also, they supported Toronto when SARS took away many lives and tourism in 2003, in the middle of their European Tour that year.
I see The Rolling Stones as a rock band. They are not U2, Roger Waters or Neil Young. They have their mind of their own. They do their own shows, they do not do a lot of charity, but I don't expect them to do that. I love their music, live and as recorded, that is all I need.
And, finally, if it is of any comfort, they did Live Aid, 121212, and others I can not remember, there is no competition of being everywhere for everyone.
Bjornulf
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-18 12:44 by bv.
The Rolling Stones have not been active with all sorts of fund raising events. I think they have been doing their own career, being five individuals at the time, it would not be easy to jump on all sorts of charity or public events across the world.
However, they did some events that they did really care for, like environmental care concert related to global warming long time before the world in general started to worry about the planet going wrong (NRDC concert Los Angeles 2003. Also, they supported Toronto when SARS took away many lives and tourism in 2003, in the middle of their European Tour that year.
I see The Rolling Stones as a rock band. They are not U2, Roger Waters or Neil Young. They have their mind of their own. They do their own shows, they do not do a lot of charity, but I don't expect them to do that. I love their music, live and as recorded, that is all I need.
And, finally, if it is of any comfort, they did Live Aid, 121212, and others I can not remember, there is no competition of being everywhere for everyone.
Bjornulf
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-18 12:44 by bv.
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
Taylor1
()
Date: March 18, 2025 13:11
The more interesting question is why Paul and John didn’t.I know John was going to but then refused when George told him he didn’t want Yoko there.Paul was in the midst of a bad fight with the rest over Apple.But it would have been cool to see the Stones on stage with George and Dylan
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 18, 2025 13:38
Well, maybe because Mick was not married to a Bangladeshi, but to a Nicaraguan...
Just to remember BV - or anyone else - that even already back in the early 70's they did a charity concert when they had a motive.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-18 13:39 by Doxa.
Just to remember BV - or anyone else - that even already back in the early 70's they did a charity concert when they had a motive.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-18 13:39 by Doxa.
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
windmelody
()
Date: March 18, 2025 15:49
Unfortunately I cannot answer the question why the Stones did not play at the concert for Bangladesh. All I can say is, if I remember correctly, that Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, a character in "The Simpsons", has an album called "The concert against Bangladesh" in his record collection.
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
loog droog
()
Date: March 18, 2025 16:04
Leon Russell said shortly afterwards that his original idea was for Mick to make an appearance during his "Jumpin'Jack Flash/Youngblood" medley, where Mick would suddenly jump over the amps and surprise everyone by singing along on JJF when it is performed a second at the end.
Whether Mick was ever approached about this, or it was just Leon's pipe dream I cannot say.
Whether Mick was ever approached about this, or it was just Leon's pipe dream I cannot say.
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: March 18, 2025 18:51
Quote
loog droog
Leon Russell said shortly afterwards that his original idea was for Mick to make an appearance during his "Jumpin'Jack Flash/Youngblood" medley, where Mick would suddenly jump over the amps and surprise everyone by singing along on JJF when it is performed a second at the end.
That would have been so epic. I can't imagine it but it would have been insane.
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
More Hot Rocks
()
Date: March 18, 2025 18:56
Quote
RollingFreakQuote
loog droog
Leon Russell said shortly afterwards that his original idea was for Mick to make an appearance during his "Jumpin'Jack Flash/Youngblood" medley, where Mick would suddenly jump over the amps and surprise everyone by singing along on JJF when it is performed a second at the end.
That would have been so epic. I can't imagine it but it would have been insane.
Actually it sounds pretty tacky. "jump over the amps"? Come on...
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 18, 2025 22:21
Quote
windmelody
Unfortunately I cannot answer the question why the Stones did not play at the concert for Bangladesh. All I can say is, if I remember correctly, that Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, a character in "The Simpsons", has an album called "The concert against Bangladesh" in his record collection.
My laugh out loud moment of the day.
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
Mr. Jimi
()
Date: March 19, 2025 17:04
Quote
Mr. Jimi
August, 1971 Concert for Bangladesh- Madison Square Garden.
According to Peter Doggett in his book, You Never Give Me Your Money (The Beatles after the Breakup), in Chapter 5, the Rolling Stones and Crosby, Stills, and Nash were invited to play the concert and then disinvited?!?!
A simple Google search gives the answer that Jagger was worried that the band would be arrested in England after they left for France. Not sure what the truth is . . . Anyone have any insight?
I think the truth is a little hazy but I do believe the Stones were invited, but they were recording Exile in France and not really interested in jumping on a plane, rehearsing for a 3 or 4 song set, and then getting everyone back to france, seems improbable. The whole benefit concert thing was pretty popular, but I don't think the stones has any intention whatsoever to be part of it in 1971. We all know in 73 they did their share . . . but it seems the organizers if Doggett's reporting is correct simply did invite the Stones, but quickly understood that they were not coming and then disinvited them to save face. Possible. So, in a way that may be true from the organizers' point of view.
As for the silly google explanation, did the Stones have to travel from France to England before going to New Yrok? I'm sure in 1971 there was a direct flight from Paris to NYC, but maybe not. The google explanation falls flat.
I think the concensus is that the Stones simply were not interested and were entrenched in recording. But what if they did do it? Wow. I'm sure they would have played something like: Brown Sugar, Bitch, JJF or some other combination. Would have been interesting to see a post 1971 England and pre 1972 show . . . they probably would have blown everyone off the stage at that point.
Just fun to speculate.
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: March 19, 2025 17:25
Quote
Mr. Jimi
did the Stones have to travel from France to England before going to New York?
"On 1 July 1946, Air France started direct flights between Paris and New York" - [en.Wikipedia.org] . "Pan Am followed on 26 October 1958 with a Boeing 707 service between New York and Paris" - [en.Wikipedia.org] .
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: March 19, 2025 17:40
Quote
Mr. Jimi
Just fun to speculate.
How would Keith, partially unable to record EOMS (due to certain substances), travel to NYC for a concert? See also the '1971' documentary on [TV.Apple.com] .
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
georgemcdonnell314
()
Date: March 19, 2025 20:56
Didn't they do a benefit for Nicaragua?
I know I have a bootleg of this from 73.
The Stones did not play together at Live Aid. Bill stated in his book "The band mutually agreed not to play"
I know I have a bootleg of this from 73.
The Stones did not play together at Live Aid. Bill stated in his book "The band mutually agreed not to play"
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
tommyturbo76
()
Date: March 23, 2025 23:54
Indeed they did. BV was too young to remember I guess :-).
Quote
georgemcdonnell314
Didn't they do a benefit for Nicaragua?
I know I have a bootleg of this from 73.
The Stones did not play together at Live Aid. Bill stated in his book "The band mutually agreed not to play"
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: March 24, 2025 07:37
Quote
maidenlane
Wasn't Allen Klein central to the Concert for Bangladesh?
Hadn't the RS had just begun to move forward without him (unwillingly leaving behind a giant chunk of the artistic and monetary rights to everything they had done in their career up to the point of Brown Sugar)?
And left England for tax exile because he hadn't paid their taxes for them?
Or maybe it was all just about a Stones versus Beatles rivalry?
The Stones/Klein timeline was underway. All copyright/publishing for STICKY FINGERS, not just Brown Sugar and Wild Horses, was under his contract - look at the liner notes, it's all ABKCO Music.
As it continued with EXILE - 5 songs are ABKCO Music. Which means that the recordings were Klein controlled, just like all the songs on SF (SF was completed in 1970 as well as the 5 ABKCO Music EOMS songs).
Quite strange - all they had to do were new recordings.
That's how you know EOMS was not only recorded in France.
Like the coconut tree myth, SFTD/Meredith Hunter's death at Altamont and Keith bashing the guy in the head in 1981 with his guitar, the misinformation continues to get regurgitated with zero quality control by, for 1981, Keith himself (100% exaggeration) as well as supposed journalists combined with people who simply repeat fake news/lies or use AI, which is complete garbage.
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
maidenlane
()
Date: March 24, 2025 09:51
Quote
GasLightStreet
Quite strange - all they had to do were new recordings.
That's how you know EOMS was not only recorded in France.
I thought the original settlement was that any songs first written while Klein was still manager were ABKCO. Not when they were finally recorded in the version that was released. Re-recording would not have "saved" those songs.
The best proof of when something was "written" would be the first recording or demo session.
The agreement to split ownership of Brown Sugar and Wild Horses was based on their settlement of various terms, including accepting the 5 year ban on re-recording songs issued under Klein's management. Thus no 1972 or 1973 live album was possible due to what the RS agreed to with Klein to settle things.
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
maidenlane
()
Date: March 24, 2025 09:57
Getting some rights to Brown Sugar was a win for the Stones, it was a huge song and it was written in the Klein era.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-24 09:59 by maidenlane.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-24 09:59 by maidenlane.
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: March 24, 2025 10:13
Whenever discussions here revolve around "copyrights" the same people always confuse songwriting/publishing rights with neighboring rights (rights in sound recordings, rights of the performing artists) which are two entirely different legal subjects. GasLightStreet is usually amongst them, no matter how often the difference is explained here...
So for what it's worth, maidenlane is right.
So for what it's worth, maidenlane is right.
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: March 24, 2025 12:11
Seemingly there was at a certain point a phone call made by George to Mick in France and no matter what was the reason Mick declined or how much there was a hippie brotherhood between him and George, I think there was no way in million years to surpass an obstacle called Allan Klein (George's manager and thereby organizer of the event).
Stuff from WikiPedia:
Klein hustled to get the invited artists, including Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton, to play for free while donating their shares of royalties to charity, and convinced Capitol Records to grant an unprecedented 50% royalty rate.
Oh yeah, imaging the scenario of this dude trying to hustle with Mick to play for free after having screwed him big time moneywise and stealing his songs... oh yeah...
And Klein not being Klein unless:
Most importantly, Klein had failed to register the event as a UNICEF benefit beforehand, and it was subsequently denied tax-exempt status by the US Government. As a result, most of the money was held in an Internal Revenue Service escrow account for ten years. In an interview with Derek Taylor for his autobiography in the late 1970s, Harrison put this figure at between $8 million and $10 million. Before then, in early 1972, New York magazine reported that some of the proceeds remained unaccounted for and had found their way into Klein's accounts. Klein responded by suing the magazine for $150 million in damages, and although the suit was later withdrawn, the accusations attracted unwelcome scrutiny at a time when questions were also being asked about Klein's mismanagement of the Beatles' finances.
- Doxa
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-24 12:21 by Doxa.
Stuff from WikiPedia:
Klein hustled to get the invited artists, including Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton, to play for free while donating their shares of royalties to charity, and convinced Capitol Records to grant an unprecedented 50% royalty rate.
Oh yeah, imaging the scenario of this dude trying to hustle with Mick to play for free after having screwed him big time moneywise and stealing his songs... oh yeah...
And Klein not being Klein unless:
Most importantly, Klein had failed to register the event as a UNICEF benefit beforehand, and it was subsequently denied tax-exempt status by the US Government. As a result, most of the money was held in an Internal Revenue Service escrow account for ten years. In an interview with Derek Taylor for his autobiography in the late 1970s, Harrison put this figure at between $8 million and $10 million. Before then, in early 1972, New York magazine reported that some of the proceeds remained unaccounted for and had found their way into Klein's accounts. Klein responded by suing the magazine for $150 million in damages, and although the suit was later withdrawn, the accusations attracted unwelcome scrutiny at a time when questions were also being asked about Klein's mismanagement of the Beatles' finances.
- Doxa
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2025-03-24 12:21 by Doxa.
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
Taylor1
()
Date: March 24, 2025 17:49
Quote
Doxa
Seemingly there was at a certain point a phone call made by George to Mick in France and no matter what was the reason Mick declined or how much there was a hippie brotherhood between him and George, I think there was no way in million years to surpass an obstacle called Allan Klein (George's manager and thereby organizer of the event).
Stuff from WikiPedia:
Klein hustled to get the invited artists, including Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton, to play for free while donating their shares of royalties to charity, and convinced Capitol Records to grant an unprecedented 50% royalty rate.
Oh yeah, imaging the scenario of this dude trying to hustle with Mick to play for free after having screwed him big time moneywise and stealing his songs... oh yeah...
And Klein not being Klein unless:
Most importantly, Klein had failed to register the event as a UNICEF benefit beforehand, and it was subsequently denied tax-exempt status by the US Government. As a result, most of the money was held in an Internal Revenue Service escrow account for ten years. In an interview with Derek Taylor for his autobiography in the late 1970s, Harrison put this figure at between $8 million and $10 million. Before then, in early 1972, New York magazine reported that some of the proceeds remained unaccounted for and had found their way into Klein's accounts. Klein responded by suing the magazine for $150 million in damages, and although the suit was later withdrawn, the accusations attracted unwelcome scrutiny at a time when questions were also being asked about Klein's mismanagement of the Beatles' finances.He also managed San Cooke’s song catalog
- Doxa
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: March 24, 2025 18:03
I’m not sure if the Stones would’ve fitted in, would they? Ravi Shankar, George Harrison, etc? It all seems a bit to hippy and spiritual for the Stones, no?
Re: Why Didn't the Stones Play the concert for Bangladesh?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: March 24, 2025 19:07
Quote
retired_dog
Whenever discussions here revolve around "copyrights" the same people always confuse songwriting/publishing rights with neighboring rights (rights in sound recordings, rights of the performing artists) which are two entirely different legal subjects. GasLightStreet is usually amongst them, no matter how often the difference is explained here...
So for what it's worth, maidenlane is right.
It's often confusing. However, the recordings were done while under Klein, who owned the copyrights. Shine A Light, Sister Morphine, Loving Cup, Brown Sugar, Wild Horses and (acoustic) All Down The Line were recorded in 1969. 1970 more SF and EOMS tracks were recorded. Klein owned the performing rights and neighboring rights. Any time any of those songs are bought or played ABKCO Music gets paid.
Quote
Rocky Dijon
ABKCO controls the publishing rights to all the songs on STICKY FINGERS (except "You Gotta Move") and several songs on EXILE that were listed with the copyright office prior to October 1970. The rights to the album are controlled by Promotone, but the ABKCO settlement allows for approved tracks to appear on compilations (HOT ROCKS, ROLLED GOLD, THE LONDON YEARS, FORTY LICKS Disc One, and SINGLES 1968-1971). Its worth noting ABKCO encountered no difficulty including STICKY FINGERS outtakes on METAMORPHOSIS either. "@#$%& Blues" was also included in early pressings of THE REST OF THE BEST box set through the ABKCO settlement as well.
Maybe the copyright/publishing laws are or were different in the UK but recently Def Leppard and Taylor Swift have done new recordings of previously released songs and the previous record label and publishing company have zero control over the new versions because they don't own or have control of those masters.
For Swift it's about total control, for Def Leppard it was about digital rights to their back catalog.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
ChrisL , hockenheim95 , John1982 , mikey C , MrEcho , Paddy , rogerriffin , RollingFreak , TeddyB1018 , WillInUK
Guests:
1556
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10