Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

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

What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: The Sicilian ()
Date: December 8, 2006 15:54

The recording industry and promotors pay the Stones for them to deliver new music and a tour to promote that music. Usually according to their guidelines.

Fans buy the CD's, merchandise, and most important the tickets. So what is their responsibility to the fans that pay them for all the above? Is it outrageous to demand concerts in certain cities, longer set lists, etc...

Without the fans support, does the band survive?

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: hot stuff ()
Date: December 8, 2006 16:21

what's your point....? the stones charge a fee to play live to willing people willing to pay a price that the stones agree to charge for their time...

record companies pay the stones a fee to record a new album..

the stones only responsibility is too give 100% when playing and trying to make their fans walk away happy and wanting more...well they have done that for over
43 years now....

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: jamesfdouglas ()
Date: December 8, 2006 18:53

It's to themselves, as artists.




(snicker)

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: Dan ()
Date: December 8, 2006 19:14

They may owe a few Europeans a show next year, otherwise there is absolutely no obligation other than the standard agreement when conducting a business transaction. In other words, they owe you nothing. If you think so, you are imagining a relationship that doesn't really exist and you may be in need of professional help. If you are disatisfied with a product, keep it mind the next time product is offered. You DO have a choice where and how you spend your money.

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: Baboon Bro ()
Date: December 8, 2006 19:39

"They may owe a few Europeans a show next year" (Dan)

Of these "few" Europeans 60,000 expected to see them at Ullevi,
Göteborg. Actually I wouldnt call it a "few".

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: schillid ()
Date: December 8, 2006 19:44

Two of them sill owe me $285 from the beach that time... You know which two you are.

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: Roadster32 ()
Date: December 8, 2006 19:49

They owe nobody nothing, not the industry nor the fans.

They do what they like and when they like it.

And I think there will always be a record company or fans willing to pay for them for whatever they do.

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: harlito1969 ()
Date: December 8, 2006 19:53

with millions of dollars involved it has to be the industry... it's a monster

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: jamesfdouglas ()
Date: December 8, 2006 19:57

Do they owe any more records to Virgin?

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: Raoul Duke ()
Date: December 8, 2006 20:01

Don't know about their contractual obligations, but they don't owe us shit. 45 years of kickass music and shows, what the @#$%& do you want more?

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: jamesfdouglas ()
Date: December 8, 2006 20:02

I agree with you, RD. They could stop right now and not owe anyone anything imo.

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: winter ()
Date: December 8, 2006 21:24

we have a winner, jamesfdouglass! it's to themselves.

sorry sicilian and hotstuff, you're missing the point and nature of the record industry by several kilometers....the recording industry doesn't pay people to make records; they loan the band $$ which is recoupable thru the 12-15% royalty rate on records sold, which is further diluted by an outdated 10% reduction for 'breakage'. in effect bands pay for the sessions, vids, etc. which then become the record co.'s property. the record co.'s are making $$ back from the sales from each record. meanwhile a band is not making $$ yet; the band's 13% cut of the pie from each cd is going to the record co. to recoup the recording costs. a band sells 200,000 copies but are only paid as if it was 180,000 (10% breakage clause), and until their 13% rate pays back the 1 million dollars or whatever the advance was, the band doesn't see a dime (except the songwriters), while the record co. has been making back $$ on their manufacturing costs since sale #1, AND they own the master recordings. when the artist royalty $$ on sold cds finally does clear the advance, which the overwhelming majority do not, then 20% of that money goes to the band's manager before the group sees a dime. in sum, the record co., the studio engineer, the producer, the retailer, the pressing plant, etc. all get paid well in advance of the band, if the band gets paid at all. it's indentured servitude.

of course, "What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?" is a misleading question to begin with. it's a strawman setup to denigrate those who dare have opinions on how the band could better serve it's fans (setlist suggestions, should've included Under The Radar on the original ABB, don't release another live cd that's just lifted from the live dvd, etc.). but the "industry" has no place in the question.

so if you phrase the Q as: do the Stones serve the distributors and owners of their recorded work, or do they serve their customers? -you still get a false dichotomy. the appropriate response is: "neither. the Stones' collective obligation is TO THEMSELVES (as a group, not as individuals). if they stay true to themselves, then both the bizness and the fans benefit." and any band would be stupid to not at least entertain/consider fans' suggestions, despite the reality that it would be impossible to address them all and please everybody.

but "obligation to the industry"? that's precisely what's driving our species insane, isn't it? winking smiley

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: Woody24 ()
Date: December 8, 2006 21:36

"Without fan support, does the band survive?" NO.

Last time I checked, though, Stones fans were turning out in the tens of thousands in every city to support/listen to their band.

"Take all the pain...It's yours anyway"

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: jamesfdouglas ()
Date: December 8, 2006 21:36

Great!

So... um...

Do I get disqualified for snickering?

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: winter ()
Date: December 8, 2006 21:55

jamesfdouglas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great!
>
> So... um...
>
> Do I get disqualified for snickering?


nope, you just win and the snicker was simply part of your honest response. however you may get penalized 5 points for calling extra attention to your snickering. (excessive goalline celebration or minor unsportsmanlike conduct?) it's in the league officials' hands now, not ours, jfd!

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: LolA ()
Date: December 8, 2006 22:58

Dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In other words, they owe you
> nothing. If you think so, you are imagining a
> relationship that doesn't really exist and you may
> be in need of professional help.

he he...my thoughts exactly!

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: with sssoul ()
Date: December 8, 2006 23:29

[applauding & passing popcorn to Winter]

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: JMARKO ()
Date: December 9, 2006 00:50

Baboo bro,

As much as you feel, ethically, they 'owe' you or those in any city of a cancelled show anything, legally they don't.

You buy a ticket for anything there is no guarantee it will happen, and if it doesn't they can refund your money.

You want to talk about consideration for fans? The fact that they re-schedule shows definitely demonstrates that to a degree. However, don't be fooled. They re-schedule those shows mainly to re-coup the losses from the guarantees etc.

Let's just say it's common knowledge to many folks that the Stones have had one particular backstage party on each of their recent tours. It happens on a different day, a different show number, and probably in a different city each time. And they have cake and cocktails and whoop it up each time they have this party. It celebrates the official "In The Black" night for the tour: when all further money is, more or less, profit from that point on.

J

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: The GR ()
Date: December 9, 2006 13:52

Themselves.

Re: What is more important: Stones obligation to the industry or fans?
Posted by: The Sicilian ()
Date: December 10, 2006 17:45

Winter, a little follow up on your thoughts.

A little inside a record deal from an old storyline:

LA Times confirm this:

R.E.M.,WARNER RECORDS SIGN $80 MILLION DEAL


Formed in 1980, R.E.M. has sold more than 30 million albums and has
been unusually strong in international sales for a rock group. But the pact
is so
large, with $10-million advances for each of five albums, that some record
industry analysts wonder whether Warner Records can make a profit over the
life of the deal. By the time the final album is delivered, the R.E.M. musicians
will be nearing 50.

One reason R.E.M. was able to secure such favorable terms from
Warner is that the band became free agents at the apex of their careers and the
deal was negotiated at a time when the firm, trying to recover from two years
of corporate upheaval, could not afford to lose the band.

Warner Music, the largest domestic record company, had the resources
to outbid competitors and is the only firm that could offer R.E.M. a sweeter
return on future sales of its six-album catalog.

Representatives for R.E.M. and Warner refused to discuss the pact. But
sources said the band will be paid a $10-million signing bonus plus a
$20-million royalty advance on future sales of its six-album Warner catalog.
The band is also guaranteed an estimated $10-million advance per album plus a
blue-chip 24% royalty on the retail price of each record sold--about $2.50
per record.

The spectacular size of R.E.M's deal raises the stakes in future battles
for other superstars and is expected to cause the cost of signing
potentially hot
new acts to skyrocket in the months ahead.
R.E.M's contract covers five albums of new material. Under the terms
of the deal, ownership of the masters to those albums will revert to R.E.M.
seven years after the contract ends. The band already had negotiated reversion
of ownership rights to its current six-album Warner catalog.

Warner will deduct cash advances from R.E.M.'s portion of the royalties
until they are paid off--a standard practice in the industry.


The point is the bigger the band the more bargaining power they have, so one can assume the Stones deal with Virgin surpassed that. Which is to say when you are paying out that much money and investment, the band is very obligated to you.



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 2908
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home