X



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-20 20:47 by UrbanSteel.

Hmmmn... that means they COULD turn over the back catalog to Rhino because Warner doesn't mess with that themselves and consequently we COULD finally see outtakes and unreleased tracks as that's Rhino's forte.

Of course we'd have to buy them all AGAIN!

rhino would be a great home for that catalogue!!!

This story confirms a bit the speculation in the other thread about what the Stones really are after now is a nice home for their back catalog. That is worth of invest and interest of the record companies, not the possible new records The Stones still might do. That's the state of the affairs of their career now.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-20 21:50 by Doxa.

The back catalog is always going to be a big part of these types of negotiations (as it was in 1993) but,that does not mean they will never cut another studio album.

i wish it were the abkco albums though

Quote
ghostryder13
i wish it were the abkco albums though

You can't always get what you want ....

Quote
UrbanSteel
Warner Music in talks to buy Rolling Stones' back catalogue from EMI


LONDON, Jan. 20, 2008 (Thomson Financial delivered by Newstex) -- Warner Music Group (NYSE:WMG) is in talks with the Rolling Stones about buying the group's back catalogue of hits, The Observer newspaper reported.

The report said such a move would deprive EMI's new private equity owner, Terra Firma, of about 3 mln stg a year. The Stones want to sever links with Terra Firma, which acquired EMI in the summer.

The report said talks with Warner are advanced, but added that the Stones are also negotiating with Vivendi (OOTC:VIVEF) SA's Universal Music Group and Sony Corp. (NYSENE)

Terra Firma said it will cut up to 2,000 jobs as part of a cost-cutting programme designed to boost returns.

r.jones@thomson.com
Copyright Thomson Financial News Limited 2007. All rights reserved.

Source

Thanks for posting this US. How are you keeping, sir?

X



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-20 20:46 by UrbanSteel.

Quote
Theif in the Night
The back catalog is always going to be a big part of these types of negotiations (as it was in 1993) but,that does not mean they will never cut another studio album.

Of course it will not mean that the Stones are not going to do any new albums, but like it is said in the article what is the prime intestest of the record companies is their back catalog. It was an important part of negotiations in 1993, surely, but it looks to be the only substance worth of negotiation now. That's the difference. (And as far as I can see, one-release-deal with Universal - Shine of Light soundtrack - seems to be a part of negotation to get a good home for their back catalog from the Stones part - to kick the asses of EMI and show the others that they are seriously now 'for sale' for the best offer).

It is difficult to say WHY there is no mention of any possible new records in negotations - is it because the band has no any interest anymore to 'promise' any new records at the moment - be the reason be whatever (no will, health, uncertain future plans, etc.) or that the value of their back catalog is so much bigger than any possible new studio album that the record companies are solely interested in the former one. But in any case, I haven't heard any word of possible new records.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-21 09:44 by Doxa.

A new record coincinding with a tour will only stimulate interest in the back catalog. ABB sold around 550,000 in the states, their worst in decades but not bad, roughly half of Bridges to Babylon. Of course the Stones' thinking on a new album is at this point unknown.

Quote
Doxa
Of course it will not mean that the Stones are not going to do any new albums, but like it is said in the article what is the prime intestest of the record companies is their back catalog. It was an important part of negotiations in 1993, surely, but it looks to be the only substance worth of negotiation now.
- Doxa

I do not agree. We've had this discussion on this board before - but in today's market ABB did not do too badly.

If you consider their back catalog to be selling constantly at around 3 millions a year, no company will turn down the opportunity to shift another 2,5 millions in a year on a new record. Especially with the market being what it is. Nobody is selling what they used to.(Consider Britney's and JLO's last efforts)

I know they are selling less and less in the USA but at the same time the world sales are picking up. This seems to be connected to their new touring strategy, where geographically they travel more extensively than ever before so maybe the next tour will see the fruition of this work. A record sold is a record sold.

I don't think it is an accident than when discussing new plans to tour, Jagger mentions Asia.

Quote
mofur

Quote
Doxa
Of course it will not mean that the Stones are not going to do any new albums, but like it is said in the article what is the prime intestest of the record companies is their back catalog. It was an important part of negotiations in 1993, surely, but it looks to be the only substance worth of negotiation now.
- Doxa

I do not agree. We've had this discussion on this board before - but in today's market ABB did not do too badly.

If you consider their back catalog to be selling constantly at around 3 millions a year, no company will turn down the opportunity to shift another 2,5 millions in a year on a new record. Especially with the market being what it is. Nobody is selling what they used to.(Consider Britney's and JLO's last efforts)

I know they are selling less and less in the USA but at the same time the world sales are picking up. This seems to be connected to their new touring strategy, where geographically they travel more extensively than ever before so maybe the next tour will see the fruition of this work. A record sold is a record sold.

I don't think it is an accident than when discussing new plans to tour, Jagger mentions Asia.

I agree that no record company will turn down an offer where there is a new record - the Stones, after all, are quite sure sellers in today's windy markets (of course, they can if the Stones ask too much of it). And yes, A BIGGER BANG was a nice success worldwide, the relatively poor sales in their traditional big markets (US, Europe) sales were compensated by bigger sales in other parts of world (The Stones are fans of globalization I guess><) But what strikes me most is that there is no any mentioning of any new records in these reports. That only item of negotiation seems to be the back catalog. Be the reason whatever, the conclusion is that there not seem to be any Stones studio albums in near future. Of course, it is possible that they have seperated the business, that is, the back catalog and the possible new record(s) are a different deal (like they did with SHINE A LIGHT), But if they would have a new studio record in their mind now, I guess they would have included that in the current deal they are now trying to make. But like said, there is no any hint of that.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
But if they would have a new studio record in their mind now, I guess they would have included that in the current deal they are now trying to make. But like said, there is no any hint of that.

Same thoughts here. Considering that BV mentioned a strong possibility of a new studio album in 2008 (?) a couple of months ago which suggested that he had heard at least something from sources close to the band about such plans, I find it even more astonishing that the current media coverage about a new deal does not mention a new studio album at all, not even the possibility of a new studio album.

I try to bring this in line with the fact that a couple of months ago, a spring 2008 tour of Asia and selected US markets was touted as a more or less signed, sealed and delivered fact ("new stage already in production") and that currently even those plans seem to have deterioated.

Just go into the vaults and fix a few lyrics, and overdub like they did for Tattoo YOU. There is plenty of really good material that has probably aged very well. I still think they should release Living in the Heart of Love, and Criss Cross. That music is just so timeless, and energetic.

Mick overstates the idea of TY being 'old tracks'...1981, TY is made up mostly of Emotional Rescue ('80) ot's & 2 or 3 new ones...Of 11 tracks, only 3 precede Wood, who debuted (forgetting IORR the song) on Black & Blue a mere 5 years earlier. And one of those 3 (Slave) was reworked heavily, including Ron's guitar, Rollins' sax, & Mick's vocal/lyrics, transforming it into a highlight. They also really transformed 'Waiting On a Friend' into something beautiful and incandescent with a fresh mix, vocal parts and again, Sonny Rollins. Now, including SG or ER outtakes would be clearly part of a historical retrospective - they're 25, 30 years old. Which is fine, I'd love a 'Bootleg Series', but if they do a 'new' album it really can't have 25 year old tracks aside new ones.

Why EMI Should Let The Stones Leave
Peter Kafka | January 21, 2008 4:07 PM

The Stones/EMI
Who gives a shit if the Stones leave EMI. If I were Guy Hands, I’d say GOOD RIDDANCE!

That’s what the label needs, another one-sided deal with a hefty advance just to show the industry they’re still in business. Shit, isn’t this one of the reasons the majors are in trouble to begin with, paying outrageous advances to acts that don’t earn it back?

You know what Mr. Hands can tell Mick Jagger? I’ll pay you NO advance and an incredible royalty rate. You don’t have to go to Wal-Mart, you can make money right here.

And Jagger can’t go to Wal-Mart. Because the Stones don’t sell much new product. Never have. There is a catalogue business, but Wal-Mart doesn’t stock catalogue! No, the Stones need someone who can distribute all of their post ABKCO stuff, from "Sticky Fingers" on. They need a traditional label.

They can’t even go with Michael Cohl, there’s no infrastructure there. Maybe a hefty payment, but it’s hard to get ahead when you’ve got no product in the marketplace. Sure, eventually everything will be digital, and anybody, even an individual, can make a deal with iTunes. But iTunes/Amazon/digital isn’t going to dominate, not even close, when the Stones’ deal with EMI expires in March.

There’s history here. Richard Branson was done with the record business. He wanted out. He deplored the headaches and wanted to invest in new businesses. But Virgin Records wasn’t sexy enough. It didn’t have enough marquee artists. So he signed the Stones after their Atlantic contract expired. The lovable Ahmet didn’t want to make the deal, it was too rich for his blood. And it was too rich for Branson’s blood too. But not for EMI’s. Which purchased Virgin for an inflated price, partly based on getting the Stones, even though the Stones had never ever released a record on Virgin. And, as stated above, their albums did not have a great track record for moving product. But EMI wanted market share. They wanted to impress investors. And investors thought the Stones were the world’s greatest rock band. And the world’s greatest rock band sells a shitload of records, right? Wrong.

Robbie Williams. His last record stiffed. Certainly dropped significantly in sales. Was that because his label dropped the ball or the public was just over him? Or maybe, he released a substandard record. Robbie claims to still be a superstar, but is he?

And everybody talking about McCartney leaving EMI… Give me a break. Who else was going to pay him what Starbucks did? Certainly not a major label. No major label was going to pay a fortune to lose money. Only Starbucks, as a way to break into the label business, as a way to sell coffee. This is not an EMI flaw, the deal just didn’t make sense.

All those deals no longer make sense. And Guy Hands is finally admitting it. It takes a newbie to state the obvious. That the old model is dead. You can’t start behind the eight ball, everybody’s got to share in the upside. More of a joint venture than an exorbitant advance against royalties.

The Stones are mercenary. The utter @#$%& worst. Will their financial footsteps be as nimble now that Prince Rupert has retired? I doubt it. But we do know they’re positively old school. They’ll go to the entity that pays them the most.

Let’s not talk about the movie soundtrack. Hell, didn’t Best Buy have an exclusive on their DVD box? I’m sure there’s some loophole in their contract that allows them to take the soundtrack to the Scorsese film elsewhere. But this is not significant. This is not a diss on EMI. So they go to Universal, which has a great operation. But it’s positively old wave. All the innovation Guy Hands is talking about is not in evidence at Universal. Doug Morris is waiting for Congress to approve blowing up traders’ computers, possibly lynching them in the town square, he thinks he can beat this thing, he believes the good old days are just around the corner.

But the future is here. It’s about niche. It’s about transparent accounting after reasonable expenditures in production and marketing. It’s not about rolling the dice for the big money, it’s about eking out nickels. God, even the Stones don’t sell out anymore. Everyone’s seen ‘em. How many times can you be ripped off?

And I love listening to "Let It Bleed", all the classic records. But I don’t need "Bigger Bang", and based on anemic sales neither does anybody else. Maybe a new Led Zeppelin album would sell, maybe a Pink Floyd collection of new material would be scooped up (AND PAID FOR!) by millions. But just about every classic act, especially those that have not gone away, that have been on the road, that are still in the marketplace, cannot GIVE AWAY new material. The audience doesn’t want it. They just want the hits, each and every one of them for their exorbitant fee paid. Hell, if you don’t play the hits the people are PISSED!

What a far cry from the seventies. When the band played the new album. When the STONES played the new album. But when Page and Plant toured together, even though they had a new album in the marketplace, by the end of the tour they were barely playing it, people didn’t want to hear it, they talked and went to the bathroom when the new material was played.

The curse of success.

Then again, you can sell those @#$%& tickets.

So, if you’re worried about your image, sign the dinosaurs. You’ll get a ton of press. But, after you pay them, you’ll be positively frightened. For you’ll see you won’t make any money. And the fact that the crusty oldsters are on your label won’t impress those you truly need to do business with, the young ‘uns.

We’ve lived through the industry circle jerk for far too long. The past is done. We need a new era. If somebody comes knocking on your door, promising wares that don’t exist, for which there will be incredible demand, wanting beaucoup bucks for the opportunity to distribute the tracks, PASS! Just tell them you’d rather invest in Apple than the act. The return is better. But if you want to BUILD something, then the label is interested.

But superstars don’t want to build anything. They just want their MONEY! Like drug lords. They’re entitled to their money. No one says no to them. Until now. Guy, LET THEM GO!

Thanks for an annoying article georgelicks!

Knowing Warners and their lack of quality control, they'd probably just 'take over' the actual ownership of the Virgin Records rereleases and just leave them in stores like they are to collect dust. There's no point, really, in printing up a bunch of new records just to put Rhino or WB labels on the same damn thing.

digital Sound has improved since '94, as a listen to Made In The Shade or Sucking In the 70s (as well as the Abkco catalog) illustrates. I'd like upgrades, and there's always the possibility - remote - of a bonus cut or two.

My opinion is that the back catalog does not have the same value it once had. Too many illegal dowloads and CD's being extinct sooner than we may all think decreased the value at least on a consumer end.

Well 'albums' dont have the same value they once had, but I'm sure ringtones will be part of the package

Quote
Peter Kafka
But the future is here. It’s about niche.

This guy forgets the word "UNFORTUNATELY".

Quote
Peter Kafka
And the fact that the crusty oldsters are on your label won’t impress those you truly need to do business with, the young ‘uns.

@#$%& the young ones. I haven't heard a single song made by youngsters that can even compare to Back To Zero.

JumpingKentFlash

remember that Jagger is already on Rhino's



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-22 14:15 by toomuchforme.

Quote
toomuchforme
remember that Jagger is already on Rhino's

Very good point. Rhino did a good job with his Greatest Hits, I thought. I played it more than all of his solo albums combined, apart from Wandering Spirit.

Made In The Shade and Sucking In The Seventies are, from what it looks like, the same remasters that Ludwig did anyway for the Virgin rereleases. It's not like remastering them now would make them the equivalent to HDTV. Those songs were already remastered - all they did was reprint the artwork, the same as the Forty Licks disc 2 tracks - nothing special was done to them. They still sound superiour to any of the ABKCO tracks. I bought 70s because of the 2 cool tracks on it, Everything Is Turning To Gold and the live Whip as well as the edit versions of most of the tunes on the record. It's actually my favourite comp album they've ever put out.

Compare IORR or Dance Little Sister on MITS to the '94 IORR cd - unless I'm hallucinating they sound warmer and less drab than the earlier cd - the grey airless quality that always marred IORR both on lp and earlier cds - well those two now have real visceral impact.. Even 'Brown Sugar' jumps out at you, and I've been playing the Virgin SF for years. Now I DON'T play any of the other recent comps, (I have 'Four Licks' promo ep), so maybe they date from 4, 5 years back.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-23 12:09 by john r.

BTW: I'm looking for Stones on the CBS label. If anyone is interested in selling these, please write me. I only have Tattoo You on CBS so far.

JumpingKentFlash

So other than the Brussels Affair album, I am wondering if there were any other albums that were shelved that might emerge in this new deal. Does anyone know?

Quote
VoodooLounge13
So other than the Brussels Affair album, I am wondering if there were any other albums that were shelved that might emerge in this new deal. Does anyone know?

"Brussel Affair" was never shelved because there never was an intention to release it as an album. Those 1973 performance were always intended for broadcasting purposes only. What was indeed shelved was a live album from the 1972 US tour, after legal problems with ABKCO.