Does the label "own" CD II?

[volcano62]

As we all know the label didn't spend 14M on just the 14 tracks that were released on Chinese Democracy.

What about all the other tracks that were recorded? Does the label own them? Can they release them whenever they want? Do they have to? Can GNR release something independently if the label doesn't want to release them?

There is certainly a hold up somewhere.....is there anyone that knows the biz that can enlighten us?

[TombRaider]

Good question. I don't know anything about the music biz, but pure logic, my logic at least, tells me that GnR can't release anything without the label's permission, since the band is under a contract.

[Naupis]

yes, the label owns all the material since they paid for it to be recorded.

[volcano62]

Good question. I don't know anything about the music biz, but pure logic, my logic at least, tells me that GnR can't release anything without the label's permission, since the band is under a contract.

Right...under contract until when? Another album? Certain amount of years?

yes, the label owns all the material since they paid for it to be recorded.

If the label is done with the band, can they just release another GH or a Live album and get this over and done with and let the band loose?

Edited June 21, 2013 by volcano62

[TombRaider]

But I'm sure Axl also owns the rights to the music he's written and for some reason he doesn't feel it's ready to be released. Otherwise, you have to wonder if it'd make sense for the label to refuse to release music they spent a shitload of money on.

Right...under contract until when? Another album? Certain amount of years?

My guess is as good as yours, but I think contracts in the music biz are based on the number of albums a band must release under said contract. Didn't Megadeth once release a best of, because they still had to release one more album with a label they no longer wanted to work with/for? And Dave said, Ok, we'll release a greatest hits and then we'll sign with a new label?

However, in Axl's case, they must have some sort of deal worked out, otherwise I just cannot understand how so many years can go by without anything being released... but then again, it's only been 5 years since CD came out.

Edited June 21, 2013 by TombRaider

[volcano62]

But I'm sure Axl also owns the rights to the music he's written and for some reason he doesn't feel it's ready to be released. Otherwise, you have to wonder if it'd make sense for the label to refuse to release music they spent a shitload of money on.

Well here's the thing....the label already made all their money back with the ridiculous BestBuy deal. They don't give a fuck anymore.

[TombRaider]

They did? I had no idea they had.

[Crash Diet]

MSL

(just randomly post his name here)

[guitarpatch]

Label owns rights to all recordings during the session. The way around it if they want to leave label is to re record everything as they don't own the rights to the songs themselves

[TombRaider]

I may have misunderstood what you just said, but... who doesn't own the rights to the songs themselves? And why do they have to re record everything?

[guitarpatch]

A song is separate from a master recording. Labels own the masters and artists own the song/ publishing. All depends on their contract but if the label drops or releases them they can hold onto the recordings of the album (which happened to Duff).

The options are to re record the songs, try and buy the masters back from label, or negotiate a licensing agreement. All of which are a pain in the ass and almost impossible to accomplish.

Now the label can own those master recordings but the band usually has rights and has to sign off on anything the label officially releases.

Basically a lot of negotiating and uphill battle if label doesn't want to release a follow up album.

This is how most normal old record deals work. Really depends on their contract and what it says.

[sailaway]

A song is separate from a master recording. Labels own the masters and artists own the song/ publishing. All depends on their contract but if the label drops or releases them they can hold onto the recordings of the album (which happened to Duff).

The options are to re record the songs, try and buy the masters back from label, or negotiate a licensing agreement. All of which are a pain in the ass and almost impossible to accomplish.

Now the label can own those master recordings but the band usually has rights and has to sign off on anything the label officially releases.

Basically a lot of negotiating and uphill battle if label doesn't want to release a follow up album.

This is how most normal old record deals work. Really depends on their contract and what it says.

This pretty much, kinda sad that an Album can go triple platinum but the band can still be indebited to the label, it happens.

Hunter S. Had a lovely quote about the music biz....

[Rustycage]

If the label funded the production, you can bet they aren't playing the "masters versus what is considered just a song" game in their contract.

[EvH]

A$hba$wag owns the past, the present and the future of Guns N' Roses.

[volcano62]

A$hba$wag owns the past, the present and the future of Guns N' Roses.

Thanks for your very mature and informative input.

We need more members like you around here.

[sailaway]

Record contracts come in many forms. This stems from the fact that there are hundreds of different record companies. From the so-called "major labels" (EMI, Sony, Warner, PolyGram, BMG or one of their related corporations) to "mini-majors" (A&M, Island and Virgin, in the days of their independence, were the most obvious examples) to the "independents", the contract depends largely on the type of record company offering it.

When you first see your contract, if you are like most bands, you immediately sit down and read it. However, you soon realize that it is written in a manner which defies grammatical english. Sentences run on for 14 lines, with little if any punctuation. There are terms and words which you have never encountered. Finally, the sentences constantly make reference to each other ("pursuant to 1(A)3©(ii)"). Where do you begin? The first place is with someone familiar with record contracts. This is usually an entertainment attorney, though not all of the time.

Often, a band will be aware of and have already negotiated the "deal points" prior to retaining independent counsel on their behalf. Deal points are the basics of the contract: the advance, number of albums and royalty rate. However, the devil is in the details.

In all record contracts, you will be signing an exclusive agreement. This means that you will not be able to record for anyone else other than the record company during the "term" of your contract. The term is how long the contract lasts. Contrary to popular belief, record companies do not sign you and guarantee you seven albums. It may be a seven album deal, but nothing obligates the label to record seven albums. The seven albums means that the record label has the option to record seven albums. Typically, a record company will record one album and see how it does. If it sells well, they will exercise their option to record a second album. If the first album does not do well, the label usually drops you. Record companies require long term option contracts because if the band does do well, the label wants to make sure that the band stays with their company. Since they invested so much and signed the band in the first place, they want to be able to share the success of the band over a long period of time. For example, REM recently finished out the last of their options with their record company. REM's new contract guarantees a $10 million advance per album in the future. Try getting that advance for your first contract! Finally, the "territory" of most contracts is world-wide meaning that the record company has exclusive rights to your services as a band throughout the world.

I find that almost all bands initially form to make music, as opposed to make money. Think back to when you began, it was for the love of music and not money that was the motivating factor. However, when it comes to a record contract, it is about money. A record company puts a record out to make money. Creativity and integrity play a part, but it is a financial relationship.

In many contracts, the financial terms will run over 15 pages. The rule in record contracts is what the record company gives you with one hand, it takes away with the other. The fundamental touchstone of record contracts are "points." Points refer to how many percentage points a band will receive as their royalty rate. On a major label, this will run between 10 and 15 percent and typically 9 to 12 percent on a smaller label. The percent royalty rate is just the beginning however. The first question you should ask is, "a percentage of what?"

Generally, the royalty rate is based on a percentage of the standard retail selling price. You will get your full royalty rate for each full price CD or tape you sell through normal retail channels. Normal retail channels are usually record stores like Tower Records or Sam Goody. What about other places you sell your CD's? Record companies will pay you a fraction of your royalty rate for sales not through normal retail channels. For example, you may receive 75% of your royalty rate for sales outside the United States, 60% of your royalty rate for CD's sold below standard retail price (i.e. albums sold at a discount) and 50% of your royalty rate for sales through record clubs. In fact, most of your CD's will not be sold through normal retail channels. Although you may have a 12% royalty rate, you will only get a 6% royalty rate on record club sales. Confused yet?

Record companies try to make the royalty rate paid to artists as attractive as possible. They may give you a generous royalty rate. However, in addition to the reduced royalty rate on CD's sold outside normal retail channels, there are also many reductions in your royalty rate. I said that the financial terms are often 15 pages or more. Well, your royalty rate is on the first page and the remaining pages are all the reductions. It is impossible to determine how much a band will get for selling a CD without a calculator. When I represent a band negotiating a record contract, I sit down with them and show them the calculations to determine how much (or little) they will receive for each CD and tape sold.

There are entire chapters in books written about all the various deductions. I will mention but a few here. First, you get no royalties on records given away free for promotional purposes. A large deduction is the so-called "packaging" deduction. The theory behind this deduction is that the band pays for the packaging of the CD and tape. Typically, these deductions range from 15 to 30 percent of your royalty rate. In effect, a 12% royalty rate and a 25% packaging deduction lowers your rate to 9%. In addition, your royalty rate is often an "all-in" royalty rate which means that you must pay the producer out of your royalties. Typically, a producer will take 3 points (3%) which lowers your royalty rate even further. Your royalty rate is meaningless unless it is viewed in the context of all the deductions. A band can expect an average of $1.00 in royalties for each full-priced ($16.98) CD sold through normal retail channels.

Did I say the band was going to actually receive royalties? Not so fast. The other major concept involved in record contracts is the term "recoupment". Recoupment is a fancy word for pay back. Record companies expend a lot of money on bands. They pay for all the studio time, give the band an advance, promote the band, etc. All of this money is a loan to the band which the band must pay back. This is recoupment. The band pays back the record label out of their royalties. For example, if a major label spends $250,000 to record an album, the band must make over $250,000 in royalties until they receive their first royalty check. Once a band sells enough records to pay back the amount to the record label, the band has recouped and will receive royalties on future record sales. Approximately 80% of albums never reach this point which means that most bands NEVER receive any royalty checks. Do the math yourself, if you owe the record company $250,000 and you make $1.00 per CD, that is a quarter of a million CD's you must sell before you collect royalties. The one redeeming feature is if the band does not sell enough CD's to recoup, they don't have to pay the record company back. It does not come out of the band's personal pocketbook.

There are other places a band can make money when they have a record out other than royalties. In past articles, I have discussed publishing. There is also money from live personal performances (concerts). This is money that the band gets to keep-most of the time that is. Some record company contracts, particularly small independent labels who cannot afford to lose as much money as the major labels, allow the label to recoup money from other sources, such as publishing. Although this should be called robbery, the practice actually has a name and is called "cross-collateralization". This term means the band will not receive ANY money until the label gets paid back, i.e. the band is recouped. Of course, you don't need to sell as many albums to become recouped on an independent label, but this can come as quite a shock.

Now for the topic everyone asks about: "How much is my advance?" Not surprisingly, this question is also not as simple as it seems. In the past, record labels would sign a band and write a check to the band as a signing bonus and then pay and record an album. Some bands abused this and went over-budget on recording, much to the record company's dissatisfaction. To remedy this abuse, record companies developed the "recording fund." The recording fund is the recording budget AND the advance rolled into one. The contract states that you have one lump sum to record your album, and if you are under-budget, anything left over is your advance. If you want to stay at the Ritz and waste time in the studio, that means less money for you for your advance. This has proved a marvelous incentive for bands to be efficient in the studio.

How much of an advance is good? Once again, this depends on the label and the circumstances of your signing. Generally speaking, the larger the label, the more of an advance you should expect. In addition, the more interest in the band, the higher the price becomes. However, is a large advance always the best? There is much disagreement on this issue. Keep in mind, the more money you get as an advance, the more money you have to pay back (remember recoupment?) before you receive royalties. If you take a huge advance and your album does not live up to expectations, a label may be quicker to drop you and cut its losses. On the other hand, most bands who sign record contracts never reach recoupment so the advance may be the only money they ever get from the label so why not take as much as possible? There is no right or wrong answer to the size of the advance and I try to get a sense from my clients as to their feelings. Some have a "show me the money" attitude and others think about longevity within the industry.

These are a few of the main points in record contracts. Often, a contract will be over 40 pages long. Needless to say, there is a lot more in there than I have had a chance to get into. However, I hope this column has given you a better sense of how record contracts operate. Don't think that you have finally "made it" simply because you get offered a record contract. Often, it is a deal with the devil. There are many attendant drawbacks to signing a record contract. Most importantly, however, is to have someone knowledgeable about record contracts negotiate the agreement on your behalf. Record contracts are routinely negotiated. A slight change in wording here and there can have a huge financial impact for a band.

(This was originally written by an attorney)

*labels are evil*

A$hba$wag owns the past, the present and the future of Guns N' Roses.

Thanks for your very mature and informative input.

We need more members like you around here.

Like a hole in the head, right Cano?

[EvH]

A$hba$wag owns the past, the present and the future of Guns N' Roses.

Thanks for your very mature and informative input.

We need more members like you around here.

Wow you need to calm down, I don't call a fan forum and furthermore a purely speculating topic without any direct input from the band itself something informative either. The internet seems to be serious business for you, isn't it, LOLcano62?

[Nosaj Thing]

A$hba$wag owns the past, the present and the future of Guns N' Roses.

[Rustycage]

When people copy and paste things as if they are their own thoughts, others don't usually read them, Warchild.

[guitarpatch]

If the label funded the production, you can bet they aren't playing the "masters versus what is considered just a song" game in their contract.

You are probably correct.

Edited June 21, 2013 by guitarpatch

[Rustycage]

http://business.songstuff.com/article/recording_contract_basics/

A least give the guy credit for his article.

[volcano62]

A$hba$wag owns the past, the present and the future of Guns N' Roses.

Thanks for your very mature and informative input.

We need more members like you around here.

Wow you need to calm down, I don't call a fan forum and furthermore a purely speculating topic without any direct input from the band itself something informative either. The internet seems to be serious business for you, isn't it, LOLcano62?

Just admit you trolled my thread and move on with life...it's ok to admit things. No one is upset and no one needs to "calm down" What we do need is for you to stop trolling other members threads and stay on topic. Can you do that champ?

A$hba$wag owns the past, the present and the future of Guns N' Roses.

Thanks for your very mature and informative input.

We need more members like you around here.

Like a hole in the head, right Cano?

Indeed. What's new Sails? Haven't seen you around lately.

[sailaway]

http://business.songstuff.com/article/recording_contract_basics/

A least give the guy credit for his article.

A$hba$wag owns the past, the present and the future of Guns N' Roses.

Thanks for your very mature and informative input.

We need more members like you around here.

Wow you need to calm down, I don't call a fan forum and furthermore a purely speculating topic without any direct input from the band itself something informative either. The internet seems to be serious business for you, isn't it, LOLcano62?

Just admit you trolled my thread and move on with life...it's ok to admit things. No one is upset and no one needs to "calm down" What we do need is for you to stop trolling other members threads and stay on topic. Can you do that champ?

A$hba$wag owns the past, the present and the future of Guns N' Roses.

Thanks for your very mature and informative input.

We need more members like you around here.

Like a hole in the head, right Cano?

Indeed. What's new Sails? Haven't seen you around lately.

away on the despicable necessity of takin care of business Cano' ....it is distasteful but its gotta be done! How's things on the homefront? See u r still fighting the good fight

http://business.songstuff.com/article/recording_contract_basics/

A least give the guy credit for his article.

why thank you, saves me the trouble of going back to edit as an afterthought.

[Ric Nightingale]

If Interscope want to put it out, they simply will. Regardless of what the band want. Look at what happened with Greatest Hits. Axl couldn't stop it being released.

[volcano62]

If Interscope want to put it out, they simply will. Regardless of what the band want. Look at what happened with Greatest Hits. Axl couldn't stop it being released.

True and if I am not mistaken Duff and Slash also didn't want it out.