Bootlegging yourself

Bob-Dubery

Def Leppard are involved in a scrap with Universal over royalties for downloaded recordings. One way they have of making a better profit per download is to re-record all their big hits. Which isn't easy - they are trying to make EXACT re-recordings.

They'll then control of these because Universal own the recordings they originally paid for whilst the new versions will be made at the band's expense and thus will be owned by them lock, stock and barrel.

See http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/def-leppard-forge-old-hits-to-spite-their-record-label-7906896.html

Note that Squeeze and Simply Red have travelled a similar path already, and Prince (or whatever he's calling himself these days) threatened to do the same.

singemonkey

I've often wondered why more hitmakers don't re-record their great hits. Put them out as singles again. I'm not talking direct copies of their originals like this, but a new version of the song. Some bands recorded their hit in an early form that changed a lot with live playing. A good example is The Doors' The End (not technically a hit, I'll grant you) which sounded very different, and much better, after they'd been playing it live for years.

I suppose a few have done this - Clapton's acoustic version of Layla (or Lame-la as he should have renamed it) comes to mind.

evolucian

The energy contained in the original Def Leppard hits or majority of their songs for that matter - well, its quite unbeatable. First thing they'll have to do is get Mutt Lange back and hopefully he has the mindset of his previous glory days (instead of the stock crap he does lately, excepting Nickelback of course - can't diss them at all).

Having said that, well, the energy factor of the original recordings comes into play again - as this is extremely hard to redo. My 2c... and I hope they get their worth because they're a great band. One of those that sold 3 million lp's over a weekend or something like that. Don't care who you are in the music world - because that is HUGE!

Bob-Dubery

singemonkey wrote I've often wondered why more hitmakers don't re-record their great hits. Put them out as singles again. I'm not talking direct copies of their originals like this, but a new version of the song. Some bands recorded their hit in an early form that changed a lot with live playing. A good example is The Doors' The End (not technically a hit, I'll grant you) which sounded very different, and much better, after they'd been playing it live for years.

I suppose a few have done this - Clapton's acoustic version of Layla (or Lame-la as he should have renamed it) comes to mind.

About 2003 Loudon Wainwright did a whole CD of songs he'd originally released in the 70s. It's quite interesting, and in some cases his age at the time of the re-recording adds an interesting dynamic.

You don't necessarily know the song when you first record it. I recall an interview with Keith Richards in which he was asked why the Stones now play "Under My Thumb" so fast. He said that the original was actually too slow but they hadn't realised it at the time.

I think it's a brave decision to make - new versions of old songs. I think most people latch onto whatever version they hear first and unconsciously regard that as the definitive version. So you have to have either a very understanding audience or a hard core of fans that will buy everything you release. Or you have to do what Def Leppard are doing and reproduce the hits exactly.

IceCreamMan

ozzy tried that with his first 2 solo albums as he was embroiled with the drummer and basssit in a legal wrangle over royalties , so he remastered the drum/bass tracks with session muso's which sounded exactly the same ....problem is the buying public were having none of it cos the original is the original.

Def Leppard signed contracts with their eyes open ..no gun to their heads, they now trying to screw the corporation that gave them the opportunities......

yeah yeah , no one likes big brother but funny enough zillions of muso's still sign up with em

Bob-Dubery

IceCreamMan wrote ozzy tried that with his first 2 solo albums as he was embroiled with the drummer and basssit in a legal wrangle over royalties , so he remastered the drum/bass tracks with session muso's which sounded exactly the same ....problem is the buying public were having none of it cos the original is the original.

Def Leppard signed contracts with their eyes open ..no gun to their heads, they now trying to screw the corporation that gave them the opportunities......

Well the dispute seems to be over royalties on digital downloads. I doubt anybody even imagined that stuff when Def Leppard first signed.

The real problem for a lot of musicians, it seems to me, is that you find out you don't own the recordings. All sorts of things come with that. You might hate the re-mastered re-issue with the bonus tracks that remind you why you chucked those songs away in the first place - but you can't do anything about it. And they get used in ways you never imagined.

I think it depends on the manager as well. Young artists will take advice from the manager - who may or may not know what he's doing. Look at Zeppelin - they always had a lot of control over the music and recordings and the use thereof. Their stuff doesn't get used in commercials or other people's movies or TV shows unless they say so.

singemonkey

IceCreamMan wrote Def Leppard signed contracts with their eyes open ..no gun to their heads, they now trying to screw the corporation that gave them the opportunities......

Bwahahahahaha! ? Oh lord. That's funny.

IceCreamMan

singemonkey wrote
IceCreamMan wrote Def Leppard signed contracts with their eyes open ..no gun to their heads, they now trying to screw the corporation that gave them the opportunities......
Bwahahahahaha! ? Oh lord. That's funny.

stir stir stir ...... lol

the guys did sign a contract though and did give the band the time it needed after drummer lost an arm and then again when guitarist OD'd..... its not always as it seems ..... big business aint always evil eh

AlanRatcliffe

IceCreamMan wrote Def Leppard signed contracts with their eyes open ..no gun to their heads, they now trying to screw the corporation that gave them the opportunities......

??? Don't get me started... >☹
How were they supposed to predict technologies that didn't exist then? Royalties were calculated incorporating production and distribution costs. With MP3s, those costs fall away and the music companies are making much higher profits, but the artist royalties stay the same. Because of this, most contracts since the late 90's incorporate a "new technologies" clause that allow artists to renegotiate for each and every new format. Plus the old contracts include clauses that are very specifically designed for vinyl which are still being applied (breakages, reserves) which mean that they get the first 10% of sales royalty free and can hold back up to 35% of monies owed for up to a year.

yeah yeah , no one likes big brother but funny enough zillions of muso's still sign up with em

That's changing.

IceCreamMan

its fashionable to hate the big guys ,i understand that ...but given an opportunity almost everyone will sign with them....

were it not for the big guys we may never have heard of led zep , or even def leppard...somebody saw an opportunity to make money and signed them up with an element of risk attached. its the game.

one of the comments at the end of the article is enlightening " they are now being shafted by the c@ck they sucked on for so many years"

i trust def leppard will make millions out of these new recordings an get filthy rich off the songs ...... it may be a case of ego's more than money thats prompting this

singemonkey

IceCreamMan wrote its fashionable to hate the big guys ,i understand that ...but given an opportunity almost everyone will sign with them....

were it not for the big guys we may never have heard of led zep , or even def leppard...somebody saw an opportunity to make money and signed them up with an element of risk attached. its the game.

one of the comments at the end of the article is enlightening " they are now being shafted by the c@ck they sucked on for so many years"

i trust def leppard will make millions out of these new recordings an get filthy rich off the songs ...... it may be a case of ego's more than money thats prompting this

It's not "fashionable" dude. It's based on the very long history of the big guys doing F-all and taking the money. That's like saying, "I know this 'round-earth' theory is fashionable."

Led Zeppelin was very cannily organised by Mr. Page - who knew the industry inside and out. They virtually conned the industry into taking them on - although it was a win-win. Led Zeppelin is the exception that proves the rule. Zeppelin stands out from the crowd because they cleverly organised their relationship with the record company to give themselves the control and money that JP knew other bands were losing out on.

Zeppelin is famous for not being screwed - because everyone else was.

IceCreamMan

singemonkey wrote
IceCreamMan wrote
It's not "fashionable" dude. It's based on the very long history of the big guys doing F-all and taking the money. That's like saying, "I know this 'round-earth' theory is fashionable."

Led Zeppelin was very cannily organised by Mr. Page - who knew the industry inside and out. They virtually conned the industry into taking them on - although it was a win-win. Led Zeppelin is the exception that proves the rule. Zeppelin stands out from the crowd because they cleverly organised their relationship with the record company to give themselves the control and money that JP knew other bands were losing out on.

Zeppelin is famous for not being screwed - because everyone else was.

aha!!! exactly my point ...understand what it is you are doing...its funny that def leppard modeled their name on led Zep 15 years later and now think they are being screwed...irony i tell you

we all humans, we all have the ability to think, we all have an understanding of what is good for us and what is not , most muso's dont sign for a record deal the day after picking up the guitar, they have been around a bit they should learn the ropesand understand it...to cry foul 30 years later or 15 years into mp3 technology seems a lil weird. if you not happy with the terms , dont sign , go to another company ...freedom of choice ..... why do muso's still jump at recording deals if the man is out to screw all the time ?

Bob-Dubery

IceCreamMan wrote its fashionable to hate the big guys ,i understand that ...but given an opportunity almost everyone will sign with them....

I think that's changing. I see a lot of acts these days (young guns as well as grampas) on small labels. Plus the big labels have done their sums and figured out that what you really want is half-a-dozen Justin Biebers and Chrisina Aguileras and THAT is how you're going to make money. I don't see the record companies disappearing, but I do see the game, and their role in it, changing.

were it not for the big guys we may never have heard of led zep , or even def leppard...somebody saw an opportunity to make money and signed them up with an element of risk attached. its the game.

Yes. Bob Dylan complained for years about the royalty rate he got from CBS, but he was a distinctly risky proposition when they signed him and his first record didn't set the charts on fire. The Beatles were also considered a risk. A lot of acts are unknown propositions at signing time. When EMI signed the Beatles they didn't know they were getting what would become the biggest act in the world.

So what to do? Have an escalating rate - the more you sell the more you pay us? Or hold out for shorter term contracts? I know that record companies are not necessarily the musician's best friend, and certainly they are in it for the money, but some bands are their own worst enemies. Read Levon Helm's book, or Richard Thompson's biography for some good ideas on how to NOT run a career.

Sometimes the boot ends up on the other foot - which can be fun. Polygram (IIRC) wanted to drop Fairport Convention in the late 70s. Somebody read the small print very carefully and somehow the label ended up having to pay the band to NOT record.

Sometimes I feel for the label. Not the big ones who own the factories and the studios and everything, but the smaller ones. When Richard Thompson finally got a half way decent selling record with "Shoot Out The Lights" and toured behind it and it took off in the USA (he got the cover of Time magazine and blah de blah) he was signed to Hannibal, and Hannibal had a problem. They had to pay somebody else to press the records. The record plant wanted payment in 30 days. The retailers in the USA were paying in 90 days. Producer/label owner Joe Boyd was sitting on one of the biggest hits of his career and it was bankrupting him.

one of the comments at the end of the article is enlightening " they are now being shafted by the c@ck they sucked on for so many years"

i trust def leppard will make millions out of these new recordings an get filthy rich off the songs ...... it may be a case of ego's more than money thats prompting this

I'm puzzled. It's not going to cost them peanuts to reproduce those Mutt Lange recordings. So will they break even on the downloads? I think it's a threat really - pay us more or we WILL do this. Note it's their EX label. They parted company a while back, so there is no ongoing contract to renegotiate.

IceCreamMan

yip, one has to be philosophical about this and the game is certainly changing ... but the "the record company is screwing me" shtik gives one a sence that the musician is a victim (and i guess this is the exact response that is sought ) ...musiciabns signing these deals are not victims ....they may have made a bad decision yes, but then live with it. some like DL would of lived high on the hog for m,any a year thanks to the record label that fueled the ability. DL could buy the rights to the songs..yes?

another issue here, is what would happen to Steve's portion of the royalties he would earn on the original recordings, he obviosuly will not play on the rerecordings so he would not be entitled to a cut ...mmmmmm maybe there is more to this than meets the eye.

oh an while i am on a roll i wonder what is going to happen to Pete willis's royalties with the re recordings ...mmm interesting now i am def more interested in finding out the actual reason DL want to re record the songs.....

REcord companies take risks , and in exchange for those risks expect profits....much like Gibson or Fender or or or ...so lets berate the guitar companies for taking advantage of us and causing us to buy strats .. ok its getting silly sorry but the point is ,capitalism works ......

and on a side note, i was huge def leppard fan on the launch of their first album...on through the night ..... had a song on their called hello america which david gresham happend to play once on radio....rushed out an bought the album unheard on that song ..

Edit: Google is an amazing thing aint it ...seems this is all done due to the movie called rock of ages .....and DEf leppard's song pour some sugar on me and rock of ages are used in tne movie ..i guess they wanna cash in ...... maybe mutt lange now also loses out on royalties as i am sure pete and steve prboably do (not sure if they were involved in wriitng ......... i am beginnign to suspect there is more to this than just a tussel with the record company ..this lil thing called avarice affects us all eh. and for those that care ,,21 000 of pour suger on me and 5000 downloads of rock of ages have happoened with the new recordings.

Averatu

The Sisters of Mercy made an art of bootlegging, and did well from it. They gave East/Wets total crap albums just to complete their contract.
Iron Maiden became millionaires selling T-Shirts.

Bob-Dubery

IceCreamMan wrote yip, one has to be philosophical about this and the game is certainly changing ... but the "the record company is screwing me" shtik gives one a sence that the musician is a victim (and i guess this is the exact response that is sought ) ...musiciabns signing these deals are not victims ....they may have made a bad decision yes, but then live with it. some like DL would of lived high on the hog for m,any a year thanks to the record label that fueled the ability. DL could buy the rights to the songs..yes?

Depends on what you mean by "the songs". Copyright and owning the recordings are not the same thing. Richard Thompson (yes I know... but I know way about his career than anybody else's) owns the copyright to all the songs he recorded when he was signed to Island records, but he does not own the recordings and has no control over them. Island can (and do) re-issue them, include them in anthologies, sell them for use in movie soundtracks and he has no say in that. As copyright holder he gets royalties, so it's not all bad, but there have been some decisions he's not been happy with - the sound on some of the remastered releases, the extra tracks that get included that he feels spoil the integrity of the album. He also doesn't own the recordings that he made during his dozen year stint with Capitol. Again he owns the copyright to the songs, but not the recordings. Since 2003 he's paid for the recordings himself and now he does own them and can control them. He got the rights to two more albums as part of a severance deal with Chrysalis, but it's sort of theoretical because the tapes are lost.

I think record companies can be predatory, but I think the greater problem is that the artists, and even the guys who call themselves "managers" don't have good heads for business. We've already had the example of Led Zeppelin (brilliantly masterminded by Page and Peter Grant), but there's U2 as well. They have very good management in the shape of Paul McGuiness. He was smart enough to renegotiate their deal before it ran out, getting them a better royalty rate. His timing could not have been better - the next record was The Joshua Tree. He also had the contract modified so that it held if any one member left and was replaced. Everybody was thinking of Adam Clayton, but Bono could have done a bunk and the band would have still been in contract and the label would have to keep it's side of the bargain. The Band OTOH seem to have been spectacularly poorly advised and were the victims of some poor decision making (sometimes by themselves). Levon Helm seems to have been more aware than the others of what was going wrong, but the management played him off against the other four.

A lot of people find this stuff out the hard way, unfortunately. U2 are very fortunate to have the management they have.

And, of course, there are managers who don't have the artist's best interests at heart. Ask Leonard Cohen, who got royally screwed but not by the record company. Again the likes of U2 and Led Zeppelin are fortunate because their managers really were working for them.

IceCreamMan

X-rated Bob wrote A lot of people find this stuff out the hard way, unfortunately. U2 are very fortunate to have the management they have.

And, of course, there are managers who don't have the artist's best interests at heart. Ask Leonard Cohen, who got royally screwed but not by the record company. Again the likes of U2 and Led Zeppelin are fortunate because their managers really were working for them.

you use the word forutnate as though it was just luck that they got themselves good management , this perpeturates the victim mindset...

they were not fortunate, they made astute decisions right up front ....others made obtuse decisions cos they were led by the nose.

but aye, musicians need to understand the business and need to take more ownership of their business.

Bob-Dubery

IceCreamMan wrote
X-rated Bob wrote A lot of people find this stuff out the hard way, unfortunately. U2 are very fortunate to have the management they have.

And, of course, there are managers who don't have the artist's best interests at heart. Ask Leonard Cohen, who got royally screwed but not by the record company. Again the likes of U2 and Led Zeppelin are fortunate because their managers really were working for them.

you use the word forutnate as though it was just luck that they got themselves good management , this perpeturates the victim mindset...

they were not fortunate, they made astute decisions right up front ....others made obtuse decisions cos they were led by the nose.

I think that often the only way you know if a manager is good or bad is by letting yourself be managed by that person. It's been a while since I read the book that I did read about U2, but as I recall U2 didn't know much about McGuinness when they signed with him. He's been very good for them.

but aye, musicians need to understand the business and need to take more ownership of their business.

Sure. But it's difficult. The members of U2 were all somewhere between 16 and 18 years old when they signed up with McGuiness. How much do you think they knew about business at that age?

deefstes

X-rated Bob wroteThe members of U2 were all somewhere between 16 and 18 years old when they signed up with McGuiness. How much do you think they knew about business at that age?

IceCreamMan makes a very good point. There were countless other bands with members between the ages of 16 and 18 who did not sign up with an agent and where are they now? Sure U2 has been producing excellent music but it cannot be denied that them signing up helped a great deal in putting them on the map.

Music labels can be much maligned for their "control issues" but one inescapable fact is that they're also taking a risk when signing up a performer. They don't know whether he's going to make it big but when they choose to back him, they're expressing a belief in him. If he eventually does make it big, surely he owes the label some gratitude for believing in him at the beginning and helping him become what he became.

AlanRatcliffe

deefstes wrote Music labels can be much maligned for their "control issues" but one inescapable fact is that they're also taking a risk when signing up a performer. They don't know whether he's going to make it big but when they choose to back him, they're expressing a belief in him. If he eventually does make it big, surely he owes the label some gratitude for believing in him at the beginning and helping him become what he became.

Fair enough. But it's a partnership - and why should the partner who originates the product only get 5% of the profits (or nothing in many cases) while the other makes money hand over fist?

Granted, most musos are not as worried about the money and the boring paperwork, legalities and basically anything that does not involve making music directly. But should that fact be taken as tacit agreement that they should be ripped off and only start making money when they go platinum for the second or third time, while their record company has already made tens of millions?

If they make a bad decision choosing a manager how can we say "shame on you for making a bad choice" instead of saying "shame on you for taking advantage of that" to the industry? Where are the ethics? If someone does not know how much their '59 Les Paul is worth and sells it for a fraction of it's worth, we don't say, "well, it's your fault for being stupid" do we? We rail at the guy that "took advantage" of his innocence.