[rocknation]

Originally Posted by Old Joysey

Jon's decision to leave because he didn't accept the new terms of his contract so the Universal execs gave him an ultimatum: "join or leave".

He's lucky if he got to do ANY negotiating -- it was probably more like: "Either get Richie back, get off your publishing and touring income, or get lost!"

And do you remember a conversation we had nearly a year ago about the aftermath of Queensryche?

Originally Posted by Old Joysey

A band is like a sexless marriage and when there's a divorce it gets as ugly as can be...

(A)s a rule, record companies DO care about the band line-up when it's about renegotiating the record deal, especially when there's a problem between songwriters and frontmen (they're not necessarily the same guys) because the sound and the image of the band are what sell.

So when Jon laughs and says that Richie's departure is "no big deal... the record company doesn't care", if he really thinks so (and I dare hope he's smarter than this) he's only fooling himself...

Originally Posted by rocknation

...(T)he buyout of (singer) Geoff (Tate) most likely included giving him the rights to the entire Queensryche back catalog -- leaving them so broke, they're trying to pay their newest members with crowdfunding...

Originally Posted by rocknation

A cautionary tale for Jon and Richie: Tread carefully -- both of you -- or this could be your future!

[gareththyer1990]

Burning Bridges makes Number 3 in the UK Album Charts. Which is actually better than I thought it would be, considering no promotion.

[Old Joysey]

Originally Posted by rocknation

Do you remember a conversation we had nearly a year ago about the aftermath of Queensryche?

Yep! It tends to prove that I'm a better businessman than Jon even though I'm not a millionaire! And I happen to know how record companies work and how execs think because I used to work for major labels in a previous life.

And now, thanks to Jon himself, we know he had a really bad record deal since the label owns his masters and half the publishing rights. That's the basic/standard deal that a new unknown band sign because they have no better choice, they can't afford negociating. But as soon as you make it big, the first thing you (should) do is renegociate the deal and demand to own your masters, I can't believe Jon didn't do it, what was he thinking about?!

Hard cold truth, common sense, crash-course on fundamentals: in record companies, artists are not called "people" but "products" and the goal of a label is to sell a helluva number of copies of said item. Presidents and CEOs are business graduates, not musicians, they learned how to make money from any product, not to sing and strum along. When the sales figures of your product doesn't meet your expectations and investment, you just discard it. It's not personal, it's strictly business.

I guess now Jon believes it when Richie said, "At the end of the day, if you're going to buy a can of Coke, you want the real thing ."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertai...8d1-1440849736

The Vancouver concert fiasco showed that Jon with another band can't sell out a stadium and Jon as a "solo artist" (i.e. with only 2 or 3 musicians to back him up) would do even worse, and there's no such thing as Jon really solo like Bruce "with only his guitar and his harmonica" as the promoting posters read when he opted for a real acoustic tour.
Let's see what Midas Touch Azoff will come up with to reinvent Bon Jovi as a band in 2016. KTF!

[Rdkopper]

Originally Posted by Old Joysey

And now, thanks to Jon himself, we know he had a really bad record deal since the label owns his masters and half the publishing rights.

Here is your only problem. You don't know how much money Jon received for this deal. And truth be told, song lyrics don't mean hard facts either. He could be referring to specific period of time or just tying in find words that match and rhyme.

At the end of the day, Jon is not starving and considering that he's got enough money to even partner with someone on an NFL team ownership, makes me think that his deal might be a little better then BB makes it sound.

[Alphavictim]

Most bands don't own their masters. Metallica and Mötley Crüe do, but they signed a really good deal when they were the biggest bands in the world. It's more like owning your masters means you have a very very good deal, not that not owning them implies a very bad one.

[semigoodlookin]

Originally Posted by Old Joysey

Don't expect any further comments from UMG/Mercury than the one in Billboard, they're businessmen, they know better!
As for Jon, whatever happened to his famous beloved motto "we don't wash our dirty laundry in public"? He really let the punk within come out with BB (the song + the whole album)!

I don't think he ever saw the label as part of the inner circle so sees them as fair game I guess. Still selective on Jon's part I agree.

[Old Joysey]

Originally Posted by Alphavictim

Most bands don't own their masters. Metallica and Mötley Crüe do, but they signed a really good deal when they were the biggest bands in the world. It's more like owning your masters means you have a very very good deal, not that not owning them implies a very bad one.

We're basically saying the same thing!
Not owning your masters means the record company can do whatever they want with your material and you, the artist, the creator, have no control over it, businessmen own your creation, that's what artists consider as a bad deal, just ask them! It's not only about the money, it's about the things you gave birth to, an extension of yourself, it's a very physical and instinctive reaction. It also means that you have to pay money to do live performances of the songs you wrote, isn't it crazy and absurd? In what other business do you have to put up with such a situation?

Look for Macca's interviews 30 years ago when he tried to buy The Beatles catalog but Michael Jackson made a better offer and one-time music partner (friend?) Macca was hurt and felt betrayed. Do you really think it was all just about money? And this year again Macca is trying to buy it:
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/paul-...atles-catalog/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...catalogue.html

Just sayin' anyway. You're free to believe otherwise.

[Alphavictim]

Bad = worse than average. Which does not apply in this case.

[Captain_jovi]

Originally Posted by Rdkopper

Here is your only problem. You don't know how much money Jon received for this deal. And truth be told, song lyrics don't mean hard facts either. He could be referring to specific period of time or just tying in find words that match and rhyme.

At the end of the day, Jon is not starving and considering that he's got enough money to even partner with someone on an NFL team ownership, makes me think that his deal might be a little better then BB makes it sound.

The money makes on tour is where he made the majority of his money so I don't know if that works.

[Rdkopper]

Originally Posted by Captain_jovi

The money makes on tour is where he made the majority of his money so I don't know if that works.

I'm sure he got a long term deal. 10 albums, ten years, 20 million.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk