[dianebonjovi]

If the record company owns the masters, does that mean they can put the songs on any compilation type album they want, i.e. "Bon Jovi Greatest Hits" or "hair bands of the 80's", and Jon has no say, and worse, gets no money from sales?

[Old Joysey]

Originally Posted by Alphavictim

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

You can't reinvent language! A deal is either good or bad depending on which side of the desk you sit, there's no middle ground. Have you ever been in a band?
Listen to these songs, maybe you'll get a better idea of the picture. I suggest you start with the Clash:
http://www.drycounty.com/jovitalk/other-bands-f18/bands-verbalizing-their-hatred-towards-their-label-through-t6922/#post1193496

If Jon wasn't pissed off about not owning his masters and having to give the label half the publishing rights, do you think he would have mentioned it in a song? If Jon wasn't pissed off about the situation with UMG/Mercury/Island Records, do you think he would have bothered to write a song about it? cf the recent Vancouver interviews:

"[It fulfills] a commitment to Mercury Records," he tells Billboard. "After 32 years, we have parted ways. That is the big news. If you listen to 'Burning Bridges,' the song, it is clearly spelled out."

The song is last on Burning Bridges' tracklist, and includes the scathing lyrics, "After 30 years of loyalty, they let you dig the grave / Now maybe you can learn to sing or strum along / Well I'll give you half the publishing / You're why I wrote this song."

The Sayreville, New Jersey native says he's fully aware that the song is targeting the label, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group which effectively operates under the Island Records banner. Says Bon Jovi: "This hits it right in the head and tells you what happened. Listen to the lyrics because it explains exactly what happened. And that's that."

http://www.billboard.com/articles/ne...-records-split

I suppose he tried to renegociate his contract re/those 2 issues when he was a top-selling artist or maybe this year again but he failed, hence the sayonara-adios-auf Wiedersehen-farewell song and the bitterness.

But, once again, we don't have to agree. I'm not trying to convince you and you won't convince me, I'm just stating well-documented facts and reporting Jon's POV. I'm not reading his mind, I just listen to his songs and interviews. Now of course you can tell me he's full of shit and tells only lies for the sake of a good rhyme.

[Old Joysey]

Originally Posted by dianebonjovi

If the record company owns the masters, does that mean they can put the songs on any compilation type album they want, i.e. "Bon Jovi Greatest Hits" or "hair bands of the 80's", and Jon has no say, and worse, gets no money from sales?

Yes, that's what I've been trying to explain lately. The one who owns the masters is the Master, God Almighty, the Godfather who pulls the strings.

Yes, the masters owner "can put the songs on any compilation type album they want" and the artist can't do nothing about it.
Jon will get royalties from sales as a songwriter but he'll get 0 cent from the record sales as an artist... unless there's a clause in his contract that guarantees such percentage from future records... but it's very unlikely.
And he has to pay UMG each time he plays his own songs in public.

[Walleris]

Originally Posted by Old Joysey

And he has to pay UMG each time he plays his own songs in public.

I'm already scared about next tour's ticket prices.

[Supersonic]

Aloha !

Originally Posted by JackieBlue

You don't know why he left. You don't know that he left without warning. You don't know that he's stupid. You apparently haven't learned yet that almost anyone can give lessons about something. And you can't count. (It's been almost two and a half years since Richie left.)

But you're amazed at how stupid Richie can be???

Yeah, I agree. After 4 Bon Jovi tours during which he was the biggest liability, his inability to actually learn the songs when going on tour, his inability to actually get a tour together, his inability to get a decent band together, his inability to properly promote his own stuff... There really isn't any reason to be amazed at how stupid Richie can be.

I'm actually amazed there's still people who defend his choice.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

[rocknation]

Originally Posted by Old Joysey

...(N)ow, 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 renecociate the deal and demand to own your masters...

Prior to the ascendancy of MTV, it was standard procedure for labels to let non-Top 40 acts to keep their publishing (and in most cases, their masters) because they weren't seen as having any resale value. I've read where Jon actually said that he and Richie owned all their publishing at the time, at least -- and here's why I think that's true:

When the New Jersey Department of Tourism wanted to use Who Says You Can't Go Home in their commercials, the record label said, "Sure! The fee is $175K USD!" Since that money would have come directly from New Jersey taxpayers, I strongly suspect that Jon and Richie told the label that if they didn't donate the song for free, THEY would pay the fee -- for which the label would HAVE to reimburse them. Which would explain why Who Says You Can't Go Home was used in New Jersey Department of Tourism commercials!

I also remember a subsidiary of Sony Records offering some kind of solo deal to Richie. I said, "Careful! Sony gave Michael Jackson everything he wanted, and all he had to do was put up his publishing rights -- which included THE BEATLES' publishing rights -- as collateral!"

[Old Joysey]

Originally Posted by rocknation

I believe Jon and Richie originally had all their publishing rights. Prior to the ascendancy of MTV, it was basic/standard for labels to let non-pop acts to keep their publishing (and in many cases, their masters) because they weren't seen as having any resale value. Aside from that, I've read where Jon actually said that he and Richie owned all their publishing.

When Jon and Richie ran their own publishing company I mentioned in the "Richie - the actor" thread they probably "had all their publishing rights" or maybe it was only to collect the publishing rights from the bands they produced (mostly Skid Row and we all know about the feud)?
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/sebas...ir-metal-feud/

It's easy to know: one just has to check all their songs one by one in the ASCAP webpage and see when UMG is mentioned.
Most of the songs from BB are not listed yet as I said a few days ago.

If we believe what Jon wrote in BB, half of the publishing now goes to the label and half goes to him because he's the sole writer. And if Shanks had co-written the song, he would have got the third half!

[rocknation]

Originally Posted by Old Joysey

If we believe what Jon wrote in BB, half of the publishing now goes to the label and half goes to him because he's the sole writer. And if Shanks had co-written the song, he would have got the third half!

The label must have hired the same folks who tried to set up the KOS Stanley Park show:

Originally Posted by Nige

...They were paying (Jon)...50% plus 33% plus 33%? Think I see the problem with the cash flow....

[bjmjpl]

Originally Posted by Old Joysey

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.

good articles - i didnt know all that...really interesting

[bjmjpl]

plus that is crazy that an original artist has to pay to play their own songs live....

i never understood that...

how much is it - like pennies?

Jon is paying them everytime he plays a show?

I wonder if we could get UMG to discount everything except the standard set list?

hahahahahahahaha