Ps : how do you know the EMI contract ends in 2010 ?
[/QUOTE]
It's been mentioned a few times on the Queenonline forums by the moderators. Apparently they have a 'time' contract, rather than a 'number of albums' contract, and it expires 2010.
Edit : Sorry Vali! Just saw your reply. Thanks for clarifying!
Simon Brown · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]cmsdrums wrote: [/b]
I suppose that they (QPL) own the music (apart from a few early tracks?), and so once their licensing agreement runs out with EMI I'm sure they would be free to licence it to another company. They did it in 1990 with the back catalogue going to Hollywood Records, so it wouldn't be such a rash move.
Indeed it would be good to see a new company try to make their mark with anthology and archive sets, but if a new record company did take the back catalogue, it would doubtless mean quite a few new Greatest Hits sets in order for them to make their investment worthwhile.[/QUOTE]
I'd say they own all the tracks, hence their ability to licence the whole lot to Hollywood back in the 90s.
A move to a new label would mean a complete re-issue of the back catalogue I'd imagine. The new label would want to start recouping immediately. That should mean the Japanese masters are then in general circulation.
Simon Brown · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]ruth.olivier wrote: [/b]
I don't know a lot in that field, but is it forced that "Queen" and "Queen + Paul Rodgers" are parts of the same contract ? I would find it logical if it was a separate project and contract, moreover because Paul Rodgers isn't part of Queen.[/QUOTE]
I'd say it comes under the Queen contract. It's Queen........with Paul Rodgers as a guest artist, just like Under Pressure was under the Queen contract.
Negative Creep · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Benn wrote: [/b]
Absolutely - Rhino have a cracking track record with archival releases. However, I just think that the Queen name is too big for them to win. Universal will get the gig here and they will put their 'oomph' behind the archive a-la The Who.[/QUOTE]
tenner bet says they stay with emi and nothing changes. chances of this "oh, they haven't released anything interesting for years to use them as a bargaining chip when the deal with emi comes up for renewal" bollocks being true is extremely high. any other record label would have the exact same problem as emi - they wouldn't own any of the bands recordings and would have to rely on the band/management to give up anything new for release, which has been the sticking point.
Benn · Member since
Creep.
I hear what you're saying. However, Queen's catalogue obviously does the business for EMI given the embarassing amount of re-issuing that's gone on over the last twenty years. Any other player in the market will see that it's a cash cow to be milked and get heavily involved in the bidding war.
Now, once the deal has been done, comes the negotiating around the licensing of the material. Brian and Roger MUST Have realised by now that they have absolutely NO chance of making any more NEW material under the Queen banner. Where will they go to now? They have expensive lifestyles to maintain (as do John, Jim and Freddie's estate) and the only way to do that is to go about getting the original albums back out there again and in expanded form; let's face it - no one on earth will put up with straight album re-issues again as the technology hasn't exactly advanced since the Jap re-masters came out. Only option if for a Deluxe re-issue series and a box set.
Otherwise, there will have been a LOT of negotiating OUT of the new contract and penalty clauses to avoid etc.
Simples!
Queenrockyou · Member since
[b]Vali wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ruth.olivier wrote:
[/b]
Ps : how do you know the EMI contract ends in 2010 ?
[/QUOTE]
Hi Olivier !
this subject has been discussed lately at the QOL Forum, where "Kes", who seems to be in good knowledge of what's cooking inside Queen's kitchen, reported this contract ending with EMI in 2010.
[/QUOTE]
Ouch !! I missed it. I barely have the time to surf elsewhere than on the "Sharing - announce" forum these days !!
Thanks for explanation and for this discussion. Interesting thoughts here !
Regards,
Olivier,
Belgium.
brians wig · Member since
Hmmm.
I recall Greg Brooks saying at convention 5 years ago (?) that EMI wanted the anthology boxset delivered in 2009 for a 2010 release.
It's been said for years that the anthology boxset would be the last thing Queen released. Maybe at the time, that was the plan: retire in 2010 when the contract ran out.
Benn · Member since
EMI clearly had their hearts set on a final squeezing of the udders and draining the resource to end the contract.
Hopefully, they won't get the option.
Simon Brown · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]brians wig wrote: [/b]
Hmmm.
I recall Greg Brooks saying at convention 5 years ago (?) that EMI wanted the anthology boxset delivered in 2009 for a 2010 release.
It's been said for years that the anthology boxset would be the last thing Queen released. Maybe at the time, that was the plan: retire in 2010 when the contract ran out.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, there was comment about 2009/2010. I think that came from Jim Beach's plan.
I must say though, if they postponed any anthology work for 5 years, and did another tour/album/tour cycle with one more singer, I'd be happy to wait. I'm far more interested in new songs than I am in 27 work in progress versions of "delilah".
4 x Vision · Member since
Sorry, OFF TOPIC
Are the Japanese remasters that much better is sound... i never really thought about buying them before until now?
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Van Basten 9 wrote: [/b]
Sorry, OFF TOPIC
Are the Japanese remasters that much better is sound... i never really thought about buying them before until now?
[/QUOTE]
I haven't heard them all, but I've been told that Queen II through Jazz are definitely worth your buck. Myself, I have Queen II and News Of The World, and they're the best I've ever heard.
on my way up · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Van Basten 9 wrote: [/b]
Sorry, OFF TOPIC
Are the Japanese remasters that much better is sound... i never really thought about buying them before until now?
[/QUOTE]
I haven't heard them all, but I've been told that Queen II through Jazz are definitely worth your buck. Myself, I have Queen II and News Of The World, and they're the best I've ever heard.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, I've got those too and a few others and they all sound brilliant. Way better than the cd's from 1993-1994.
4 x Vision · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]on my way up wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Van Basten 9 wrote: [/b]
Sorry, OFF TOPIC
Are the Japanese remasters that much better is sound... i never really thought about buying them before until now?
[/QUOTE]
I haven't heard them all, but I've been told that Queen II through Jazz are definitely worth your buck. Myself, I have Queen II and News Of The World, and they're the best I've ever heard.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, I've got those too and a few others and they all sound brilliant. Way better than the cd's from 1993-1994.
[/QUOTE]
Do you know of a good place to buy cheap (to UK)?
brians wig · Member since
Japanese Remasters:
You want the UK mini vinyl editions as they are the same remaster as the japanese discs.
They're about £15, but keep checking ebay for cheaper prices. There are plenty of sellers on ebay selling new copies!
