mooghead
Who the fuck is Anton?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Saint Jiub
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Saint Jiub wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Dr Magus wrote:[/b]
Roger just wants your money and for as little in return as possible. QPL business model, y'see.[/QUOTE]
Not true ... The Roger Taylor box set was a good deal. Jim Beach and Brian are the likely extortionists.
[/QUOTE]
People blame bands for all the greatest hits releases and half baked box sets, but they don't realize that 70 year old rock stars and their managers have very little influence over how major record labels conduct their business. The majority of rock re-releases in the past 20 years have not been at the artist's recommendation. The label calls the shots because their round table sees an opportunity to make money off a band - not the other way around.
Follow the money, and ask yourself who has more of it. It ain't the artist. And the artist sees maybe 5% off the top, while the label and publisher take the lion's share. The artist is seen as disposable, and merely an expense. The biggest bands are brands now.
The reason why the Roger Taylor box set was good is because it was a small ticket item that wouldn't be bought by too many people to begin with. It's the same reason why King Crimson box sets are well designed - it's an extremely niche market. That's not the case for Queen. King Crimson isn't a cash cow. Queen is. The mentality towards each is different.
[/QUOTE]
Why did the "News" box set cost almost three times the price of the Rainbow box set ???
The Rainbow box set set was a great deal, and you could buy the items a la carte if you wanted to ... an option not available for the "News" box set.
Why was the Rainbow box set reasonably priced?
[QUOTE] [b]Saint Jiub wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Dr Magus wrote:[/b]
Roger just wants your money and for as little in return as possible. QPL business model, y'see.[/QUOTE]
Not true ... The Roger Taylor box set was a good deal. Jim Beach and Brian are the likely extortionists.
[/QUOTE]
People blame bands for all the greatest hits releases and half baked box sets, but they don't realize that 70 year old rock stars and their managers have very little influence over how major record labels conduct their business. The majority of rock re-releases in the past 20 years have not been at the artist's recommendation. The label calls the shots because their round table sees an opportunity to make money off a band - not the other way around.
Follow the money, and ask yourself who has more of it. It ain't the artist. And the artist sees maybe 5% off the top, while the label and publisher take the lion's share. The artist is seen as disposable, and merely an expense. The biggest bands are brands now.
The reason why the Roger Taylor box set was good is because it was a small ticket item that wouldn't be bought by too many people to begin with. It's the same reason why King Crimson box sets are well designed - it's an extremely niche market. That's not the case for Queen. King Crimson isn't a cash cow. Queen is. The mentality towards each is different.
[/QUOTE]
Why did the "News" box set cost almost three times the price of the Rainbow box set ???
The Rainbow box set set was a great deal, and you could buy the items a la carte if you wanted to ... an option not available for the "News" box set.
Why was the Rainbow box set reasonably priced?
Darren_1977
bought the Lot boxset also, felt that it could have been expanded with a live dvd of both the cross and a solo gig and the unreleased stuff we had already. nice set all the same.
Wonder when brians anthology will be out?
Wonder when brians anthology will be out?
Dr Magus
The reason King Crimson box sets are so lush is because Robert Fripp spent years in the high courts fighting for the right to own what he created - the music. He won and is in complete control of his catalogue. He is also a millionaire many times over and is only too happy to give fans what they deserve which is value for money.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Saint Jiub wrote:[/b]
Why did the "News" box set cost almost three times the price of the Rainbow box set ???
The Rainbow box set set was a great deal, and you could buy the items a la carte if you wanted to ... an option not available for the "News" box set.
Why was the Rainbow box set reasonably priced?[/QUOTE]
There are any number of possible reasons. But it's all biz, and no band - you can be sure of that.
Why did the "News" box set cost almost three times the price of the Rainbow box set ???
The Rainbow box set set was a great deal, and you could buy the items a la carte if you wanted to ... an option not available for the "News" box set.
Why was the Rainbow box set reasonably priced?[/QUOTE]
There are any number of possible reasons. But it's all biz, and no band - you can be sure of that.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Dr Magus wrote:[/b]
The reason King Crimson box sets are so lush is because Robert Fripp spent years in the high courts fighting for the right to own what he created - the music. He won and is in complete control of his catalogue.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. I tried looking this up but couldn't find much.
What kind of settlement was it? Does he have control of his publishing now?
The reason King Crimson box sets are so lush is because Robert Fripp spent years in the high courts fighting for the right to own what he created - the music. He won and is in complete control of his catalogue.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. I tried looking this up but couldn't find much.
What kind of settlement was it? Does he have control of his publishing now?
Dr Magus
He formed his own company DGM (Discipline Global Mobile) to handle all releases from late nineties onwards. As far as I know he controls publishing and everything else. The following quote is on everything released through DGM.
"The phonographic copyright in these performances is operated by Discipline GLobal Mobile on behalf of the artists, with whom it resides, contrary to common practice in the record industry. Discipline accepts no reason for artists to assign the copyright interests in their work to either record company or management by virtue of a "common practice" which was always questionable, often improper and is now indefensible"
Other artists have released albums through DGM as well. They basically own rights to their own work but are responsible for their own promotion etc. I'm pretty sure John Paul Jones has released an album this way.
"The phonographic copyright in these performances is operated by Discipline GLobal Mobile on behalf of the artists, with whom it resides, contrary to common practice in the record industry. Discipline accepts no reason for artists to assign the copyright interests in their work to either record company or management by virtue of a "common practice" which was always questionable, often improper and is now indefensible"
Other artists have released albums through DGM as well. They basically own rights to their own work but are responsible for their own promotion etc. I'm pretty sure John Paul Jones has released an album this way.