| [Nupe The Ripper] Monday, September 17, 2012 4:01:21 AM | |
|
It was a bit badly worded - by "reproductions" I meant re-releases - you know, albums like the first "Best of Judas Priest", "Hero, Hero", "Genocide" etc., all of which consist entirely of material recorded with Gull. Not forgetting the hundreds of re-releases of Rocka Rolla and SWoD on dozens of different labels.
You are correct in that if Priest would re-record both albums with Sony, then they could freel use those Sony recordings as much as they pleased. As Guido mentioned, they don't have to pay Gull a single buck for the sales of Unleashed in the East (or any other live albums/DVDs with RR/SWoD material, for that matter), because they are entirely different recordings of the songs and the composers (i.e. Halford/Tipton/Downing/Atkins) still hold the rights to the compositions.
And as I said previously, it might be that the rights to the original recordings have transferred to Priest as well, given that they were included in the Complete Albums Collection. I doubt Sony would've payed so much just for licensing the albums for that release only.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by HOT ROCKIN' METAL GODDESS from Sunday, September 16, 2012 9:33:41 PM)| |  | HOT ROCKIN' METAL GODDESS wrote: | | Seems to me they could have re-recorded both albums in the studio with a different label and sold those. I believe other bands have done that. Nupe, you say "any reproductions of the LPs", doesn't that mean the original recordings for those albums? Why can't they re-record any songs they want? Just wondering.
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | I've asked you to quit reading my mind before. You may not like what you find.
Wondering the same. I would guess it would come down to the songwriter (and if they sold the copyright?). "Unleashed" didn't have to mention Gull at all. As described below, as long as they didn't use that Gull recording itself, they are good.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | what if you sell a live album?
| | | tasnam1 wrote: | | Nupe is quite correct.
When you play a song "live" you do not have to pay royalties as you are simple playing your "interpretation" of the original song, but alas not that actual song recording itself.
Once you play the actual recording, then people want their share because you are broadcasting the original recording.
(It gets complicated and I am by no means an expert in the industry, I just know some people who have written and recorded their own material and explained it to me)
| | | Nupe The Ripper wrote: | | They wouldn't have to pay Gull Records a single buck even if their setlist consisted entirely of RR and SWoD material. The rights to the songs themselves still reside with the Priest members (and ex-members) involved in the original compositions. However, the rights to the LPs (and any reproductions of them) reside with Gull Records, along with any demo recordings made during that era. It's a somewhat complicated legal matter and I don't know how to explain it better.
I wish Gull Records would some day be actually useful and release other demos as well besides the early version of Diamonds and Rust you can find on pretty much every reissue of Rocka Rolla.
Now I don't know what they did to get RR and SWoD included on the Complete Albums Collection; did Sony Music just license them (like they did for a couple of songs on Metalogy) or are the rights permenently transferred to Judas Priest?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [guidogodoy] Sunday, September 16, 2012 10:15:25 PM | |
|
When I wrote that, I was thinking of Def Leppard. I heard about it on (OZZY'S!) Boneyard. They have the exact same problem so are going back into the studio to re-record all their early music EXACTLY as they did it the first time.
Just found an article where Joe talks about it: www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by HOT ROCKIN' METAL GODDESS from Sunday, September 16, 2012 9:33:41 PM)| | | HOT ROCKIN' METAL GODDESS wrote: | | Seems to me they could have re-recorded both albums in the studio with a different label and sold those. I believe other bands have done that. Nupe, you say "any reproductions of the LPs", doesn't that mean the original recordings for those albums? Why can't they re-record any songs they want? Just wondering.
| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | I've asked you to quit reading my mind before. You may not like what you find.
Wondering the same. I would guess it would come down to the songwriter (and if they sold the copyright?). "Unleashed" didn't have to mention Gull at all. As described below, as long as they didn't use that Gull recording itself, they are good.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | what if you sell a live album?
| | | tasnam1 wrote: | | Nupe is quite correct.
When you play a song "live" you do not have to pay royalties as you are simple playing your "interpretation" of the original song, but alas not that actual song recording itself.
Once you play the actual recording, then people want their share because you are broadcasting the original recording.
(It gets complicated and I am by no means an expert in the industry, I just know some people who have written and recorded their own material and explained it to me)
| | | Nupe The Ripper wrote: | | They wouldn't have to pay Gull Records a single buck even if their setlist consisted entirely of RR and SWoD material. The rights to the songs themselves still reside with the Priest members (and ex-members) involved in the original compositions. However, the rights to the LPs (and any reproductions of them) reside with Gull Records, along with any demo recordings made during that era. It's a somewhat complicated legal matter and I don't know how to explain it better.
I wish Gull Records would some day be actually useful and release other demos as well besides the early version of Diamonds and Rust you can find on pretty much every reissue of Rocka Rolla.
Now I don't know what they did to get RR and SWoD included on the Complete Albums Collection; did Sony Music just license them (like they did for a couple of songs on Metalogy) or are the rights permenently transferred to Judas Priest?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [HOT ROCKIN' METAL GODDESS] Sunday, September 16, 2012 9:33:41 PM | |
|
Seems to me they could have re-recorded both albums in the studio with a different label and sold those. I believe other bands have done that. Nupe, you say "any reproductions of the LPs", doesn't that mean the original recordings for those albums? Why can't they re-record any songs they want? Just wondering.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Sunday, September 16, 2012 8:48:11 PM)| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | I've asked you to quit reading my mind before. You may not like what you find.
Wondering the same. I would guess it would come down to the songwriter (and if they sold the copyright?). "Unleashed" didn't have to mention Gull at all. As described below, as long as they didn't use that Gull recording itself, they are good.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | what if you sell a live album?
| | | tasnam1 wrote: | | Nupe is quite correct.
When you play a song "live" you do not have to pay royalties as you are simple playing your "interpretation" of the original song, but alas not that actual song recording itself.
Once you play the actual recording, then people want their share because you are broadcasting the original recording.
(It gets complicated and I am by no means an expert in the industry, I just know some people who have written and recorded their own material and explained it to me)
| | | Nupe The Ripper wrote: | | They wouldn't have to pay Gull Records a single buck even if their setlist consisted entirely of RR and SWoD material. The rights to the songs themselves still reside with the Priest members (and ex-members) involved in the original compositions. However, the rights to the LPs (and any reproductions of them) reside with Gull Records, along with any demo recordings made during that era. It's a somewhat complicated legal matter and I don't know how to explain it better.
I wish Gull Records would some day be actually useful and release other demos as well besides the early version of Diamonds and Rust you can find on pretty much every reissue of Rocka Rolla.
Now I don't know what they did to get RR and SWoD included on the Complete Albums Collection; did Sony Music just license them (like they did for a couple of songs on Metalogy) or are the rights permenently transferred to Judas Priest?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [guidogodoy] Sunday, September 16, 2012 8:48:11 PM | |
|
I've asked you to quit reading my mind before. You may not like what you find.
Wondering the same. I would guess it would come down to the songwriter (and if they sold the copyright?). "Unleashed" didn't have to mention Gull at all. As described below, as long as they didn't use that Gull recording itself, they are good.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, September 16, 2012 7:36:58 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | what if you sell a live album?
| | | tasnam1 wrote: | | Nupe is quite correct.
When you play a song "live" you do not have to pay royalties as you are simple playing your "interpretation" of the original song, but alas not that actual song recording itself.
Once you play the actual recording, then people want their share because you are broadcasting the original recording.
(It gets complicated and I am by no means an expert in the industry, I just know some people who have written and recorded their own material and explained it to me)
| | | Nupe The Ripper wrote: | | They wouldn't have to pay Gull Records a single buck even if their setlist consisted entirely of RR and SWoD material. The rights to the songs themselves still reside with the Priest members (and ex-members) involved in the original compositions. However, the rights to the LPs (and any reproductions of them) reside with Gull Records, along with any demo recordings made during that era. It's a somewhat complicated legal matter and I don't know how to explain it better.
I wish Gull Records would some day be actually useful and release other demos as well besides the early version of Diamonds and Rust you can find on pretty much every reissue of Rocka Rolla.
Now I don't know what they did to get RR and SWoD included on the Complete Albums Collection; did Sony Music just license them (like they did for a couple of songs on Metalogy) or are the rights permenently transferred to Judas Priest?
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Sunday, September 16, 2012 7:36:58 PM | |
|
what if you sell a live album?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by tasnam1 from Sunday, September 16, 2012 5:10:43 PM)| | | tasnam1 wrote: | | Nupe is quite correct.
When you play a song "live" you do not have to pay royalties as you are simple playing your "interpretation" of the original song, but alas not that actual song recording itself.
Once you play the actual recording, then people want their share because you are broadcasting the original recording.
(It gets complicated and I am by no means an expert in the industry, I just know some people who have written and recorded their own material and explained it to me)
| | | Nupe The Ripper wrote: | | They wouldn't have to pay Gull Records a single buck even if their setlist consisted entirely of RR and SWoD material. The rights to the songs themselves still reside with the Priest members (and ex-members) involved in the original compositions. However, the rights to the LPs (and any reproductions of them) reside with Gull Records, along with any demo recordings made during that era. It's a somewhat complicated legal matter and I don't know how to explain it better.
I wish Gull Records would some day be actually useful and release other demos as well besides the early version of Diamonds and Rust you can find on pretty much every reissue of Rocka Rolla.
Now I don't know what they did to get RR and SWoD included on the Complete Albums Collection; did Sony Music just license them (like they did for a couple of songs on Metalogy) or are the rights permenently transferred to Judas Priest?
|
|
|
|
| [tasnam1] Sunday, September 16, 2012 5:10:43 PM | |
|
Nupe is quite correct.
When you play a song "live" you do not have to pay royalties as you are simple playing your "interpretation" of the original song, but alas not that actual song recording itself.
Once you play the actual recording, then people want their share because you are broadcasting the original recording.
(It gets complicated and I am by no means an expert in the industry, I just know some people who have written and recorded their own material and explained it to me)
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Nupe The Ripper from Saturday, September 15, 2012 4:04:58 AM)| | | Nupe The Ripper wrote: | | They wouldn't have to pay Gull Records a single buck even if their setlist consisted entirely of RR and SWoD material. The rights to the songs themselves still reside with the Priest members (and ex-members) involved in the original compositions. However, the rights to the LPs (and any reproductions of them) reside with Gull Records, along with any demo recordings made during that era. It's a somewhat complicated legal matter and I don't know how to explain it better.
I wish Gull Records would some day be actually useful and release other demos as well besides the early version of Diamonds and Rust you can find on pretty much every reissue of Rocka Rolla.
Now I don't know what they did to get RR and SWoD included on the Complete Albums Collection; did Sony Music just license them (like they did for a couple of songs on Metalogy) or are the rights permenently transferred to Judas Priest?
|
|
|
| [hellrider 31038] Sunday, September 16, 2012 3:07:27 PM | |
|
| THANKS TO GULL THEY GOT GLENN. |
|
| [Nupe The Ripper] Saturday, September 15, 2012 4:04:58 AM | |
|
They wouldn't have to pay Gull Records a single buck even if their setlist consisted entirely of RR and SWoD material. The rights to the songs themselves still reside with the Priest members (and ex-members) involved in the original compositions. However, the rights to the LPs (and any reproductions of them) reside with Gull Records, along with any demo recordings made during that era. It's a somewhat complicated legal matter and I don't know how to explain it better.
I wish Gull Records would some day be actually useful and release other demos as well besides the early version of Diamonds and Rust you can find on pretty much every reissue of Rocka Rolla.
Now I don't know what they did to get RR and SWoD included on the Complete Albums Collection; did Sony Music just license them (like they did for a couple of songs on Metalogy) or are the rights permenently transferred to Judas Priest?
|
|
| [Tania2194AD] Saturday, September 15, 2012 3:14:43 AM | |
|
I'm very like Rocka Rolla! The first album always good. The cool classic rock.
|
|
| [Tania2194AD] Saturday, September 15, 2012 3:12:51 AM | |
|
| I have on vinyl Rocka Rolla, Sad wings, the single 'Tyrant' ( all in Gull records) |
|
| [guidogodoy] Saturday, September 15, 2012 1:03:31 AM | |
|
My initial thoughts are: the Epitaph tour ended last May (did you miss it?), they (and Halford band) played "Never Satisfied" along with "Victim," and it was a hybrid version of Diamonds and Rust - slow goes breaks to the rockin' fast version. Can't tell you much of the legality of it but are you saying that "The Ripper" hasn't been in "live rotation?" It was played on a number of tours including the British Steel 30th.
That said, many here have commented that they wanted them to play more of the rare oldies last tour as well. Like a Nostra tour, it would have to be for a select audience who know more than BTL and LAM. They can use my backyard and all of you are invited. We can take up a collection and pay Gull if needed.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by panda42 from Friday, September 14, 2012 10:09:57 PM)| | | panda42 wrote: | | Does anyone know if the bad blood (legal issues) between the band and whoever owns the rights to thes would albums will ever be resolved? Generally the only song still in the live rotation is Victem of Changes. While that is probably one of the best Priest songs out there. I wouldn't be surprised if they get "dinged". (forced to pay gulf records). Every time they play it or put it on an album.
I guess one of the points I'd like to make is that since they are coming around one last time and calling it the Epitath tour, wouldn't they want to play a few more from their beginning as this is the end for them as a touring band? The song epitaph though very well written is a bit of a downer for a concert.
They have already changed their rendition of Joan Baez's. Diamonds and rust from a rocking version back to its originally haunting form. I'm thinking this shows where they are now as a band better than it did in the beginning since they now have 40 years of diamonds and rust. Why not go out with on of their own songs like Run of the Mill?
What have they achieved now that they are old? Millions of fans respect.
Just pondering..... Though I'd welcome someone else's thoughts on the subject
|
|
|
| [panda42] Friday, September 14, 2012 10:09:57 PM | |
|
Does anyone know if the bad blood (legal issues) between the band and whoever owns the rights to thes would albums will ever be resolved? Generally the only song still in the live rotation is Victem of Changes. While that is probably one of the best Priest songs out there. I wouldn't be surprised if they get "dinged". (forced to pay gulf records). Every time they play it or put it on an album.
I guess one of the points I'd like to make is that since they are coming around one last time and calling it the Epitath tour, wouldn't they want to play a few more from their beginning as this is the end for them as a touring band? The song epitaph though very well written is a bit of a downer for a concert.
They have already changed their rendition of Joan Baez's. Diamonds and rust from a rocking version back to its originally haunting form. I'm thinking this shows where they are now as a band better than it did in the beginning since they now have 40 years of diamonds and rust. Why not go out with on of their own songs like Run of the Mill?
What have they achieved now that they are old? Millions of fans respect.
Just pondering..... Though I'd welcome someone else's thoughts on the subject
|
|
