1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
     
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Reduced Royalties fro Michael Anthony

Discussion in 'Band Management [BG]' started by johnvice, Aug 23, 2007.


  1. johnvice

    johnvice

    Sep 7, 2004
    Reduced Royalties.

    Does anyone know how “reduced royalties” would come into play on the previous VH tour?

    Record companies love “reunion” tours and will gladly underwrite the cost. The record companies slap together a new greatest hits/best of CD and tie the tour into the CD’s promotion. Te band could be paid in “commission” for increased record sales based on the royalty agreement already in place.

    As for performance revenue, I don’t see how this ties into royalties as once the tour is over, that revenue streams technically stops.

    After Live8, guitarist David Gilmour was concerned that record sales of his band, Pink Floyd, spiked upward. He did not want to profit from Live8 and wanted this ‘spike” to be calculated and donated to Live8.

    As that for Van Halen’s “reduced royalties” tour that this spike in sales for previous records as well as their new (at the time) “best of” record were taken into account in Michael Anthony’s contract. That is, he would receive limited financial benefit from the tour?
     
  2. IanStephenson

    IanStephenson UnRegistered User

    Apr 8, 2006
    There doesn't need to be much logic to it:

    Promotors want a tour, so contact bandmembers.

    A) Eddie say no. Mike either wants to play or needs the money/exposure more than Eddie (or doesn't spot the bluff). Eddie agrees to do it if Mike signs away some royalties to him.

    B) Eddie says Yes, but with Wolfgang, not Mike. Mike says "PLEASE!!!", so again Eddie says OK, if you sign away royalties.

    Either way it's business not bass'ness. All it really shows is that Eddie has better business advisors - after that tour Eddie owns all the cookies, and Mike has no cards to play with. Mike made a bad business decision (maybe), signing away long term assets for a short term profit (from the tour).

    Mike would probably have been better of in the long term not to do the tour, but however it happened he chose to do the tour, and CHOSE to give up something to get what he wanted. If Mike's a victim here it's self made (at least in respect to loosing royalties) - no way they could take those credits away from him without his consent.

    Ian
     

Share This Page