|
Title: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: kookadams on February 12, 2015, 12:20:59 AM So...when they litigated w capitol for unpaid producers royalties in 67 the group had no idea that pet sounds had sold more for a higher chart position...didnt that cost them millions?? And why did capitol have such an issue marketing the BBs when they were at their apex? The beatles werent even a band anymore after revolver, but a studio group their last three yrs I mean cmon..
Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: stack-o-tracks on February 12, 2015, 12:42:29 AM Looking back with these roseish colored lenses and being born the same year as Kokomo, my opinion is idiotic and wrong, but Capitol didn't really screw The Beach Boys, they screwed themselves by not making the music that the general public went nuts for, like they did those first 4 years.
Yes, their mid-60s music is now considered by many as their creative peak, but. They peaked commercially at a time when their music was perfect for the times, and never really got with the times after their "wave broke" (PUN INTENDED LOLOLOL) in the mid-60s, and never really regained their commercial footing until they started releasing greatest hit comps once their music was considered "nostalgic." The average music listening people will name "Surfin' USA", "I Get Around", or "California Girls" when you talk about Beach Boys songs, but when it comes to "masterpiece albums", such as Pet Sounds, pretty much the only songs people aren't as whacky as us will mention is "Wouldn't It Be Nice", to a lesser extent "Sloop John B", and to an even lesser extent, "God Only Knows". It all comes back to people not appreciating what they have until it's gone. If Pet Sounds were a smash hit and Smile was released and a hit in the way Brian Wilson imagined it near the beginning of the project, we'd have a totally different history of the band. There'd be no Love You or Summer In Paradise. But what would there be? And would we really want it any other way? Yeah we would. Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: stack-o-tracks on February 12, 2015, 12:44:37 AM Man, shut your whore mouth, nobody cares what you think or feel and your opinion is just plain wrong.
Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: Micha on February 12, 2015, 02:52:37 AM Are you talking to yourself?
Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 12, 2015, 04:24:01 AM Man, shut your whore mouth, nobody cares what you think or feel and your opinion is just plain wrong. Ya got that spot on. Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: Micha on February 12, 2015, 05:39:57 AM I don't get this thread.
????? Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: Michael Edward Osbourne on February 12, 2015, 05:57:32 AM Man, shut your whore mouth, nobody cares what you think or feel and your opinion is just plain wrong. There's medicine for that you know... Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: kookadams on February 12, 2015, 09:51:47 AM Yeah the stackOtrack dude aint gettin the query of the thread,
Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: Lee Marshall on February 12, 2015, 10:18:10 AM Either that or 'he' posts as two different 'members' and forgot to change 'identiities'. Kind 'o' wacky!!! :o [Kind 'o'? A LOT 'o' wacky.] (((Shut UP Lee...It's perfectly normal!!!)))
I can't remember the details...primarily because the business side of the music biz...or the radio biz for that matter...bores me. Artists vs. pencil pushers you know? Anyway I'm pretty sure that Capitol short-changed the boys on a number of albums and financial restitution had to be made WELL after the fact. Right? The Beach Boys sold more records/albums, had more gold records and made more money in actual fact than initially credited for. The numbers? pretty significant. [although my memory could be clouded but I don't think so. bunch of dinks!!!] (((Shut UP Lee. Record company execs were ALWAYS honest and always had the BEST INTERESTS of everyone on their roster sitting first and foremost.))) Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: Magic Transistor Radio on February 12, 2015, 12:43:53 PM I honestly believe that if Brian didn't break down in 1967 and continued to progress passed Smile, I think they would have been fine. There are songs that Brian did, such as Cool Cool Water, A Day in the Life of a Tree, Til I Die, Mt Vernon and Fairway and Sweet Mountain that are a small part of where he might have gone. I seem to recall an interview with the Beatles circa 1968 that they lost a lot of their original fans when they changed their sound. But gained even more new ones. Smiley Smile, Wild Honey and Friends are great, but not going to have great commercial appeal. I think they were like the Velvet Underground in that period. If a band changes their sound, it usually has to blow people away both commercial and artistically. They did that with Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations. Through the Smile sessions, Brian was an innovator. When they became more of a group, they were striving to get in touch with the times. I think they started to fit in around the Jack Reiley period. But they were not even close to being innovaters. They were miles behind Pink Floyd for example. But they were solid.
Title: Post by: zachrwolfe on February 12, 2015, 01:11:37 PM
Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on February 12, 2015, 01:16:14 PM I honestly believe that if Brian didn't break down in 1967 and continued to progress passed Smile, I think they would have been fine. There are songs that Brian did, such as Cool Cool Water, A Day in the Life of a Tree, Til I Die, Mt Vernon and Fairway and Sweet Mountain that are a small part of where he might have gone. I seem to recall an interview with the Beatles circa 1968 that they lost a lot of their original fans when they changed their sound. But gained even more new ones. Smiley Smile, Wild Honey and Friends are great, but not going to have great commercial appeal. I think they were like the Velvet Underground in that period. If a band changes their sound, it usually has to blow people away both commercial and artistically. They did that with Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations. Through the Smile sessions, Brian was an innovator. When they became more of a group, they were striving to get in touch with the times. I think they started to fit in around the Jack Reiley period. But they were not even close to being innovaters. They were miles behind Pink Floyd for example. But they were solid. Honestly, I think the '68 to '73 period is largely hit or miss precisely because without Brian they had no idea what direction they could or should pursue. I'd say they finally found their footing again with Holland, but sadly they became an oldies band the very next year. Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: drbeachboy on February 12, 2015, 01:35:43 PM I honestly believe that if Brian didn't break down in 1967 and continued to progress passed Smile, I think they would have been fine. There are songs that Brian did, such as Cool Cool Water, A Day in the Life of a Tree, Til I Die, Mt Vernon and Fairway and Sweet Mountain that are a small part of where he might have gone. I seem to recall an interview with the Beatles circa 1968 that they lost a lot of their original fans when they changed their sound. But gained even more new ones. Smiley Smile, Wild Honey and Friends are great, but not going to have great commercial appeal. I think they were like the Velvet Underground in that period. If a band changes their sound, it usually has to blow people away both commercial and artistically. They did that with Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations. Through the Smile sessions, Brian was an innovator. When they became more of a group, they were striving to get in touch with the times. I think they started to fit in around the Jack Reiley period. But they were not even close to being innovaters. They were miles behind Pink Floyd for example. But they were solid. Honestly, I think the '68 to '73 period is largely hit or miss precisely because without Brian they had no idea what direction they could or should pursue. I'd say they finally found their footing again with Holland, but sadly they became an oldies band the very next year. Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on February 12, 2015, 01:42:59 PM I honestly believe that if Brian didn't break down in 1967 and continued to progress passed Smile, I think they would have been fine. There are songs that Brian did, such as Cool Cool Water, A Day in the Life of a Tree, Til I Die, Mt Vernon and Fairway and Sweet Mountain that are a small part of where he might have gone. I seem to recall an interview with the Beatles circa 1968 that they lost a lot of their original fans when they changed their sound. But gained even more new ones. Smiley Smile, Wild Honey and Friends are great, but not going to have great commercial appeal. I think they were like the Velvet Underground in that period. If a band changes their sound, it usually has to blow people away both commercial and artistically. They did that with Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations. Through the Smile sessions, Brian was an innovator. When they became more of a group, they were striving to get in touch with the times. I think they started to fit in around the Jack Reiley period. But they were not even close to being innovaters. They were miles behind Pink Floyd for example. But they were solid. Honestly, I think the '68 to '73 period is largely hit or miss precisely because without Brian they had no idea what direction they could or should pursue. I'd say they finally found their footing again with Holland, but sadly they became an oldies band the very next year. Exactly. I know he was still involved, but he wasn't the producer or leader anymore. It was mostly Carl and overall more collaborative. Brian's inputs though, were usually still the highlights on each album, until Holland. And Holland is also were the band really seemed to find their voice again, and perfectly meld their roots with new, progressive ideas. Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: kookadams on February 12, 2015, 03:21:32 PM They never "became an oldies band"...their five yr prog era of 67-72 (smiley thru holland) was overshadowed by their golden era due to having SO MANY hit songs in such a short period and with rockNroll ending its evolution at that same time it was all how the times were changing, mainstream rock that was great in the mid sixties transformed into crap a decade later and with the BBs running outta material those postHolland albums were evident of it.
Title: Re: I gotta get this strait Post by: Pretty Funky on February 12, 2015, 06:40:11 PM This one? Damn strait! ;D(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/3000/3777/messina_ast_2002165_lrg.jpg) Title: Re: I gotta get this strait Post by: Micha on February 12, 2015, 10:58:40 PM This one? (http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/3000/3777/messina_ast_2002165_lrg.jpg) I had to think for a second until I took the connection to the thread title's spelling... :-D Lovely picture, which strait is that? Somewhere around Arabia? Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: Jim Rockford on February 12, 2015, 11:05:38 PM (http://www.valleycentral.com/uploadedImages/kgbt/News/Stories/George_Strait_State_Farm_Arena1(1).jpg?w=440&h=330&aspect=nostretch)
George Strait? :) Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: Cam Mott on February 13, 2015, 08:26:34 AM So...when they litigated w capitol for unpaid producers royalties in 67 the group had no idea that pet sounds had sold more for a higher chart position...didnt that cost them millions?? And why did capitol have such an issue marketing the BBs when they were at their apex? The beatles werent even a band anymore after revolver, but a studio group their last three yrs I mean cmon.. Was unpaid producer royalties part of the 1967 suit? I have a copy of the complaint somewhere but I only remember it being about that replacement charge back thingy. Maybe I missed it or maybe there was a separate suit because I remember Coach talking about producer's royalties too. Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 13, 2015, 08:56:55 AM So...when they litigated w capitol for unpaid producers royalties in 67 the group had no idea that pet sounds had sold more for a higher chart position...didnt that cost them millions?? And why did capitol have such an issue marketing the BBs when they were at their apex? The beatles werent even a band anymore after revolver, but a studio group their last three yrs I mean cmon.. Was unpaid producer royalties part of the 1967 suit? I have a copy of the complaint somewhere but I only remember it being about that replacement charge back thingy. Maybe I missed it or maybe there was a separate suit because I remember Coach talking about producer's royalties too. The way I understand it - again, corrections welcome - there were two major lawsuits against Capitol that sort of bookended or intertwined with each other when all the dust settled. The first one was Spring 1967, Smile-era as we all know, when Nick Grillo who was organizing Brother with David Anderle had discovered a shortfall of $250,000 in the books. Grillo called for an audit, which was the band's right within their agreement, but Capitol initially refused to open the books. Then they took Capitol to court over it and went public. This was over the 250,000 which Capitol had withheld from the band's payments that they filed under the "breakage" clause, which wasn't even an issue after records went from fragile 78's to LP's. Previously a label could subtract within a contract those costs to replace broken or damaged records that never made it to the shelves, and the artist's payments would be deducted to cover it. But since there was really no way in the 1960's to have breakage and damage costs totaling that much money... ...the implication was that Capitol had been skimming that money which was due the band and hiding the skimmed money under an antiquated contract clause that wasn't even valid in that era, yet was still placed in artist contracts. So Capitol came back with the 250,000 settlement and the Brother Records distribution deal as their solution. Then in Spring 1969, as the Beach Boys contract with Capitol was soon to expire, the auditing done for the breakage claim combined with new figures (I assume...) led to a discovery that Brian had not received his production royalties totaling close to 1.5 million dollars, among other payments due the group which Capitol had not paid. So there were two lawsuits, but they really sprung from that initial audit ordered by Nick Grillo as they were setting up Brother. The wheeling and dealing and hidden skimming being done deep within Capitol's legal and accounting depts. at the time was exposed thanks to that first audit being demanded, which tellingly Capitol initially refused to allow. Capitol would soon (as of 1969) delete the band's back catalog so they couldn't make any new money on it, but eventually the band got some of those rights back and eventually it got worked out...but it wasn't a "friendly" split between band and label in 1969. Then Murry sells Sea Of Tunes that same year which screwed his own family, basically, which a court later found he was legally not able to do among other related aspects of those suits, and...I hesitate to say this unless it gets backed up, but I've read some whispers-rumors that Murry may have been not only aware of but also benefiting from some of these less-than-honest label practices going back to the initial years of that Capitol contract. Corrections welcome. ;) Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 13, 2015, 10:08:22 AM Capitol allegedly put the tab for Murry's album on the band's account.
Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: Lee Marshall on February 13, 2015, 10:33:25 AM Capitol allegedly put the tab for Murry's album on the band's account. Kind of a 2 step/side step...as it were. No...I have not been a fan of Capitol Records dating back to 1966. As soon as I saw that first 'best of' album hit the shelves I wondered WTF??? ...and I was only 14 without anything resembling a lick of business sense. But THAT made sh*t sense to me. I wonder how much Capitol still OWES the boys in actual fact? More long over-due interest accumulating dough I would wager. Bunch of pirates. :pirate Or...is that pricks? Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: The 4th Wilson Bro. on February 13, 2015, 01:29:01 PM Capitol allegedly put the tab for Murry's album on the band's account. Kind of a 2 step/side step...as it were. :lol Title: Post by: zachrwolfe on February 13, 2015, 06:01:23 PM
Title: Re: I gotta get this strait, how capitol screwed them in '67 Post by: Pretty Funky on February 13, 2015, 06:55:22 PM The Strait of Messina huh.
Glad we got that straight. |