The Wildhearts

Probably a one for Ginger really, but for which records do the Wildhearts still get any money from? I'm presuming once that once they've split with a label then they get no money from sales.

So, to support the band it's obviously best to buy a new album from a shop rather than someone selling up on ebay. But for old releases does it matter to the band?

I remember CJ saying in his R&R Geek Show interview he was living off his royalties from the few Wildhearts songs he wrote as well as the Honeycrack ones he wrote, and hes had nothing to do with that label for a while...dunno if that helps at all...

This is conjecture and educated guesswork on my part...

If a band leaves a label in debt to it, they won't see a penny until royalties cover the debt. If there's no debt, they should get royalties for 50 years after the songs are registered with the Performing Rights Society. Amusingly, Cliff Richard is on the verge of losing royalties for his early records fairly soon and is none too happy... bit ironic too because right back at the beginning he genuinely rocked. (Find a copy of 'Move It' if you don't believe me...)

So if I've got this right then, ignoring the rights and wrongs of whatever happened, Ginger not getting money from Wildhearts recordings relates to debts to the record company. So I think he gets nothing from EastWest releases, nothing from stuff like Landmines and Pantomimes because they own the recordings even if they didn't release them, but he should get paid for 'Must Be Destroyed...' and everything after that.

Is that pretty much correct or am I talking out of my proverbial?

Damian wrote:This is conjecture and educated guesswork on my part...

If a band leaves a label in debt to it, they won't see a penny until royalties cover the debt. If there's no debt, they should get royalties for 50 years after the songs are registered with the Performing Rights Society. Amusingly, Cliff Richard is on the verge of losing royalties for his early records fairly soon and is none too happy... bit ironic too because right back at the beginning he genuinely rocked. (Find a copy of 'Move It' if you don't believe me...)

So if I've got this right then, ignoring the rights and wrongs of whatever happened, Ginger not getting money from Wildhearts recordings relates to debts to the record company. So I think he gets nothing from EastWest releases, nothing from stuff like Landmines and Pantomimes because they own the recordings even if they didn't release them, but he should get paid for 'Must Be Destroyed...' and everything after that.

Is that pretty much correct or am I talking out of my proverbial?

that's pretty much how i would have put it!! i didn't realise Ginger wasn't making anything from the East west recordings!! where did you hear that??
going off on a tagent a bit but, I read an interview with Dave Grohl a year or so ago and he says approx 3 times a year he gets cheques through the post which he could retire and live off and they are just the royalties from Nevermind!! so royalties are an intrseting thing!!

I think Ginger has said as such in previous interviews - again, if I'm wrong someone please correct me.

Not surprised Grohl could live off Nevermind royalties - especially as he pretty much got paid as an equal partner. Cobain changed that arrangement, not entirely unfairly, for In Utero.

Damian wrote:I think Ginger has said as such in previous interviews - again, if I'm wrong someone please correct me.

Not surprised Grohl could live off Nevermind royalties - especially as he pretty much got paid as an equal partner. Cobain changed that arrangement, not entirely unfairly, for In Utero.

Conjecture again, but I think there are two 'types of royalties - performance and writer.

Just has a check on the web and found the following:

Songwriters/Composers Royalties
Performance Royalties - Paid either directly or indirectly when the work is publicly performed. This includes live performance, record, broadcast, TV, Film or video

Artist/Performers Royalties
Are completely seperate from royalties due for Songwriters/Composers although also collected and distributed by PRS and similar organisations. These are paid by the record companies to the artist or band that performed the song/s released by the company and the percentage figure is included in the recording contract. If the songwriter is also the performer of the tracks then they will receive the percentage of performance royalties as well as writing royalties. These royalties are usually negotiable but often 10% - 15%.

Also:

When you are employed to perform at a UK event, concert or gig, the venue, organiser, agent or promoter is responsible for paying copyright royalties, to the collection agency, which are then distributed to the songs creators and publishers. At one point the licence payment required the event holder to provide a list of all the tracks performed for each event. If the artist performs original tracks instead of covers, it is important to keep a list of all tracks performed including date, time and venue to enable them to claim any royalty payments that may be due.

In other countries like the US, the performer is required to licence the right to perform the song and applies to the publisher or author of the songs for permission of use which may be given freely or supplied for a fee depending on the intended use.

In addition to this, I believe most record companies give bands an 'advance' when they sign them. This may be 1 million for instance. This isn't free money, but an advance on future royalties. However - that advance has to be paid back through your royalties before you start getting paid royalties yourself. This may be the 'debt' that Damian refers to?

kriscoverdale wrote:In addition to this, I believe most record companies give bands an 'advance' when they sign them. This may be 1 million for instance. This isn't free money, but an advance on future royalties. However - that advance has to be paid back through your royalties before you start getting paid royalties yourself. This may be the 'debt' that Damian refers to?

Yep - the advance was what I meant - I thought I had used the word but checking now, I didn't! Ooops.

Gone, fortunately, are the days where too many bands accept a big advance. Here's some reading that explains why:

http://negativland.com/albini.html

...and if you've ever thought of forming a band for more than just fun and a few local gigs, it'll make your toes curl.

There was a documentary series on BBC2 about 10 or 12 years ago called The Music Biz (I'm pretty sure about the name, anyway), that went into the advances/debts/royalties system in quite some detail. I must try and dig it out again and watch it.

It also went on to explain how the hotdog vendor outside the Motown offices came to have a songwriting credit on more than one of the classic songs.

And, apropos of nothing, the same series had an episode about the process of putting on a live event - in this case, they filmed behind the scenes at Metallica's Milton Keynes Bowl gig in '93, including a couple of bits I missed when we made a run for the exit at the end....

Damian wrote:http://negativland.com/albini.html
.

Scarely none of that surprises me anymore. There's too many parasites in the music biz and too many greedy bands stupid enough to believe there own hype.

So, roughly, how much will an artist get for a single played on Radio 1 ? and how much money (agagin roughly) would an artist get when I buy a CD ? Do Cover versions generate royalties - I assume they do ?

Based on that article, each band member actually received less than $0.02 per CD sold! OK, that might be an slightly extreme example (the "fancy potato-shaped bass guitar" I presume is tongue in cheek etc) but the ball park figures tie up with what I have read elsewhere (i.e. "Stuff The Music Business" et al).

Not sure about radio play though let's be honest much of what they play on Radio 1 is shit anyway!