| Tero 03.08.2008 12:10 |
Inspired by fd's question on QOL (will John and Freddie get royalties from the album), I finally read through the fine print of the ROTC album. What's the story with the new production company set up for the 2005 recordings instead of using QP? I know it's NOT to include Paul Rodgers in there, because Ramshackle Music (the other company mentioned) is for that purpose. I have some suggestions of my own, but a definite answer would be nice... 1) Brian and Roger agree that they are not Queen, and want to have nothing do with Queen's production company. 2) Their agreement with John And Freddie through QP would have forced them to share the profits of any Queen release, and they didn't want that. 3) John didn't give them the permission to use the Queen name or their production company, and they were forced to choose a new name. |
| QueenSite 03.08.2008 15:48 |
I think it would be sensless that John would profit from an album in which he was not involved. So I don't see anything strange in this |
| Penetration_Guru 03.08.2008 16:01 |
Queen productions gets (presumably) income from historic Queen activity. Queen touring enables any income GENERATED by the actions of the active remainder to be treated separately and allocated to that active remainder. I sincerely doubt that there's anything greedy or selfish about it. |
| Raf 03.08.2008 16:24 |
John and Freddie's heir(s) most certainly got profits for the songs credited to them that were performed on the previous tour. I see nothing unfair about Brian, Roger and Paul keeping ALL the profit made from the new stuff. There's no input by Freddie or John. |
| Tero 03.08.2008 16:42 |
My question makes a whole lot more sense if you combine all your replies...
Raf wrote: John and Freddie's heir(s) most certainly got profits for the songs credited to them that were performed on the previous tour. Penetration_Guru wrote: Queen touring enables any income GENERATED by the actions of the active remainder to be treated separately and allocated to that active remainder. QueenSite wrote: I don't see anything strange in thisI would argue that it's strange indeed to change the production company if Brian and Roger still consider themselves Queen. I'm perfectly aware that the original composers are paid royalties for the released songs, and I'm perfectly aware that only the actual performers are paid for the performance. Neither of those have absolutely anything to do with which production company is used, though. Freddie and John would still be paid just the same for their compositions and no money for the performance if it was released through QP, QT, Duck Productions, or Nightjar Productions, UNLESS the agreement of QP specifically stated that profits from anything released through that company would be split four ways. Which gets us back to my original question... Is there such an agreement that has forced the remaining members to make a commercial decision to distance themselves from QP, or is it perhaps a question of artistic integrity and not wanting to be Queen after all? :P |
| kingogre 03.08.2008 16:46 |
I think its only out of convenience, apart from where the money goes touring is also a different activity than what QP usually does. There could be hundreds of different reasons for arranging it through a different company, not least for financial reasons like risk-taking and so on. The John Deacon doesnt approve explanation is really quite far-fetched. |
| QueenSite 03.08.2008 17:59 |
It's quite common nowadays to have different companies. Some artists even open companies related to a single album. I think it's for financial reasons. |
| Raf 03.08.2008 18:54 |
Yes, I think it makes sense that it's simply convenient to have a new company to handle the income from the tour. QP spent years and years doing nothing but releasing albums (mostly compilations and old live footage) and handling the royalties. Maybe the band wants QP to keep working with that kind of stuff and created a new company to handle the profit from the new tour. They've CERTAINLY earned a lot more money during the tour than they had in the past few years. Maybe QP wasn't even well structured enough to handle all of it, who knows. |
| new one 04.08.2008 05:00 |
Brian and Roger are 2 intelligent guys who are also very well advised both legally and professionally I would imagine. With that said I'm sure there is a perfectly reasonable and not to mention boring reason or this 2nd company. Perhaps email Brian and ask him, he seems to enjoy writing long winded boring answers to equally boring questions on his site. I however agree with the general opinion on here that its nothing to do with John not approving or them not considering themselves to really be the band that they formed all those years ago. And of course there is no sense in John getting a cut from a project he has no involvement with, same obviously goes for Freddies estate |
| Togg 05.08.2008 08:28 |
Part of John's decision to leave the band will have effectively forced the band to draw up new contracts, he will have agreed to have no further income from future projects unless he took part. Queen touring is also a very handy way of keeping some of the major expense of setting up a tour off-set from the main Queen production company, should the tour fail, it will not impact the main company, however I suspect the reason for setting it up was mainly tax, and the fact that without John new royalty agreements had to be drawn up. John has probably simply resigned from the business for day to day purposes and has effectivly become a none exec director, taking a cut of old royalties as before but not in new material unless he has direct involvement in a song, so for example should they release a live version of You're my best friend, he would still get a cut but only a small percentage, he would not get performing rights on it. All this is simply standard business practice and nothing more. |
| Tero 05.08.2008 09:40 |
Did anyone here actually buy the physical SINT single? Was that released through QP, or did they use yet another company there? Since that one had nothing to do with touring and was considered a full-blooded Queen release by some people, it should by all logic have been released through Queen Productions / Ramshackle, right? |
| gnomo 06.08.2008 03:34 |
Checked: it's Queen Productions. HTH |
| gnomo 06.08.2008 05:37 |
Sorry, could not edit previous post. Took a better look at the SINT CD cover: it's Queen Productions Ltd., but property note mentions "co-ownership" with another company: (P) 2007 The copyright in this sound recording is owned by Queen Productions Ltd. / 0761776 BC Ltd. under exclusive licence to EMI Records Ltd. (C) 2007 Queen Productions Ltd. HTH |
| P-Staker 06.08.2008 06:33 |
[quote]I see nothing unfair about Brian, Roger and Paul keeping ALL the profit made from the new stuff. There's no input by Freddie or John.[/quote] There are two songs by John and four by Freddie on ROTC. In addition, three songs are credited to "Queen." Knowing how seriously Queen took the business side of music industry, I'm sure they handled royalties correctly. Still, I wonder if royalties were the reason there were so few songs by Freddie and John on the setlist. |
| gnomo 06.08.2008 06:38 |
Sorry, could not edit previous post again. The co-owning company is Paul's. HTH -- Gnomo |
| kingogre 06.08.2008 10:31 |
Queen always were very conscious about business, so its bound to be well thought-out. Think that the only way John and the Freddie estate could get any money out of this is if there is some kind of clause in the contract that says they have the right to a percentage of every project that is labelled Queen or if they each have a share in the total income of QP Ltd. I doubt both of these though. You see what a potential jungle this kind of thing is. Remember also that the tour and the album also includes another artist with company of his own and it gets even more complicated. Maybe that is another of the reasons why the tour was made under a separate name? |
| Tero 07.08.2008 09:59 |
Thanks Gnomo for sharing that information... You must be the only one who bought the single. :P I suppose that makes it 95% sure that "Queen touring" really was used for the ROTC live album (even though it wasn't used for actual touring items like the tour books), and QPR will use the regular QP company. But of course the final confirmation will only come with the album. ;) |
| PieterMC 07.08.2008 10:41 |
The question is will the sleeve notes say: Queen are: Brian May & Roger Taylor |
| gnomo 07.08.2008 10:53 |
Tero wrote: Thanks Gnomo for sharing that information... You must be the only one who bought the single. :PYou're welcome! ... found that, on a proper sound system, the CD sounds better than the download... :P |
| Tero 07.08.2008 11:13 |
gnomo wrote:Not much of a surprise, is it? :PTero wrote: Thanks Gnomo for sharing that information... You must be the only one who bought the single. :PYou're welcome! ... found that, on a proper sound system, the CD sounds better than the download... :P If I'd wanted that track, I would have bought the physical release even though I don't have a proper sound system. ;) |
| Tero 07.08.2008 11:17 |
PieterMC wrote: The question is will the sleeve notes say: Queen are: Brian May & Roger TaylorThe sleeve notes are hardly conclusive though... I don't know what kind of tour books you had on the US leg of the previous QPR tour, but the one I purchased lists equally SIX members in "the band". |
| Darren1977 12.08.2008 13:00 |
Don't worry lads,Jim Beach would have it all sorted out, he doesn't miss much! |
| PieterMC 12.08.2008 15:46 |
Interesting to note that the copyright on the promo CD of C-lebrity says: "(C) 2008 Queen Touring Ltd. / Ramshackle Music" |
| Tero 13.08.2008 15:33 |
Does the promo feature any other tracks, or is it just C-Lebrity? It does sound a bit odd (to me at least) to use "Queen Touring" for a studio release... :/ |
| PieterMC 13.08.2008 15:36 |
Tero wrote: Does the promo feature any other tracks, or is it just C-Lebrity? It does sound a bit odd (to me at least) to use "Queen Touring" for a studio release... :/Just the one track. |
| Tero 13.08.2008 15:46 |
Thanks for the information. I'll be rushing out to the stores next month when the album comes out... Not to buy it, but to look at the copyright notices on the back. :P |
| Dagmara 13.08.2008 16:26 |
Queen Online Limited change name in 2005 for Queen Touring Ltd. QOL -> QUEEN MULTIMEDIA LIMITED 2000 -> QUEEN FILMS LIMITED 1976 |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 18.08.2008 04:31 |
*hangs head in shame* I brought the SINT single. |