| Simon Brown 19.05.2009 10:00 |
Apparently Queen's contract is finishing up 2010. Is this a good thing for us? God knows, EMI has played it very safe the last few years. Looking at the Montreal disc is proof of that - another company had to clean up the video and release it on dvd/blu-ray while EMI just released the cd. So, what might another company provide? At the moment there are the unreleased anthologies, which could be a nice money spinning carrot, or the possibility of a new album of unreleased tracks with Fred on them. In my wildest dreams, they'll be picked up by Universal, and each album will be released as a double disc set. The love and attention that The Who or Elton John releases are getting is phenomenal. What do other people think? Simon |
| Togg 19.05.2009 11:37 |
That depends on what Queen themselves want to do in the future, Rogers was not happy about the promotion of Cosmos, but it doesn't mean they will not sign a new contract with EMI again. Lots of artists have moved from EMI recently so I would not be surprised if they did, but unless they are going to do much more in the future there is little to make another label rush to grab them. EMI will still hold the rights to the older stuff to some degree I would imagine. |
| Benn 19.05.2009 11:38 |
Absolutely a good thing. It's entirely likely that QPL may have been keeping us all hanging on for all these years and just waiting for the opportunity to be able to release the archive material with a label such as Universal, who are more "in tune" with the re-issue market. If they have been, then more power to their elbows. You can just imagine the bidding war waiting in the wings for the band's material. Could be an ugly business! |
| onevsion 19.05.2009 12:03 |
Very good thing indeed. In the video message on the convention Roger Taylor openly spoke about how he felt about the shitty promotion EMI did for the Cosmos Rocks album (at 4:34 minutes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1RiZjNPagk Maybe things change in the future and hopefully Queen (or what's left of it) sees that they don't really need a record company anymore these days... Would be great if they will release nice footage from the archives! |
| cmsdrums 19.05.2009 12:53 |
I suppose that they (QPL) own the music (apart from a few early tracks?), and so once their licensing agreement runs out with EMI I'm sure they would be free to licence it to another company. They did it in 1990 with the back catalogue going to Hollywood Records, so it wouldn't be such a rash move. Indeed it would be good to see a new company try to make their mark with anthology and archive sets, but if a new record company did take the back catalogue, it would doubtless mean quite a few new Greatest Hits sets in order for them to make their investment worthwhile. |
| Queenrockyou 19.05.2009 12:56 |
I don't know a lot in that field, but is it forced that "Queen" and "Queen + Paul Rodgers" are parts of the same contract ? I would find it logical if it was a separate project and contract, moreover because Paul Rodgers isn't part of Queen. Therefore, If it's the QPR contract that ends, then no harm. If it Queen's contract, then I suppose that means EMI will stay (try to) master of the material up to 1986 (at least), and all the unreleased thing. And as next year will be Queen's 40th birthday and a bunch of releases could appear, I think EMI will do the task and won't give someone else's the opportunity to cash on it. And to be honest, who will spend so many money to buy the (expensive I suppose) rights of an artist who was successful in the past but will probably never release anything new ? Indeed, only the back catalogue could be of any interest, or as said a good lot of Greatest Hits... But it's true indeed that Universal should be a good partner. They can make good products and promotion... At least when they want to !! Regards, Olivier, Belgium. Ps : how do you know the EMI contract ends in 2010 ? |
| MercuryArts 19.05.2009 21:56 |
If Roger was unhappy w/ how EMI promoted TCR then he must have been incensed over how Hollywood Records has "promoted" TCR and anything else they released in the last 18 years. |
| Vali 20.05.2009 09:06 |
ruth.olivier wrote: Ps : how do you know the EMI contract ends in 2010 ? Hi Olivier ! this subject has been discussed lately at the QOL Forum, where "Kes", who seems to be in good knowledge of what's cooking inside Queen's kitchen, reported this contract ending with EMI in 2010. The reason why the Queen front has been so "steady" (in terms of really interesting releases) in recent years could be found in the proximity of this contract ending. It is suposed that new negotiations will be started and from that moment we'll see wich path will take the brand "Queen". It's been said the band is not happy with their actual relation with EMI. Roger, in fact, gave us some hints during his convention message. I really hope all the good stuff we've been waiting for (anthologies, BBC, 70's shows, etc etc) has been locked in the archives waiting for a new contract signature, wether it is with EMI, Universal or whoever will be. So, my point of view and reply to this thread's title is: YES |
| Micrówave 20.05.2009 11:20 |
Please.... Rhino Records, pick up the tab. Brian & Roger: Don't be greedy. |
| Oberon 20.05.2009 16:19 |
Micrówave wrote: Please.... Rhino Records, pick up the tab. Brian & Roger: Don't be greedy. They are only half of the decision making team. Remember John? And Jim Beach (I think) represents Freddie's rights on behalf of whoever they were passed to (Mary?) |
| pma 20.05.2009 17:15 |
Yes, the EMI deal ending will mean that in the future all Queen releases will be reissued through Mobile Fidelity Soundlabs. I think I just saw a pig fly... |
| 4 x Vision 20.05.2009 17:34 |
False hope. There will be fuck all released. |
| inu-liger 20.05.2009 19:52 |
Micrówave wrote: Please.... Rhino Records, pick up the tab. You're joking, right? |
| The Real Wizard 21.05.2009 00:02 |
inu-liger wrote:Micrówave wrote: Please.... Rhino Records, pick up the tab.You're joking, right? Hopefully not! They treated the Yes and Chicago catalogs like gold. |
| Benn 21.05.2009 06:47 |
Absolutely - Rhino have a cracking track record with archival releases. However, I just think that the Queen name is too big for them to win. Universal will get the gig here and they will put their 'oomph' behind the archive a-la The Who. |
| Simon Brown 21.05.2009 07:23 |
ruth.olivier wrote: Belgium. Ps : how do you know the EMI contract ends in 2010 ? It's been mentioned a few times on the Queenonline forums by the moderators. Apparently they have a 'time' contract, rather than a 'number of albums' contract, and it expires 2010. Edit : Sorry Vali! Just saw your reply. Thanks for clarifying! |
| Simon Brown 21.05.2009 07:24 |
cmsdrums wrote: I suppose that they (QPL) own the music (apart from a few early tracks?), and so once their licensing agreement runs out with EMI I'm sure they would be free to licence it to another company. They did it in 1990 with the back catalogue going to Hollywood Records, so it wouldn't be such a rash move. Indeed it would be good to see a new company try to make their mark with anthology and archive sets, but if a new record company did take the back catalogue, it would doubtless mean quite a few new Greatest Hits sets in order for them to make their investment worthwhile. I'd say they own all the tracks, hence their ability to licence the whole lot to Hollywood back in the 90s. A move to a new label would mean a complete re-issue of the back catalogue I'd imagine. The new label would want to start recouping immediately. That should mean the Japanese masters are then in general circulation. |
| Simon Brown 21.05.2009 07:26 |
ruth.olivier wrote: I don't know a lot in that field, but is it forced that "Queen" and "Queen + Paul Rodgers" are parts of the same contract ? I would find it logical if it was a separate project and contract, moreover because Paul Rodgers isn't part of Queen. I'd say it comes under the Queen contract. It's Queen........with Paul Rodgers as a guest artist, just like Under Pressure was under the Queen contract. |
| Negative Creep 21.05.2009 07:36 |
Benn wrote: Absolutely - Rhino have a cracking track record with archival releases. However, I just think that the Queen name is too big for them to win. Universal will get the gig here and they will put their 'oomph' behind the archive a-la The Who. tenner bet says they stay with emi and nothing changes. chances of this "oh, they haven't released anything interesting for years to use them as a bargaining chip when the deal with emi comes up for renewal" bollocks being true is extremely high. any other record label would have the exact same problem as emi - they wouldn't own any of the bands recordings and would have to rely on the band/management to give up anything new for release, which has been the sticking point. |
| Benn 21.05.2009 13:05 |
Creep. I hear what you're saying. However, Queen's catalogue obviously does the business for EMI given the embarassing amount of re-issuing that's gone on over the last twenty years. Any other player in the market will see that it's a cash cow to be milked and get heavily involved in the bidding war. Now, once the deal has been done, comes the negotiating around the licensing of the material. Brian and Roger MUST Have realised by now that they have absolutely NO chance of making any more NEW material under the Queen banner. Where will they go to now? They have expensive lifestyles to maintain (as do John, Jim and Freddie's estate) and the only way to do that is to go about getting the original albums back out there again and in expanded form; let's face it - no one on earth will put up with straight album re-issues again as the technology hasn't exactly advanced since the Jap re-masters came out. Only option if for a Deluxe re-issue series and a box set. Otherwise, there will have been a LOT of negotiating OUT of the new contract and penalty clauses to avoid etc. Simples! |
| Queenrockyou 21.05.2009 18:40 |
Vali wrote:
ruth.olivier wrote: Ps : how do you know the EMI contract ends in 2010 ?Hi Olivier ! this subject has been discussed lately at the QOL Forum, where "Kes", who seems to be in good knowledge of what's cooking inside Queen's kitchen, reported this contract ending with EMI in 2010. Ouch !! I missed it. I barely have the time to surf elsewhere than on the "Sharing - announce" forum these days !! Thanks for explanation and for this discussion. Interesting thoughts here ! Regards, Olivier, Belgium. |
| brians wig 22.05.2009 05:55 |
Hmmm. I recall Greg Brooks saying at convention 5 years ago (?) that EMI wanted the anthology boxset delivered in 2009 for a 2010 release. It's been said for years that the anthology boxset would be the last thing Queen released. Maybe at the time, that was the plan: retire in 2010 when the contract ran out. |
| Benn 22.05.2009 11:16 |
EMI clearly had their hearts set on a final squeezing of the udders and draining the resource to end the contract. Hopefully, they won't get the option. |
| Simon Brown 23.05.2009 18:51 |
brians wig wrote: Hmmm. I recall Greg Brooks saying at convention 5 years ago (?) that EMI wanted the anthology boxset delivered in 2009 for a 2010 release. It's been said for years that the anthology boxset would be the last thing Queen released. Maybe at the time, that was the plan: retire in 2010 when the contract ran out. Yeah, there was comment about 2009/2010. I think that came from Jim Beach's plan. I must say though, if they postponed any anthology work for 5 years, and did another tour/album/tour cycle with one more singer, I'd be happy to wait. I'm far more interested in new songs than I am in 27 work in progress versions of "delilah". |
| 4 x Vision 28.05.2009 10:38 |
Sorry, OFF TOPIC Are the Japanese remasters that much better is sound... i never really thought about buying them before until now? |
| The Real Wizard 28.05.2009 13:34 |
Van Basten 9 wrote: Sorry, OFF TOPIC Are the Japanese remasters that much better is sound... i never really thought about buying them before until now? I haven't heard them all, but I've been told that Queen II through Jazz are definitely worth your buck. Myself, I have Queen II and News Of The World, and they're the best I've ever heard. |
| on my way up 28.05.2009 13:43 |
Sir GH wrote:Van Basten 9 wrote: Sorry, OFF TOPIC Are the Japanese remasters that much better is sound... i never really thought about buying them before until now?I haven't heard them all, but I've been told that Queen II through Jazz are definitely worth your buck. Myself, I have Queen II and News Of The World, and they're the best I've ever heard. Indeed, I've got those too and a few others and they all sound brilliant. Way better than the cd's from 1993-1994. |
| 4 x Vision 28.05.2009 14:50 |
on my way up wrote:Sir GH wrote:Indeed, I've got those too and a few others and they all sound brilliant. Way better than the cd's from 1993-1994.Van Basten 9 wrote: Sorry, OFF TOPIC Are the Japanese remasters that much better is sound... i never really thought about buying them before until now?I haven't heard them all, but I've been told that Queen II through Jazz are definitely worth your buck. Myself, I have Queen II and News Of The World, and they're the best I've ever heard. Do you know of a good place to buy cheap (to UK)? |
| brians wig 29.05.2009 04:56 |
Japanese Remasters: You want the UK mini vinyl editions as they are the same remaster as the japanese discs. They're about £15, but keep checking ebay for cheaper prices. There are plenty of sellers on ebay selling new copies! |