Having never been a member of a band with a recording contract let alone one
with a multi-decade history, the only dynamic I'm really familiar with is -
band plays gig, leader gets check or wad of cash from venue manager and
divvies it up among the band members.

So, how does it work with a group like Chicago? Their revenue sources seem
like they'd be complicated - concerts, album sales incl. re-releases of
older material, radio airplay, TV appearances, any use of their recordings,
publishing of their music, merchandising, etc.

I assume they're not all paid equally, some are original members some aren't
and even among the original guys I would guess they're not all "equal", and
what about guys who were members and are no longer? Is it likely they still
get paid on material they contributed to in the past?

Or let's say Walt Parazaider puts out a "Rock Sax Method" DVD or something
as an individual project, would he be obligated to pay some portion to the
general kitty since his fame stems from his association with the group?

And what about their obligations to perform with the group? I would assume
it's not like a local-yokel band where if they get ****ed one day they can
just say "screw all you guys, I'm outta here". Would you guess they're
obligated to fulfill some kind of appearance contract?

So, how does it work with a group like Chicago? Their revenue sources seem like they'd be complicated - concerts, album sales incl. re-releases of older material, radio airplay, TV appearances, any use of their recordings, publishing of their music, merchandising, etc.

A group like Chicago would likely be incorporated, with "shares" going
to whomever was involved at the time of incorporation. Original members
would receive a greater portion of shares in the "company", newer
members would receive smaller portions of "ownership".

Income would be based upon shareholding percentages -- after all
expenses related to the operation of the corporation. This is a
simplification of the process, but you get the idea.

Departing "original" shareholders, whether newer or original members,
could retain some or all of their shares, be compelled by agreement to
sell back their shares, with probable exceptions such as royalties as
co-writer and performer on record. Based on how the corporation was set
up, that would dictate how these situations would be handled. Yes, it
is a bit complicated, but usually spelled out in the articles of
incorporation.

I assume they're not all paid equally, some are original members some
aren't and even among the original guys I would guess they're not all "equal", and what about guys who were members and are no longer? Is it likely they still get paid on material they contributed to in the past?

If someone was a co-writer of material, they would continue to receive
writers' royalties. If they were involved in an album then they would
receive compensation for that, too, unless they signed away that right,
selling their interest for a flat "opt out" fee, and agreeing to
releasing all interest, past, present and future in what would have
been their share of profits (though I cannot imagine why they would
sign away such rights, but it happens).

If a player were hired merely as a session and/or touring player and
paid flat fees (like a studio musician), they have no vested interest
or royalty claim. Chances are, in order to keep things neat, a band
like Chicago, which probably has a revolving horn section at the very
least, would hire people on this system. Paid to play/record with no
further claim on rights, royalties, merchandise or other associated
income generation. These we call "hired guns".

If the band finds a particular musician to be very compatible, they
might offer them a contract which could include shares in the company,
royalties, merchandising profits and such. Metallica did this with a
recent bass player, paying him a million up front and then giving him
royalty rights to recorded materials with which he was associated.
Merchandise I don't know about.

Or let's say Walt Parazaider puts out a "Rock Sax Method" DVD or something as an individual project, would he be obligated to pay some portion to the general kitty since his fame stems from his association with the group?

Any "outside" projects are the property and perview of the individual
who made/financed them. If Walt made such a DVD, all proceeds are his.
I can't see Chicago demanding a piece of that action. His "fame" as a
result of association with Chicago is a "benefit". Chicago has no claim
on anything he does on his own time unless they bankrolled some or all
of the endeavour.

And what about their obligations to perform with the group? I would assume it's not like a local-yokel band where if they get ****ed one day they can just say "screw all you guys, I'm outta here". Would you guess they're obligated to fulfill some kind of appearance contract?

Obligations are laid out at the beginning as part of a contract or
other legal agreement. They can say, "screw you", but would do so
understanding there are associated penalties for early termination of
the contract/agreement, which would be covered in such agreement. If it
isn't working, I doubt Chicago, or any band, would want to prolong the
agony any longer than it took to find a replacement -- which for them
would be tomorrow.

If a member were going to leave, I'm sure it would be based on the
ability to replace them if they were in the middle of a tour. That
would be a provision of any contract, I would think.

--Fletch

"Fletch" wrote in message
oups.com...
So, how does it work with a group like Chicago? Their revenue sources
seem like they'd be complicated - concerts, album sales incl.
re-releases of older material, radio airplay, TV appearances, any use of
their recordings, publishing of their music, merchandising, etc.

A group like Chicago would likely be incorporated, with "shares" going
to whomever was involved at the time of incorporation. Original members
would receive a greater portion of shares in the "company", newer
members would receive smaller portions of "ownership".

Income would be based upon shareholding percentages -- after all
expenses related to the operation of the corporation. This is a
simplification of the process, but you get the idea.

Departing "original" shareholders, whether newer or original members,
could retain some or all of their shares, be compelled by agreement to
sell back their shares, with probable exceptions such as royalties as
co-writer and performer on record. Based on how the corporation was set
up, that would dictate how these situations would be handled. Yes, it
is a bit complicated, but usually spelled out in the articles of
incorporation.

I assume they're not all paid equally, some are original members some
aren't and even among the original guys I would guess they're not all
"equal", and what about guys who were members and are no longer? Is it
likely they still get paid on material they contributed to in the past?

If someone was a co-writer of material, they would continue to receive
writers' royalties. If they were involved in an album then they would
receive compensation for that, too, unless they signed away that right,
selling their interest for a flat "opt out" fee, and agreeing to
releasing all interest, past, present and future in what would have
been their share of profits (though I cannot imagine why they would
sign away such rights, but it happens).

If a player were hired merely as a session and/or touring player and
paid flat fees (like a studio musician), they have no vested interest
or royalty claim. Chances are, in order to keep things neat, a band
like Chicago, which probably has a revolving horn section at the very
least, would hire people on this system. Paid to play/record with no
further claim on rights, royalties, merchandise or other associated
income generation. These we call "hired guns".

If the band finds a particular musician to be very compatible, they
might offer them a contract which could include shares in the company,
royalties, merchandising profits and such. Metallica did this with a
recent bass player, paying him a million up front and then giving him
royalty rights to recorded materials with which he was associated.
Merchandise I don't know about.

Or let's say Walt Parazaider puts out a "Rock Sax Method" DVD or
something as an individual project, would he be obligated to pay some
portion to the general kitty since his fame stems from his association
with the group?

Any "outside" projects are the property and perview of the individual
who made/financed them. If Walt made such a DVD, all proceeds are his.
I can't see Chicago demanding a piece of that action. His "fame" as a
result of association with Chicago is a "benefit". Chicago has no claim
on anything he does on his own time unless they bankrolled some or all
of the endeavour.

And what about their obligations to perform with the group? I would
assume it's not like a local-yokel band where if they get ****ed one day
they can just say "screw all you guys, I'm outta here". Would you guess
they're obligated to fulfill some kind of appearance contract?

Obligations are laid out at the beginning as part of a contract or
other legal agreement. They can say, "screw you", but would do so
understanding there are associated penalties for early termination of
the contract/agreement, which would be covered in such agreement. If it
isn't working, I doubt Chicago, or any band, would want to prolong the
agony any longer than it took to find a replacement -- which for them
would be tomorrow.

If a member were going to leave, I'm sure it would be based on the
ability to replace them if they were in the middle of a tour. That
would be a provision of any contract, I would think.

--Fletch


Its got to be a complicated mess for groups that change members often like
Blood, Sweat & Tears or Tower of Power.

S Meyer wrote:
"Fletch" wrote in message
oups.com...
So, how does it work with a group like Chicago? Their revenue sources
seem like they'd be complicated - concerts, album sales incl.
re-releases of older material, radio airplay, TV appearances, any use of
their recordings, publishing of their music, merchandising, etc.

A group like Chicago would likely be incorporated, with "shares" going
to whomever was involved at the time of incorporation. Original members
would receive a greater portion of shares in the "company", newer
members would receive smaller portions of "ownership".

Income would be based upon shareholding percentages -- after all
expenses related to the operation of the corporation. This is a
simplification of the process, but you get the idea.

Departing "original" shareholders, whether newer or original members,
could retain some or all of their shares, be compelled by agreement to
sell back their shares, with probable exceptions such as royalties as
co-writer and performer on record. Based on how the corporation was set
up, that would dictate how these situations would be handled. Yes, it
is a bit complicated, but usually spelled out in the articles of
incorporation.

I assume they're not all paid equally, some are original members some
aren't and even among the original guys I would guess they're not all
"equal", and what about guys who were members and are no longer? Is it
likely they still get paid on material they contributed to in the past?

If someone was a co-writer of material, they would continue to receive
writers' royalties. If they were involved in an album then they would
receive compensation for that, too, unless they signed away that right,
selling their interest for a flat "opt out" fee, and agreeing to
releasing all interest, past, present and future in what would have
been their share of profits (though I cannot imagine why they would
sign away such rights, but it happens).

If a player were hired merely as a session and/or touring player and
paid flat fees (like a studio musician), they have no vested interest
or royalty claim. Chances are, in order to keep things neat, a band
like Chicago, which probably has a revolving horn section at the very
least, would hire people on this system. Paid to play/record with no
further claim on rights, royalties, merchandise or other associated
income generation. These we call "hired guns".

If the band finds a particular musician to be very compatible, they
might offer them a contract which could include shares in the company,
royalties, merchandising profits and such. Metallica did this with a
recent bass player, paying him a million up front and then giving him
royalty rights to recorded materials with which he was associated.
Merchandise I don't know about.

Or let's say Walt Parazaider puts out a "Rock Sax Method" DVD or
something as an individual project, would he be obligated to pay some
portion to the general kitty since his fame stems from his association
with the group?

Any "outside" projects are the property and perview of the individual
who made/financed them. If Walt made such a DVD, all proceeds are his.
I can't see Chicago demanding a piece of that action. His "fame" as a
result of association with Chicago is a "benefit". Chicago has no claim
on anything he does on his own time unless they bankrolled some or all
of the endeavour.

And what about their obligations to perform with the group? I would
assume it's not like a local-yokel band where if they get ****ed one day
they can just say "screw all you guys, I'm outta here". Would you guess
they're obligated to fulfill some kind of appearance contract?

Obligations are laid out at the beginning as part of a contract or
other legal agreement. They can say, "screw you", but would do so
understanding there are associated penalties for early termination of
the contract/agreement, which would be covered in such agreement. If it
isn't working, I doubt Chicago, or any band, would want to prolong the
agony any longer than it took to find a replacement -- which for them
would be tomorrow.

If a member were going to leave, I'm sure it would be based on the
ability to replace them if they were in the middle of a tour. That
would be a provision of any contract, I would think.

--Fletch


Its got to be a complicated mess for groups that change members often like
Blood, Sweat & Tears or Tower of Power.

Not really. Just think of a big band like that as if they were a big
company.

Chris

On 23 May 2006 10:05:13 -0700, "Guncho" wrote:

Not really. Just think of a big band like that as if they were a big
company.

Or rather, quite a small company :-)

lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom a écrit dans l'article:


Not really. Just think of a big band like that as if they were
a big
company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Or rather, quite a small company :-)
================================================== ====================

Or, if their tour manager is using "creative accounting" with the
concert proceeds, think of them as Enron with musical chairs.





C:\Gary_H@
http://garyhendershot.com/
(junk mail)

"Fletch" wrote in message
oups.com...
like Chicago, which probably has a revolving horn section at the very
least,

Actually, Chicago's horn section is the most stable part of
the band. Since their fist album, the same three guys, Jim,
Lee, and Walt. Bob on piano is the other long-time member.

I assume they're not all paid equally, some are original members some
aren't
and even among the original guys I would guess they're not all "equal",
and
what about guys who were members and are no longer? Is it likely they
still
get paid on material they contributed to in the past?

At some point they would have incorporated as a business which owns the
name, logo, & certain other assets like original recordings. Most
likely the original members are the sole shareholders in this
corporation, & any new replacement players are paid a salary to perform
a job, but have no say in the operation of the business, which would
include things like set lists & record projects. New guys would most
likely not share in the profits of the corporation. And quite likely
the new guys are a generation younger than the shareholders. Of course
anybody can set up any kind of business they want, but when a rock band
turns into a business proposition from a democratic loose affair, this
is what often happens.

Scott Fraser

"James" wrote in message
nk.net...
Having never been a member of a band with a recording contract let alone
one
with a multi-decade history, the only dynamic I'm really familiar with
is -
band plays gig, leader gets check or wad of cash from venue manager and
divvies it up among the band members.

So, how does it work with a group like Chicago?

Impossible to say. Bands get "points" on the sale (ie, percentage of the
profit) plus merchandizing, tour revenue, etc with the expenses deducted,
and then royalties afterward, but it really depends on their negotiation and
contract and it's never really cleanly distributed.

When Bob Daisley sought his fair share of the Blizzard of Ozz
royalties--given that he, Kerslake and Rhoads wrote virtually all the songs
including the lyrics--Sharon Osbourne brought in musicians to overdub their
parts and rereleased the CD so she didn't have to pay them royalties. (In
other words, if you go out and buy the version of Blizzard that has the
bonus track on it, you're not hearing the original songwriters and bass and
drum recording artists, just an imitation by musicians who agreed to work
for less money.)

I know a band, Floater, that had three songs on the ZROCK national top ten
and made a whopping $125 in two payments from ASCAP because ZROCK was
folding and the DJs and PD didn't give a damn about playlists or reporting
which meant that artists lost serious money.

I'm half-tempted to start ripping CDs from the internet and sending the
money directly to the artist. Only works if you know they're gonna get the
money, but on the other hand, even if you purchase the CD outright there's
no guarantee that the artist will see any of it.

The producer of Peace Sells But Who's Buying is a friend of our guitar
player and said it simply: If you love music, don't do it for money.
=c