Fun Stuff > BAND

Where to start?

<< < (25/68) > >>

Ptommydski:
I understand someone who is thinking from the perspective of a major record label/big business situation but that's the antithesis of T&G. They were a label based and handshakes and kinship based on a mutual appreciation of independent music. If you can't appreciate why this is so important, I doubt it's ever going to dawn on you. Nobody forced the BH Surfers to agree to a deal with T&G but once they did and used tens of thousands of dollars of the label's money, they were morally obligated to follow through with their end of the deal (again, literally the best deal in the business, with most other labels bands see a fraction of the earnings). Instead they not only reneged on their part, they actually sought financial compensation which put the label in a financial bind for some time and jeopardised its continuing existence.

You can't judge T&G by the standards of mainstream record labels, it's not the same thing at all. That's the point. By involving yourself with T&G, especially during this era, you were presumed to understand this.


--- Quote from: a pack of wolves on 17 Feb 2010, 11:54 ---Frankly, T&G seems to have acted incredibly stupidly by ignoring the requests by the band's manager to renegotiate the contract. If he really thought the manager was acting without the band's knowledge and trying to find a way to get a cut of their back catalogue money then he was screwing the band over by not calling them up and telling them, instead he appears to have ignored the situation and hoped it would go away.
--- End quote ---

Again, this is big business thinking. Corey Rusk did a deal with the band, whom he had an existing personal relationship with. There was no manager, no lawyers, no contracts because that was the point of Touch & Go. That's the distinction. You could work with T&G, they would give you literally to this day the fairest, most honest deal going and all you had to do was hold up your end of the deal. Nobody forced you into it, there were hundreds of labels which would happily screw you with contracts and legalese. That wasn't what you got which Touch & Go.

The BH Surfer's "manager" who allegedly contacted T&G shouldn't have been a factor. He wasn't involved with the original deal and indeed, by the standards of every other band on T&G, had a job which was the absolute antithesis of the independent ethos. From Corey Rusk's perspective, he had done a deal with some friends and held up his end of the deal, only to have a complete unknown call him out of the blue years later and try to involve himself. Remember that said "manager" wanted to negotiate a deal for these records with a major so he could have a percentage of the deal. A deal which would give the BH Surfers maybe six or seven percent of the sales, rather than the fifty they were getting with T&G.


--- Quote from: a pack of wolves on 17 Feb 2010, 11:54 ---And why shouldn't they be able to change the agreement? Remember, this is after T&G has recouped its costs on the records so by moving away from T&G they aren't costing them money.
--- End quote ---

They did cost them money. They forced T&G pay them some pretty extensive "damages" by invoking the law. The label which funded all of their early records and essentially allowed them to continue functioning as a band. The label which paid for their extensive recording sessions and gave them regular tour support for years. The label which held up their side of the deal entirely.


--- Quote from: a pack of wolves on 17 Feb 2010, 11:54 ---A handshake deal is done on the basis of trust, but if a band decides they don't trust a label to do the right thing anymore do they just have to live with a label that they feel isn't acting in their interests anymore?
--- End quote ---

Hahaha, "right thing". Hahahah. Butthole Surfers. Hahaha.

Touch & Go were still advertising these records to the independent market same as they always had. The BH Surfers were fine with this until they signed to a major.


--- Quote from: a pack of wolves on 17 Feb 2010, 11:54 ---Having said that, I don't think T&G were entirely in the wrong. The band should have made more of an effort to sort things out without lawyers, but I think characterising this as the evil money-grubbing Butthole Surfers robbing poor innocent T&G for no reason is going way too far.

--- End quote ---

Only if you consider the truth to be offensive. That's exactly what happened. Corey Rusk is one of the most trust-worthy, honest and decent human beings involved in music and always has been. He made a deal with some friends which was by industry standards absolutely the best one going and held up his end. The band in question tried and nearly succeeded in screwing him, his label and by association all the bands who worked with T&G for the fuck of it, essentially out of temporary misplaced greed.

E. Spaceman:
Even when thinking of it in money matters.

Consider that the chain of events was pretty much as follows:

* The BH Surfers agree to a deal with T&G for a 50/50 split of the profits. As tommy points out this is the best deal ever.

* The BH surfers enjoy a fairly long career with T&G, they never really sell many records but they recieve 50% of what is sold and financing for many tours and their recording sessions. On any other label they would have likely just been axed or even if they didn't, they would only be making 8% of their not very large record sales

* The BH Surfers leave T&G for Rough Trade. T&G does not hinder this in any way, which is pretty much industry standard. No royalty adjustement, buying out of contracts or anything else happens. T&G continues to keep their back catalogue in print and the same economic split. Rough Trade essentially fucks over the BH Surfers.

* The BH Surfers sign to Capitol. Nothing much ensues at first, they sell slightly more records than before but recieve far less money for them.

*The BH Surfers demand that they now take 80% of the royalties. T&G understandably refuse. Now here is the crux of the matter. The BH Surfers' only possible motivation for this is money and ego. There is no other reason for it, they have made a couple of bad deals and now they have a manager who takes up a percentage of their income and here are these dudes at T&G taking 50% of their back catalogue even though they did nothing (except support them financially and emotionally, promoting them when they were unknown and keeping their back catalogue in print)

* The BH Surfers sue and win. They are awarded damages. T&G has to destroy all their stock of records and merchandise which means their back catalogue ceases to be in print and when it does go back in print it is done at a much less favourable split than before. T&G suffers an enormous setback in money which affects everyone on their label and other smaller labels who they distribute.

* The BH Surfers score a major hit with Pepper but afterwards fall out with the label over the next album, drop their manager and split with the label.


Tell me who won here other than the lawyers, Capitol and the manager?

a pack of wolves:
The problem is, there are two accounts of what the deal with T&G was. The Butthole Surfers claim that the deal was to make records together as long as that was working whereas T&G says that they had the rights to release the records in perpetuity. You and I might think T&G's efforts to promote the band and the share of the royalties they got were all completely fair and within the spirit of the original agreement, but if by the time the band got dissatisfied T&G had recouped their initial investment I think they've got the right to walk away. That's what I meant by the label not losing money, if T&G had just said "we do 50/50 and we deal with you and not your manager because he had nothing to do with this, but you're free to take the back catalogue elsewhere if you think the fact we helped you out so much in the past and are continuing to do a good job for you means nothing". If the band want to be dicks and fuck themselves financially in the process then I think they have the right to do that, no matter how much I think it's a crappy thing to do and stupid in the bargain.

The problem with fighting it is that it makes verbal agreements more set in stone, and that's a problem if a band finds that they've got a verbal agreement with a label that, unlike T&G, does turn out to be untrustworthy down the line. What if you go with a label like Ebullition that doesn't distro to chains etc because that's in line with your ethics, but later they decide to start selling stuff through Amazon? T&G disputing the right of the band to decide who releases their old records could have meant a band seeing their back catalogue sold in places they did not want and not being able to do anything about it. If T&G had just seen the band walk off with their records for greed but not disputed their right to do it, in much the same way that Green Day screwed Lookout who relied for more extensively on their old records than T&G relied on the Butthole Surfers back catalogue, then I'd probably be slagging them off to. But fighting the band could have had unfortunate repercussions.

The fact that they were wanting to communicate through a manager and acting like a major label band means they were being arseholes, but I don't think that gives T&G the right to essentially force them to continue working with them. Why would you want them anyway? They're a major label band that want to act like rock stars, give them back their records when they ask and concentrate on the bands that are worth it. After all, Girls Against Boys et al aren't going to take the back catalogues from T&G because it's become legally viable by the precedent the Butthole Surfers set. The very point is that they want to work with T&G, if you need lawyers to force them to keep the arrangement going than it's time to walk away.

Ptommydski:

--- Quote from: a pack of wolves on 17 Feb 2010, 13:50 ---The problem is, there are two accounts of what the deal with T&G was. The Butthole Surfers claim that the deal was to make records together as long as that was working whereas T&G says that they had the rights to release the records in perpetuity.
--- End quote ---

It was working, that's the thing. It was working fine. It was working better than their subsequent deals with Rough Trade and Capitol. Fifty-fifty split, the records in print and in stores.


--- Quote from: a pack of wolves on 17 Feb 2010, 13:50 ---You and I might think T&G's efforts to promote the band and the share of the royalties they got were all completely fair and within the spirit of the original agreement, but if by the time the band got dissatisfied T&G had recouped their initial investment I think they've got the right to walk away. That's what I meant by the label not losing money, if T&G had just said "we do 50/50 and we deal with you and not your manager because he had nothing to do with this, but you're free to take the back catalogue elsewhere if you think the fact we helped you out so much in the past and are continuing to do a good job for you means nothing". If the band want to be dicks and fuck themselves financially in the process then I think they have the right to do that, no matter how much I think it's a crappy thing to do and stupid in the bargain.
--- End quote ---

You're right, they had the option to be incredible dicks about this and they were. They screwed the best independent record label in the world. Big whoop to them. The courts even upheld their "right" to be dishonest pricks. I cannot disagree with this because that is exactly what happened.


--- Quote from: a pack of wolves on 17 Feb 2010, 13:50 ---The problem with fighting it is that it makes verbal agreements more set in stone, and that's a problem if a band finds that they've got a verbal agreement with a label that, unlike T&G, does turn out to be untrustworthy down the line.
--- End quote ---

This is absolutely no kind of justification for the behaviour of the BH Surfers though because they were dealing with T&G, a label which is indisputably fair and honest with the bands they deal with. We can hypothesise all day long about the precedent but it doesn't excuse what the BH Surfers did at all.


--- Quote from: a pack of wolves on 17 Feb 2010, 13:50 ---The fact that they were wanting to communicate through a manager and acting like a major label band means they were being arseholes, but I don't think that gives T&G the right to essentially force them to continue working with them. Why would you want them anyway? They're a major label band that want to act like rock stars, give them back their records when they ask and concentrate on the bands that are worth it. After all, Girls Against Boys et al aren't going to take the back catalogues from T&G because it's become legally viable by the precedent the Butthole Surfers set. The very point is that they want to work with T&G, if you need lawyers to force them to keep the arrangement going than it's time to walk away.
--- End quote ---

Right, not every band is going to be absolute scumbags over their verbal agreements with T&G because you'd have to be an absolute shitheel to do so. I'm glad we are agreed on this.

tricia kidd:
the most fascinating part of this is watching Ptommy talk like he is intimate friends with everyone involved.

i've actually met the Butthole Surfers, and a much older friend of mine has worked with them since the early 90s.  by my observations and his stories, they are generally nice guys.

did they get caught up in the major-label, hit-single lifestyle and do something in a non-optimal way?  yes, i think so.  everybody makes mistakes.

as has been stated, greg ginn did far worse things to bands than the Surfers did to Rusk.  so hey Ptommy, try taking your personal grudge against the Surfers and your undying love for Black Flag out of this argument.

when you're dealing with fucked-up punk rockers, who may or may not be mentally stable or on drugs, and label owners who fit the same description, this sort of thing can happen.  to vilify them for it is misguided at best.

from a recent article:

"After seeing much of its heavy hitters—Girls Against Boys, the Jesus Lizard, Butthole Surfers—jump to a major label (not to mention losing an infamous legal wrangle with the Buttholes over album rights in 1999), Touch & Go stretched out, signing hip New York bands like the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and TV on the Radio. Two bands, who, of course, left for a major label."

maybe working with Rusk isn't all roses if all these bands constantly leave his label?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page