Ed's Bootlegs (inc. Supreme Court summons), not so legal after all? Options

[OutToDry]

I've been searching for public notes on what may be happening in the courtroom, here's one of them. I suspect the selling of bootlegs on Ed's website are not legal as they appear.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/18/New_Complaints.htm

Rock and RollThree members of the band Live claim their former lead singer Edward Kowalczyk owes them $225,000 for music he sold on his Web site, in New York County Court.

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Jun 14 2010, 2:59 pm

[lovemachine97]

Long-time lurker, and hardly ever post...

Songwriting royalties can actually kill a band. Typically, those who write accompaniment, melody, and lyrics will get credit. Since singers often create the melody and the lyrics, it seems fair that they would get a larger percentage of writing credit. On the other hand, would a song like "Pain Lies on the Riverside" be the same song without the bass line? How much is that worth in a song? But what if the bass part isn't as important, or even existent, such as "Overcome"?

But who wants to hash out credit for every single freaking song? Some bands do this successfully, such as Stone Temple Pilots. The writing is credited to a combo of 2, 3, or even all 4 members of the band. For their newest record, though, Scott Weiland wanted to be separately credited for writing the melodies and lyrics. This was likely a demand on his part, but if it is true, and you are writing the melodies and lyrics and NOT the music, then that separation doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. I don't know what percentages are drawn, but it seems fair. It is also nothing that should kill a band--unless someone else is contributing melody and/or lyrics, of course.

This is why bands often come to an agreement. Van Halen comes to mind. Every single song is credited to all four current members of the band. But even this can get contentious. Edward Van Halen, who had been trying to get rid of Michael Anthony as far back as 1982, finally did so in 2007. However, he wanted to get rid of him in 2004 for a tour with Sammy Hagar. Anthony was given an ultimatum--in order to tour with the band that year, he had to take a smaller percentage for the tour than every band member, and he had to relinquish all of his rights to the Van Halen name, as well as future royalties. This was non-negotiable with Edward. Further, Michael hadn't even been allowed to play on the 1998 album 3, nor the 3 new songs in 2004 from Best of Both Worlds.

Michael Anthony agreed, and the band toured. He wanted to give the fans what he thought they wanted--the original members. He also loves to play, so getting out on the road for the first time in 6 years was worth it. But that wasn't enough for EVH. Anthony found out on the internet in 2007 that he had been replaced by Edward's son, Wolfgang. Nice.

EVH had always wanted a "better" bassist, and finally just started doing the bass lines himself. The problem was that Anthony' steady, pocket bass playing was the perfect compliment to Edward and Alex's unorthodox guitar playing and drumming.

But, guess what? The average fan didn't know the difference. Most people don't give a shit that it wasn't Anthony on the albums or at the 2007 tour. The internet community cared--but that's about it.

The sad part is that the average fan, when hearing "Grace", will have absolutely no idea that it is not +Live+. And THAT is why lead singer is a position that can give musicians the ability to make ultimatums like Ed K did. Most people will think that "Honest Man" is new Candlebox. That's just the way it is.

Ed K's power play is nothing new. I think we'd be surprised if we knew how bands that have been together for a long time get along. I'd bet many of them don't, and I'd bet many singers make more money than they do. While big-time fans of the band will understand the contribution of each member, the vast majority do not. The vast majority of +Live+ fans would likely not even notice if they had replaced their drummer. I think Eric Kretz's ability to lay back on the backbeat is a huge part of STP's sound...but when his dad died, and agressive drummer Ray Luzier filled in, most of the audience did not know.

And so goes the life as a non-famous member of a famous band. Sometimes, you know where your bread is buttered, and I think with the ultimatum, the guys new that it was within their financial interest to continue as +Live+. Part of that is not alienating your fan base. With a situation like this, the fan base is being split. Some take Ed K's side, others take the others' side, some will buy both--and MOST will not purchase albums or attend concerts of either, and THAT is why the guys would have wanted to keep +Live+ alive.

As far as the contractual stuff--we don't know the truth. What we do know is that it seems likely Ed K wanted to go solo. Why he couldn't do that while still being in +Live+, we don't know. I think that had more to do with the other guys finally reaching a breaking point with the $1 million. But, we don't know. I think history tells us it is likely the singer getting too big for his britches. On the other hand, that's what people thought about David Lee Roth. But then Sammy Hagar couldn't handle being in a band with EVH...or Gary Cherone...or Sammy Hagar again...and EVH wanted to fire band members for 20+ years, and wasn't very secretive about it. As much of an egotard that DLR probably is, I think it has eventually come clear that EVH was the problem. So, in this situation, we may never know, and while it seems intuitive that Ed K was/is the problem, we have no idea what we don't know.

Just my $0.02...