Vinyl Thread • Page 27

Yikes.

 

Vinnie’s vocals sound pretty different these days. Will be interesting to hear the re-record.

 

I wonder what sort of deal was done with DTR back in the day - like how long do they maintain rights to the S/T? I know a lot of those bands got taken advantage of in many ways. That part is well known. Curious though of the specifics.

 

I feel bad but I also really want this on vinyl.

 

Willing to walk on backs to get bands their masters back.

 

Feels like we know it’s at least 20 years and I imagine much longer than that or we’d have seen NFG do a Nothing Gold pressing by now.

 

So is Drive-Thru actually involved at all? Or did Parting Gift just buy the rights to press their back catalog and part of the deal was it needs to be marketed as Drive-Thru? Feels very confusing behind the scenes.

 

Get that IATA everyone!!

 

How you guys afford all these pre orders blows my mind

 

The second part. As far as I know, Drive Thru licensed the vinyl rights to Parting Gift & Tragic Hero to press these. They found a fan of the label with the funds to make it happen and here we are.

 

Hmmm. Now I’m wondering whether to cancel the order!

I have an original copy. Hence the dilemma.

 

$42 shipped on this seems like money I’d rather give the band even if these variants are pretty.

 

Ok kinda glad my OG didn't sell now. Will definitely pick up the band version though!

 

Very excited for "Vinnie's Version" of that first IATA record. Gonna wait for that one, TBH.

 

Re: IATA, This is one of those situations where this is a record I never listened to from a band that put out one of my favorites (Avalanche United) so upon the hullabaloo about this being repressed popping up last week, I finally decided to give it a spin.

And damn, I fell for it pretty hard. Don't know what took me this long. So I feel the itch to grab it while it's so readily available, but doing so is clearly the last thing the folks who created it want me to do. So I think I will pledge allegiance to their version when that comes out (if it's still good!), and maybe get a copy of this second-hand if it ends up that way.

 

I've obviously not seen any of the contracts, but if they're really not seeing any money from this, wouldn't that imply they're also not seeing any royalties from streaming of the same album?

Usually means label owns masters. Contract doesn't guarantee them a share of physical sales profits. Older deal, so probably a recoup percent. Most of those albums never "recouped."

But in that case, they'd also only be getting publishing royalties, not any streaming royalties too ... I'd think? Like why TS didn't want people to stream her old albums when she didn't own them either.

I dunno. Leads me to think if you'd stream it, buying it's basically the same. Weird situation, and why I like when the labels at least reach out to bands when doing this kinda thing and, at the very least, offer an artist only version to sell.

 

Really good point. It WOULD be nice if labels tried to give the artists they are advertising at least a heads up and/or chance to make something off of their art, but the music industry is still kinda the Wild West.

I think Good Charlotte may own all, if not most, of their music at this point too…probably after a label negotiation based on how VEEPS kinda took off. I noticed the recent Urban Outfitters vinyl pressings all had that MDDN imprint on them, and the band also sells them directly in their merch store.

Obviously, most touring bands don’t have that type of money they can front in order to own their past masters, but ideally that could be something we see more of in recording contracts moving forward.

Jason, are you aware of bands NOT being able to do the whole “Taylor’s version” idea because a certain period of time needs to pass in order for that to happen? Genuinely curious!

 

Just generally speaking, it's gross for any label to own somebody else's art. So many bands had to sell their souls to "make it" and for a lot of them it probably wasn't worth it.

 

with the im not a lawyer caveat, from what i've seen that longer "you can't re-record" clause has been something relatively new that labels are trying to slip in to contracts

 

I had heard rumblings of that being tossed around, but wasn't sure of the legitimacy. Thanks!

 

This is a version of what I saw: Better Than Revenge: The Rise of Re-Recording Provisions in Artists’ Contracts – Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy

Traditionally, re-recording provisions require artists to wait five to seven years from the initial release or two years after the contract expires to re-record their music. After the publicity of the Taylor Swift dispute, many record labels are using their bargaining power to increase the length of their re-recording provisions, some even lasting from thirty years to perpetuity.

 

A good number of those Drive Thru records released before streaming was really a thing (Spotify launched in 2006), so unless there was a carve out in the contracts for stuff like that, I imagine that stuff all sits with Drive Thru/MCA/whoever. No real way to know unless someone's more familiar with label stuff here.

I know when Movielife's "Gambling Problem" got pressed at the beginning of this new Drive Thru thing, I messaged Vinnie on IG to see if they knew anything about it and got a "no comment". Brandon had mentioned in a comment that they found out about it when everyone else did and weren't seeing anything from it, but that there wasn't much they could do about it. That's why they tour so hard on these songs, it's the only way they can make any money off of them.

I think the only bands I know of who actually posted/promoted these new Drive Thru pressings were NFG (who'd previously worked with them to do Coming Home), The Early November (who got a band variant), Hellogoodbye (ditto), Houston Calls, and Hidden In Plain View.

 

Makes me wonder if anyone did try and reach out to the others, but maybe the negotiations weren't good? Would be kinda weird that some bands got the heads up and others didn't.

I haven't seen a real contract in ages at this point, but most had something like a "New Technology” or “Future Formats” clauses for things like that. Usually means the label has the rights for any future distribution methods, and decides how (if) to share that revenue.

 

As a fan, I've definitely purchased records from bands in similar situations. And I always feel odd about it but I figure if it's out there anyway, being done legally, or whatever... And I want it on vinyl? Why not? So I get it and am not judging anybody for buying it.

But for me personally this one feels a little different compared to other scenarios because it goes beyond the financial/royalties discussion. If I'm remembering correctly they were held back by Drive-Thru from releasing any new music for ~5+ years after this dropped. The label was inactive but they still wouldn't let them out for years. Left me with an icky taste in my mouth at the time and this post made those feelings pop back up.

Doesn't really effect anything but I'm wondering if that might be where some of the saltiness is coming from here from the band versus some of the other re-issues they've done that have almost certainly had similar situations?

 

I know we’ve moved past 3EB talk but if that record means a lot to you and you are willing to shell out for the best sounding version of it, I cannot recommend the original pressing enough. I have some real heavy hitters as far as great sounding records go and it very well might be the best sounding record I own. it is astonishing. it’s also the only copy as far as I know of where Kevin’s face isn’t super faded out on the back cover lol.