Quote :

"In another blow to EMI Group's private equity owner, The Rolling Stones, the world's top-earning music act last year, have signed with Vivendi's Universal Music Group, leaving EMI after more than 20 years on the label. Mick Jagger and the Stones signed an 'exclusive, long-term, worldwide recording agreement,' Universal Music said Friday. The deal also covers the group's back catalogue, including such albums as 'Sticky Fingers.' The contract calls for an advance of $15 million and brings the Rolling Stones' entire output under Universal's roof, since the company had already distributed the band's pre-1971 music through the Abkco label."

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/emi-loses-rolling-stones-to-universal/

FYI.

7/28/2008 12:02:08 PM

because we definitely need another set of reissues in slightly different packaging

7/28/2008 1:26:20 PM

are the rolling stones relevant again?

7/28/2008 5:37:48 PM

Quote :

"the world's top-earning music act last year, "

7/28/2008 5:42:25 PM

oh c'mon

nostalgic acts aren't necessarily relevant

7/28/2008 5:51:46 PM

a rolling-stone gathers no moss. but they sure gather lots of coin

7/28/2008 5:54:07 PM

rolling stones are still a hell of a lot better than half the shit thats made now a days

7/28/2008 5:56:02 PM

Most of their monies came from touring. Yes, they still sell a lot of albums, but it's mostly from touring nowadays.

7/28/2008 8:59:35 PM

Yeah, I actually thought the exact same thing about the Stones' relevancy when I read this. I mean, I'm sure as hell not sitting around biting my nails waiting for their next album--I don't think I could name even one song they've done since Tattoo You.

But I think the following is worth considering:

1. The Stones matter because of their catalog. That thing is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

2. The Stones matter because of their place in rock history. They're probably the closest thing to The Beatles.

3. They released a major concert film, Shine a Light, earlier this year directed by Martin Scorsese. Only a handful of bands could get a director of his caliber--or release a concert film that didn't go straight to DVD, for that matter.

4. As indicated, the Stones were the world's top-earning music act last year. That's no small thing for a band that's been around for going on 50 years!

5. ^ Many big artists are making their money through concerts these days--Live Nation has had a good couple of years. You kids and your goddamned iPods and MP3s and shit!

Madonna ditches record label to sign up with concert promoter

http://tinyurl.com/68oju3

Jay-Z About To Sign $150 Million Deal With Live Nation: ReportDeal tops concert-promotion company's recent pacts with U2 and Madonna.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1584696/20080403/jay_z.jhtml

7/30/2008 1:55:06 PM

Artists have always made most of their money from concerts. Record companies are in business for themselves, not for the artists.

7/30/2008 2:04:08 PM

^ And? The point that you're apparently too stupid to grasp is that now artists are leaving record companies and signing with concert promoters because they're making even less money from album sales.

But thanks for trying, penilebandit.

7/30/2008 3:46:29 PM

is ^that sort of attitude really necessary in an Entertainment thread?

7/30/2008 4:03:01 PM

As long as he keeps using that hilariously poor insult, I'm for it.

7/30/2008 4:09:47 PM

^^ Um. . .is it "necessary" that this douche ^ shows up in nearly every thread I create in Entertainment or Chit Chat just to grace everyone with his smugness? He can't handle TSB, of course--he'd get his little ass handed to him in short order.

Seriously, can you try to look at both sides here? I mean, he has a well-documented history of this.

Just for starters:

Quote :

"vinylbandit, you'd be cool if you didn't like everything that nobody has discovered yet."

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=523842

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2008 4:31:13 PM

I don't even know who posts in TSB, because I don't give a fuck.

I know that I hate that I had to buy reissues of the US versions of Stones albums in this bullshit combo digipack/jewel case packaging where the jewel case was bigger than normal size just so someone could have the illusion of a true record sleeve and they don't fucking fit correctly in my flight case.

^ KG thread ftw.

7/30/2008 4:34:02 PM

^ Well, the reissue topic is legit. Why couldn't we have just discussed that instead of you trying to lecture me about recording artists' revenue streams?

7/30/2008 4:47:26 PM

that was his first response in the thread as well. and i don't see anything he said in this thread as "lecturing". he was merely stating a fact that you actually agreed with.

7/30/2008 4:55:07 PM

^ A fact that was beside the point and a post that was consistent with his history, which everyone here is well aware of.

7/30/2008 6:10:51 PM

A fact that was beside the point?

I was responding to something that YOU fucking NUMBERED in your post.

Quote :

"5. ^ Many big artists are making their money through concerts these days--Live Nation has had a good couple of years. You kids and your goddamned iPods and MP3s and shit! "

Tours/shows have always been the main revenue source for musical artists. ALWAYS. The fact that you'd use the phrase "these days" and then attempt to blame it on MP3s (OMG HOME TAPING WILL KILL THE RECORD INDUSTRY!) shows that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to live revenue, and in essence is a direct refutation via inaccuracy of 20% of your contribution to this topic. Disagree if you will, but don't blame me for the fact that one of your main points isn't really a point at all.

7/30/2008 6:17:16 PM

^ So why have the likes of Jay-Z, Madonna, and U2 left their record labels and signed with concert promoters?

7/30/2008 6:28:25 PM

Because now that self-releasing a record has been proven viable in a worldwide market (thanks to Radiohead and NIN on a scale comparable to the big five, but thanks to everyone from Ani DiFranco to Danger Mouse in a general sense), there's no reason to stay with a major label.

7/30/2008 6:41:47 PM

Quote :

"I don't think I could name even one song they've done since Tattoo You"

FUCK YOU MAN

HARLEM SHUFFLE WAS FANTASTIC

7/30/2008 6:58:23 PM

No one really thought about it before, it was just the way the industry "worked." But now with all the internet and the way the industry has changed there is very nearly no need for major record labels for bands who are already well established acts. Taking the effort to book tours though is still something that artists are willing to sort of subcontract out to people like Live Nation (yuck) since it can be very time consuming.

Summary: There is hardly anything major labels offer to bands to justify what they charge them. Im just glad artists are starting to realize this.

7/30/2008 7:31:08 PM

Quote :

"viable"

Yeah, financially "viable."

7/31/2008 11:39:00 AM

Financially viable only in the sense that you can actually get it to the worldwide market without a record company. Since you can get professional-quality transfers of audio and artwork across the internet at an acceptable speed now, the record company > distributor > retailer relationship is no longer needed. Record sales are still going to be secondary to live performance in terms of revenue, but the overhead involved in putting out a record is no longer on a scale that requires a label.

7/31/2008 8:17:08 PM

I'm trying to figure out what hooksaw's bitterness or general reason for concern over the Stones leaving EMI is, but he appears to be having difficulty conveying it.

I find the news interesting and I'm glad he posted the information, but the amount of vitriol in his posts regarding this decision by the band is puzzling at best.

I would think it's evident that this is nothing more than a band responding to a shift in the dynamics of the market, and nothing more. Big labels such as EMI have whored out bands, as well as constricted creativity, for far too long. The departure of major acts en masse over the last few years is a refreshing and overdue change. It's also the most logical progression in response to the current environment of readily accessible music.

The labels did it to themselves, they did, and that's why it really hurts...

8/1/2008 12:27:29 AM

They're talking about this on the radio now...

All of the EMI-distributed Stones albums combined sold less than The Eagles' Greatest Hits last year.

8/2/2008 4:03:57 PM