I loved that band, but I wouldn't buy the albums again. If they didn't sell enough records to make it worthwhile to keep them on the payroll back in the day, why put more money into reissuing something that's maybe going to sell a few hundred copies to hardcore fans.
You have to look at how much money Atlantic already poured into a band that was a financial failure before they were ultimately dropped. I could easily see the record company sitting on those albums just to avoid a possible PR nightmare by assuaging the family members of Ray's victims. I've never heard that before and that's a little too 'Necronomicon' for me, especially like you said, considering how famously money hungry record companies are. My main dispute with that is the idea that the record company that has ownership of the catalog (Atlantic?) would've signed some kind of pledge to the families of Ray's alleged victims to never release the music. Then after they printed the discs and they got pulled, they went back to Eddie and said "Wow you were right!" Eddie claims, at least in the case of the second one, that he contacted them BEFORE they hit the shelves and asked them how they got away with doing it because of whatever whatever about Ray and they were like 'huh? I never heard that before'.
#TUX GUITAR JAKE E LEE LICENSE#
The cliff notes is that apparently two different companies tried to license the albums to re-rerelease them, they signed a deal, actually PRINTED the discs and then took them off the shelves a week later. Since you can't watch the video at the moment. The MOST likely scenario is that they think they're owed something from Ray Gillen, and that was something they could've pursued in court as to how much he owes who but now that he's dead, they might be thinking they deserve an outsized amount of anything the record company makes off those albums and the record company decided they just don't want to open that can of worms. I don't see much logic to the concept the record company signed an agreement not to release music forever, out of some kind of honor to the families involved. If anything, not having new income to draw off of mean Jake is MORE likely to be familiar with what's holding up those royalty checks.Īlso, I'm not entirely sure Eddie has it right. Second, it's stupid for him to assume there isn't anything about this deal Jake doesn't know just because "he's been out of the business for 20 years". Not that I'm saying he's actually the reason the albums ended up getting pulled but calling someone up to tell them they can't license something after they already did is.
First of all, I'm not entirely comfortable with Eddie admitting that he injected himself into the whole process by calling these record companies to call attention to the fact the music isn't supposed to be licensed.
0 kommentar(er)
