Interesting article about Green Day's post-Reprise future

[Milo Goes To Pasalacqua]

4 minutes ago, DadBod said:

Money. 

Owning your own masters allows to to do what you want with them for releases and keeps another portion of the money in one hand rather than another

When you say to do what you want with them for releases, do you mean that should the band want they can release, say, a remix album of the same songs through someone else?

[Squashie]

1 hour ago, Milo Goes To Pasalacqua said:

When you say to do what you want with them for releases, do you mean that should the band want they can release, say, a remix album of the same songs through someone else?

Basically. @WhiteTim could answer this better, probably.

[WhiteTim]

3 hours ago, Milo Goes To Pasalacqua said:

When you say to do what you want with them for releases, do you mean that should the band want they can release, say, a remix album of the same songs through someone else?

A band that owns their masters can do whatever they want with the songs (after they are done with the contracts with said label) 

for example say you have a band you sign to Universal for say 3 albums  you own the masters after the 3 albums are done you leave Universal if you choose to you could re-release those 3 albums by your new label or you could keep having Universal release them 

GD for sure owns the masters to all of the Lookout material (all of the stuff on 1039 and Kerplunk) they don’t own the masters to Dookie on thru AI (as Warner in the 90’s wasn’t giving owning masters an option for ANY artists back then you can google Prince and Warner for details on how anti artists owning masters Warner was) GD re-newed their contract after AI so there is a possibility that GD owns the masters to 21st to the current album