Femme Gauche Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Okay. I knew something had happened where they didn't work with Cavallo. Honestly, I wish they'd self-produced the album trilogy. It would have been more honest. How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteTim Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Once a contract is up they don't have to sign another one. They don't have to work with Warner to produce the next album. Warner may have the music at this point, but that doesn't give them ownership of all future music unless Green Day agrees to that in a contract. I can't imagine them agreeing to that and locking themselves into a record label for eternity. And if they left, Warner would still have to pay residuals on record sales, so no, they wouldn't be leaving for free. Ummm they are signed to Warner and not on a one album deal (that was only on 21st) i can say they did re sign .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissawebster Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 All of thier albums have been released on Warner when did they leave? You know NOTHING bout contracts or ownership... Actually, I believe it is you who are confused. They're not slaves shackled to Warner for the rest of their lives because of a contract. They can leave right now if they really, really wanted to. They might pay a penalty, but contracts can be and are broken all the time when there's a falling out or a serious disagreement over an artist's work. Any good entertainment lawyer can do it. And either way, they get money from residual sales on all their work. Just like they did at Lookout! on their first two albums. And contracts do come to an end at some point. And the artist can choose not to renew it. And they can go into a different studio and self-produce their own music. They don't have to use Warner if they really don't want to. And Green Day is big enough that they can do it themselves and actually be successful at it. So yeah, concessions are made on both sides because both sides benefit from and need each other, NOT because Green Day has no other options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesauce Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 This has been entertaining. It is a bit confusing why clean versions are being issued after the last go round with 21st Century Breakdown and Wal-Mart, but it's also not that big of a deal. Wal-Mart is evil but this whole censored version thing can sort of be compared to gay marriage. Against it? Then STFU and don't get one. It's pretty simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Femme Gauche Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Actually, I believe it is you who are confused. They're not slaves shackled to Warner for the rest of their lives because of a contract. They can leave right now if they really, really wanted to. They might pay a penalty, but contracts can be and are broken all the time when there's a falling out or a serious disagreement over an artist's work. Any good entertainment lawyer can do it. And either way, they get money from residual sales on all their work. Just like they did at Lookout! on their first two albums. And contracts do come to an end at some point. And the artist can choose not to renew it. And they can go into a different studio and self-produce their own music. They don't have to use Warner if they really don't want to. And Green Day is big enough that they can do it themselves and actually be successful at it. So yeah, concessions are made on both sides because both sides benefit from and need each other, NOT because Green Day has no other options. and why would they sacrifice their ability to make more music for something as trivial as this? Especially something which does have upsides - and I am not talking contractually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteTim Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Yeah contracts can be walked out of with pentalties the way i took you was just meant they can just walk away no harm no foul But if they leave Warner they wont find another label that will give them the leeway Warner gives them Universal would never pull a trilogy If they did their own label they wouldnt have the same distribution Warner gives them u can only go so far indie ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissawebster Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 How? The marketing has been clean, tepid and conservative in comparison to the risks they've taken with the music itself. It's inconsistent and I think it does the music a disservice, confusing even their most devoted fans. Personally, if I were the one creating the marketing campaign, I would have had them be even more obnoxious than usual. Just a full-blown arrogant, obnoxious, funny, balls to the walls attitude where they marketed it like they had nothing to lose and just threw it at the world to see how far they could get away with it. Risky. Exciting. Even the look of the album covers bothers me because it, I don't know, looks like it was marketed to teenage girls. It's cute and I guess obnoxious, but there's nothing particularly special or risky about it. If they'd self-produced it, it would have been all about the music in every way. Down and dirty and totally obnoxious and arrogant. Perfect Green Day. Yeah contracts can be walked out of with pentalties the way i took you was just meant they can just walk away no harm no foul But if they leave Warner they wont find another label that will give them the leeway Warner gives them Universal would never pull a trilogy If they did their own label they wouldnt have the same distribution Warner gives them u can only go so far indie ... That is a valid point. So Green Day makes concessions and Warner makes concessions and both sides mostly get what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Femme Gauche Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The marketing has been clean, tepid and conservative in comparison to the risks they've taken with the music itself. It's inconsistent and I think it does the music a disservice, confusing even their most devoted fans. Personally, if I were the one creating the marketing campaign, I would have had them be even more obnoxious than usual. Just a full-blown arrogant, obnoxious, funny, balls to the walls attitude where they marketed it like they had nothing to lose and just threw it at the world to see how far they could get away with it. Risky. Exciting. Even the look of the album covers bothers me because it, I don't know, looks like it was marketed to teenage girls. It's cute and I guess obnoxious, but there's nothing particularly special or risky about it. If they'd self-produced it, it would have been all about the music in every way. Down and dirty and totally obnoxious and arrogant. Perfect Green Day. Promotion and marketing = /= production. I don't understand what you are saying. I actually think the covers fit the albums perfectly, it's goofy and it comes from a place of "who cares? we're doing this because we feel like it". Kind of like the album names. Just kind of off the wall, goofy and definitely reflective of a party. That is a valid point. So Green Day makes concessions and Warner makes concessions and both sides mostly get what they want. I still don't think it necessarily has to even be a concession. That is one reason the censored version may be coming out; another might be that they actually wanted to do it. I don't see why this is so out of the question... It is a completely different case from 21CB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdpony Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The marketing has been clean, tepid and conservative in comparison to the risks they've taken with the music itself. It's inconsistent and I think it does the music a disservice, confusing even their most devoted fans. Personally, if I were the one creating the marketing campaign, I would have had them be even more obnoxious than usual. Just a full-blown arrogant, obnoxious, funny, balls to the walls attitude where they marketed it like they had nothing to lose and just threw it at the world to see how far they could get away with it. Risky. Exciting. Even the look of the album covers bothers me because it, I don't know, looks like it was marketed to teenage girls. It's cute and I guess obnoxious, but there's nothing particularly special or risky about it. If they'd self-produced it, it would have been all about the music in every way. Down and dirty and totally obnoxious and arrogant. Perfect Green Day. j That is a valid point. So Green Day makes concessions and Warner makes concessions and both sides mostly get what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastard of 1967 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Didn't they not work with Rob Cavallo on 21st Century Breakdown? They worked with Butch Vig on that, but the album was still distributed by Warner/Reprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissawebster Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Promotion and marketing = /= production. I don't understand what you are saying. I actually think the covers fit the albums perfectly, it's goofy and it comes from a place of "who cares? we're doing this because we feel like it". Kind of like the album names. Just kind of off the wall, goofy and definitely reflective of a party. I mean self-produced, marketed and promoted. Without Warner and the corporate crash and burn pop-star formula. Sorry, I wasn't clear on the terminology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteTim Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I mean self-produced, marketed and promoted. Without Warner and the corporate crash and burn pop-star formula. Sorry, I wasn't clear on the terminology. Who would distribute it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Femme Gauche Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I mean self-produced, marketed and promoted. Without Warner and the corporate crash and burn pop-star formula. Sorry, I wasn't clear on the terminology. That's a completely different thing, though. Producing just has to do mainly with the sound and working out the artistic direction (someone please correct me if I am wrong). As for marketing and promotion, you can bet that if they stepped away from Warner, the promotion would be very limited, and they wouldn't be able to produce and distribute at nearly the level that demand would require. Not only would there be no box sets, but there would be limited release, maybe numbers in the thousands... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mar Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I mean, I know it's shocking. Green Day has never done anything to be popular. Never agreed to perform on TV or release music videos knowing their work would be censored. Never had to do promotional work because a record label told them to. Never had their music sold at Walmart before. This band has never acted in their best commercial interests, never! I don't mean to sound like a complete asshole, I swear. The band is still one of the most famous in the world. They're signed to a major label owned by a major media conglomerate. I am not here to accuse the band of selling out or any of that bullshit, because I don't think that's the case, but they have made certain choices in their lives in order to to pursue success, and this just comes with the territory. I swear I'm not trying to shit on the band in saying this, but let's face facts: The band would not be doing this if they weren't looking for some level of success. Does "success" necessarily mean millions of dollars (which they have)? I'm not saying that. It can be as simple as wanting to perform in lots of places for lots of people. But you need money to do that, you need fans, you need sales, airplay, public consciousness, and that comes through making business decisions that may not be "punk." (Frankly, I don't use that term to describe the band, even if the band members do, but that's another story.) That's likely how it's always been and always will be with Green Day and Warner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteTim Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Their music has been sold at wal mart cept for 21st Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissawebster Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 That's a completely different thing, though. Producing just has to do mainly with the sound and working out the artistic direction (someone please correct me if I am wrong). As for marketing and promotion, you can bet that if they stepped away from Warner, the promotion would be very limited, and they wouldn't be able to produce and distribute at nearly the level that demand would require. Not only would there be no box sets, but there would be limited release, maybe numbers in the thousands... This is true. I guess I was thinking along the lines of an independent contractor, who does the work but the band would have total control over it. I'm seeing it from an advertising perspective. A corporation (Green Day) hires an ad firm to come up with the marketing and sales promotion campaign. Green Day approves or says no to whatever they come up with, and then once the campaign is agreed upon, they hire a distribution company to get the product (the music) out to the masses while the ad firm markets the product. The distribution company can be Warner or any other major record label, or it can be another corporation that has nothing to do with music at all with the money and resources to get the product to the masses. Hell, it could be Mark Zuckerberg. Didn't he say he wanted to expand into film or music or something? I'm just throwing ideas out there. All I'm saying is a band as huge as Green Day has the clout and fanbase and profit potential to go out on their own if they really wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Femme Gauche Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 This is true. I guess I was thinking along the lines of an independent contractor, who does the work but the band would have total control over it. I'm seeing it from an advertising perspective. A corporation (Green Day) hires an ad firm to come up with the marketing and sales promotion campaign. Green Day approves or says no to whatever they come up with, and then once the campaign is agreed upon, they hire a distribution company to get the product (the music) out to the masses while the ad firm markets the product. The distribution company can be Warner or any other major record label, or it can be another corporation that has nothing to do with music at all with the money and resources to get the product to the masses. Hell, it could be Mark Zuckerberg. Didn't he say he wanted to expand into film or music or something? I'm just throwing ideas out there. All I'm saying is a band as huge as Green Day has the clout and fanbase and profit potential to go out on their own if they really wanted to. That sounds like a lot of hoops to jump through to *maybe* be able to continue as they desire. Given what they've been able to do all these years, I don't see hwy they would feel the need to do anything even remotely like that. It's not about money, nor is it about morals. It's about what works - what allows them to make the music they want, and have it be heard. Cutting out some swear words from an already-finished, swear-riddled record record so it can go to a popular retailer and get the music out there? Why the hell not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteTim Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I'm just throwing ideas out there. All I'm saying is a band as huge as Green Day has the clout and fanbase and profit potential to go out on their own if they really wanted to. It's not as easy nor cheap as you're making it to be if it was U2 would be doing it or most of these bands would be doing it Not that I'd mind GD being indie but i just dont see it being able to with their status Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissawebster Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Money and resources makes everything possible, and often quite easy, if someone really wants to do it. I didn't say it was cheap. That's why I used Mark Zuckerberg as an example. But it is possible. The corporate conglomerate monopoly that dominates the music industry, and every other industry in this country for that matter, isn't the only way to do things. And musicians don't have to be treated like slaves when they have other options, unless they choose to be. So yeah, it boils down to whether or not they want to do it. If they're happy with their arrangement with Warner, then that's great and I hope this is a huge success for them. If they're unhappy, there are other ways. And U2 isn't still on the record charts the way Green Day is. Not that I have anything against U2 of course. They're my 2nd favorite band. And they may not have done it already because nobody's thought of it before now. People tend to get entrenched in "what works" to the point they can't even see the possibility of other options. I'm not entirely convinced what they're doing with the album trilogy in terms of marketing does "work." I'm reserving judgment on that one until after the album releases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteTim Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Money and resources makes everything possible, and often quite easy, if someone really wants to do it. I didn't say it was cheap. That's why I used Mark Zuckerberg as an example. But it is possible. The corporate conglomerate monopoly that dominates the music industry, and every other industry in this country for that matter, isn't the only way to do things. And musicians don't have to be treated like slaves when they have other options, unless they choose to be. So yeah, it boils down to whether or not they want to do it. If they're happy with their arrangement with Warner, then that's great and I hope this is a huge success for them. If they're unhappy, there are other ways. And U2 isn't still on the record charts the way Green Day is. Not that I have anything against U2 of course. They're my 2nd favorite band. And they may not have done it already because nobody's thought of it before now. People tend to get entrenched in "what works" to the point they can't even see the possibility of other options. I'm not entirely convinced what they're doing with the album trilogy in terms of marketing does "work." I'm reserving judgment on that one until after the album releases. U2 has sold more records than GD has more money but thats not really the point im making Doing thing yourself was not a thing GD invented or has even thought of even FBHT they went to Warner when they decided to sell it to the public Ive never gotten the vibe GD wants to be the ceo of their careers itd take them away from creating music going to Zuckerberg is the same idea as being on Warner (noone going to invest in something without having some sort of control over product) doing it by themselves truly would mean financing it themselves recording marketing pressings etc they spent over 15 million dollars when you add in recording marketing pressings all over the world while GD is rich they dont have the resources to do it alone without a contract of some sorts Plus i doubt GD would stay sane by having to be creative record AND have to do business meetings plus hire and manage a large amount of employees all at the same time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissawebster Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Yeah, that's what delegating tasks are for, and with independent contractors, they wouldn't be hiring or managing a bunch of employees. Those employees are hired and managed by the independent contractors. You're still seeing what I'm saying in terms of what Warner is. They already do business meetings and it doesn't take away from being creative. And I'm not saying they want to go indie or that they've ever given that impression. I was just saying they could if they wanted to, to make it clear Warner doesn't own them the way you make it sound, or at least they don't have to allow Warner to own them. And what I'm talking about is a partnership where Green Day has control over the music, marketing and promotion and someone else handles distribution. Of course it would be under a contract, but the person who handles the distribution wouldn't control everything and certainly wouldn't own the music. At most, it would be a limited partnership, so Green Day wouldn't be responsible for all the costs, and they'd share profits. This is basically what they have with Warner, except Warner controls everything on top of owning and making money off their music. FBHT isn't with Warner, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. Actually, I don't know what any of that sentence means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteTim Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Warner distributed stop drop... if they didnt it wouldnt be in Warner's database... Only thing Warner doesnt own is the Green Day names Warner owns the music... Green Day cant record a song for a friend's compliation legally without permission from Warner music wise they are owned by Warner (same with any band thats signed to a label so im not bashing them) as people no but if Warner wanted to be dicks they could restrict GD alot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissawebster Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 All the more reason for Green Day to go Indie. FBHT's Wikipedia page says that Jingletown Records released Stop, Drop & Roll. Is Jingletown really Warner under a different name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteTim Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Just a distributed one I just looked at wiki it even say jingle town, warner music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissawebster Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Okay. That makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.