MR

I know I've asked about the legal issues surrounding Journey and past material before. The replies I got indicated that the guys calling themselves Journey did not have to ask Perry for any approval for any live performances they did. Many people then said Journey could not record material that Perry wrote or co-wrote without his permission. Does the fact that everyone seems to be saying that this in fact what "Journey" has done with Arnel mean that Perry signed off on this??? I would be absolutely STUNNED if Perry agreed to this, even if it meant money in his pocket!


John from Boston

Actually, I do not think permission is an issue. I think Perry did set up an agreement that stated Journey could not re-record music he was involved with. But since THAT agreement has apparantly expired I do not think the band needs approval. The only rights Perry has now is to being paid his royalties. There may have had to be an agreement on how much his royalties are, but that was likely taken care of back when the songs were originally recorded.

Enigma869 wrote:I know I've asked about the legal issues surrounding Journey and past material before. The replies I got indicated that the guys calling themselves Journey did not have to ask Perry for any approval for any live performances they did. Many people then said Journey could not record material that Perry wrote or co-wrote without his permission. Does the fact that everyone seems to be saying that this in fact what "Journey" has done with Arnel mean that Perry signed off on this??? I would be absolutely STUNNED if Perry agreed to this, even if it meant money in his pocket!


John from Boston

Maybe Perry has moved on emotionally? Just speculation, if he did sign off on it.

Someone, might've been Andrew, found out and posted that the original agreement was only 10 years and expired in '07.

Didn't Lora pop in here not long ago and answer that question? Something like...don't assume he agrees with it or can stop it anylonger. Not having Perry in control of their catalog is like having Bush in control of the country from now on. Prepare to see every Journey song reworked, reused, rehashed and repackaged with Neal's new golden boy. Between Azoff, Schon and the Princess, they'll be trying to squeeze every nickle out of those old songs, since they can't write anything of that calibur on their own anymore.

Hasn't it been said that their "new" CD is going to be part rehash?

my friend(www.chrisdunnett.com)recently release a live cd with acoustic/instrumental versions of paint it black(RS)rainbow in the dark (dio) and the munsters theme. he didnt need thier permission to release them, but negotiated a better royalty rate by asking permission. perry negotiate an agreement with them to partake in the behind the music, and probably got or gave up his piece of the band for the supposed 10 year period.

Red13JoePa wrote:Someone, might've been Andrew, found out and posted that the original agreement was only 10 years and expired in '07.

I remember that too Red. There was a deal and it expired last year.

I think Deano confirmed it, too.

I must say that if Perry did in fact sign this 10 year agreement (that has expired) that allows these songs to be performed by anyone, so long as he gets his royalty checks, I'm VERY disappointed. While I will certainly listen to the re-recorded versions (because I'm a fan of the music), it just seems odd to me that he would be okay with it. At the end of the day, most of the songs that have been re-recorded are HIS songs (either wrote or co-wrote all, but Faithfully, I believe), and I can't believe that he wouldn't have a deeper attachment to that music! Didn't The Sopranos have to get ALL of their permission to use "Don't Stop Believin'" in their finale???? That wasn't that long ago. Did the agreement expire after that? Oh well. I guess at the end of the day, it's just music and not that big of a deal. I simply thought based on everything I've heard Perry say over the years, that there would be NO WAY he would EVER sign off on someone else recording those songs and calling themselves "Journey"!


John from Boston

Enigma869 wrote:I must say that if Perry did in fact sign this 10 year agreement (that has expired) that allows these songs to be performed by anyone, so long as he gets his royalty checks, I'm VERY disappointed. While I will certainly listen to the re-recorded versions (because I'm a fan of the music), it just seems odd to me that he would be okay with it. At the end of the day, most of the songs that have been re-recorded are HIS songs (either wrote or co-wrote all, but Faithfully, I believe), and I can't believe that he wouldn't have a deeper attachment to that music! Didn't The Sopranos have to get ALL of their permission to use "Don't Stop Believin'" in their finale???? That wasn't that long ago. Did the agreement expire after that? Oh well. I guess at the end of the day, it's just music and not that big of a deal. I simply thought based on everything I've heard Perry say over the years, that there would be NO WAY he would EVER sign off on someone else recording those songs and calling themselves "Journey"!


John from Boston

permission must be granted by whoever controls the song to use the original.
but not to record a new version.
bands do this to cut out record labels and manager royalties.
steve has very little to no say over anyone recording his songs.
his agreement with journey the company gave him control over them.
if you recorded them and released them you could
kevin chalifant released his album last year.
SP had no say, unless he tried to call it songs of journey/steve perry

Enigma869 wrote:I must say that if Perry did in fact sign this 10 year agreement (that has expired) that allows these songs to be performed by anyone, so long as he gets his royalty checks, I'm VERY disappointed. While I will certainly listen to the re-recorded versions (because I'm a fan of the music), it just seems odd to me that he would be okay with it. At the end of the day, most of the songs that have been re-recorded are HIS songs (either wrote or co-wrote all, but Faithfully, I believe), and I can't believe that he wouldn't have a deeper attachment to that music! Didn't The Sopranos have to get ALL of their permission to use "Don't Stop Believin'" in their finale???? That wasn't that long ago. Did the agreement expire after that? Oh well. I guess at the end of the day, it's just music and not that big of a deal. I simply thought based on everything I've heard Perry say over the years, that there would be NO WAY he would EVER sign off on someone else recording those songs and calling themselves "Journey"!


John from Boston

Didn't SP once say in an interview that his songs are like his kids, while he is composing them they are still his 'responsibility' but once they are finished, he has to let them go out into the world?

I haven't remembered verbatim what he said, but you get the idea.

I guess he decided that after ten years or nine years or whatever it was, the songs have 'come of age' and he can let them go.

SusieP wrote:Didn't SP once say in an interview that his songs are like his kids, while he is composing them they are still his 'responsibility' but once they are finished, he has to let them go out into the world?

I haven't remembered verbatim what he said, but you get the idea.

I guess he decided that after ten years or nine years or whatever it was, the songs have 'come of age' and he can let them go.

He did say something like that. It was during an interview about the FTLOSM material. I don't think he was referencing Journey in that context. More like it was about his solo works. I'm pretty sure the comment came as a response to being asked about making a hit song/album vs. a dud.

Enigma869 wrote:I must say that if Perry did in fact sign this 10 year agreement (that has expired) that allows these songs to be performed by anyone, so long as he gets his royalty checks, I'm VERY disappointed.

John from Boston

You know John, he may have underestimated the levels to which Neal and Jon would stoop to try and earn a buck. He might have figured they'd retire the name with some of the dignity of the legacy left in tact before the ten year agreement expired.

ohsherrie wrote:

Enigma869 wrote:I must say that if Perry did in fact sign this 10 year agreement (that has expired) that allows these songs to be performed by anyone, so long as he gets his royalty checks, I'm VERY disappointed.

John from Boston

You know John, he may have underestimated the levels to which Neal and Jon would stoop to try and earn a buck. He might have figured they'd retire the name with some of the dignity of the legacy left in tact before the ten year agreement expired.

True dat, and maybe it never occurred to him that they would want to re record that stuff.
I mean how can you improve on perfection?

EightyRock wrote:Didn't Lora pop in here not long ago and answer that question? Something like...don't assume he agrees with it or can stop it anylonger.

Yes, that's more or less exactly what she said.

As I understand it, whatever agreement they were involved in isn't an issue anymore.

Enigma869 wrote:I must say that if Perry did in fact sign this 10 year agreement (that has expired) that allows these songs to be performed by anyone, so long as he gets his royalty checks, I'm VERY disappointed.

His "agreement" would have been only that Journey could not re-record the songs. Anyone could cover Journey material as long as they pay the royalties.

Enigma869 wrote: While I will certainly listen to the re-recorded versions (because I'm a fan of the music), it just seems odd to me that he would be okay with it.

I highly doubt he is "okay" with it.

Enigma869 wrote:Didn't The Sopranos have to get ALL of their permission to use "Don't Stop Believin'" in their finale???? That wasn't that long ago. Did the agreement expire after that?

That is completely different. The Sopranos had to liscense the use of DSB. They were not covering it.

Enigma869 wrote:Oh well. I guess at the end of the day, it's just music and not that big of a deal. I simply thought based on everything I've heard Perry say over the years, that there would be NO WAY he would EVER sign off on someone else recording those songs and calling themselves "Journey"!


John from Boston

Again, it's not that he "signed off", it's that he was in an incredible position of power when he left the band and he was able to strong-arm a ridiculous agreement concerning Journey and their own material. But I am sure there was NO WAY Journey would have agreed to an indefinate time period.

Red13JoePa wrote:Someone, might've been Andrew, found out and posted that the original agreement was only 10 years and expired in '07.

There was an agreement where Perry had a say in it, but to the best of my knowledge that has now expired and the band can do whatever they want.

Andrew wrote:
There was an agreement where Perry had a say in it, but to the best of my knowledge that has now expired and the band can do whatever they want.

which is frightening

Andrew wrote:
There was an agreement where Perry had a say in it, but to the best of my knowledge that has now expired and the band can do whatever they want.

Thanks for the feedback, Drew. I guess I just don't know enough about how the music industry works. It seems VERY bizarre to me that anyone can just go ahead and record someone else's songs, without any permission required. It seems to me that both the artists, as well as the record companies should have a whole lot to say about these songs being "protected" material.


John from Boston

Lula wrote:

Andrew wrote:
There was an agreement where Perry had a say in it, but to the best of my knowledge that has now expired and the band can do whatever they want.

which is frightening

Yes, and very sad.

Enigma869 wrote:

Andrew wrote:
There was an agreement where Perry had a say in it, but to the best of my knowledge that has now expired and the band can do whatever they want.

Thanks for the feedback, Drew. I guess I just don't know enough about how the music industry works. It seems VERY bizarre to me that anyone can just go ahead and record someone else's songs, without any permission required. It seems to me that both the artists, as well as the record companies should have a whole lot to say about these songs being "protected" material.


John from Boston

the songs are not Perrys alone, the band journey wrote them. Last i knew Journey has the rights to the songs---and should be able to do whatever they want with em...
sell em, remake em, re do them. whatever---we just dont have to buy it...


Rick

Enigma869 wrote:

Andrew wrote:
There was an agreement where Perry had a say in it, but to the best of my knowledge that has now expired and the band can do whatever they want.

Thanks for the feedback, Drew. I guess I just don't know enough about how the music industry works. It seems VERY bizarre to me that anyone can just go ahead and record someone else's songs, without any permission required. It seems to me that both the artists, as well as the record companies should have a whole lot to say about these songs being "protected" material.


John from Boston

They get a royalty though when someone else performs/records their material. So they do get money from it.

We had a thread about this last year and Laura, I think it was Laura posted up some very informative stuff explaining how it works.

Hopefully she will see this thread and may be able to post it again for us.

It differs a bit from Country to Country but it works more or less the same.
For instance in the Uk, anyone performing covers is breaking the law if the venue they play at does not have an Entertainmant license. That license is paid annually and a portion of it goes to the Performing Rights Society who share out money to the composers or their Estates if they are dead. [I think royalty payments cease when the artist has been dead 50 years]

Also from time to time a representative of the PRS will visit a covers band at a gig and ask them for a list of songs they cover. Then somehow the PRS allocate money from the Entertainment license to the composer.

I have NO Idea about recording royalties - but maybe Laura or someone else can enlighten us further.
It's an interesting subject, I think. Complicated....but interesting!

jrnyman28 wrote:
His "agreement" would have been only that Journey could not re-record the songs. Anyone could cover Journey material as long as they pay the royalties.

But isn't what they're doing "re-recording" these songs? Sure, some of us might accuse them of "covering" the music, but there are some original songwriters still present in the band calling themselves "Journey", so it seems to me that they are not just "covering" the music. I guess it's all semantics.

jrnyman28 wrote: I highly doubt he is "okay" with it.

I tend to agree with you there. I didn't really think he would be "okay" with it, as he's always been quite outspoken about his feelings regarding the name Journey still being used. I just didnt' realize that he doesn't really have any say in music he was responsible for writing. That seems VERY strange to me!

jrnyman28 wrote:That is completely different. The Sopranos had to liscense the use of DSB. They were not covering it.

Thanks for setting me straight on this issue! That makes complete sense that "The Sopranos" had to get license to use the material and that the license had to be obtained through the original song writers.

jrnyman28 wrote: Again, it's not that he "signed off", it's that he was in an incredible position of power when he left the band and he was able to strong-arm a ridiculous agreement concerning Journey and their own material. But I am sure there was NO WAY Journey would have agreed to an indefinate time period.

I guess this is where we "part company", philosophically speaking. I don't find anything even remotely "ridiculous" about Perry having power over his own material. I wouldn't feel any differently if it were Jonathan Cain who had left the band, and wanted to protect music he wrote or co-wrote. On songs that were co-wrote, I believe ALL artists involved should have to agree to how the music is used and whether or not it is recorded by someone else. To me, it's like some other guy coming along and releasing a movie called "Saving Private Ryan", with the same exact story line, but with some "replacement" actors. I suspect Steven Spielberg probably wouldn't allow such a thing to happen. I realize that this music was performed under the "Journey" name, but as far as I'm concerned, the person or people, who are responsible for writing a song should have the ultimate control over how their lyrics are used and by whom! It really is VERY surprising to me that all writers don't have to agree to how their own songs are used. Apparently the music business is a lot more relaxed than I thought it was!


John from Boston

lights1961 wrote:the songs are not Perrys alone, the band journey wrote them. Last i knew Journey has the rights to the songs---and should be able to do whatever they want with em...
sell em, remake em, re do them. whatever---we just dont have to buy it...


Rick

If you read my post, I don't think I ever suggested the songs belonged just to Perry. In fact, I said wrote or CO-WROTE! Having said that, I don't know who owns this music. I doubt the band "Journey" owns the music, as you suggest. If that were the case, I don't think "The Sopranos" ever would have had to contact Steve Perry for licensing of the song "Don't Stop Believin'", because as we all know, Perry hasn't been a member of "Journey" in a VERY long time! They obviously had to get permission from the writers of that song, and not the band who performed it!


John from Boston

Enigma869 wrote:I doubt the band "Journey" owns the music, as you suggest. If that were the case, I don't think "The Sopranos" ever would have had to contact Steve Perry for licensing of the song "Don't Stop Believin'", because as we all know, Perry hasn't been a member of "Journey" in a VERY long time! They obviously had to get permission from the writers of that song, and not the band who performed it!

Publishing credits / permissions are divided. From what I can tell, and I'm no music agent or lawyer.... if you are making a commercial or a show and you want to use DSB... you get permission from all 3 parties and you pay two sides of the coin... Weed High Nightmare gets paid, and then Perry's company also gets paid. When these songs pop up now, they always list 2 separate publishing companies. Its funny... AFAIK there is a record of SP getting paid for Clinton using DSB but not the FrigFro, unless it was one payment that got divided, but I don't think it was large enough for that.

To record a song written by someone else is called a mechanical license here in the USA. I've done this. So when I recorded a jazz album a few years back, we did some tunes by other people. We had to apply for a mechanical license which meant we paid the songwriter a royalty for using the song even though it was our version. At the time it was (and it may still be) based on song length as to how much they get.

In this case, they could re-record the classics and just pay Steve per copy on the songs he co-wrote. If he didn't write it, he gets nada. Anyone can pretty much just get a mechanical license.

Now, it's different if you want to release the song on a video. The song is then paired with visual, which the original writer can deny rights to. That's why, for example, on the post-DDY Styx DVDs you don't see DDY songs, but they are on some live CDs.

Playing live is also different because artists need to be paid for their songs being used. That's why live venues and radio stations need to keep track of what's played. Many small venues don't, but by law they have to.


Hope that helps.

ohsherrie wrote:You know John, he may have underestimated the levels to which Neal and Jon would stoop to try and earn a buck. He might have figured they'd retire the name with some of the dignity of the legacy left in tact before the ten year agreement expired.

Yeah, because they have to ground a money-making operation simply because the singer decided to bail out and hang 'em up. They're as much Neal and Jon's songs as they are Perry's. God forbid Neal and Jon try to *gasp* earn some money and do what they like doing!

And like I said in another thread - he probably thought there was no way they could continue on without the almighty "Voice," so he figured he was safe only signing a ten-year deal. Joke's on him - they replaced him (and replaced him and replaced him ) Journey's still out there playing the songs and he's sitting on his ass cashing royalty checks. To each his own, I guess. Too bad Perry didn't know that the band Journey could continue on without him. Maybe he would have signed a 25 year deal then.

fightingilliniJRNY wrote:Yeah, because they have to ground a money-making operation simply because the singer decided to bail out and hang 'em up. They're as much Neal and Jon's songs as they are Perry's. God forbid Neal and Jon try to *gasp* earn some money and do what they like doing!

And like I said in another thread - he probably thought there was no way they could continue on without the almighty "Voice," so he figured he was safe only signing a ten-year deal. Joke's on him - they replaced him (and replaced him and replaced him ) Journey's still out there playing the songs and he's sitting on his ass cashing royalty checks. To each his own, I guess. Too bad Perry didn't know that the band Journey could continue on without him. Maybe he would have signed a 25 year deal then.

Listen...your venom for Perry is VERY clear, but you're a bit off on some of your points! First and foremost, to say that "the joke's on him" might be the MOST fucking ridiculous statement I've ever read! The joke is on him, how??? You make it sound like Journey has gone on to some fame and fortune without the guy! This band has done absolutely NOTHING without Perry at the helm, regardless of how you think he was "replaced"! If anything, I would say the joke is on the rest of the band who are out busting their asses, touring nonstop, and probably making less money than Perry is! Shit...dig up a thread from Jeff after he joined Journey last year. The guy flat out said he had people who had no idea Perry wasn't in the band, and this was 10 freakin' years, and one singer removed, from the time he left the band!

I respect the hell out of both Jon and Neal, as musicians. I feel they are both immensely talented. That said, nothing pisses me off more than dopes who babble about how Journey existed before Perry and after Perry! I guess I can acquisce to the point of "existing", but that's about it. They didn't do anything before Perry was added...They haven't done anything since Perry left...and aside from playing the songs that Perry's voice made famous in 5000 seat venues, they won't do anything in the coming years! In spite of your hatred towards Perry, it doesn't change what the facts are of the "Journey" chronology! They're right there, in black and white, for everyone to see!

As far as ownership of the songs, I do agree with you that they are equally Jon's, Neal's, and Perry's, on songs where all three wrote! As I stated previously, I think the songs should belong to the writer (which apparently isn't always the case in the world of music). I also think ALL writers should have a say on how the material is used and performed. I realize from what I've read here, that isn't always the case, but I think it's just how things should be. I think Perry's legacy is forever cemented and further strengthened every 6 months, when "Journey" decides that they don't have a vocalist who can replicate the only sound anyone knows them for!


John from Boston

jrnyman28 wrote:Again, it's not that he "signed off", it's that he was in an incredible position of power when he left the band and he was able to strong-arm a ridiculous agreement concerning Journey and their own material. But I am sure there was NO WAY Journey would have agreed to an indefinate time period.

Bingo, eureka.
He probabably figured he could hamstring them beyond their absolute bitter end @ a decade; never in his wildest dreams did he figure Journey'd probably last even another 4 years.

But given the timing and apparent swiftness of the recording here, this was Journey chomping at the bit to get this thing out and jam both proverbial middle fingers up his ample nostrils.

Like Mike Tyson used to wait about a second and a half after his challenger slow jogged into the ring before storming out of the dressing room down the aisle and into the ring.

lmao... have you guys given any thought to just how much MONEY Perry stands to earn on the those Walmart sales?

Perry most likely saw the income opportunity... and said "Sure... I'll take more money!"

The "legacy" of the Perry era will ALWAYS be there.... its legendary... and will outlive all incarnations of the band.... we all know that... Perry's legacy is secured.

But the opportunity to make major bucks for something you did 25 friggin years ago.... Perry's not that stupid..

EightyRock wrote:Didn't Lora pop in here not long ago and answer that question? Something like...don't assume he agrees with it or can stop it anylonger. Not having Perry in control of their catalog is like having Bush in control of the country from now on. Prepare to see every Journey song reworked, reused, rehashed and repackaged with Neal's new golden boy. Between Azoff, Schon and the Princess, they'll be trying to squeeze every nickle out of those old songs, since they can't write anything of that calibur on their own anymore.

Hasn't it been said that their "new" CD is going to be part rehash?

I disagree and would love to know what makes you think this? If your right,take me to Vegas with you,I would love to put it all on black #7 !