Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Is the EMI contract ending a good thing?

forum rss feed
Author

Simon Brown user not visiting Queenzone.com
Simon Brown
Champion: 58 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 May 09, 10:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Apparently Queen's contract is finishing up 2010. Is this a good thing for us?
God knows, EMI has played it very safe the last few years. Looking at the Montreal disc is proof of that - another company had to clean up the video and release it on dvd/blu-ray while EMI just released the cd.
So, what might another company provide? At the moment there are the unreleased anthologies, which could be a nice money spinning carrot, or the possibility of a new album of unreleased tracks with Fred on them.
In my wildest dreams, they'll be picked up by Universal, and each album will be released as a double disc set. The love and attention that The Who or Elton John releases are getting is phenomenal.

What do other people think?

Simon

Togg user not visiting Queenzone.com
Togg
Deity: 2393 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 May 09, 11:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

That depends on what Queen themselves want to do in the future, Rogers was not happy about the promotion of Cosmos, but it doesn't mean they will not sign a new contract with EMI again.

Lots of artists have moved from EMI recently so I would not be surprised if they did, but unless they are going to do much more in the future there is little to make another label rush to grab them. EMI will still hold the rights to the older stuff to some degree I would imagine.


"It is better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Benn user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1332 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 May 09, 11:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Absolutely a good thing.  It's entirely likely that QPL may have been keeping us all hanging on for all these years and just waiting for the opportunity to be able to release the archive material with a label such as Universal, who are more "in tune" with the re-issue market.

If they have been, then more power to their elbows.

You can just imagine the bidding war waiting in the wings for the band's material.  Could be an ugly business!


Benn
onevsion user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2241 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 May 09, 12:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Very good thing indeed. In the video message on the convention Roger Taylor openly spoke about how he felt about the shitty promotion EMI did for the Cosmos Rocks album (at 4:34 minutes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1RiZjNPagk

Maybe things change in the future and hopefully Queen (or what's left of it) sees that they don't really need a record company anymore these days... Would be great if they will release nice footage from the archives!



cmsdrums user not visiting Queenzone.com
cmsdrums
Deity: 3039 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 May 09, 12:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I suppose that they (QPL) own the music (apart from a few early tracks?), and so once their licensing agreement runs out with EMI I'm sure they would be free to licence it to another company.  They did it in 1990 with the back catalogue going to Hollywood Records, so it wouldn't be such a rash move.

Indeed it would be good to see a new company try to make their mark with anthology and archive sets, but if a new record company did take the back catalogue, it would doubtless mean quite a few new Greatest Hits sets in order for them to make their investment worthwhile.

Queenrockyou user not visiting Queenzone.com
Queenrockyou
Deity: 2013 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 May 09, 12:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I don't know a lot in that field, but is it forced that "Queen" and "Queen + Paul Rodgers" are parts of the same contract ? I would find it logical if it was a separate project and contract, moreover because Paul Rodgers isn't part of Queen. Therefore, If it's the QPR contract that ends, then no harm. If it Queen's contract, then I suppose that means EMI will stay (try to) master of the material up to 1986 (at least), and all the unreleased thing. And as next year will be Queen's 40th birthday and a bunch of releases could appear, I think EMI will do the task and won't give someone else's the opportunity to cash on it. And to be honest, who will spend so many money to buy the (expensive I suppose) rights of an artist who was successful in the past but will probably never release anything new ? Indeed, only the back catalogue could be of any interest, or as said a good lot of Greatest Hits...
But it's true indeed that Universal should be a good partner. They can make good products and promotion... At least when they want to !!


Regards,

Olivier,
Belgium.


Ps : how do you know the EMI contract ends in 2010 ?


wanna trade ?
MercuryArts user not visiting Queenzone.com
MercuryArts
Bohemian: 839 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 May 09, 21:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

If Roger was unhappy w/ how EMI promoted TCR then he must have been incensed over how Hollywood Records has "promoted" TCR and anything else they released in the last 18 years.


"Take care of those you call your own"
Vali user not visiting Queenzone.com
Vali
Deity: 2053 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 May 09, 09:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



 



ruth.olivier wrote:

Ps : how do you know the EMI contract ends in 2010 ?



 


Hi Olivier !

this subject has been discussed lately at the QOL Forum, where "Kes", who seems to be in good knowledge of what's cooking inside Queen's kitchen, reported this contract ending with EMI in 2010.

The reason why the Queen front has been so "steady" (in terms of really interesting releases) in recent years could be found in the proximity of this contract ending.

It is suposed that new negotiations will be started and from that moment we'll see wich path will take the brand "Queen".

It's been said the band is not happy with their actual relation with EMI. Roger, in fact, gave us some hints during his convention message.

I really hope all the good stuff we've been waiting for (anthologies, BBC, 70's shows, etc etc) has been locked in the archives waiting for a new contract signature, wether it is with EMI, Universal or whoever will be.

So, my point of view and reply to this thread's title is: YES



Bring out the charge of the love brigade
Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 May 09, 11:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Please.... Rhino Records, pick up the tab. 

Brian & Roger:  Don't be greedy.

Oberon user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 499 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 May 09, 16:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Micrówave wrote:

Please.... Rhino Records, pick up the tab. 

Brian & Roger:  Don't be greedy.



They are only half of the decision making team. Remember John? And Jim Beach (I think) represents Freddie's rights on behalf of whoever they were passed to (Mary?)






Tatterdemalion and the junketer

There's a thief and a dragonfly trumpeter
pma user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 3462 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 May 09, 17:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Yes, the EMI deal ending will mean that
in the future all Queen releases will be reissued through
Mobile Fidelity Soundlabs.

I think I just saw a pig fly...





"I think now I can make love to your anus without making God angry"



Registered: Friday, January 18, 2002



4 x Vision user not visiting Queenzone.com
4 x Vision
Bohemian: 508 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 May 09, 17:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

False hope. There will be fuck all released.


inu-liger user not visiting Queenzone.com
inu-liger
Deity: 13057 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 May 09, 19:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Micrówave wrote:

Please.... Rhino Records, pick up the tab. 


You're joking, right?


The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18638 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 May 09, 00:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



inu-liger wrote:







Micrówave wrote:



Please.... Rhino Records, pick up the tab. 



You're joking, right?

Hopefully not!

They treated the Yes and Chicago catalogs like gold.




"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
Benn user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1332 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 May 09, 06:47 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Absolutely - Rhino have a cracking track record with archival releases.  However, I just think that the Queen name is too big for them to win.  Universal will get the gig here and they will put their 'oomph' behind the archive a-la The Who.


Benn
Simon Brown user not visiting Queenzone.com
Simon Brown
Champion: 58 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 May 09, 07:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote































ruth.olivier wrote:















Belgium.


Ps : how do you know the EMI contract ends in 2010 ?














It's been mentioned a few times on the Queenonline forums by the moderators. Apparently they have a 'time' contract, rather than a 'number of albums' contract, and it expires 2010.


Edit : Sorry Vali! Just saw your reply. Thanks for clarifying!






Simon Brown user not visiting Queenzone.com
Simon Brown
Champion: 58 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 May 09, 07:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



cmsdrums wrote:

I suppose that they (QPL) own the music (apart from a few early tracks?), and so once their licensing agreement runs out with EMI I'm sure they would be free to licence it to another company.  They did it in 1990 with the back catalogue going to Hollywood Records, so it wouldn't be such a rash move.

Indeed it would be good to see a new company try to make their mark with anthology and archive sets, but if a new record company did take the back catalogue, it would doubtless mean quite a few new Greatest Hits sets in order for them to make their investment worthwhile.


I'd say they own all the tracks, hence their ability to licence the whole lot to Hollywood back in the 90s.
A move to a new label would mean a complete re-issue of the back catalogue I'd imagine. The new label would want to start recouping immediately. That should mean the Japanese masters are then in general circulation.






Simon Brown user not visiting Queenzone.com
Simon Brown
Champion: 58 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 May 09, 07:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



ruth.olivier wrote:

I don't know a lot in that field, but is it forced that "Queen" and "Queen + Paul Rodgers" are parts of the same contract ? I would find it logical if it was a separate project and contract, moreover because Paul Rodgers isn't part of Queen.

I'd say it comes under the Queen contract. It's Queen........with Paul Rodgers as a guest artist, just like Under Pressure was under the Queen contract.








Negative Creep user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 720 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 May 09, 07:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Benn wrote:

Absolutely - Rhino have a cracking track record with archival releases.  However, I just think that the Queen name is too big for them to win.  Universal will get the gig here and they will put their 'oomph' behind the archive a-la The Who.

tenner bet says they stay with emi and nothing changes. chances of this "oh, they haven't released anything interesting for years to use them as a bargaining chip when the deal with emi comes up for renewal" bollocks being true is extremely high. any other record label would have the exact same problem as emi - they wouldn't own any of the bands recordings and would have to rely on the band/management to give up anything new for release, which has been the sticking point.







Benn user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1332 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 May 09, 13:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Creep.

I hear what you're saying.  However, Queen's catalogue obviously does the business for EMI given the embarassing amount of re-issuing that's gone on over the last twenty years.  Any other player in the market will see that it's a cash cow to be milked and get heavily involved in the bidding war.

Now, once the deal has been done, comes the negotiating around the licensing of the material.  Brian and Roger MUST Have realised by now that they have absolutely NO chance of making any more NEW material under the Queen banner.  Where will they go to now?  They have expensive lifestyles to maintain (as do John, Jim and Freddie's estate) and the only way to do that is to go about getting the original albums back out there again and in expanded form; let's face it - no one on earth will put up with straight album re-issues again as the technology hasn't exactly advanced since the Jap re-masters came out.  Only option if for a Deluxe re-issue series and a box set.

Otherwise, there will have been a LOT of negotiating OUT of the new contract and penalty clauses to avoid etc.

Simples!


Benn