databank said:

but if he really wanted to record and release music and do it without a label giving him shit, he would be in a position to do so.

I heard he signed a lifetime contract with Motown, but that he can relase something whenever he wants. So I don't think he can release something somewhere else.

MickyDolenz said:

databank said:

but if he really wanted to record and release music and do it without a label giving him shit, he would be in a position to do so.

I heard he signed a lifetime contract with Motown, but that he can relase something whenever he wants. So I don't think he can release something somewhere else.

IDK about the US but I saw recently that in French law there's no such thing as a "lifetime contract" because one can't sign a contract that ties them to another party until death, because that would undermind the very notion of contract by turning someone into a slave to a former decision. But even if it's true, then it contradicts what ROSDERLING said and it means that Motown is unable to prevent him from releasing anything, so you guys need to agree.

databank said:

MickyDolenz said:

I heard he signed a lifetime contract with Motown, but that he can relase something whenever he wants. So I don't think he can release something somewhere else.

IDK about the US but I saw recently that in French law there's no such thing as a "lifetime contract" because one can't sign a contract that ties them to another party until death, because that would undermind the very notion of contract by turning someone into a slave to a former decision. But even if it's true, then it contradicts what ROSDERLING said and it means that Motown is unable to prevent him from releasing anything, so you guys need to agree.

i read something about george michael being in a lifetime contract, that sounded harsh.

PeteSilas said:

databank said:

IDK about the US but I saw recently that in French law there's no such thing as a "lifetime contract" because one can't sign a contract that ties them to another party until death, because that would undermind the very notion of contract by turning someone into a slave to a former decision. But even if it's true, then it contradicts what ROSDERLING said and it means that Motown is unable to prevent him from releasing anything, so you guys need to agree.

i read something about george michael being in a lifetime contract, that sounded harsh.

US laws are definitely more corporate-friendly than artist-friendly by comparison to EU, that's for sure. But info needs to be sourced, though.

Regardless, the 1928 version of Mickey Mouse goes public domain in 5 years and the 1938 version of Superman in 15 years, so y'all better be ready to cash in

MickyDolenz said:

databank said:

but if he really wanted to record and release music and do it without a label giving him shit, he would be in a position to do so.

I heard he signed a lifetime contract with Motown, but that he can relase something whenever he wants. So I don't think he can release something somewhere else.

Stevie performed well I would say gave a concert(because he performed pratically every hit he made) at 'Motowns 60th A Grammy Celebration' a couple of months ago (an ULTRA event that I attended). It should air on CBS this month. He really doesn't have to make any new music he has enough hits to last a lifetime. Plus soul music isn't selling anymore & most nostalgia artist make money off of just touring. He obviously isn't hurting for cash. Because he keeps making babies and marrying new beautiful woman every few years. Plus he still owns a VERY popular radio station KJLH in LA that has been VERY good to me over the years.

databank said:

IDK about the US but I saw recently that in French law there's no such thing as a "lifetime contract" because one can't sign a contract that ties them to another party until death, because that would undermind the very notion of contract by turning someone into a slave to a former decision. But even if it's true, then it contradicts what ROSDERLING said and it means that Motown is unable to prevent him from releasing anything, so you guys need to agree.

Whenever he wants and whatever he wants are 2 different things though. I guess that means, he doesn't have a time limit to release a record. I guess Sade might have something like that too, since they tend to release an album every 10 years or so, and they're with the same company they've always been with (CBS, later Sony). I don't mean a lifetime contract, but release something whenever they want.

MickyDolenz said:

databank said:

IDK about the US but I saw recently that in French law there's no such thing as a "lifetime contract" because one can't sign a contract that ties them to another party until death, because that would undermind the very notion of contract by turning someone into a slave to a former decision. But even if it's true, then it contradicts what ROSDERLING said and it means that Motown is unable to prevent him from releasing anything, so you guys need to agree.

Whenever he wants and whatever he wants are 2 different things though. I guess that means, he doesn't have a time limit to release a record. I guess Sade might have something like that too, since they tend to release an album every 10 years or so, and they're with the same company they've always been with (CBS, later Sony). I don't mean a lifetime contract, but release something whenever they want.

OK we can discuss semantics and theorize, but what's the deal with SW?

databank said:

OK we can discuss semantics and theorize, but what's the deal with SW?

What deal? Not counting compilations, Stevie has released 4 albums since 1987, 5 if you count the live album. So even if he doesn't have a lifetime contract, but has a contract to deliver 10 albums, he's still tied to Motown until he completes the contract. Since he rarely releases albums and he's now 69 years old, it's a lifetime contract either way. He's been with Motown all this time, why would he suddenly decide to leave now? If he can release something anytime he wants at Motown, signing with another label might not give him that. Stevie also owns all of his masters from around 1971. I don't know if he owns the stuff from the 1960s. Motown is probably not really waiting for a new Stevie record, they have current popular acts like Migos. For the most part, Motown is a catalog label now anyway.

RobotFix said:

RODSERLING said:

Releasing a new album would mean to go on tour, and obligations like that.

No.

SW is no Prince, he wouldn't and couldn't go indie. He can't control anything since he s blind.

Not to sound PC but that's something blind people will be glad to learn. They're unable to manage their own business because they're blind. How nice. Should we deprive them of their civil rights, too?

Why would he do that? Because he s a billionaire ? Mick Jagger has an estimated net worth of 300 millions. He lost his wife 5 years ago. She killed herself, in her 30's, just because she was in debt of 6 millions dollars. Jagger didn't even cancel his current tour with the Rolling Stones. Why? Because he hadn't really the money. Because having a 300 millions net worth doesn't really mean you have the money. Hell, he hadn't even 6 millions and couldn't afford to cancel the concerts.

This is totally beyond the point. You don't need to be a millionaire to set-up a basic home studio, record and release music. All I was saying is that with his assumed wealth SW could do it even more easily than the thousands of independent musicians who do it every day. Maybe he's tied with Motown in a shitty way and doesn't wanna bother fighting them or dealing with their demands, IDK, or maybe he considers the income he'd get from releasing music isn't worth the effort, or maybe it's something else, but recording and releasing music is not a problem in itself.

MickyDolenz said:

databank said:

OK we can discuss semantics and theorize, but what's the deal with SW?

What deal?

The deal with Motown. What is the nature of their contract? Do we know it or are we just speculating?

Sade, I'm pretty sure the reason they release an album every 10 years is they're just plain lazy BTW

databank said:

The deal with Motown. What is the nature of their contract? Do we know it or are we just speculating?

Sade, I'm pretty sure the reason they release an album every 10 years is they're just plain lazy BTW

The contract is irrelevant. Like I said earlier, Stevie announces albums and nothing becomes of it. He's been doing that since the 1970s. Like there was supposed to be a Fulfillingness' Second Finale in the 1970s. Never came out. He produced some songs for the Jackson 5, they never came out either, except one song called Buttercup that Motown released on a compilation that came out not long after Mike passed. Stevie has never stopped performing. He did a tour about a year or 2 ago where he performed the entire Songs In The Key Of Life album. Stevie is kind of a perfectionist, so that may be why he doesn't release stuff more often. He's similar to Michael Jackson & Steely Dan as far getting it right is concerned. Some acts are just that way. On Stevie's last album from 2005, there's a song that he started writing in the 1970s and in an interview he did around the time of the album release, he said he finally decided that the song was finished.

In the case of Sade, it's the singer who doesn't really want to do show business until she wants to, and she's wealthy enough to not have to do it. The other 3 members has done session work and has released a few albums as Sweetback. I think they play on Maxwell's albums, but I don't really listen to him.

MickyDolenz said:

databank said:

MickyDolenz said:

The contract is irrelevant. Like I said earlier, Stevie announces albums and nothing becomes of it. He's been doing that since the 1970s. Like there was supposed to be a Fulfillingness' Second Finale in the 1970s. Never came out. He produced some songs for the Jackson 5, they never came out either, except one song called Buttercup that Motown released on a compilation that came out not long after Mike passed. Stevie has never stopped performing. He did a tour about a year or 2 ago where he performed the entire Songs In The Key Of Life album. Stevie is kind of a perfectionist, so that may be why he doesn't release stuff more often. He's similar to Michael Jackson & Steely Dan as far getting it right is concerned. Some acts are just that way. On Stevie's last album from 2005, there's a song that he started writing in the 1970s and in an interview he did around the time of the album release, he said he finally decided that the song was finished.

In the case of Sade, it's the singer who doesn't really want to do show business until she wants to, and she's wealthy enough to not have to do it. The other 3 members has done session work and has released a few albums as Sweetback. I think they play on Maxwell's albums, but I don't really listen to him.

I never knew about Sweetback! Thx for all that info!

quentin tarantino said something interesting once, that all the directors he admired had all made a film that was personal to them and once it flopped they were never the same, i thought of stevie and Journey through the secret life of plants when I heard that. Never again would he do work with that much heart, hotter than july was a bit spotty but he still had some classic tracks, in square circle was pretty lame, in between, he had some great songs but in my opinion, no solid albums. i have a book that says that he had a production team that left after songs in the key of life and that they took a lot of creativity with them, i don't know, the plants album I absolutely loved and still do.

i'll tell you one thing that burns my grits though, after Prince died people said stevie sang horribly and acted like he was madonna or something, no way, no how is he anything like a madonna, he has nothing to prove to anyone.

That UN global government gig is perfect for an aging songwriter.

It's far easier to be paid in stolen taxpayer money from entities pretending to be good while extending their globalist agenda on us all.

Superstition said:

Stevie still draws large crowds. He has his own studio at home (Wonderland Studios). He absolutely could go indie, even at this age. Money is in touring and residuals from his hits, of which he owns, wrote and produced the vast majority of, and pretty much all of since the early 70’s onwards. Hell, he was one of the first Motown artists to get control while in the label. The Jacksons left for creative freedom. He simply chooses - for whatever reason - to take his time in between albums now. He says he’s always creating and has for eleven years been mentioning albums he’s working on, three in total. When I think the projects are dead, he mentions them again. So who knows. What I do know is Stevie could probably do whatever the hell he wanted to.

absolutely, he's in the elite class of artists, doesn't need money and there ain't no one around now who is in his class anyway, he'd release something and be outsold by clowns who don't have a tenth of his talent.

PeteSilas said:

Superstition said:

Stevie still draws large crowds. He has his own studio at home (Wonderland Studios). He absolutely could go indie, even at this age. Money is in touring and residuals from his hits, of which he owns, wrote and produced the vast majority of, and pretty much all of since the early 70’s onwards. Hell, he was one of the first Motown artists to get control while in the label. The Jacksons left for creative freedom. He simply chooses - for whatever reason - to take his time in between albums now. He says he’s always creating and has for eleven years been mentioning albums he’s working on, three in total. When I think the projects are dead, he mentions them again. So who knows. What I do know is Stevie could probably do whatever the hell he wanted to.

absolutely, he's in the elite class of artists, doesn't need money and there ain't no one around now who is in his class anyway, he'd release something and be outsold by clowns who don't have a tenth of his talent.

I think even his last album some 14 years ago demonstrated exactly that.

MickyDolenz said:

NorthC said:

If you look around on this forum, you'll see that Marvin Gaye's unreleased You're the Man album is getting ready for release. Bob Dylan's Bootleg Series has been going for years and there's still unreleased Zappa and Hendrix stuff coming out. And if you look around on the Prince forum, you will see that fans are just dying for the estate to release outtakes, so there's certainly a market for those releases. I don't see why it should be any different for Stevie.

There's a market for people paying hundreds of dollars and even thousands for records, cassettes, videotapes, CDs on ebay or buy concert tickets from scalpers too. There's a guy who paid $24,000 for Paul McCartney's birth cirtificate.

It seems someone is selling tickets for the upcoming movie Avengers Engame for $15,000 (or $25,000 cash for non-bidding) on ebay.

Stevie was at Nipsey Hustle's funeral. He sings at a lot of services.

Mikado said:

I think he knows he'll never be able to match his classic period, so why bother? I'm sure he's made a lot of music since his last album, but he doesn't want to water down his legacy. Pretty admirable IMO. Imagine if Prince had done that. [Edited 4/14/19 3:14am]

Very strange statement from an artist's perpective.

Very, very strange

great thread....the world really could do with Stevie words of love right now.

Mikado said:

I think he knows he'll never be able to match his classic period, so why bother? I'm sure he's made a lot of music since his last album, but he doesn't want to water down his legacy. Pretty admirable IMO. Imagine if Prince had done that. [Edited 4/14/19 3:14am]

that could be, prince had plenty of songs I loved after his "golden period" stevie? I haven't been able to get into the later albums. He must be doing something because his piano chops are always there and you lose that fast if you're not working, his voice is off and on these days but that could just be age. but, no matter how you cut it, he's done more than enough.

databank said:

Mikado said:

I think he knows he'll never be able to match his classic period, so why bother? I'm sure he's made a lot of music since his last album, but he doesn't want to water down his legacy. Pretty admirable IMO. Imagine if Prince had done that. [Edited 4/14/19 3:14am]

Very strange statement from an artist's perpective.

Very, very strange

Eh, it's why Billy Joel stopped making new albums after River of Dreams.

Mikado said:

databank said:

Very strange statement from an artist's perpective.

Very, very strange

Eh, it's why Billy Joel stopped making new albums after River of Dreams.

when do you think that Prince should have stopped?

SoulAlive said:

databank said:

Very strange statement from an artist's perpective.

Very, very strange

What's strange about an act not putting out records? Many singers/bands don't release a lot of material later in life, even if they still perform in concert. Such as Little Richard, Chubby Checker, Billy Joel, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Lionel Richie, Rolling Stones, Phil Collins, Def Leppard, Tracy Chapman, etc. Some by choice, others might not have a record deal. If they're not going to sell enough to make a profit, it doesn't make a lot of sense financially to spend money on studio time or a label to press LPs/CDs & promote them. Otherwise, artists will be in the hole with their label and have to owe money to the label. Many people go to concerts of veteran acts to hear their hits anyway, not new stuff. In the 1960s, it was common for acts to release 2 or even 3 albums a year, and in some cases non-album singles. That's what the labels required at the time.