Jump to content

Robert Plant on his Led Zeppelin royalties...


kaiser
 Share

Recommended Posts

You ARE doing exactly that though. You are be-littling Aqua's contributions and indeed anyone who takes Robert's side with this "mob" "siren" and "clique" nonsense. You are attempting to intimidate anybody - like myself - who wishes to make a similar contribution to this thread by de-valuing their opinions with the allegations that they are over-defensive, mob-motivated, only here because of a "siren call" and just people getting in a "tizz". Actually, they are members of this forum who are EQUALLY as entitled to express their opinion as any f***er else here. As for the "Robert's a big boy he can defend himself" stuff - that's a moot point as you well know, as Robert doesn't come here so he's not gonna do that. Besides - what I have read is not even so much people defending Robert as defending their opinion of him - which again they are entitled to do. And they can come here in groups of two, five, a dozen - as many as they like, without having consulted each-other first. Gosh - a number of people on a Led Zeppelin forum who wish to stick up for Robert Plant - there's a novelty! Who would have thought it - they must be part of some big "clique" conspiracy eh?

I didn't see ANYONE in this thread attempt to speak for Robert - they spoke for themselves. And you know what - those people who have that kind of opinion of Robert will repeatedly come to his defense if they wish to participate in this forum. Because that is their belief and their opinion. And you have the audacity to attack them under the guise of some sort of crusade to allow people here to express their opinions? The only opinions you appear to feel are welcome here are the ones that match yours. Laughable.

*edited for spelling*

I am not. I never even suggested that people don't have a right to express their opinions on the matter whether they agree or disagree with Robert Plant's sale of his Led Zeppelin royalties, which after all is what this thread is about. As far as Robert's side... well I wasn't aware he even expressed as to having one. I still don't know why he sold them & it doesn't seem anyone else who responded to this thread does either. So what's the side? People are just speculating, which they have a right to I believe. Some people don't think it should even be discussed & I already gave my reasons why I think it's a valid discussion. And people defending the right of their opinion of Robert? Of course they have that right, pro or con, which I don't think anyone challenged anyone's opinion of Robert himself, just why he might have sold his royalties. I saw, in my opinion, one poorly chosen descriptive phrase regarding Robert, & I realized it was in regards to that person's opinion of his selling his royalties rather than Robert himself as a person. Of course that person wasn't given the benefit of the doubt of not choosing his words better by some, it became personal which led me to respond to a mob mentality I often see here on numerous other threads. In regards to people communicating with eachother before they post or matters of conspiracy, on the former I have no idea if they do & it wouldn't matter to me if they did or didn't, on the latter I never ever suggested a conspiracy so that's a stretch. As far as Robert on whether he posts here or not, I have no idea if he does or not. I don't know him & I don't claim to know what he does with his spare time... as others like to do.

Unlike you I saw people attempt to speak for Robert but ultimately they are only speaking for themselves, there is a difference. And as far I only subscribe to people's who opinions only match mine, well I haven't seen one post here that matches my own. Similarities but certainly not matching.

As far as your contributions to this thread, you didn't make any prior to criticizing me... twice. You only posted to critique me with nothing else to add on the subject of his royalties. Feel free to give your opinion on the actual topic anytime, not that you need my permission to do so.

Edited by kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as your contributions to this thread, you didn't make any prior to criticizing me... twice. You only posted to critique me with nothing else to add on the subject of his royalties. Feel free to give your opinion on the actual topic anytime, not that you need my permission to do so.

You're right - I don't. But here goes - I wasn't offended by Bong-Man's remark - actually it made me laugh (but I respect the right of others to both feel differently and express their opinions about it). I don't know why he sold his rights or what he feels about it now. I do know he retains control over Led Zeppelin issues and has an equal say to the other members, and that I HAVE discussed with him personally and at length.

As long as you continue to re-hash this "siren" "mob" "clique" and "over-defensive stuff though Kaiser, I'm afraid you are spoiling for a fight no matter what you say to the contrary. You are sweeping away a bunch of valid contributors with one blanket judgement and that's a shame. I personally haven't tried to defend Robert here at all and find him to be far from perfect, but I don't imagine I'll ever air my issues with him on this forum as I think that's innapropriate. That's my opinion. I'll come here with my opinions when I choose to, regardless of anyone's attempts to try to intimidate me into staying away - and you know who you are.

Anyway Kaiser - for my part I say feel free to try to keep this on topic - but can I say that in my opinion that means allowing everyone to have their say and not dismissing them with a pre-judgement when they do. Cheers. :beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right - I don't. But here goes - I wasn't offended by Bong-Man's remark - actually it made me laugh (but I respect the right of others to both feel differently and express their opinions about it). I don't know why he sold his rights or what he feels about it now. I do know he retains control over Led Zeppelin issues and has an equal say to the other members, and that I HAVE discussed with him personally and at length.

As long as you continue to re-hash this "siren" "mob" "clique" and "over-defensive stuff though Kaiser, I'm afraid you are spoiling for a fight no matter what you say to the contrary. You are sweeping away a bunch of valid contributors with one blanket judgement and that's a shame. I personally haven't tried to defend Robert here at all and find him to be far from perfect, but I don't imagine I'll ever air my issues with him on this forum as I think that's innapropriate. That's my opinion. I'll come here with my opinions when I choose to, regardless of anyone's attempts to try to intimidate me into staying away - and you know who you are.

Anyway Kaiser - for my part I say feel free to try to keep this on topic - but can I say that in my opinion that means allowing everyone to have their say and not dismissing them with a pre-judgement when they do. Cheers. :beer:

I just don't like seeing anyone attacked as it has happend to myself many, many times in the past & a great deal of the time over innocent remarks completely taken out of context. Other times because it was over a controversial subject where going into it I just knew it had the element of being explosive no matter what the comment would be. I've seen newbies chased away on their first post for asking rather innocent questions to have a mob descend on them rather than actually talk to that poster. It can be repulsive at times.

As far as my "mob" & "clique" comments, and I am sorry to say, I do see it & it's unfortunate as I've held my tongue on it for years going back to the old board. Everyone knows they exist & I know speaking on it won't win me any fans with a certain segment while others are only to willing to applaud me, and personally I don't want either hatred or accolades coming my way, I'd just like a discussion without personal acrimony & I'm not saying I haven't been guilty of it either but it's normally in response to someone personally coming after me for whatever reason.

I certainly don't want to sweep away anyone's opinions as I agree with you that everyone's are valid. That's actually what I was defending myself, everyone should be given the oppurtunity to speak & hopefully giving the benefit of the doubt to someone before instantly getting their hairs up. I personally had had enough before I chimed in as I was seeing it yet again & knowing full well if I said what I was feeling without fearing reprisals I too would make myself a lightning rod. But, I wasn't going to be intimidated & neither should anyone else here need to feel that way. Anyway, I think we agree. Cheers :)

Edited by kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's impossible to state that it was a poor financial decision without all of the facts. Since no one has been able to provide information on what Robert received in return, the key piece of information is missing. In hindsight it looks like a bad decision, but if, as someone laughingly suggested, he received whatever sum and invested it in Microsoft, he would be a financial genius. Regardless, once someone has made pots of money, their level of happiness does not increase by making more pots of money. Research has shown that once a person makes enough to cover the basics- shelter,food,health care - their level of happiness does not increase proportionally with their income. Generally, the things that make people happy are good relationships with family and friends, good health, and work or activities that they find enjoyable.

Rumor has it the man turned down $200 million to reform Led Zeppelin for a world tour. I don't know if the amount is correct, but I'm sure it was up there. In any case, it's obvious that he is not motivated by money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't like seeing anyone attacked as it has happend to myself many, many times in the past & a great deal of the time over innocent remarks completely taken out of context. Other times because it was over a controversial subject where going into it I just knew it had the element of being explosive no matter what the comment would be. I've seen newbies chased away on their first post for asking rather innocent questions to have a mob descend on them rather than actually talk to that poster. It can be repulsive at times.

As far as my "mob" & "clique" comments, and I am sorry to say, I do see it & it's unfortunate as I've held my tongue on it for years going back to the old board. Everyone knows they exist & I know speaking on it won't win me any fans with a certain segment while others are only to willing to applaud me, and personally I don't want either hatred or accolades coming my way, I'd just like a discussion without personal acrimony & I'm not saying I haven't been guilty of it either but it's normally in response to someone personally coming after me for whatever reason.

I certainly don't want to sweep away anyone's opinions as I agree with you that everyone's are valid. That's actually what I was defending myself, everyone should be given the oppurtunity to speak & hopefully giving the benefit of the doubt to someone before instantly getting their hairs up. I personally had had enough before I chimed in as I was seeing it yet again & knowing full well if I said what I was feeling without fearing reprisals I too would make myself a lightning rod. But, I wasn't going to be intimidated & neither should anyone else here need to feel that way. Anyway, I think we agree. Cheers :)

*sigh* Nobody descended on anybody's opinions in a mob. Nobody tried to intimidate anybody else. Except, in my opinion, you, with your constant browbeating. You obviously want to build this up into a much bigger deal than it is, and I respectfully am bowing out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Added in response to BlackandGold's post:

I agree. That's why I wondered if there was a connection to Es Paranza. It was around the same time he sold his royalties that the Es Paranza label started. Even though Es Pasranza may not have necessarily brought Robert an immediate financial windfall but by having his own label I imagine it did buy him a certain amount of freedom he may not have gotten had he simply recorded under Atlantic. That's why I'm curious if the sale of the royalties was a barter between him & Atlantic, if Atlantic indeed recieved the royalties from Robert, or an outright purchase that enabled Robert to start up his own label with the monies he would have recieved from whomever the royalties were sold to.

Edited by kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh* Nobody descended on anybody's opinions in a mob. Nobody tried to intimidate anybody else. Except, in my opinion, you, with your constant browbeating. You obviously want to build this up into a much bigger deal than it is, and I respectfully am bowing out.

*sigh* I disagree but ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally speaking, I don't care how much money or rights to royalties Robert Plant has. The only reason I have an interest is because the man has the best voice for rock n roll that I have ever heard in my 40 years. Enjoy the music the man has made over his career instead of the BS this thread has turned into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see people having a problem with a thread discussing why Jimmy Page sold his bookstore the Equinox. It was a personal financial business decision of his.

Not to derail this thread by responding to this point, but Jimmy never "sold" the Equinox, it closed after he elected not to renew the lease he held at the address where the bookstore was operating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to derail this thread by responding to this point, but Jimmy never "sold" the Equinox, it closed after he elected not to renew the lease he held at the address where the bookstore was operating.

Thanks Steve, I didn't know that, I thought the business was just sold. But it was a discussion on the forum on Page's own private business handlings outside of Zeppelin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Is there any difference between royalties and publishing rights?

As I understand it, royalties are monies made from the sale of your music. Publishing rights mean you own the songs and if someone records them in full or takes samples, they have to pay you to use them. Again, I'm not sure this is totally accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Is there any difference between royalties and publishing rights?

Good question. I think Paul McCartney & Robert Plant have similar situations but in reverse. I believe McCartney recieves royalty payments on Beatles recordings yet has no say on the publishing in terms of commercials & such, where as I think Plant doesn't recieve royalties in regards to the first 10 Zeppelin albums yet has a say on how the songs are used in commercials and movies. Plant & Page were both asked by Cameron Crowe to use Zeppelin songs in "Almost Famous" as well as by Jack Black in "School Of Rock" & I would guess that would come down to who has the publishing rights which I guess would indicate Plant & Page at least partially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question. I think Paul McCartney & Robert Plant have similar situations but in reverse. I believe McCartney recieves royalty payments on Beatles recordings yet has no say on the publishing in terms of commercials & such, where as I think Plant doesn't recieve royalties in regards to the first 10 Zeppelin albums yet has a say on how the songs are used in commercials and movies. Plant & Page were both asked by Cameron Crowe to use Zeppelin songs in "Almost Famous" as well as by Jack Black in "School Of Rock" & I would guess that would come down to who has the publishing rights which I guess would indicate Plant & Page at least partially.

Page mostly, Plant and John Paul Jones as well . Jones does share a credit I believe on MMH .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Page mostly, Plant and John Paul Jones as well . Jones does share a credit I believe on MMH .

Which I never understood why I've never heard if JPJ was asked by Crowe as well. I'm sure JPJ had to have been asked by Plant & Page for his approval if not Crowe directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which I never understood why I've never heard if JPJ was asked by Crowe as well. I'm sure JPJ had to have been asked by Plant & Page for his approval if not Crowe directly.

In May 2000, Jimmy, Robert and manager Robert Rosenberg met with director Cameron Crowe and his associate Bramson for a private screening of an early cut of the film ''Stillwater'. Ultimately they granted use of Led Zeppelin's 'That's The Way' for the soundtrack 'The Rain Song', 'Bron-Y-Aur', 'Tangerine' and 'Misty Mountain Hop' for the film.

Rosenberg may have acted on Jones behalf or Jones may have simply consented at a later time.

Jimmy & Robert attended the film's cinema premier in London, by which time it had been retitled 'Almost Famous'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll come here with my opinions when I choose to, regardless of anyone's attempts to try to intimidate me into staying away - and you know who you are.

Seems this never goes away. The "us Vs them" vibe on this board which is really sad. So many people sharing the same passion...Anywho,

Why would anyone not want you to post here? A creditable wealth of information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question. I think Paul McCartney & Robert Plant have similar situations but in reverse. I believe McCartney recieves royalty payments on Beatles recordings yet has no say on the publishing in terms of commercials & such, where as I think Plant doesn't recieve royalties in regards to the first 10 Zeppelin albums yet has a say on how the songs are used in commercials and movies. Plant & Page were both asked by Cameron Crowe to use Zeppelin songs in "Almost Famous" as well as by Jack Black in "School Of Rock" & I would guess that would come down to who has the publishing rights which I guess would indicate Plant & Page at least partially.

Just to complicate matters regarding royalties and fees on songs; Outside of the US, royalties are paid to not only the songwriters but also to the musicians who played on the song. They are trying to make that change as well in the US but with a lot of resistance.

In regards to Lennon (Lennon Estate) and McCartney, they recieve royalties on thier songs based on a signed contract with a company they shared ownership with. (They unknowingly signed away quite a bit of thier publishing rights back in 1962-1963 when they started recording with EMI) At a Beatles meeting around Sept 20-22 of 1969 the Beatles signed a new recording contract and Lennon dropped a bomb on the rest of the band by quitting. As this was happening, a third party bought controlling shares (over 50%) of the publishing company (Northern Songs) out from under them. Although their new manager got a few more pennies paid to them for royalties, Lennon and McCartney had no control. And decades later Michael Jackson bought controlling interest of all those songs. McCartney is angry about the situation but he did the same thing by buying the publishing rights to all of Buddy Holly's songs.

I'm not sure what the contract situation was in Zeppelin about publishing: but given that Grant was a very astute manager, it would be safe to assume that the band had full control over those songs.

If Robert sold off his publishing rights, then he would have no say as to how the songs would be used. He probably would still receive some dollars for his performance on the records.

It would be a very unwise move to sell those rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the contract situation was in Zeppelin about publishing: but given that Grant was a very astute manager, it would be safe to assume that the band had full control over those songs.

Good post & Peter Grant was very astute indeed, having established Led Zeppelin's publishing co., Superhype.

Edited by SteveAJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In May 2000, Jimmy, Robert and manager Robert Rosenberg met with director Cameron Crowe and his associate Bramson for a private screening of an early cut of the film ''Stillwater'. Ultimately they granted use of Led Zeppelin's 'That's The Way' for the soundtrack 'The Rain Song', 'Bron-Y-Aur', 'Tangerine' and 'Misty Mountain Hop' for the film.

Rosenberg may have acted on Jones behalf or Jones may have simply consented at a later time.

Jimmy & Robert attended the film's cinema premier in London, by which time it had been retitled 'Almost Famous'.

Thanks Steve. I figured it might be something like that but I wasn't sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to complicate matters regarding royalties and fees on songs; Outside of the US, royalties are paid to not only the songwriters but also to the musicians who played on the song. They are trying to make that change as well in the US but with a lot of resistance.

In regards to Lennon (Lennon Estate) and McCartney, they recieve royalties on thier songs based on a signed contract with a company they shared ownership with. (They unknowingly signed away quite a bit of thier publishing rights back in 1962-1963 when they started recording with EMI) At a Beatles meeting around Sept 20-22 of 1969 the Beatles signed a new recording contract and Lennon dropped a bomb on the rest of the band by quitting. As this was happening, a third party bought controlling shares (over 50%) of the publishing company (Northern Songs) out from under them. Although their new manager got a few more pennies paid to them for royalties, Lennon and McCartney had no control. And decades later Michael Jackson bought controlling interest of all those songs. McCartney is angry about the situation but he did the same thing by buying the publishing rights to all of Buddy Holly's songs.

I'm not sure what the contract situation was in Zeppelin about publishing: but given that Grant was a very astute manager, it would be safe to assume that the band had full control over those songs.

If Robert sold off his publishing rights, then he would have no say as to how the songs would be used. He probably would still receive some dollars for his performance on the records.

It would be a very unwise move to sell those rights.

I am pretty fascinated about the fact session musicians would recieve royalties outside the US as I've been reading about that recently especially concerning the Beatles. They used a lot of string & horn sections during their mid to later career & to think those outside union musicians may still be collecting a royalty is a bit of a shock. I think it's great for those musicians but for the longest time I was under the impression that the outside union musicians were just paid a flat rate & that was it. I would imagine the string & brass musicians on Zeppelin's "Friends" & "Kashmir" respectively would have a similar deal outside the US.

I know McCartney's situation definately gets under his skin but as you said he did the same thing with Buddy Holly's publishing. He owns tons of publishing outside of Buddy Holly, a great deal of 50's & 60's rock & roll an old standards predating rock and roll. It was rumored that he owns the publishing to "White Christmas" & "Happy Birthday" for goodness sake lol. I don't know if that's true at all but that would be quite a boon. McCartney is the one who advised Michael Jackson into buying publishing in the first place which I think is what really pissed McCartney off, that he was partly responsible for creating a "monster" that would cause him great grief later. McCartney also came under a bit of fire for reversing the writing credits on Beatles songs that appeared on his live albums so they would read McCartney/Lennon. That didn't go over well & I wonder if it was worth it to him. Everyone with any reasonable music knowledge who would buy a live McCartney album would have to know that he wrote "Yesterday" despite that it reads Lennon/McCartney on Beatles releases & whomever else covered the song. It's a bit vain, I believe, on his part even though I understand his frustration but it is the deal that he entered into with John Lennon very early on. He's asked Yoko Ono to reverse the credits on Beatles songs, especially "Yesterday", many times & she's always said no & from where she's standing I don't blame her. Also, I wonder how McCartney was able to release "Let It Be.. Naked" & if it cost him anything out of his own pocket to do so as the production & song list on the original "Let It Be" album always pissed him off.

I was under the impression that Robert still had his publishing because how could he have a say on how Zeppelin songs were used commercially if he didn't except maybe with a gentlemen's agreement with Page, Jones, Bonham's estate, or anyone else that may have some sort interest in those songs. They may be former band members & even in the best of times between them I couldn't see there just being a gentlemen's agreement between them because after all it's still a business & Led Zeppelin now solely exist as a business.

Also I'm curious as to what their royalty rate was when they first signed to Atlantic & if that changed greatly when they renegotiated with Atlantic when Swan Song was formed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...