General Pearl Jam Bitching

[McParadigm]

That's a very vague and misleading article.

Current industry standard for individually paid songwriting royalties is nine cents a song. In fact, it's not just standard: it's the law. So, if you write eleven songs that end up on an album, you're looking at 99 cents. It's also separate from performance or other payments...which can range from virtually nothing to around 30 cents. So when you read that "high end royalty rates are a dollar an album," or that "low end rates are substantially less," it's often a misrepresentation of the fact that there are multiple types of royalty rates, and a "band" or "artist" who relies on outside songwriters is getting substantially less than an artist who writes.

Let's ignore the fact that nine cents is the base or starting point number, and that an increase is usually built into contracts that climbs as high as 200% over various benchmarks (half a million copies, one million, etc.)(this serves as a carrot on a stick that most artists will never attain, while keeping successful artists feeling both happy with and indebted to their labels "generosity"). We'll justify not factoring that in by also not factoring the various "all your base are" record company debtor schemes that promise to thoroughly fuck up the first half million for any band, anywhere (justifiable...for example, 'return privilege' is mostly irrelevant to established successful artists, and completely so with back catalog albums)

Round to 90 cents and divide it by five band members, and you're looking at each person getting 18 cents per record. Multiply by the 31,000 copies per year that Vs and Vitalogy averaged together 2006-2012, that's somewhere around $5,500 a year. So maybe I was off by $500. But then, there is that radio play for Daughter and Betterman to buffer...

Anyway, that still leaves the 12 songs for which he is songwriting-credited (remember all of this is based on the very likely scenario that the band claimed joint credit for this on the legal end, as this is common practice) appearing on the greatest hits record, which has averaged more than 90,000-100,000 copies a year every year since its release. Greatest Hits are great because there's virtually no production cost (i.e. no label debt), and they rely on songs for which the debt line has already been cleared. There's a reason bands release these things all the time: bank.

It's also worth remembering that, for a successful band, all of these "this industry is bullshit man" details are very, very skewed towards the first million, or first year of release (whichever comes last). The label pretty much gets its share first and, until you have paid them back for recording costs and any loans related to touring, they get most or all of yours as well. There are a lot of other little things like that, but they're also designed to lean heavily on the first million sales. This is why bands love repackaging and rereleasing their hit records over and over again: even more fucking bank. If it sold a million copies the first time around, and they repackage it and sell another 100,000 copies, they may make substantially more on that 100,000 simply because they don't owe anything on it anymore.

Songwriting is everything. It's no coincidence that people like the Stones and Paul McCartney were willing to dedicate entire decades of their lives to fighting for the rights to songs that they were tricked out of in the 60's, and there's a reason someone wanted to trick them out of them in the first place: Gary Portney made enough in royalties off of the Cheers theme song that, in his own words, he'd never have had to work again if he hadn't wanted to. And he was saying this in 2012, long after the show ended. Don McClean acknowledged that he continues earning something like $300,000 a year just off American Pie royalties, and that was also post-2008 (I forget the exact year).

Now, this doesn't discount the Camper Van Beethoven argument that the digital era is shit to artists, but the victims there are the bands who don't sell a lot of records/downloads or are trying to establish themselves. But we're not talking about freshly released albums selling 31,000 copies, or 100,000 copies...we're talking about catalog sellers who have long-since passed all the royalty-bleed benchmarks.

Even now, if you take a song like Moves Like Jagger...according to Rolling Stone, Benny Blanco (who shares songwriting royalties with THREE other people and does not play on the track) earned half a million dollars in the first six months of the song's release from songwriting royalties alone (as in, not counting commercial deals or his producer's credit), from that song alone. The song was purchased in some way/shape/form 4.5 million times during that six months.

[nomorecrackpipes]

Maybe part of Dave's "severance" with the band is a covenant not to speak ill of the band? Like they pay him a flat amount each month/year to keep his trap shut and vice versa?

There's nothing quite vindictive about anything Dave has said in the intervening 19 years, simply some informational quotes with hints of bitterness, plus his YouTube page. PJ certainly haven't said anything mean about him in the press or the movies.

[BurtReynolds]

http://www.dallasobserver.com/1996-10-2 ... rock-star/

"I'm finally free--from all the legal stuff with that band."

this interview led me to believe he reached some sort of settlement with them and was now completely severed from them. Perhaps a lump sum in place of royalties? Is that even legal?

[Lament]

http://www.dallasobserver.com/1996-10-24/music/un-rock-star/

"I'm finally free--from all the legal stuff with that band."

this interview led me to believe he reached some sort of settlement with them and was now completely severed from them. Perhaps a lump sum in place of royalties? Is that even legal?

Yeah. That's what happened with Tony McCarroll from Oasis (though McCarroll got blasted pretty badly for not just allowing the royalties to roll in as he probably cost himself a considerable amount in future earnings).

[broken iris]

I have no doubt that Dave A was a multimillionaire in the 1990s. I do have doubts he still is and have even more doubts that the deal he got when he was removed from PJ was anything like what McP posted.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/daveabbruzzese

It's totally irrelevant of course, so I'll shut up now.

[Mine]

Maybe part of Dave's "severance" with the band is a covenant not to speak ill of the band? Like they pay him a flat amount each month/year to keep his trap shut and vice versa?

Maybe there isn't that much to say at the end of the day.

[nomorecrackpipes]

Maybe part of Dave's "severance" with the band is a covenant not to speak ill of the band? Like they pay him a flat amount each month/year to keep his trap shut and vice versa?

Maybe there isn't that much to say at the end of the day.

Certainly, but as someone who works on various sensitive financial info for individuals and businesses, there's a lot of hidden agreements, especially when lawyers are around (and PJ appears to have had good counsel throughout their career).

I personally believe that there was some sort of legal agreement between them that gave PJ permission to play his written songs, use his likeness, repackage his performances on songs, etc. in exchange for a guaranteed payment (lump sum or periodic) and either/both of speaking out of turn about the band/profiting individually from his time in the band.

The situation between Dave & the band is weird and this is the only logical reason I can think of.

[broken iris]

Maybe part of Dave's "severance" with the band is a covenant not to speak ill of the band? Like they pay him a flat amount each month/year to keep his trap shut and vice versa?

Maybe there isn't that much to say at the end of the day.

Certainly, but as someone who works on various sensitive financial info for individuals and businesses, there's a lot of hidden agreements, especially when lawyers are around (and PJ appears to have had good counsel throughout their career).

I personally believe that there was some sort of legal agreement between them that gave PJ permission to play his written songs, use his likeness, repackage his performances on songs, etc. in exchange for a guaranteed payment (lump sum or periodic) and either/both of speaking out of turn about the band/profiting individually from his time in the band.

The situation between Dave & the band is weird and this is the only logical reason I can think of.

most fans have suspected this for some time... maybe that is why "Angel" is completely gone.

[Mine]

Maybe part of Dave's "severance" with the band is a covenant not to speak ill of the band? Like they pay him a flat amount each month/year to keep his trap shut and vice versa?

Maybe there isn't that much to say at the end of the day.

Certainly, but as someone who works on various sensitive financial info for individuals and businesses, there's a lot of hidden agreements, especially when lawyers are around (and PJ appears to have had good counsel throughout their career).

I personally believe that there was some sort of legal agreement between them that gave PJ permission to play his written songs, use his likeness, repackage his performances on songs, etc. in exchange for a guaranteed payment (lump sum or periodic) and either/both of speaking out of turn about the band/profiting individually from his time in the band.

The situation between Dave & the band is weird and this is the only logical reason I can think of.

I guess it's plausible that they made a deal that would have him lose the rights to songs his credited for. I wouldn't be sure about that either if Ed was the only one that had issues with him. I mean that alone wouldn't make any copyright related issue that big of a deal or even sense financially.
I know rights over recordings aren't a rare cause of conflict in the music business between people that aren't in good terms but i'm not sure the rights to their work he had would give him enough power to be a problem for them.

[XWayne]

Providing Chris Cornell's setlist.fm listing isn't incomplete, it must've been the show on November 26th, 2000; it seems to be the only Seattle show from around that time and Alain Johannes appears to have played with Chris that night.

Vedder was a guest at the Who concert in London, UK (Royal Albert Hall) on November 27th, so it does not seem possible. Except if he went Supersonic from Seattle to London.

[stonefury]

I don't think he wanted to, he probably needed the money. Which would be a source of resentment since PJ members pull like $200k each for a show.

What really sucks for Dave is that he toured a shit ton with the band back in the day when they did everything possible to keep ticket costs down.

[LetMeSleep]

I don't think he wanted to, he probably needed the money. Which would be a source of resentment since PJ members pull like $200k each for a show.

What really sucks for Dave is that he toured a shit ton with the band back in the day when they did everything possible to keep ticket costs down.

And he even jumped into the crowd to help Ed one time.

My old boss is a composer and he had a 5 second sting in an episode of Friends. Through DVD sales and constant replays he gets a annual cheque of around $18K. So I would assume with just Go alone that Dave A is doing okay.

[Vic Cognac]

Wow. Dave A is on linked In ??
He can come drum for my band....if he wants.

But he better not pull any of that rockstar bullshit...or he's out.

[Birds in Hell]

Wow. Dave A is on linked In ??

No.

At least not that Dave Abbruzzese.

[LetMeSleep]

I think all things considered Dave A has taken the high road since Aug 94. Sure he could have had a gagging order from PJ and their management but as he has stated repeatedly he was never given a reason for his departure and the band used the word amicable when it was far from amicable.

In the end I'm sure it comes down to personality as he was more than adept for that role. And all the accusations of him being a rockstar, having groupies, buying a sports car, I'm sure that some of the other guys have done that and maybe more. And this will remain a talking point until we ever receive any word on the matter (which PJ20 shows we never will).

I am surprised that he has never done any session work for other rock or funk bands. He does that Sallas thing but is that out of a desire to play or to have a paycheck.

Edit: Don't have my copy of Five Against One handy but I remember Dave A saying he heard the PJ alive single before he went to Seattle (when he worked in radio??) and he wasn't taken by the music initially.

[Birds in Hell]

he has stated repeatedly he was given given

[darthvedder81]

Edit: Don't have my copy of Five Against One handy but I remember Dave A saying he heard the PJ alive single before he went to Seattle (when he worked in radio??) and he wasn't taken by the music initially.

Yeah I think that's accurate. I believe he goes on to say that while the music didn't immediately grab him he really liked the guys (esp. Stone and Jeff). Some irony there.

I've never liked how the Dave situation was handled especially this far along when it seems like the hatchet should be buried. The fact he wasn't present for any aspect of PJ20 was stupid. Maybe he declined an offer but I doubt it.

I've always felt he was something of a sacrificial lamb for the band. The summer of '94 was nutso for everyone (especially Ed) with the death of Cobain, the Ticketmaster thing heating up and the band's allergic reaction to stardom reaching it's apex. Somebody had to get the axe and Dave was the obvious choice: "Let's blame Dave for all our communication problems. OK Bye Dave!"

[WtOB?]

five against one has its flaws but is definitely worth a read by anyone posting in pj chat.

[WtOB?]

it also features some quotes by the step dad eddie was so hard done by.

[stip]

five against one has its flaws but is definitely worth a read by anyone posting in pj chat.

I've never read it