2013 Lineup

[Asdaprice]

Well technically they could, there is nothing stoping any band from playing any songs they want at their shows. Playing high up slots on the other hand is a different story.

[kev1664]

couldn't the record label sue for that? They own a percentage of the songs?

Edited March 24, 2013 by kev1664

[GuitarManDan15]

couldn't the record label sue for that? They own a percentage of the songs?

[Luke Routledge]

The break up is rumoured to be so they can get out of their current record deal and then reform under a new name.

[Asdaprice]

Nope just as anyone can play covers at gigs. It's free use. You are paying for the band performing, what they perform us up to them. They could come on and play pool in front of everyone if they wanted....

Just like bands can't stop their songs being covered and re-released.

[mrtourette]

I would imagine that if they 'broke-up', quickly reformed under a different name and started played MCR songs live again their record company would be down on them like a ton of bricks. You can't bypass recording contracts so easily.

[Yellow_Fellow]

I would imagine that if they 'broke-up', quickly reformed under a different name and started played MCR songs live again their record company would be down on them like a ton of bricks. You can't bypass recording contracts so easily.

[mrtourette]

Performance is protected speech.

Edited March 25, 2013 by mrtourette

[jump]

After the Clash broke up it took Joe Strummer 8 years of legal wangling with his old label for him to release a solo album as they considered him to be the Clash and refused to let sign with another label.

[kev1664]

That sounds very pretty, but it's got nothing to do with it. Playing all their old material live would make it clear that they were essentially the same band and thus when they tried to sign a new record deal they would find it likely that their old record company would stand in the way and have good grounds to.

If they 'split', 'reformed' and then started out again with all new songs then they might get away with it but continuing to play their old songs live would counterract their argument that for contractual reasons they are a different band.

Saying that they're a different band and are just playing a whole set of covers may sound very smug and smart but it's unlikely to wash when it comes to a record company having a legal issue with a band simply walking away from a contract. You don't outwit the music industry that easily unless you are of no value to them, if MCR's old/current record company think that another company could benefit fom releasing records by 'their' band (and despite a name change playing a set of MCR songs would lend weight to the argument that it is the same band) then they're likely to try and stop it.

Of course if they weren't interested in signing a new deal and releasing records then they could probably play those songs live for as long as they wanted, but if they were happy to do that then I don't see the point in changing their name to get out of their deal.

[mrtourette]

But surely they would probably continue to play old songs while releasing new stuff to fill out their sets. A bit like when noel and Liam play oasis at their gigs.

Edited March 25, 2013 by mrtourette

[the wonderwhy]

Would a record company really risk giving a new band a contract if they've gone 'fuck it we're out of here' so easily with the last one?

Sounds like a terrible business decision to me.

[mrtourette]

If they think they can get money/publicity out of it, sure they will.

[Dead throne]

well...this thread surely has slowed down a tad...

[mrtourette]

Yeah it's almost as if something's happened in the last two or three weeks that means people aren't arguing about the line-up as much. Coincidentally the 2014 line-up thread has got a lot busier.

[Dead throne]

shame...I love this thread...

[mrtourette]

Everything dies.

[Dead throne]

trve

[Yellow_Fellow]

That sounds very pretty, but it's got nothing to do with it. Playing all their old material live would make it clear that they were essentially the same band and thus when they tried to sign a new record deal they would find it likely that their old record company would stand in the way and have good grounds to.

If they 'split', 'reformed' and then started out again with all new songs then they might get away with it but continuing to play their old songs live would counterract their argument that for contractual reasons they are a different band.

Saying that they're a different band and are just playing a whole set of covers may sound very smug and smart but it's unlikely to wash when it comes to a record company having a legal issue with a band simply walking away from a contract. You don't outwit the music industry that easily unless you are of no value to them, if MCR's old/current record company think that another company could benefit fom releasing records by 'their' band (and despite a name change playing a set of MCR songs would lend weight to the argument that it is the same band) then they're likely to try and stop it.

Of course if they weren't interested in signing a new deal and releasing records then they could probably play those songs live for as long as they wanted, but if they were happy to do that then I don't see the point in changing their name to get out of their deal.

[Yellow_Fellow]

also;

"My Bloody Valentine (exclusive festival show England & Wales)"

god damnit hop farm

Edited March 25, 2013 by Yellow_Fellow

[dentalplan]

also;

"My Bloody Valentine (exclusive festival show England & Wales)"

god damnit hop farm

Edited March 25, 2013 by dentalplan

[mrtourette]

If the contract was broken, or finished, which is must've been in order to split up, then it doesn't matter what past labels think. A contract has a finite lifespan and ceases to operate after the seizure or retraction of the contract. If their current label and them have split, which they likely have due to the split up, then MCR have absolutely no obligation to them and can operate live as they please. Their performance can not be used against them in court.

Edited March 25, 2013 by mrtourette

[Dead throne]

woah. Calm down there mate.

[mrtourette]

A couple of interesting articles on the subject:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2008/aug/28/whenrecorddealsgowrongand

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2008/sep/04/morewaystowriggleoutofa

[mrtourette]

woah. Calm down there mate.