Sleeper

[musky]

16 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It was a pisstake comment, but there's definitely a theme of it being around 20 years when bands reform - and I doubt money isn't in the mix of that.

What's really REALLY fucking sad, tho, is no one is protesting about that - that these people are being paid to sit on their arse for 20 years doing nothing useful towards society, because they once did 5 minutes work on a popular song.

Society will be fucked up for at least as long as the copyright rules stay at about what they are.

Whilst I completely agree with you about the absurd copyright laws, rest assured that nobody from Sleeper has been living off their royalty cheques for the last 20 years

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, musky said:

Whilst I completely agree with you about the absurd copyright laws, rest assured that nobody from Sleeper has been living off their royalty cheques for the last 20 years

what you mean, I guess, is that none of them have been solely living off that 5 minutes work from 20+ years ago.

[Pinhead]

Although a fan back in the day, I dread these revivals now as its rarely the same feel. I mean how can you play the same songs that you then came off stage after performing to get loaded and screw other lead singers out of other famous bands, when these days you're a responsible middle aged Mum and the closest you get to a festival is Hay book rather than Glasto....

[wozwebs]

On 15/02/2017 at 3:15 PM, paulshane said:

that would be amazing

 

I remember in 2007 on the Leftfield stage when Cud played, followed by Carter USM (back to the planet couldnt play for some reason) followed by Neds headlining. Heaven!

Wasn't it just Jim Bob solo and not Carter USM full band? 

[Joshuwarr]

On 2/16/2017 at 7:49 AM, eFestivals said:

It was a pisstake comment, but there's definitely a theme of it being around 20 years when bands reform - and I doubt money isn't in the mix of that.

What's really REALLY fucking sad, tho, is no one is protesting about that - that these people are being paid to sit on their arse for 20 years doing nothing useful towards society, because they once did 5 minutes work on a popular song.

Society will be fucked up for at least as long as the copyright rules stay at about what they are.

What are you on about? Pretty certain they all went off and did their own thing and made money just like anyone else does (some inside the music industry and some outside). They had three pretty well selling albums and as much as I'm sure they made at the time, I can't see that they'd have all lived off it. What is testament to my point is the fact they *didn't* just sit on their arse for 20 years, although I don't deny that some artists probably do. Having read Louise's book about her time in the band, they were actually quite naive and signed a bad deal so I doubt they're really still raking it in off a few top 40 singles...

[eFestivals]

26 minutes ago, Joshuwarr said:

I doubt they're really still raking it in off a few top 40 singles...

I know a guy who was in much less successful 80s band, who's still living it right up on the royalties - because of films, video games, radio play, TV use, etc, etc, etc.

It's quite possible he's doing better from that than Sleeper might be (and he's one the songwriters too which is extra royalties, which might not apply with all of sleeper's members [I've no idea]), but the idea they're seeing nothing will be wrong.

[beodeejay]

I remember (vaguely, it was 22 years ago!!) seeing Sleeper play in the sun, on the other (then NME) stage in 1995. 

They were OK.  Saw them play Mcr Academy too a few months later... again - OK.  

Not world class - but a long way from crap, tbh.  

People are too harsh sometimes.   OK songs, played well enough, to a decent sized crowd = a good gig.

 

[paulshane]

9 hours ago, wozwebs said:

Wasn't it just Jim Bob solo and not Carter USM full band? 

yes, thats right!

[musky]

On 17/02/2017 at 7:34 AM, eFestivals said:

what you mean, I guess, is that none of them have been solely living off that 5 minutes work from 20+ years ago.

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant.

21 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I know a guy who was in much less successful 80s band, who's still living it right up on the royalties - because of films, video games, radio play, TV use, etc, etc, etc.

It's quite possible he's doing better from that than Sleeper might be (and he's one the songwriters too which is extra royalties, which might not apply with all of sleeper's members [I've no idea]), but the idea they're seeing nothing will be wrong.

It's usual for many to bands to sell of their songwriting rights in return for a lump sum, leaving the band with just the performing rights, so it's possible your friend may have retained the copyright on his songs.

I had a friend who retained all his rights and self released all his material, so the only people making money off his sales were the retailers and distributor. He was doing quite well, very well in fact, off the back of that. He'd been in a 80's band who were probably best described as 'cult' and he'd retained a small but hardcore following off the back of that. Probably a different situation though, in that he was still making and selling new material.

[stuartbert two hats]

It was the vocal that really pissed me off with Sleeper. She didn't seem to be able to hold a note for more than half a second.

Definitely B or C team Britpop. Better than the likes of Salad, but no Supergrass or Blur.

[FuzzyDunlop]

Sleeper are on the Trainspotting soundtrack 3/4 times. Pretty sure its their version of atomic playing in the club. That's as good as it got for them.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, musky said:

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant.

It's usual for many to bands to sell of their songwriting rights in return for a lump sum, leaving the band with just the performing rights, so it's possible your friend may have retained the copyright on his songs.

Very definitely not my friend. Just someone i know of.

A convicted paedo, as it happens..... who's managed to keep it out of the media, and so hasn't been hit with the same non-use-so-no-royalties as Glitter.

(a big part of me wants to out him, but there's a number of ethical reasons for why that would be wrong, and due to name changes I'm not sure it would be possible for anyone to prove that 'fred' was 'john the ex pop star' anyway)

An old song of his has just been used for something major, and he's richer than he's ever been. Millions, from that one use. 

 

1 hour ago, musky said:

I had a friend who retained all his rights and self released all his material, so the only people making money off his sales were the retailers and distributor. He was doing quite well, very well in fact, off the back of that. He'd been in a 80's band who were probably best described as 'cult' and he'd retained a small but hardcore following off the back of that. Probably a different situation though, in that he was still making and selling new material.

An old friend of mine once set up a record label, and gave it a name (I can't mention the name, they might want their money back ).

As a consequence of the name he happened to choose, he ended up being paid absolutely shitloads of royalties that weren't due to the artists he really had on his label (most of which were out of copyright anyway), but were due to other people .... but confusion with what radio stations submitted to PRS for what they'd played had PRS paying out the royalties to him.

I haven't seen him for well over a decade now, so I've no idea how long those payments went on for - for all I know he's still getting them. It was in-excess of £10k a month, tho, and these were from plays of songs which were never hits.

[musky]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Very definitely not my friend. Just someone i know of.

A convicted paedo, as it happens..... who's managed to keep it out of the media, and so hasn't been hit with the same non-use-so-no-royalties as Glitter.

(a big part of me wants to out him, but there's a number of ethical reasons for why that would be wrong, and due to name changes I'm not sure it would be possible for anyone to prove that 'fred' was 'john the ex pop star' anyway)

An old song of his has just been used for something major, and he's richer than he's ever been. Millions, from that one use. 

 

An old friend of mine once set up a record label, and gave it a name (I can't mention the name, they might want their money back ).

As a consequence of the name he happened to choose, he ended up being paid absolutely shitloads of royalties that weren't due to the artists he really had on his label (most of which were out of copyright anyway), but were due to other people .... but confusion with what radio stations submitted to PRS for what they'd played had PRS paying out the royalties to him.

I haven't seen him for well over a decade now, so I've no idea how long those payments went on for - for all I know he's still getting them. It was in-excess of £10k a month, tho, and these were from plays of songs which were never hits.

Yeah, there can be huge sums of money sloshing about even for bands people consider distinctly minor league. Unfortunately all to often very little of it reaches the hands of those who made the music, even when everyone plays by the rules (and it's commonplace that people don't).

I'm sure you've already seen this, but sobering reading for those that haven't. The Problem With Music.