I don't know what the contract says - and that is really all that matters - but we're confusing some things here.
"Owning the songs" can mean several different things:
- Rights to the publishing
- Rights to previously recorded performances
- Rights to new recordings of existing songs
"Owning rights" is often about what the owner can do or not do, but it is just as often about preventing others from doing. I know a little more about the Queensryche thing because of the court cases and some of the disclosures, and absent any agreement there was nothing stopping Tater from performing Mindcrime or Mindcrime II in their entirety, but there was nothing stopping the LaTorre version from doing the same. I believe the "agreement" there is that the LaTorre version CANNOT stage their own opera and compete with Tater. I would guess - though it's purely a guess - that Mike's statement about owning the rights to the Suite is similar. I know nothing, I've been told nothing, but I suspect the recent performances of A Change of Seasons by DT have not gone down well with Mike, and yet there's not really anything he can do, absent a specific agreement between the parties that "X entity will not perform Y song in public without the prior written permission (or active participation) of Z".
It gets a little squirrely when you start talking about "operas" or "complete pieces of work" (this was an issue with Dweezil and his "Zappa Plays Zappa"; Ahmet argued that he could prevent Dweezil from playing those works because they were a complete body of work, and not just "individual songs" as Dweezil (and the law, it seems) maintained). In other words - and for the third time, I have not read the contracts, so I cannot say this for certain - The Musical Box likely does not HAVE to get permission to play the "Selling England By The Pound" setlist, but under certain conditions, they may have to get permission to put on a presentation of "The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway". I know they did get permission for both anyway, out of respect for the band (and to elicit cooperation with costumes, set pieces, etc.) but there's a difference between what they have to do and what they choose to do.
Then there's the sale of recorded works of the performance. This was also likely addressed by the agreement between the parties (and I will note again, I am not privy to that agreement, so this is guesswork). It's one thing to include "Repentence" on a Flying Colors live disk - absent a specific agreement, it's no different than Dream Theater playing "Enter Sandman" as part of "Peruvian Skies". They didn't have to call Lars and get specific written permission (though as colleagues and friends they may have, who knows). This is also why Kiss and Def Leppard (and Iron Maiden and Little River Band and Foreigner) have all re-recorded versions of their songs and released them when faced with obstruction from their former record companies (it is also why I was surprised that DT never recut WDADU with LaBrie). The "Ytsejam" thing complicates things, and I understand there is a specific prohibition against releasing anything that might have reasonably come out on the Ytsejam label in the past (certainly anything that has the current members of DT on it; I believe both sides have addressed that publicly after the split). I honestly don't know if a "Shattered Fortress" set will ever be released; it's potentially something that was addressed at the time of the breakup and it will depend on how it was addressed.
I haven't even talked about "billing" the shows either; that is a whole different ball of wax.
Poll
Topic: MP's Shattered Fortress Tour (Read 212013 times)