Do we know this? In some bands, everyone has an equal voice, or at least some kind of vote in band-related decisions. In others, there are very clear leaders. The Who was Pete Townshend's vision, without a doubt. The others had a voice, but you know who made the final decisions. King Crimson and Robert Fripp, same thing.
Well, in GT's RS interview, he said he was a 25% owner of Queensryche's companies. That makes me assume that Scott, EdBass and Wilt are the other 75%.
Yes, you are techincally correct. But Geoff's statement was carefully calculated to generate precisely the same type of misunderstanding that your post displays. Let me see if I can clarify exactly why he is being misleading.
Geoff's statement as to the percentage of ownership isn't
entirely accurate, but for the sake of argument, yes, it's close enough to say that in terms of the main corporate entity for Queensryche, each of the 4 remaining original members owned 25%. What that number means is that each owns 25% of the stock of the corporation. And when there is a corporate shareholder's meeting to vote on business decisions, each has an equal vote. However, that does not equate to everyone in the band having an equal vote.
First off, either in large corporations, or smaller closely-hold corporations like a band, shareholder meetings are extremely rare. So while they were making
creative decisions
as a band, that's not the same thing has having a formal shareholder meeting and making
business decisions
as shareholders of a corporation. Yeah, same guys. But wearing different hats. You aren't really acting in your corporate shareholder capacity when you are submitting some riffs and saying how you think a song should be arranged.
Second, in terms of day-to-day management of a corporation, different people have different management roles, some of which are more active decision-making roles. The most obvious way to describe this is to look at the president/CEO role in comparison to a VP role. Even where the president and vice president have equal
ownership rights in a corporation, the president has more management authority in terms of the day-to-day business of the corporation. (and Geoff was not the president; I am merely illustrating the point that roles differ in terms of authority even where ownership is equal)
Third, personal dynamics come into play more than percentage of ownership when you are just doing the day-to-day work of running a band. People with more dominant personalities or who speak up more about their creative vision end up being the ones to steer the ship. That's just the way people interact. When you have a strong personality calling the shots, sometimes it's easier to choke down the frustration and give in than to put your foot down and say "enough." That can be complicated when other factors come into play, such as the fact that the person with the strong personality has been your friend for 30 years, or that he is considered by many to be the face/voice of the band for 30 years, or that his family members, who you have known for a long time, are employees of the band.
So, yeah, there's a lot more that comes into play than just ownership. It's easy to say, "oh, well they were all equal members, so if there was really a problem, the others guys should have spoken up and overruled Geoff." Not nearly as easy in practice when you are the guys in the band. That's what I hate about Geoff's statement. For the most part, the 25% ownership thing is fairly true. But it is also deliberately misleading. Hopefully, my explanation helps.
Topic: Official Queensryche Thread - NEW ALBUM INFO. p. 30 (Read 50084 times)
