At Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 05:53:55 Michael wrote:

> > Or let's pretend you're Elvis Costello -- you own your masters,
> > you want them to stay in print, you want to keep getting a better
> > royalty rate, etc. What would you do?
>
>  I think this is what upsets me the most. If Elvis owns his
>masters then he is ultimately to blame for not caring about
>his fans. It seems that he prefers to sign short term deals
>to keep his music "in print" so he can re-issue everything
>every couple years. Fine, it is his business, I just don't
>have to support it anymore.

Not defending Costello here, but there's a very good chance that no label 
will give him more than 5 years. The majors are skating thin ice with their 
committments to anything long term especially knowing that digital 
technologies keep changing. There isn't a label out there that will committ 
long-term dollars beyond the first 5 years of a catalogue anyway. If 
Costello locked in for ten years his catalogue may very well get short-run 
treatment after the first 5 -- meaning, the label stops working and 
promoting it effectively pressing fewer copies as the term continues. With 
Costello re-issuing his catalogue every five years from scratch not only are 
his titles ALWAYS in print, but they're always made available for purchase.

It's true that Costello should consider bundling his outtakes, rarities, 
live recordings in a boxed set idea....but it would certainly hamper the 
sales of his re-issues without some significant change to the packaging.

I faced the exact same dilemma when I signed Klaatu in 2001. Their catalogue 
had been re-issued on two separate Canadian labels in the '90s (never mind 
in the US or overseas) -- the first two albums on Justin Entertainment in 
1991....then a legal battle resulted in them switching to Attic where the 
first four studio albums were re-issued along with a greatest hits package 
by 1993. All these CDs went out of print in 1999 as their deal expired. 
Knowing this, I had been courting them since 1997.

It took a lot of haggling to bring them on board in 2001 (including 
convincing them that selling their masters to a large corporation was a bad 
move). In return, they wanted complete autonomous control including the 
vetoing of ANY and all bonus material. They wanted nothing altered in the 
running order of each studio album which means we couldn't add any value to 
the re-issue except two small attractions: 100% restoration of the artwork, 
in colour, with previously unseen photos and liner notes....and digital 
remastering (yes, the technology HAD changed significantly since the first 
tapes had been transferred in 1990).

Believe me it was a hard sell. And as a long time fan of the band I felt the 
fans deserved more than just a re-reading of existing product....the upgrade 
in sound and artwork, thankfully, was well received by the fans. But they 
did complain about a lack of bonus material. Thus the boxed set was 
born...and the fans, for the most part, were involved with the song 
selection of the rarities we put into it. A fan even came up with the name 
of the package.

Our deal just expired, but the band is so happy with our work at maintaining 
their 'vision' that they're going to re-sign with us instead of moving to 
yet another label. In doing so we've also managed to convince them to loosen 
up and create some special edition projects over the next three years 
featuring a reunion concert DVD/CD and possibly some 5.1 remixes for the 
audiophiles.

There's also the story of a country performer in Canada named Stompin' Tom 
Connors who signed the ultimate catalogue deal with EMI many years ago. They 
courted him for years trying to get his 32 album legacy. He signed with ONE 
condition: they had to keep his albums in print as long as he was alive. So 
far so good.

Elvis and Bowie need to look at establishing long-term goals for their 
catalogue in this way.

Jaimie Vernon,
Bullseye Records of Canada, Inc.