View Single Post
  #17  
Old 06-25-2002, 08:31 PM
CarneVaca CarneVaca is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,228
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johnny Stew
[B]We also know that the band has actually had to shop this album around, in case Warners opted to not release it.

Since Fleetwood Mac is under contract with Warner Bros., they have to allow Warners first crack at the album. They have no choice.
So if Warner Bros says, "yeah, we want it... but we're not going to release it until June 2005," then the band has little recourse but to let them have their way."

Johnny, you seem terribly well informed. All this stuff you state as fact here as far as I know has been nothing but conjecture on boards such as this, unless you can prove me wrong. I have yet to see a shred of evidence that what you say above has actually happened. All we know thus far is that Warners has had some kind of upheaval, and by the way, so have all the other major labels.

You must be extremely well connected. Perhaps you know someone at the label or the band's management.

Otherwise, if we are merely playing the conjecture game, I will say only this: The band always has some kind of recourse, especially when it has that many songs ready to go. All they would have to do is submit a 10-song collection to Reprise and tell them: "Release it. That's the new album." In which case, Reprise could say: "No good. Change it. We can't release it." To which, the band could reply: "No way. That's it." Then Reprise could buy the band out, and the band would be able to go elsewhere.

Wilco did it. And with which label? You guessed it: Reprise.

So again, if you have facts, great. Tell us your sources. If you are talking out of your posterior, then we can do this speculation game for the next two weeks. Otherwise, let's just agree to disagree. You want to go out and spend $20 for a bull**** greatest hits album, hey, go for it. And that goes for everyone else who says he/she is going to buy it. Enjoy it.
Reply With Quote