Lindsey and Mick cut 8 new tracks, would like at least an EP

[billwebster]

8 new songs in the works. These are really good news.

If Interscope likes the project, the outside producer really ought to be labelhead Jimmy Iovine himself. He knows that band from way back in the day.

He would be the man in Stevie's corner during the sessions then. And with the labelhead in your corner, what more can you ask for?

I'd prefer they turn these 8 songs into an album by adding some more. It's completely up to them under which name they are going to release them.
And with their experience in the business, they also know very well when it's best to put them out.

I'm hoping for next year.

[TrueFaith77]

It just hit me. We don't know, do we?, that these 8 songs are all LB-written. Maybe some are Stevie demos that Lindsey/Mick did some work with (as they did on Stevie's stuff for SYW before she arrived)?

That possibility would explain the EP talk.

[michelej1]

Didn't we learn from Destiny Rules that a full album is thought to be 10 songs (in the studio's mind) and after that the band has to pay for any extra cuts on there? So, if they aim for just 10 songs that gives them an easier target.

Michele

[snicksfan85]

Originally Posted by michelej1

Didn't we learn from Destiny Rules that a full album is thought to be 10 songs (in the studio's mind) and after that the band has to pay for any extra cuts on there? So, if they aim for just 10 songs that gives them an easier target.

Michele

They (the band) don't technically "pay". It's called a controlled composition clause and it really only affects artist-songwriters. In essence, it's a cap on how much a songwriter recording their own material can potentially make. They could put 18 or 19 on the album but over a certain amount of tracks (sometimes 10, sometimes 12, it's a contract by contract thing), they don't get paid mechanicals for them. Plus, on top of that, they usually only get a percentage of the 9.1 cents per song anyway. The only time the artist actually having "to pay" comes into issue is when there are songs written by someone else.

Example:
No controlled composition on a 15 track CD from singer/songwriter: 9.1 cents per track, $1.365 in mechanical royalties for every album sold

Same thing as above only now with controlled composition of 75% of statutory rate capped at 10 tracks: 4.8 cents per track, 68.25 cents per album

15 tracks (10 by the artist, 5 covers) with the controlled composition clause: still capped at 68.25 per album but now minus 45.5 cents (9.1 cents full royalty per track for the 5 covers) leaving the artist with 22.75 cents per album because the other person's royalties come out of the singer's part making 2.275 cents per song

And that's just the songwriting mechanical royalties. That's not the actual recording artist royalties which is a whole other mess.

Isn't the recording industry fun?

[snicksfan85]

If they're going to do an EP, we're probably looking at getting 6 tracks, tops. I'm guessing more like 4.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by snicksfan85

If they're going to do an EP, we're probably looking at getting 6 tracks, tops. I'm guessing more like 4.

Which could still be folded into a 10+ track album at some point. I think that's the best method: 4-track ep before tour; tour; full album after tour; tour again; retire.

*sigh*

Will anything on the new EP/LP be as great as SYHA, BTLH, RR, TD, DR, EFO?

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by snicksfan85

If they're going to do an EP, we're probably looking at getting 6 tracks, tops. I'm guessing more like 4.

Is there a precedent for a band of this caliber and vintage to release an EP of original new material in this day and age? The concept of an EP is so dated... practically before the dawn of CDs, when artists/record companies needed a means of releasing material that would not fit on a 45 RPM single, but would also not fill up a full 12" album. It also tended to consist of odds and ends- bonus material that otherwise was not deemed suitable for an album (covers, B-sides, remixes, outtakes, leftovers, live tracks, etc.). I don't recall any *established* artists intentionally setting out to write, record and release an EP. If anything, I think an "EP" is kind of an artistic copout- a way of hastily releasing (often sub-par) material with the mindset that, well, this is not an actual album, so it really doesn't count. This way, if the critics and music buying public reject it, it doesn't really mar the Fleetwood Mac catalog of albums since it was never considered an album in the first place.

But then again... who knows. Maybe Fleetwood Mac will pioneer the concept of digital EPs by established bands that don't really feel like working together, but need some morsel of original new material to justify a lucrative reunion tour.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by snicksfan85

They (the band) don't technically "pay". It's called a controlled composition clause and it really only affects

No, I was thinking of something else. They had to pay for the extra SYW tracks and Lindsey planned to reimburse himself for the costs, from the tour proceeds.

Anyway, they don't even have a label anymore, so I guess that is moot. Just scrounge 10 songs up from somewhere and sell them on the FM site. Michele

[snicksfan85]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Is there a precedent for a band of this caliber and vintage to release an EP of original new material in this day and age? The concept of an EP is so dated... practically before the dawn of CDs, when artists/record companies needed a means of releasing material that would not fit on a 45 RPM single, but would also not fill up a full 12" album. It also tended to consist of odds and ends- bonus material that otherwise was not deemed suitable for an album (covers, B-sides, remixes, outtakes, leftovers, live tracks, etc.). I don't recall any *established* artists intentionally setting out to write, record and release an EP. If anything, I think an "EP" is kind of an artistic copout- a way of hastily releasing (often sub-par) material with the mindset that, well, this is not an actual album, so it really doesn't count. This way, if the critics and music buying public reject it, it doesn't really mar the Fleetwood Mac catalog of albums since it was never considered an album in the first place.

But then again... who knows. Maybe Fleetwood Mac will pioneer the concept of digital EPs by established bands that don't really feel like working together, but need some morsel of original new material to justify a lucrative reunion tour.

Do I think it's lazy to just put out an EP and that's it? Yea. But if that's all I'm going to get, I'm going to take it and run with it.

Besides EPs are in right now, especially for acts that haven't released anything in a while or need something quickly to release for promotional purposes. And in this case, both of those apply to the Mac.

By the way, I love the new Mavericks EP.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by snicksfan85

Do I think it's lazy to just put out an EP and that's it? Yea. But if that's all I'm going to get, I'm going to take it and run with it.

Besides EPs are in right now, especially for acts that haven't released anything in a while or need something quickly to release for promotional purposes. And in this case, both of those apply to the Mac.

By the way, I love the new Mavericks EP.

Well, EPs are generally not lazy in terms of length, but in terms of quality. I have CD "EPs" that are an hour in length! I suspect there is a temptation not to try as hard when you're just pushing out a few songs.

In the case of the Mavericks EP (I'm SO happy they are back together!), those are all songs from their upcoming album. So, again, it's not quite the same as releasing a small batch of all-new original songs; that EP is more of a teaser/promotional tool. Now what would be interesting AND fit under the category of "odds and ends" suitable for an EP is if Fleetwood Mac covers itself- re-recording a handful of pre-Rumours songs! I would be very interested in something like that interspersed with a handful of new songs.

[snicksfan85]

Originally Posted by michelej1

No, I was thinking of something else. They had to pay for the extra SYW tracks and Lindsey planned to reimburse himself for the costs, from the tour proceeds.

Anyway, they don't even have a label anymore, so I guess that is moot. Just scrounge 10 songs up from somewhere and sell them on the FM site. Michele

There were two talks about money: one about the controlled composition (double album, tracks over the 10) and one for production costs (extra days with the engineers, more songs mixed). I think he paid for the two engineers they tested out out of his pocket but I'd have to go back and watch it.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Well, EPs are generally not lazy in terms of length, but in terms of quality. I have CD "EPs" that are an hour in length! I suspect there is a temptation not to try as hard when you're just pushing out a few songs.

In the case of the Mavericks EP (I'm SO happy they are back together!), those are all songs from their upcoming album. So, again, it's not quite the same as releasing a small batch of all-new original songs; that EP is more of a teaser/promotional tool. Now what would be interesting AND fit under the category of "odds and ends" suitable for an EP is if Fleetwood Mac covers itself- re-recording a handful of pre-Rumours songs! I would be very interested in something like that interspersed with a handful of new songs.

I wasn't saying EPs were lazy. I was just saying for the Mac it was lazy. Their stuff is all going to be "new" (depending on what demos are in circulation) on it, just like the Mavericks. But unlike the Mavericks, I don't think it's going to roll into an album. (I hope they surprise me on the album part but I'm not holding my breath.)

Chalk that all up to an *educated* guess... (until Stevie changes her mind. )

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by snicksfan85

There were two talks about money: one about the controlled composition (double album, tracks over the 10) and one for production costs (extra days with the engineers, more songs mixed). I think he paid for the two engineers they tested out out of his pocket but I'd have to go back and watch it.

No, I think the band paid for the engineers. That's what he was teasing John about, having to pay his 25%. I think he said John's share was $9000. He said if John didn't pay, then they wouldn't have bass on the tracks or something.

Lindsey paid for having the extra tracks on the album.

Michele

[snicksfan85]

Originally Posted by michelej1

No, I think the band paid for the engineers. That's what he was teasing John about, having to pay his 25%. I think he said John's share was $9000. He said if John didn't pay, then they wouldn't have bass on the tracks or something.

Lindsey paid for having the extra tracks on the album.

Michele

OK, I watched it again. And there's a lot of stuff I didn't pay attention to, business-wise. I guess it's because I still wanted to be a studio engineer at that time.

He was willing to pay for it out of his potential royalties. He says "We only get paid royalties up to 12 songs and if we had 20, I'd really only be getting paid for 2 or 3." and then says something about being crazy. That's the controlled composition clause in action. BUT, what finally put the nail in coffin of that was Stevie's non-commitment. He goes on to say during the rehearsal part that he was willing to "eat" the money they were going to lose on a double album if they could tour, make an album, and then tour some more but it sounds like Stevie wouldn't commit to anything over 40 dates ahead of time. (Which we know she did go ahead and do.) The math didn't add up to me on that until I realized he was looking at doing some covers on that double album which would have come directly out of his royalties, reducing him to only getting paid on 2-3 tracks.

So, the songwriters didn't get paid for 6 tracks on each album sold meaning Stevie took a hit too unless they worked that out which I highly doubt. He did technically end up paying for it, so to speak, but only in potential royalties on sales.

Yea, the band paid for the engineers (which I'm sure came out of their advance that they got from signing with Reprise). What I was thinking was during that whole blow up with Stevie about the Producer agreement and Chris Lord-Alge Lindsey offered to make it up out of his own pocket, but that was just my memory mixing up the many times he was talking about "eating" the costs of the double album. My bad...

[elle]

Originally Posted by snicksfan85

The math didn't add up to me on that until I realized he was looking at doing some covers on that double album which would have come directly out of his royalties, reducing him to only getting paid on 2-3 tracks.

So, the songwriters didn't get paid for 6 tracks on each album sold meaning Stevie took a hit too unless they worked that out which I highly doubt. He did technically end up paying for it, so to speak, but only in potential royalties on sales.

this is how i remember it (might be wrong) -

• LB wanted a double album with 20 songs (10 songs his, 10 songs SN's)
• they were only gonna get royalties for 12 songs so he said if he can recoup costs on the tour he would be willing to eat (a f*ck of a lot of money i think were his exact words ) royalties for 8 of his songs and just get paid for 2 while SN would get her 10
• at the end SN would not commit to a long enough tour so they decided on 18 songs and that way SN would be getting royalties for her 9 songs while LB would be getting royalties for 3 songs out of his 9 instead of just 2 out of 10 for each album sold.

does that add up?

EDIT: in fact, now when i look at the numbers, i think there was something more to it that i can't remember.

[Macfanforever]

I just wait and see.as long its new.And even if it is released on 78 rpm record I'll still buy it.