Hall and Oates

[walrus]

Or should I say Hall vs. Oates. I always liked their music, it's a shame to see this play out. Apparently Oates tried to sell his share of their company without asking Hall first....

Judge extends pause on John Oates' sale of stake in business with Daryl Hall as arbitration proceeds

A judge sided with Daryl Hall in his request to keep John Oates temporarily blocked from selling his share of the Hall & Oates duo’s joint venture.

apnews.com

 

[Harp Tail]

What a shame.. money almost always makes friendships and collaborations turn sour.

 

[Canard]

Robert Fripp is partly to blame for an earlier fall out when he convinced Hall that he could be a serious artist rather than a successful Pop/R&B artist, causing Hall to depart from the duo for a bit. Hall's resulting Fripp-procuced Sacred Songs album, what every artistic merits it may or may not have had (some people like it a lot), sank like a rock on sea of public indifference.

 

[Yoko Oh No]

Wait…which one is Hall?

 

[Harp Tail]

Wait…which one is Hall?

The taller, clean shaven one.



Although he sports a goatee in this video..

 

[Rocky]

Robert Fripp is partly to blame for an earlier fall out when he convinced Hall that he could be a serious artist rather than a successful Pop/R&B artist, causing Hall to depart from the duo for a bit. Hall's resulting Fripp-procuced Sacred Songs album, what every artistic merits it may or may not have had (some people like it a lot), sank like a rock on sea of public indifference.

Blame is probably a little harsh. I think they had played out the 'blue eyed soul' part of their career, and needed a break. I was less enamored of their 80's work together, but it's hard to argue with the success they had in that period.

Sacred Songs, according to Fripp, was supposed to be part of a trilogy with Peter Gabriel II (melt) and Exposure - Fripp's record from the period, and there are shared songs between them. I never got around to buying Daryl's album, but it if's anything like the other two, it's got to be pretty frickin' amazing. He's got one hell of a voice, too.

Here's one of the 'shared songs' - Mr. Hall certainly shows his prog chops:

Oates, for one reason or another, got the 'short end' of the duo. Not sure of how the writing was split up, but Daryl had the blonde hair, the face and most of the lead vocals. He (Daryl) also been able to purvey his greater visibility into some decent successes outside of the duo, whereas, by choice or whatever John hasn't done that. It might just boil down to levels of extroversion/introversion.

I'd bet (hope) that this all boils down to poor communication. It'd be a shame to have a bad falling out after 50 years as a duo.

 

[Harp Tail]

I agree that "blame" may be a bit excessive. The only thing Fripp may perhaps be "blamed" for is that his articulate (if not philosophical) vision of music pervades him so deeply and intensely that it leaves no room for other (more mundane?) concerns.

 

[7GuildsandanSG]

Then there was Garfunkel and Oates for a while.

 

[Prince of Darkness]

Then there was Garfunkel and Oates for a while.

I quite like them, quirky comedy duo. Both played characters in The Big Bang Theory

 

[The Guilds of Grot]

Wait…which one is Hall?

Yoko, long time no post!

 

[walrus]

But John Oates has Mississippi John Hurt's Guild F-30!

John Oates on Mississippi John Hurt's Guild F30

Apologies if this has been posted many times before on this board but I thought it was cool.

letstalkguild.com

walrus

 

[Canard]

Blame is probably a little harsh.

I agree that "blame" may be a bit excessive.

I did mitigate the word blame with "partly to," but yes, perhaps, blame was a poor choice of words. Maybe "partly responsible" would have been a better choice of words.

You can't con an honest man. You can't tempt someone who doesn't want to be tempted. Those who are looking to be lead astray often are. Hall went along with the project willingly. Oates was not happy as I remember from interviews at the time.

I bought Sacred Songs when it first came out, firstly because I loved Fripp and secondly because I enjoyed Hall and Oates on the car radio whenever they came on (never bought an album). I listened to the album maybe twice and then took it to a used shop and traded it in. I thought it was awful. I do know a number of people whom I respect greatly who think the album is brilliant. You like what you like. The general public did not like.

 

[Canard]

Sacred Songs, according to Fripp, was supposed to be part of a trilogy with Peter Gabriel II (melt) and Exposure - Fripp's record from the period, and there are shared songs between them. I never got around to buying Daryl's album, but it if's anything like the other two, it's got to be pretty frickin' amazing. He's got one hell of a voice, too.

I did get around to buying it. I loved both the Gabriel and the Fripp album. To my ears, the Hall album paled by comparison.

Yes. He does have a great voice.

 

[Midnight Toker]

Well.... we do live in an era where artist's stakes in their entire catelogs are being sold for whopping sums of money. If they were offered a massive bulk sum and one wants the cash, and the other the catelog, thid is what it comes to. Many artists see the writing on the wall. Royalty checks keep getting smaller. They now all mostly have grandkids. Some have cited how nice it is to know that their life's work, which made them rich and famous on their way up, can have one big massive final payday. In some cases, more than the artist ever earned in their lifetime up to now! And exponentially more than the catelog itself will ever produce for the remainder of their lifetime, or even their kid's lifetime. To get a bulk payout in the ballpark of 150 million dollars? Heck yeah! You could control and divy it up amongst your kids/grandkids and witness them enjoy it while you are still alive, as opposed to all the interfamily fighting and legal battles over your scraps that inevitably will happen.

Personally, I think any artist w/ a reputable catelog sprinkled w/ some decent hits would be insane not to take the biggest payday of their lives. As romantic as it may sound to want to hold on to it, being your legacy and all, it's not like your names will ever be striken from it's record. The legacy is still yours for long after you're gone. But when you consider what that catelog has ammased up to now. Be it tens of millions, heck maybe even 50-100 million if not more. It's future returns are questionable at best. For it to make some decent money nowadays, you'll have to "sell out" in one way or another, be it syncing rights for film/tv/advertising or what have you. To have a lump sum of 100 million handed to you. That IMO is not selling out. That is your life's work reaping in it's biggest reward ever!!

A list of artists who have sold of their song catalogues - Alan Cross

The music world is being shaken by the actions of a growing group of companies which are buying up the song catalogues of successful artists. The artist

www.ajournalofmusicalthings.com

Even Led Zeppelin recently saw a 10% stake in the band being up for sale. Each of the 4 bandmembers plus their manager Peter Grant owned 20% of all things Zep. When Grant died, his 2 kids each inherited a 10% stake, one of which is wanting to sell.

A 10 Percent Stake in Led Zeppelin's Music Catalog Goes Up for Sale

A 10% stake, in Led Zeppelin's music catalog is for up for sale. The share is owned by Helen Grant, daughter of the band's former manager.

americansongwriter.com

 

[Opsimath]

If the entities purchasing interests in song catalogs are offering more than the catalogs may possibly make in the future then what is their reason for buying?

 

[Rocky]

If the entities purchasing interests in song catalogs are offering more than the catalogs may possibly make in the future then what is their reason for buying?

They're buying the chance it might make more. Owners without an authorship stake will have fewer qualms about licensing for movies/tv/commercials.

 

[Roland]

If the entities purchasing interests in song catalogs are offering more than the catalogs may possibly make in the future then what is their reason for buying?

And how do you know how much they will be in the future to make this observation? It is all speculation and evidently the people buying are speculating differently.

 

[Westerly Wood]

I was never a fan. But Oates’ Arkansas album I hear that is good.

 

[Midnight Toker]

They're buying the chance it might make more. Owners without an authorship stake will have fewer qualms about licensing for movies/tv/commercials.

Yep. Syncing licenses are BIG money. The bigger the band, the bigger the fee, the bigger the movie, make that fee even bigger. Unlike royalties for a band covering a song, where anyone can cover anyone’s song…you just have to pay royalties to the rights holders based on units pressed/streamed. W/ a syncing license, where music is put in tv/film, prior approval by the rights holders is required as the visuals can change the context of a given song. Some bands will go as far as giving notes on a screening of a proposed sync, telling the director what they will and will not allow to be on screen while their song is playing…and when the song should start/stop. Fees for bigger bands like The Beatles/Zeppelin can get up in the 1-2-3 million dollar range for just 2-3 minutes of music. It’s why blockbuster films often have a 25 million dollar budget just for the soundtrack. There’s definitely money to be made, as had been noted, if the new catalog owners are much more relaxed w/ their syncing approvals. I can already see songs being used as double entendres for tv advertising. Something the original artists would have never allowed.

 

[GGJaguar]

Fees for bigger bands like The Beatles/Zeppelin can get up in the 1-2-3 million dollar range for just 2-3 minutes of music.

This must have been a pricey scene.