Musicians

rocktivity

(44,883 posts) Sun Nov 30, 2014, 10:59 PM Nov 2014

(Not from the Onion) Got a net worth of $2M and $50K to spare? You can buy stock in Queensryche!

Last edited Mon Dec 28, 2020, 01:09 PM - Edit history (32)

Blabbermouth.com: QUEENSRŸCHE...(is) attempting to raise $2 million by selling stakes in what...(their) securities attorney calls a "new holding company for all things QUEENSRŸCHE" that will receive the revenues from its tours, merchandising, album sales and digital downloads.

For a minimum investment of $50,000, fans who pass an independent accreditation process can purchase an equity ownership stake from a private consolidated holding company that entitles them to "a fixed percentage" of future revenue...An internal board of directors comprising drummer Scott Rockenfield, bassist Eddie Jackson and guitarist Michael Wilton and band counsel Thomas Osinski will oversee the corporation.

"Traditionally, a band would not go into their personal pockets" to...bankroll and control a recording-and-touring effort, (the) securities attorney...said. "They would go to Capitol Records" or the like, which would dictate the project and give them an advance but "also take a huge swipe of the money...By disintermediating the labels, we're leaving more money on the table both for the band and people who invest."

QUEENSRŸCHE's latest, self-titled album sold around 13,500 copies in the United States in its first week of release to land at position No. 23 on The Billboard 200 chart. The record arrived in stores on June 25, 2013 via Century Media Records...

Seattle Times: The stock deal Queensrÿche rolled out this month utilizes a provision of the 2013 JOBS Act that allows promoters to publicize a private stock placement, though only “accredited investors” — with a net worth of $2 million, not counting a home — are eligible to invest...David Bowie, of course, raised $50 million a couple of decades ago by selling bonds secured by future royalties on his music. But he didn’t sell equity in David Bowie (Incorporated)...

Queensrÿche was in legal turmoil for almost two years after lead singer Geoff Tate split with three other original members and both groups claimed the name. Once that dispute was settled in April, the three who got to keep the Queensrÿche name — Eddie Jackson, Scott Rockenfield, Michael Wilton — added singer Todd LaTorre and guitarist Parker Lundgren, and began planning the stock sale.

"Disintermediating the labels" -- is that the legal term for "We are no longer ON a record label because our last album proved that Queensryche minus Tate equals zero, so we've gone into desperation mode"? And why is the lawyer getting a full share of the holding company while the band's newest members get nothing? Why not cut the equity pie five ways with LaTorre and Lundgren splitting a slice?

If this were a band that sucked, I'd be schadenfreude-ing my head off. But Queensryche was one of the better ones -- what a crying shame. Meanwhile, Geoff Tate is selling wine and producing compilation albums. All he has to do is wait for Queensryche's implosion to complete, re-hire lead guitarist Chris DeGarmo, record some new material, offer it to a record label along with a tour of Operation Mindcrime plus other Queensryche classics, and mourn all the way to the bank.

rocktivity

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

(Not from the Onion) Got a net worth of $2M and $50K to spare? You can buy stock in Queensryche! (Original Post) rocktivity Nov 2014 OP

I Dunno Rock ProfessorGAC Dec 2014 #1

Queenryche "missed" when they "divested" themselves of their most valuable "assets." rocktivity Dec 2014 #2

Well, Then We Agree ProfessorGAC Dec 2014 #5

UPDATE: (New) Queensryche Singer Digs Hole Deeper rocktivity Dec 2014 #3

DING DING DING! Rocktivity, you're our grand prize winner!!!! rocktivity Dec 2014 #4

ProfessorGAC

(69,894 posts)

1. I Dunno Rock

Reply to rocktivity (Original post)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 10:49 AM

Dec 2014

There are some good points in your add, but at the same time, the record companies have been an impediment for decades.

If they don't control, but simply bankroll, they certainly deserve a return on investment. However, it is well documented that they take a huge percentage to cover the costs of the "misses" when they are the reason for the "misses".

The companies then mitigated their risk further by making it harder and harder for new acts to get a hearing. Hence the rise of Indie.

Finally, they consolidated all activities into a far greater proliferation of packaged acts. More than ever before. (I admit they've always been around, but today they get nearly all the promotional push. What else explains Katy Perry?)

So, while i buy your "what about the new members" and "why so much for the lawyers" statements, i am for a paradigm that makes the record companies nervous.

rocktivity

(44,883 posts)

2. Queenryche "missed" when they "divested" themselves of their most valuable "assets."

Reply to ProfessorGAC (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 11:53 AM

Dec 2014

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2024, 11:42 AM - Edit history (37)

You're absolutely right about it being so much harder to be a rookie non-Top-40 act these days, and for the need for a new paradigm. The problem with Queensryche's paradigm is that without singer Geoff Tate (and original lead guitarist/co-composer Chris DeGarmo), it comes across more like something that the Kramer character on the Seinfeld show would have come up with. Anything you invest in is supposed to have inherent growth potential -- where is Queensryche's?

If a Bon Jovi or a Rolling Stones or a Judas Priest were doing this because they had lost their record deals, didn't want to invest their own money, and most important, still had their most profitable members, this career move would be intelligible, at least: investing in those bands would be a gamble worth taking.

rocktivity

ProfessorGAC

(69,894 posts)

5. Well, Then We Agree

Reply to rocktivity (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 10:58 AM

Dec 2014

Now i get your point better. Yeah, we think the same on this.

rocktivity

(44,883 posts)

3. UPDATE: (New) Queensryche Singer Digs Hole Deeper

Reply to rocktivity (Original post)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 01:55 PM

Dec 2014

Last edited Fri May 7, 2021, 07:52 PM - Edit history (12)

Todd La Torre (Blabbermouth):

"...I just wanna make clear, (so) that everyone knows, that when they buy...those (crowdfunding) packages, it's not...to bankroll the record. I've seen some rhetoric about that; it makes it look like we're trying to raise money to finance an album...that's not the case. The record's coming out through Century Media, it's funded that way, just like the last record. So I don't want people to think that we're trying to sell merchandise to fund an album.

"We're offering unique bundles and packages that are exclusive, for a limited time, as a creative way to offer something to the fans and supporters...you have to be creative with ways that you can also generate some income. So they're getting something, a commodity, for a monetary value. It's not, like, 'Donate, and then we'll put this out.' It's to enhance the process. So I wanna make that very clear..."

To be clear, Queensryche is involved in crowdfunding (through PledgeMusic.com) as well as investor hunting. The items on their merchandising page -- including their next album -- are labeled "PRE-order." But though payment is expected immediately, there's an April 2015 delivery date "unless otherwise indicated."

In retrospect, perhaps it was unreasonable of me to conclude from the talk of "disintermediating the record labels" and the investor hunting that Queensryche no longer had a record deal.

But seeing as Todd won't be getting anything out of the holding company, is it unreasonable to conclude that "generating" HIS income will depend on the crowdfunding?

rocktivity

rocktivity

(44,883 posts)

4. DING DING DING! Rocktivity, you're our grand prize winner!!!!

Reply to rocktivity (Original post)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 12:46 AM

Dec 2014

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2024, 11:38 AM - Edit history (24)

"Disintermediating the labels" -- is that the legal term for "We are no longer ON a record label because our last album proved that Queensryche minus Tate equals zero, so we've gone into desperation mode"?

I was wrong about that. But I wasn't wrong about this:

...(S)eeing as (new singer) Todd (Le Torre) won't be getting anything out of the holding company, is it unreasonable to conclude that "generating" HIS income will depend on the crowdfunding?

I've dug up original singer Geoff Tate's side of the story:

I think it really began around February of (2012)...about moving our merchandising to a third party. We had control over our own merchandising company for years and years and we ran it ourselves. It's a very successful entity, and the other three guys wanted to...hand it over to somebody else and pay them more money to operate it...Our manager found another company that would do it for considerably less...

(W)e had a gig in Sao Paolo, and before the show we had a meeting...They said that they weren't planning on replacing me, but they had just fired our manager, our office assistant and one of our guitar techs, who all happened to be my family members...They had worked for us for ten years...

Of the 144 songs that Queensryche has released, I've written 116...I'm a 25 percent holder in our companies... (They want to) cut me out...split (my) 25 percent...and hire some young guy that's gonna work for a weekly wage...

And this from Queensryche's label Century Media:

...Eddie Jackson, Scott Rockenfield and Michael Wilton have successfully agreed to...buy out their former lead singer's share of the Queensrÿche corporation while allowing him the ability to be the only one to perform Operation: Mindcrime and Operation: Mindcrime II in their entirety.

(Tate)...can only refer to himself as the "Original Lead Singer of Queensrÿche or "Formerly of Queensrÿche" for a period of two years...(after which)...he can(not) mention Queensrÿche at all...As of September 1 (2014), there will be only one Queensrÿche entity (who) will continue to perform selections from their entire musical catalog including songs from Operation: Mindcrime...

But if they still have a record deal, WHY are the remaining members of Queensryche trying to raise $2 million AND doing crowdfunding? Proof yet again that the simplest explanation tends to be the right one: Buying out Tate most likely included giving him the rights to most if not all of their entire back catalog -- and they are just plain flat broke!

If (what's left of) Queensryche no longer have either publishing income or the bandmembers who generated that income, that leaves the band's name as their sole asset (which in turn makes their eliminating their newest members from the holding company extra inexcusable). Tate, meanwhile, has already signed a record deal, putting his ex-esteemed colleagues just one Operation Mindcrime Live album away from being the world's best Queensryche tribute band.

Detection of desperation mode accomplished: I love the smell of vindication in the morning.

rocktivity

Reply to this discussion