Here we go again...Iron Maiden sued over the rights of 6 songs
- Thread starter cnesbit
- Start date
srfc
Ancient Mariner
Bazza slanders the greats!
Collin
Chasing Ponce De Leon's Phantoms
I believe this answers my question sufficiently.
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
It turns out our good friend Bazza also came up with a good way to beat the touts. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Rod!
Black Abyss Babe
I live for my dreams and a pocket full of gold
Whoop whoop! They're only, what, in their 70s? I'd call that a plan with no drawbacks ...
Magnus
currently discounted
After this analysis, there have suddenly been no more posts in the Blabbermouth comments thread. Coincidence?
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
And another poster who shall not be named wanted all traces of their participation deleted. Coincidence?
(Yes, I'm joking!)
Black Abyss Babe
I live for my dreams and a pocket full of gold
I think it had just run its course, that's all.
chaosapiant
Ancient Marinade
That's just one of the things. Wait until he comes back with the words he used before, and men other than himself repeats those words. We all know where that'll lead.
GhostofCain
Ancient Mariner
The article published by Metal Talk probably had something to do with it.
Magnus
currently discounted
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
All seems to be quiet on the western front with regards to this.
Black Abyss Babe
I live for my dreams and a pocket full of gold
I’ve now had a chance to look at that Simon Garfield book and I present my findings below. Apologies, this is going to be long ...
The edition I have is Faber & Faber 1986, I’m not actually sure if there were any later ones but all the evidence suggests it’s out of print now, and has been for a while. The first thing to note about this book is that it’s not a weighty reference tome – it’s 269 pages including the index, ie an average-sized paperback, and it’s clearly been written for the purpose of entertaining the curious, rather than for the provision of serious reference material.
Bazza is mentioned in connection with two lawsuits, which appear on pages 111-116 and 135-136 respectively. The first is the Ray Jackson case which was also covered in “Pop goes to court”, as previously posted by @Black Wizard, and appears to be the EMI case from the ‘80s which Bazza mentioned several times during the course of his BM rantings (and also the one Fisher mentioned in his honestly heartfelt defence-of-Bazza post). The book notes that Bazza is 21 years old at this point (correctly - he was born on 27 July 1954 folks!) and “still fairly green to the ways of the industry despite operating a handful of record and instrument shops and promoting concerts in his native Newcastle” (NB it doesn’t mention if he’s been managing bands by this point. He says during the course of his BM rantings that he was managing Lindisfarne “back in the 1970’s” but would have been a little young during Lindisfarne’s original run and “heyday” – ie 1970 to 1975 – he would have been 16 in 1970. Can anyone confirm when he became involved with Lindisfarne?)
So, in a nutshell: in 1975 Ray Jackson and Bazza, his manager, go to EMI and set up a “pretty average” deal. The deal is for a minimum of one year and three singles (“guaranteed” by both sides), and options for two albums. Jackson receives an advance of £1,800 with further advances of £10,000 each for the albums if the options are taken up. This doesn’t happen so Jackson and Bazza sue EMI. Two counts of breach of contract: one, the minimum three singles were not recorded/released and two, as further recording had taken place during the “first album option period” the option had been taken up and the advance of £10,000 became due (but had not been paid). Both sides claim the frustration of the contract is the other’s fault.
Bazza seems to have focussed his efforts on emphasising the impact of the breach on his client (similar to what he was doing, when at his most coherent, on BM). “The plaintiffs wheeled on the witnesses with delight”, observes Garfield: a succession of expert witnesses all expressing their belief that Jackson could have “made it” with the right support/promotion, which EMI had failed to provide. EMI countered that Jackson and Bazza had frustrated the contract themselves by failing to come up with enough suitable material. Their defence was shambolic, but what finally swung the case in Jackson’s and Bazza’s favour was when someone (it is not recorded who) noticed that Jackson’s contract didn’t actually say that he had to write his own stuff, hence if he couldn’t come up with anything EMI considered suitable they were supposed to find it for him. And since it seems they hadn’t even claimed to have attempted this, all other arguments suddenly became irrelevant.
However, Bazza was hoist with his own petard on the second point. EMI had claimed that a number of informal, implied or “gentlemen’s agreements” had been in place at various points in an attempt to explain the suspicious absence of actual paperwork, and this was rejected by the court. But the flipside of this was that there wasn’t any written agreement on the taking up of the album option either, therefore the option had not been taken up and no advance was payable. It seems even Bazza can’t have his cake and eat it ...
Ray Jackson received damages to compensate for his lost career, and these were set at £12,500 plus interest, hence I assume the original figure was as of 1978. Garfield notes that the interest “almost doubled” the figure by 1985. Today the whole lot would be roughly equivalent to £76,000.
Garfield goes on to observe that “For the plaintiffs, however, one breach of contract victory was clearly enough. They had proved their case ...” This suggests (to me at least) that the kind of gloating/rubbing everyone’s noses in it a la the first Hallowed case probably went on then too.
I can see why this might be considered to be an important case: it looks like EMI had signed Jackson because he had previously been associated with a successful band; but having done so (and thus prevented him from trying his luck elsewhere) tried to reserve a right not to use him if they subsequently changed their minds. Rather like a gadget you buy in a sale because it seems like a bargain and might come in useful, but which then gets throw into a drawer and never used and eventually forgotten. Maybe they weren’t sure what to do with him or decided with hindsight that he was (stylistically) a bit past his sell-by date but even so, it’s not really on, is it?
A couple of observations about this one:
1) Although they won the court case (but even that might have been more by luck than judgement) it does seem very possible that the situation arose at least partly due to his inexperience as a manager – perhaps why he’s so quick to point out smugly anywhere he had ever been ahead of Rod at anything.
2) Bazza says on BM that he’s been “assisting musicians in copyright matters for 43 years”, which takes us back to 1975. The Ray Jackson case didn’t start until 1978 but Bazza notes that this was also when the Alan Hull case concluded so fair enough, that one was first. But even then he is still only 21 in 1975 and the Jackson case was ongoing for seven years so who was bankrolling him at this point? Chappell Music? He mentions them on BM in connection with his publishing company, so maybe they were involved here as well. It seems unlikely that he could have made his fortune already.
The second case involves Jay Aston and her efforts to extricate herself from Bucks Fizz. It’s hard to be sure (since ex-managers of Judas Priest are not mentioned) but I think this is probably the Big Note case which Bazza alludes to on BM – the one where he caught someone “falsifying evidence”. The background of the case is hardly lurid by today’s standards – after sleeping with Andy Hill, the producer/chief songwriter and husband of the group’s founder Nichola Martin, Jay sends some flowers to Martin in an attempt to apologise. When this is rejected (they are sent back – crushed) she attempts to kill herself, but thankfully fails and after she leaves hospital writes a letter to Martin and Hill which is subsequently published in several newspapers with fourteen alterations, all of which seem designed to make her look bad. (Interestingly, the culprit for this is never identified.) When she realises she is being obviously and deliberately sidelined in the group she realises her position is untenable and her only option is to leave. Only she can’t just do that because her contract contains an option for Big Note (Martin’s company) to retain her for five years as a solo artist – during which period she gets no advances and has to pay her own recording costs – which they are highly likely to take up and use basically as a punishment posting. Someone advises her to bring Bazza on board, which she does. Big note then sue her for breach of contract and for good measure also sue Bazza for inducement to break contract. Jay and Bazza claim that the contract terms are “unduly onerous and unfair”.
Very little detail of the actual hearing is given, but we are told that on day 6 Big Note suddenly capitulate, drop the claims and agree to release her. Highly mysterious, but if Bazza did indeed catch someone falsifying evidence on this case then ... Interesting stuff.
As to the quotes at the end which Bazza claims “so many people read”, there are only two from him, and here they are in full:
“You can eat off our industry compared to the industry in America. There is no doubt about it. Our industry is pretty good, actually. And that is saying something because it is also so appalling. So if we are good, you can imagine what the Americans are like.” (p249, quote dated 1985)
“I don’t think the industry gives a shit about artists. They really don’t. Artists, they are the scum, the product. They come, they go. We love you, you’re number one. When was your last hit record? They hate you, you know, today’s flavour of the day is tomorrow’s castaway. And that in a way is fair enough I suppose, but do the castaways who have had hits end up with any money?” (p254, quote dated 1985).
Thanks for those weighty insights Baz! But there is another verbatim quote from him which appears during the recounting of the Ray Jackson case:
“Just think of the repercussions if any company could sign an artist and then lock that artist away.” (p112)
This is at least genuinely food for thought ...
The above is just what I’ve found from where Baz is listed in the index. I shall read the whole text in due course and if I find any further references to our man Baz I shall of course update you all. In good time ...
The edition I have is Faber & Faber 1986, I’m not actually sure if there were any later ones but all the evidence suggests it’s out of print now, and has been for a while. The first thing to note about this book is that it’s not a weighty reference tome – it’s 269 pages including the index, ie an average-sized paperback, and it’s clearly been written for the purpose of entertaining the curious, rather than for the provision of serious reference material.
Bazza is mentioned in connection with two lawsuits, which appear on pages 111-116 and 135-136 respectively. The first is the Ray Jackson case which was also covered in “Pop goes to court”, as previously posted by @Black Wizard, and appears to be the EMI case from the ‘80s which Bazza mentioned several times during the course of his BM rantings (and also the one Fisher mentioned in his honestly heartfelt defence-of-Bazza post). The book notes that Bazza is 21 years old at this point (correctly - he was born on 27 July 1954 folks!) and “still fairly green to the ways of the industry despite operating a handful of record and instrument shops and promoting concerts in his native Newcastle” (NB it doesn’t mention if he’s been managing bands by this point. He says during the course of his BM rantings that he was managing Lindisfarne “back in the 1970’s” but would have been a little young during Lindisfarne’s original run and “heyday” – ie 1970 to 1975 – he would have been 16 in 1970. Can anyone confirm when he became involved with Lindisfarne?)
So, in a nutshell: in 1975 Ray Jackson and Bazza, his manager, go to EMI and set up a “pretty average” deal. The deal is for a minimum of one year and three singles (“guaranteed” by both sides), and options for two albums. Jackson receives an advance of £1,800 with further advances of £10,000 each for the albums if the options are taken up. This doesn’t happen so Jackson and Bazza sue EMI. Two counts of breach of contract: one, the minimum three singles were not recorded/released and two, as further recording had taken place during the “first album option period” the option had been taken up and the advance of £10,000 became due (but had not been paid). Both sides claim the frustration of the contract is the other’s fault.
Bazza seems to have focussed his efforts on emphasising the impact of the breach on his client (similar to what he was doing, when at his most coherent, on BM). “The plaintiffs wheeled on the witnesses with delight”, observes Garfield: a succession of expert witnesses all expressing their belief that Jackson could have “made it” with the right support/promotion, which EMI had failed to provide. EMI countered that Jackson and Bazza had frustrated the contract themselves by failing to come up with enough suitable material. Their defence was shambolic, but what finally swung the case in Jackson’s and Bazza’s favour was when someone (it is not recorded who) noticed that Jackson’s contract didn’t actually say that he had to write his own stuff, hence if he couldn’t come up with anything EMI considered suitable they were supposed to find it for him. And since it seems they hadn’t even claimed to have attempted this, all other arguments suddenly became irrelevant.
However, Bazza was hoist with his own petard on the second point. EMI had claimed that a number of informal, implied or “gentlemen’s agreements” had been in place at various points in an attempt to explain the suspicious absence of actual paperwork, and this was rejected by the court. But the flipside of this was that there wasn’t any written agreement on the taking up of the album option either, therefore the option had not been taken up and no advance was payable. It seems even Bazza can’t have his cake and eat it ...
Ray Jackson received damages to compensate for his lost career, and these were set at £12,500 plus interest, hence I assume the original figure was as of 1978. Garfield notes that the interest “almost doubled” the figure by 1985. Today the whole lot would be roughly equivalent to £76,000.
Garfield goes on to observe that “For the plaintiffs, however, one breach of contract victory was clearly enough. They had proved their case ...” This suggests (to me at least) that the kind of gloating/rubbing everyone’s noses in it a la the first Hallowed case probably went on then too.
I can see why this might be considered to be an important case: it looks like EMI had signed Jackson because he had previously been associated with a successful band; but having done so (and thus prevented him from trying his luck elsewhere) tried to reserve a right not to use him if they subsequently changed their minds. Rather like a gadget you buy in a sale because it seems like a bargain and might come in useful, but which then gets throw into a drawer and never used and eventually forgotten. Maybe they weren’t sure what to do with him or decided with hindsight that he was (stylistically) a bit past his sell-by date but even so, it’s not really on, is it?
A couple of observations about this one:
1) Although they won the court case (but even that might have been more by luck than judgement) it does seem very possible that the situation arose at least partly due to his inexperience as a manager – perhaps why he’s so quick to point out smugly anywhere he had ever been ahead of Rod at anything.
2) Bazza says on BM that he’s been “assisting musicians in copyright matters for 43 years”, which takes us back to 1975. The Ray Jackson case didn’t start until 1978 but Bazza notes that this was also when the Alan Hull case concluded so fair enough, that one was first. But even then he is still only 21 in 1975 and the Jackson case was ongoing for seven years so who was bankrolling him at this point? Chappell Music? He mentions them on BM in connection with his publishing company, so maybe they were involved here as well. It seems unlikely that he could have made his fortune already.
The second case involves Jay Aston and her efforts to extricate herself from Bucks Fizz. It’s hard to be sure (since ex-managers of Judas Priest are not mentioned) but I think this is probably the Big Note case which Bazza alludes to on BM – the one where he caught someone “falsifying evidence”. The background of the case is hardly lurid by today’s standards – after sleeping with Andy Hill, the producer/chief songwriter and husband of the group’s founder Nichola Martin, Jay sends some flowers to Martin in an attempt to apologise. When this is rejected (they are sent back – crushed) she attempts to kill herself, but thankfully fails and after she leaves hospital writes a letter to Martin and Hill which is subsequently published in several newspapers with fourteen alterations, all of which seem designed to make her look bad. (Interestingly, the culprit for this is never identified.) When she realises she is being obviously and deliberately sidelined in the group she realises her position is untenable and her only option is to leave. Only she can’t just do that because her contract contains an option for Big Note (Martin’s company) to retain her for five years as a solo artist – during which period she gets no advances and has to pay her own recording costs – which they are highly likely to take up and use basically as a punishment posting. Someone advises her to bring Bazza on board, which she does. Big note then sue her for breach of contract and for good measure also sue Bazza for inducement to break contract. Jay and Bazza claim that the contract terms are “unduly onerous and unfair”.
Very little detail of the actual hearing is given, but we are told that on day 6 Big Note suddenly capitulate, drop the claims and agree to release her. Highly mysterious, but if Bazza did indeed catch someone falsifying evidence on this case then ... Interesting stuff.
As to the quotes at the end which Bazza claims “so many people read”, there are only two from him, and here they are in full:
“You can eat off our industry compared to the industry in America. There is no doubt about it. Our industry is pretty good, actually. And that is saying something because it is also so appalling. So if we are good, you can imagine what the Americans are like.” (p249, quote dated 1985)
“I don’t think the industry gives a shit about artists. They really don’t. Artists, they are the scum, the product. They come, they go. We love you, you’re number one. When was your last hit record? They hate you, you know, today’s flavour of the day is tomorrow’s castaway. And that in a way is fair enough I suppose, but do the castaways who have had hits end up with any money?” (p254, quote dated 1985).
Thanks for those weighty insights Baz! But there is another verbatim quote from him which appears during the recounting of the Ray Jackson case:
“Just think of the repercussions if any company could sign an artist and then lock that artist away.” (p112)
This is at least genuinely food for thought ...
The above is just what I’ve found from where Baz is listed in the index. I shall read the whole text in due course and if I find any further references to our man Baz I shall of course update you all. In good time ...
GhostofCain
Ancient Mariner
Thanks for all that information. 
Man, this community has the best people.
Troodon'sTooth
Is Futureal Real?
A bunch of losers, who just want to mooch off a good band's success. Terry Wilson-Slesser looks like the kind of drugged out lowlife you find under a rock.
MW564
Ancient Mariner
You sir are looking under the wrong rocks
