cult classic ? for AL

[BREVARD Adrian R.]

>
> And what about "Cult Classic"?  Don't know if it qualifies as an "indie",
> but I doubt that album is making the band alot of $$.  While I like the
> album in part, I think you will find that there are alot of folks (many
> of them here on BOC-L) who are not exactly fans of that release.
>
> John
>John,
>I can understand the lukewarm response to Cult Classic.  So many of
>those tunes bear Albert and Joe's artistic imprint that it seems
>almost sacrilegious  to re-do the songs without them.  Also, it is
>hardly possible to 'improve' songs that were already 'classic.'  Why
>didn't they simply (I know it's not so simple) remaster the older
>material.  Roadblocks from Sony?  Who knows?

>I did like Cult Classic mainly because it presents many of the songs
>as they have evolved, and are now truer to the way they are performed
>live.  Many of the songs--Flaming, ME262, etc.,etc. now have
>different arrangements when played live, and I generally prefer the
>newer versions.  Also, I'm just a Cult addict--I like any chance to
>hear what BOC is doing
theo

I have CC on tape (prior to the days of owning a cd player) but would not
buy it on CD.  Songs are fine and somewhat different but not worth
duplicating in the collection.  Put it as a vote for the original versions.

Al. thanks for the biz lesson on how the royalties work but CC may be an
oddity.  By re-recording songs you wrote does:

a) The band have to pay royalties to Sony for re-recording these songs?

b) Who sends you roylaties from CC, Sony or Herald Records?

c) Did you receive a performance royalty as well as the other royalties you
would normally receive?  It would seem you would since the band actually
re-recorded each song.

AB