Jack Russell returns with "Great White"... sorta

Quote :

For the other guys to detail it all to such an extent, the goal is clear: they're trying to make Jack look bad.

Exactly. In a court document. Everything has to be spelled out in all it's gory detail. Nothing can be left to speculation.

If they were simply going on a smear campaign, they could go to any media outlet and have at it. I'm sure Eddie Trunk, Blabbermouth or whoever runs Metal Sludge would love to have Mark Kendall on and let him tear Jack a new one. And who knows, they still might. 'That Metal Show' had Jack on to defend himself. Let's see if they or Mark steps up give his side.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Quote :

For the other guys to detail it all to such an extent, the goal is clear: they're trying to make Jack look bad.

Exactly. In a court document. Everything has to be spelled out in all it's gory detail. Nothing can be left to speculation.

Exactly. It's not so much meant to "smear" as to be specific. The truth is what it is. And much of that document is simply correcting Jack's prior statements about band history, who did what, etc.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Quote :

For the other guys to detail it all to such an extent, the goal is clear: they're trying to make Jack look bad.

Exactly. In a court document. Everything has to be spelled out in all it's gory detail. Nothing can be left to speculation.

Exactly. It's not so much meant to "smear" as to be specific. The truth is what it is. And much of that document is simply correcting Jack's prior statements about band history, who did what, etc.

I have to admit the document was a bit of an eye opener, I always assumed that Jack Russell was the main songwriter, I have two Great White releases, one on tape and other on CD, rarely play them, but I had no idea that their manager played such a huge role in the creative decisions of the band.

But they claim that Jack pushed to keep touring because he needed the money. Jack claims it was them. Either way, I think a man should be given the chance to get back up when he's been knocked down. Doesn't appear they did. To me, they took the opportunity to steal.

Eyesore wrote:

But they claim that Jack pushed to keep touring because he needed the money. Jack claims it was them. Either way, I think a man should be given the chance to get back up when he's been knocked down. Doesn't appear they did. To me, they took the opportunity to steal.

They kept using the statement "On information and belief"...basically the legal version of "IMO". They're telling the story based on what they experience, interpret, remember, etc. In a legal doc, you have to be as specific as possible because there's always someone waiting to exploit what you didn't say.

Besides, as you said, Jack said THEY needed the money, they said JACK needed the money...it's a "he said/they said" thing...of course both sides think they're right.

But, outside looking in, who "needs" the money more...a single drug addict or 4 sober people?

Quote :

To me, they took the opportunity to steal.

Looks like it will be up to the courts to decide now. I'm assuming Jack and his lawyers will have to go through each one of those claims and defend them. Lotsa time and paperwork.

And whose gonna come out on top when all these shenanigans are said and done? The lawyers. Jack and Mark will be touring till they're in their 90's to pay off all these legal fees.

Here is a recent interview with Mark Kendell which seems pretty fair IMO

http://www.classicrockrevisited.com/MARKKENDALLGREATWHITE.htm

As a lawyer, what stands out to me in those excerpts is what's NOT said. Nowhere (other than when talking about the 2008 reunion) is it mentioned who owns the Great White name. My guess would be that Jack does and the others have very little legal footing because if they owned the name or the rights, they would state that and ask for summary judgment. You don't see that here. Basically, you have a litany of woes that mean absolutely nothing legally. Jack can shoot heroin into his face all day long and he still owns the name and there's nothing that Lardie, Kendall, et al... can do about it. I could be wrong but from the excerpts, that's how I read it.

Witchfinder wrote:

Jack can shoot heroin into his face all day long and he still owns the name and there's nothing that Lardie, Kendall, et al... can do about it.

This is true...

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

But, outside looking in, who "needs" the money more...a single drug addict or 4 sober people?

Too easy to say a single drug addict, right? But by all accounts his addiction wasn't an expensive one. If expensive at all. Wasn't it all prescription stuff? I could be wrong on that.

It's the rest of the band that kept on touring because they needed the cash. And they're the ones to continuously talk about money, damaged reputation, etc. Seems like it's them that needs the money more—at least now, anyway.

I always find it hard to side with the people whose motivation is money. Jack seemed to be willing to allow them to tour under the Great White name, and then they tried to take ownership of it—or worse, steal it. Yeah, Jack obviously made mistakes and definitely marred the band's reputation a bit, but I think it's pretty clear that the other members' own greed is the biggest issue here.

Either way, this whole thing is a mess.

The world does not need two Great White bands and Frontiers sided with Kendell so that has to mean something, Frontiers is very successful indie label, highly doubt they would take a finical risk by releasing an album by a bogus Great White.

manny wrote:

The world does not need two Great White bands and Frontiers sided with Kendell so that has to mean something, Frontiers is very successful indie label, highly doubt they would take a finical risk by releasing an album by a bogus Great White.

But it is a bogus Great White.

No its not...

Anyway yeah...easy to single out the addict.

Perscription meds still cost money...most musicians dont have medical insurance.

Of course they needed to tour for money. Stay home from work for a few weeks and see how much you "need" to get back to work...

Arguing about who's the bigger junkie, who's "doing it for the money" or who some indie label chooses to work with is pointless. Someone owns the name "Great White" and can do with it what they choose. Someone else is whining about it because they didn't have the business sense to make sure they either (1) secured the rights to use the name before touring and recording under it or (2) actually owned the name outright. Just because one party is "doing it for the right reasons" or "wrote all the big hit songs" or "needs money" means nothing.

Let's read between the lines here. Jack Russell has problems and can't perform. The other members decide to continue with his blessing probably expecting he will either die or never return. He does neither and now Lardie, Kendall, et al are in a bind because they don't want to deal with Russell and his health/drug problems anymore. They get sued by Russell and they counterclaim. Frontiers did zero due diligence it appears and if they release that album they will get slapped with an injunction. I'd bring them into the suit in a New York Minute. Everyone hates lawyers but then again, people do stupid crap like this that then requires lawyers to untangle it. Which is good for my kind.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

No its not...

Anyway yeah...easy to single out the addict.

Perscription meds still cost money...most musicians dont have medical insurance.

Of course they needed to tour for money. Stay home from work for a few weeks and see how much you "need" to get back to work...

Oh, I know. I've just never heard stories about a musician dropping $10K a day on pills, as opposed to cocaine and whatnot, you know.

Witchfinder wrote:

Arguing about who's the bigger junkie, who's "doing it for the money" or who some indie label chooses to work with is pointless. Someone owns the name "Great White" and can do with it what they choose. Someone else is whining about it because they didn't have the business sense to make sure they either (1) secured the rights to use the name before touring and recording under it or (2) actually owned the name outright. Just because one party is "doing it for the right reasons" or "wrote all the big hit songs" or "needs money" means nothing.

Let's read between the lines here. Jack Russell has problems and can't perform. The other members decide to continue with his blessing probably expecting he will either die or never return. He does neither and now Lardie, Kendall, et al are in a bind because they don't want to deal with Russell and his health/drug problems anymore. They get sued by Russell and they counterclaim. Frontiers did zero due diligence it appears and if they release that album they will get slapped with an injunction. I'd bring them into the suit in a New York Minute. Everyone hates lawyers but then again, people do stupid crap like this that then requires lawyers to untangle it. Which is good for my kind.

exactly. It all comes down to who actually owns the name - either Russell, the others or the name is owned jointly. I am really surprised too that Frontiers didnt due the due diligence in this matter. I would have thought that one of the first things they would have required of the band given all the drama was proof of ownership of the name/logo etc.

All I know is that dammit, if that "new" GW album ever sees the light of day I'll probably pick the damn thing up just out of curiosity.

...which may be the whole idea!! It's a plot!!!

Fat Freddy wrote:

All I know is that dammit, if that "new" GW album ever sees the light of day I'll probably pick the damn thing up just out of curiosity.

...which may be the whole idea!! It's a plot!!!

i would imagine any frontiers release under the Great White moniker would be an instant collectors item.

exact33 wrote:

Fat Freddy wrote:

All I know is that dammit, if that "new" GW album ever sees the light of day I'll probably pick the damn thing up just out of curiosity.

...which may be the whole idea!! It's a plot!!!

i would imagine any frontiers release under the Great White moniker would be an instant collectors item.

What about international trademarks/copyright? I mean, there are a number of bands out there with the same name, but I believe this is legal as long as there is no international trademark. Smaller bands typically can't afford that, I assume.

So these guys could potentially release it as Great White "internationally," I guess. Maybe that's why Frontiers apparently still plans to go ahead with the release.

Then again, I'm probably talking out of my ass since I'm not a lawyer. =)

Quote :

This is a smear campaign. Nothing more.

I dunno, I see it more as "He's a drug addled f*ck up and we've moved on without him, whether he likes it or not."

Warrant did the same thing, they finally had enough of Jani Lane's crap and kicked him to the curb,...and of course, we all know where Jani Lane is now....

Fat Freddy wrote:

Quote :

This is a smear campaign. Nothing more.

I dunno, I see it more as "He's a drug addled f*ck up and we've moved on without him, whether he likes it or not."

Warrant did the same thing, they finally had enough of Jani Lane's crap and kicked him to the curb,...and of course, we all know where Jani Lane is now....

Yeah, but when Jack allows them to move on because he's sick, assuming it's just a temporary thing and the guy's got his back, even going so far as to personally get other singers to fill in for him, that's not quite the same, is it?

I think they expected Jack to die. Whoops.

Eyesore wrote:

Yeah, but when Jack allows them to move on because he's sick, assuming it's just a temporary thing and the guy's got his back, even going so far as to personally get other singers to fill in for him, that's not quite the same, is it?

Again, that is what Jack is saying happened. It may be 100% true, or half true, or completely false. Because remember Kendall's claim:

Quote :

"Terry Illous of the band XYZ was hired to save dates that were booked. Russell knew about him. He did nine shows, then GREAT WHITE played a few shows with Jani Lane, the former singer of WARRANT. This arrangement was suggested by the band's manager, who also managed Lane and was a friend. It was not suggested by Russell, though Russell had full knowledge that another singer was fronting the GREAT WHITE band, and he encouraged it.

Again, he said/they said. I can totally see him assuming it was temporary...I'm sure at the time the band thought it was temporary too.

Eyesore wrote:

Fat Freddy wrote:

Quote :

This is a smear campaign. Nothing more.

I dunno, I see it more as "He's a drug addled f*ck up and we've moved on without him, whether he likes it or not."

Warrant did the same thing, they finally had enough of Jani Lane's crap and kicked him to the curb,...and of course, we all know where Jani Lane is now....

Yeah, but when Jack allows them to move on because he's sick, assuming it's just a temporary thing and the guy's got his back, even going so far as to personally get other singers to fill in for him, that's not quite the same, is it?

I think they expected Jack to die. Whoops.

yeah. I think they were expecting it too. THat didnt work out so well for them if that was their thought.

I am honestly surprised the name Great White has any marque value after that Station Fire incident a decade or so ago.

These last coupla of days discussing Great White have certainly been more interesting to me than actually listening to Great White. They've pretty much slipped off my playlist since Psycho Motel.