Geoff Tate to Rocklahoma, "You Guys Suck"

Very interesting read...I think Geoff makes a lot of very valid points.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Very interesting read...I think Geoff makes a lot of very valid points.

Except this one:

Quote :

Queensryche has always been my idea, starting from the first record. Queensryche is about albums. It's about concepts and themes, and those concepts were mine. [Laughs] I started out with The Warning, bringing those ideas in for Rage for Order, Operation: Mindcrime . . . all the albums. I write 81% of the music and the lyrics. Of the 144 songs that Queensryche has released, I've written 116 of those.

Seems a bit off to me.

I think it was interesting that he only refers to the band's "manager". Seeing that it's his wife, that's gotta create some tension in the band, no matter how good or bad she might be, business-wise.

He certainly wasted no time signing a new solo recording contract too. Good read. Let's see what the rest of the band fires back with.

Also, Geoff suggesting it was all out of the blue, and the band just fired his family members, all seems rather convenient, too. Especially the part about Scott saying, "We just fired your whole family, and you're next." That sort of thing doesn't happen "out of the blue."

Geoff is clearly playing the victim card here. I imagine there is some truth to what he's saying, but there's a good amount of BS, too, I would suspect.

I'm impressed that anyone at Rolling Stone even knows who Queensryche is....

Eyesore wrote:

Geoff is clearly playing the victim card here. I imagine there is some truth to what he's saying, but there's a good amount of BS, too, I would suspect.

It's all about perspective. After reading Tate's version vs what the rest of the band has said, Tate comes out the most forthcoming. He admits to trying to punch Scott, shoving Wilton, etc. Also, he does have a point about all his lyrics and concepts being handed off to "some kid"...IMO, anyway.

I think he'll win the name in the end.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Geoff is clearly playing the victim card here. I imagine there is some truth to what he's saying, but there's a good amount of BS, too, I would suspect.

It's all about perspective. After reading Tate's version vs what the rest of the band has said, Tate comes out the most forthcoming. He admits to trying to punch Scott, shoving Wilton, etc. Also, he does have a point about all his lyrics and concepts being handed off to "some kid"...IMO, anyway.

I think he'll win the name in the end.

There's no doubt he's played a big role in QR songwriting, but suggesting they're mostly his songs is ludicrous.

But you're right, I suspect he'll win the name. He says he got a 25% cut, but it also appears that his family was running all business aspects of the band. How much did they get? Thus, how much more did Geoff get? Given that the other band members were probably making diddly-squat due to Geoff turning the band into his personal business, they were probably slyly cut out of any rights to the name (i.e. brand) long long ago.

To me, Geoff seems like he is full of crap and just posturing for the courts. Queensryche wasn't his idea, he didn't even commit to the band until they had a record contract. He didn't write 81% of the songs, he may have co-writes on them, but he didn't write 81% of the music. He writes lyrics and a melody here and there, but not riffs and whole songs. He's been hiring outside writers since Degarmo left the band.

I don't buy it, he's playing the victim. I am sure there was a fight - he was probably pissed that the other 75% that owns the band fired the 25%'s wife. A man's got to defend his wife. That I get.

Other issues with the interview - the M3 Performance was rather odd, he left the stage as soon as he finished his last lyric and tried to make it look like it was Geoff Tate's Queensryche by the way he acted. Granted, the band played well and did their job as professionals. There was absolutely no interaction between the band and Geoff.

Something else that is laughable - when he says that they want to hire someone to sign on a weekly wage and take the other 25%..... well, that is exactly what Geoff did when he convinced the band to hire his son in law (at the time).......

As far as the merchandise, would you want you singer's wife controlling it and putting out crap like this:



As for this being all of a sudden, I doubt that. Geoff knew something was up, he's just trying to get people to his side with this interview.

That said, there is another side to this story, but Geoff's answers where 100% scripted before he every talked to RS to make him look good.

As far as who gets the name, I would put my money on the non-Tate 75%.

Eyesore wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Geoff is clearly playing the victim card here. I imagine there is some truth to what he's saying, but there's a good amount of BS, too, I would suspect.

It's all about perspective. After reading Tate's version vs what the rest of the band has said, Tate comes out the most forthcoming. He admits to trying to punch Scott, shoving Wilton, etc. Also, he does have a point about all his lyrics and concepts being handed off to "some kid"...IMO, anyway.

I think he'll win the name in the end.

There's no doubt he's played a big role in QR songwriting, but suggesting they're mostly his songs is ludicrous.

But you're right, I suspect he'll win the name. He says he got a 25% cut, but it also appears that his family was running all business aspects of the band. How much did they get? Thus, how much more did Geoff get? Given that the other band members were probably making diddly-squat due to Geoff turning the band into his personal business, they were probably slyly cut out of any rights to the name (i.e. brand) long long ago.

He said he has 25% ownership...the staff is paid outside of that on payroll. That tells me that Parker is paid staff, then Rockenfield, Wilton and Jackson are 25% (or maybe not...DeGarmo may still maintain some ownership...who knows?).

Also, I think Tate has every right to claim that much of the writing. His name is all over everything in the credits. For all we know (and none of us do), many of those "DeGarmo/Tate" credits could be cases of DeGarmo tweaking and possibly adding bits to Geoff's songs/ideas. I would bet that very few of them are stright 50/50 collaborations with the majority being "written" by one and "tweaked" by the other.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

He said he has 25% ownership...the staff is paid outside of that on payroll. That tells me that Parker is paid staff, then Rockenfield, Wilton and Jackson are 25% (or maybe not...DeGarmo may still maintain some ownership...who knows?).

Also, I think Tate has every right to claim that much of the writing. His name is all over everything in the credits. For all we know (and none of us do), many of those "DeGarmo/Tate" credits could be cases of DeGarmo tweaking and possibly adding bits to Geoff's songs/ideas. I would bet that very few of them are stright 50/50 collaborations with the majority being "written" by one and "tweaked" by the other.

Agree on the writing - Geoff has stated in interviews in the past that he wrote the lyrics and some keyboard parts to the songs, not the music.

thejokeriv wrote:

As far as the merchandise, would you want you singer's wife controlling it and putting out crap like this:

Good Lord, that's horrendous.

A buddy of mine saw the "Queensryche Cabaret" tour (won tickets from his local radio station) and he described it as a train wreck. He sez "I have never seen so many people making the same 'WTF?' face all at the same time."

I remember a post on Blabbermouth about it that cracked me up -- "This is not Queensryche, this is the Tate Family Smile Time Variety Hour"

thejokeriv wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

He said he has 25% ownership...the staff is paid outside of that on payroll. That tells me that Parker is paid staff, then Rockenfield, Wilton and Jackson are 25% (or maybe not...DeGarmo may still maintain some ownership...who knows?).

Also, I think Tate has every right to claim that much of the writing. His name is all over everything in the credits. For all we know (and none of us do), many of those "DeGarmo/Tate" credits could be cases of DeGarmo tweaking and possibly adding bits to Geoff's songs/ideas. I would bet that very few of them are stright 50/50 collaborations with the majority being "written" by one and "tweaked" by the other.

Agree on the writing - Geoff has stated in interviews in the past that he wrote the lyrics and some keyboard parts to the songs, not the music.

I know he's a musician (as in plays instruments) and not just a singer, so I don't find it hard to conceive of him writing actual music. But regardless, a writing partnership is rarely definite 50/50, as I stated. One guy usually takes the other guy's song/idea and helps. I would guarantee it wasn't a clear-cut "Degarmo writes 100% of the music and Tate writes 100% of the lyrics/vocal melodies".

Then there's concept. Mindcrime was 100% Tate's conceptually. He also steered pretty hard on Empire. Whereas it's been public record that Promised Land and HITNF were steered by DeGarmo. It's always been either Tate or DeGarmo at the wheel for an album...and since DeGarmo left, of course Tate steered the ship. Before Mindcrime, being a singer/lyricist, I can see Tate being the "conceptualizer" on the earlier albums/songs. He may not have committed to Queensryche until they had a record deal, but he certainly put his mark/name on the band from the very beginning.

Fat Freddy wrote:

thejokeriv wrote:

As far as the merchandise, would you want you singer's wife controlling it and putting out crap like this:

Good Lord, that's horrendous.

A buddy of mine saw the "Queensryche Cabaret" tour (won tickets from his local radio station) and he described it as a train wreck. He sez "I have never seen so many people making the same 'WTF?' face all at the same time."

I remember a post on Blabbermouth about it that cracked me up -- "This is not Queensryche, this is the Tate Family Smile Time Variety Hour"

LOL!!!! That right there is funny! That's pretty much what Tate turned Queensryche into, sad but true.....

I am a Geoff Tate fan and while I thought Cabaret was a stupid idea, it was a stupid idea that made them money.

I am pretty sure Geoff Tate is telling the truth and I am also pretty sure the other guys felt squeezed creatively and with making business decisions, but if the kinds of decisions they make on their own, is canceling shows such as the one they opened for the Scorpions, firing their publicist when they have hired a new singer, and booting their own in house merchandising people for others that will charge them more money, then its no wonder Tate ran the show.

Why would anyone assume that Tate would win the name? I assume the person with the rights to the name will win it. Of course, nobody knows who that is at this point. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the amount of songs someone writes has ZERO bearing on the control of a band's name. The court will not care at all about that. If this is a partnership with a 4 way ownership then Geoff is SOL. Of course, bands and musicians never organize their business relationships properly or cleanly so this will be a major cluster foxtrot.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

thejokeriv wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

He said he has 25% ownership...the staff is paid outside of that on payroll. That tells me that Parker is paid staff, then Rockenfield, Wilton and Jackson are 25% (or maybe not...DeGarmo may still maintain some ownership...who knows?).

Also, I think Tate has every right to claim that much of the writing. His name is all over everything in the credits. For all we know (and none of us do), many of those "DeGarmo/Tate" credits could be cases of DeGarmo tweaking and possibly adding bits to Geoff's songs/ideas. I would bet that very few of them are stright 50/50 collaborations with the majority being "written" by one and "tweaked" by the other.

Agree on the writing - Geoff has stated in interviews in the past that he wrote the lyrics and some keyboard parts to the songs, not the music.

I know he's a musician (as in plays instruments) and not just a singer, so I don't find it hard to conceive of him writing actual music. But regardless, a writing partnership is rarely definite 50/50, as I stated. One guy usually takes the other guy's song/idea and helps. I would guarantee it wasn't a clear-cut "Degarmo writes 100% of the music and Tate writes 100% of the lyrics/vocal melodies".

Then there's concept. Mindcrime was 100% Tate's conceptually. He also steered pretty hard on Empire. Whereas it's been public record that Promised Land and HITNF were steered by DeGarmo. It's always been either Tate or DeGarmo at the wheel for an album...and since DeGarmo left, of course Tate steered the ship. Before Mindcrime, being a singer/lyricist, I can see Tate being the "conceptualizer" on the earlier albums/songs. He may not have committed to Queensryche until they had a record deal, but he certainly put his mark/name on the band from the very beginning.

Go HERE.

By no means is that conclusive, but my understanding of writing credits is that the person who contributed the most is also listed first, then the next biggest contributor is second, and so forth. Maybe that's not accurate, but that's always been my understanding. It's why you never see Ozzy's name first, for instance.

If that's true, then you can see at that link above that Geoff is rarely first. Even on the songs where there are outside songwriters, he's not first.

But Geoff surely has contributed more than the other remaining members. I would guess that the first three albums were more or less written as a band, while from Operation Mindcrime and on, the two most creative in the group took the lead. And like Shawn mentioned, after Chris left, it's been all Geoff.

Every one of those is alphabetical...not based on percentage of contribution. A co-write is a co-write.

Lennon & McCartney used to lightly argue about that. Lennon would get listed first even when he basically offered only minor tweaks to McCartney's songs.

Ozzy is never listed first because "I" and "B" come before "O"...

Well, if that's true, someone lied to me! Haha.

Eyesore wrote:

Well, if that's true, someone lied to me! Haha.

Yeah, being legal documents (copyrights), they're alphabetical.

We used to list names based on who wrote how much on CD credits or whatever, but that's because, like you, we thought that's how it was done.

If you open up a random amount of those credits you linked to, you'll notice they're all alphabetically listed. I opened 20+ of them from all different pages, and whether there were 2 writers or 4 or 5, they were always alphabetically listed by last name.

Quote :

Lennon & McCartney used to lightly argue about that. Lennon would get listed first even when he basically offered only minor tweaks to McCartney's songs.

Paul McCartney tried a few years ago to get some of the song writing credits switched to McCartney/Lennon on the songs in which he was the major contributor. He claims it wasn't for financial reasons. He just wanted the credit. After 40 years I don't think it makes a bit of difference, but whatever.

http://blogcritics.org/music/article/lennon-mccartney-i-mean-mccartney-lennon/

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Quote :

Lennon & McCartney used to lightly argue about that. Lennon would get listed first even when he basically offered only minor tweaks to McCartney's songs.

Paul McCartney tried a few years ago to get some of the song writing credits switched to McCartney/Lennon on the songs in which he was the major contributor. He claims it wasn't for financial reasons. He just wanted the credit. After 40 years I don't think it makes a bit of difference, but whatever.

http://blogcritics.org/music/article/lennon-mccartney-i-mean-mccartney-lennon/

Because, like Eyesore, that's the assumption...whoever is listed first must have written more of the song.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Quote :

Lennon & McCartney used to lightly argue about that. Lennon would get listed first even when he basically offered only minor tweaks to McCartney's songs.

Paul McCartney tried a few years ago to get some of the song writing credits switched to McCartney/Lennon on the songs in which he was the major contributor. He claims it wasn't for financial reasons. He just wanted the credit. After 40 years I don't think it makes a bit of difference, but whatever.

http://blogcritics.org/music/article/lennon-mccartney-i-mean-mccartney-lennon/

Because, like Eyesore, that's the assumption...whoever is listed first must have written more of the song.

Probably. Just seems a little silly that Sir Paul would quibble over it 40 years later, seeing how every note of every Beatles song has been overanalized and examined more than the Zapruder film at this point. We get it Paul, you're the greatest living songwriter ever, ok. Is that what you want to hear?

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Quote :

Lennon & McCartney used to lightly argue about that. Lennon would get listed first even when he basically offered only minor tweaks to McCartney's songs.

Paul McCartney tried a few years ago to get some of the song writing credits switched to McCartney/Lennon on the songs in which he was the major contributor. He claims it wasn't for financial reasons. He just wanted the credit. After 40 years I don't think it makes a bit of difference, but whatever.

http://blogcritics.org/music/article/lennon-mccartney-i-mean-mccartney-lennon/

Because, like Eyesore, that's the assumption...whoever is listed first must have written more of the song.

Probably. Just seems a little silly that Sir Paul would quibble over it 40 years later, seeing how every note of every Beatles song has been overanalized and examined more than the Zapruder film at this point. We get it Paul, you're the greatest living songwriter ever, ok. Is that what you want to hear?

Sir Paul, a Mr Bob Dylan is on line 1

Bah! Until that mumbling old codger is knighted, or appears on '30 Rock', Paul retains the title.

Quote :

I am a Geoff Tate fan and while I thought Cabaret was a stupid idea, it was a stupid idea that made them money.

Yeah, I'm like you. I am a Tate fan, but I can't say I've enjoyed or agreed with everything they've done.

Quote :

I am pretty sure Geoff Tate is telling the truth and I am also pretty sure the other guys felt squeezed creatively and with making business decisions, but if the kinds of decisions they make on their own, is canceling shows such as the one they opened for the Scorpions, firing their publicist when they have hired a new singer, and booting their own in house merchandising people for others that will charge them more money, then its no wonder Tate ran the show.

I agree with this too. They seem to be basically "blowing up" and making relatively quick decisions as opposed to havnig everyone sit down and hash this out. Fire the manager, fine...but make sure you have another one.

In terms of creativity, maybe the reason Tate relied so much on outside writers was he was a control freak...OR maybe because nobody bothered really contributing anything beyond a couple of bits here and there. He the band itself won't write songs, he had to go somewhere.

Quote :

Why would anyone assume that Tate would win the name? I assume the person with the rights to the name will win it. Of course, nobody knows who that is at this point.

From what I can tell, w/ Tate being 25% owner of all Queensryche companies, that tells me it's even split 25% for Tate, Rockenfield, Jackson and Wilton. They'll have to plead cases in order to have a judge push one or more of them out.

Quote :

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the amount of songs someone writes has ZERO bearing on the control of a band's name. The court will not care at all about that. If this is a partnership with a 4 way ownership then Geoff is SOL.

I don't think that's true. If they're 4 equal partners, there has to be just cause and cases pleaded by each party (I'm assuming 2 parties/entities at this point) and a judge will have to rule. If Tate can prove that for all intents and purposes he drove the boat and was the creative force, while the other 4 contributed minimally and just enjoyed the benefits of ownership, then Tate has a chance.

Quote :

Of course, bands and musicians never organize their business relationships properly or cleanly so this will be a major cluster foxtrot.

This is true...but on the surface Tate seems to have his stuff together.