Interview with Ted Templeman

[Hardrock69]

http://dgans.com/writings/templeman/templeman01.pdf

http://dgans.com/writings/templeman/templeman02.pdf

http://dgans.com/writings/templeman/templeman03.pdf

http://dgans.com/writings/templeman/templeman04.pdf

[Seshmeister]

Early on he says that artists were getting too high a royalty rate and then later admits Van Halen didn't get any money apart from their publishing.

I get the impression that from the say $500 million (50 million x $10) or so generated by the first 6 albums Roth saw almost nothing from the record company, ten cents an album minus managers, lawyers, recording costs, accountants.

Pretty disgusting, fuck those people.

[VHscraps]

Early on he says that artists were getting too high a royalty rate and then later admits Van Halen didn't get any money apart from their publishing.

I get the impression that from the say $500 million (50 million x $10) or so generated by the first 6 albums Roth saw almost nothing from the record company, ten cents an album minus managers, lawyers, recording costs, accountants.

Pretty disgusting, fuck those people.

I don't think VH made as much as they could in their early days. One reason is pointed to by Templeman - bearing in mind that article is from around 1979 (maybe 1980), the record industry hadn't come out of the 70s slump when the cost of actually printing records went up a lot because of the mid-70s oil crisis, which was followed by a worldwide depression. So, within that context, artists who had been on the books since the late 60s / early 70s were probably on royalty rates that they would not get if they were signed after, say, 1976.

But, maybe an equally important reason VH were fleeced was that they never seemed to have a proper manager in those days - someone with a business head on. When they signed to Warners their manager - if he was at that time a 'manager' and not just hastily promoted advisor / booker - was Marshall Berle, who immediately prior to his VH connection had been a booker at the Whisky (which only re-opened in late 76 after a couple of years of not doing rock bands), and less important than Kim Fowley, who was essentially running the Whisky in 76 and 77 after it re-opened. So, I doubt he was experienced enough to get the best out of Warners. Maybe the guys in VH thought - 'hey, he's connected to Milton Berle. Showbiz, here we go', etc. Eddie later said that they signed a 'Motown deal', meaning that it was heavily tipped in the company's favour. But that's always gonna happen, which is why a big band needs a proper manager.

Who did they get in after Berle? Noel Monk, who came from a road crew background, and had road managed the Sex Pistols 78 US tour - so not from a business background, but a rock'n'roll guy. Brother of Chip Monk (or Monck), a well-known member of the Stones' 1970s road crew.

But was he even the manager? DLR always said that 'we don't have a fat cat manager', and after the 85 split Eddie said that Monk was 'Dave's puppet'.

They started making money - surprise, surprise - after that bread-head Hagar joined. Hagar's manager re-negotiated the Warners deals, even for the first 6 albums (and left Dave out). If you read Hagar's autobiography - I know you don't want to, but his obsession with cash is on almost every page - it is worth comparing how, even in the 70s, he was diversifying into fire services (yes, fire prevention services), travel companies, vintage wines, etc. etc., while VH were living it up. Hagar's manager was one savvy guy. He was getting paid figures in the millions for giving one mediocre song for film sountracks (and we're talking films that usually weren't hits).

If VH were shafted, it was 'cos they were rock'n'roll through and through. Perils of the trade, I'd say. Even the Stones and the Beatles were shafted in a major way until they got a grip on it after they'd been at the business for about 10 years. I reckon Hagar was always a businessman - and that explains, probably, why he was so bad at rock'n'roll.

[VHscraps]

http://dgans.com/writings/templeman/templeman01.pdf

http://dgans.com/writings/templeman/templeman02.pdf

http://dgans.com/writings/templeman/templeman03.pdf

http://dgans.com/writings/templeman/templeman04.pdf

From later on in the interview - the 3rd page / pdf - he has some interesting things to say about the production process - the Beefheart and Van Morrison anecdots are good. I think something was lost with the eclipse of the analog studio, and you can see it in how he describes working back then in the late 70s. Tape would deteriorate if it was recorded on over and over (or overdubbed and 'bounced' too much), which was maybe one reason why he can say that 'we usually get it by the fourth take.' But that environment made musicians into players with a different mindset - I'm not pooh-poohing the whole world of digital studio recording and all it has to offer, but as Ted said, back then 'a good musician will give you the good licks on the first few takes, and then he gets bored.'

What would be good, precisely, is if EVH was to get bored soon. Then we might see the results of what could be - god forbid - endless takes of songs that have become lifeless because the producer doesn't have the balls or authority to say 'enough'.

[Heater]

I'm pretty sure that Dave, Ed, Alex, mike (ooh, sorry, bass player) don't exactly have to clip coupons. They are all millionaires. It seems like all new bands get screwed at the start and probably could've made more money. Live and learn. Long gone are the days of one or, at most, two takes in the studio for Ed. VH2's music was all finished in 6 days. In Sammys book, he talks about Ed changing amps, mikes, settings, guitars, etc. during a take and never being satisfied. Overthinking shit is rarely a good thing. I wonder if Ed is really just fried, or if he is "nervous", or worse yet taking this too seriously.

[Hardrock69]

Yeah he talks about a recent Doobie Brothers album that came out, which came out in 1980....so I would venture to say this interview was from 1980-1981.

Good for him that he advised the band to keep their publishing. Perhaps the VH royalty rates were shit, but publishing is where the real cash is, and if they were allowed to keep their publishing, that is amazing, as usually that is something the labels grab up front.

So feel sorry for them over royalty rates if you must, but if it came down to giving up publishing vs. a high royalty rate, the publishing is by far the best possible deal. Certainly when looking at it from a long-term perspective.

[Nitro Express]

Early on he says that artists were getting too high a royalty rate and then later admits Van Halen didn't get any money apart from their publishing.

I get the impression that from the say $500 million (50 million x $10) or so generated by the first 6 albums Roth saw almost nothing from the record company, ten cents an album minus managers, lawyers, recording costs, accountants.

Pretty disgusting, fuck those people.

Since there is no music industry in the traditional sense this is probably obsolete but in many cases the labels took far more much than they ever gave. They had distribution and promotion. In the old days studios. Now it's evolved to where the band is going to have to run the whole show more. That means the bands that suck at business will never make it and the ones who are will probably make bigger money than they ever would with any label.

[Hardrock69]

That can be a good thing. It is going to be bad for bands who are amazing, but suck at business. But for bands who are amazing at both their music AND business, they will thrive. Much like it was on the Sunset Strip in the 80s. The bands that could sell their tickets in the Pay to Play culture used it as a profit generator, and were able to have an easier time of it than bands who were not "motivated".

[Nitro Express]

I don't think VH made as much as they could in their early days. One reason is pointed to by Templeman - bearing in mind that article is from around 1979 (maybe 1980), the record industry hadn't come out of the 70s slump when the cost of actually printing records went up a lot because of the mid-70s oil crisis, which was followed by a worldwide depression. So, within that context, artists who had been on the books since the late 60s / early 70s were probably on royalty rates that they would not get if they were signed after, say, 1976.

But, maybe an equally important reason VH were fleeced was that they never seemed to have a proper manager in those days - someone with a business head on. When they signed to Warners their manager - if he was at that time a 'manager' and not just hastily promoted advisor / booker - was Marshall Berle, who immediately prior to his VH connection had been a booker at the Whisky (which only re-opened in late 76 after a couple of years of not doing rock bands), and less important than Kim Fowley, who was essentially running the Whisky in 76 and 77 after it re-opened. So, I doubt he was experienced enough to get the best out of Warners. Maybe the guys in VH thought - 'hey, he's connected to Milton Berle. Showbiz, here we go', etc. Eddie later said that they signed a 'Motown deal', meaning that it was heavily tipped in the company's favour. But that's always gonna happen, which is why a big band needs a proper manager.

Who did they get in after Berle? Noel Monk, who came from a road crew background, and had road managed the Sex Pistols 78 US tour - so not from a business background, but a rock'n'roll guy. Brother of Chip Monk (or Monck), a well-known member of the Stones' 1970s road crew.

But was he even the manager? DLR always said that 'we don't have a fat cat manager', and after the 85 split Eddie said that Monk was 'Dave's puppet'.

They started making money - surprise, surprise - after that bread-head Hagar joined. Hagar's manager re-negotiated the Warners deals, even for the first 6 albums (and left Dave out). If you read Hagar's autobiography - I know you don't want to, but his obsession with cash is on almost every page - it is worth comparing how, even in the 70s, he was diversifying into fire services (yes, fire prevention services), travel companies, vintage wines, etc. etc., while VH were living it up. Hagar's manager was one savvy guy. He was getting paid figures in the millions for giving one mediocre song for film sountracks (and we're talking films that usually weren't hits).

If VH were shafted, it was 'cos they were rock'n'roll through and through. Perils of the trade, I'd say. Even the Stones and the Beatles were shafted in a major way until they got a grip on it after they'd been at the business for about 10 years. I reckon Hagar was always a businessman - and that explains, probably, why he was so bad at rock'n'roll.

You are right on everything here. Sammy is a businessman and VH never had good management until Sam came in with Ed Leffler. You are also right about the difference of art and money but if you don't watch the money you never make any so that is where the term starving artist comes from. LOL! I kind of view Sam and Sarah Palin the same way. Love her or hate her Sarah Palin did an excellent job of milking every penny out of her fifteen minutes of fame. She got rich off a failed campaign. Sammy got rich off failed art. It's not easy to do. LOL!

[Nitro Express]

That can be a good thing. It is going to be bad for bands who are amazing, but suck at business. But for bands who are amazing at both their music AND business, they will thrive. Much like it was on the Sunset Strip in the 80s. The bands that could sell their tickets in the Pay to Play culture used it as a profit generator, and were able to have an easier time of it than bands who were not "motivated".

It's not just bands it's everything. People are going to have to grow up and take care of themselves. We grew up in a world where the company said they would take care of us. People always thought their jobs and pension would be there. Then the government took our money and said they would take care of us. People thought their social security and medicare would be there. The church's said they would take care of us if we donated our time and money and believed. Financial institutions told us to trust them because they had the best ratings and were established companies. The stock markets tell us to invest our future there and just trust them because they are the stock markets.

What we have learned is when people say they will take care of you they just take care of themselves, take your money and then say by the way, you owe us more money. So now people are figuring it out thinking I can't trust anyone so I'm going to have to stay on top of everything myself and if I do delegate it, I'm going to have to really watch that bastard I hired.

Basically we are going into the manage your own destiny faze and that includes the music business. Bands are going to have to manage their own money and staff instead of just getting a royalty check. It requires more work and intelligence but the ones who are successful at it will make more money than ever.

[Nitro Express]

[Terry]

Roth would often lament in early 1980s interviews about how there were "a lot of businessmen onstage right now pretending to be musicians." Yet in every halfway decent rock biography I've ever read (KISS and Sell, Crazy From The Heat, Frank Zappa's book,etc.), one common thread is how byzantine rock and roll economics is. I remember twenty odd years ago reading how Madonna had one of the highest royalty rates in the business back then, and it was slightly under 15% of each unit (cd, record, tape) sold, and that most bands were lucky to get a dollar off each unit sold. I also recall a story about how MC Hammer initially passed on major label offers because he was making a better profit margin selling manufacturing the units himself and selling them out of the trunk of his car, and in the end he cut a pretty good deal in comparison to most unsigned acts; although he still wasn't happy with it, he said he got tired of having to do all the work himself in terms of distribution.
It's really not that shocking to see flash-in-the-pan flavors of the month quickly ending up broke if they go on lavish spending sprees, because the perception of rich rock stars can often have little to do with reality. That's probably why so many stars today branch out into multiple directions (albums, movies, fashion), and probably why aging acts tend to tour rather than release new music. Getting a record released by a major label sounds like a royal pain in the ass, considering the amount of profit one has to give up in the end.

[Nitro Express]

If you do anything for money and have overhead to pay, you are a business. Equipment isn't free, trucking companies, lighting companies, and roadies want to get paid. Venues aren't free. You can have a great art project if someone wants to donate a venue, equipment, and their time.