So I went in the studio with my former band last year to record their 4th album. I blazed through the recording session and finished tracking my drums in 4 days. Couple of months later I had to leave the band due to work issues. A few days after telling them this the band leader sends me this email.
"By leaving the band at the time that you did, it has caused a lot of disruption in the business of sdgfsd. This means that our attorney has gotten involved. We have an existing artist/producer contract that was reviewed by him – thus any changes that might effect that agreement have to be run by him."
Does this make sense to anyone?
From the bass player
"Honestly, since you had to leave, "the band" had to figure out what to do about having a drummer on the record that wasn't a band member. From the advice of the band's lawyer, it's a bad idea to have the possibility of someone asking for a cut of the record down the road, whether or not anything would come of it, just the legal fees to defend ourselves would be huge."
So they hired someone to come in the studio and re-record the tracks. I asked how it was cheaper to hire someone else to re-record than to just make a new contract and/or pay me and this is the response I got.
"I don’t know whether it is cheaper or not. I never actually said it would be. It’s just what our attorney said that we should do.
The contract I’m referring to is the contract describing the terms of Dfds’s payment, that I signed at Mfdsdfs’s that night we all met and I wrote Dfds a check for the recording.
Since there is a contract on the project, a discussion on what the next step should be obviously had to occur. Everybody with a vested interest in this project; including our attorney and Dfds, agreed that the best course of action was for the drums to be re-tracked."
What do you guys think about this? Are they right or should I get a lawyer?
"By leaving the band at the time that you did, it has caused a lot of disruption in the business of sdgfsd. This means that our attorney has gotten involved. We have an existing artist/producer contract that was reviewed by him – thus any changes that might effect that agreement have to be run by him."
Does this make sense to anyone?
From the bass player
"Honestly, since you had to leave, "the band" had to figure out what to do about having a drummer on the record that wasn't a band member. From the advice of the band's lawyer, it's a bad idea to have the possibility of someone asking for a cut of the record down the road, whether or not anything would come of it, just the legal fees to defend ourselves would be huge."
So they hired someone to come in the studio and re-record the tracks. I asked how it was cheaper to hire someone else to re-record than to just make a new contract and/or pay me and this is the response I got.
"I don’t know whether it is cheaper or not. I never actually said it would be. It’s just what our attorney said that we should do.
The contract I’m referring to is the contract describing the terms of Dfds’s payment, that I signed at Mfdsdfs’s that night we all met and I wrote Dfds a check for the recording.
Since there is a contract on the project, a discussion on what the next step should be obviously had to occur. Everybody with a vested interest in this project; including our attorney and Dfds, agreed that the best course of action was for the drums to be re-tracked."
What do you guys think about this? Are they right or should I get a lawyer?
