Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
07-25-2013, 05:02 PM,
#61
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
(07-22-2013, 01:28 PM)MCFCTrick Wrote: That's the last lingering hope gone, of ever seeing them with the real drummer again I reckon....

With all due respect MCFCTrick, Cheap Trick does have a real drummer.

As someone here so perfectly wrote, his name is...

The Incredible Daxx Nielsen on Drums
"I was blind, now I can see, your love shines all around me. All I want is to be here with you, this is what I was made for..."
Reply
07-25-2013, 08:08 PM,
#62
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
(07-25-2013, 05:02 PM)ReGorLaTroy Wrote:
(07-22-2013, 01:28 PM)MCFCTrick Wrote: That's the last lingering hope gone, of ever seeing them with the real drummer again I reckon....

With all due respect MCFCTrick, Cheap Trick does have a real drummer.

As someone here so perfectly wrote, his name is...

The Incredible Daxx Nielsen on Drums

I concur totally, Stephen.. Smile
Music is religion; it's a spiritual thing that transcends everything - RZ
Reply
07-26-2013, 08:40 AM,
#63
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
You'd think after having a near death experience they could be forgiving and regroup. Life's too short. But what do I know, I've never had a near death experience and I've never played in Cheap Trick.
Reply
07-26-2013, 09:34 AM,
#64
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
You’d think the world’s greatest lawyers would be more sophisticated than your average high school sophomore, but the lawsuit language borrows heavily from Wikipedia as an uncited source of facts about the band’s background. Sure, they changed a few words around., but……….why leave out ‘The Flame’?

From the lawsuit:

The Band’s biggest hits include “I Want You to Want Me,” “Dream Police” and “Surrender.”

From Wikipedia:


Their biggest hits include "Surrender", "I Want You to Want Me", "Dream Police" and "The Flame"….

From the lawsuit:

…....Cheap Trick at Budokan, released in the United States in 1979. The album went triple platinum in the United States and launched the Band into international stardom.

From Wikipedia:

Cheap Trick at Budokan launched the band into international stardom, and the album went triple platinum in the United States.

From the lawsuit:

. ….on June 19, 2007, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Resolution 255, which designated April 1 of every year as Cheap Trick Day in the State of Illinois. On October 11, 2007, the Chicago chapter of the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences honored the Band at the 2007 Recording Academy.

From Wikipedia:

On June 19, 2007, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Resolution 255, which designated April 1 of every year as Cheap Trick Day in the State of Illinois.[2The Chicago chapter of the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences honored Cheap Trick at the 2007 Recording Academy Honors event in Chicago on October 11, 2007.



"....and I'm laughin' inside all the while....."
Reply
07-26-2013, 10:17 AM,
#65
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
(07-25-2013, 08:08 PM)VikkiB Wrote:
(07-25-2013, 05:02 PM)ReGorLaTroy Wrote: Cheap Trick does have a real drummer. As someone here so perfectly wrote, his name is...

The Incredible Daxx Nielsen on Drums

I concur totally, Stephen.. Smile

Amen guys! I keep saying, best rock and roll drummer on the road today!
We'll always have Paris.
Reply
07-26-2013, 12:11 PM,
#66
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
(07-26-2013, 09:34 AM)CrystalM Wrote: You’d think the world’s greatest lawyers would be more sophisticated than your average high school sophomore, but the lawsuit language borrows heavily from Wikipedia as an uncited source of facts about the band’s background. Sure, they changed a few words around., but……….why leave out ‘The Flame’?
Probably because it's not much of a material asset to the band as none of them were involved in writing it.

Reply
07-27-2013, 10:28 AM,
#67
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
(07-24-2013, 03:21 PM)Darran Wrote:
(07-24-2013, 03:15 PM)ch67 Wrote:
(07-24-2013, 02:59 PM)CrystalM Wrote: The summonses were issued yesterday to Rick, Robin and Tom. After they have been served, the defendants have 21 days to file a response with the court answering to each of the 177 allegations contained within the 14-count complaint. Some of the background facts, such as: "6. Robin Zander (“Zander”), is a resident of the State of Florida and a member of the Band," won't be disputed. Others, the defendants will rebutt, such as "77. .....Defendants are making personal uses of the CHEAP TRICK® Marks without the authorization of CTU and ZPN&C to promote the upcoming studio album which the three Defendants recently recorded and intend to release without Carlos’s participation or consent."

Rick, Tom and Robin (their lawyers) will probably also add their own affirmative defenses and also file a cross-complaint, making both "sides" both defendants and plaintiffs.

The plaintiff always gets the initial PR boost because their story comes out before the defendants have even read the complaint (the lawsuit). However, I would hope the band is working on a press release right now - at the very least, assuring fans/venues that the scheduled shows will go on, etc. This story will 'have legs' in the press and it's good to spin it for the benefit of the band and fans!

They "may" do a countersuit, but I don't see where they really have cause to. I think they will likely just refute the allegations and try to keep it short & sweet to avoid self-incrimination.

So what's gone on behind the scenes for you to say that you don't see them doing a countersuit because you dont see where they really have cause to then?

I am as in the dark as anyone else, I am just sharing my opinion as I see it (based on what I've learned here) just like everyone else does on the message boards.
Reply
07-27-2013, 11:35 AM, (This post was last modified: 07-27-2013, 11:36 AM by Darran.)
#68
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
(07-27-2013, 10:28 AM)ch67 Wrote:
(07-24-2013, 03:21 PM)Darran Wrote:
(07-24-2013, 03:15 PM)ch67 Wrote:
(07-24-2013, 02:59 PM)CrystalM Wrote: The summonses were issued yesterday to Rick, Robin and Tom. After they have been served, the defendants have 21 days to file a response with the court answering to each of the 177 allegations contained within the 14-count complaint. Some of the background facts, such as: "6. Robin Zander (“Zander”), is a resident of the State of Florida and a member of the Band," won't be disputed. Others, the defendants will rebutt, such as "77. .....Defendants are making personal uses of the CHEAP TRICK® Marks without the authorization of CTU and ZPN&C to promote the upcoming studio album which the three Defendants recently recorded and intend to release without Carlos’s participation or consent."

Rick, Tom and Robin (their lawyers) will probably also add their own affirmative defenses and also file a cross-complaint, making both "sides" both defendants and plaintiffs.

The plaintiff always gets the initial PR boost because their story comes out before the defendants have even read the complaint (the lawsuit). However, I would hope the band is working on a press release right now - at the very least, assuring fans/venues that the scheduled shows will go on, etc. This story will 'have legs' in the press and it's good to spin it for the benefit of the band and fans!

They "may" do a countersuit, but I don't see where they really have cause to. I think they will likely just refute the allegations and try to keep it short & sweet to avoid self-incrimination.

So what's gone on behind the scenes for you to say that you don't see them doing a countersuit because you dont see where they really have cause to then?

I am as in the dark as anyone else, I am just sharing my opinion as I see it (based on what I've learned here) just like everyone else does on the message boards.

I wasn't being a clever twat my friend I was just wondering how you could say "you don't see where they really have cause to" when you don't know what has gone on behind the scenes.
Peace.
Reply
07-27-2013, 12:52 PM,
#69
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
Sad to see the law suit and this thread.
Reply
07-27-2013, 01:25 PM,
#70
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
I bet if you were someone who didn't know Bun E. wasn't drumming for the band and heard the newly recorded album (without looking at the credits), you'd probably assume it was him on the drums. I hate seeing this happen to Cheap Trick, but out of the four members of the band, Bun's absence would be felt the least. Honestly, I'd like to see them patch it up, but in the meantime, Daxx is doing a pretty damn good job filling Bun's shoes. It's probably best for the band to bite the bullet and get the lawsuit over with as fast as possible. That's just me. What the plaintiff's are asking the band to pay is really a 'drop in the bucket' compared to other bands MULTIMILLION dollar lawsuits. All in all, I hope it gets worked out to everyone's benefit. I was really hoping that the four of them could stick together as a band to the very end....
And with all the loves and hates and passions just like mine...
Reply
07-27-2013, 02:25 PM,
#71
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander


So what's gone on behind the scenes for you to say that you don't see them doing a countersuit because you dont see where they really have cause to then?



[/quote]

I am as in the dark as anyone else, I am just sharing my opinion as I see it (based on what I've learned here) just like everyone else does on the message boards.
[/quote]

I wasn't being a clever twat my friend I was just wondering how you could say "you don't see where they really have cause to" when you don't know what has gone on behind the scenes.
Peace.
[/quote]

I didn't think you were being a twat, dude, I was just pointing out my response was as simple as me just sharing my opinion. I'm sorry you thought I was being snarky, I wasn't. If I had any inside info, I'd share it. But not publicly, and not here. But, alas, I have none, so I cannot elaborate.

One thing I want to say that I think others have missed, is this is not something (in my opinion) that would cause Cheap Trick to stop using the name. I know lots of artists get in a big fracas and they fight over which faction of a splintered band (think The Beach Boys, Yes or Pink Floyd and Roger Waters) gets to use the name of the respective band. But Bun E. isn't saying he wants to go create a new band that calls itself Cheap Trick. His goal here is to re-affirm he is one-quarter of Cheap Trick, and legally, CT is Bun E., Tom, Robin & Rick. Bottom line, this is about the use of the band name without him, and he wants to get a resolution, not kill the use of the name Cheap Trick. So all of you who are fearful that the band will lose the use of the name, fret not. I personally don't think that is what this is about, I don't know it 100% but this looks like Bun E. trying to get the parties involved to stick to the agreement allegedly made that said they were not going to record without him, etc. (By the way, didn't one of the "Bun E. is not the touring drummer" announcements from the webmaster state that Bun was still a member of Cheap Trick and would still record with them? Seems like I read that on the boards here, I just cannot recall exactly where that comment was (and likely it has been removed by now). Regardless, it seems like Bun E. isn't after "the name," he is after enforcement of the agreement they won't record without him. (Remember those drum loops you could buy a while back called "Bun E in a Box?" They were drum samples created by Bun E. Or drum samples from actual songs, I can't recall. I would have loved to have owned that. But I digress. Like I said in a previous post, why don't they just get that "Bun E. in a Box" sampler and use Bun E's loops and then, technically, Bun E did drum on the new record...)
Reply
07-27-2013, 02:47 PM,
#72
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
(07-27-2013, 02:25 PM)ch67 Wrote: I didn't think you were being a twat, dude, I was just pointing out my response was as simple as me just sharing my opinion. I'm sorry you thought I was being snarky, I wasn't. If I had any inside info, I'd share it. But not publicly, and not here. But, alas, I have none, so I cannot elaborate.

One thing I want to say that I think others have missed, is this is not something (in my opinion) that would cause Cheap Trick to stop using the name. I know lots of artists get in a big fracas and they fight over which faction of a splintered band (think The Beach Boys, Yes or Pink Floyd and Roger Waters) gets to use the name of the respective band. But Bun E. isn't saying he wants to go create a new band that calls itself Cheap Trick. His goal here is to re-affirm he is one-quarter of Cheap Trick, and legally, CT is Bun E., Tom, Robin & Rick. Bottom line, this is about the use of the band name without him, and he wants to get a resolution, not kill the use of the name Cheap Trick. So all of you who are fearful that the band will lose the use of the name, fret not. I personally don't think that is what this is about, I don't know it 100% but this looks like Bun E. trying to get the parties involved to stick to the agreement allegedly made that said they were not going to record without him, etc. (By the way, didn't one of the "Bun E. is not the touring drummer" announcements from the webmaster state that Bun was still a member of Cheap Trick and would still record with them? Seems like I read that on the boards here, I just cannot recall exactly where that comment was (and likely it has been removed by now). Regardless, it seems like Bun E. isn't after "the name," he is after enforcement of the agreement they won't record without him. (Remember those drum loops you could buy a while back called "Bun E in a Box?" They were drum samples created by Bun E. Or drum samples from actual songs, I can't recall. I would have loved to have owned that. But I digress. Like I said in a previous post, why don't they just get that "Bun E. in a Box" sampler and use Bun E's loops and then, technically, Bun E did drum on the new record...)

The announcement from the Webmaster has not been removed it is still here,it does not say Bun E. would still record with them.
Reply
07-27-2013, 03:05 PM,
#73
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
(07-27-2013, 12:52 PM)jcbrown Wrote: Sad to see the law suit and this thread.

My feeling as well, jc.. Sad
Music is religion; it's a spiritual thing that transcends everything - RZ
Reply
07-28-2013, 10:47 PM,
#74
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
IMO: Jefferson Airplane vs. Jefferson Starship. I don't care what they call themselves: I'm sold for life. Make a new name, if you want, we will follow no matter what you call the band. Checkerboard? It's nice, but I wouldn't miss it. Give Bun some sort of settlement and be done with him officially. It's tough enough getting on stage with guys you DO like, after this imagine putting Bun up there with them. He's made it impossible. Time to move on, Bun. Love your drumming - go put it to good use.
Hopefully, they will be able to settle out of court with the minimum legal fees: pay what you owe and get free of this BS. I'm old enough to know that most of these things are best paid up so that you can get it off of your back and move on.
Reply
07-29-2013, 03:56 AM,
#75
RE: Carlos v. Nielsen, Peterson and Zander
(07-24-2013, 01:11 PM)CrystalM Wrote: Let's hope it gets resolved soon, so the album can be released and the black cloud can be lifted from the best fuckin' rock band in America, inc.


What album is this? Undecided
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)