John Fogerty sues former Creedence bandmates (again)

Guess you know John personally. How else could you talk about his personality the way you dIscuss his personality.Otherwise I would recomend you to read some recent interwiews with Stu and Doug who seems just as stuckon bitterness as John
The difference between them is that John-no matter what some people claim-is the creator of the great songs CCR put out. In my world thats not a small difference-whatever personality John might posses

 

I keep coming back to thinking that Murry was the best help that the band ever had. He was responsible for production on much of their earliest records. It wasn't that the band needed him to coach them about singing "sexy Rhondas"; it's that Murry was a great musical talent and producer in his own right. One can understand that the band didn't want to have to listen to their dad, uncle, neighbor or potential dental client when they were becoming men themselves. We can't deny the warmth and effectiveness of their earliest recordings, however, that the band traded for a Beatlesque vision with Tony Asher and art for art's sake with Van Dyke Parks. As good as the writing and production was after Murry stopped actively contributing, there was a unity of sound and vision to the earliest records that makes me miss Murry's touch. With Brian and Murry both wanting to have an active say in the creative process, the band probably felt like it was too many cooks in the kitchen. In the infamous "Rhonda" session tape, Brian's frustration dealing with another take charge kind of guy is palpable. Perhaps Brian collaborating with Murry for "Breakaway" was a way to at least recapture the old magic one last time and acknowledge Murry's pivotal role in getting the band off of the ground.

 

Seems like Doug and Stu just want a fair business deal. There isn't any evidence that they harbor grudges as J. Fogerty does.

 

It was not truly 10% of the company and they had to sign for another 10 years with the man who already swindled them with a usurious contract. That contract was signed by a young kid who naïvely trusted his boss, Zaenz.

That is not a great deal, especially for a Band at the top of the music business with over 90% of the company sales all they were getting was a small stock option. That "offer" sounds very believable to me. He turned down a 10% share of the company doesn't sound like the whole story.

Zaenz was a shark these guys were musicians. Zaenz took a divide and conquer strategy and it worked. He wasn't a generous guy that gave out record contracts because of sympathy. Tom's records were not selling but he knew Tom needed money and he used the record deal to divide two brothers and the Band.

If they reconciled, together they would have made more trouble for Fantasy. The evidence may be circumstantial but the more logical explaination can be deduced by putting the pieces together. John made some emotional decisions but he was being ripped-off and dealing with the worst kind of snake.

I can't help but think some of the forum members are naive about how far some people will go to win and how premeditated business people can become when millions are at stake. Spend a few years litigating and nothing will surprise you. I've witnessed all kinds of perjury, witness tampering, and double dealing. Most done successfully with very little chance of proving in a criminal prosecution.

 

I cannot disagree with any of what you are saying, I don't think anybody could deny that in the hearts of father and son, the conflicts were based on each's own belief that their respective actions were based on best intentions. Where it gets complicated is when the negative energy comes in. I would defer to you and other more learned Beach Boys fans to delve further into whether the father or the son was right or wrong. My point about Murray and Brian that I have clumsily applied to Saul and John is limited to copyright ownership. I know that Brian was hurt that his father sold publishing rights to songs that Brian wrote and that Fogerty felt hurt that Zaentz essentially cheated him out of songs that he wrote. I do know that I should be more careful when drawing parallels like this.

 

Who is the song "Chameleon" about? Tom? Saul? Everybody?:

You took me runnin' up a wrong way street
When we got there, you said, "Can't you read?"
I must be blind but now and then I see
Another number where mine used to be, oh

Keep on changin' your face like a chameleon
Keep on changin' your face like a chameleon

I say, "What's up", and then you say, "It's down"
I see triangle, and you say, "It's round, round, round"
Saw an empty glass and you say "It is full"
Lord, it's so hot, then you come on cool, cool

Keep on changin' your face like a chameleon
Keep on changin' your face like a chameleon...

 

You can read a letter from Murry to Brian in which he shows that he saw problems with Brian having too much money. Murry was wrong to forge Brian's signature, but he honestly didn't think that money was good for Brian.

 

This is not a Brian Wilson threa-please

 

One of the very few postings here that I believe is close to the truth. I for one have no problem understandimg Johns frustration seeing others-including his brother and former bandmates parting
with the guy who ripped him of so badly

 

There you go, Murray was Brian's father. Saul was just a father figure in the eyes of John. The former was not the same business deal that the latter was. Given Brian's well documented mental instability, Murray's motivations cannot be compared to the purely financial motivations by Saul. Both felt deceived, but the two situations really were night and day in comparison.

 

I believe this is true, John was taken advantage of unnecessarily by Zaentz, who told them that if they became successful, their orignal contract would be renegotiated. He reneged on that and just failed to appreciate who was generating all of that revenue and took advantage of the whole band, especially John. Zaentz could have renegotiated a far more fair deal after their initial success and still made out like a bandit, but he took advantage of their naïveté and trust.

 

The difference between them is that John proudly crows about how he belittled his bandmates, humiliating his comrades by cutting up recording tape, putting it in an envelope and hand delivering it! It's something out of The Godfather. He wrote lists of grievances to his older brother and whines when his brother simply called to deny one of the charges...clearly not understanding why Tom didn't respond in kind with his own list! He brutally and publicly humiliated the others, including his deceased brother's family, at the RRHOF induction ceremony. He still wants to have it out with his older brother when/if they meet up in death. The difference between these parties is so vast it isn't even funny. (Aside from the individuals directly involved, can you imagine being a family member? I think it would be frightening, quite frankly. What are they going to see next?)

John's universally acknowledged talent doesn't trump everything else.

 

I'm reading the entire book...I'm about 55% through it, CCR has just split in the book. I can actually see some of John's point in terms of Stu and Doug not pulling their weight once they got what they'd demanded, but he's constantly pretty snide and nasty about them ("these were NOT guys who could come up with parts on their own," for example, was a statement that jumped out at me when he was talking about their recording sessions). Maybe it's true, but it could certainly be said in a way that didn't make him look so tyrannical.

 

Hah! He does state he purposely sat in the back on the cover because they all complained how he was in the front on Green River...

 

It is ironic, but he really had himself to blame for first selling the copyright to his old songs and then writing in such a repetitive fashion. He was lucky he won, and it probably had as much to do with his being a sympathetic figure due to the unique fact pattern than to the merits of his defense IMO.

 

When I worked at two start-ups years ago, I owned 1000s of shares in both, and both were privately held. They weren't worth the paper they were printed on (and still aren't).

 

Guess there is another side of the story to. Not that I even will try and convince you -and others-who seriosly believe they have enough knowledge of the persons and happenings to take side-or judge
Its impossible to argue about things like this.

 

Then Vee-Jay (did they own the copyrights?) should've sued Jimmy Reed when he moved to those later, other labels for the same offense about 357 times. Not to mention __________ (put your favorite artist here).

 

Is there any reason to believe Vee Jay owned the copyrights to his compositions?
This is not typical of record contracts (though certainly some such abuses took place when signing black artists without legal representation in particular, and I do not condone that practice) and was not in CCR's record contract.
It was a separate decision John made.

 

No need to argue, just point out an instance where Doug or Stu publicly humiliated John. John isn't doing anything in secret. Why are you claiming we don't have knowledge? We're discussing the guy's book! Which he proudly states isn't ghost written.

 

Like when George Lucas sold the copyrights and Trademarks in Star Wars to Disney, he gave Disney the right to sue him if he were to have gone ahead and made another Star Wars film, or a film overly derivative of Star Wars, without their involvement.

 

It looks like I've been a little bit more lucky than you then. Mine are worth a few dollars.

 

I don't know the inner workings of Conrad Publishing. I'm more interested in blaming an artist for being repetitive. What's that old cliche--great artists only have one painting in them that they just refine over the years? Unless, of course, you're Chris Gaines.

 

I'm not blaming him for being repetitive, I am saying he was an idiot to give someone he believed hated him, and who he tarred and feathered in his songs and interviews, the right to sue him for doing so.

 

Hideaway on Pendulum was written about Tom.