Something's amiss when the Goo Goo Dolls sell 2.1 million copies of their breakthrough album, spawn a number one alternative single, make two appearances on Letterman and still live life in the fast food lane.
In the peculiar world of music biz accounting, the alternapop trio isn't any better off financially today then they were when music fans first thought they were merely a Bangles cover band. In other words, let the litigation begin. The band filed suit against their label, Metal Blade, contending "[the band has] been signed to a grossly unfair, one-sided and unenforceable contract and they will not continue to perform under it any longer."
Goo Goo Dolls' attorney Peter Paterno told Rollingstone.com the band didn't earn a single penny in royalties from "A Boy Named Goo," relying solely on touring and merchandising for income. Paterno attributes this injustice to poor counseling when the band originally signed with Metal Blade in 1987.
Warner Bros., which has a distribution agreement with Metal Blade, expects the Goos to deliver three more records under terms of the band's current contract. Paterno, however, has cited the Olivia DeHaviland law in an effort to invalidate the deal. The California law states no employment contract is enforceable beyond seven years -- the Goos have been under the Blade for eight. In addition, unless each band member is guaranteed an annual income of $6,000, the contract is voidable. Paterno doubts the trio has raked in a combined $100,000 over the band's entire eight-year existence. Drummer George Tutuska, who left the band just prior to the release of "A Boy Named Goo" and didn't tour to support that record, likely won't see any proceeds from the album, whereas original members Johnny Rzeznik and Robby Takac only reaped songwriting royalties.
The law, however, has one amendment which allows record companies to sue their former employees for damages. What that means, though, is unclear as it has never been tested. In the past, artists like Aerosmith and Prince have provided Sony and Warner Bros., respectively, greatest hits packages and previously-unreleased material to fulfill contractual obligations while finessing their escape to another label. The Goo Goo Dolls may in fact play the same tune, using the lure of a live album recorded during their last tour as a form of compromise. "The band would love to work something out," says Paterno, "shake hands and walk away."
Metal Blade hasn't contacted Paterno regarding the suit since it was filed on Nov. 8. In a prepared statement, CEO Brian Slagel responded, "Metal Blade has supported the Goo Goo Dolls for eight years. We have lived up to all of our contractual obligations. It's unfortunate the Goo Goo Dolls have a desire to litigate."
