That Clarence Avant began his interview as almost sympathetic to what happen to Rodriguez but then, as the interview went on, and he was questioned about the money, he became almost aggressive and angry that the interviewer would be asking those questions. I started out liking him but then really grew to dislike him. Anyone else?
shareThat Clarence Avant began his interview as almost sympathetic to what happen to Rodriguez but then, as the interview went on, and he was questioned about the money, he became almost aggressive and angry that the interviewer would be asking those questions. I started out liking him but then really grew to dislike him. Anyone else?
Avant's was one one of the most impressive, cynical and hilarious displays of dissembling and bluster I've ever seen. "People in South Africa are dying fighting for their freedom, and you're asking me about money?". What one thing has to do with the other is beyond me -Clay Davis would have been proud.
I'm surprised the film didn't explore the financial angle in more depth, but Rodriguez himself doesn't appear to be at all interested, so I suppose that wasn't central to telling his amazing story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI3shBXlqsw
Yes, it would have taken the film in another direction. One of the problems with "documentary" direction is giving up the needs of a narrative structure, in the desire to get everything in.
People hungry for the voice of god
Hear lunatics and liars
Yup, another "honest" music industry flunky with the best of intentions....whatta schmuck. People always wondered why Chuck Berry became so obsessive about his earnings...it's guys like Avant that provide the answers.
share• The music industry is notorious for not paying artists, ironically many black artists. Check out the book "Hit Men: Power Brokers and Fast Money Inside the Music Business".
• There have been many claims about Berry Gordy, head of Motown, who Clarence Avant also worked for.
• The South African record execs all state on camera that they sent - and continue to send, presumably - the proceeds from Rodriguez's sales to Sussex (owned and run by Clarence Avant).
• Clarence Avant tries to steer the interview to a nostalgic direction and implies that he has strong emotions about Rodriguez and his music.
• When asked about sales, Clarence Avant goes out of his way to mention that there were no sales "in this country", mentioning this disclaimer more than once. This implies that he knew - as he must have, being owner of Sussex Records) that sales of Rogriguez records were amazingly high in both Australia and South Africa.
• When asked about money, Clarence Avant becomes emotional and both his language and body language become defensive. Rather than deny receiving the money, he attacks the interviewer for raising the topic and seeks to switch it to an entirely different issue. If he has such an emotional attachment to Rodriguez, why would he not want to ensure that he is compensated for his work?
• The interviewers likely needed to stay on Clarence Avant's good graces because:
a) they needed the rights to the songs for the movie. It would be a much poorer movie without them.
b) they needed his consent to show his interview. It would be weaker without him.
c) if they claimed that he did anything untoward, they would have to _prove_ this beyond a reasonable doubt or he could sue them for slander.
• When asked about post-movie sales of Rodriguez's work, the producers of the movie were quick to reassure, stating that none of it goes to Clarence Avant. Why would they do that?
Certainly, all of this is circumstantial evidence. but taken as a whole, the most probable explanation is that Clarence Avant did not properly pay Rogriguez his royalties and instead kept the money for himself. Another poster here even suggested that Sussex Records was the initiator of the rumors of Rogriguez's death (in order to ensure that no-one questions where his royalties are going). This is an interesting theory, but almost impossible to prove.
An absentee artist... an isolated nation... a hit that nobody thought about in the first place... a defunct label...
It's so easy to see how the South African producers thought they'd found something they could sell without anybody noticing. Bootleg the album, say you've sent the money but can't remember exactly where. Can't remember how many you sold.
Then, in America, a producer can't recall getting any payments and doesn't want to talk about money, so vulgar.
Everybody thought they found a little earner and could easily bypass the artist, who wouldn't know or bother.
thanks for this thread. i noticed avant's aggression as well, but i was more struck with how skillfully he obfuscated. i would love to have a transcript of his replies. so much double talk! like a skilled politician. like a politician satirized by garry trudeau in doonesbury.
watching with my friends and family, we were going, "what did he just say? anyone get that? what?"
we were also struck that the film never goes back to dennis coffey, mike theodore, and steve rowland, the seemingly sympathetic producers of albums 1 and 2, to ask, "hey, avant says he never got the royalty money, what do you say to that?" not to mention asking, "why on earth did you sign rodriquez to a deal with a motown record label? why would you expect a soul label to have success marketing a folk singer?"
That's good filmmaking. I think he sat down for the interview expecting it to be a puff piece about his artist and then when he was pressed bout the money he got upset because he hasn't been paying him his royalties. 't was very telling when he said, and I am paraphrasing, "Who's gonna honor a contract from the 1970's. I wouldn't"
shareYeah, his comment about no-one being able to enforce a 1970s contract was the clincher for me in proving he'd been pocketing the royalty cheques all along. It was as good as admitting he had been and challenging them to just try to drag him into the courts over it.
I thought his initial display of sorrow over what happened to Rodriquez and insistence he was better than Dylan (a top music producer saying this? Preposterous) was nothing more than a faux display of emotion in a preemptive attempt to fool the interviewer (and thus viewer) into not thinking he'd spent the last quarter century ripping Rodriguez off.
Yes, my thoughts exactly. The moment he attempted to display emotion, I could see right through it, he was trying to put on a show, as if he actually cared. Ahh, it was utterly disingenuous; so when he did get all up in arms about the money and trying to deflect... It only confirmed his guilt in my eyes. Incredibly sly and shameful.
shareI also agree. The minute money became the topic he got really defensive really fast. Didn't surprise me, though. There are a lot of crooks in that industry, especially associated with Motown. It seems that almost every successful artist, or not, has a war story about being ripped off by a record company exec at least once.
shareHe was extremely defensive when it came to financial issues, but on the other hand, the journalist's questions seemed vague and loaded. We didn't see the whole interview from the beginning, so it's hard to tell whether he jumped or was pushed.
shareAM I THE ONLY ONE
Your film gods: Lee Van Cleef and Laura Gemser
http://tinyurl.com/pa4ud44
It's just all about contracts and ownership. Rodriguez didn't strike me as someone that interested in looking out for his own financial interests so he probably didn't fight very hard on the terms of the original contract. So someone owned and owns those songs. It's possible and even very likely that Rodriguez was paid a flat rate for the songs and all the ownership was initially with Avant. If it was Avant he very well could have sold those rights or sold a portion of those rights at any time. If A&M bought them, they very well could have been sold yet again to another party. It would not be hard to hide whose pocket the money was actually going into. Hence why lawyers need money to track down the money trail.
Jimi Hendrix was notorious for signing anything people put in front of him. The Hendrix family has fought for years to gain back ownership on the music he wrote. John Fogerty went through a similar situation with his music. It's extremely common for an artist to not own the rights to their own songs.
My take with Avant is that either he still gets royalties from the songs or he is mad that he may have sold off early and cheap and gave up a revenue stream he wa snot even aware of. I think it's also quite possible that a lot of the album sales in South Africa were bootlegs and something that may be very difficult for the owners of the songs to get a handle on or control.