I’m also posting this as a comment to this post attempting to explain the debacle.
This is uncomfortable for me. I don’t like calling people out in the first place, and Xena and Juneau have been very kind to me, even linking to my own small blog. I do thank them for that.
But this is something I cannot let go, in large part because I do not understand their point of view. If they did not have the disclaimers in front, saying that they love Adam Lambert, that he is their muse and their inspiration, and that they despised BfM, I’d would think exactly otherwise.
How can one love and be inspired by the man they describe in that post? A man who reneges on a contract? Who uses false arguments to rescind a contract that itself says it’s unrescindable? Who acts against a friend’s wishes (wait. That sounds familiar.)
The other problem is that, despite the fact that they claim to despise what Welsford did, they seem to believe that he acted entirely on the up and up, and that all of his claims are true – that Adam didn’t truly rescind the contract, and therefore that he had no right – or maybe RCA’s lawyers had no right – to rescind it.
Adam had a right to terminate this contract if Welsford did not fulfill his end of the bargain. And the contract was, indeed, rescinded. If he had not been able to offer proof IN THE FIRST PLACE, that would not have happened. (I don’t know why union pay even came up. It’s entirely irrelevant.) Monte is also irrelevant here, since they would have signed separate contracts.
I don’t know why it took Welsford two years to decide to try to release these songs, but it’s entirely too coincidental that he did so on the eve of Adam’s second album. I can speculate, but it’s all speculation. Perhaps he had a permission he didn’t have before. Perhaps he thought that Adam wouldn’t notice – Adam was certainly taken by surprise AGAIN.
They list a number of valid reasons for Adam to not want BfM release – what I listed above plus a possible contract conflict with RCA. THIS bugs.They themselves say that the argument that Adam wasn’t eligible for Idol is specious, and this contract in no way precludes another one for different songs. That being the case, why would it be a problem for this contract? Do they believe that once an artist signs with a label, that’s it?
Not only that, but Adam is certainly not the first or the last artist to be confronted with unauthorized albums of earlier materials. No one has lost a label over that.
As for Monte – no one forced him to say “buy the album.” He could have said nothing. He could have said “I am proud of these songs for what they were, but I do not stand with selling them against our will. I stand with my friend.” This does not violate any contract. It would not have stopped Welsford from trying to sell those albums at all. But instead, Monte encouraged people to buy them.
He’s also been quoted, by supporters and people who continue to support him, as saying that Adam would also get money from this. Which is tantamount to saying “buy these, you’ll help Adam” even as Adam said he minded.
The rift is true and obvious – Adam’s backing/promo/tour band has a new lineup, and Monte is not there. Either they are no longer friends or, as they say, it is plausible that he is not permitted to contact Monte because of the law suit. Which, of course, says that Monte is a part of the lawsuit because that’s the only reason the lawyers would do such a thing. In trying to exonerate Monte, they made him look guilty.