Hey, invoking artists' rights in the name of self-interest is hardly unprece-dented—look at the RIAA's recent spins.

ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE

Courtney & James Barber Take On Label That Holds Her Contract, Previously Employed Him

Commentary by Bud Scoppa

In 1998, Geffen Records executive James Barber was busily A&Ring the recording project that would result in Hole's "Celebrity Skin" album, which went on to sell 1.3 million units (compared to 1.5 million for 1994's "Live Through This"). "Celebrity Skin" was released in Sept. 1998; Geffen's offices were closed in January 1999. By that spring, Barber was reportedly battling with his new bosses at Interscope. Two years later, as Courtney Love's manager, confidante and significant other, the longtime A&R man is entering into a high-profile legal battle with the conglomerate of which Geffen is now a part.

Barber, who had also been given the task of A&Ring the similarly outspoken then-Geffen artist Aimee Mann (and subsequently painted as an art-inhibiting functionary of the big, bad corporation by Mann in a New York Times Sunday Magazine article documenting her major-label travails), was among those who lost their jobs as Geffen was folded into Interscope to form the Interscope Geffen A&M combine. By that time, he and Love were in a relationship that had apparently started with a shared musical passion and deepened from there. Inevitably, the couple began examining the nature of Love's contractual situation and trying to figure out a way to get her out of it.

This Wednesday, Feb. 28, they went public with the plan they'd devised. Working with publicist Pat Kingsley, Barber pushed the button on a media blitz of epic proportions, beginning with Chuck Philips' front-page L.A. Times story, which presented Love as a crusader for artists' rights, while perpetuating her public image as that ballsy chick adored by her fans and feared by her enemies.

Barber then fired off a pair of press releases. The first announced the granting of Love's cross-complaint against Universal Music Group by a judge Wednesday morning. The second revealed that she was entering into a relationship with Epitaph Records, run by her old pal Brett Gurewitz, that would enable her to lay the groundwork for her next album project without the involvement of IGA; it also expressed the possibility of Epitaph issuing a batch of unreleased Nirvana tracks.

Together, the releases intimated a primary motive—that Love was taking on big business on behalf of screwed-over artists past and present. This declaration of independence/call to arms was followed by the following query from Barber: "Further to the press releases I posted earlier today, Courtney Love and I are looking for other artists who are interested in finally forming a real union for recording artists or participating in a future class-action lawsuit. We especially want to hear from older artists who haven't received proper accounting for their royalties."

These pronouncements were articulate, to be sure, but they did beg some intriguing questions. For example, why would this self-described "smart gal with a fat bank account" require the "funding" of Gurewitz, whose bank account is far thinner than her own, in order to enter into her creative process? It would seem that the most Gurewitz could offer this firebrand punk-rocker turned movie star is lost indie cred.

Further, despite the concern Love expresses for her fellow artists and her desire to have them join her in her class-action suit, how is her situation fundamentally different from those of unhappy Dodger Gary Sheffield and numerous other millionaire sports figures who want out of their contracts? Hey, invoking artists' rights in the name of self-interest is hardly unprecedented—look at the RIAA's recent spins.

Finally, if there are unreleased recordings by Nirvana, whose catalog Love controls in part, for what reason would IGA seek to block their release on Geffen, as she suggests in the second press release, when they would clearly be scooped up by the hungry masses? That would simply be bad business, and no one could accuse this market-dominating company of that sin.

These questions may well have definitive answers. But in these cynical times, it's impossible to ignore the presence of potential hidden agendas and disingenuous motives.

No matter the outcome of her lawsuit, one result seems inevitable: Barber will never work in this town again—certainly not in the role of major-label A&R exec. It's a startling career move for a bright, talented guy (my opinion following four years of working with him at Zoo) whose life until recently has been dedicated to becoming a top-shelf A&R guy.

Can the plot get any thicker? I can't wait for the movie.

TOP 20: TAYLOR'S WORLD
Of course it is. (12/12a)
NEAR TRUTHS: A TOUR OF '24 (PART TWO)
I.B.'s independent-spirit awards (12/12a)
DANIEL NIGRO:
CRACKING THE CODE
The co-writer-producer of the moment, in his own words (12/12a)
REGAL AT RETAIL:
TAYLOR SWIFT
Redefining "royalty" (12/10a)
NEAR TRUTHS: A TOUR OF '24 (PART ONE)
The beginning of the end (12/10a)
NOW WHAT?
We have no fucking idea.
COUNTRY'S NEWEST DISRUPTOR
Three chords and some truth you may not be ready for.
AI IS ALREADY EATING YOUR LUNCH
The kids can tell the difference... for now.
WHO'S BUYING THE DRINKS?
That's what we'd like to know.
 Email

 First Name

 Last Name

 Company

 Country