Okay, one of my friends just reminded me that Irving Azoff is Don Henleyβs manager.
But, beyond that, The End of The Innocence was the last album Henley released with Geffen Records in 1989.
Don Henleyβs band, The Eagles was originally managed by David Geffen and signed to Asylum Records. They sued him in 1977 alleging that
βGeffen was leveraging a conflict of interest and allegedly manipulating his role as their manager to shoehorn deals that ultimately profited his own company, Asylum Records. At this point, he wasnβt operating solely as a manager, advising career decisions and fielding off corporate advances, but was in fact facilitating them.β
Despite leaving Geffen and signing with Irving Azoff (frying pan into the fire?), when Henley went solo, he wound up signed to Geffen Records. But it was ultimately an unhappy match.
βItβs not like he was struggling by any metric, but considering the kind of numbers that he could have been raking in for singles like βThe Boys of Summerβ or even the massive album statement of The End of the Innocence, he felt he was only being given pennies compared to what the rest of his contemporaries were getting.
And itβs not like he was exactly subtle about it, either. By the time that The End of the Innocence press tour began, Henley had no problem badmouthing Geffen for stifling him for years on end, saying, βI guaran-fucking-tee you Iβll be on the market after the next two albums. I want out. Theyβre nickel and diming me to death. [David] Geffen has one set of rules that apply to him and one set of rules that apply to everyone else.β
The new amendment alleges that executives at Warner Music Group, Sony Music and EMI Music assured Geffen they would not sign any artist who attempted to break their contract under the seven-year statute--the precise law Henley cited nine months ago spurring the vitriolic legal battle.
Under the statute--a controversial California law enacted 50 years ago to free actors from long-term studio deals--entertainers cannot be forced to work for any company for more than seven years. Some record executives believe the statute wonβt hold up in court, but have been reluctant to test it because an adverse ruling could lead to a wholesale exodus of veteran artists from their record companies in search of better deals on the open market. Earlier possible showdowns over the statute have been avoided because artists settled out of court for more money and upgraded contract terms.
βIf powerful corporations like these are having discussions to stop me from recording my music, what does that say about the state of affairs in the music industry?β Henley told The Times on Tuesday. βUnfortunately, record companies are no longer run by people who love music. Theyβre run by bean counters and attorneys and all that matters to these guys is the bottom line.β
calls for more reasonable time limits in which a record company can exercise its agreement with recording artists, and that talent be able to terminate a personal services agreement once the time limit has been fulfilled, in addition to other issues related to working for multiple employers, contract renegotiation and additional artist protections.
Recording artists must get reprise from one-sided, never-ending agreements, and actors must escape the exclusive holds that keep them from working when they want to work.
In the music industry, the "Seven-Year Rule" typically refers to California Labor Code Section 2855, a state law limiting personal service contracts to a maximum of seven years. While actors and other professionals can walk away freely after this period, a 1987 record-label carve-out allows labels to sue departing musicians for unfulfilled album deliveries and lost profits. [1, 2, 3]
The Legal Framework (California Labor Code Β§2855)
Enacted to prevent employers from binding workers to indefinite or modern-day indentured servitude, the statute states that personal service contracts of a unique or intellectual nature cannot be enforced past seven years of active service
The Music Industry Loophole
The 1987 RIAA Amendment: Lobbying by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) created a special exception for sound recordings. Because record deals are structured around delivering a set number of albums rather than a fixed timeline, labels argued that a sudden seven-year exit cheated them out of massive investments. [1]
The Catch: While an artist can technically stop recording for a label after seven years, the label retains the right to sue them for financial damages (such as projected profits) if they failed to deliver their full quota of contracted albums before leaving. [1, 2]
Recent Legislative Pushback: Efforts like California's proposed FAIR Act (Assembly Bill 983 / AB 2926) sought to repeal this recording-industry exception and fully free musicians after seven years, though the bill stalled in legislative committees amid heavy label opposition.
I don't know if Harry and Louis are preparing any sort of legal battle, or if it's just a comment on Don Henley leaving Geffen after that album was released. But I do find it interesting that H fulfilled his three-album deal within seven years.
Obviously, we're into a fourth album cycle and ten years of being signed to Sony (and Full Stop). I'm still thinking about the clothing H and L have been wearing lately.
x The quote from Home alone before Kevin begins to fight back
I don't know... maybe I'm creating something out of nothing. But the Don Henley connection doesn't seem random.
