Why "classic petra"?

[andreasbjerre]

I don't know if you have discussed this before. I was just wandering why the reunion band call themselves "classic petra" and not just petra. I mean it's the exact same band who made the beat the system album in 1984 as "petra". I even saw that they and their new back to the rock album was listed seperately from all other petra stuff on a streaming site, as another artist. I know they didn't choose this themselves, but perhaps fans of petra would not find out about this new music because of the name change. It just seem quite odd to me, that they chosed this???

[Dan]

The main reason was because of Trademark, and because Petra had advertised retirement from touring, which would have been false advertising in a sense that was what the sales of Farewell were based on. Petra is still doing random special event concerts under the farewell banner. Classic Petra from what we can tell is structured as a 5 member LLC that splits profits. With Petra things are a little different.

Just legal I guess.. what is Petra anyway?

http://www.E-band-IIguysfromVictorHartm ... _band.html

[executioner]

Classic Petra and Petra are 2 different companies legally. Bob has full ownership on all things Petra, but Classic Petra and all new music formed from them are equally owned by the five band members.
The only item I'm not sure about are the songs that CP has rerecorded, maybe Brent has the answer to that.

[brent]

I dunno. All I know was the name helped them differentiate between the last gen and the Volz era to buyers and potential buyers and industry folk before any of it really began. While classic did not blatantly describe the whole band, it said that Greg was singing, and that is the true divisor between Petra and Classic Petra, and from there you can make some assumptions.

Technically, the guys can re-record all of the old stuff until the cows come home, AFAIK. Re-releasing would cost them more and put no money in their pockets. In some cases, Bob might have to pay to use his own music, because a label owns it. So, it is in their best interest to re-record anyway. That is how it was explained to me by Mr. G at EMI.

[DeSoto]

That even may be why they have to re-record the songs differntly. The origional songs may belong to a record cpmpany. We have similar cases in Europe. There an artist had so re-record some of his songs, so be able to do new live-recordings with old stuff. Re-recorded these songs don´t seem to be the songs, that the recordcompany owns...thats what they told us here in Germany. I guess i might me similiar with CP.