Business

["L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>]

>Rog and John could still tour it w/o Pete.

They'd have to have his permission, though.


>>The problem with taking chances is that you can lose a bundle.
>
>Like any business venture, it could be handled correctly and make money. 
>Even the some-what successful QUAD tour wasn't marketed properly. Daltrey's 
>symphonic tour was doomed, because you're talking about transporting and 
>housing how many people? And not just a bunch of Rock guys either; there IS 
>a level to symphonic musicians!

RD didn't haul those around, though, did he?  Weren't the classical 
musicians provided locally (although they still have to be paid)?  Somehow I 
don't think making money was Roger's major goal on the tour.  It seemed sort 
of recreational.

A lot of what TED do these days seems like they're out there because they 
want to be, and not because it'll make tons of money.  All they want is to 
break even, and this kind of attitude makes it even more of a risk to use 
their own money.  If you've got a money-making machine and a sharp business 
plan, then you can expect a good return on your own investment, but if 
you're just planning to go around playing some music that maybe nobody will 
like very much, you'd better share the costs.


>On the other hand, he could have hired a guitar, bass, and drummer and made 
>money.

Yeah, but that's less fun.


> > I think the study included all of popular music, not just rock--which 
>makes it even scarier for the establishment.
>
>My understanding is that Dance/Urban is the number one seller in new
>stores, and it's number 100 in here. So my thinking is: people are getting 
>their Rock from used stores, because it doesn't HAVE to be brand new, while 
>they get the D/U from the Mall because it's boring after a few months.

It looks like people share their cds around, too--trade, tape, swap, buy and 
sell.  Whatever, it's not something the record companies are pleased with.


> > Hard to get out of his contract.  Expensive legal hassle, and etc.
>
>I feel quite sure his original contract with WB wasn't for this many
>albums. This isn't something that happened overnight.
>
> > Huh?
>
>I don't understand what you don't understand (and no, that's not one of my 
>"stupid lyrics."). As a business owner who wants to stay in business in 
>case CDs go the way of the dodo, I've started carrying DVD movies...and, 
>like music, DVD movies are an interest of mine. Therefore I can "feed my 
>habit" and make money doing it. Free music, free movies. Now, if I could 
>just sell drugs...just kidding, folks...

Huh? <g>

My question was (I think), about how Tom Petty's situation didn't happen 
overnight.  You'd figure his original contract might have had an option for 
extensions, or he might have signed a new one.  Whichever, he's still tied 
up legally.

Until very recently, though, nobody would even have thought to cover 
internet distribution in their contract, so the provisions would be a little 
strained in that area, and the companies would have to use intimidation to 
an extent to maintain their control of the artist.  As I recall, Petty said 
he figured it was about the same as giving away promotional copies to radio 
stations, but his company thought otherwise.

As for the DVDs, I think I read where record companies are going to that 
format for music.  This must be so we all have to buy new sound equipment, 
of course, but also they think it'll be easier to control.


>Something that sells like mad one week can sit around the next.

What causes it, do you think?  Media event?  New release?  Air time on the 
radio?  MTV?


>>It's hard for artists to build up any kind of following this way.
>
>Like I said before, the artists themselves wait too long between albums and 
>lose their audience. The Who suffered from one album a year, even back in 
>the `60s, while their peers were pumping out at least two plus singles.

I agree that it's important to stay in the public eye, and pumping out 
albums is a visible strategy these days for new groups.  It really puts the 
artist in a bind, though.  Can you really maintain a level of creativity 
that way?  It's kind of hard to rush the gestation period for quality 
material.  Somebody might have an album or so worth of song ideas stores up, 
but after a while the content starts to run a little thin.  Eventually you'd 
have to make the choice between quality and quantity--or maybe just burn 
out.

One thing that reduced the number of albums The Who put out is that Pete did 
(almost) all the writing, so they were limited to what he could  produce.  
If all of them had been songwriters or if they had used a collaborative 
approach, there'd be more material, but it'd be different--not The Who we 
know.

keets



_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com