Re: labels

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

>The big label is a double edged sword.  As you point out, they will have 
>many demands that will have to be fulfilled for them to invest the kind of 
>cash needed for a standard release.  I don't think The Who (especially 
>Pete) are going to be willing to sign any such contract.

It's fairly common for art to be released on private labels these days, as a 
means of minimizing risk, if nothing else.  Everybody wants to see what it 
does before they invest millions of dollars in the release.  Sometines the 
work is a success on the private label and is then picked up by a larger 
company, and sometimes it stays on the private label, so the artist can 
retain control.  The advantage to going with a larger company is that you 
get to use their staff and connections for promotion and distribution, but 
they do charge for that service, plus the artist has to give up rights.

I'm sure TED know a lot more about these things than we do, and they're 
likely to choose an option based on how their other albums have sold and are 
selling now.  I don't notice that MCA does much in the way of promotion for 
the back catalog, and it does continue to sell.  There would likely be an 
early interest in a new studio album, especially if it were well promoted 
by, say, a tour and a video on MTV/VH1 and etc.  After that, assuming it got 
into the record store bins alongside the other albums, we could expect it to 
plug along somewhere after LIVE AT LEEDS and WHO'S NEXT.


keets
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com