[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Who's Missing Etc.



>Trout.

Alan:

As far as I'm concerned, a fish is a fish. I don't like any of them.

>Better hope the oil companies don't follow your advice.

What advice? I offered no advice. However, the oil companies have long been covering their losses with their prices, as any business must. Besides, we should be completely done with using oil at this point. Humans are just stupid enough to deserve what they've done to themselves.

>ot to me. Courtney Love - well, what she said in her remarks about the
industry I think are really pretty spot on.

Nigel:

Despite the fact that she doesn't know a "gross" from a "profit?"

> point a number of people seem
to have missed is that once an act has repaid back to their label any
advances for recording, because the record has sold well, they, the act,
still DO NOT OWN the recording the label does.

That's not quite accurate, or My Generation would have been released in stereo a loooong time ago. The label may have the rights to RELEASE the material, but they rarely OWN the material. They may own the master tapes themselves, thereby making it impossible to use them (as Talmy does), but that was stipulated in the contract, but that's something the artists should have looked at.

Another instance where this is true; I know someone who has a good bit of Who video which he cannot release because the Who's management won't allow it. He owns the actual film, but they can stop him. This is Trinifold, not any label, I'm talking about. So it's not always so clear cut as it may appear on paper.

>they are insufficient then they lose as well as the artist. However, if
sales are remarkable they'll recoup and then it's profit all the fucking
way!

This IS why they risk the money in the first place! If it wasn't worth it to the labels, why would they put up the risk money? Are they not allowed to make money? The Who make money and they're not bad guys...why is it when the labels do, they are? Besides, you're doing what Courtney did...accusing without knowing the bottom line in regard to what the label needs to make its payroll and expenses. Until someone can show me a breakdown of costs to run a record label which shows they make some sort of astronomical profit, I'll find it impossible to believe they're gouging anyone or utter bastards or whatever. There is no evidence at all that labels are gouging the artists unless you leave out almost all of the relevant factors.

>The comment I answered was about their costs of doing business.  If 
they can't pay their costs and still make a decent profit, then they should 
go out of business.

Keets:

And I'm saying they can't pay their costs if their stuff is being stolen, and that's what's putting them out of business. They were doing fine before.

>They've been in a monopoly position for about 40 years, so 

How's that? How many labels are there??? If the artists are in such a weak position, why did REM get 20 million dollars per CD?

>Now they're looking at a competitive situation,

How is it competitive? Downloads are music stolen at no cost to the downloader or downloadee. They have NO costs, as opposed to the label's many. Then, too, the artists get NOTHING either. How is that fair to ANYONE? How can anyone justify it? You want to talk about GREED? Downloaders are the greedy bastards!

>I thought touring was where artists made most of their money, though 
some are more profitable than others.  Roger did comment that QUAD barely 
broke even because of the high cost of the show and the number of performers.

I don't know of any major bands who profited from touring in the `70's. There may have been some. But it's a bit different now...with $100+ tickets. I can't really speak to that, as I'm no longer in that business.

>I mean they have to pay their costs of living and doing business in 
general. 

So do I...so do you. Am I supposed to be dependent on money I earned 20 years ago? OK, in a way I am...I've invested it and I'm using it. They should do the same. If their methods of investment weren't successful, it's not the label's fault...as they seem to be the all-encompassing bad guys here.

>I rather liked her stance.  I approve of artists getting more money 
than their distributors.

How do you know they don't? Do you think Daltrey made more money than the President of MCA's share of any given Who album (assuming he's the highest paid individual in the company)? A record label isn't one person...so you can't use the whole amount they get and compare it to what one person gets! Break it down to how many people work there and what they get paid and how much is spent on traveling and toilet paper and so on and THEN see if Daltrey didn't end up with more. To me, this is the ONLY fair way to look at it.

>collection.  Has anybody else seen ads?

Yep. I ordered it last night. I want the extra stuff.

"Sure must be fun to watch a President run   Just ask the man who owns one..."                  John Kaye, Children Of The Night              Cheers                   ML
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup