01-10-2008, 07:14 | #21 |
Preparing more tumbleweed
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 6,038
|
I'd say the majority of labels aren't bad, it's just that a very small number of them control most of the market (EMI et al), and those ones are bad.
__________________
Mal: Define "interesting"? Wash: "Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die"? |
01-10-2008, 08:56 | #22 |
Abandoned Ship
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 492
|
|
01-10-2008, 08:58 | #23 | |
Abandoned Ship
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 492
|
Quote:
|
|
01-10-2008, 09:42 | #24 |
Preparing more tumbleweed
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 6,038
|
CBS, no one is disagreeing with you on that. The point of the article and posting it here was to show that signing a contract is not always a good thing. I reckon you could say that in the majority of cases the artists would be so much financially better off without signing said contract.
The Darkness took yet another alternative method. Permission To Land was an album they paid for themselves. When "I believe in a thing called love" took off they had all the majors clamouring to get a piece of the action. Under those circumstances they were able to dictate the terms to the labels. They kept stuff like the publishing rights and a larger percentage of merchandise profits to themselves. Along with songwriter royalties that meant the band members each walked away with a couple of million each.
__________________
Mal: Define "interesting"? Wash: "Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die"? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|