Releasing Music Yourself -versus- Not Unless We Get a Deal (1 Viewer)

[waterfall]

Hang on now.
Are you talking about bands that have to pay back their advance to the record company (which is what I thought you were on about there), in which case the band signed the contract so tough shit for them and the record company.

Or are you talking about bands that spend their own money, in which case they wouldn't be bankrupt, they'd just have a lot of debt and tough shit for the bank that lent them the money, and the mammy's who have to pay off the loan.

The first one is the situation I was saying can cause bankrupcy. No I'm not naming the bands but I Pm'd one to pantone which he knew about.

The second situation I was talking about too but never suggested these people would go bankrupt, only the ones with deals as in your top point.

 

[Corey]

Total shit.

 

[Anthony]

oops, I meant waterfall of course.

 

[waterfall]

So you're going to keep coming up with stories of bands who've spent way more money than average and ended up in more debt than average, at an uncommonly young age, without proving in any way that you're not making these people up to back up your point? Sounds fishy.

see pantone's post.
he knows one of the bands
not fishy
not like i've much to gain

 

[Pantone247]

No I'm not naming the bands but I Pm'd one to pantone which he knew about.

L_RGE M_UND


do the maths guys...

 

[waterfall]

oops, I meant waterfall of course.

I'm not Mitchum trying to start a new account.
Sure there's my band and who I am on bebo below...

 

[billygannon]

L_RGE M_UND


do the maths guys...

Mundy?

 

[waterfall]

Mundy?

Only a ginger biscuit would make that joke

 

[Stereobaby]

A major label spent the money on the band.
The band didn't succeed commercially.
The major label held the band accountable for money spent and lost.
Band bankrupt.

So your point is shit

I still dont think an advance is recoupable. It's the record company's investment not the bands.

If that was the case it would be a win-win situation for the label and every band would be snapped up in the hope of latching onto next success story as labels would not have any financial worries since the band are ultimately shouldering the expense.

ie. what your saying is labels have nothing to lose.

 

[egg_]

A major label spent the money on the band.
The band didn't succeed commercially.
The major label held the band accountable for money spent and lost.
Band bankrupt.

That seems like an unusual deal that band signed right there. Maybe I'm wrong though

 

[Vinnie]

You started out out by arguing about bands borrowing 8K and going bankrupt. That's what I was addressing. Now you're just being rude.

A major label spent the money on the band.
The band didn't succeed commercially.
The major label held the band accountable for money spent and lost.
Band bankrupt.

So your point is shit

 

[Mitchum]

we should be able to work out who it is ny now. C'mon mitchum, any more hints?

Tut-tut. Thumped Psychosis there Anthony?

 

[billygannon]

Only a ginger biscuit would make that joke

I didn't make a joke.

Are you working in the music business then? Or are you a barber?

Why are the kerfuffle about young people taking out large loans to pay for their pet projects?

Surely bands would be better off investing in property rather than albums?

 

[waterfall]

I still dont think an advance is recoupable. It's the record company's investment not the bands.

If that was the case it would be a win-win situation for the label and every band would be snapped up in the hope of latching onto next success story as labels would not have any financial worries since the band are ultimately shouldering the expense.

ie. what your saying is labels have nothing to lose.

you're really not getting this are you?

if a band declares bankrupcy how has a label lost nothing?

labels would have nothing to lose if they could squeeze out a few hundred grand out of bands after they'd failed. they can't.

 

[Corey]

Sirs,Permission to hijack thread.

 

[Vinnie]

I'll help.

Sirs,Permission to hijack thread.

 

[waterfall]

You started out out by arguing about bands borrowing 8K and going bankrupt. That's what I was addressing. Now you're just being rude.

I started out saying it seems the best way to get anywhere with your music is to do it yourself but it's a confusing decision. Read the opening post.

Anyway, the 8K and the bankrupcy bit are two different examples given. You fused them together and corrected me. You had it worng from misreading my posts.

Anyway, yes that was rude. Apologies for any offence.

Conor

 

[classic seanc]

I still dont think an advance is recoupable. It's the record company's investment not the bands.

If that was the case it would be a win-win situation for the label and every band would be snapped up in the hope of latching onto next success story as labels would not have any financial worries since the band are ultimately shouldering the expense.

ie. what your saying is labels have nothing to lose.

again according to that "All you need to know...." book, that is the typical set up of a contract. Businesses don't give people free money. They'll give the band the agreed share of profits from a successful product.

But again, it depends on what's in the contract.

 

[RSJ]

you're really not getting this are you?

Hahaha.

 

[Stereobaby]

you're really not getting this are you?

if a band declares bankrupcy how has a label lost nothing?

labels would have nothing to lose if they could squeeze out a few hundred grand out of bands after they'd failed. they can't.

So if a band aren't successful and they "fail" they have to pay the recording expenses and promotion expenses themselves?


I didn't think that was the case but then again I dont know or actually claim to know.


Anyway I'm way too hungover to think about this shit.



P.S. you're a spa.

Fuck off to boards.ie like.







P.P.S I love you