Re: RIAA a bit heavy-handed you say?


> > Take a look at a studio bill where you have egos raging, and you will be
> > floored. It's truly astounding, the sheer flood of money that gets
> > tossed around.
>
> None of that changes the fundamental issue. Those acts signed a
> contract. If they don't like it, they don't have to sign.

That's nice in theory, but the reality of the music industry up until
the last few years is that signing a contract was the ONLy way to open
certain channels - getting music played on terrestrial radio, getting
shelf space in the chain stores, getting in with national and
international booking agents, thus getting the money making tours...yes,
you can say "nobody forced them to sign", but you can also say "Not
signing = sure failure".

THAT is why the labels are scared shitless these days, their ironclad
hold on the industry is slipping.

> I'm perfectly willing to admit that record contracts are somewhat one
> sided. But the people who sign them see the chance to become big hits
> and are willing to take that chance. I don't see that this is inherently
> unfair - particularly when they have other options (recording their own
> CDs, using the Internet, going with a different label, etc).

"Somewhat one-sided"?

That's like saying water is "kinda" wet.

> >
> > > >
> > > > I believe that C Lund is naive.
> > >
> > > I think it's worse than that. Look at his dancing with numbers. He has
> > > claimed that the musicians get negative figures, $0.0019, $0.35, and
> > > $2-3 per CD, depending on which point he's trying to make at the time.
> > > His spread for record company profits is just as bad. That spread of
> > > figures isn't an accident - it's an obvious sign of dishonesty.
> >
> > He may not know the industry, but then, neither do you. I've worked with
> > multi-platinum recording acts, I have rock stars as friends and
> > aquaintences, do you? I've seen this up close and personal, have you?
> >
> > To call someone dishonest when you have no clue about what you're
> > trying to claim as false is highly amusing.
>
> I'm saying that the intellectual dishonesty is so obvious you don't have
> to be an expert to see it. Just a few examples:

He's as clueless as you are about record industry financing as you are,
but he's not throwing names around. I'm not going to pick the nits you
are, because at the bottom of it's flawed at best because it's not
reality, on either side.

> 1. He includes virtually all the band's overhead expenses but NONE of
> the record label's overhead expenses. Look at how he includes his legal
> expenses, but not the record company's.

THE RECORD LABEL'S EXPENSES ARE NOT CHARGED NOR ITEMIZED TO THE BANDS.
EVER.

Do you understand what the FUNDAMENTAL relationship between an artist
and a label IS?

They are independant contractors.

Just as a temp secretary's budget does NOT ITEMIZE her agencie's
expenses and costs, neither does the costs of a label come into this
discussion.

It would be the same if you were talking movies - the expenses at the
corporate offices at Warner Brothers would never be onvolved with Steven
Speilberg's budgets. They simply don't have anything to do with each
other.

You're calling someone "dishonest" when you don't understand a simple
concept like what the relationship of the label is with an artist under
contract.

> 2. He includes a bunch of new band equipment as an 'essential' expense
> for recording an album. Notice how he doesn't include computers, phones,
> office furniture, etc for the record label.

That's because artists DON'T PAY FOR THEM. Dou you charge office PCs to
a temp's paycheck?
>
> 3. He includes money to throw a party for his friends.

In the music industry, that's a definite expense, and part of doing
business. Deal with it.

> 4. He includes all sorts of absurd T&L expenses - but again none of the
> overhead expenses for the record company.

That's because you don't understand or don't want to admit the
fundamental relationship between a label and an artist, you don't
understand corporate accounting, and you don't understand that a budget
to record an album is an independant entity unto itself, and should not
and will not itemize expenses for a label BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED.

> There's no way in the world that any rational person could say that that
> comparison is a fair one.

To you maybe, but you're the one who'r refusing to understand some VERY
basic concepts about business.

> Then, you can add in all of C. Lund's lunacy. Try to pin him down on how
> much money the average band gets per CD. So far, he's quoted $0.0019,
> $0.35, $1.40 and $2-3. How in the world can he make his constant rants
> about the bands being sold into slavery for nothing when he can't even
> decide how much money they get?

You pick that nit, because you're obviously incapable or unwilling to
admit you're wrong about the overall issue of how business is conducted
by major labels.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RIAA a bit heavy-handed you say?
    ... That spread of figures isn't an accident - it's an obvious sign of dishonesty. ... Look at how he includes his legal expenses, ... In that budget, the label was shown to have have been paid over 700 thousand dollars. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: RIAA a bit heavy-handed you say?
    ... > part of a band's budget. ... > out of the companies expenses, just like any corporation in America." ... The label lost money. ... What do CDs cost in the US these days? ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: RIAA a bit heavy-handed you say?
    ... >> justified all the silly expenses that Albini threw in. ... >> biased to include legal costs for the band but not the label. ... > A "band" is a SEPERATE BUSINESS ENTITY FROM A LABEL. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: RIAA a bit heavy-handed you say?
    ... representative band budget. ... Well, we've got two guys in the industry saying it is a representative budget, and then we have you guys who are not in the music industry, claiming it isn't. ... Every band spends $20 K on living expenses even when recording locally? ... If the SG&A expenses are for real, then we're talking about a label that can't make profit off a product that costs only $1 to manufacture and sells 250000 copies at $14 apiece. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Limitations on expense claim payments
    ... fill in a form detailing the expenses, attach proof, and it ... to limit expense claims in this way, or would the employee be entitled to ... submit at any time and expect payment regardless of what the rules say? ... If the company placed a contract with another company which required ...
    (uk.legal)