Fun Stuff > BAND
Indie Label Signing Practices OR Oral Contracts Are Bad But Oral Sex Is Still OK
Ptommydski:
That was perfectly civil and it means exactly what it says.
If you can't see why in this situation Touch & Go were screwed by the BH Surfers, that is absolutely an indicator that you don't understand the mindset which allows labels like Touch & Go and Dischord to exist. That is fine, most people don't. We can keep going over this or we can just accept that and move on. I agree that you don't understand it, it makes perfect sense that you don't. We are in concurrence, I have no issue with that because it's self-evident.
Consider this point to be a line in the sand. In this particular instance, you're on one side and I'm on the other. I'm not going to bullshit anyone by saying I think my side is any better than yours but the distinction is there and personally, I regard it to be an important one. You like your side, I like mine. I have no problem with this situation.
pwhodges:
Let's build a wall.
tricia kidd:
--- Quote from: Ptommydski on 18 Feb 2010, 08:18 ---If you can't see why in this situation Touch & Go were screwed by the BH Surfers, that is absolutely an indicator that you don't understand the mindset which allows labels like Touch & Go and Dischord to exist.
--- End quote ---
i do understand the mindset, and i agree that it's obvious that it works in almost every instance for labels like that. neither i nor you know all the facts and persons involved, and it's because of that that i don't want to make a definitive statement that the Surfers "screwed" T&G. i agree they did not do things in an optimal fashion. i agree that there were repercussions.
the only thing i'm unclear on is why Rusk thought it appropriate to refuse to surrender the master tapes to the Surfers and stop releasing their records. i would appreciate it if you would explain it to me in the most simple and complete way possible - why didn't Rusk simply surrender the master tapes before lawyers even became involved? i can only see two arguments: an ethical one, that since his label paid for the recording, he is entitled to keep the tapes even after the recording costs have been recouped. i don't agree with that. the other argument i can see is greed - he wanted to continue making money off the sales of those albums. i don't agree with that, either.
if there is some other reason he wouldn't comply with the band's wishes, i'd be curious to know what it is.
edit: in very simple terms: someone has to own the master tapes. why should it be the record label and not the musicians?
a pack of wolves:
--- Quote from: pilsner on 18 Feb 2010, 03:44 ---Extremely rare is a gross overstatement given that we are talking about essentially every band signed with a label which was selling enough records to justify pressing them and had a member die young. Why would you even make such a statement? Do you have personal experience with the recording industry such that you have a grasp of how often signed artists die, or have you done a personal survey in your free time perhaps? If so would you care to share the results? It sounds like you are making things up for the sake of an argument.
--- End quote ---
Think about how few independent artists actually make any money, or even just enough to break even given the costs of being in a band let alone enough money from their back catalogue for it to be worthwhile anyone disputing royalties (hardly any, proportionally speaking). Then think about how most independent bands are younger than the population average, and the difficulties of someone with a life-threatening medical condition being in a hard-touring band (almost the only kind that make money) so that's reducing the number of deaths you'll see. Now consider the unlikelihood of an artist still being profitable when they're no longer around to promote their work (death only helps sales if you were already big enough for your death to be widely reported). Finally, consider how unlikely it is for all of these things to happen and for someone to think they're being ripped off by their label so badly they decide to take legal action (only a small number of independent label deals end up in this kind of dispute).
So you could worry about all these things happening and how to safeguard your possible future monetary interests, which can result in you shooting yourself in the foot. Or you could focus on the important questions like "will it be ready for the tour so we've got something to sell", "can you help us out with van hire" and "can we get some in coloured vinyl?"
Of course, this could easily be skewed by my perspective since I'm a strict DIY guy and don't have any personal involvement with the pro end of independent music (the kind where you'll see contracts) except as a consumer. Nevertheless, I've seen the DIY ethic work far more often than fail and often with people digging into their own pockets to pay bands so that they'll live up to their word.
Ptommydski:
--- Quote from: tricia kidd on 18 Feb 2010, 09:43 ---i do understand the mindset
--- End quote ---
It's weird how everything about your posts suggests that you don't then.
Literally the only mistake that Corey Rusk made was thinking that the BH Surfer's word counted for shit.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version