I have mixed feelings. Having grown up in Nashville, maybe I understand the industry too well. The labels spend a lot of money on artists that never pan out and when a label does catch lighting, the revenue they get from that star is making the label whole for a lot of swings and misses. And then there's the whole matter of the labels putting up the initial money for studio time, touring, promotion, artist advances, etc. etc. I liken it a lot to personal injury attorneys who work on a contingency fee. It seems egregious when a lawyer gets 30-percent of a massive settlement, but that is subsidizing all the cases where the lawyer does the work and fronts all the costs but the case results in little or no judgment/settlement.
But in her case, isn't it that the label was bought out (?) taken over (?) something by non-music investors, purely for speculation? No one in the buyers had anything to do with producing the music; they're just hoping for a profit without any particular regard for what they bought.I have mixed feelings. Having grown up in Nashville, maybe I understand the industry too well. The labels spend a lot of money on artists that never pan out and when a label does catch lighting, the revenue they get from that star is making the label whole for a lot of swings and misses. And then there's the whole matter of the labels putting up the initial money for studio time, touring, promotion, artist advances, etc. etc. I liken it a lot to personal injury attorneys who work on a contingency fee. It seems egregious when a lawyer gets 30-percent of a massive settlement, but that is subsidizing all the cases where the lawyer does the work and fronts all the costs but the case results in little or no judgment/settlement.
I have mixed feelings. Having grown up in Nashville, maybe I understand the industry too well. The labels spend a lot of money on artists that never pan out and when a label does catch lighting, the revenue they get from that star is making the label whole for a lot of swings and misses. And then there's the whole matter of the labels putting up the initial money for studio time, touring, promotion, artist advances, etc. etc. I liken it a lot to personal injury attorneys who work on a contingency fee. It seems egregious when a lawyer gets 30-percent of a massive settlement, but that is subsidizing all the cases where the lawyer does the work and fronts all the costs but the case results in little or no judgment/settlement.
I don't know the whole story there. If you're looking at it retrospectively from the perspective of whoever originally owned the label, it really doesn't matter whether they sell it or hang on collect checks. Either way, they're getting paid back for the misses they funded in the past. Prospectively, I can see how it negates the argument that the earnings continue to fund giving more unknown artists a shot (assuming the original label owners don't use some of their profits from the sale to start a new label or the purchasers don't maintain a&r operations to identify and sign emerging artists).But in her case, isn't it that the label was bought out (?) taken over (?) something by non-music investors, purely for speculation? No one in the buyers had anything to do with producing the music; they're just hoping for a profit without any particular regard for what they bought.
didn't she give all her tour truck drivers a six figure bonus not too long ago?I'm not miserable, but I am old. I don't care how many agree and I understand she's your heart throb, but much like LeBron and every other athlete or star that complains about how they are treated financially, I have no use for them.
I don't care what you think of her and I wasn't talking to your old miserable ass, I asked who else agreed with you.I'm not miserable, but I am old. I don't care how many agree and I understand she's your heart throb, but much like LeBron and every other athlete or star that complains about how they are treated financially, I have no use for them.