 sj |
||
|
||
Sign on the dotted line Kid!
|
|
|
Subject: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: Rick Fielding Date: 05 Jul 01 - 12:45 PM I've been reading this thread with great interest, and it's an oft repeated tale. Sometimes we as performers think that "our work belongs to us" no matter how unprepared (or excited) we were when presented with our first contract. Simply not so. Legal documents favour those who've done their "homework", not those who want to make the world a better place. Take it from someone who has signed their name several times to contracts that they simply didn't read fully, GET a LAWYER....even if you think they're parasites. There is nothing so disheartening as seeing your emotional Art discussed in corporate legal terms.....but remember, YOU gave the suits that power when you signed on the dotted line.
Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: dick greenhaus Date: 05 Jul 01 - 01:10 PM Maybe you can find someone who'll make him an offer he can't refuse. Reportedly worked for Sinatra. |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: GUEST,Timothy Cameron Date: 05 Jul 01 - 01:10 PM If I may add to this, here are some books that I HIGHLY recommend to anybody unfamiliar with the workings of the music biz. "Confessions of a Record Producer" by Moses Avalon. This is by far the most honest, easy to follow book on the matter. It should be required reading. They should include a copy with every Strat sold to a starry-eyed teenager so they'll know what they're in for. Also good are "I Hate The Man Who Runs This Bar" by Eugene Chadbourne, and if you relly want to get pissed off at the big corporations, try finding a copy of "Stiffed" by William Knoedelseder (hope I spelled that correctly) |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: GUEST,UB Dan Date: 05 Jul 01 - 02:14 PM Come in here dear boy have a cigar you're gonna go far, You're gonna fly high, you're never gonna die, You're gonna make it if you try, they're gonna love you. Well I've always had a deep respect and I mean that most sincerely, The band is just fantastic that is really what I think, Oh by the way, which one's Pink?
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy,
|
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: GUEST,From that other thread... Date: 05 Jul 01 - 03:37 PM Nice jump there, Rick. Thought I'd just through in an interesting resource on-line. Andy M. Stewart has a form for song licensing on his website: www.andymstewart.com with links to this: www.chivalry.com A very cool, Internet age idea! Definitely pro-active and positive. |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: Rick Fielding Date: 06 Jul 01 - 02:18 AM Thanks guest. Believe me, much of the same situation discussed on the other thread has happened in Canada as well....almost down to the last detail. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: GUEST Date: 06 Jul 01 - 07:45 AM Rick, That's why I think Chivalry Music's idea of operating as a collective for indie artists both sides the pond is such a good idea. |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: kendall Date: 06 Jul 01 - 08:07 AM Some years ago I did a live performance at Passims in Cambridge for a producer, and he packed the place with a selected audience. The whole thing was taped for a TV show on cable. He paid me for the performance, but, then he came out with a contract which looked hostile to me, so, I took it to a lawyer here in South Portland, a man who is also a performer. He looked it over and said "You would have to be crazy to sign this." I didn't. If anyone wants to know the name of this lawyer who is also one of us, PM me. |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: pavane Date: 06 Jul 01 - 09:47 AM Any lawyer like to give advice on how we can protect our rights in the case of a company going bust after signing us up? A clause in the contract? Escrow? |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: Rick Fielding Date: 06 Jul 01 - 01:53 PM In the last 11 years of my life I've been lucky to be associated with two record companies that really DO try to put performers first (no matter how much "product" they sell). In both cases the owners (Sandy and Caroline Paton of Folk-Legacy, and Grit Laskin and Bill Garrett of Borealis) have had longggg track records of being honourable people and respected members of the folk community. That helps immeasurably when signing contracts. Rick I'm putting this into the other related thread, 'cause I HAVE been "stiffed" in the past, and foolishly signed on some "Dotted Lines" that I shouldn't have. |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Jul 01 - 01:59 PM How many payments do you have left on that Quonset Hut in the Aleutian Islands Rick??? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: GUEST Date: 06 Jul 01 - 02:06 PM Pavane, I don't think asking legal advice in Internet forums about folk music is very sane. The point I've been trying to make in all these threads is that musicians need to educate themselves, pay lawyers their well-deserved fees for helping us negotiate good contracts, and join the MU or other unions for the benefits they can provide to freelancers. If you aren't willing to do that, and refuse to learn from the mistakes of others in this regard (like Nic Jones) then you won't get much sympathy from me... |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: Mrrzy Date: 06 Jul 01 - 02:13 PM Guest, O come on. This is the Mudcat, who's looking for sanity? For more on freelancers, check out the Tasini thread, which refers to the case that the freelancers just won. I titled the thread with the name of the case, which is apparently unknown in these circles so nobody has been discussing this there, which was why I started that thread... as Geoff the Duck pointed out so well! |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: Mrrzy Date: 06 Jul 01 - 02:13 PM Wow, that's three working blickies in a row. Musta learned something after all from that html practice thread! |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Jul 01 - 03:38 PM Dear Guest, Your credibility goes out the door with your anonymity. So bugger off. Below Average Wishes, Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: GUEST Date: 06 Jul 01 - 04:51 PM Dear Catspaw, It's pretty clear some of you need gender specific, nationalist, ancestral, and religious identity to hang your prejudices on, and without it, you just can't function normally. Credibility is not a function of whether you are male or female; British or American; of African, Asian, European, Australian, or American descent; Jew or Gentile or Muslim. Credibility is rooted in what a person knows, and how well they express it. And really dear, I'm not too concerned about my credibility among people who choose to use cutsie animal appendages as pseudonyms. Now *that* presents a credibility problem. And the same to you. |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 06 Jul 01 - 05:13 PM GUEST: Spaw's point, I think, is not about gender specificity, enthnicity,national origin, et cetera. We have a plethora of "GUESTS" who just don't want to be associated as an individual with their own expressed thoughts, often because their expressed thoughts are of the troll variety, or pretty shaky, knowingly antisocial, or something like that. Indeed, some of the "GUESTS" are no such thing: They're regulars here with recognizable "handles", and they're too chicken to express what they are saying in that recognizable "voice", so they hide behind the anonymity of "GUEST". The "handle" adopted need not show the gender, ethnicity, etc. So Grizelda Schlopfenhausen might well go under the handle of MACHOMAN, or BLACKBOY or CHINAGIRL or--here's a real member's nickname here--GUEST#1, even though (s)he's not really a guest. The idea is that there is a stable identity maintained, and people from experience with posts under that name come to understand that individual's style, reliability, good-or-bad will, et cetera. I sign every one of my posts with my full name; people will have a background against which to judge what I say, for good or ill. Spaw, in his usual somewhat rough style (which we've learned to discount over some experience with him) was referring to this kind of thing. David Oesterreich
|
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: GUEST Date: 06 Jul 01 - 05:30 PM David, I appreciate your attempt to explain to me, despite the fact it's pretty patronizing at this point. I think those who have followed the Bulmer thread, and this jump off thread, can pretty easily recognize my posts. As to the "it isn't about ethnic and nationalist prejudices"--I beg to differ. In Britain and Ireland, people do this routinely. People are obsessed with being able to put you in your place, and it is frequently done by class, gender, accent, and surname. Anonymous guests destabilize those prejudices. Not because of a lack of credibility, or cowardice (the most oft-cited reason). But because the reader can't easily put the poster into a little box according to a narrow, insular worldview. I would suggest if people here are this obsessed about having anonymous posters in your presence, you do something to get it changed. That way you can measure skulls and look for tails on anyone who wishes to contribute, rather than be part of your little clique. |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Jul 01 - 05:49 PM Well.....'nuff said and read. I usually just ignore Guests anymore and once again it proves justified. Knowing nothing about this place or the people here and in reading the thread in question find that this Guest is no more than a troll and flamer and one who probably has seen its share of flame wars in Newsgroups. No need to explain any further my lame little pissant......many of us will just skip it. Allpw us to bestow upon you a new Mudcat Award which is only a few weeks old and reserved especially for Guests such as yourself......you know.....pissants.
TO OUR LATEST PISSANT UNNAMED GUEST
Enjoy. Spaw
|
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: GUEST Date: 06 Jul 01 - 06:00 PM Dear Catspaw, Name calling? Inventing personality traits for someone you don't know? I'll just put your incredible rudeness and ruthlessness down to a fear of strangers.
|
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: Ralphie Date: 07 Jul 01 - 03:25 AM Spaw... Many apologies.....As a new boy, I didn't realise it could all get this nasty. Ralphie xx |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: SeanM Date: 07 Jul 01 - 04:06 AM Don't feel too bad, Ralphie. GUEST, your problem is that you are destroyed by your predecessors. In a perfect world, every post would be evaluated on the basis of the content, not on who posted it. This ain't a perfect world. Fact is, by not picking SOME identity to 'identify' yourself by (note - nationality etc. has NOTHING to do with this. You could be GUEST Kofi Annan for all anyone cares, AS LONG AS YOU POST CONSISTENTLY USING THAT NAME), you relegate yourself by default to the long list of chickenshit trollers who refuse to stand by their convictions, and instead have to snipe from behind a blank wall that can't be talked back to. Now, this does not directly mean you are said chickenshit. You may well be - you could be yet another member or ex member who's decided that they need to acheive another orgasm by creating strife and pain. You also may well not be, and are just someone who is incredibly paranoid. The unfortunate fact is, without some form of unique identifier (and hey, if you're really paranoid about someone stereotyping you, why not use a random string of numbers or something?), many people(including me, unfortunately) will assume the worst about you. Trust has been violated in the past anonymously. Such violation will likely never be fully forgiven or forgotten. If you're being unfairly targeted by this, my apologies, If you're one of the causes come back for whatever sick reasons you call entertainment, please rot in hell. M |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: GUEST Date: 07 Jul 01 - 07:38 AM M, I have consistently used an identity. It is GUEST. Other people flaming me over using the identity of GUEST says nothing about me, but speaks volumes about them. I believe I read somewhere in the Mudcat FAQ before I posted, about the perception of some members of a "Lord of the Flies" type atmosphere here at times. Also found in the FAQ, was perhaps the "ideal" hoped for by other members (most notably the founders of the forum), Mudcat would have a friendly, creative anarchy atmosphere. In my opinion, if members were mature and self-realized enough to function positively in a creative anarchy type atmosphere, you wouldn't see this "Lord of the Flies" one member referred to, coming from what seems to be a small group of alpha types so consistently. This is the very reason why I don't wish to get into these identity/personality jihads. It takes us off topic, which isn't fair to the people who are contributing on topic to the thread, and creates a very negative and nasty atmosphere surrounding the conversation. But the again, I am guilty of coming into a negative and nasty thread about a person, and pointing out that it was one. I am guilty of suggesting that there may be more to the man than meets the jaundiced eyes of his beholders, who have such bitterness towards said person, they consistently keep airing those feelings, over and over, in public discussion forums on the Internet. I don't understand or appreciate the animosity towards people who choose to post anonymously as GUEST. The purpose of most forums with GUEST log-in options, is to allow for contributions from non-members. Members will want to create an identity for themselves because they hope to regularly be interacting with the same group of people. Members are seeking to establish relationships based upon familiarity. The GUEST log-in is like having a conversation with a stranger. Nothing more sinister than that, in my view. GUESTS don't share the desire to establish relationships based upon familiarity, because they are just passing through. Some member's responses to me, sadly, shows what kind of a forum this really is, and how welcoming of strangers the people here tend to be. Not very, in my brief experience on Mudcat. And that is for members, not GUESTS, to sort out among you.
|
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: Rick Fielding Date: 07 Jul 01 - 01:00 PM Geez, I kind of like the "Lord of the Flies" analogy, (who knows, maybe it was ME who first suggested it!) if so, I'm the kid who refused to join "either group". You're certainly right that I started this thread after reading (several times) the "Bulmer/CelticMusic" thread. Bloody interesting and I certainly got to know the various participants, whether they used "stinky Froggybottom" or just "guest". Now, being Canadian, I didn't recognize most of the posters even when anonymity DID start to crumble, but boy, the situation was a familiar one. Obviously the main guy in question (or a very close relative) came in several times to defend his position, and whether you agree or not, defended it articulately. The folks countering his/her arguements likewise explained their positions (and heated feelings) eloquently and VERY passionately. It still comes back to (whether you're in Britain, Canada, The States or wherever) "does a musician deserve a "second chance" to make up for an earlier mistake, or a naieve "signing"? Being a musician and a certified "Bleeding Heart", my answer would be yes. If I owned a (folk) Music business, my answer would probably be the same....BUT my business would probably fail within the first year, simply because my priorities would include "wanting people to like me". But I have much less to contribute in this "continuation thread" than you "guest" and the others who've posted 145 times in the first one! I'd rather hear your opinions on folks who've mistakenly "signed on the dotted line" than your defence of "how you posted", because one Mudcatter (albeit my friend Catspaw) complained. Look, I'll be blunt about something. One of the things that attracted me to Mudcat in the first place, was articulate, cohesive, arguements and discussions by folks who had some knowledge of the English language. You qualify. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts. Rick Fielding. |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: Ralphie Date: 07 Jul 01 - 02:49 PM Excuse me.....but, what has the word "JIHAD" got to do with any of these discussions....Sorry to ask,....but the word keeps popping up.. Confused of London. PS..."Paranoia".....seems to fit the bill. |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: Ralphie Date: 07 Jul 01 - 02:54 PM Oh Yes.Before I forget..Hi Rick F.Thanks for your postings....Sorry you're a Canadian...I know a great doctor......R!! |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: GUEST Date: 07 Jul 01 - 03:13 PM Ralphie, Folk jihad, folk nazis, folk police... ...I'm sure you get the picture. |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: Jeri Date: 07 Jul 01 - 03:57 PM The use of the term "jihad" is an exaggeration used to piss people off and thus score points in an argument. If I said completely anonymous guests (no consistant names of any sort) were engaging in terrorism, I'd be using the same technique. If I further stated they were trying to piss people off because they ran out of any real points...well, in that case, I'd simply be offering an opinion. It certainly seems to have worked to get people talking about something other than the subject at hand. |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: Ralphie Date: 07 Jul 01 - 05:11 PM Oh Jeri....OK.. Having diffuculty thinking of myself as a Nazi.... (Memo to self....did the Nazi's have Jihads?...Discuss) Best not to go there, methinks Hugs R xx Does being a fan of Wreckless Eric, Robert Wyatt, and Lol Coxhill help to get me into folkie heaven?? |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: GUEST Date: 08 Jul 01 - 07:29 AM Rick, Thanks for the encouragement. I too enjoy articulate and passionate discussions, as you have likely discerned by now. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a supportive atmosphere for it here. Having meaningful discussions about volatile topics requires a level of maturity, self-awareness, tolerance for differing points of view, and allowance for people's unique ways of expressing those views. Like getting at the truth, engaging in such mature discussions is more work than most people are willing to do, especially in forums like this. Hence, 150 or so messages, most confirming their own opinions by agreeing with those who agree with them, and saying virtually the same thing over and over again. The term "jihad", as I have used it in the context here, refers to a campaign against some particular party for perceived injustices, carried out by people who are blinded by their own prejudices. The desire for vengeance in such campaigns is all pervasive. I used the terms "jihad" and "vindictiveness" quite deliberately, and in an appropriate context to my own remarks. Provocative? Hell, yes. When people can't tolerate that kind of language you get what you've got here. Posters screaming in caps, shooting the messenger, and obsessing over personality, spelling, etc. to avoid dealing with substantive content. Such defensive posturing makes much noise, rattles many cages--and never gets down to the basic issue raised by me, to wit: Is the full truth of the "Dave Bulmer/Celtic Music saga" being told by the people who are perceived by some as engaging in an incessant, very public smear campaign of hearsay, half truths, and innuendo against the man? I didn't think so, and said so. So did the "Living Tradition" editorial I invoked. That doesn't mean Bulmer is not guilty of any wrongdoing. What it means is, some of us think there is more to the story than is being told by this particular group of people. Among the many things people engaged in holy wars can't tolerate is a voice among them suggesting the possibility that what they are doing, or the way they are going about it, might be wrong. Hence the over-the-top response to my initial post. The folk communities in the UK and Ireland are very small and often incestuous. The largest and most powerful contigency is in England (as the numbers in this forum bears out). Nic Jones has tremendous support among that group in the south. Nic also has many admirers in the Celtic folk music communities in Scotland, Wales and Ireland. But his support is strongest in the English folk music community, and the invective against Bulmer is greatest there too. In my experience, the further away from the English folk scene you get, the less strongly people feel about Bulmer. In my experiences with folkies in the States, very few people are even aware of the story, even though many people are fans of Nic's. When they do hear of the so-called "saga" they are hearing it almost exclusively from disgruntled English folk fans of Nic's in Internet forums like this, or they have picked up on it through reading Folk Roots magazine. Some here claim nationality has nothing to do with this. I think it does, to the extent that it is the English folk community who feels the greatest sense of injustice about this. As I said, the further you get from London, the less invective over this there seems to be. People have profound empathy and tremendous good will for Nic, but they also have their own sad stories to talk about with fingers pointing, tongues clucking, fists shaking, etc. Traditional communities try (and often fail) to keep this sort of begrudgery in check, and to not air these things in public. That social strategy has it's bad points, but it also has some good ones. Professional artists too, are rarely willing to take their oft-times righteous indignation over music business relationships public, for the obvious reasons. In small music communities like the folk communities in Ireland and the UK, word travels fast. "Facts" and "truth" have a way of disintegrating in transit. In other words, public airing of complaints about others have a way of coming back to bite you, even when you are right. I think that may well be what is happening in this instance. And I'm sure, if this thread is anything to go by, some folk will make certain this won't be the last we hear of "Dave Bulmer saga." Thanks again for your thoughtful words to me Rick. Perhaps we'll get to meet one day, in another time, and another place more conducive to carrying on the conversation.
|
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: John MacKenzie Date: 08 Jul 01 - 09:38 AM Just because nobody's getting at you don't mean you can't be paranoid Jock |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: Geoff the Duck Date: 08 Jul 01 - 10:50 AM As somebody who read with interest the Dave Bulmer thread. I for one am totally sick and tired of the pathertic ramblings of so-called-GUEST. This person seems to have only one agenda, and that is to attack the integrity of eveyone contributing to a serious thread. The constant use of the insulting term Jihad, is completely out of line - it belongs with the people who accuse everybody they disagree with of being Nazis. A slur frequently used by people who have no argument to back up their case, or, quite frankly do not have a case to make, but wish to prevent others who do have something to say, from being heard. This started as a serious worthwhile thread, but thanks once again to one individual so-called-guest, has turned into a waste of time, because all we get is paragraph after paragraph every other posting from one person whose only agenda is to make us so pissed off that we ignore the thread. This person is someone who is not interested in other people being heard, and we had to endure exactly the same tactics when this individual was trying to kill off the Dave Bulmer thread. I am sick of seeing this person claiming some form of moral superiority over all participants, when their only purpose in posting is to cause trouble. Too often in history we see cases which back up the reality that when somebody constantly claims that they are being victimised, it is a smokescreen to disguise their real agenda! Catspaw - welcome back to the forum. It is good to see that your insight and your perception of peoples' motives is as accurate and incisive as ever! If this person is interested in letting a serious issue be discussed, they should STOP continually interrupting the people who wish to discuss it. As I tell our young daughter - interrupting is RUDE and extremely bad manners. What I suspect is that we will just get even more of the same - which to me will prove without a doubt that everything which I have just typed is an accurate representation of the person's motives. Can we now PLEASE RETURN TO THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD!!! Geoff the Duck - SHOUTING!
|
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: Rick Fielding Date: 08 Jul 01 - 11:32 AM Aww FUCK IT! I was attempting to be a peacemaker, and obviously failed big time. I have no idea (nor care) who ANY of the participants in the "Bulmer" thread were, only that the thread mirrored situations in Canada. I'll go work on my communications skills. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: Ralphie Date: 10 Jul 01 - 08:38 PM If there's anybody still looking at this thread...One final thought......My many thanks to all the sensible people posting on this and the various related threads passim..... You're restraint and good humour knows no bounds, for that I salute you all..... I had to get away from it all for a couple of days, it really was doing my head in. All of you out there who know me will understand exactly why, and I'm sure those like minded souls will be a able to guess...... Suffice it to say that the one thing that "Guest" has done by his/her postings to these various threads, has raised the profile of a situation here in the UK that has been going on for far too many years......I'm sure that nothing will change immediately, but with all of your good wishes, I'm sure some sort of solution will be reached soon. In the meantime.....please, all of you.....don't let any anger get the better of you.....we are civilised people..why else would I visit this site? The new Nic cd is nearing completion....buy it...! (makes an ideal Christmas present etc,etc...!) As for "Guests" various, you have made your point, but, sadly I haven't seen much support for you.....maybe by making yourself known to us, you might have one over more people to your cause....Ah Well......So it goes.......and so must I.........I won't be posting to this or any other thread on this subject in the future......It's all too close to home for me. Much love and hugs to all genuine contributors.......See you on another thread sometime. Ralphie xxx
|
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: hesperis Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:58 PM Dear GUEST, I can only tell you what I see from the heart. If you were a member, I would send you a private message about this. Since you are not a member, this must be spoken openly. Please listen to my words as you would like to be listened to, and sense the goodwill behind them. I see that you feel that your words should speak for themselves, regardless of the "face" behind them. That is a very idealistic point of view. And to you, the identity of GUEST is a blank "face". To many members of mudcat, GUEST does not have a blank face. The "face" of GUEST has been abused, and is a face of horror for many here. Even though they try to take your words at face value, they cannot, for the face is covered in grime. The words come out smeared in a foul substance. Yes, it is prejudice. Yes, prejudice is wrong. Yet, human beings are not perfect. If someone has abused you while wearing a mask, anyone else who picks up that mask will trigger memories and suspicion. If those memories are triggered, it is very difficult to listen to their words as new. The words will be seen as coming from the same source, not as a new one. Adding a small identifier to the GUEST handle lets us know that this GUEST has a different face than the abusive GUEST did. And we are able to look at their words in a new way. If I try to look at your words without taking the previous history of GUEST into account, you look like a person of sense. You look like a person who wants to play with a mask on, and is hurt that people don't know who they are behind the mask. Please, seperate your identity from the abusive mask. Add sparkles, or a bead, or choose a symbol, so that we know you are a new face, and not a troll. I have seen some GUESTs who merely sign an initial or something at the bottom of their posts. They look like a normal GUEST until you read to the bottom, and see something like ~*h*~
PS: If we must agree to disagree on this, that's ok. |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: GUEST,Minnie Mouse Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:06 PM ...but, the contracts--what about the contracts...? |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: Marion Date: 16 Jul 01 - 01:03 AM Here's what I want to know: Often on CD liner notes I see that there was a musician from outside the band who played on the CD, and the words, "Musician X appeared courtesy of Record Company Y." Courtesy of? Does this imply that musician X had to beg - or buy - permission from some record company to play on another band's recording? Why doesn't it say "Musician X appeared courtesy of his own band", or maybe "Musician X appeared courtesy of her ability and willingness to collaborate with us"? Thanks, Marion |
|
Subject: RE: Sign on the dotted line Kid! From: SeanM Date: 16 Jul 01 - 01:42 AM Well, Marion, 's because sometimes they DO have to beg or buy permission. The few people I know that have been signed have had to work through either of two deals. For those whom the label doesn't seem to really feel have 'legs' (in other words, this may sell a bit, but they don't feel that the band has much potential beyond the initial strip mining), they seem to get signed to 'x number of albums' contracts - normally one or two, but with embedded text to give the label first rights to a certain amount of additional recordings. For those whom the labels seem to think have potential beyond 'flash in the pan' status, there is an 'exclusive rights' contract. Admittedly, this DOES funnel a small extra amount of money to the artists, but it also means that ANY work done during this period that is recorded is the automatic property of the label - whether or not they have anything to do with the project. So in these cases, the artist WOULD need the label's permission to appear on the works of another label's artist or compilation thereof. It's all about not owning the rights to your own work. The 'Sonny Bono' extension thread has great info on this, but I'm lazy and depressed thinking about it, and don't have the link ready... M |
| Share Thread: |