?

Log in

No account? Create an account
A perspective on record sales - Off in the distance
browse
my journal
links
May 2016
 

The Bellinghman
Date: 2010-05-14 12:08
Subject: A perspective on record sales
Security: Public
But I have a take on that - people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn't make any money out of records because record companies wouldn't pay you! They didn't pay anyone!

Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone.

So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn't.


(From Mick Jagger talking to the BBC)
Post A Comment | 1 Comment | | Link






lewis_p_bear
User: lewis_p_bear
Date: 2010-05-14 18:01 (UTC)
Subject: Money grubbing
Nuts to Mr J.
As far back as the 1930s artists were making good money from records.
They were considered as a "store front" for Vaudeville and music hall artists as well as the, relatively, small amount they were paid for recording.
As usual, the bigger the act the more they could screw out of the record company.
May we mention Gracy Fields, and Jessie Mathews from the UK both of whom were able to buy very nice houses, Our Gracy on Capri!
In the 50s a number one single could set you up for life.
Many a bunny retired on the royalties from writing a "B" side which, perversely, paid the same as the composer of the "A" side, which was why they were often penned (or ghosted) by the artist.
Little Mick may not have made a fortune with his first contract with Decca but it was they who took all the risks.
Costs a fortune to record and promote an artist and very few ever pay back the investment.

Look at it this way; they sing it once; We pay them once. What's the problem?
Reply | Thread | Link