.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to attendmyrequiem.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="attendmyrequiem:104571"]retzam said:[QUOTE]Alright, man, I guess you're right. Money is exposure when you break it all down (and spend it right), but I still don't understand how this is bad label management. Joe was not offered credit, so there is no exposure there, and he was not offered money, so there is again no exposure there. I think by denying this offer (if you can even call it that) he demonstrated sensible label management. But again, I completely see where you're coming from on the connection of money and exposure.[/QUOTE] yeah, but he was complaining about not getting money for the songs. Labels should be prepared for such instances by publishing their bands' music. He could have started his own publishing company (to get himself half of the money made) and published his bands music or the bands could have done it themselves since joe didn't have the option (which i would say is bad band management, but it was joe complaining not a band). MTV is not at fault for not giving him money for the music; it's really his fault for not publishing the bands songs since it is common practice for tv shows to be like "can we use your music for free and you can make money from the synch royalties?" Managing a label is preparing yourself for what comes ahead. The big guys in the industry aren't ethical, they do it the legal way. Be ready for that shit! he was also complaining about not being credited for it, but if you were gonna get a check in the mail a few months later you would have let them use it too.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.003 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][