Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
1. multi - album deals are standard practise
2. the band your talking about did multiple albums with that record company
3. if it was single album deal they should have been able to get a similar bidding war up for the second and third album
second you declared
that constitutes a condition.
btw your still spread the lie again
you keep trying to argue that just because they put money into a band it HAS to be before their a success.
you have never produced one single shred of proof that a label invested massive amount of money BEFORE the artist was ever know
you keep talking about total investment, with zero break down of WHEN it was spent.
|
I can only say it so many times so this will be my final post in this thread. Until you read those two books I have mentioned I'm not longer commenting. In those books it explains, in detail, how much money some record companies had spent on artists before they were known and helping break them.
SemiSonic had $500,000 in marketing put into them just to get their first single on the radio before ANYONE knew who they were.
Nirvana had a deal with SubPop but their first album didn't sell well at all and they wanted out. They singed with DGC and got a $287,000 advance just to sign with DGC. DGC also paid $75,000 plus 3% to get them out of their deal with subpop and they paid Butch Vig $100,000 plus 3 points to produce the record. So DCG spent $462,000 on Nirvana before they ever even set foot in a recording studio. While they weren't an unknown band they might as well have been.
I have time and again given examples, but since you don't like to be wrong you refuse to acknowledge them. I'm done.
One of these days I am going to actually learn that I should just listen to my gut and never respond to you because it never gets anywhere because you know everything about everything and you would sooner chew your own leg off than admit you might be incorrect about something.