3 ms·

I don't think it ever made sense. Steve Albini wrote an article about how fucked up it all was back in 1993: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-musi

• gonehome 5y ago
  I think there's a reasonable argument there, but I can understand the model better before the internet (since distribution was way harder and more expensive). The terms were definitely bad for talent because early talent had no leverage before the internet (and couldn't coordinate). After the internet whatever argument the record companies had was way weaker and their unwillingness to update (instead attempting to fight everything legally) cost them enormous returns.
• dllthomas 5y ago
  "I prove to you that I am bad enough to get into hell, because I have been through it! I have seen it! It has happened to me! Remember: I was signed for Warner Brothers for eight fucking years!" - Zappa in '79
• chaosharmonic 5y ago
  During the Napster era Courtney Love made a similar argument that record labels are the real pirates. [0] https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
• bingohbangoh 5y ago
  Not entirely related, but one doesn't necesarily use the advances as cash in the pocket -- you dump it into assets that pay you money (e.g. bonds). Taken to an extreme, you see David Bowie who floated the royalties of all his records as a financial instrument that you can buy. [0] [0]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bowie-bond.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bowie-bond.asp