You are here

Log in or register to post comments
CECE
CECE's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 17 2005 - 8:16am
Music Labels irrelevant?

Don't many of the biggies, PolyGram/Universal/EMI/BMG own much of the rights to the music, so no matter the medium, they get paid? Wasn't that always why bands complained how the music company took most of teh money and gave teh bands 5 cents out of a several dollar LP? so few groups became as big as some big record companies....there ain't many Rolling Stones, Beatles that own much of their own stuff. How many bands don't and the music companys do? Speaking of Beatles, they originally came out on Parlafone, then it was Capitol, then they have their own Apple, that seems to own it and EMI, who owns what and how complicated

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 min ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
Re: Music Labels irrelevant?

"Teh" is not a word. Are you manually dysphasic?

Kal

59mga
59mga's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 6 days ago
Joined: Jun 21 2006 - 6:52am
Re: Music Labels irrelevant?

Gee, I thought Michael Jackson owned the music rights to the Beatles, and other's, tunes.

CECE
CECE's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 17 2005 - 8:16am
Re: Music Labels irrelevant?

MJ sold a bunch back to Yoko or Paul didn't he(she) cus' he had to pay for his allegations and issues....Yoko controls a bunch don't she? MJ, is in a Burka, he is not allowed to own or listen to music, he will be beheaded, or turned into a human

CECE
CECE's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 17 2005 - 8:16am
Re: Music Labels irrelevant?

On MY planet Teh IS a WURD

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 min ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
Re: Music Labels irrelevant?


Quote:
On MY planet Teh IS a WURD

Somehow that makes sense.

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading