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 
Music Labels irrelevant?
Posted: May 17, 2007 - 6:14am
Re: Music Labels irrelevant?
Posted: May 17, 2007 - 10:31am
"Teh" is not a word. Are you manually dysphasic?
Kal
Re: Music Labels irrelevant?
Posted: May 17, 2007 - 11:33am
Gee, I thought Michael Jackson owned the music rights to the Beatles, and other's, tunes. 
Re: Music Labels irrelevant?
Posted: May 17, 2007 - 5:40pm
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 
Re: Music Labels irrelevant?
Posted: May 17, 2007 - 5:55pm
Quote:
On MY planet Teh IS a WURD![]()
![]()
![]()
Somehow that makes sense. 
![]()
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | Analog Sources Accessories Featured | Music Columns Features | Show Reports | Show Reports |
Recommended Components Blogs Latest News Community |
Shop Resources Subscriptions |


