Re: KB, ethics and the like

[henrik@eddie.MIT.EDU (Larry DeLuca @ The Bandykin Server)]

A couple of clarifications on my last:

> From: Dan Kozak
>
> This is BS. [Views on recording/publishing contracts deleted.]

Not 100% true.  It really depends on the act, and how valuable that
publishing income is viewed, as well as how shrewd your attorneys are.
If the record company doesn't get any of the publishing, they make money
on every record sold, but if another artist later covers the song they
don't see any income from it.  Publishing income can be extremely
lucrative, and hence it varies considerably how much the record 
company, your manager, etc., are cut in.  Yes, Kate Bush Music Ltd. is
probably just a corporate receptacle for publishing income, and it may
very well go just to Kate Bush.  But I can't say for sure.

> From: Will
>
> Do you think she does it just for the money?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!  But, if you listen to any Kate Bush interview, one of the
things she says over and over is that she depends on the success of each
record to be able to make the next one.  Recording is very expensive, and
unless you're Greenpeace or something you're very unlikely to be able
to get people to pay for your records if they're going to lose money.  I
think if EMI dropped Kate Bush tomorrow and no other label were to pick
her up she'd probably continue to write music for the rest of her life -
but we'd never get to hear it because it wouldn't get distributed.  Kate
Bush is lucky in that she does what it is she most wants to do and can make 
a living at it.  If she couldn't make her music pay, she'd have to do
something else, and this of course would cut into the time that she would
have free to create (I know myself that it's hell holding down a day
job and writing music at night, but for now it's the best I can do).
Even if you own a Fairlight, you still have to pay the electric bills.

					larry...