Posted by Ladybear on October 27, 1999 at 19:14:29:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Exile circa 1977 posted by Sir Stonesalot on October 27, 1999 at 15:44:45:
: : What I mean't to say is why they DON'T have the Stones...
: Yeah I know what ya meant, but I think you'll also notice that music clubs don't have the Beatles either. Neither band's label has a distribution deal with music clubs. it seems that record lables dump vast quantities of product to BMG and Columbia House at huge discounts. These discounts affect the amount of royalties due the artist. For instance, let's say that you go to The Wall and buy the new David Bowie album. David gets about $1.25 of that purchase. If you were to buy that same album from Columbia House or BMG, Bowie would only get around $0.25, a difference of about a buck. Some artists just won't agree to that. The Stones are one of those bands. They don't have to rely on Music Clubs to sell records for them, because people like you & me buy the new album as soon as it's released. However, bands who's 15 minutes is almost up need the sales in whatever form they can get them. Hope this clears it up for ya.
: SS
Yes, thank you, I did wonder. I respect their decision not to go with clubs, from a monetary point of view; yet if they went with the clubs they could get a lot more of their stuff(especially new recordings) in the public's hands. At least I have been able to flesh out my Zep and Who collections through the clubs.