There are a lot of stories about the new

The artist, label and management all work together to the same end - and all share the profits. What's wrong with that?

The history of the music industry shows, that the combination of management & label was very often a very bad deal for the artists.

The problem with profit participation is the calculation of profits.

As I understand the model, artists participate only in the profits of the label, not in the profits of the management arm. So it will be easy to transfer costs between management and label to keep the label profits small.

Profit participation in itself is a complicated issue, just look at this story from yesterday:

I think it's a complete conflict of interests. Who's then looking out for the artists best interests. The manager to some extent will surely look out for his best interests first?

Profit participation is often a way of lining the pockets of insiders and stiffing outsiders. The money can be allocated by accountants at the whim of the studio.

Profit sharing with a corporation is a completely different proposition to going 50/50 with a small label.

I guess they're trying to look like a collaborative small label with The Firm but the jury will be out until it has some kind of track record.

I wouldn't and don't trust Kwatinetz as far as I could throw him. When I see them take on someone other than an American Idol winner driven by an artificial driver and develop a major star from nothing then pay that star, I'll believe it can work. AND if EMI thinks they can do this with an unknown because of the Robbie deal someone needs to get fired at Brook Green.

I'd like to know who the principles lawyers are from the Movie "Crash". That doesn't sound right to me. First of all, all of them don't need to get paid to pay the bills, they can afford to wait for the back end, and I suspect if smart lawyers were involved.....they will!


Also... Love when a cute widget like Mandy Moore starts talking about artistic freedom. I couldn't pay for a laugh that good.

really the best way (in my view) to do it is to DIY -
why go through another's record label when you can set up your own.

If you're serious about playing the game then you gotta get your head
around the business side of things and jump on board the big hitter
digital download music stores.

All this talk about the "New Business Model" is a little off the mark
in my view. Surely the best way is "Doing it yourself" or otherwise
if you're feeling lucky go with a hot shot like Sony-BMG or Warner
or whoever will give you the ticket to financial freedom.
(you gotta have a lot of luck on your side!!)

All this talk about profit sharing and stuff is kinda gobblygook
- for record labels it could be good because they could then share
the risks and costs associated with recording and releasing
tracks into the consumer market.

The artist may find they're $200,000 in debt before the record is
even released - surely sharing the spoils works both ways -
sharing the costs and risks too .. !!

So not much really has changed - when it comes down to it,
royalties is just another way of profit sharing.

take another look at what DJ Jones is saying Stretch...he is dead right.

Profit sharing or normal royalty payment there is a long history of artists being shafted in both systems to be honest.

I think the model can work under certain constraints, number one being what costs can be charged to the project and whether all parties have to agree the cost, budget and method in advance before a cent is spent. Also it has to be profit from the project or albums recorded and not company profits which is how small labels do it.

Bottom line is as long as you define what constitutes to legitimate expenses in advance and all parties agree then there should be no problem.