http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:20:41 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/06/10/123217.php#comment-10978 Interesting that the label can decide to completely fold the legal entity known as MCA, but still reserves the right to do whatever they want with the artists. Are the contracts not actually signed with a "label," but with the parent conglomerate? If so I'm not sure MCA could just cut some or randomly assign them to Geffen or Interscope. I don't know enough about how this works, darn it! It could be just that all current contracts are terminated and they expect that most or all of the artists in question will be quite happy to sign a new deal with Geffen or Interscope (probably at terms even better for the new label that they were for MCA). It's worth noting that for all that the labels mistreat their artists, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of artists willing to sign long-term contracts to be mistreated. Very few complain, and fewer still do anything about it. How many signed artists are there for every Pearl Jam or Prince? 10978@blogcritics.org Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:20:41 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/06/10/123217.php#comment-10965 I'll just note that I wouldn't miss a thing if every one of those artist listed as MCA and Geffen above completely went away. Maybe their problem is lack of any good acts. 10965@blogcritics.org Wed, 11 Jun 2003 07:53:44 EDT