You're right. That's the way a company shows profit--fire folks, drop
artists, increase your own pay, but at a percentage that won't make
shareholders freak out. Again, you've demonstrated profit.
The problem is, of course, there is no musical outlook, no creative outlook
to say, "are we stronger musically? Do we have a broader range of acts to
complement each other and create a powerful entertainment entity?" These
are the questions that the financial bottom line will not answer.
For the record, I've never had a problem with major labels as major labels.
I have a problem with corporate greed and a lack of understanding of your
own product, which, in their case, is music. Major labels seem to have this
disease in a bad way, but I've seen it with indies and smaller companies as
well. That's why there are certain indies that I, and others, will not deal
with. Profiting from your work is more than appropriate. Working soley for
profit is pretty weak.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: (313) BMG and Sony
Date: 17 Jan 2000 23:19:01 -0000
I have been chastised for misunderstanding the potential acquisition of
Sony or EMI by Bertelsmann.
Given that Sony annual revenues are about $60 billion and Bertelsmann
"only" about $15 billion you can see where I might make such a mistake.
Either way, the point I made still stands: many artists on Sony will
be dropped if the merger goes through. Also, the usual pattern following
acquisitions and mergers is that the less prominent divisions like dance
music departments are often cut drastically. I would expect Sony Music
to keep Jeff Mills after a merger, but many staff and artists would no
doubt be trimmed off the "dance music" roster.
Fred
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
