But Lama, you are contradicting yourself here:
> I know that's what she says. I just think it's uh.... incorrect. Let's
> break it down. If she wasn't making money, she'd find a way out of her
> contract. She's not a victim; she's a survivor.
> Now the record company. Record companies are not benevolent. They tell
her
> that her records lose money so that they don't have to GIVE her any.
You're saying they don't give her any money, she says she doesn't make any
money. But remember most all these comments from her are with respect to
the Geffen era. She and Geffen had a strange business trade-off, I think.
She made no money but keeps her name/art out there; he mades no real money
in the short term but gets to claim her as a prized trophy (class-added
value) to his label. But his advantage is that he can get the slow but
steady profits over time from the catalogue. I always thought it was
obvious that Geffen did virtually nothing to promote her. Warner/Reprise
has done much more in the past few years. The people who pick up Hits or
the Grammy-winning BSN are likely to add a few from the Geffen pile to their
collection.
Kakki
