/dev/null Posted November 26, 2004 Posted November 26, 2004 http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/...ning%20Standard
Thailog80 Posted November 26, 2004 Posted November 26, 2004 You can't have any pudding if you don't eat your meat.
Alaska Darin Posted November 26, 2004 Posted November 26, 2004 When we grew up and went to school, there were certain teachers, who, would hurt the children in any way they could. By pouring their derision upon everything we did. Exposing every weakness, however carefully hidden by the kids. But in the town it was well known, when they got home at night, their fat and psychopathic wives would thrash them within inches of their lives. From my notebook entries, titled: "Welcome to how I passed the time in High School chemistry/physics class" - by Alaska Darin
BuffaloBob Posted November 28, 2004 Posted November 28, 2004 shouldn't get a dime. 134400[/snapback] Why not? I guess it's OK if a rock band uses a bunches of kids on their album and makes Millions off of them and not pay them their due compensation? Please let me hear your theory, if you have one that is. LOL!
justnzane Posted November 28, 2004 Posted November 28, 2004 Why not? I guess it's OK if a rock band uses a bunches of kids on their album and makes Millions off of them and not pay them their due compensation? Please let me hear your theory, if you have one that is. LOL! 135391[/snapback] i agree bob, it irritates me when recording artists pull that crap. it ticks me off when you have some of today's artists that barely sing in the song, have some backup singer do the majority of the song, yet the big time artist gets credit for it
maddog Posted November 28, 2004 Posted November 28, 2004 Why not? I guess it's OK if a rock band uses a bunches of kids on their album and makes Millions off of them and not pay them their due compensation? Please let me hear your theory, if you have one that is. LOL! 135391[/snapback] They shouldn't get anything. You use the phrase "due compensation". How do you define that? You could have got many groups of youngsters to sing for free on a rock album. It would have sounded the same. It is doubtful that the contribution of those youngsters brought more marginal revenue than another group of youngsters would have.
KD in CA Posted November 28, 2004 Posted November 28, 2004 Why not? I guess it's OK if a rock band uses a bunches of kids on their album and makes Millions off of them and not pay them their due compensation? Please let me hear your theory, if you have one that is. LOL! 135391[/snapback] Um, cause they don't have a CONTRACT, that's why. And they didn't have a contract because they didn't offer any unique talent to the album. Background choral vocals? Are you joking? Anyone could have done it. Their compensation was getting out of class for a few hours to record the track.
Recommended Posts