Posts
BLUNT AND BROKE
You'll remember how record companies insist - as they try to sue thirteen year old kids - that all they're interested in is the welfare of their artists? They do what they do for their boys, to ensure the talent gets rewarded. And yet, of course, they don't. So James Blune had a number one single, and a number one album for what seemed like a lifetime and a half, and yet he's not seen a single penny for his work so far.
Remember, kids: if you steal music, your favourite artists won't get any cash for their work. On the other hand, if you buy music, the chances are they won't then, either.
3 comments:
Hmm. I'm feeling a little conflicted here. I mean, yes, it's terrible that the record company aren't ponying up the artists's share, but we *are* talking about James Blunt here. Maybe the record company are teaching him a lesson. "Well, James, we bilked you over the first album, but you didn't take the hint. So, here's what we'll do- every time someone buys a copy of your next insipid wet fart of an LP, we'll stamp on a puppy".
No, he will still make a disgracefully large amount of money...but it takes approx 6 months before royalty statements come through.
Unless he signed some sort of contract with Satan that granted him success and there are terms I am not privy too.
What are you downloading that aural turd collection for anyway?!
Fair points about the royalty delay (although there are such things as additional advances, you know James), but don't you think that the "I don't care about money, really" angle is an open invitation for every manager, promoter, merchandiser, accountant, label, lawyer, broker and general wheeler-dealer to stitch the bastard up a treat?
Looking forward to those "Blunt sues manager and accountant over missing cash" stories in a couple of years then...
Post a Comment
As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.