Swingman wrote:
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
Swingman wrote:
"Markem" wrote in message

Well with the recording contract giving them absolutely nothing money
wise, would you give away your work for free?
That artist/band _always_ pays for the recording in a "recording
contract"
... it wouldn't happen any other way.


I'm sure that's true, but Boston must have made so much from their debut
album that they could afford some studio time. The explanation I heard
was "creative stagnation." True?

Actually, "That" should have been "The". My typo.

The band _always_ pays.

Either they pay themselves upfront, which is much more common these days, or
under a "recording contract" the record company pays, but recoups the
recording/production costs out of record sales.

The fact that they had a "recording contract" ("recording" being the
operative word), and not a "Distribution deal", indicates the latter.

Either the way, the artist/band always pays recording and production costs
in some manner, so you're most likely correct in that it was "creative
stagnation" in Boston's case.

Then again, it could be just plain old unharmonious band politics ... after
an unspecified amount of time, bands are worse than the UN when it comes to
agreeing on _anything_!

Must be a mess of ex-band members here on the rec.