[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] 78s relatively inexpensive? I disagree (was Victor film)

To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] 78s relatively inexpensive? I disagree (was Victor film)
From: Art Shifrin <goldens2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:37:51 -0500
Comments: To: ARSCLIST@sun8.loc.gov
Message-id: <000701c40d4a$6972aac0$6500a8c0@shiffy>
References: <33332322.1079655320660.JavaMail.root@donald.psp.pas.earthlink.net>
Reply-to: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx>

> "Steven C. Barr" wrote:
> Well, with 78's, the record companies were under NO obligation to pay the
> artists anything more that the fee they got for participating etc.....

This is NOT universally correct.  Well represented artists received
royalites.

Shiffy

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ARSCLIST] 78s relatively inexpensive? I disagree (was Victor film)
  - From: Steven C. Barr

References:
- Re: [ARSCLIST] 78s relatively inexpensive? I disagree (was Victor film)
  - From: Matt Love

Prev by Date: Re: [ARSCLIST] 78s relatively inexpensive? I disagree (was Victor film)
Next by Date: Re: [ARSCLIST] 78s relatively inexpensive? I disagree (was Victor film)
Previous by thread: Re: [ARSCLIST] 78s relatively inexpensive? I disagree (was Victor film)
Next by thread: Re: [ARSCLIST] 78s relatively inexpensive? I disagree (was Victor film)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]