AudioBanter.com - View Single Post - question about a potentially shady record deal

In article , says...

Carey Carlan wrote:
wrote in news:1149110856.986773.213670
:

My major question: Does this deal seem shady or subpar in comparison
with the "normal" sort of contract extended to new artists? I thought
that a record deal meant that the label pays for recording!

So you pay to record the music and duplicate the CD's, all out of pocket.
He gets to recoup all of his expenses (no out of pocket) before you two
split the remaining funds 60/40.

But, if the record doesn't sell, you don't have to pay the promotional
costs, the label does. So the label is taking SOME risk. How much of
a risk? That depends on how much they are putting down on the table for
promotion. You need to make sure that they are laying out at least
as much money as you are, and you need to have that in the contract.

This sounds to me like it could be better than doing everything yourself,
or it could be worse. Depends on how much money the label is putting out
up front for promotion and what they are doing with it.

Umm, ok and how exactly are they going to promote a band they haven't even
heard before? This is a joke. Legit record labels sign bands they've heard,
not ones they haven't.