It seems to me that the artist and the label are taking equal overall
risks here. Best case scenario here would be that you do a great job
making a record (something the label can't do) and they do a great job
selling it (something you can't do).

I would negotiate to have the band pay for the recording (giving the
label observational status but no supervisory authority), and to have
the label pay for replication, marketing, etc., and to split all
profits 50/50, from the first CD sold.

If all you do is play a few gigs a year for a few people, get a MySpace
page, and sell your CD through CDBaby, you probably won't make a
profit. If you improve each of these (play regularly for hundreds or
thousands of people, have a decent website, sell through major
retailers, etc.), you stand a chance to start something. I agree that
you won't make much from this and it will probably take you 2-3 years
to sell the 1000 discs, but if you make this and then go to work on
your second record, sales of both titles will probably increase (and
marketing $$$ will be able to be spent more efficiently).

Shady? More shady than Sony/BMG, WB, Uni, etc.?

wrote:
My friend and I have just VERY recently got a band together. We havn't
even all been together in the same room. Said friend, Jacob, happens to
have neighbors who own an indie record label ( www.lessavenged.com ).

....
Philip