Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Cooltoplady

Quote
duke richardson
The one who'll know is Bill Wyman.

He should have been their financial advisor or CFO.

he is the guy that was crying a few years ago that he had to sell one of his homes because he was broke.

Plus, he has to scour the beaches for coins. His financial situation is clearly dire.

Quote
with sssoul
Thanks for the correction about RS Ltd, jlowe, but still: Their job was not directing a company;
their job was the heated pursuit of a music career as it led them to uncharted heights, and it kept them mighty busy.
It's only with hindsight that you can say things like "they should've had British advisors too".
They had a business manager. They were paying him to do a job. They had a right to expect that he was doing it.
It's like saying "they should've had a lawyer look over their contract with Klein before signing it" -
sure, that's obvious now; and they learned it the hard way.

Hail hail Rolling Stones, for not letting that stop them

Quote
jlowe
What has surprised me when you read up on the events in 1965 that led to them signing with Klein is:
1. Mick had been a student at the London School of Economics, admittedly he didn't graduate, but it has usually been rated in the top four or so Universities in the UK. So you need to be bright, its very competitive to get a place.
2. They had already experienced a not very good deal with the 1963 management and recording contracts.
3.Mick has been reported to (even then) scrutinise the paperwork.
4.They seemed to overlook the fact that it was their Managers (right from the beginning) and not the band who owned the masters and publishing copyrights.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
2000 LYFH
But... They were using Keith's house as a recording studio, so they did not have the expensive of renting an actual recording studio (what did the Rolling Stones Mobile cost them?). So I assume that some of the $2700/month cost came from their record company - "Rolling Stones Records" they formed in 1970...

I also think that Keith was charging some members of the group rent for staying at Nellcote which they did not like (I think this was in Tony Sanchez's book)!

General Question: Who/how does any group pay for making a record at an actual recording studio? Does each member chip in or does the Record company foot the bill?

Depends. There are big acts and long running acts that are signed to record labels to various degree but the labels probably still don't pay for everything (except for some of the Nashville based labels considering the crap that comes out of Nashville).

These days a majority of album sessions are paid for by the artist - it's too expensive to let a record label pay for sessions, and since a lot of artists are on their own label strictly by name for having something to call a record label, those record labels don't pay for recording sessions, the artists do.

As an example, the Drive-By Truckers are currently signed to ATO Records but I doubt ATO pays for their recording sessions - that's really just distribution and some hype. That costs ATO Records money and certainly they make it back but it's not gazillions of thousands of dollars compared to recording sessions.

But to your wonderment about the rent and not having to pay for an "actual" recording studio... they needed quite a few feet of a lot of things, especially mic cables. They needed tape. They needed people that knew what they were doing. Then of course there's food and drugs and booze. Don't be under the impression that it was all handed to them. The deal with record labels up until the mid-1990s was the advance; they weren't concerned about making money from record sales - only the record label was concerned about that. And all a record label is is a bank that hands out loans to bands/musicians/artists.

The labels get their money back (unless you're Sony). Once they get their money back the bands/musicians/artists start to make a little bit of money.

Tony's book is hilarious fiction.

Quote
Shantipole

Quote
with sssoul
Thanks for the correction about RS Ltd, jlowe, but still: Their job was not directing a company;
their job was the heated pursuit of a music career as it led them to uncharted heights, and it kept them mighty busy.
It's only with hindsight that you can say things like "they should've had British advisors too".
They had a business manager. They were paying him to do a job. They had a right to expect that he was doing it.
It's like saying "they should've had a lawyer look over their contract with Klein before signing it" -
sure, that's obvious now; and they learned it the hard way.

Hail hail Rolling Stones, for not letting that stop them

As a lawyer who has advised a few bands in my time I always give the following advice:

1. Incorporate and treat your band like a company
2. Don't blindly follow the advice of any business manager or accountant. Ask questions, demand detailed documentation and keep asking questions. It's a band's money and career at stake.

When a band moans that they are artists not business people I look them straight in the eye and ask them if this is a career or a hobby. If it's a career they better start educating themselves.

Jagger does this better than most but just relying on somebody to manage your affairs without asking questions is often a recipe for disaster.

Quote
georgemcdonnell314
I think Creedence got the royal screwing of anyone by their manager.

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
georgemcdonnell314
I think Creedence got the royal screwing of anyone by their manager.

And Badfinger - a couple of the members committed suicide over management and getting ripped off..