Re: Successful artists subsidise the less successful
Shouldn't that be: "Some projects make profits for the company
Why ask me? The subject line from my original comment was a line (no pun intended) from the article.
The history of the music biz is littered with stories of bad record deals, worse managers, dodgy showbiz lawyers and naïve artists. The music business is not a charity and will squeeze every last penny from clueless new signings. I have a couple of acquaintances that have been pretty successful musicians in their time and I've heard the same story from them. They made more money from gigs, merch and cover version royalties than they ever made from their record deals. I would add that this was in the 80s and 90s so well before file sharing existed.
As for Trent Reznor, his lower than expected sales as an independent could be due to his music not being as good as his earlier output. I don't know about you or anyone else but I never buy substandard albums just because I liked what the artist did previously.