ThatOtherFan

Doesn't ring a bell. It's very early 90's old way vogue. I'll see what I can do.

Who? Thank you. I'm glad you like my vogue videos! Someone has to make a vogue mix to Mimi's Metorite. If they do, I'll definitely do it. Just for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WtyKjG4c5I

Not sure what you're referring to. Nunca hago demasiado

Whom?

Who?

Inspiring thievery everywhere!

I'm going to Beyonce this line for Legends Panel.

No, it was exclusive to MJ. lol

The "Bitch betta have my money" phrase comes from "I'm Gonna Get You Sucker". Technically, they both owe Keenen Ivory Wayans a check!

https://medium.com/@revrev/it-s-a-trap-tidal-and-the-common-fallacy-of-music-royalties-db479441ad58 It’s a Trap! TIDAL and the common fallacy of music royalties It was a brilliant publicity stunt. Credit Jay with that, at least. If artists are good at one thing, it’s that. But today’s relaunch of the lossless streaming service TIDAL was nothing more than a 15 minute parade of fame masquerading as a protest march for justice in the war on artist compensation. Jack White, Jason Aldean, Madonna, Rihanna, Daft Punk, Deadmau5, and a zillion other household names took the stage to declare their allegiance to a fledgling music service with no traction, no cashflow, and (in my opinion) sub-par software, all in the name of getting paid. Guess what: they’re still not getting paid. Taylor Swift’s Spotify fiasco has brought plenty of attention to the issue. It’s scary for artists to learn how many people have listened to their music, and compare to the fractional royalty statements they’re being sent. Thing is, it’s not Spotify’s fault. It’s the labels. See, all those artists on the stage are signed to labels. Their contracts dictate that the music they record is owned by those labels, sometimes in perpetuity. And most of those artists have publishing deals that take a chunk out of their performance and mechanical royalties. The reason artists don’t get paid from streaming services is that they don’t own the music they record. Spotify isn’t holding on to that money! They don’t have some Scrooge McDuck money-swimming-pool in the basement of their Manhattan digs. They are legally required to pay money to the rights holders, and they do! And the best part is that the labels are part-owners of the streaming services. When Spotify is acquired, the labels are gonna make a boatload of money (they all have shares in the company), and not a dime is getting passed on to the artists (nor should it). But when TIDAL gets acquired, you know who’s getting paid? Jay-Z. Not some indie rock band from Cleveland. I know that’s a lot to swallow. It’s hard to understand. How could the work of a creative individual suddenly be owned by some corporation? But that’s the game. Labels own the content, and they sell it to TIDAL and other services wholesale. And that’s who gets paid. If an artist gets anything (sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t), it’s because the deal they have with their label allows for a fraction of sales to be paid out as royalties (after they recoup their advances, of course). If we want a war, let’s have a war. But let’s make it about unfair label contracts, and not about whether streaming services are paying out enough money. You don’t see any labels complaining about streaming services, do you?

That is true. I just was sharing a comment that resonated with me about this particular project. Game just had to make it complicated, though.

Teens aren't spending their money, because the 36+ year olds are buying it for them. Isn't that basically what I said?

It needs to put under the microscope, because those older buyers might not be necessarily spending money on artists from their generation. Either way, she made music that isn't connecting with buyers. Are you happy now?

Nope. Never heard one. I don't listen to pop radio and I haven't actively sought out their music. You're right. I just don't care. lol

Yes, it does. A 36 - mid 40's year old causal Madonna fan may not care/be turned off by what's she doing now, but is buying music for their younger relatives, which supports what I posted...

I'm old and/or I just don't care anymore. I've never heard a single "One Direction" song. lol

I doubt the bolded, even if you were to post receipts. Unless, it's basically older buying for younger. lol

Not necessarily teens, but younger people. The overall point being made is correct.

Someone said this on another forum and I think it's 100% on point... "She's 57 (right?), and most music buyers are teens. When I was a teen, in late 90s and early 00s, I wasn't interested in Tina Turner , Diana Ross or Elton John. I preferred Janet and Michael. The problem with Madonna is she's not appealing to young music buyers because of her age, and not appealing to her old fans because of her up-to-date music. Barbara Streisand, for instance, is making music for her fans. She's not trying to be "modern" and appealing to the youth, and it works. So in short, Madonna's music is too modern for older buyers, and she is too old for young buyers. It's as simple as that."

As I was saying... Don't support them, Andy!