Jump to content

No. 1 Album Spot Still Eludes Rihanna


TwistedElegance™
 Share

Recommended Posts

It IS the artists money. But it's how the artist spends it. The money is supposed to be used to hire producers, songwriters, sound mixers, etc. But ppl like Gucci Mane and Waka Flaka do coon shit and buy stuff they normally can't afford on a working person's salary.

Now it's the public!?!?! :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: What a weak analogy. The public will eat up anything they like. But the label said she didn't have any hits. The label doesn't HAVE to do anything without a binding contract. And because you don't have any proof that the label did support the album, my argument stands. If the label said she didn't have any hits on the album, why would they support it? Why buy a car if you know it's going to break down when you get to the end of the block? :coffee: You look a fool! Just stop! :lmao:

Even when she releases her next album, she wont see half the success she did during 2002. It's a stretch if she does.

Yes an advance is an artist's money...but in the end the label will recoup that advance. It's like a loan...in this case the collateral is the album itself.

Yes, the artist can do whatever they want with that money (for instance me saying some artists taking it and buying houses and cars). A SMART artist will take that advance and spend it on recording the project, etc. However, whatever money is advance to the artist has to be recouped by the label BEFORE the artist sees another penny from sales...it's not "free money"

The label felt there were no hits, but Beyonce and her team stuck to their guns...and obviously the label ended up backing the project. Obviously an agreement was met between everyone involved...because if the label was THAT against it, the project would have been shelved.

Beyonce can't/couldn't promote the project on her own. If the label didn't ultimately support it the project would have been killed before it got up off the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG you're an idiot! :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: I see what you're saying, but you're wrong! You don't know Beyonce and her story. So plz just stop. :lol: :lol: :lol:Sony told her she didn't have ANY hits on DIL. End of.

But in the end, because Beyonce stuck to her guns, they came to an agreement about the minor changes made, for whatever reason they ultimately supported the project and put the promo dollars behind it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes an advance is an artist's money...but in the end the label will recoup that advance. It's like a loan...in this case the collateral is the album itself.

Yes, the artist can do whatever they want with that money (for instance me saying some artists taking it and buying houses and cars). A SMART artist will take that advance and spend it on recording the project, etc. However, whatever money is advance to the artist has to be recouped by the label BEFORE the artist sees another penny from sales...it's not "free money"

The label felt there were no hits, but Beyonce and her team stuck to their guns...and obviously the label ended up backing the project. Obviously an agreement was met between everyone involved...because if the label was THAT against it, the project would have been shelved.

Beyonce can't/couldn't promote the project on her own. If the label didn't ultimately support it the project would have been killed before it got up off the ground.

The artist gets paid REGARDLESS of how an album sales. Prime example:

According to news reports, Jackson's new deal covers four albums of new material plus a greatest hits compilation, which becomes her property seven years after the contract ends. She will be paid a $35 million advance upon signing and is guaranteed an estimated $5 million advance per album plus a 24 percent royalty on the retail price of each record sold, reports said.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n13_v89/ai_18005602/

If an album tanks, the only person that loses money is the label. If the label keeps losing money, the artist gets dropped. :lmao: @ Beyonce couldn't promote a project on her own! Beyonce promoted B'day ON HER OWN. She paid for the videos, she paid for the tour. The only thing the label really does after a project is released is send songs to radio, aside from here and there stuff. The publicist/agent/manager books all promo for TV, radio, magazines, etc. Beyonce did all that on her own. She did DIL on her own. And once again, you have no proof the label finally backed her. :coffee: PLEASE STOP! :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The artist gets paid REGARDLESS of how an album sales. Prime example:

According to news reports, Jackson's new deal covers four albums of new material plus a greatest hits compilation, which becomes her property seven years after the contract ends. She will be paid a $35 million advance upon signing and is guaranteed an estimated $5 million advance per album plus a 24 percent royalty on the retail price of each record sold, reports said.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n13_v89/ai_18005602/

If an album tanks, the only person that loses money is the label. If the label keeps losing money, the artist gets dropped. :lmao: @ Beyonce couldn't promote a project on her own! Beyonce promoted B'day ON HER OWN. She paid for the videos, she paid for the tour. The only thing the label really does after a project is released is send songs to radio, aside from here and there stuff. The publicist/agent/manager books all promo for TV, radio, magazines, etc. Beyonce did all that on her own. She did DIL on her own. And once again, you have no proof the label finally backed her. :coffee: PLEASE STOP! :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

I'm gonna break that down for you...

The $35 million million...is Janet's outright. That's like a signing bonus.

The $5 million per album is an advance that must be paid back...unless that money is part of the contract as a non-recoupable advance, which I doubt. Also contracts for artists then are ENTIRELY different then contracts for artists now. There was ALOT more money to be made.

USUALLY the artist gets a set advance to record the project, etc, but this advance has to be recouped (which more than likely would have been the case for Bey as she was a NEW solo artist...part of a known established ACT, but still a new solo artist)

Let's say Beyonce has a similar situation.

Beyonce gets $5 million per album. Now if she were smart she would spend about $1 or $2 million on the project and pocket the rest. Which as you know could be between $3 or $4 million.

Now let's say the label spends another $2 million on videos and etc for the project.

That's $7 million

Now let's say Beyonce releases the project and it moves 6 million (which is about what she does, and what "big albums" do nowadays.

$10 x 6 million = $60 million (what the album made)

Let's say Beyonce's royalty rate is 30 percent (again just an example)

That's $18 million (if my math is correct, lol)

$18 million - $7 million (the advance money the label recoups)

$11 million (This is Beyonce's outright)

If the album doesn't sell both the label and the artist loses...

A label is alot more than sending out an artists latest new single.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna break that down for you...

The $35 million million...is Janet's outright. That's like a signing bonus.

The $5 million per album is an advance that must be paid back...unless that money is part of the contract as a non-recoupable advance, which I doubt. Also contracts for artists then are ENTIRELY different then contracts for artists now. There was ALOT more money to be made.

USUALLY the artist gets a set advance to record the project, etc, but this advance has to be recouped (which more than likely would have been the case for Bey as she was a NEW solo artist...part of a known established ACT, but still a new solo artist)

Let's say Beyonce has a similar situation.

Beyonce gets $5 million per album. Now if she were smart she would spend about $1 or $2 million on the project and pocket the rest. Which as you know could be between $3 or $4 million.

Now let's say the label spends another $2 million on videos and etc for the project.

That's $7 million

Now let's say Beyonce releases the project and it moves 6 million (which is about what she does, and what "big albums" do nowadays.

$10 x 6 million = $60 million (what the album made)

Let's say Beyonce's royalty rate is 30 percent (again just an example)

That's $18 million (if my math is correct, lol)

$18 million - $7 million (the advance money the label recoups)

$11 million (This is Beyonce's outright)

If the album doesn't sell both the label and the artist loses...

A label is alot more than sending out an artists latest new single.

Basically. :coffee:

If Beyonce could handle all her promotion cost herself then she might as well be an independent artist. Cut the label out completely and collect all the profit. She won't do that because she would quickly go broke. Artist sign to major labels for promotional support and financial backing. Its that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna break that down for you...

The $35 million million...is Janet's outright. That's like a signing bonus.

The $5 million per album is an advance that must be paid back...unless that money is part of the contract as a non-recoupable advance, which I doubt. Also contracts for artists then are ENTIRELY different then contracts for artists now. There was ALOT more money to be made.

USUALLY the artist gets a set advance to record the project, etc, but this advance has to be recouped (which more than likely would have been the case for Bey as she was a NEW solo artist...part of a known established ACT, but still a new solo artist)

Let's say Beyonce has a similar situation.

Beyonce gets $5 million per album. Now if she were smart she would spend about $1 or $2 million on the project and pocket the rest. Which as you know could be between $3 or $4 million.

Now let's say the label spends another $2 million on videos and etc for the project.

That's $7 million

Now let's say Beyonce releases the project and it moves 6 million (which is about what she does, and what "big albums" do nowadays.

$10 x 6 million = $60 million (what the album made)

Let's say Beyonce's royalty rate is 30 percent (again just an example)

That's $18 million (if my math is correct, lol)

$18 million - $7 million (the advance money the label recoups)

$11 million (This is Beyonce's outright)

If the album doesn't sell both the label and the artist loses...

A label is alot more than sending out an artists latest new single.

I understand that and that's basically what I've been telling you this whole time. :lmao: Sony was not interested in her album. They were interested in Kelly's solo release. She said in the video I posted that Sony told her she didn't have any hits. She goes on to say that she had five. Obviously that should tell you that those songs were included on what she brought to them. Sony did not back her. Why would they invest money in a project that they know is gonna fail? Beyonce more than likely fronted the money for her project and look how it turned out. If Beyonce fronts the money for her own projects, which she has been doing since DIL, then the label doesn't have much to recoup besides shipping costs for like CDs and what not. I don't understand why this is not registering with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that and that's basically what I've been telling you this whole time. :lmao: Sony was not interested in her album. They were interested in Kelly's solo release. She said in the video I posted that Sony told her she didn't have any hits. She goes on to say that she had five. Obviously that should tell you that those songs were included on what she brought to them. Sony did not back her. Why would they invest money in a project that they know is gonna fail? Beyonce more than likely fronted the money for her project and look how it turned out. If Beyonce fronts the money for her own projects, which she has been doing since DIL, then the label doesn't have much to recoup besides shipping costs for like CDs and what not. I don't understand why this is not registering with you.

You don't understand...if the label doesn't back the project...THERE IS NO PROJECT. They can shelve the entire thing...or they can make an artist go back into the studio and record another 100 songs until they find the 10-15 tracks they want to put on the album.

As I said before, Beyonce and her team probably stuck to their guns on the material and ultimately the label acquiesced and got behind the project...However, if there were TRULY issues and neither side could agree, Sony could've simply shelved the project entirely. That means Beyonce would've been in a situation where she has a contract, but can't put out anything because she and the label can't agree...meaning she would have to wait until the contract expired before she could move on to another label... She can't put the project out on her own, it doesn't work like that.

A label is way more involved than simply distributing albums to a store...that's part of it, but that's not all of it.

Why do you think Janet said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the artist can't do it alone the label has to be there to support? That's wasn't some excuse she made up because of Discipline's lackluster sales. It's the truth....and she could've said a whole lot more, but didn't because it's not good business...

If the label isn't doing it's job, the artist hands are tied in MANY areas. If the artist can basically do it by themselves...every big name artist would be independent. Especially nowadays when you can simply release singles to itunes...but there is SO MUCH more involved then that.

Beyonce did not front the money on her own project...it would have been silly do to so.

She had success with DC and had the resources to do, but everything she had would have been tied up in that project...and her continued financial stability would've depended on it's success. Not a very smart thing to do, especially when you have a major recording contract.

Hence, the advance from the label, that must be recouped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument is invalid. Beyonce said she Sony told her she didn't have any hits on her album. She released it anyway. She proved them wrong. End of. Stop trying to save face after making a fool of yourself. :lmao: See what happens when you constantly take the opposition just for the sake of it? :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument is invalid. Beyonce said she Sony told her she didn't have any hits on her album. She released it anyway. She proved them wrong. End of. Stop trying to save face after making a fool of yourself. :lmao: See what happens when you constantly take the opposition just for the sake of it? :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

She couldn't have released it on her own. It DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

The label acquiesced and ultimately backed the project...if the label and Beyonce couldn't come to any agreement/ understanding over the project..it would have been shelved. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An artist can STILL release an album. :mellow: She could've released it under Music World, which is what she is signed to, which is a branch of Sony. :sigh:

That's nothing more than a division on Columbia/Sony Beyonce would still need the backing of a major label...and if the label was THAT against the project it would have been shelved, or she would have been sent back to re-record until the label was satisfied.

A number of things could have happened, as I've been stating she and label came to a compromise... or changed their mind about the project. Whatever the situation, they ultimately decided to support the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever back to the original subject. Can Rih rih handle the complex multitalents of the beautiful songstress Susan Boyle international beauty and record breaker next week?

boylex.jpg

LONDON (AP) — Singing sensation Susan Boyle has a No. 1 album in the United States and the U.K. simultaneously for the second time in a year — a feat not achieved for more than 40 years.

Her record label, Sony, says she is the first woman to reach the milestone achieved previously by the Beatles in 1969 and The Monkees in 1967.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...