independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Mon 24th Sep 2018 2:58am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Whitney Houston will not be a huge gold mine because of her debts to Sony Music Entertainment
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 2 <12
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 03/18/12 1:23pm

HuMpThAnG

avatar

Terrib3Towel said:

Chancellor said:

Whenever an article says "Mr or Mrs. X says so and so" I don't hold too much stock in it...We need names not hear-say...The first article in this thread was reported before she died and Wendy Williams did her "bit" on TV saying how "sources" sadi Whitney asked a friend for $100...

Does that mean she's broke if she asked someone for cash?

Toni Braxton CLAIMS she broke but she still living a Mega-life-style..Her sisters even put her on blast on TV...She got her millions in the bank but her Lawyers advised of her of the best way to protect everything...

Whitney did not die BROKE....

[Edited 3/17/12 22:38pm]

This. Whitney wrote out a personal check for 2 million so Sparkle could be completed. But the media doesn't report stories like that. I would LOVE to be "Whitney Houston broke."

for real lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 03/21/12 6:20am

SoulAlive

I wonder why Whitney didn't do other things (non-music related) to generate cash? I'm talking about having her own perfume,a clothing line,etc....creating her own "brand" like Beyonce,J-Lo and others have done hmmm

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 03/21/12 7:22am

coltrane3

I never understood how Whitney could completely miss out on co-writing or co-producer credits due to her stature at her peak.

Very few non-writing artists can gain such status, but a superstar like Whitney definitely would have been one of them. Just the usual co-writing bullshit. Whitney sits in the studio with the songwriter who plays chords, sets out the basic track for the song and Whitney nods her head in agreement or shakes her head in disapproval and suggests a minor tweak here or there. Further, she offers a few lyrics here and there.

I know that it's not necessarily fair to the songwriter, but it's simply leveraging the artist's fame and the audience they can bring to that song. Give the song to someone else and the writer, while getting full credit, will see vastly reduced sales.

Why wouldn't Clive push for this? Maybe the songwriters were on record company payroll so not letting Whitney do this would mean more money for the record company, not just more money for the songwriter.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 03/21/12 7:36am

coltrane3

flintz said:

MickyDolenz said:

Unless you're talking about selling a record yourself, there really isn't a such thing as an indie act.

I'm talking about having absolutely no ties with any of the majors, nor their silly 'indie' labels. Today's artists are far better off: they have the internet to distribute their work, yet for some reason people want to work with that ball and chain, where you make far more for your masters than you'll ever see.

Artists can certainly self-finance, create, produce, record their work independently. Distribution is the problem. Yes, they "have the internet" and there's no shortage of ways which the internet can be used to distribute and market work. But, seriously, it's far from a perfect business model. If the artist simpy wants to express himself/herself and put their music out there and see what happens, then that's fine. But, if the artist is trying seriously to have a career as a recording artist, then they might need more than their own manipulation of the internet. The internet-indie artist concept sounds so grand and free, but can it consistently lead to a sustainable recording career?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 03/22/12 5:37am

SoulAlive

coltrane3 said:

I never understood how Whitney could completely miss out on co-writing or co-producer credits due to her stature at her peak.

Very few non-writing artists can gain such status, but a superstar like Whitney definitely would have been one of them. Just the usual co-writing bullshit. Whitney sits in the studio with the songwriter who plays chords, sets out the basic track for the song and Whitney nods her head in agreement or shakes her head in disapproval and suggests a minor tweak here or there. Further, she offers a few lyrics here and there.

I know that it's not necessarily fair to the songwriter, but it's simply leveraging the artist's fame and the audience they can bring to that song. Give the song to someone else and the writer, while getting full credit, will see vastly reduced sales.

Why wouldn't Clive push for this? Maybe the songwriters were on record company payroll so not letting Whitney do this would mean more money for the record company, not just more money for the songwriter.

nod She really should have contributed to the songwriting.I know she wasn't really a "writer" but I know she could have came up with a few lines...or maybe at least write the bridge of a song? Many producers would have welcomed her input and it would have made her material much more 'personal'.It's really difficult for a singer to make alot of money if they don't get songwriting royalties.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 03/22/12 5:50am

TD3

avatar

SoulAlive said:

I wonder why Whitney didn't do other things (non-music related) to generate cash? I'm talking about having her own perfume,a clothing line,etc....creating her own "brand" like Beyonce,J-Lo and others have done hmmm

Whitney's drug addiction got in the way of a lot of project or potential projects, I suspect.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 03/22/12 5:50am

Musicslave

SoulAlive said:

coltrane3 said:

I never understood how Whitney could completely miss out on co-writing or co-producer credits due to her stature at her peak.

Very few non-writing artists can gain such status, but a superstar like Whitney definitely would have been one of them. Just the usual co-writing bullshit. Whitney sits in the studio with the songwriter who plays chords, sets out the basic track for the song and Whitney nods her head in agreement or shakes her head in disapproval and suggests a minor tweak here or there. Further, she offers a few lyrics here and there.

I know that it's not necessarily fair to the songwriter, but it's simply leveraging the artist's fame and the audience they can bring to that song. Give the song to someone else and the writer, while getting full credit, will see vastly reduced sales.

Why wouldn't Clive push for this? Maybe the songwriters were on record company payroll so not letting Whitney do this would mean more money for the record company, not just more money for the songwriter.

nod She really should have contributed to the songwriting.I know she wasn't really a "writer" but I know she could have came up with a few lines...or maybe at least write the bridge of a song? Many producers would have welcomed her input and it would have made her material much more 'personal'.It's really difficult for a singer to make alot of money if they don't get songwriting royalties.

Yep nod As the performer on a record you're usually the last and least paid.

Whitney made her money because of the volume of records she sold, not because of a great deal where she got a huge percentage of the sales. Her millions isn't jack compared to what Clive and Arista made through the years. That 100 million deal L.A. gave her later in her career was probably one his biggest mistakes. That probably cost him his job eventually.

[Edited 3/22/12 5:55am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 2 <12
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Whitney Houston will not be a huge gold mine because of her debts to Sony Music Entertainment