errant said:

Ace said:

Oh, there are plenty of businesses like the music business. Its "bad name" is mostly the result of a lot of its employees being celebrities, some of whom seem to feel that their employers should do their work for little-to-nothing, wouldn't you say?

the only business where the employees are under the delusion that the people who sign their checks work for them.

Am I understanding you correctly? You're saying that the artists "sign (the record companies') checks?

Ace said:

errant said:

the only business where the employees are under the delusion that the people who sign their checks work for them.

Am I understanding you correctly? You're saying that the artists "sign (the record companies') checks?

nope. the other way around.

errant said:

Ace said:

Am I understanding you correctly? You're saying that the artists "sign (the record companies') checks?

nope. the other way around.

Oh, okay. I'm all defensive now.

Ace said:

Tremolina said:

Don't know what you read, but she left accompanied by lawsuits and slinging mud. In the end she had to settle for little.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/business/madonna-settles-music-dispute-by-selling-her-stake-to-warner.html

http://madonnarevelations.blogspot.com/2009/11/flashback-from-archives-maverick.html

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,627968,00.html

http://absolutemadonna.com/?p=6464

Of course you and the Op could have googled that yourself too, but there you go.

I was talking specifically about her deal (not Maverick's). But, you're right - there was some bad blood there, at the end. But you know what? If WB had been able to match LN's muscle, I'll bet they would've kissed and made up real quick.

I still maintain that she had no problems with her recording-artist deal with WB and would've re-upped if the Maverick stuff didn't go down and WB had ponied up the $.

Maintain all you like, but Madonna recorded for Maverick, which was a joint venture that owned several of her latest hit records, as well as hit records from others.

When Maverick started to make losses, it got into trouble and she got into a big fight with Bronfman jr, which she shouldn't have. He outplayed her.

In the end WB took full control of the joint venture paying her off with a tip basically and now Madonna owns shit.

Ace said:

Tremolina said:

Yeah they are a business, but there ain't no business like the music business.

It doesn't have a bad name for nothing.

Oh, there are plenty of businesses like the music business. Its "bad name" is mostly the result of a lot of its employees being celebrities, some of whom seem to feel that their employers should do their work for little-to-nothing, wouldn't you say?

No I wouldn't say. In fact, that the industry pays those celebrities exorbitant amounts of money is exactly one of the reasons why it has a bad name. Have you worked in the music industry?

Ace said:

Tremolina said:

I wouldn't be so sure that they were fully aware of all the possible legal and financial implications of a joint venture deal.

Prince, I can understand, 'cause he's obviously a blockhead with bad representation. But Madge? Ain't nobody puttin' shit by her.

Except for Bronfman.

-

[Edited 1/7/11 1:39am]

Tremolina said:

Ace said:

I was talking specifically about her deal (not Maverick's). But, you're right - there was some bad blood there, at the end. But you know what? If WB had been able to match LN's muscle, I'll bet they would've kissed and made up real quick.

I still maintain that she had no problems with her recording-artist deal with WB and would've re-upped if the Maverick stuff didn't go down and WB had ponied up the $.

Maintain all you like, but Madonna recorded for Maverick, which was a joint venture that owned several of her latest hit records, as well as hit records from others.

When Maverick started to make losses, it got into trouble and she got into a big fight with Bronfman jr, which she shouldn't have. He outplayed her.

In the end WB took full control of the joint venture paying her off with a tip basically and now Madonna owns shit.

Yeah,but Maverick is pretty much non-existent these days and Warner Bros. is a sinking ship.When Madonna left Warners a few years ago,they lost their biggest artist.She may turn out to be the big winner after all.

.

[Edited 1/7/11 2:27am]

rlittler81 said:

I think M had issues with WB back in 2004 over Maverick. Since then, neither really got on. They pushed her into the R&B style of her last album, she really wanted to make another dance album with the Pet Shop Boys but she gave them what they wanted. I expect she knows what she's doing, she's always had amazing business sense in many ways.

I've heard this rumor but I don't believe it I don't think that Madonna was ever forced to make an R&B album.She wanted to work with Timbaland because she really like Justin Timberlake's last album.She wanted that sound.

Ace said:

I was talking specifically about her deal (not Maverick's). But, you're right - there was some bad blood there, at the end. But you know what? If WB had been able to match LN's muscle, I'll bet they would've kissed and made up real quick.

I still maintain that she had no problems with her recording-artist deal with WB and would've re-upped if the Maverick stuff didn't go down and WB had ponied up the $.

Yeah,I don't think she had too many problems with her own recording contract with Warners.There were a few instances where she and the label clashed over what singles to release.In 2001,she wanted to release "Impressive Instant" as a single but the label wanted to release "Amazing",so as a result,neither song became a single.I never heard of any other major disagreements.In fact,in 2007,she was actually considering staying with Warners until LiveNation presented her with a more lucrative offer (a deal worth over $120 million and focusing mainly on tours).

Tremolina said:

Ace said:

I was talking specifically about her deal (not Maverick's). But, you're right - there was some bad blood there, at the end. But you know what? If WB had been able to match LN's muscle, I'll bet they would've kissed and made up real quick.

I still maintain that she had no problems with her recording-artist deal with WB and would've re-upped if the Maverick stuff didn't go down and WB had ponied up the $.

Maintain all you like, but Madonna recorded for Maverick, which was a joint venture that owned several of her latest hit records, as well as hit records from others.

When Maverick started to make losses, it got into trouble and she got into a big fight with Bronfman jr, which she shouldn't have. He outplayed her.

In the end WB took full control of the joint venture paying her off with a tip basically and now Madonna owns shit.

Okay.

Tremolina said:

Ace said:

Oh, there are plenty of businesses like the music business. Its "bad name" is mostly the result of a lot of its employees being celebrities, some of whom seem to feel that their employers should do their work for little-to-nothing, wouldn't you say?

No I wouldn't say. In fact, that the industry pays those celebrities exorbitant amounts of money is exactly one of the reasons why it has a bad name. Have you worked in the music industry?

Nope.

Tremolina said:

Ace said:

Prince, I can understand, 'cause he's obviously a blockhead with bad representation. But Madge? Ain't nobody puttin' shit by her.

Except for Bronfman.

Okay.

SoulAlive said:

rlittler81 said:

I think M had issues with WB back in 2004 over Maverick. Since then, neither really got on. They pushed her into the R&B style of her last album, she really wanted to make another dance album with the Pet Shop Boys but she gave them what they wanted. I expect she knows what she's doing, she's always had amazing business sense in many ways.

I've heard this rumor but I don't believe it I don't think that Madonna was ever forced to make an R&B album.She wanted to work with Timbaland

Ace said:

SoulAlive said:

I've heard this rumor but I don't believe it I don't think that Madonna was ever forced to make an R&B album.She wanted to work with Timbaland

I read that Madonna was "advised" by WB to go the R&B route because of poor sales of "Confessions" in the States. But no she wasn't forced. I think the "Confessions" album was when she was forced (to release an album in 2005) I have read again and again that she had no intention of making an album then

[Edited 1/7/11 3:55am]

jiorjios said:

Ace said:

I read that Madonna was "advised" by WB to go the R&B route because of poor sales of "Confessions" in the States. But no she wasn't forced. I think the "Confessions" album was when she was forced (to release an album in 2005) I have read again and again that she had no intention of making an album then

I think that when you're someone with Madonna's clout, no one "forces" you to do anything. Even if her contract stipulated that she had to deliver an album within a certain amount of time, I don't think WB would've tried to make her get in the studio if she didn't want to. It just wouldn't make sense.

All I am saying is that it there is lots of articles about her dispute with WB over Maverick and that it - apparantly didn't end well.

"Neither Mr. Oseary nor a spokesman for Warner Music would speak about the settlement. Someone close to Mr. Oseary said he wanted to put the bitter dispute behind him."

-

[Edited 1/7/11 4:48am]

Ace said:

Tremolina said:

No I wouldn't say. In fact, that the industry pays those celebrities exorbitant amounts of money is exactly one of the reasons why it has a bad name. Have you worked in the music industry?

Nope.

Ok.

-

[Edited 1/7/11 4:45am]

Tremolina said:

Ace said:

Nope.

Then how much do you know about it?

Quite a bit, actually. I've read a shitload about it and have many friends who've worked on both ends (artists and labels). When I was younger, I used to be somewhat of a musician.

Ace said:

Tremolina said:

Then how much do you know about it?

Quite a bit, actually. I've read a shitload about it and have many friends who've worked on both ends (artists and labels). When I was younger, I used to be somewhat of a musician.

Ok.

Tremolina said:

Ace said:

Quite a bit, actually. I've read a shitload about it and have many friends who've worked on both ends (artists and labels). When I was younger, I used to be somewhat of a musician.

Ok.

Of course, it's all opinion anyways, right?

P.S. I'm a fan of your work on the Illuminati thread.

Tremolina said:

All I am saying is that it there is lots of articles about her dispute with WB over Maverick and that it - apparantly didn't end well.

Agreed.

Ace said:

Tremolina said:

Ok.

Of course, it's all opinion anyways, right?

P.S. I'm a fan of your work on the Illuminati thread.

Well thanks. I guess it's just that there really is no industry like the music industry. Madonna need not worry, she'll be fine, she is one of the greatest and richest ever. However, Maverick was always considered to be Madonna's label. But in reality it wasn't. That's the thing with a major label joint venture record deal. You think you own and control "your" company and all that it owns and controls, but you really don't. And in the end you end up paying for it as well.

---

[Edited 1/7/11 15:29pm]

thesexofit said:

I also agree with you about Prince'e re-negotiations with WB in the early 90's. He signed a contract that was bad for him, but he still signed it anyway so it was his fault. From what I understood, his complicated contract said he had to sell 5 or 6 million of a new album before he started seeing profits himself. Something like that. Remember that only a few Prince albums have ever only sold over 6 million. I guess coming off the back of "diamonds and pearls", which is when he signed the contract, he thought that figure was going to be easy to make back. How wrong he was.

Uhh.. no. He had to sell a certain number of the "current" album before extra advances/bonuses kicked in for the next one.

As far as anyone is aware, the contract was perfectly lucrative for Prince in every other way. In fact, it may have been the best contract he was ever offered.

Prince didn't focus on making a big seller, made bad choices in regard to single releases (WB wanted to go with 7 outright), obviously wasn't gong to get the bonus/advance, and decided it was WB's fault rather than his own (it's always someone else's fault, right ).

In the end, Prince had to have been frustrated because HE didn't live up to the contract he negotiated and signed. You'll note that even today he's all about making deals to get bonuses rather than earning money through normal retails channels. His music is even absent from iTunes specifically because they won't pay him an advance.