Does anyone know anything about her deal with WB? She seemed really pleased with them for 25 years and made a shitload of money. How was her deal so good and Prince's deal so shitty?

From what I've read, just like Prince's, her deal ultimately wasn't so good at all either and it has ended shitty too.

Tremolina said:

From what I've read, just like Prince's, her deal ultimately wasn't so good at all either and it has ended shitty too.

I think their deals were similar. Remember, she kicked off Maverick records and at about the same time.

It sounded like WB just screwed them out of a lot of money and their rights. Maybe that's why Madonna did so many live and compilation cds to hurry up and get out of her contract?

Madonna is more comfortable working within the system than Prince. They could have identical deals and she would probably make it work.

MidniteMagnet said:

Does anyone know anything about her deal with WB? She seemed really pleased with them for 25 years and made a shitload of money. How was her deal so good and Prince's deal so shitty?

His deal wasn't so shitty. He just got his diapers in a twist when WB tried to reason with him re: release decisions.

Tremolina said:

From what I've read, just like Prince's, her deal ultimately wasn't so good at all either and it has ended shitty too.

Really? From what I've read, she had no problems with WB; Live Nation just made her a better offer.

Ace said:

Tremolina said:

From what I've read, just like Prince's, her deal ultimately wasn't so good at all either and it has ended shitty too.

Really? From what I've read, she had no problems with WB; Live Nation just made her a better offer.

That was my impression too. SHe's all about the bottom deal and Live Nation offered a better deal.

I posted this in the wrong forum.

daPrettyman said:

It sounded like WB just screwed them out of a lot of money and their rights.

Their contracts with WB were very favorable, as far as the record industry worked at that time. This notion that Warner somehow "screwed" Prince out of "a lot of money" and his "rights", is just nonsense. It only sounded like that if you solely listened to Prince's spin at the time.

But, as a Prince fan, I can understand the filter through which you probably got most of your information.

MidniteMagnet said:

Ace said:

Really? From what I've read, she had no problems with WB; Live Nation just made her a better offer.

That was my impression too. SHe's all about the bottom deal and Live Nation offered a better deal.

If you have two offers on the table and they're essentially the same, wouldn't you accept the one that paid you more? Wouldn't Prince?

Ace said:

daPrettyman said:

It sounded like WB just screwed them out of a lot of money and their rights.

Their contracts with WB were very favorable, as far as the record industry worked at that time. This notion that Warner somehow "screwed" Prince out of "a lot of money" and his "rights", is just nonsense. It only sounded like that if you solely listened to Prince's spin at the time.

But, as a Prince fan, I can understand the filter through which you probably got most of your information.

U r right, but Prince and Madonna probably thought they had deals like Sony was passing out at the time to their established acts.

Acts like MJ, Billy Joel, Johnny Mathis, Bruce Springsteen, etc. all got deals from Sony where they owned their master recordings and made a larger share of the money.

BTW, just because the contract may have been favorable, doesn't mean that the artist wasn't getting "screwed."

[Edited 1/4/11 18:52pm]

daPrettyman said:

Ace said:

Their contracts with WB were very favorable, as far as the record industry worked at that time. This notion that Warner somehow "screwed" Prince out of "a lot of money" and his "rights", is just nonsense. It only sounded like that if you solely listened to Prince's spin at the time.

But, as a Prince fan, I can understand the filter through which you probably got most of your information.

U r right, but Prince and Madonna probably thought they had deals like Sony was passing out at the time to their established acts.

Acts like MJ, Billy Joel, Johnny Mathis, Bruce Springsteen, etc. all got deals from Sony where they owned their master recordings and made a larger share of the money.

I'm sure they knew exactly what was in their deals, don't you think?

wrong forum mate.

daPrettyman said:

BTW, just because the contract may have been favorable, doesn't mean that the artist wasn't getting "screwed."

[Edited 1/4/11 18:52pm]

It's popular in some quarters to claim the record company is some kind of evil machine, designed to rip off musicians. The reality, of course, is that they are businesses like any other, with all involved (including the artists) trying to reap the maximum possible rewards. As far as I know, no one has ever been forced to sign a recording contract and nothing has prevented anyone from launching their own such ventures. Prince, of course, tried it in the '90s and very quickly realized the value of having major distribution muscle behind him.

Many musicians have gotten (and continue to get) very, very rich via record deals. What did those Public Enemy dudes say, again? Don't believe the hype?

In the long history if popular music, artists often got screwed on contracts. Even The Beatles got fuck all considering how much they made for EMI. Between around the mid 70's-mid 90's it basically swung back into the artists favour. Of course now your screwed again with record companies in the shitter thanks to file sharing etc...your better off touring and making merchandise/Cd's off your websites.

Well surprise surprise Madonna has gone with a company known for tours. It's good business sense on her part and alot of top execs like Irving Azoff have fled to Live Nation and Madonna is no exception. Of course Live Nation is still growing as a record company, but its ticket sales and tours are where their main money is at the moment and Madonna wants a piece. Madonna knows all this and more and is jumping the sinking ship that is the existing big house record labels.

thesexofit said:

record companies in the shitter thanks to file sharing etc...your better off touring and making merchandise/Cd's off your websites.

Well surprise surprise Madonna has gone with a company known for tours. It's good business sense on her part and alot of top execs like Irving Azoff have fled to Live Nation and Madonna is no exception. Of course Live Nation is still growing as a record company, but its ticket sales and tours are where their main money is at the moment and Madonna wants a piece. Madonna knows all this and more and is jumping the sinking ship that is the existing big house record labels.

Ace said:

daPrettyman said:

BTW, just because the contract may have been favorable, doesn't mean that the artist wasn't getting "screwed."

[Edited 1/4/11 18:52pm]

It's popular in some quarters to claim the record company is some kind of evil machine, designed to rip off musicians. The reality, of course, is that they are businesses like any other, with all involved (including the artists) trying to reap the maximum possible rewards. As far as I know, no one has ever been forced to sign a recording contract and nothing has prevented anyone from launching their own such ventures. Prince, of course, tried it in the '90s and very quickly realized the value of having major distribution muscle behind him.

Many musicians have gotten (and continue to get) very, very rich via record deals. What did those Public Enemy dudes say, again? Don't believe the hype?

I agree. It is a business. Should art and business mix? Thats down to whoever is signing the contract. I still think for a few decades artists were getting deals better then ever before. The early 90's inparticular were very fruitful for "flagship" artists. After the Milli Vanilli debarcle, majors wanted pushed for "prestige" acts to act as a symbol or beacon to draw new acts to their label. Hence why Prince, Madonna, Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson and R.E.M, Mariah Carey, Robbie Williams etc.. got HUGE multi million, multi album deals, that were often too complicated for even the artists themselves to understand. It seemed one deal was bigger and worth more then the other. But that is not the case now. It's becoming crap for established artists too as record companies just cannot afford those sort of silly lucrative contracts for their acts anymore. Those glory days are over LOL.

Madonna has the right idea to try something new. This is a woman who in a business sense, is much more astute then Prince or even Michael Jackson, who despite the genuis Beatles catalogue move (which was genius from a business and artistic standpoint), seems near oblivious to the fact that he was spending waaay too much money. Of course I bet nobody told him though, which is what was so sad about Michael....

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.

thesexofit said:

deals, that were often too complicated for even the artists themselves to understand.

Personally, I don't believe this. But, if they didn't understand them, there were and are no shortage of people around who could easily explain the intricacies to them.

Michael Jackson, who despite the genuis Beatles catalogue move (which was genius from a business and artistic standpoint), seems near oblivious to the fact that he was spending waaay too much money. Of course I bet nobody told him though, which is what was so sad about Michael....

Well, there were many sad things about Michael Jackson, but not being apprised that he was living way beyond his means was not among them (there were myriad articles alone published in the '90s and '00s that detailed the disconnect between his spending and income).

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.

I don't think that he signed a contract that was bad for him.

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.

No; that's ludicrous. How did you get this impression?

Ace said:

No; that's ludicrous. How did you get this impression?

I read it in a Prince book probably. Thats where we get all our info right? Anyway if that info is false then I still think he was unnecessary with WB just because they wouldn't let Prince release music every month or whatever he wanted LOL. He should of just taken a break every now and then like everyone else LOL.

And yes I guess it is naive to think those multi million contracts that were all the rage for awhile would not be fully understood by the artists. But both MJ and Prince seemed to feel they were wronged by them though. Unfortunately we won't ever fully know why with Jackson and probably ditto for Prince. Jackson was allegedly pissed because he thought he would get full control of his masters but Sony said he hadn't delivered enough albums in the allocated time. So he had to deliver more which pissed him off. That's basically it anyway. Add the conspiracy of Sony wanting full control of the ATV catalogue (which they owned 50% with Jackson from the mid 90's onwards) and you have a situation very complicated indeed.

As for Prince's real reason why he waged war on warner brothers? We presume its because of their reluctance on releasing new material at Prince's whim but who really knows?

Like those old long term hollywood contracts in the 30's and early 40's, I think people like Prince, MJ and now even Madonna, got sick of the long term contracts and the conditions of them and basically wanted out. Long term contracts like the ones Prince and MJ signed had I bet, pretty awful clauses and small print. Not sure of Madonna's though. Again she seems much more aware of her business surroundings then MJ and Prince.

The funny thing is that LiveNation is having major problems, partly due to the unreasonable deals they made with acts like Madonna.

So, Madge best milk her contract now cause I doubt LiveNation will be around much longer.

sosgemini said:

The funny thing is that LiveNation is having major problems, partly due to the unreasonable deals they made with acts like Madonna.

So, Madge best milk her contract now cause I doubt LiveNation will be around much longer.

I heard that too.

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 gave them what they wanted. I expect she knows what she's doing, she's always had amazing business sense in many ways.

[Edited 1/5/11 4:55am]

I think the only problem she had with WB is that all those stock options she got with her contract (or when she handed Maverick over to them? -- I can't remember exactly) became worthless once it became AOL/Time/Warner. Otherwise, I don't think she had any beef with them. And if she did, she was smart enough to keep it to herself and look elsewhere instead of throwing tantrums.

Ace said:

Tremolina said:

From what I've read, just like Prince's, her deal ultimately wasn't so good at all either and it has ended shitty too.

Really? From what I've read, she had no problems with WB; Live Nation just made her a better offer.

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.

daPrettyman said:

Tremolina said:

From what I've read, just like Prince's, her deal ultimately wasn't so good at all either and it has ended shitty too.

I think their deals were similar. Remember, she kicked off Maverick records and at about the same time.

It sounded like WB just screwed them out of a lot of money and their rights. Maybe that's why Madonna did so many live and compilation cds to hurry up and get out of her contract?

I don't know the details, only that they both had a sort of joint venture deal with WB and both were crushed by WB as soon as their joint ventures started to lose a lot of money.

As for "WB just screwed them out a lot of money". I wouldn't put it that way. Rather that they were paid handsomely, but didn't realize well enough what they were getting into.

Recording artists shouldn't get into joint venture deals with major labels. They think they are in control then, but always lose in the end.

Ace said:

The reality, of course, is that they are businesses like any other, with all involved (including the artists) trying to reap the maximum possible rewards.

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

It doesn't have a bad name for nothing.

Ace said:

'm sure they knew exactly what was in their deals, don't you think?

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

Tremolina said:

Ace said:

Really? From what I've read, she had no problems with WB; Live Nation just made her a better offer.

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 $.

Tremolina said:

Ace said:

The reality, of course, is that they are businesses like any other, with all involved (including the artists) trying to reap the maximum possible rewards.

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?

Tremolina said:

Ace 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.

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?

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