angel345 said:

Timmy84 said:

To be honest, if you sign with either of them, either get told to change your style or be neglected altogether. Why people still sign with them is my million-dollar question.

Dollar signs and fame.

Besides that.

MJJstudent said:

angel345 said:

Geffen dated Cher back in the day, to my understanding, but how did he nearly destroyed MJ's career?

after michael fired frank dileo, he more or less was left without a manager... in comes geffen and mottola. geffen got sandy gallin (who was geffin's friend, and patti la belle's manager) to manage him as well. this was when the downhill slope began to happen. i gotta say, as much as i DON'T like dileo, he never would have allowed all that stuff that happened to michael to go down. the PR machine would have been working overtime!!! people would have been like, tom sneddon WHO??!!

i truly believe mottola and geffen worked to ruin michael's legacy and career. when michael co-signed for the japanese to own the music devision of CBS, that was a HUUUUUUUGE mis-step. i think he eventually realized that. michael didn't trust anybody, so he agreed to the firing of walter yetnikoff, who backed michael one billion percent at one point. he was one of those dudes who was old school; really into artist development. mottola and them never were.

when mottola stepped in after yetnikoff (as the brand new president of sony) they gave michael these sweet deals; they gave him the boutique label and a bunch in royalties. michael was happy, he thought people were supporting him. but they set him up. it got to the point where he ended up owing SONY money. sony had been eyeing ATV for years. this, i believe was the set-up. when CBS folded into sony, they were no longer into catering to artists' needs. people were products. and michael felt that because he was the biggest-selling artist for sony he was protected. he then realized he got jacked.

and then he was essentially left to fend for himself when he called mottola out. largely because a lot of people i don't think knew what was going on behind the scenes, and the history michael had with sony.

Frank Dileo kept MJ grounded, for sure. Anyone with eyes could see that after Dileo left, things made a turn for the worse. It was slowing progressing for the worse People kept blaming the former model Tatiana for the reason he fired Dileo. Who knows What I did find unusual, and I don't knock it: MJ rehires Dileo, and puts Branca back on the payroll as well shortly before his death. Meanwhile, MJ is a free agent.

[Edited 2/16/11 10:01am]

Timmy84 said:

angel345 said:

Dollar signs and fame.

Besides that.

What?

angel345 said:

Timmy84 said:

Besides that.

What?

I mean what keeps them there. I think some of the contracts sign have a lifetime clause with it. I know most artists see the dollar signs and just sign and despite failed efforts they'd still trust that person to "make them a star" when that's not really the case at all.

Timmy84 said:

angel345 said:

What?

I mean what keeps them there. I think some of the contracts sign have a lifetime clause with it. I know most artists see the dollar signs and just sign and despite failed efforts they'd still trust that person to "make them a star" when that's not really the case at all.

Perhaps self-esteem, not listening to your gut feeling, and not getting an entertainment lawyer to help them read the writing on the wall. I believe they could help them determine if the lifetime clause is worth it or not.

WTF is up with all of this corporate brainwashing? Has our society become so corrupt and capitalistic that we only respect those who have money and manipulate people?

Artists in general know about as much about contracts as lawyers do about making great music. The thought that every artist should also be a superior negotiator is absurd and idiotic.

Artists sign contracts because they have been told its the easiest way to get teir music out. Its the easiest way to "fame and fortune" via corporate funding (Sony, WEA, etc.). He who has the gold makes the rules. Most artists just sign and have no idea what they are getting themselves into. They want the access needed and the freedom to make the music they make. Those selling the dream know EXACTLY what they are selling and EXACTLY how everything will go down and yet people are expected to excuse them and blame the artist?

Wow. Just.....wow. Unbelievable.

Who is the most dangerous I took to mean as who is the most dangerous to sign with - I still say Iovine has wrecked more careers than the rest.

[Edited 2/16/11 12:38pm]

angel345 said:

Timmy84 said:

I mean what keeps them there. I think some of the contracts sign have a lifetime clause with it. I know most artists see the dollar signs and just sign and despite failed efforts they'd still trust that person to "make them a star" when that's not really the case at all.

Perhaps self-esteem, not listening to your gut feeling, and not getting an entertainment lawyer to help them read the writing on the wall. I believe they could help them determine if the lifetime clause is worth it or not.

To be honest, I wouldn't deal with either of them Beezlebubs lol

Fuck the corporate world.

angel345 said:

Timmy84 said:

I mean what keeps them there. I think some of the contracts sign have a lifetime clause with it. I know most artists see the dollar signs and just sign and despite failed efforts they'd still trust that person to "make them a star" when that's not really the case at all.

Perhaps self-esteem, not listening to your gut feeling, and not getting an entertainment lawyer to help them read the writing on the wall. I believe they could help them determine if the lifetime clause is worth it or not.

There is no "lifetime clause" in a record contract. No label wants to be tied to an artist for a lifetime because they want to be able to easily drop them when needed. All artists' careers have peaks and valleys and when the economy is bad, there are more valleys than peaks. Every contract is a trap. Entertainment lawyers who have connections have relationships with label heads. They golf together, "do lunch", etc. and they know each other. The artist is the stranger. Now the question is always, what can you do to get two associates to give a stranger a fair shake? Entertainment lawyers are working for themselves even when they are working for artists. In other words, as an artist, you're taking it up the rear from someone - either your own entertainment lawyer by giving them a higher percentage of your cut than you feel comfortable with in exchange for a more thorough examination of your contract or you're taking it from the label if you sign the first thing they put in front of you. Since America has become a culture of attention whores, it couldn't be any easier now for labels. So many people are willing to practically give away their lives for some attention and stage time, artists are a much easier mark than they have ever been.

BlaqueKnight said:

angel345 said:

Perhaps self-esteem, not listening to your gut feeling, and not getting an entertainment lawyer to help them read the writing on the wall. I believe they could help them determine if the lifetime clause is worth it or not.

There is no "lifetime clause" in a record contract. No label wants to be tied to an artist for a lifetime because they want to be able to easily drop them when needed. All artists' careers have peaks and valleys and when the economy is bad, there are more valleys than peaks. Every contract is a trap. Entertainment lawyers who have connections have relationships with label heads. They golf together, "do lunch", etc. and they know each other. The artist is the stranger. Now the question is always, what can you do to get two associates to give a stranger a fair shake? Entertainment lawyers are working for themselves even when they are working for artists. In other words, as an artist, you're taking it up the rear from someone - either your own entertainment lawyer by giving them a higher percentage of your cut than you feel comfortable with in exchange for a more thorough examination of your contract or you're taking it from the label if you sign the first thing they put in front of you. Since America has become a culture of attention whores, it couldn't be any easier now for labels. So many people are willing to practically give away their lives for some attention and stage time, artists are a much easier mark than they have ever been.

That's why signing anything should be approached with caution.

Timmy84 said:

That's why signing anything should be approached with caution.

Exactly.

Timmy84 said:

angel345 said:

Perhaps self-esteem, not listening to your gut feeling, and not getting an entertainment lawyer to help them read the writing on the wall. I believe they could help them determine if the lifetime clause is worth it or not.

To be honest, I wouldn't deal with either of them Beezlebubs lol

Fuck the corporate world.

Sound fair. Nowadays, it is hard to know who you're dealing with.

BlaqueKnight said:

angel345 said:

Perhaps self-esteem, not listening to your gut feeling, and not getting an entertainment lawyer to help them read the writing on the wall. I believe they could help them determine if the lifetime clause is worth it or not.

There is no "lifetime clause" in a record contract. No label wants to be tied to an artist for a lifetime because they want to be able to easily drop them when needed. All artists' careers have peaks and valleys and when the economy is bad, there are more valleys than peaks. Every contract is a trap. Entertainment lawyers who have connections have relationships with label heads. They golf together, "do lunch", etc. and they know each other. The artist is the stranger. Now the question is always, what can you do to get two associates to give a stranger a fair shake? Entertainment lawyers are working for themselves even when they are working for artists. In other words, as an artist, you're taking it up the rear from someone - either your own entertainment lawyer by giving them a higher percentage of your cut than you feel comfortable with in exchange for a more thorough examination of your contract or you're taking it from the label if you sign the first thing they put in front of you. Since America has become a culture of attention whores, it couldn't be any easier now for labels. So many people are willing to practically give away their lives for some attention and stage time, artists are a much easier mark than they have ever been.

I am no expert in entertainment law, but I do agree with you when you've stated in your other post the ones with the loot runs the show. I had to strain upon reading it in yellow Therefore, at the end of the day, the artist ends up with the short end of the stick. Unfortunate, but true.

Timmy84 said:

^ Actually the dude who signed him to CBS was Walter Yetnikoff. When CBS became Sony around 1988, that's when Tommy Motolla came in the picture.

oh yeah dude... i know that. i had mentioned that somewhere- either in here, or another thread. yeah, michael gave the okay signal to the japanese, in order for CBS to be folded, since michael had a good relationship with akio morita (who ironically was on the trilateral commission); similar to STEVIE okaying the motown/MCA merger. he was encouraged to dump yetnikoff. he had a lot of faults too, but i rather like yetnikof, in comparison to the others. have you ever read his book? he did this speech too, some time ago. it was cool. he was talking about the state of the industry as we see it today.

MJJstudent said:

Timmy84 said:

^ Actually the dude who signed him to CBS was Walter Yetnikoff. When CBS became Sony around 1988, that's when Tommy Motolla came in the picture.

oh yeah dude... i know that. i had mentioned that somewhere- either in here, or another thread. yeah, michael gave the okay signal to the japanese, in order for CBS to be folded, since michael had a good relationship with akio morita (who ironically was on the trilateral commission); similar to STEVIE okaying the motown/MCA merger. he was encouraged to dump yetnikoff. he had a lot of faults too, but i rather like yetnikof, in comparison to the others. have you ever read his book? he did this speech too, some time ago. it was cool. he was talking about the state of the industry as we see it today.

So, do you think his 'friend' Morita set him up as well? As a friend, would you set your friend up to succeed or to fail? As I read your comments on these guys, somethings not quite right, but I can't put my finger on it. Even MJ's cause of death sounds foul.

Timmy84 said:

I have to say something... this is not about who is the "most dangerous" (honestly I'd go with Morris Levy and Nate Tarnopol), but about the Patti Smith song.

She mentioned a lot of people as rock and roll n*****s. And not all of them were black. Intepret it all you like, but that song was about people who were cast out of society. Sure it can be offensive but she made her point come across.

That's all. Carry on.

[Edited 2/16/11 7:02am]

SPEAK THE TRUTH TIMMMYYYYYYYY

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

That depends on what you mean by dangerous because my first thought was Marion "Shug" Knight.

That was my first thought too.

TonyVanDam said:

Excuse you, but if record label exces/CEOs are the ones giving out recording deals to negative artists, then thise exces/CEOs are at fault for lowering the musical standards, just like they're at fault for not being able to keep their entire roster of artists under control.

Who gives a shit about some non-existend musical standard?

The people who sign up with these corporate cunts deserve every shit they get, if an artist wants to make music then just make music... But no, they want to be famous and want that money and that's when these sharks come in and blind them... Fuck 'em, they want to become part of that corrupt corporate machine just because of money, it's not about music anymore...

An artist just makes art for themselves or for people to enjoy and not for a buck and the attention... That's the difference between an artist and a product...

Neversin.

BlaqueKnight said:

WTF is up with all of this corporate brainwashing? Has our society become so corrupt and capitalistic that we only respect those who have money and manipulate people?

This has always been the way and it's up to the people to break this, but as long as the all mighty dollar reigns supreme in the minds of these idiots it will not happen... But that's another discussion...

BlaqueKnight said:

Artists sign contracts because they have been told its the easiest way to get teir music out. Its the easiest way to "fame and fortune" via corporate funding (Sony, WEA, etc.).

Sure it was the easiest way to get your music out there but that's not the reason acts sign up with a label...

You summed it up perfectly in the sentence above, keywords being "Fame" and "Fortune" which have nothing to do with art...

BlaqueKnight said:

Who is the most dangerous I took to mean as who is the most dangerous to sign with - I still say Iovine has wrecked more careers than the rest.

In that case it's every single company in the corporate machine... But nobody wants to bring them down because they stand for "easy money"...

Neversin.

[Edited 2/17/11 2:19am]

Neversin said:

TonyVanDam said:

Excuse you, but if record label exces/CEOs are the ones giving out recording deals to negative artists, then thise exces/CEOs are at fault for lowering the musical standards, just like they're at fault for not being able to keep their entire roster of artists under control.

Who gives a shit about some non-existend musical standard?

The people who sign up with these corporate cunts deserve every shit they get, if an artist wants to make music then just make music... But no, they want to be famous and want that money and that's when these sharks come in and blind them... Fuck 'em, they want to become part of that corrupt corporate machine just because of money, it's not about music anymore...

An artist just makes art for themselves or for people to enjoy and not for a buck and the attention... That's the difference between an artist and a product...

Neversin.

Anyone that dares to call himself/herself a fan of real music would give a damn about music as an artform that needs to maintain some higher standards. Plain and simple.

angel345 said:

MJJstudent said:

oh yeah dude... i know that. i had mentioned that somewhere- either in here, or another thread. yeah, michael gave the okay signal to the japanese, in order for CBS to be folded, since michael had a good relationship with akio morita (who ironically was on the trilateral commission); similar to STEVIE okaying the motown/MCA merger. he was encouraged to dump yetnikoff. he had a lot of faults too, but i rather like yetnikof, in comparison to the others. have you ever read his book? he did this speech too, some time ago. it was cool. he was talking about the state of the industry as we see it today.

So, do you think his 'friend' Morita set him up as well? As a friend, would you set your friend up to succeed or to fail? As I read your comments on these guys, somethings not quite right, but I can't put my finger on it. Even MJ's cause of death sounds foul.

no, i actually don't think morita set him up. morita transcended soon after the move to sony, and then the downhill slope truly began.

i would say a lot of people michael considered a 'friend' set him up. or at least people he thought had faith in him. the best example i can give: tommy mottola. the best thing i can say to do is research the history of sony. the story will be there for you. these people are criminal. they used michael up. a lot of the narrative is straight up there on their website. it's also in several books, charting the changes and history of the music industry. again, yetnikoff does mention some of these events. he's not perfect, but it's a pretty okay resource.

angel345 said:

MJJstudent said:

after michael fired frank dileo, he more or less was left without a manager... in comes geffen and mottola. geffen got sandy gallin (who was geffin's friend, and patti la belle's manager) to manage him as well. this was when the downhill slope began to happen. i gotta say, as much as i DON'T like dileo, he never would have allowed all that stuff that happened to michael to go down. the PR machine would have been working overtime!!! people would have been like, tom sneddon WHO??!!

i truly believe mottola and geffen worked to ruin michael's legacy and career. when michael co-signed for the japanese to own the music devision of CBS, that was a HUUUUUUUGE mis-step. i think he eventually realized that. michael didn't trust anybody, so he agreed to the firing of walter yetnikoff, who backed michael one billion percent at one point. he was one of those dudes who was old school; really into artist development. mottola and them never were.

when mottola stepped in after yetnikoff (as the brand new president of sony) they gave michael these sweet deals; they gave him the boutique label and a bunch in royalties. michael was happy, he thought people were supporting him. but they set him up. it got to the point where he ended up owing SONY money. sony had been eyeing ATV for years. this, i believe was the set-up. when CBS folded into sony, they were no longer into catering to artists' needs. people were products. and michael felt that because he was the biggest-selling artist for sony he was protected. he then realized he got jacked.

and then he was essentially left to fend for himself when he called mottola out. largely because a lot of people i don't think knew what was going on behind the scenes, and the history michael had with sony.

Frank Dileo kept MJ grounded, for sure. Anyone with eyes could see that after Dileo left, things made a turn for the worse. It was slowing progressing for the worse People kept blaming the former model Tatiana for the reason he fired Dileo. Who knows What I did find unusual, and I don't knock it: MJ rehires Dileo, and puts Branca back on the payroll as well shortly before his death. Meanwhile, MJ is a free agent.

[Edited 2/16/11 10:01am]

i find the re-hiring of branca and dileo VERY strange. the major connection i make is that dileo sits on the board of sony/ATV. the fact that the issue of branca officially being fired in 2003 did NOT come up in 2009 is also strange to me. branca was told to hand over all official documents when he was fired (and this includes the 2002 will), and that he was to recieve COPIES of said documents; why is it that branca still had an official copy? no one has asked this question.

i actually hadn't heard that tatiana was the reason michael fired dileo. hmmmm... the reasoning i thought was because michael figured dileo was becoming too much of a force; it was as if he was receiving as much as (or more) attention than michael. he was supposed to be the MANAGER, and he's acting like tom parker. HA!

i don't think it was michael who rehired branca or dileo. i really don't. and i am going by interviews i saw with people like dileo, amongst other things. i think they got michael so much that he felt he had no control over the situation. they caught his weak spot. he was very vulnerable.

TonyVanDam said:

Anyone that dares to call himself/herself a fan of real music would give a damn about music as an artform that needs to maintain some higher standards. Plain and simple.

The music business is not about standards, it's about money and always has been since the 1890's when records first started being printed. I'm pretty sure people talking about so called acts "selling out" don't go to their job and tell the boss how they want to work or how to run their business unless they want to get fired. Performers are employees of a company, which is no different than any other employee.

TonyVanDam said:

Anyone that dares to call himself/herself a fan of real music would give a damn about music as an artform that needs to maintain some higher standards. Plain and simple.

Higher standards by what norm?

Sure music is an artform but one man's art is another man's turd...

Who has the authority or right to classify music or any other art?

It's all based on personal opinion, therefore empty and only important to the person who holds that opinion...

Neversin.

Neversin said:

TonyVanDam said:

Excuse you, but if record label exces/CEOs are the ones giving out recording deals to negative artists, then thise exces/CEOs are at fault for lowering the musical standards, just like they're at fault for not being able to keep their entire roster of artists under control.

Who gives a shit about some non-existend musical standard?

The people who sign up with these corporate cunts deserve every shit they get, if an artist wants to make music then just make music... But no, they want to be famous and want that money and that's when these sharks come in and blind them... Fuck 'em, they want to become part of that corrupt corporate machine just because of money, it's not about music anymore...

An artist just makes art for themselves or for people to enjoy and not for a buck and the attention... That's the difference between an artist and a product...

Neversin.

There are standards for everything. And I'm sure you don't go to work and do your job for free. Professional musicians want to be paid for their work and they SHOULD BE. Records don't make themselves and if you want to reserve your listening experiences to hobbyists only, then that's your right but don't EVER complain about quality because if you don't put anything into it you won't get anything out.

EVERY artist wants their art to be recognized. If you believe otherwise, then you are obviously not an artist. There is nothing wrong with artists making money for their work; everyone else gets paid for what they do. The problem lies with corporate greed and labels who want to exploit artists above and beyond the norm.

[Edited 2/18/11 14:02pm]

MJJstudent said:

angel345 said:

So, do you think his 'friend' Morita set him up as well? As a friend, would you set your friend up to succeed or to fail? As I read your comments on these guys, somethings not quite right, but I can't put my finger on it. Even MJ's cause of death sounds foul.

no, i actually don't think morita set him up. morita transcended soon after the move to sony, and then the downhill slope truly began.

i would say a lot of people michael considered a 'friend' set him up. or at least people he thought had faith in him. the best example i can give: tommy mottola. the best thing i can say to do is research the history of sony. the story will be there for you. these people are criminal. they used michael up. a lot of the narrative is straight up there on their website. it's also in several books, charting the changes and history of the music industry. again, yetnikoff does mention some of these events. he's not perfect, but it's a pretty okay resource.

What books out there do you recommend?

I don't feel like going through everything. Did anybody mention him yet?

angel345 said:

MJJstudent said:

no, i actually don't think morita set him up. morita transcended soon after the move to sony, and then the downhill slope truly began.

i would say a lot of people michael considered a 'friend' set him up. or at least people he thought had faith in him. the best example i can give: tommy mottola. the best thing i can say to do is research the history of sony. the story will be there for you. these people are criminal. they used michael up. a lot of the narrative is straight up there on their website. it's also in several books, charting the changes and history of the music industry. again, yetnikoff does mention some of these events. he's not perfect, but it's a pretty okay resource.

What books out there do you recommend?

again, don't take everything in the books seriously (as the books are from the writers' perspectives); but i would begin with the yetnikoff book, 'howling at the moon' (written with david ritz- AGAIN, don't take everything written seriously)... also, 'the trials of michael jackson' by lynton guest... this one goes into michaels experiences with sony, and how sony was eyeing the ATV catalog for longer than spoken about. these are the two i can think of on the top of my head.

i would also suggest navigating through the sony and sony/ATV websites. this is where i get a lot of my information. i like to go to the direct source, as opposed to always taking someone's perspective on that source for word.

another person michael 'trusted' (and knew since he was a child) and was eventually used by was bob jones, head publicist of MJJ communications at one point. he wrote a book about how michael molested jordan chandler: 'the man behind the mask'. this book was released around the time of the trial, but did not do very well. jones has since transcended.

Michael Jackson was everyone's cash cow

suga10 said:

Michael Jackson was everyone's cash cow

THAT IS FOR SURE.

BlaqueKnight said:

There are standards for everything.

Again, by what norm?

Who decides what the standard is and what makes that opinion more important than anyone elses?

BlaqueKnight said:

And I'm sure you don't go to work and do your job for free.

I don't "work" nor do I need to do or feel the need to do what I do for money...

BlaqueKnight said:

EVERY artist wants their art to be recognized. If you believe otherwise, then you are obviously not an artist.

There's a difference between recognision and greed... They don't go hand in hand...

I'm not saying artists shouldn't be paid, but when their greed kicks in and they sign up with some greedy company they shouldn't complain when that greedy company they willingly signed with exploits them...

BlaqueKnight said:

There is nothing wrong with artists making money for their work; everyone else gets paid for what they do. The problem lies with corporate greed and labels who want to exploit artists above and beyond the norm.

True and therefore artists, just like anyone else, have a choice to sign up with them or not...

It's ultimately their own decision...

Neversin.