It's June 16, 2024, 06:31:25 AM
1. Rihanna doesn't lose any money there.Say she makes a flop that doesn't make back a quarter of what they spent, that's Def Jam's problem. Rihanna just makes more music like the flop never happened.2. For major singles. Let's bump the songwriter's pay & the studio (per song) pay to $20,000. With the producer that's $60,000, then add the near $80,000 for the other stuff the guy talking about. Add the million, that's $1,120,000.You don't think a song like "S&M" getting played on (what I count for NY radio) five different stations, at least once an hour, same for the music video, despite being out for months already, isn't making at least three times that much back? You going to tell me she didn't make back at least six figures for that? Even though, I'm pretty sure it's seven figures.3. Even if artists like Rihanna, Beyonce & Lady Gaga (or any pop artist) don't have the "billions" they make it seem like they have, does it really matter?I mean, c'mon. Even if they didn't get paid at all. They are still treated like royalty. They are housed, fed, pampered, clothed. If you told me I could be outrageously famous & given the finest things, but physically not have a dollar in my bank account, I'd be fine with that. Living like a billionaire, despite not having it? & before one of you smart asses says, "Well what happens after you retire?", obviously these pop stars are making more than the rest of us even if it isn't the astronomical numbers people assume they have. They get the basic things in life for free, where the average family has to spend over half their yearly salary on food, clothes & a home/apartment.
Quote from: Chamillitary Click, literally. on July 10, 2011, 11:32:23 PM1. Rihanna doesn't lose any money there.Say she makes a flop that doesn't make back a quarter of what they spent, that's Def Jam's problem. Rihanna just makes more music like the flop never happened.2. For major singles. Let's bump the songwriter's pay & the studio (per song) pay to $20,000. With the producer that's $60,000, then add the near $80,000 for the other stuff the guy talking about. Add the million, that's $1,120,000.You don't think a song like "S&M" getting played on (what I count for NY radio) five different stations, at least once an hour, same for the music video, despite being out for months already, isn't making at least three times that much back? You going to tell me she didn't make back at least six figures for that? Even though, I'm pretty sure it's seven figures.3. Even if artists like Rihanna, Beyonce & Lady Gaga (or any pop artist) don't have the "billions" they make it seem like they have, does it really matter?I mean, c'mon. Even if they didn't get paid at all. They are still treated like royalty. They are housed, fed, pampered, clothed. If you told me I could be outrageously famous & given the finest things, but physically not have a dollar in my bank account, I'd be fine with that. Living like a billionaire, despite not having it? & before one of you smart asses says, "Well what happens after you retire?", obviously these pop stars are making more than the rest of us even if it isn't the astronomical numbers people assume they have. They get the basic things in life for free, where the average family has to spend over half their yearly salary on food, clothes & a home/apartment.That's also Rihanna's problem "Rihanna doesn't make any money til Def Jam recoups its costs"You've just penned the definition of the music industry's bitch. They may have all the finest things in life but at the end of the day they have no control over the music they put out and the industry makes them and breaks them. They have so much pressure on them that they can't be themselves anymore. It's a choice they make I guess. Fame over personal wealth. I'd choose the opposite. I'd rather be a Master P, Tech 9ne, Birdman, Akon, Jermaine Dupri or Tony Draper than a Michael Jackson, Rihanna, etc. I wouldn't be as pampered as they are but at least I would be an independent artist/businessman thriving even though my lifestyle wouldn't be as lavish as theirs.That's like 2pac in 95... Pac (as well as Snoop and the other Row players) was pampered, housed, fed but not paid for what he was really due. I'd rather be E-40 with a gold album in 95 & millions in my account than Pac with a 5x platinum album in 96 dying with less than 100 g's in his account.
mmm even if i did it wouldn't make my point any less valid.
The blood gang embraces Tupac as a member even if YOU dont.
Pretty sure that Rihanna "doesn't make money until they make the money back" thing goes per song though.
Quote from: Chamillitary Click, literally. on July 11, 2011, 12:36:50 PMPretty sure that Rihanna "doesn't make money until they make the money back" thing goes per song though.no, thats not how it works at all.......... its per record (album) not per song. infact artists that get a huge advance could take album after album before they have repaid the record company
None of these artists are making money off their music. If they were then why would they be touring their asses off?