The Crazy Cost of Creating a Pop Song

[Teddy Roosevelt]

Flops like Rihanna's 'Man Down' cost about the same as hits like 'S&M'

(Newser) – Have you ever wondered what makes one pop song a hit and another a flop? The answer isn't money, reports NPR’s All Things Considered, which calculated the cost of writing, producing, and marketing "Man Down," a track from Rihanna’s latest CD, Loud. It’s currently bringing up the rear on iTunes Top 100 Songs Chart, but that's not for lack of money spent: To come up with the songs for the album, Def Jam held a writing camp in March 2010, putting the best music writers in the best studios in LA for about two weeks. Producers play lyric-less tracks, and the songwriters write ("Man Down" took 12 minutes to pen).

Rihanna ultimately picks her favorites. Renting the 10-or-so studios probably cost $200,000, or about $18,000 a song. The songwriter walked away with $15,000 for the tune; the producer grabbed $20,000. Def Jam paid another $10,000 to $15,000 to the vocal producer who coaches Rihanna in the studio, and the same amount for mixing and mastering the song. That's $78,000. But then the real money comes in. An industry expert estimates Def Jam spent about $1 million to make sure the song is everywhere. "You want them to turn on the radio and hear Rihanna, turn on BET and see Rihanna, walk down the street and see a poster of Rihanna, look on Billboard, the iTunes chart, I want you to see Rihanna first. All of that costs." And Rihanna doesn't make any money til Def Jam recoups its costs.

http://www.newser.com/story/122844/the-crazy-cost-of-creating-a-pop-song.html

[Portugoal]

Shit's crazy... and people wonder why I sometimes tell them artists are not as rich as people think they are. Who remembers TLC?

[Chamillitary Click]

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.

[hellrazor86]

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.

Co-sign

[bouli77]

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.

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.

[Knett]

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.

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.

Man you would kill to be 2pac and everyone knows it

[bouli77]

mmm even if i did it wouldn't make my point any less valid.

[Knett]

mmm even if i did it wouldn't make my point any less valid.

I was just trolling. The thing is a LOT of people get into the game just for the money. It´s not all about the love for the music and keeping it real whatever. I mean I´m not saying you shouldn´t be unique or whatever, but people act like the money ain´t shit.


You can't compare E-40 to Tupac and you can't compare Tech n9ne to Snoop Dogg.
I bet Tupac couldn't even come up the way that E-40 did it, what would have happened if he never would have been signed by Suge/Dre?
E-40 would probably never get famous the way Tupac did, because he doesn't have that mass appeal.

Bottom line is they are all great in their own right but stop comparing every rapper to each other.
It's not a shame if you're in it to feed your family or just to get rich.

[bouli77]

yeah i'm not hating on Pac or Rihanna... and I'm not saying their position isn't appealing to the common folks. I'm just saying that being the biggest selling artist isn't the most enviable spot in the industry to me. If I were an artist I'd be a businessman first and an artist second because as soon as you got talent or worse an iconic status people/record companies are not going to let you get away with it. look at all these artists with multi-platinum resume and a history of horrible contracts. I'd rather be an independent artist enjoying my fair share of success or a successful artist turned businessman...

look at all the top grossing artists that have been fucked early in their career

Run DMC
Beastie Boyz
Teddy Riley & Guy
Snoop

etc. etc.

[MUHFUKKA]

she still makes guaranteed cash on concerts and appearances, pretty sure she has endorsements and shit too

[Chamillitary Click]

Pretty sure that Rihanna "doesn't make money until they make the money back" thing goes per song though.

So she may have not made a cent on "Man Down", but she made a killing on "S&M".

& I'm not saying I wouldn't rather have the money. Wasn't my point. I'd take the pop-star lifestyle & have more wealth than we're all making together right now, just not millions, than work an average 9-5 everyday & still make less than Rihanna.

[Sikotic™]

None of these artists are making money off their music. If they were then why would they be touring their asses off?

[SCREWFACE]

Pretty 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

[Chamillitary Click]

Pretty 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

Well in that case, anyone who sells records makes money. She sells better than 98% of rappers.

[dubsmith_nz]

None of these artists are making money off their music. If they were then why would they be touring their asses off?

To make as much money as they can while famous. And, this may be a stretch, but artists actually enjoy performing their music live and connecting with fans...