Author Topic: The Crazy Cost of Creating a Pop Song  (Read 389 times)

SCREWFACE

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 853
  • Karma: 26
Re: The Crazy Cost of Creating a Pop Song
« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2011, 11:26:18 PM »
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.
]

she probably does but no, selling records doesnt mean making money. thats why labels are doing 360 deals now, to recoup money from gig and merchandise sales. the artist gets a loan from the label, this pays for record, promo etc. now that records dont sell so much these days the artist makes NOTHING on the record unless they sell a lot, and even then they wont make much. the money comes from touring, and even then the labels are taking money from that to repay the loan.

Dre-Day

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10961
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Karma: 2941
  • No justice, no peace
Re: The Crazy Cost of Creating a Pop Song
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2011, 06:44:20 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.
she may be famous but she's getting played