|
|
Post by richard on Oct 27, 2024 10:20:08 GMT -5
www.foxnews.com/entertainment/stevie-nicks-tells-katy-perry-get-off-internetStevie Nicks tells Katy Perry to 'get off the internet' Stevie Nicks shared some words of wisdom with Katy Perry. The Fleetwood Mac singer, 76, shared a conversation she had several years ago with Perry, 40, about the internet and how she felt the "California Gurls" singer would be better served to avoid it. "About 10 years ago, Katy Perry was talking to me about the internet armies of all the girl singers, and how cruel and rancid they were," Nicks told Rolling Stone. She continued, "I said, ‘Well, I wouldn’t know, because I’m not on the internet.’ She said, ‘So, who are your rivals?’" Nicks said that in response, she "just looked at her," using her "steely look." She then remembered telling her, "Katy, I don’t have rivals. I have friends. All the other women singers that I know are friends. Nobody’s competing. Get off the internet, and you won’t have rivals either." About the internet, she said, "I hate it." Nicks also admitted that at least partially because of the changes in technology since Fleetwood Mac's heyday, she's given up on the idea of having another hit record. "I mean, all the people that are my age, we gave up on hit records a long time ago," she shared. "With everything streaming, it’s like 300,000 plays. It’s like, ‘What is that?’ I don’t know how to maneuver myself around that." She added, "And I’m not interested in it anyway, because I’m the only person that isn’t always on a phone." Although the "Silver Springs" singer does have an iPhone, she said that it isn't actually connected to a network. "It’s just a camera," she said. Nicks also spoke about social media in her interview, saying that "it would've been terrible" if it had existed at the height of Fleetwood Mac's fame. After speaking about Perry, Nicks also shared her thoughts on other current pop singers like Taylor Swift and She then remembered telling her, "Katy, I don’t have rivals. I have friends. All the other women singers that I know are friends. Nobody’s competing. Get off the internet, and you won’t have rivals either.". "Evidently, she likes my music a lot," she said of Roan. "Me and a friend of mine went and looked at her schedule, and it was outrageous. What she’s already done and then what she’s going into. It’s as bad as any schedule we ever did, and she’s new, and she’s young." She continued, "I said, ‘They’ll burn her out if that’s what they want to do, because there’s always somebody to replace you.' It must make them all very fearful. That’s why it’s good that Chappell just said, ‘Well, go ahead, replace me. I’m canceling, because I’m not going to drop dead for all you people.’" Quote: Stevie Nicks tells Katy Perry to 'get off the internet' Stevie Nicks shared some words of wisdom with Katy Perry.
Obviously Katy Perry didn't take her advice as she has 205 million followers on instagram alone. Clearly that is enough to be self promoting with out the need to do any interviews.
Quote: She then remembered telling her, "Katy, I don’t have rivals. I have friends. All the other women singers that I know are friends. Nobody’s competing. Get off the internet, and you won’t have rivals either."
I don't know where Stevie Nicks got her information, but from what I see all the celebrities are supportive of one another.
Quote: "Evidently, she likes my music a lot," she said of Roan. "Me and a friend of mine went and looked at her schedule, and it was outrageous. What she’s already done and then what she’s going into. It’s as bad as any schedule we ever did, and she’s new, and she’s young."
Chappell Roan opened for Olivia Rodrigo's Sour tour they became good friends. When Chappell Roan was going through bad times she said Sabrina Carpenter reached out to her. A couple of days ago Chappell Roan made a scene at Olivia Guts movie Premier 2 days ago. Unlike what Stevie Nicks says Chappel Roan know she has both Olivia and Sabrina will support her.
Sims you should stop with what all these old singers say. Jackie is 24 not 76 like Stevie Nicks. Jackie need to follow inline with what her generation are doing. |
|
|
|
Post by msims on Oct 27, 2024 12:10:59 GMT -5
Act your age, Rickky. You're in your 70's.
Stevie was just on SNL a week or two ago and spotify and the internet had not much to do with it from her perspective unless you count that viral tik tok but she had nothing to do with it.
CC became popular for a time because it was good and there was an older audience for it and there was alot of albums sales.
Jackie has wanted a younger audience and so have the haters and the fans who have been in agreement, so bringing out areola and labia exposing hacks as a distraction from the fact that Jackie will get a target demo in just a few weeks to market her Solla EP of course the Kamala voting bots are freaking out with their word salads. Its the most touring she will do since 2019 and it also appears Echosmith and Jackie's family have alot in common too so it will be good.
|
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Oct 27, 2024 12:11:08 GMT -5
people.com/lily-allen-makes-more-money-feet-pictures-onlyfans-than-spotify-8734490Lily Allen Says She Makes 'More Money' from Selling Feet Photos Than 'Having Nearly 8 Million Listeners on Spotify' "Don't hate the player, hate the game," she added Lily Allen says her OnlyFans career is more lucrative than her singing career these days. The star, 39, took to X (formerly Twitter) on Friday, Oct. 25, to reveal she is making more money from selling pictures of her feet on the popular paid content creator platform than royalties from having about 7,463,186 monthly listeners on Spotify. "Imagine being and artist and having nearly 8 million monthly listeners on Spotify but earning more money from having 1000 people subscribe to pictures of your feet. Don’t hate the player, hate the game," she retorted. According to the streaming data site Kworb, Allen's music receives about 851,623 streams per day on Spotify, a.k.a. around 25,548,690 streams per month. A royalty calculator powered by Billboard estimates the "F--- You" performer's music generates about $122,321 per month. However, that money is then split among songwriters, producers, record labels and other collaborators in addition to Allen herself. (Don't tell Cazakhstan that who thinks his tater gets it all) Her OnlyFans page, on the other hand, costs $10 per month. With around 1,000 subscribers, as she stated, the account likely generates about $100,000 per month — all of which goes directly to Allen. Sims once again does not read his own sources. Lily Allen wasn't actually complaining about Spotify or any other streamer. She was answering criticism for having an Only Fans account. She pointed how hypocritical it was for the public to complain about women opening such accounts when it was the public making it so lucrative. As she said, "Don't hate the player. Hate the game." In this case, she was saying don't hate women for opening these accounts when you can make such great money you can't make elsewhere. I have no doubt she makes more money that way then singing. Recently a popular OnlyFans girl named Corrina Kopf announced her retirement after earning 67 million dollars in 3 years ( www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13999427/corinna-kopf-onlyfans-retire-earnings.html ). Honestly, I don't think any music career pays that kind of money for so little work. She doesn't have to tour or record or do anything other than take selfies in the nude. So, yes, OnlyFans girls make more money than almost all singers, actresses, models, etc. So since we can all agree that Only Fans pays better than Spotify, I'm not sure what Sims' point here is at all ... maybe he's trying to argue a Jackie OnlyFans would make more than an Olivia Rodrigo OnlyFans?? By the way, the person who wrote this article is pretty much clueless when it comes to how the streaming thing works. Lily Allen is getting nowhere near 25 million streams per month. The fact is, the totals on kworb are completely useless in figuring out current monthly income. Kworb just takes the number of days a song has been released and the number of streams and figures streams per day. That's fine for what it is, but if use it to calculate current income, you assumes the streams are relatively constant over the length of release. That is ok for a song released this year but it is totally off base over any longer time frame. For example, let's say a song has been out for nearly 10 years (let's say it's 3650 days). Suppose it now has 365 million streams. Kworb will say the song is getting 100,000 streams per day. But the odds are that 90% of those streams were made in the first year!! It's like taking Jackie's 3.1 million+ albums sold over 10 years and concluding she is still selling 310k albums a year. It can sometimes work the other way. For example, Grace Vanderwaal has a song titled "Burned" that has 37.3 million streams. That is average out to about 12k per day since its release. However, it went viral about two years ago and 30 million of those streams have come in that time period. That means it averages over 40k per day over the last two years and, given it has cooled since then, it was hitting near 100k per day at its height. Thus using kworb would distort things in different directions at different periods. In a similar vein, Christmas songs stream heavily in a time period between October and January and return each year. How do they fit in?? The lesson here is statistics are very misleading when wielded by amateurs or (especially in the case of politics) unscrupulous professionals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 27, 2024 15:49:21 GMT -5
The Fleetwood Mac singer, 76, shared a conversation she had several years ago with Perry, 40, about the internet and how she felt the "California Gurls" singer would be better served to avoid it. ... About the internet, she said, "I hate it." Nicks also admitted that at least partially because of the changes in technology since Fleetwood Mac's heyday, she's given up on the idea of having another hit record. "I mean, all the people that are my age, we gave up on hit records a long time ago," she shared. Stevie Nicks gives very good advice. If you are 76 and have long given up on idea of making hit records, then you should avoid the internet. Of course, that means spending all your time on the road performing in 250 person venues desperately hoping you'll at least break even financially. Deja vu, Jackie already sang about that in 2011 in "Angel". |
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Oct 27, 2024 16:08:33 GMT -5
Stevie Nicks gives very good advice. If you are 76 and have long given up on idea of making hit records, then you should avoid the internet. Of course, that means spending all your time on the road performing in 250 person venues desperately hoping you'll at least break even financially. Deja vu, Jackie already sang about that in 2011 in "Angel".
I don't think Stevie Nicks needs to worry about performing in 250 seat venues. She may be past her arena touring days but she can still make a killing at Vegas or other casino locales. Of course, she doesn't need to do much of that considering she sold her publishing rights for $100 million a few years back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 27, 2024 16:19:54 GMT -5
I don't think Stevie Nicks needs to worry about performing in 250 seat venues. Not Stevie, but that's what Jackie will be doing. And Echosmith. And Lisa Heller. |
|
|
|
Post by msims on Oct 27, 2024 16:59:32 GMT -5
I don't think Stevie Nicks needs to worry about performing in 250 seat venues. And yet you pretend to care, its all a con. The crux of the issue you created when you unexplainably found a product forum for an artist that you hate: your narcissism and you project that out as if they too (both fans and artist) should care whether they are performing in a coffee shop (like your tater) or an arena. Artists just want to do what artists do. Artists have expenses as well which you don't account for and you would never be able to understand Stevie Nicks who doesn't care about spoting a fly or whatever its called or need the pennies. And btw it IS pennies, Chappell Roan is just an example: if she were making money she would be able to afford a bra on the red carpet. Lily Allen wouldnt have to resort to selling feet pics. You think an artist could live off the spotify checks, thats as insane as Rickky thinking the Dance Mom girls were her peers. Its actually a good thing the few artists I mentioned here are no longer in debt (Lily and Stevie). And I doubt Stevie has been for quite sometime because she actually sold records. |
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Oct 27, 2024 18:12:04 GMT -5
I don't think Stevie Nicks needs to worry about performing in 250 seat venues. And yet you pretend to care, its all a con. The crux of the issue you created when you unexplainably found a product forum for an artist that you hate: your narcissism and you project that out as if they too (both fans and artist) should care whether they are performing in a coffee shop (like your tater) or an arena. Artists just want to do what artists do. Artists have expenses as well which you don't account for and you would never be able to understand Stevie Nicks who doesn't care about spoting a fly or whatever its called or need the pennies. And btw it IS pennies, Chappell Roan is just an example: if she were making money she would be able to afford a bra on the red carpet. Lily Allen wouldnt have to resort to selling feet pics. You think an artist could live off the spotify checks, thats as insane as Rickky thinking the Dance Mom girls were her peers. Its actually a good thing the few artists I mentioned here are no longer in debt (Lily and Stevie). And I doubt Stevie has been for quite sometime because she actually sold records. You're grasping at straws and, as with most people without an argument, need to resort to insults. The Chappell Roan point is absurd. She was dressed that way on purpose. Everyone who appears at these events have designers supplying them with outfits. Lately, the trend has been one of shock value and lots of women have appeared braless. You obviously are pretty clueless about the current state of show business. Has it ever occurred to you how on earth all these people can afford to live the way they do? How can someone like Grace afford to live in a very trendy area of Brooklyn, dress fashionably, eat out frequently, etc., when she hardly did anything for four years? It's like any other activity. If people weren't being paid for streaming music, they would just stop doing it. But they don't. If someone is established, they can do it themselves and bypass the label, but few do. It can't be that bad if they keep coming back. Can labels rip artists off? Sure they can and they do. But they always did that - most of the examples you have cited occurred before streaming. Nothing has changed. Labels were untrustworthy then and now. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Oct 27, 2024 20:37:45 GMT -5
The Chappell Roan point is absurd. She was dressed that way on purpose. Everyone who appears at these events have designers supplying them with outfits. Lately, the trend has been one of shock value and lots of women have appeared braless. Sims doesn't have a clue of what is going on. Chappell Roan obviously dressed in the same manner as Olivia the same as many at the premier. Olivia Rodrigo and Chappell Roan Coordinate in Lingerie-Inspired Dresses for the 'Guts World Tour' Movie Premiere
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Oct 27, 2024 22:53:27 GMT -5
If you actually click on the hit for her account and ignore all the other stuff that YouTube comes up with (auto-posted, posted by Sony, VEVO, whatever), the Solla tracks are all at the top. Black Hole Sun isn't, but it isn't far down. She can control how her account presents content. She can't control how YouTube presents content beyond her account. Anyone lacking the skills to find what they're looking for is too clueless to buy a ticket probably. Or doesn't care enough to bother anyway if it takes an extra five seconds to find what they want. I know how to go to someone's account. I was basically doing a Google search in YouTube to see what rises to the top. I do it this way all the time for people (not just musicians) I hear of but haven't delved into. Going into someone's account page is a next level of interest. In general search you find interviews, reactions, TV appearances, concerts and other things you won't necessarily find on the account page. You're talking like a fan who knows her, I'm talking like a hypothetical someone who has enough curiosity to go a step or two, and what they might find (and won't find). You don't need to make assumptions about people's abilities or level of interest. Either nobody is looking for BHS are nobody has found it.
Jackie's "Black Hole Sun"
930 views 3 days ago
Compare that to Addison Rae's "Aquamarine"
1,507,661 views 2 days ago
Jackie should be way ahead of Addison yet she is way behind. I don't think Jackie has the money nor is her label willing to put out the cash for a music video for BHS.
Jackie Evanch 24 years old, born April 9, 2000
Addison Rae Easterling 24 years old, born Oct. 6 2000
Jackie has been singing professionally for 14 year
Addison is actually a TikTok star and since most of her income doesn't come from singing she is not a professional singer like Jackie.
Addison real advantage over Jackie is that Addison is a super friendly person while Jackie is not.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisR on Oct 28, 2024 3:18:48 GMT -5
Sims you should stop with what all these old singers say. Jackie is 24 not 76 like Stevie Nicks. Jackie need to follow inline with what her generation are doing. Sims will mention anyone who backs up his spin narrative. He still lives in the dark ages when it comes to the entertainment industry using modern day social media. |
|
|
|
Post by msims on Oct 28, 2024 15:15:28 GMT -5
And yet you pretend to care, its all a con. The crux of the issue you created when you unexplainably found a product forum for an artist that you hate: your narcissism and you project that out as if they too (both fans and artist) should care whether they are performing in a coffee shop (like your tater) or an arena. Artists just want to do what artists do. Artists have expenses as well which you don't account for and you would never be able to understand Stevie Nicks who doesn't care about spoting a fly or whatever its called or need the pennies. And btw it IS pennies, Chappell Roan is just an example: if she were making money she would be able to afford a bra on the red carpet. Lily Allen wouldnt have to resort to selling feet pics. You think an artist could live off the spotify checks, thats as insane as Rickky thinking the Dance Mom girls were her peers. Its actually a good thing the few artists I mentioned here are no longer in debt (Lily and Stevie). And I doubt Stevie has been for quite sometime because she actually sold records. You're grasping at straws and, as with most people without an argument, need to resort to insults. The Chappell Roan point is absurd. She was dressed that way on purpose. Everyone who appears at these events have designers supplying them with outfits. Lately, the trend has been one of shock value and lots of women have appeared braless. You obviously are pretty clueless about the current state of show business. Has it ever occurred to you how on earth all these people can afford to live the way they do? How can someone like afford to live inYours and Rickky's arguments boil down to (yours took a hell of alot more boiling given all the salads you toss) is: your favorites having apartments. You guys really are more obsessed than I could ever be with anyone in the public eye. You and Rickky have posted numerous times about things that are off topic in this discussion (I contend that its narcissism and/or autism when you are told the comparisons are apples and oranges and theres a sub forum for artists you refuse to use). You said in the beginning of this quoted post I had no argument and then agreed that labels have been ripping off artists for years, that is the argument. The bra thing was clearly bringing attention to the fact that they have to expose themselves literally for attention. The joke was that she couldnt afford a bra on spotify money. Regardless im not going to continue to respond if you keep spamming in the responses, find another forum as those posts will be ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Oct 28, 2024 16:53:35 GMT -5
You're grasping at straws and, as with most people without an argument, need to resort to insults. The Chappell Roan point is absurd. She was dressed that way on purpose. Everyone who appears at these events have designers supplying them with outfits. Lately, the trend has been one of shock value and lots of women have appeared braless. You obviously are pretty clueless about the current state of show business. Has it ever occurred to you how on earth all these people can afford to live the way they do? How can someone like afford to live inYours and Rickky's arguments boil down to (yours took a hell of alot more boiling given all the salads you toss) is: your favorites having apartments. You guys really are more obsessed than I could ever be with anyone in the public eye. You and Rickky have posted numerous times about things that are off topic in this discussion (I contend that its narcissism and/or autism when you are told the comparisons are apples and oranges and theres a sub forum for artists you refuse to use). You said in the beginning of this quoted post I had no argument and then agreed that labels have been ripping off artists for years, that is the argument. The bra thing was clearly bringing attention to the fact that they have to expose themselves literally for attention. The joke was that she couldnt afford a bra on spotify money. Regardless im not going to continue to respond if you keep spamming in the responses, find another forum as those posts will be ignored.
Your silliness grows with each passing day. You have a history of searching the net for any anecdotal information to bolster your failing premises only to find your evidence proves you wrong. Let's review that litany of errors:
- When T-Pain posted he needed to get 315 streams to get paid $1 you jumped all over it. Of course, when you do the math and count the billions of streams, that means even lower tier artists are making good money.
- Failing to learn your lesson, you then jump all over Greg Camp saying they only get paid $0.0032 per stream. Again, failing to do the math, you don't bother dividing 1 by 315 to try and prove T-Pain wrong. If you had, you would have saved yourself some embarrassment since 1/315 comes out to $0.032 per stream and so Camp and T-Pain actually agree.
- You cited Taylor Swift refusing to let her music be streamed but failed to point out that she admitted not understanding the process and now is just fine with it.
- You then jump to various stories of labels ripping off artists. Of course, you keep pointing out cases that had nothing to do with streaming and everything to do with labels. Labels ripped off artists then and now.
All of this and I could go on (e.g., the bungling on Luke Combs) and you have the gall to say you only present facts. If all those items you presented evidence that undermined your position. However, you obviously can't get past your confirmation bias and interpret things in an imaginary world of your own creation. So what color is the sky in your world?
As for the evidence I presented, I gave actual data and then merely had to point out how your sources like T-Pain and Greg Camp agreed with me. I pointed out Billboard's breakdown of how the money is split (which you still don't seem to get) and merely used the data from Spotify to do the math. If you have evidence that Spotify under reported streams, then provide it. But that doesn't change the fact that people are making bank.
And by the way, the evidence is not just "apartments." It's that people keep doing it. You don't see people leaving the music industry or going independent in large numbers. Some like Radiohead did because they wanted artistic independence and had a strong fanbase. There are services that can place you on Spotify, etc. and bypass the labels and some people like that and use them. But artists by and large keep coming back to the labels. Miley Cyrus was free to do whatever she wanted a few years ago and chose to sign with a label. Why is that?? Maybe it's because she's making bank. Olivia Rodrigo ended up going to UMG and has complete control of her masters.
Being a recording artist is hard work and a lot of pressure. No one would put themselves through that if they were not getting a payout in the end. The cases you pointed out had nothing to do with streaming as a medium. It's just a technology. Artists who are ripped off by labels would be getting ripped off no matter what the medium. At least with streaming they have the means to see what they are supposed to be getting paid. With CD's, you have no independent verification. Plus, now you can bypass the labels completely and do it yourself.
Will there be horror stories? Of course but those happen in show business. Alanis Morissette had a business manager embezzle millions of dollars. But that had nothing to do with streaming. Corrupt people exist in record labels, movie studios, TV networks, etc. They also exist in other businesses, schools, churches, and just about everywhere humans exist. But it is not the norm. We know pretty much the average people are paid. Most known artists are not complaining about money (songwriters are a different issue). They make their music, live nice lives, and get paid for it. You better hope it stays that way since Jackie would be getting the same per stream as everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Oct 28, 2024 17:01:56 GMT -5
The bra thing was clearly bringing attention to the fact that they have to expose themselves literally for attention. The joke was that she couldnt afford a bra on spotify money. Regardless im not going to continue to respond if you keep spamming in the responses, find another forum as those posts will be ignored. When's the last time you saw your angel Jackie wearing a bra? Even her last interview she did her best to whip out her teeny weeny "dirty pillows". |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 28, 2024 17:04:59 GMT -5
Can labels rip artists off? Sure they can and they do. But they always did that labels have been ripping off artists for years, that is the argument. Balderdash. Did anybody put a gun to the heads of artists to force them to sign contracts with labels? The plain and simple fact is that artists willingly (and eagerly) sign contracts with labels and then spend the rest of their careers whining endlessly about how badly they are being treated by their big bad labels. If you don't like your label, find another that treats you better. If you can't find a label that treats you better, that should tell you something. |
|
