|
|
Post by Pointy on Oct 21, 2024 14:24:49 GMT -5
It's settled then. You've made an iron-clad case that Jackie doesn't make anything from streaming revenue, so she should pull all her music from them and collect only revenue from CD sales. Attention Jackie, don't put your music on streaming services! |
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Oct 21, 2024 15:40:23 GMT -5
The fly by night label you're referring to in your salad is Warnor Bros did not pay the Black Keys for billions of streams. Do you ever fact check anything? The last album The Black Keys did with Warner Bros was before streaming was a major source of revenue. What I find more likely is from an interview they did with Joe Rogan where WB was suggesting various ways to play the system to get a #1 album and they realized that they would make more money doing it themselves. That I would believe since I have no pretensions that record companies are not trying to maximize their profits. What they usually do is to make sure it is done contractually so they can get any lawsuits dismissed. But that has nothing to do with streaming and everything to do with contract law. This by the way is why you need professional people on your side to negotiate. A lot of artists with stars in their eyes sign anything put in front of them without getting a lawyer to look at it. I would not be surprised that a record label took advantage of someone - that's what they do. But they are going to do it legally by getting you to sign things you don't understand rather than just stealing it outright. The latter is what fly-by-nights do. In any case, this had absolutely nothing to do with streaming. Metallica has the best selling album by a band since Soundscan. Like the Keys Metallica's parent label then was Warnor Bros the royalty rate they were getting by 94 after some 40 million in sales was still what they were getting as a club band in 83. They had to sue to renegotiate a higher rate. So what exactly does something that allegedly happened from 1983-1994 have to do with streaming in general or Spotify (founded in 2006) in particular? Again, can labels rip you off? They sure can but they will do it contractually. Rather than just stealing the money, they will get you to sign something saying they can have the money. Again why you need to have professional representation rather than just signing what they put in front of you. I didn't say anyone in particular. i used that as an example of what labels do to place someone in debt without them ever understanding it is debt. Snoop made 45k from a billion streams LMAO!! You're using Snoop Dogg (current CEO of Death Row Records) as your source???!!!  Death Row Records on the West Coast and Bad Boy Records (P. Diddy) on the East Coast are both criminal enterprises. They are essentially underworld gangs posing as record labels. Those two labels spent a good part of the last few decades putting out hits on each others' artists and possibly their own. The founder of Death Row (Suge Knight) is in prison for putting out a hit on someone who wanted his money. Snoop engineered a coup once that happened and now is in charge of the same sordid group. This label will probably go down as well as Diddy's now that all the dirt is coming out. As for the payments, the reality is that there was a $600k lien put out on Snoop and they seized his earnings for nonpayment of taxes. The whole thing was just bs to cover for his own shady dealings. He probably owes his artists tons of money they'll never see but they're too scared to say anything or they might end up like Tupac. But putting Megalopolis in a sentence together with Apocalypse Now which won the Palme d'Or when it premiered at Cannes is when you jumped the shark. If I ever claimed they were equivalent, you would be correct but I never did. A real example of jumping the shark would be something like comparing Jackie's level of success to that of Billie Eilish or Olivia Rodrigo. I can't imagine anyone silly enough to do that, can you? Your favorite was dropped by Columbia.
Grace and Columbia were both sick of each other (understandable from both ends) and if Columbia hadn't dropped her, they would have been obliged for another bonus without any guarantee she would given them anything. After that, she immediately went out and negotiated a new deal with a number of labels but set preconditions such as owning masters, setting her own direction, etc. Pulse Records, a fairly new startup that already has had success and is affiliated with UMG, agreed to everything and signed her. It looks like a great match. Her first single was a good entry and her second single has got her back close to where she was when she disappeared. She has also made her two best music videos and will have a new album in early 2025 with a single or two before then. Whether Columbia regrets it, I have no idea but she seems the happiest she's been in years.
|
|
|
|
Post by AI moderator on Oct 21, 2024 16:14:54 GMT -5
For fun, AI was asked to analyze this discussion to determine who had the better argument: To AI:
Please fact check the discussion. Of the two participants, msims and amg1977, who has presented the best argument? AI said: In analyzing the discussion between msims and amg1977, it’s essential to fact-check key points raised by both participants and evaluate the strength of their arguments. Let's break down their claims: msims' Claims:
Warner Bros. not paying The Black Keys for billions of streams: This claim lacks specific evidence and context. According to available interviews and reports, The Black Keys parted ways with Warner Bros. after frustrations over industry practices, but there's no strong evidence suggesting they were owed money for billions of streams. In fact, their departure from Warner Bros. was more about creative and financial control, rather than unpaid streaming royalties. Metallica’s royalty rate issue with Warner Bros.: Metallica did have conflicts with their label regarding royalties, and in the 1990s, they did renegotiate for better rates. However, this predates the streaming era and is more about traditional album sales. This argument doesn’t seem directly connected to current streaming issues, which is what amg1977 highlights. Snoop Dogg making $45k from a billion streams: This figure is debated, but similar claims have been made by various artists about the low payouts from streaming platforms. While Snoop Dogg may have made such a statement, it's also important to consider that artists' earnings from streams vary depending on contracts, royalties, and distribution agreements. Snoop Dogg's specific example may have been influenced by his complex financial situation, as mentioned by amg1977. amg1977's Claims:
Streaming’s role in The Black Keys' departure from Warner Bros.: amg1977 provides a more nuanced view by referencing an interview where the band mentioned their departure being linked to Warner Bros.' tactics to get a #1 album. They don’t directly mention unpaid streaming royalties, but rather frustrations with how the industry operates. amg1977’s argument that this was more about industry control than unpaid streams seems more grounded in known facts. Record labels and contract exploitation: amg1977 argues that labels legally exploit artists through contracts, rather than outright theft. This is a valid point, as many lawsuits and disputes in the music industry revolve around unfavorable contracts rather than illegal activity. They emphasize the need for professional legal representation, which aligns with the history of many artists being underpaid or trapped in bad deals due to poorly negotiated contracts. Snoop Dogg and Death Row Records: amg1977 highlights the complicated history of Death Row Records and its association with criminal activity, implying that Snoop’s statements about earnings might be influenced by external factors like his past legal troubles. This argument is plausible given Death Row's reputation and Snoop's complicated financial history. The mention of a tax lien provides context that could explain why Snoop made less from streaming than expected. Conclusion:
amg1977 presents a stronger, more factually grounded argument. They reference specific historical events, interviews, and industry practices to explain their points, while also addressing msims' claims directly and logically. msims' argument contains some factual inaccuracies, particularly regarding The Black Keys' situation with Warner Bros. and the focus on streaming royalties, which amg1977 correctly points out is not the main issue in the examples presented. Ultimately, amg1977 offers more depth, context, and accurate representation of the industry's workings. |
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Oct 21, 2024 16:40:35 GMT -5
PAGE 999 :-O
|
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 21, 2024 16:57:20 GMT -5
Thanks for the reminder. I have created a new Main General Discussion thread, which is a sticky thread at the top of the Main Board. This thread is now locked. |
|
Death Row Records on the West Coast and Bad Boy Records (P. Diddy) on the East Coast are both criminal enterprises. They are essentially underworld gangs posing as record labels. Those two labels spent a good part of the last few decades putting out hits on each others' artists and possibly their own. The founder of Death Row (Suge Knight) is in prison for putting out a hit on someone who wanted his money. Snoop engineered a coup once that happened and now is in charge of the same sordid group. This label will probably go down as well as Diddy's now that all the dirt is coming out. As for the payments, the reality is that there was a $600k lien put out on Snoop and they seized his earnings for nonpayment of taxes. The whole thing was just bs to cover for his own shady dealings. He probably owes his artists tons of money they'll never see but they're too scared to say anything or they might end up like Tupac.
