Jump to content
question

Would Gaga be allowed to make videos for non single songs?


Jester

Featured Posts

Jester

Some artists make music videos when the album cycle is over for songs that are old already and never became singles, just for art or to make fans happy.

I also noticed how EDM producers make lots of videos for songs before they are announced as singles, and some of them never even become singles... Then there's Rihanna's What Now that was made for the fans...

So if Gaga wanted to make a Telephone sequel and make a video for Aura, would Interscope allow it at this point? Or if she just wanted to use some old idea for a video that she had and never managed to bring to life?

 

PS: Yeah I know I should move on lol, but I was just watching Telephone MV and my crazy imagination gave me so much ideas for Aura MV :giveup:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ViviLittleM

We haven't videos for singles so for non single songs???!! lol Are you kidding me!?

tumblr_lnxaopxKbr1qm7a1ro1_500.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ARTPOPchamp

They should allow it! I never liked how people act like an artist can only make videos for singles. A video for any song on the album, single or not, should have the right to have a video. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ARTPOPchamp

I would think so. She would have to fund it herself though.

​Like the good old days when she had to pay for all the tours herself. Bankruptcy number 5 on it's way? LOL. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

HANZ

sounds like a waste of money, unless the video is cheap ala "the edge of glory" I wouldn't fund that if I was her label

My Favs = Lady Gaga, Janet Jackson, Ricky Martin, AKB48
Link to post
Share on other sites

ARTPOPchamp

Kind of similar to this topic I wonder if Interscope would allow Gaga to release an album with zero input from them if she funded it herself. If she paid for all the studio time, packaging, marketing etc. I know sometimes record contracts don't permit a signee to do so because they consider any music made while under contract as property of the label, maybe this ties into why Lady Gaga doesn't want to share some songs she wrote yet, she doesn't want them to become property of the label? Maybe gaga feels the songs are too special and doesn't want the label to change them or do whatever they want with them? :duck::noparty:

Link to post
Share on other sites

VOLANTIS

She didn't even release videos for all her singles... *cough* dwuw *cough* :smh:

I'll lift you 3 inches off the ground and drag you to a meter and a half
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jester

sounds like a waste of money, unless the video is cheap ala "the edge of glory" I wouldn't fund that if I was her label

​Well she could fund it herself...

I don't think money was ever a problem when it comes to her artistry, she went bankrupt for Monster Ball, and the amount of money she'd have to spend for a MV is nothing compared to that

Link to post
Share on other sites

ARTPOPchamp

Interscope didn't pay for G.U.Y. so for non singles songs, no way

​I just thought they gave Gaga like $10,000 and she had to pay for the rest. But they didn't fund it at all? After everything Gaga has given to the label? I'm shocked. :noparty::crossed::confused::shocked:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jester

Kind of similar to this topic I wonder if Interscope would allow Gaga to release an album with zero input from them if she funded it herself. If she paid for all the studio time, packaging, marketing etc. I know sometimes record contracts don't permit a signee to do so because they consider any music made while under contract as property of the label, maybe this ties into why Lady Gaga doesn't want to share some songs she wrote yet, she doesn't want them to become property of the label? Maybe gaga feels the songs are too special and doesn't want the label to change them or do whatever they want with them? :duck::noparty:

​Yeah I think that's why she's not allowed to leak stuff and put out more free songs like some indie artists do all the time

Link to post
Share on other sites

HANZ

​Well she could fund it herself...

I don't think money was ever a problem when it comes to her artistry, she went bankrupt for Monster Ball, and the amount of money she'd have to spend for a MV is nothing compared to that

​oh in that case then she could just do it, it's her money anyway, lol

 

here for it if that's the case

My Favs = Lady Gaga, Janet Jackson, Ricky Martin, AKB48
Link to post
Share on other sites

HANZ

​I just thought they gave Gaga like $10,000 and she had to pay for the rest. But they didn't fund it at all? After everything Gaga has given to the label? I'm shocked. :noparty::crossed::confused::shocked:

​they label didn't pay for it because they didn't want another single since ARTPOP was already stoned, dead and buried in the charts, nothing could save it so they wouldn't gain anything from another music video,ARTPOP was done

My Favs = Lady Gaga, Janet Jackson, Ricky Martin, AKB48
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...