monketsharona 52,819 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 34 minutes ago, Bette Davis said: I think it's pretty obvious that they had different intentions, quite opposite of each other actually. Miley actually had a heavy hand in her music and didn't gain much over releasing her music for free, except for freedom of creativity over her music. Rihanna on the other hand was part of a $25,000,000 to put her name and voice on some songs for "free". and let's not forget how Rihanna is not involved in her own music. When you hear from someone like Sia that Rihanna wasn't even present to her writing sessions for her, that she just entrered the room to take her songs... People saying she's not commercial anymore just make me laugh hard. If she wasn't that commercial she wouldn't even signed that deal. She would just put that album for free exactly like U2 or Miley did. The fact is Rihanna wants her money at the end. No shade in it, I think it's fine for a singer to get money. but let's not pretend she's more about music and not the bling. It's not true. Especially when you talk about a singer that sang songs like Pour it Up or BBHMM. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xoxo Adriana 15,040 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I could have been the case, however at the same time possibly not. Remember when U2 released their album "Songs of Innocence" for free on iTunes back in 2014? Also i'm not too sure if Rihanna planned the whole time to release the album for free... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bette Davis 12,742 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 1 hour ago, monketsharona said: and let's not forget how Rihanna is not involved in her own music. When you hear from someone like Sia that Rihanna wasn't even present to her writing sessions for her, that she just entrered the room to take her songs... People saying she's not commercial anymore just make me laugh hard. If she wasn't that commercial she wouldn't even signed that deal. She would just put that album for free exactly like U2 or Miley did. The fact is Rihanna wants her money at the end. No shade in it, I think it's fine for a singer to get money. but let's not pretend she's more about music and not the bling. It's not true. Especially when you talk about a singer that sang songs like Pour it Up or BBHMM. I agree. No shade towards Rihanna but let's not turn Rihanna into some artistic martyr who donated her music to her fans out of the goodness of her own heart. She's a super smart business woman with a great team. She will be around for a long time because of it. Cold as ice cream, but still as sweet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
VTV 12,587 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 yes. i was about to create a thread about the similarities of both albums but i dont think its necessary cuz its a no brainre that they are indeed similar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreyw 4,285 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 43 minutes ago, X said: yes. i was about to create a thread about the similarities of both albums but i dont think its necessary cuz its a no brainre that they are indeed similar The only similarity between the two is that they are for free (ANTi just partially) , everything else is entirely different Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyM 1,180 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I personally think that this was a wise move with the whole Adele fanning atm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gagaisitalian 3,573 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I think Rihanna's album era was turning to absolute **** and they had no other option. Think about it, this album would have FLOPPED had it not been for free. The GP wouldn't have bought into it. It was damage control for the album. Miley worked on hers for years with the intention of releasing it for free and not through her label. You can't "download" MC&HDP if you don't have a soundcloud downloading app or just pirate it. There were no big business deals involved and she only made money from merch or tour. Miley >>> Rihanna Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveandMagic 1,731 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Personally, I'm just glad both Miley and RiRi were able to put out the albums they wanted, whether it was a calculated move or not, at least the albums are a bit different and both ladies seem happy with them. As for the $25,000,000 deal, *whistles*. Do you know what I would do with $25,000,000? Shiiiiiit. Just repeat to yourself, "It's just a show. I should really just relax." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deviant 85 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Kesha tried to make her own dead petz "lip$ha" about 2-3 years before miley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrawberryBlond 14,102 Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 I was reminded by Miley's album through Anti, I must admit. There might have been a bit of inspiration there as concerns the free release, certainly. But because it's Rihanna, Def Jam hoped the interest would be higher. Yes, but as it seems, not by much. It really is uncanny how ever since ARTPOP, more and more pop artists keep coming out the woodwork with "experimental" releases and are taking risks - Miley, Rihanna...even Katy's talking about doing something more artistic this time. Electro DJs like David Guetta have even started experimenting more. Not to mention all the urban acts now trying more risks and trying to be more artsy. I think Gaga's had a profound impact more than people give her credit for. On 30/01/2016 at 7:00 PM, LDR said: I think Rihanna's album era was turning to absolute **** and they had no other option. Think about it, this album would have FLOPPED had it not been for free. The GP wouldn't have bought into it. It was damage control for the album. Miley worked on hers for years with the intention of releasing it for free and not through her label. You can't "download" MC&HDP if you don't have a soundcloud downloading app or just pirate it. There were no big business deals involved and she only made money from merch or tour. Miley >>> Rihanna Best way of putting it. This way, it could forever be used as the excuse as to why it flopped - "It was available for free initially, what do you expect?" The coward's way. Could have also explained why the whole thing was released a day after the single, so the excuse could be further extended into: "There was none of the usual months of build-up with several singles, so the public wasn't hyped for it and didn't have much of a reason to buy it." Well, Beyonce's sold great with no singles at all, so it's not much of an excuse. On 30/01/2016 at 8:35 PM, Deviant said: Kesha tried to make her own dead petz "lip$ha" about 2-3 years before miley. Indeed, that collab was swept right under the rug. What's the chances that two popstars would colllab with The Flaming Lips? Kesha was forbidden by her label to release the material she made with them and she claimed she wanted to release it for free and didn't care about the money. Imagine how that must have felt for her after working on this project for over a year and then suddenly, Miley comes out the blue with a collab with TFL and her label allowed her to release it for free and not as part of her album deal? I wonder if she felt like she'd been tossed aside? Like any blonde female popstar wildchild could've taken her place. Was she that interchangeable, that replacable? She really is getting shafted by her label. It must hurt to see other artists being allowed to do whatever they want despite being on major labels too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.