Jump to content
music news

Lil Wayne sales entire Young Money catalog for 100M


Kimmo

Featured Posts

7 minutes ago, Arbmonster said:

In what universe? :bear:

Normal labels won’t let artists literally cancel all their plans just because they don’t feel like promoting. Gaga taking long breaks and doing things on her own time is the biggest example of her having full control over her career. You guys are truly something else :ladyhaha:

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Adarsh said:

She has a nice relationship with her label unlike Taylor. I mean interscope literally lets her do anything.

Owning your masters has nothing to do with the relationship you have with your label. Taylor works with Republic I think, and has a nice relationship with them, but she wouldn't sell her masters to them. Owning your masters can allow you to move more freely through the industry and have way more control over your legacy (things like what music is released after the artist's death, Interscope could pull an MJ and release 67 new albums of new unreleased Gaga music just because they want money), and plus, your relationship with your label can change at any minute. Don't forget the mere existence of labels is supported by copyright laws, thus they're primarily supported by the collection of royalties on something they weren't that invested in to begin with.

Former First Lady of the United States. Now card-carrying member of the Communist Party of China (CPC).
Link to post
Share on other sites

monketsharona
6 minutes ago, Jill said:

You can buy a song to re-record it or you can buy a whole song, including songwriting royalties, so then (if you did the latter) you can resell it to another artist/record label.

Abolutely but I doubt Gaga would sell the songs she has done with RedOne 5 years ago. I'm sure if they had some goals for it to be release with another artist it would have been sold already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Gaga want the masters the half The Fame tho :billie:

If she were to buy em, she'll probably buy TFM, BTW (minus The Queen :messga:), Joanne, Shallow-ARUTW-INLA, Chromatica, The Cure and the entirety of Check To Cheek :teehee:

툭 까보면 어김없이 소리질러와
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jill said:

Owning your masters has nothing to do with the relationship you have with your label. Taylor works with Republic I think, and has a nice relationship with them, but she wouldn't seel her masters to them. Owning your masters can allow you to move more freely through the industry and have way more control over your legacy (things like what music is released after the artist's death, Interscope could pull an MJ and release 67 new albums of new unreleased Gaga music just because they want money), and plus, your relationship with your label can change at any minute. Don't forget the mere existence of labels is supported by copyright laws, thus their mere existence is to collect the majority of royalties on something that they weren't that invested in to begin with.

I meant when Taylor was with her old label, not Republic. Didn’t she say that her old label was very controlling and didn’t let her express herself more freely? So it’s clear she didn’t have a good relationship with them. 
 

As for Gaga, I don’t think she cares about these things at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Adarsh said:

I meant when Taylor was with her old label, not Republic. Didn’t she say that her old label was very controlling didn’t let her express herself more freely? So it’s clear she didn’t have a good relationship with them. 
 

As for Gaga, I don’t think she cares about these things at all.

But my point is, she should :bear: But Taylor had a good relationship with Big Machine at first I think, but even if she hadn't, I mentioned Republic because she seems to have a good relationship with them, but she still thinks that an artist owning their masters is important, and I agree with her. Contracts should be signed with labels as a way for the artist to license their music for promotion, not sell what they created. That doesn't make sense.

Former First Lady of the United States. Now card-carrying member of the Communist Party of China (CPC).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Runway
15 minutes ago, Jill said:

But my point is, she should :bear: But Taylor had a good relationship with Big Machine at first I think, but even if she hadn't, I mentioned Republic because she seems to have a good relationship with them, but she still thinks that an artist owning their masters is important, and I agree with her. Contracts should be signed with labels as a way for the artist to license their music for promotion, not sell what they created. That doesn't make sense.

Just because she doesn’t make a huge publicity stunt about it doesn’t mean she doesn’t care or she’s not taking her precautions :bear: besides if she owns her masters or not is something she decided, she won’t act like she was scammed :bear: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOVEDRUG
33 minutes ago, Jed said:

Thats messed up. Imagine your lifes work being sold by someone else

imagine your life's work being dark lane demo tapes :laughga:

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Runway said:

Just because she doesn’t make a huge publicity stunt about it doesn’t mean she doesn’t care or she’s not taking her precautions :bear: besides if she owns her masters or not is something she decided, she won’t act like she was scammed :bear: 

Are you implying Taylor acts as if she was scammed :bear: she was tbh, like the majority of artists that sign contracts with labels seeking to make it big, and like Gaga too. Artists don't "decide" whether to own their masters or not, and if you thought they did, you're wrong. It's not like Interscope is a charitable organization seeking to help up and coming singers sign their first contract, no, they make the artists sell their masters or else there is no contract. That's how the majority of the industry works because the majority of the industry is mainly dominated by UMG and Sony, and they, as the multinational monopolies they are, won't let an artist (much less someone who just started) decide if they want to keep the rights to something that guarantees UMG and Sony keep getting money from royalties. 

Former First Lady of the United States. Now card-carrying member of the Communist Party of China (CPC).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...