Is pop more calculated than we think?

[TMM90 2,980]

3 hours ago, Didymus said:

She signed what is known as a 360 contract. It basically means the label agrees to market and support the **** out of you, while also demanding pretty much all of your revenue. This is why Gaga went broke while on tour. She made literally zero money from her digital sales, performing, merch,.., Interscope took all of it, she signed all of it away in exchange for promotion.

I would say she was pretty safe because her business savvy father made sure the contract was renegotiable etc. If you get famous, the label can't afford to lose you. But it was still a massive gamble. Essentially you artificially shoot yourself to stardom to then hope you become a big enough name to bargain your way out of an Ursula deal. Kesha failed to become big enough to do this, with all the consequences we know.

Fun fact: The first artists under the 360 contract were the Pussycat Dolls.

Edited August 12 by TMM90

[killme89 1,239]

Pop has always been calculated that’s why it’s pop. 

[Dayman 5,989]

13 hours ago, gagzus said:

To add to this point let’s not forget Gaga infamously said once (and never again, probably for PR reasons) in a magazine interview that they even auto tuned and changed her vocals (presumably on the likes of Aura mostly) without her permission, and she didn’t know until the songs were sent back from being mixed and mastered. AND not to mention Troy infamously told her to just “be pretty” hence why he image became more sexual and glam in 2012. And we know for a fact she was supposed to release Partynauseous with Kendrick Lamar in Sepetember 2012, as well as Sex Dreams as the lead single (before she wanted Aura).
 

Plus it’s quite obvious the album went through 3 iterations with lots of label interference before the one we got. She wanted a darker more raw album about the price of Fame. Then they made her make a more fun album, to which she clearly wanted to make a LOT more hip-hop, r&b and techno influence on with less serious messages and vocals (presumably bc she was sick of them just telling her to be like every pop star) , but then they made her tone it down and “Gaga” it up a bit more.

   The one about the vocals!!! We know for a fact the verses on the album were from the demo when it was still “Burqa” and Gaga still when singing live did it more like the version she leaked.

   I never bought the “these vocals are just more special to us” tweet she made. It really seemed like 1 of 2 things was more likely. Either it was changed because the label didn’t want her to sound too “aggressive” since it would be less marketable to a wider audience based on what was successful at the time. OR it was a form of punishment/used as a marketing opportunity by the label since she leaked the version in August of that year. As that way it allowed them to say “look no, it’s not the same as the version leaked in August! This one is NEW!” 

[StrawberryBlond 14,120]

This printout seems AI generated so if it's real, that's crazy. What gets me though is that Bonnie wasn't popular in 2004 and never has been as a soloist, so what's this bit about how she gets compared to Avril and Britney? Looks like every parody video of a bunch of suits pointing to graphs and stats of what makes a perfect popstar could well be accurate.

[altern8version 547]

17 hours ago, VTV said:

if ur signed to a major label, yes!

agreed. it's hella gross

I wish the internet could help truly talented folks get recognized without the need for calculated strategies. In a perfect world, someone making good tunes should be enough to be successful.