howwasisupposetoknow Posted January 27, 2015 #1 Report Posted January 27, 2015 While i could sit here and pose an argument on what Britney's vegas contract say and what it doesn't say is not something i want to do but i do however feel like fans forget Britney has made Vegas a fortune. She is responsible for resurrecting a town known for hasbeens and making our generation of iconic artists consider residencies there. They are making a fortune off her name, legacy and most importantly, her image. Till 2017, Britney has Property Of Planet Hollywood stamped on her ass and so all that she does now is to make them money. Which brings me to the Moroder track. We forget it's HIS album, not her's. She wanted to do a track with him and reached out, PH is not going to make money off of his album the way they would off her album. Yes, the track would offer free publicity for vegas and her upcoming album, but again as Mr. Moroder himself said, her contract is very limiting to what she can and can't do. From the the sounds of it, PH isn't going to make much off a Giorgio Moroder track ft. Britney Spears as much as they could make from a full Britney Spears album, with songs added to the vegas show that makes them a fortune, so they keep her exclusively solo to maintain financial flow to their hotel and casino. Point of this post. PH will allow Britney to record,promote, make music videos, as long as it's her name alone stamped on them, because till 2017, they get a percentage of whatever that name alone makes. And they want their money off "Starring Britney Spears", not "Giorgio Moroder with special guest Britney Spears". 3
HolySpearit Posted January 27, 2015 #2 Report Posted January 27, 2015 wow this is very insightful and makes sense thanks for enlightening us (at least me for sure) :cutelaugh: but that makes me wonder, how are they gonna include new songs in pom without extending the show length? they would have to sit down and decide which songs are the least iconic to kick out of the setlist
howwasisupposetoknow Posted January 27, 2015 Author #3 Report Posted January 27, 2015 wow this is very insightful and makes sense thanks for enlightening us (at least me for sure) :cutelaugh: but that makes me wonder, how are they gonna include new songs in pom without extending the show length? they would have to sit down and decide which songs are the least iconic to kick out of the setlist Well, i do think Britney has control over her setlist and might add some songs and take some out. The future knows the real answer to that. But with everyone up in arms about GM's track and her contract saying no music video, it just means no music video for his track, not her future album.
heather Posted January 27, 2015 #4 Report Posted January 27, 2015 It's so refreshing to see someone speak intelligently about the ins and outs of a contract/business and not have fan blinders on or be too emotionally involved to think rationally. More people need to read this, t4p 2
rocket Posted January 27, 2015 #5 Report Posted January 27, 2015 i think they just don't want people to confuse the moroder song with her first single and kill the hype maybe? i mean like ooh la la.. but i don't know anyway
Guest Lᴜᴠ3�ɪ♥Hᴀᴛᴇ�ɪ Posted January 27, 2015 #6 Report Posted January 27, 2015 makes sense
Caroline77 Posted January 27, 2015 #7 Report Posted January 27, 2015 I honestly think it has more to do with RCA than Vegas. They don't earn anything with her music, it's RCA who earns money from it. Vegas just has publicity at best so i don't see the point since she will be the singer it's not like she will just sing 2 lines, yes it's a featuring but most of people who don't know about Moroder will believe it's a Britney track. And since she is the singer she could even add it to the show it's not even like S&S, she will sing everything, only RCA can be concerned because it's not their song, but not Vegas. I just believe RCA doesn't want her to do promo for something else while her own thing will be released, and that makes much more sense imo. 3
Pokémon Spears Posted January 27, 2015 #8 Report Posted January 27, 2015 I honestly think it has more to do with RCA than Vegas. They don't earn anything with her music, it's RCA who earns money from it. Vegas just has publicity at best so i don't see the point since she will be the singer it's not like she will just sing 2 lines, yes it's a featuring but most of people who don't know about Moroder will believe it's a Britney track. And since she is the singer she could even add it to the show it's not even like S&S, she will sing everything, only RCA can be concerned because it's not their song, but not Vegas. I just believe RCA doesn't want her to do promo for something else while her own thing will be released, and that makes much more sense imo. I agree with this. I think it's more of her record label rather than Vegas. But the OP makes sense too. Anyway, why would they wait till album 9, when they could have taken advantage of Britney Jean and release tons of singles during 2014? Yeah, I know, it flopped on sales, and stuff, but it was the only thing they had at the time, and they should have taken it for promo. I'm still very skeptical about Vegas having all the control over Britney or her image though. If she doesn't perform live anywhere else, it's just because she doesn't want to. It actually would make sense to promo the Vegas show on TV, showing the world a sneak peek of what they would see at Vegas, just like any other musical or circus show does. I think Giorgio just mentioned the Vegas thing meaning that she can't travel whenever she wants to, or whenever he wants her to travel and finish the song, because of the dates she performs, and the rehearsals and stuff. When he mentions that she can't make a music video, I get it as something apart from the Vegas thing, hence the "I don't know why" explanation afte he just spoke about Vegas. Otherwise he would have connected the idea like, she can't do the music video precisely because of her Vegas contract, instead of separating the ideas. Especially since he has proven to be very shameless in the other interviews If she releases or not singles or music videos, or the Moroder situation, I think it depends on the record label's contract, and Britney's disposition of course, not Vegas. But that's just what I think
MadDennis Posted January 27, 2015 #9 Report Posted January 27, 2015 I honestly think it has more to do with RCA than Vegas. They don't earn anything with her music, it's RCA who earns money from it. Vegas just has publicity at best so i don't see the point since she will be the singer it's not like she will just sing 2 lines, yes it's a featuring but most of people who don't know about Moroder will believe it's a Britney track. And since she is the singer she could even add it to the show it's not even like S&S, she will sing everything, only RCA can be concerned because it's not their song, but not Vegas. I just believe RCA doesn't want her to do promo for something else while her own thing will be released, and that makes much more sense imo. I agree with you. People in RCA must be dumb not to let Britney do a music video for GM's track though, that we'll be free publicity for Britney too imo.
Caroline77 Posted January 27, 2015 #10 Report Posted January 27, 2015 I agree with you. People in RCA must be dumb not to let Britney do a music video for GM's track though, that we'll be free publicity for Britney too imo. I agree it would be publicity too, tho they might think since Britney doesnt want to promote her own thing, and if at the same time Britney collab with Giorgio is out with a video and Giorgio actually promote the song, people won't give attention to Britney's own song, but the Giorgio one because he will promote. If all Britney does for her own song is a video, i can understand why they wouldn't want her to let her do the minimum kind of promo they still have for someone else.
howwasisupposetoknow Posted January 27, 2015 Author #11 Report Posted January 27, 2015 I honestly think it has more to do with RCA than Vegas. They don't earn anything with her music, it's RCA who earns money from it. Vegas just has publicity at best so i don't see the point since she will be the singer it's not like she will just sing 2 lines, yes it's a featuring but most of people who don't know about Moroder will believe it's a Britney track. And since she is the singer she could even add it to the show it's not even like S&S, she will sing everything, only RCA can be concerned because it's not their song, but not Vegas. I just believe RCA doesn't want her to do promo for something else while her own thing will be released, and that makes much more sense imo. While i agree with what your saying , i have to say while RCA does make money from her music, as of right now, so does vegas, cause she performs that music in their venue. Any new music added to her show means more people coming to see it and it can't be performed anywhere but vegas.
Caroline77 Posted January 27, 2015 #12 Report Posted January 27, 2015 While i agree with what your saying , i have to say while RCA does make money from her music, as of right now, so does vegas, cause she performs that music in their venue. Any new music added to her show means more people coming to see it and it can't be performed anywhere but vegas. Yes, but they don't directly make money from it tho, that's the difference, the fact that she makes a music video for the collab or not doesn't matter for Vegas, it won't change anything for them, it only matters to RCA because they won't earn as much for a featuring on another album than for her own thing.
britneystanstan Posted January 27, 2015 #13 Report Posted January 27, 2015 Why are fans under this delusion that Britney suddenly made Vegas a town not for hasbeens? Who followed in her footsteps to doing a Vegas show? JLo? Mariah? Would you consider those relevant artists? If anything, her team has the burden to prove that you can still be relevant while being a Vegas act, which is what they're pushing marketing-wise. Releasing music and appearing in videos can only do good for Vegas so I don't see why there would be a clause against it. The RCA contract is possible, but I still find it stupid as fuck. Say the Britney single is released March. Couldn't they time it properly so the Giorgio track gets a release with a video late April or May? Collabs like Bang Bang only HELPED Ariana's journey to relevance last year. The music industry has changed and Britney's status as a relevant artist has, as well. You need to be omnipresent for a long enough period for people to remember you and buy your album. Britney is currently seen as a hasbeen, sorry.
tarotx Posted January 27, 2015 #14 Report Posted January 27, 2015 Britney released the intimate collection with her image. She also released the little intimate videos as well. Yes it's not music but imo nothing points to Vegas blocking Britney from doing stuff outside of Vegas. Britney isn't a hasbeen. Her last album just didn't perform well. GM isn't a collab that the general public will even think of as a collaboration. Britney's a big artist who will get the attention for the song. It really could interfere in a potential first single from Britney.
Corona Posted January 27, 2015 #15 Report Posted January 27, 2015 Yes, but they don't directly make money from it tho, that's the difference, the fact that she makes a music video for the collab or not doesn't matter for Vegas, it won't change anything for them, it only matters to RCA because they won't earn as much for a featuring on another album than for her own thing. You don't know how Media Contracts work. It is different than regular Contracts. I took Media Law and Contract Law when I was at University and there is a big difference. Caesars Entertainment Corp., who Britney signed the Contract with, owns her till 2017. As far as new music goes I am sure they get something out of it but that is mostly RCA Records and Britney. "CEC" controls the amount of her seating, M&G prices, how long Britney's Show is to run. I think it is a Vegas Mandatory Max. of 90 minutes. All the Shows on the Strip run that long. That is just what we know about I am sure there is a lot of language in the Contract that we don't know about.
howwasisupposetoknow Posted January 27, 2015 Author #16 Report Posted January 27, 2015 Why are fans under this delusion that Britney suddenly made Vegas a town not for hasbeens? Who followed in her footsteps to doing a Vegas show? JLo? Mariah? Would you consider those relevant artists? If anything, her team has the burden to prove that you can still be relevant while being a Vegas act, which is what they're pushing marketing-wise. Releasing music and appearing in videos can only do good for Vegas so I don't see why there would be a clause against it. The RCA contract is possible, but I still find it stupid as fuck. Say the Britney single is released March. Couldn't they time it properly so the Giorgio track gets a release with a video late April or May? Collabs like Bang Bang only HELPED Ariana's journey to relevance last year. The music industry has changed and Britney's status as a relevant artist has, as well. You need to be omnipresent for a long enough period for people to remember you and buy your album. Britney is currently seen as a hasbeen, sorry. But it's not. And J.Lo, Mariah etc are out generations icons, i said nothing about being this years big star. And as far as hasbeen's go, Britney career wise is not a hasbeen. As a celebrity, she chooses not to be out there as much, so if your term for hasbeen is someone who is not in the media spotlight 24/7, then yes she is a hasbeen.
howwasisupposetoknow Posted January 27, 2015 Author #17 Report Posted January 27, 2015 Britney released the intimate collection with her image. She also released the little intimate videos as well. Yes it's not music but imo nothing points to Vegas blocking Britney from doing stuff outside of Vegas. Britney isn't a hasbeen. Her last album just didn't perform well. GM isn't a collab that the general public will even think of as a collaboration. Britney's a big artist who will get the attention for the song. It really could interfere in a potential first single from Britney. it's different because it's not performing and as for image, Britney releasing her intimates collection is fashion, not entertainment. Plus, Britney could bring the line to be sold from the store she has from PH, which again brings them a profit
howwasisupposetoknow Posted January 27, 2015 Author #18 Report Posted January 27, 2015 Yes, but they don't directly make money from it tho, that's the difference, the fact that she makes a music video for the collab or not doesn't matter for Vegas, it won't change anything for them, it only matters to RCA because they won't earn as much for a featuring on another album than for her own thing. but that means Scream and Shout shouldn't have happened if it's RCA and that was a huge hit not just for Britney, but Will.I.Am and it was under his album.
tarotx Posted January 27, 2015 #19 Report Posted January 27, 2015 Britney doesn't have to dance or lipsync in a video. For example most of Katy Perry's Part of me and Mumford and sons's Whispers in the dark. So I just can't see PH saying no videos. And then RCA re-signing Britney knowing no videos? I can't see it. Britney wasn't releasing anything of her own in 2012. So Nothing for Rca to worry about. Also it really was just a feature compared to this GM song. And it was also before people confused Ooh LaLa with being the first single off Album 8. Plus everything she has released was off her Jive contract that was merged with RCA. Album 9 is the first stuff off her new RCA contract.
Nelli Gaidai Posted January 28, 2015 #20 Report Posted January 28, 2015 ughh so true. but its kind of good cuz she gets to b left alone more
Caroline77 Posted January 28, 2015 #21 Report Posted January 28, 2015 but that means Scream and Shout shouldn't have happened if it's RCA and that was a huge hit not just for Britney, but Will.I.Am and it was under his album. She didn't have an album/single out at the same time tho.
britneystanstan Posted January 28, 2015 #22 Report Posted January 28, 2015 But it's not. And J.Lo, Mariah etc are out generations icons, i said nothing about being this years big star. And as far as hasbeen's go, Britney career wise is not a hasbeen. As a celebrity, she chooses not to be out there as much, so if your term for hasbeen is someone who is not in the media spotlight 24/7, then yes she is a hasbeen. Not only that. Her last album flopped miserably. She's relying mostly on her back catalog and past legacy. Beyonce would be a better example of a celebrity, who doesn't go out as much anymore, but still manages to stay relevant. It probably is a mix of mismanagement by her team and how she wants to work now. That said, I wasn't referring to you, just the fanbase in general. 2
BlackoutEgo Posted January 28, 2015 #23 Report Posted January 28, 2015 I agree with some of the things your saying but not to a full extent, Britney makes them money by her performing at their venue & fans staying at their hotel ,& of course the Britney store .. I doubt she gives them money from her album sales and everything she does .. Anything that's related to music and videos has to do with her record label not with Vegas ..also when Britney is on a residency she's not aloud to perform outside of Vegas because the $$ won't be goin to them it will be going to only Britney and part of live nation .and for the music video no one knows what's goin on
howwasisupposetoknow Posted January 29, 2015 Author #24 Report Posted January 29, 2015 I agree with some of the things your saying but not to a full extent, Britney makes them money by her performing at their venue & fans staying at their hotel ,& of course the Britney store .. I doubt she gives them money from her album sales and everything she does .. Anything that's related to music and videos has to do with her record label not with Vegas ..also when Britney is on a residency she's not aloud to perform outside of Vegas because the $$ won't be goin to them it will be going to only Britney and part of live nation .and for the music video no one knows what's goin on What i meant was her album does involve them because Britney is a live performer and she will want to perform the new stuff for vegas. I do believe, however, that RCA and PH are working together at keeping their money flow going but the point of it is that people keep wanting to blame vegas for GM's single and use that as a way of saying her next album will be the same when it won't be, cause even though RCA gets money from sales of the album, the majority of the money thats to be made is her performing those songs and PH owns her in that aspect.
howwasisupposetoknow Posted January 29, 2015 Author #25 Report Posted January 29, 2015 She didn't have an album/single out at the same time tho. but she did the S&S remix video around the time of the whole Britney Jean recordings.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now