Ginger Spice
5x Platinum Member
candy coated heart shapes
Joined: November 2013
Posts: 5,018
|
Post by Ginger Spice on Jan 5, 2016 15:08:03 GMT -5
If it's come to that, she really just shouldn't release anything at all. She doesn't need to, so what's the point? I think that really what they are looking for is a hit single. She is so beyond that though, it just seems unnecessary. I don't get this mindset at all. I mean, I was kind of looking forward to a full album era, but even still, new music is new music, and who's to say the EP isn't leading up to an album? And I don't even think it's a matter of getting a hit single so much as getting her back in favor with those who lost interest after Britney Jean and "Pretty Girls". There's also less pressure with an EP than an album, so they could use it as an opportunity to try new things as well.
|
|
Marooned@Midnight
6x Platinum Member
It’s me…HI!…I’m the problem, it’s me
Joined: September 2007
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by Marooned@Midnight on Jan 5, 2016 15:44:44 GMT -5
If it's come to that, she really just shouldn't release anything at all. She doesn't need to, so what's the point? I think that really what they are looking for is a hit single. She is so beyond that though, it just seems unnecessary. I don't get this mindset at all. I mean, I was kind of looking forward to a full album era, but even still, new music is new music, and who's to say the EP isn't leading up to an album? And I don't even think it's a matter of getting a hit single so much as getting her back in favor with those who lost interest after Britney Jean and "Pretty Girls". There's also less pressure with an EP than an album, so they could use it as an opportunity to try new things as well. It just seems like pandering to me, which I don't feel like she needs to do. It's like her or her team or her label feel that they have something to prove, so they are going to take baby steps. She has nothing to prove. If she has a musical statement to make, she should make it, instead of testing it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 16:43:03 GMT -5
But she does have something to prove, though. Sure, she could finance an entire album by herself, but she's going to want the label to pay for most of it because renting studio time and commissioning producers is stupid expensive after a while, not to mention having a company willing to help you book tours and whatnot (or at least make it easier). I don't think people realize how much money goes into the recording process. Then there's the marketing cost and what have you... Thing is, unless Britney does start getting modest hits or selling reasonably again, it's going to get more and more difficult for her to record, and record quality work. In that sense, yes, she still has to play the role of a pop star and market herself. You can call that pandering, but that's just good business. Nobody wants another mismanaged, low budget album.
If the songs on the EP are good, who even cares? First and foremost most of us here are following this woman because we love her music. New music that can only help her success going forward sounds like a win win.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 17:03:06 GMT -5
If these songs end up like Pretty Girls, she's doomed. I'm hoping for at least one raw track, like a ballad. But its good to now she has something coming, hopefully by March.
|
|
Marooned@Midnight
6x Platinum Member
It’s me…HI!…I’m the problem, it’s me
Joined: September 2007
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by Marooned@Midnight on Jan 5, 2016 17:59:06 GMT -5
I don't know, I just feel like if it's really come to this point she should just stop making music commercially until she finds someone willing to finance it. She can make money any way she wants - Vegas and perfumes are her bankroll. What other legacy act is doing this? It's sort of embarrassing. And you can't say it's for the music. If it was about the music she would release an album. This is a label decision based purely on money, which I don't fault THEM for because that's how a label should think. I fault her and her team for belittling her to the point of thinking she has to put up with it.
I'm a FAN and of course I'm excited at the prospect of new music. I just don't have faith in music being made like this, for these reasons, for a legendary act.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 19:08:06 GMT -5
Legacy acts aren't doing this because legacy acts have their heads stuck in 1989. Yes, Britney is a legacy act, but why can't she still market herself as a current artist would? To be honest, Britney Jean was her first universal flop. Up until then she was still getting #1 singles. She has a legacy, but for all intents and purposes she's still current to a certain degree. An EP doesn't somehow scream desperation or anything either, it's just a compact release, probably to hold fans over until a more finalized project can be put together; one that also lets the label cover the cost of her recording while still maintaining a healthy relationship with them AND building her brand. Vegas and her perfume royalties are fine, but Vegas can only last so long without new material (which, incidentally, will also make her residency more valuable if it's a success and increased demand) and the perfume revenue still isn't enough to cover recording and releasing an album. Again, I cannot stress enough how expensive it is to record and produc music, especially if y'all keep wanting Max Martin tracks. This s**t costs millions. At Timbaland's peak, he was charging $500,000 per song. You can imagine what Max Martin charges. That's just one example though. The point is there's nothing wrong with still playing the industry game like you're someone who's still in it, and not someone like Cher or Madonna who have long since checked out.
Edit: the other thing too is that new music insures these other brands stay alive. She's a recording artist first and foremost, one that's still in the business. That's why people buy tickets to her Vegas show and her perfume: because she has that brand.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 19:42:57 GMT -5
Legacy acts aren't doing this because legacy acts have their heads stuck in 1989. Yes, Britney is a legacy act, but why can't she still market herself as a current artist would? To be honest, Britney Jean was her first universal flop. Up until then she was still getting #1 singles. She has a legacy, but for all intents and purposes she's still current to a certain degree. An EP doesn't somehow scream desperation or anything either, it's just a compact release, probably to hold fans over until a more finalized project can be put together; one that also lets the label cover the cost of her recording while still maintaining a healthy relationship with them AND building her brand. Vegas and her perfume royalties are fine, but Vegas can only last so long without new material (which, incidentally, will also make her residency more valuable if it's a success and increased demand) and the perfume revenue still isn't enough to cover recording and releasing an album. Again, I cannot stress enough how expensive it is to record and produc music, especially if y'all keep wanting Max Martin tracks. This s**t costs millions. At Timbaland's peak, he was charging $500,000 per song. You can imagine what Max Martin charges. That's just one example though. The point is there's nothing wrong with still playing the industry game like you're someone who's still in it, and not someone like Cher or Madonna who have long since checked out. Edit: the other thing too is that new music insures these other brands stay alive. She's a recording artist first and foremost, one that's still in the business. That's why people buy tickets to her Vegas show and her perfume: because she has that brand. I also am positive that Britney Jean as a whole with its singles had little promotion, as the focus was put towards promoting the current Vegas Residency she's doing.
|
|
|
Post by CriminallySmooth on Jan 5, 2016 20:07:45 GMT -5
You don't need a studio anymore these days. KC recorded most of her last album at home with store bought equipment and its nominated for a Grammy this year. Plus fuck Max Martin I want her to work with fresh new producers. I want an album like In The Zone in terms of quality promotion and Britney's overall excitement for the project.
|
|
upsidedown
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2012
Posts: 10,621
|
Post by upsidedown on Jan 6, 2016 15:44:32 GMT -5
There's no reason why Max can't be involved though. They've done ace tracks together for 15 years. I'd love to see what they could do in 2016.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2016 16:18:05 GMT -5
You don't need a studio anymore these days. KC recorded most of her last album at home with store bought equipment and its nominated for a Grammy this year. Studio costs are the least of a recording artist's worries, although that is expensive. Let's assume they still record in-home though (side note: I'm 99% sure Britney has an in-home studio herself). Cost of equipment. Store bought or not, it's expensive. Cost of promoting the album. This includes sinking a ton of money into marketing firms for campaign strategies, design agencies for album artwork, photographers for photoshoots, renting spaces for promotional ads physically (Time Square) and digitally (iTunes). Cost of producers. They charge the same regardless of who's studio you're using. Cost of mixing and mastering, which is a whole other monster and I guarantee you Kelly Clarkson did not mix and master those songs herself. Cost of production and shipment of millions of physical albums worldwide. Cost of travel to promote, whether it's an appearance on a talk show with or without a performance. Cost of production of music videos, including hiring a director, initial production, post-production, renting a set, props and wardrobe, cast and crew, promotion and release of said video which compounds cost of promotion of the album as a separate entity. Cost of legal council, sample usage, and what have you because I guarantee you these major label releases are going to need it unless an artist wants to get their ass sued.
Y'all seem to think artists just show up, record a song, and release it to universal success. That is absolutely not how it works. Again, this s**t is expensive and Britney would be bankrupt after like two albums if she paid out of pocket. Gaga shelled out an estimated 5 million out of her own pocket to produce the 'G.U.Y.' video alone. She needs to pander and needs the label, with or without the studio, if she wants to continue making good quality music that gets a proper push. I assume you all want the same, no?
|
|
|
Post by CriminallySmooth on Jan 6, 2016 16:30:14 GMT -5
Still though you don't HAVE to have these things to make great art. You need an insipered artist and that's really all it takes. There's been numerous times in history where artists have produced masterpieces that didn't cost a damn. Plus Britney is rich af and has been for sometime.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2016 16:37:03 GMT -5
Still though you don't HAVE to have these things to make great art. You need an insipered artist and that's really all it takes. There's been numerous times in history where artists have produced masterpieces that didn't cost a damn. Plus Britney is rich af and has been for sometime. Well yes, but why in the world would living legend, Britney Spears, want to make the recording process that much more difficult for herself as a mother with a near full-time Vegas gig? Why would she pay for that out of pocket with little-to-no guarantee of a profit? Yeah, we might great music out of that-- although Britney Jean tells me that would be a hard no-- but she'd also be making a horrible business decision that would in no way benefit anyone but the handful of hardcore stans who would even know that album was ever released. And, yes, Britney is "rich af", but the point I've been trying to make here is that the above costs are expensive as FUCK. Let's also not kid ourselves that Britney is a creative force. Does she have a fantastic ear and amazing star quality? Yes, but she is not an overflowing well of ideas.
|
|
|
Post by CriminallySmooth on Jan 6, 2016 16:43:53 GMT -5
This would be a great time for Rebellion to leak in full...
|
|
Marooned@Midnight
6x Platinum Member
It’s me…HI!…I’m the problem, it’s me
Joined: September 2007
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by Marooned@Midnight on Jan 6, 2016 16:57:09 GMT -5
An insider at the pop justice forums, who for what it's worth people say has been proven right many times, says that an EP is off the table for this year. It was part of the strategy for last year, but now apparently plans have changed and a full album is in the works. So we may be having this discussion for nothing. Hopefully.
|
|
blahsi
Charting
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 306
|
Post by blahsi on Jan 6, 2016 17:07:25 GMT -5
I've been reading your posts about the EP, recording costs, etc.
I don't know the terms of Britney's contract, but after reading Jewel's book, I have a bit more insight regarding how the costs are laid out for recording, at least from her point of view. From my understanding, and this could be totally different from Britney's situation, there are two scenarios. The first is that she was paid an advance for her recording contract, and they cover the costs of recording. She recoups those costs for them through sales, touring, etc. Once they have their money back, she gets a piece of whatever is sold. The other is that she pays the costs up front for recording, videos, or whatever and immediately gets a share of the sales from the label based on the terms of the contract. Based on the length of the contract, I'd be surprised if she hasn't already recouped those costs for RCA (she hasn't signed another deal with them yet, has she?).
Honestly, I'm sure Britney could afford to pay for her recording costs - she is making a ton of money from Vegas and probably has a bunch stored away from the conservatorship and previous albums, tours, etc.
Regarding the EP, I don't see why it's a big deal. Sara Bareilles put one out to some success and her reasoning for it was that they were songs that didn't fit on Kaleidoscope Heart, nor The Blessed Unrest, and she wanted to get them out there. Several country artists have done the same. If she is releasing an EP, it could be songs that she wants to get out to the fans but won't fit the sound of the album she's working on, or she wants to experiment without compromising the album project. Or they just want to get songs out there now rather than later. She doesn't have to do this, and who knows if she actually is, but it's a cool idea to get new music to the masses.
Personally, I'm hoping for a return to an 'In the Zone' type album, with lots of unique sounds and great vocals. I don't want another Pretty Girls. Please, no more Pretty Girls.
Just thought I'd throw my thoughts out there. Feel free to tear them apart. As I said, I may be totally wrong and remembering what I read incorrectly.
Edit: Based on the post above, I am hopeful for an album rather than an EP, and that what they said is correct.
|
|
mc54
Platinum Member
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 1,489
|
Post by mc54 on Jan 7, 2016 15:18:22 GMT -5
Just gimme something along the lines of "Til It's Gone" on the next album.
|
|
Ginger Spice
5x Platinum Member
candy coated heart shapes
Joined: November 2013
Posts: 5,018
|
Post by Ginger Spice on Jan 7, 2016 17:26:03 GMT -5
She deleted the tweet lol. Poor thing probably had no idea what she was getting herself into.
|
|
vipanonymous
Platinum Member
Black Beauty
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 1,498
|
Post by vipanonymous on Jan 10, 2016 12:46:32 GMT -5
Who run the world? - It's Britney Bitch!!!
|
|
|
Post by It's me, bitch. on Jan 11, 2016 23:24:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CriminallySmooth on Jan 11, 2016 23:41:10 GMT -5
So dope! I love it! I'm seeing this show I swear it I'm gonna make it happen no matter what. I think she's the only one of my favorites I haven't seen live.
|
|
bat1990
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2004
Posts: 13,582
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by bat1990 on Jan 12, 2016 20:32:30 GMT -5
I'm gonna get to see her when me and the bf go to visit his sister in Vegas!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by It's me, bitch. on Jan 20, 2016 19:10:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by It's me, bitch. on Jan 20, 2016 21:33:56 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2016 10:12:00 GMT -5
She must be really excited for that addition for her to be posting her own rehearsal footage
|
|
bornfearless2000
4x Platinum Member
SOMETHING IN THE WATER
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 4,048
|
Post by bornfearless2000 on Jan 21, 2016 11:28:31 GMT -5
MannequinRehearsalNey is that you??
|
|
Keelzit
Diamond Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 11,815
|
Post by Keelzit on Jan 21, 2016 12:15:47 GMT -5
She's perfomrmed BOM a billion times already but I'm still excited cause that routine is brand new! I just wish she adds My Prerogative too cause it's one of the few singles she's never performed.
|
|
PopLuva
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2005
Posts: 1,650
|
Post by PopLuva on Jan 22, 2016 0:06:48 GMT -5
songs i want
hold it against me my prerogative overprotected darkchild remix born to make you happy get naked
songs she should drop
perfume til the world ends - i never liked the choreography to this one its awful do something - she seems to love to perform this one i hate it boys - i want the co ed remix! freakshow
|
|
Ace
5x Platinum Member
The Guvanah
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 5,241
|
Post by Ace on Jan 22, 2016 12:42:34 GMT -5
I really don't foresee her taking the 50% of the show she's changing and replacing a bunch of her hits with album tracks and lesser-known singles; the show is marketed as a greatest hits show, and that's what casual Vegas visitors are paying to see. I can see her swapping a few of the minor hits (Perfume, Pretty G0rls) with a few album tracks and maybe, like, HIAM or Overprotected, but I'm guessing a lot of the changes will have to do with sets, costumes, choreography, and remixing of hits.
That being said, if it's truly changing 50%, I'll definitely go again. :)
|
|
|
Post by It's me, bitch. on Jan 22, 2016 13:37:09 GMT -5
I really don't foresee her taking the 50% of the show she's changing and replacing a bunch of her hits with album tracks and lesser-known singles; the show is marketed as a greatest hits show, and that's what casual Vegas visitors are paying to see. I can see her swapping a few of the minor hits (Perfume, Pretty G0rls) with a few album tracks and maybe, like, HIAM or Overprotected, but I'm guessing a lot of the changes will have to do with sets, costumes, choreography, and remixing of hits. That being said, if it's truly changing 50%, I'll definitely go again. :) Exactly. As far as set list goes, I can see them adding if you seek Amy and hold it against me and breathe on me. Then removing perfume and do something and freakshow. She can do audience participation like freakshow with if you seek Amy. She could bring up a guy or girl and do something provocative. I should seriously run her show management. LOL
|
|
kmbgs
7x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 7,287
|
Post by kmbgs on Jan 24, 2016 16:15:45 GMT -5
I'm going in February and am so glad I got pit seats. BOM is going to slay me; I better get some life insurance.
|
|