Kelly Clarkson- "All I Ever Wanted" (Part #2)

[David]

This is a bit off-topic... but thinking back to the "My December", does anyone else think that "Don't Waste Your Time" would have made a great first single? For me, it was saying the same thing as "Never Again" just not as dark.

[Focus]

Jan 19, 2009 14:57:06 GMT -5 Bluesy said:

Jan 19, 2009 13:24:24 GMT -5 K. said:

I'm sure 800k in single copies more than paid for NA. As for the era as a whole, Kelly practically did the whole album herself, so I'm sure RCA made bank on MD. Especially considering they barely put any cash into it.

Kelly "practically did the whole album herself" using RCA advance money to do so. Every artist with a label is paid an advance (loan) to record an album. That money (2 or 3 hundred thousand) comes right off the top of sales and goes back to the record company as repayment of expenses, not as part of their gross profits. If RCA did not recoup 100% of its advance on MD, plus whatever other expenses Kelly is contractually obligated to pay, they will take those costs off the top of her new album. So I hope MD did make a net profit for RCA.

Again, I don't give a damn about RCA, but am thrilled that this era is starting off so well because it benefits Kelly in the long run. Eventually, maybe Kelly can go the indie route if she wants to. Radiohead, Madonna, Yael Naim, and Elliott Yamin went that route. I suspect that as CD sales continue to fall, more artists might consider going indie.

For anyone who wants to learn about the down-and-dirty world of music producing, here's a really good book:
www.amazon.com/Confessions-Record-Producer-Ed-Business/dp/0879306602

MD sold over a million and a half world wide. That would be approx. $11-15 million gross. If the cost of recording was as you say 2 to 3 hundred thousand, then I don't think RCA has anything to complain about.

[David]

Right - and I think people forget that 98-99% of artists out there don't sell anywhere close to 2,000,000 copies worldwide.

[K.]

Jan 19, 2009 15:48:39 GMT -5 Focus said:

Jan 19, 2009 14:57:06 GMT -5 Bluesy said:

Kelly "practically did the whole album herself" using RCA advance money to do so. Every artist with a label is paid an advance (loan) to record an album. That money (2 or 3 hundred thousand) comes right off the top of sales and goes back to the record company as repayment of expenses, not as part of their gross profits. If RCA did not recoup 100% of its advance on MD, plus whatever other expenses Kelly is contractually obligated to pay, they will take those costs off the top of her new album. So I hope MD did make a net profit for RCA.

Again, I don't give a damn about RCA, but am thrilled that this era is starting off so well because it benefits Kelly in the long run. Eventually, maybe Kelly can go the indie route if she wants to. Radiohead, Madonna, Yael Naim, and Elliott Yamin went that route. I suspect that as CD sales continue to fall, more artists might consider going indie.

For anyone who wants to learn about the down-and-dirty world of music producing, here's a really good book:
www.amazon.com/Confessions-Record-Producer-Ed-Business/dp/0879306602

MD sold over a million and a half world wide. That would be approx. $11-15 million gross. If the cost of recording was as you say 2 to 3 hundred thousand, then I don't think RCA has anything to complain about.

Exactly. And I know that's how it usually works, but I was under the impression RCA did not lend money (or much money) for My December, because much of it was done on the road without really their knowledge. I thought I remembered an article saying the label was surprised when Kelly came in with a mostly completed album and was like "here it is."

But even if they did, I don't imagine it cost nearly as much as Breakaway to produce because it was largely self-written and self-produced.

[Bluesy]

Jan 19, 2009 15:48:39 GMT -5 Focus said:

Jan 19, 2009 14:57:06 GMT -5 Bluesy said:

Kelly "practically did the whole album herself" using RCA advance money to do so. Every artist with a label is paid an advance (loan) to record an album. That money (2 or 3 hundred thousand) comes right off the top of sales and goes back to the record company as repayment of expenses, not as part of their gross profits. If RCA did not recoup 100% of its advance on MD, plus whatever other expenses Kelly is contractually obligated to pay, they will take those costs off the top of her new album. So I hope MD did make a net profit for RCA.

Again, I don't give a damn about RCA, but am thrilled that this era is starting off so well because it benefits Kelly in the long run. Eventually, maybe Kelly can go the indie route if she wants to. Radiohead, Madonna, Yael Naim, and Elliott Yamin went that route. I suspect that as CD sales continue to fall, more artists might consider going indie.

For anyone who wants to learn about the down-and-dirty world of music producing, here's a really good book:
www.amazon.com/Confessions-Record-Producer-Ed-Business/dp/0879306602

MD sold over a million and a half world wide. That would be approx. $11-15 million gross. If the cost of recording was as you say 2 to 3 hundred thousand, then I don't think RCA has anything to complain about.

Domestic gross would have been approximately $8 million if the album's average price was $10 per copy. Add roughly $1 million for the NA and Sober downloads. In round numbers, it sold 800,000 units domestically, leaving around 700,000 sold in all other countries combined, with their varing currencies and values against the dollar. So I think your estimate of between $11-$15 million gross worldwide is close. The other half of the equation -- expenses -- we simply cannot know, so coming up with a reasonable estimate of their net profit (if any) is impossible.

Did RCA make a net profit off MD? Probably given the way contracts are structured to leave very little for the artists. Please don't miss my point, which is that the better this new era does, the better it is for Kelly in the long run. I strongly dislike the vampire-like business model of the major record companies.

[Bluesy]

Jan 19, 2009 16:41:40 GMT -5 Bluesy said:

Jan 19, 2009 15:48:39 GMT -5 Focus said:

MD sold over a million and a half world wide. That would be approx. $11-15 million gross. If the cost of recording was as you say 2 to 3 hundred thousand, then I don't think RCA has anything to complain about.

Domestic gross would have been approximately $8 million if the album's average price was $10 per copy. Add roughly $1 million for the NA and Sober downloads. In round numbers, it sold 800,000 units domestically, leaving around 700,000 sold in all other countries combined, with their varing currencies and values against the dollar. So I think your estimate of between $11-$15 million gross worldwide is close. The other half of the equation -- expenses -- we simply cannot know, so coming up with a reasonable estimate of their net profit (if any) is impossible.

Did RCA make a net profit off MD? Probably given the way contracts are structured to leave very little for the artists. Please don't miss my point, which is that the better this new era does, the better it is for Kelly in the long run. I strongly dislike the vampire-like business model of the major record companies.

Don't take my word for what I've posted. Here's an article on FoxNews.com dated June 28, 2007, by Roger Friedman. Actually, this article says that Kelly's advance for MD was much higher than the estimate I posted above.

Kelly Clarkson's Agent Demanded $15 Million Advance
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287075,00.html

From the article:
"That was the beginning of the bad blood, since the singer was turning in an album the label didn't like. Kwatinetz, I am told, was soundly rebuffed. Clarkson received a much more reasonable $1.5 million advance."

"I am told that the video for "Never Again," the first single, cost $600,000, and that another $300,000 was spent on promoting it to radio stations. But "Never Again" didn't chart well or get much airplay anywhere."

[end excerpt]

My point is that I hope this era is wildly successful so it helps move Kelly out from under RCA's heavy hand, artistically and financially, if that's what she wants when her contract is up.

[Berry]

Jan 19, 2009 16:53:05 GMT -5 Bluesy said:

Jan 19, 2009 16:41:40 GMT -5 Bluesy said:

Domestic gross would have been approximately $8 million if the album's average price was $10 per copy. Add roughly $1 million for the NA and Sober downloads. In round numbers, it sold 800,000 units domestically, leaving around 700,000 sold in all other countries combined, with their varing currencies and values against the dollar. So I think your estimate of between $11-$15 million gross worldwide is close. The other half of the equation -- expenses -- we simply cannot know, so coming up with a reasonable estimate of their net profit (if any) is impossible.

Did RCA make a net profit off MD? Probably given the way contracts are structured to leave very little for the artists. Please don't miss my point, which is that the better this new era does, the better it is for Kelly in the long run. I strongly dislike the vampire-like business model of the major record companies.

Don't take my word for what I've posted. Here's an article on FoxNews.com dated June 28, 2007, by Roger Friedman.

I got that far of your post and i stopped reading, Roger Friedman is full of crap.

[ƒreakshow]

Roger Friedman is a moron. He's probably on Clive's payroll just like Perez.

[jessejesse]

Jan 19, 2009 15:29:18 GMT -5 David said:

This is a bit off-topic... but thinking back to the "My December", does anyone else think that "Don't Waste Your Time" would have made a great first single? For me, it was saying the same thing as "Never Again" just not as dark.

I love DWYT, but it wouldn't have been a good lead single at all.
I think NA did what it was suppose to, even if it didn't do well on radio.

However I know not releasing OM or HIF as the second single was a mistake.

Sober should've been saved until later.

[Bluesy]

Jan 19, 2009 18:03:05 GMT -5 ƒreakshow said:

Roger Friedman is a moron. He's probably on Clive's payroll just like Perez.

LOL at such an attitude. There is zero negative reporting toward Kelly in Friedman's article. In it he reports on the demands of the manager Kelly fired. That's it. Kelly fired the dude for a reason, after all.

But whatever. If this era is as massive for Kelly as I'm sure we all hope, it will be the best possible thing for her at this stage of her career.

[Bluesy]

Jan 19, 2009 17:02:04 GMT -5 Berry said:

Jan 19, 2009 16:53:05 GMT -5 Bluesy said:

Don't take my word for what I've posted. Here's an article on FoxNews.com dated June 28, 2007, by Roger Friedman.

I got that far of your post and i stopped reading, Roger Friedman is full of crap.

Next time, before I post a link to an article, I'll make sure to check the list of "approved" reporters who aren't "full of crap." LOL!

[QAF]

I appreciate the information Music4aw.

[Bluesy]

Jan 19, 2009 18:44:34 GMT -5 QAF said:

I appreciate the information Music4aw.

Anytime. :)

[strikeleo]

Jan 19, 2009 16:53:05 GMT -5 Bluesy said:

Jan 19, 2009 16:41:40 GMT -5 Bluesy said:

Domestic gross would have been approximately $8 million if the album's average price was $10 per copy. Add roughly $1 million for the NA and Sober downloads. In round numbers, it sold 800,000 units domestically, leaving around 700,000 sold in all other countries combined, with their varing currencies and values against the dollar. So I think your estimate of between $11-$15 million gross worldwide is close. The other half of the equation -- expenses -- we simply cannot know, so coming up with a reasonable estimate of their net profit (if any) is impossible.
Did RCA make a net profit off MD? Probably given the way contracts are structured to leave very little for the artists. Please don't miss my point, which is that the better this new era does, the better it is for Kelly in the long run. I strongly dislike the vampire-like business model of the major record companies.

Don't take my word for what I've posted. Here's an article on FoxNews.com dated June 28, 2007, by Roger Friedman. Actually, this article says that Kelly's advance for MD was much higher than the estimate I posted above.

Kelly Clarkson's Agent Demanded $15 Million Advance
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287075,00.html

From the article:
"That was the beginning of the bad blood, since the singer was turning in an album the label didn't like. Kwatinetz, I am told, was soundly rebuffed. Clarkson received a much more reasonable $1.5 million advance."

"I am told that the video for "Never Again," the first single, cost $600,000, and that another $300,000 was spent on promoting it to radio stations. But "Never Again" didn't chart well or get much airplay anywhere."

[end excerpt]

My point is that I hope this era is wildly successful so it helps move Kelly out from under RCA's heavy hand, artistically and financially, if that's what she wants when her contract is up.

I don't think Kelly even cares about money at this point. Thanful was very succesful and brought to her label at least 20 million alone, Breakaway brought to her label at least 60 million and My December at least 5 million, domestically, that is. so, supposing Kelly got at least 5% of that, she has at least 4 million domestically. Kelly toured with all her cds, and we all know that during tours the artists make a lot of money... so, as succesful as the Breakaway era was, I would expect her to have made at least 30 million of touring. so I'd say Kelly is probably not worried about money right now, and i didn't even put in the other tours (she mad about 9 tours in all her career) and the worldwide sales of her cd... and the singles sales.
so I don't really get your point when you say Kelly is seeking financial success. The reason why she is with RCA is because she loves touring, and she wouldn't be able to do that unless she had a public to go to it.

[dbhmr]

Jan 19, 2009 19:18:22 GMT -5 strikeleo said:

Jan 19, 2009 16:53:05 GMT -5 Bluesy said:

so I don't really get your point when you say Kelly is seeking financial success. The reason why she is with RCA is because she loves touring, and she wouldn't be able to do that unless she had a public to go to it.

I don't think that was what music4aw was saying. I think his/her (forgot to look) post was saying that everything will be "easier" for Kelly with a successful album--RCA support, more creative freedom, successful tour and subsequent positive press (no more "tour canceled due to poor ticket sales"), and a positive, powerful presence in media should she decide to go a different way when her contract is up.

[EPG]

When is this being digitally released? I am kind of out of the loop.

[pyrates]

Jan 19, 2009 21:15:03 GMT -5 EPG said:

When is this being digitally released? I am kind of out of the loop.

It'll be on iTunes on Tuesday, the 20th. So tomorrow.

[EPG]

Awesomeness!

[RomanStopIt]

Came out on Itunes in Australia today :)

I'll let you know later on where it's at

[Abel]

Jan 19, 2009 14:57:06 GMT -5 Bluesy said:

Jan 19, 2009 13:24:24 GMT -5 K. said:

I'm sure 800k in single copies more than paid for NA. As for the era as a whole, Kelly practically did the whole album herself, so I'm sure RCA made bank on MD. Especially considering they barely put any cash into it.

Kelly "practically did the whole album herself" using RCA advance money to do so. Every artist with a label is paid an advance (loan) to record an album. That money (2 or 3 hundred thousand) comes right off the top of sales and goes back to the record company as repayment of expenses, not as part of their gross profits. If RCA did not recoup 100% of its advance on MD, plus whatever other expenses Kelly is contractually obligated to pay, they will take those costs off the top of her new album. So I hope MD did make a net profit for RCA.

Again, I don't give a damn about RCA, but am thrilled that this era is starting off so well because it benefits Kelly in the long run. Eventually, maybe Kelly can go the indie route if she wants to. Radiohead, Madonna, Yael Naim, and Elliott Yamin went that route. I suspect that as CD sales continue to fall, more artists might consider going indie.

For anyone who wants to learn about the down-and-dirty world of music producing, here's a really good book:
www.amazon.com/Confessions-Record-Producer-Ed-Business/dp/0879306602

Here's a very informative podcast about going indie.
www.thenewindie.com

[sosickofluvsongs]

Jan 19, 2009 21:16:29 GMT -5 pyrates said:

Jan 19, 2009 21:15:03 GMT -5 EPG said:

When is this being digitally released? I am kind of out of the loop.

It'll be on iTunes on Tuesday, the 20th. So tomorrow.

Dang it. I think that's a bit early. They released Single Ladies pretty late, but that did well digitally. I think they could have waited a week or two.

[👑 Eloquent ™]

I was just listening to Walk Away and Never Again. Ugh, I need the new Kelly album asap!

[Berry]

MLWSWY is on itunes, LINK

[sosickofluvsongs]

Jan 19, 2009 23:33:35 GMT -5 Berry said:

MLWSWY is on itunes, LINK

Thanks! I'm so buying it. I might be the first one to do so in Canada. Wooohooo!

[EPG]

Just bought it!

[sosickofluvsongs]

Jan 19, 2009 23:30:01 GMT -5 👑 Eloquent ™ said:

I was just listening to Walk Away and Never Again. Ugh, I need the new Kelly album asap!

OMG - Two of my fave jams!

[otternobetter87]

Jan 19, 2009 23:41:16 GMT -5 EPG said:

Just bought it!

[sosickofluvsongs]

Jan 19, 2009 23:41:16 GMT -5 EPG said:

Just bought it!

[justmusicjunkie]

I bought it too!

[blurple]

Jan 19, 2009 23:41:16 GMT -5 EPG said:

Just bought it!