Quote:
Originally posted by escapade
But SO many artists release music outside their group/bands, a "you can't release ANY music outside your group" clause seems like it must be uncommon or easily negotiated. I would think that just requires her label give permission and get a percentage of the sales off any song she makes outside the group. Doesn't it seem like that basically would be bonus money for them with almost no risk, whereas easily letting her out of a group contract would have risks?
|
Actually no, there really aren't very many artists that release music while still being part of a group or band. The only major example I can think of right now in Western music is Adam Levine who, in addition to being the lead vocalist of a band (which is VERY different to being a singer in a five-member singing group), doesn't actually release songs that coincide with Maroon 5's releases if my memory is correct. I believe Maroon 5 was on a break when both Stereo Hearts and Locked Away were released.
And I think they'd be extremely naive to assume that letting her release solo songs while still being in the group is free money with no risks. Letting her release solo songs poses the risk that the tension it causes within the group may get so bad that it causes an early break-up. So they're putting the group that has now become extremely successful at risk so that one of its members can have singles that barely peak in the Top 20? Doesn't sound like free money at all to me.
Quote:
|
LA Reid looked SO happy about IKWYDLS and I would think mostly because he probably didn't have to worry about paying for her producers or studio time and didn't have to be in charge of distribution or promo of the song, but whatever money that song made, he probably still got a cut of. I bet it was a win/win for him.
|
Well don't worry, I'm not absolving LA Reid from blame in this whole thing
