Assumedly Michael Jackson, by way of having been raised by a sharp businessman (his father Joe Jackson) and with his huge resources and reputation for business acumen has had access to some of the most sophisticated legal and business talent in the entertainment industry over the years. Recently it’s said that he’s in a bit of trouble cash wise at this point with the failure of this last release “Invincible” and a huge sum Sony has lent him over the past decade or so to keep his elaborate lifestyle up to par.
Having said that, why is he pulling this seemingly calculated, over the top stunt? It seems bordering on nuts if he ever wants a major record company to touch him again. Is he looking to Sony to forgive his debt if he makes life difficult enough for them, or is this an impassioned blow against “the man” for exploiting poor M. Jackson? What’s the real back story on this?
Some suspect that Sony’s lack of promotional activity is more related to them wanting to get Jacko’s Beatles catalog, which MJ used as collateral for his loan from Sony, than racism. Still disingenous if true, but I don’t think racism is responsible in his particular situation.
That said, I do think this may raise awareness about artist’s rights and corporations. Maybe something positive–like support for independent labels–will come out of this.
And as for MJ, all I have to say is he has some nerve. As far as I’m concerned, it’s pretty bold for him to come back to the black community after more than a few years of not-so-subtle disassociation. I’m just waiting for someone at Sony to say his claim about racism is invalid since he stopped being black some time in the late 80s (they would be wrong, but it would be poetic). I’m hoping MJ spends some time in Harlem. Maybe–just maybe–the guy will go back to the way he looked in the good ole days of Billy Jean (sans jheri curl).
Wow, that never occurred to me. It would explain why Sony ponied up so much cash to an (arguably) fading artist for a record deal. Thanks for the insight, Monstro.
I feel kind of bad for Jackson at this stage–he’s getting to old to dance like he used to, and musically he seems to be out of ideas. Either that, or we need to bring Quincy Jones back to produce him.
Wow, that never occurred to me. It would explain why Sony ponied up so much cash to an (arguably) fading artist for a record deal. Thanks for the insight, Monstro.
I feel kind of bad for Jackson at this stage–he’s getting to old to dance like he used to, and musically he seems to be out of ideas. Either that, or we need to bring Quincy Jones back to produce him.
Does anyone except me see this as a comment on his popularity these days? 150-strong crowd? His entourage was probably bigger than the group waiting to see him.
Hell, on any given street corner in NYC, there have to be more than 150 people standing at any one time.
Okay, here’s the skinny. Many (okay, “most”) of the costs of an album’s production ends up getting deducted from the artist’s royalties. So when big record label gives you a great big wad of cash to finance an album, that big wad of cash is going to get paid back to them directly from your royalites. It often goes all the way down to things like the cost of packaging for $%@* sake.
MJ spent a gazillion on his last album. From what I understand, from a production point of view, the quality of the album is outstanding. From a good-selling musical enjoyment point of view, the album was kinda stinky.
Let’s say a singer-songwriter manages to magically get 15 cents per song (hey, most songwriters get the statutory rate of a mere 8 cents per song, but MJ has more clout, so let’s give him a generous 15 cents and also pretend that he wrote all the songs himself). And say he sells “only” 5 million albums. He’s got a paltry $750,000 per song, with 16 tracks… okay, so he’s made about $12 million.
Didn’t I read that the making of Invincible came to about $60 million. Uh, oh…
Jacko says: “The record companies really, really do conspire against artists. They steal. They cheat.”
Well, duh!..
This is nothing new.
Welcome to the music biz, Mikey. So sorry you’re finally getting the short end of the stick for once. So Sony would rather chase after your Beatles catalog rather than sink more money into an album that will never recoup… That’s not racism, MJ. That just the music biz. Try being an indie artist and see what happens.
I know of a great sounding indie album that only cost $10,000. The cost of Invincible was outrageous. What were you thinking, MJ? Remember to watch your costs, they’ll come back to bite ya in the butt!
There was a very good article about this in Salong that summed up the situation (and the absurdity of MJ’s position) quite nicely. With fabulous wealth, paranoid conspiracy theories and increased isolation from the real world, MJ is our generation’s Howard Hughes.
I always wondered how much of the album’s price goes to the artist.
Are you saying that the average popular artist only gets $1.28 per album? With CDs easily costing $15 or more, thats just plain sickening.
I can’t imagine the cost of manufacturing the CD, case, and artwork as being higher than $1-2. And figure on a little for distribution and advertising. From my days at Best Buy and Circuit City, I was told that most CDs are sold for just a little over store cost, mainly to draw people into the store.
By the way, what if it’s a multi-member group, say, P.O.D. or the Backstreet Boys. Do all the members share that 8 cents/song?
P.S. Sorry for the hijack. And yes, Michael Jackson does appear to be insane.
