You seem to have a problem even comprehending that what I am saying is true?? It was one of the leading record labels I interned at. I never said the artist concerned wasn't making a profit. I never got to see that. I am simply saying that it isn't as straightforward as an artist comes out with a record. The label takes their share, the artist gets theirs. The artist will get an advance, and they will be expected to also pay for promotions, travel, production costs etc out of their royalties. This was the £500K I saw that this person i am describing owes. After deductions like that, unless your name is Adele or One Direction there isn't a huge amount of money left over. Why do you think acts tour more these days? Unless you do Adele or One Direction type sales with every album, there is hardly any money to be made from straight forward record sales.
I'm not having any problem comprehending what you're saying. Why are you being defensive when I'm trying to discuss the points you're making on a discussion board? It's not personal, and I have no opinion on you outside of the posts you're making on here. If you think I'm being difficult or something, you're very welcome to stop replying to my posts, I won't take any offence, I promise. I know I write a lot but I'm a very wordy person, unfortunately.
Anyway, if we were to use your example, every artist that doesn't make 500k + is going to run at a loss because that's what they need to make back through expenses? I'm not sure how that works! And I also don't see what that's got to do with the label themselves, who eventually would have got that money (unless they went on to sue the artist) or exactly what it has to do with JLS, who you have no idea what their expenses were. And honestly, if all artists needed to sell Adele and 1D amounts to make a profit on their music, I'm not sure how labels have stayed in business for so long! Where are the labels who haven't signed 1D and Adele getting their money from?!
But this is all just conjecture, isn't it? We don't know how healthy JLS's finances were looking when they split but they were all around number ten on the under thirties rich list so I'm guessing not too bad. As for their label, some labels are incredibly wise with their money and some aren't, just like good and bad businesses. My point is that if JLS's label had any sense, they would easily have made a profit from them throughout their career and wouldn't have been finanically unsafe through one underperforming album.
The label doesn't make money from a tour. The band and their management does. They were dropped in the real sense of the word. Their contract wasn't renewed when it could have been. And as for the last comment do you personally know JB is gay. Or is it just wishful thinking? :rolleyes:
That totally depends on what kind of record deal they signed. Seeing as though they came out of a TV Talent Show, I wouldn't be surprised if they signed a 360 deal meaning the label would earn from tours as well. But that's purely me speculating.
Don't they have merchandise as well? I think they have annuals every year, calendars, posters and dolls so they could potentially be making money from those. Or at least were making money from it.
They had a good run but ultimately they've been forced out by One Direction and The Wanted because JLS are just a combination of the two.
That and they've been around longer - pop acts generally have a shelf life of 5-6 years; JLS are now in that territory.
Even when pop was in its hayday bands on really lasted that long before splitting up and now off course its en vogue to come back together.
The Wanted barring 2 songs have never set the UK charts alight and really because GYC crossed over so well to the US its kept them afloat, but I can't see them lasting for much longer, especially with UJ and E3 launching in UK/ US.
1D as a pop act are an unknown quantity due to their success
I'm not having any problem comprehending what you're saying. Why are you being defensive when I'm trying to discuss the points you're making on a discussion board? It's not personal, and I have no opinion on you outside of the posts you're making on here. If you think I'm being difficult or something, you're very welcome to stop replying to my posts, I won't take any offence, I promise. I know I write a lot but I'm a very wordy person, unfortunately.
I am not taking it personally. I am simply stating my observations learnt through reading books on the music business and interning etc. You seemed not to believe in what I was saying.
Anyway, if we were to use your example, every artist that doesn't make 500k + is going to run at a loss because that's what they need to make back through expenses? I'm not sure how that works!
Not really. On a new band who is releasing their first album expenditure will probably be fairly low to protect the label from huge losses. If the label believes in the artist, they might spend a bit more money. If the record does amazingly well, then the amount they spend on albums number 2 and 3 will rapidly increase.
who you have no idea what their expenses were. And honestly, if all artists needed to sell Adele and 1D amounts to make a profit on their music, I'm not sure how labels have stayed in business for so long! Where are the labels who haven't signed 1D and Adele getting their money from?!
This is simple. The Adele's and the One Directions subsidise the poorer selling artists. A record label would love to have a roster of Adele and 1D selling acts. The truth is that 95% of artists signed will not have anywhere near their success. A fair proportion of signed artists will not have any sucess. The higher selling acts are subsidising them.
My point is that if JLS's label had any sense, they would easily have made a profit from them throughout their career and wouldn't have been finanically unsafe through one underperforming album.
The point I made before stands that most record labels have a viewpoint that the artist is only as good as the sales of their last album. It's very harsh and unfair, but that's business I guess. There are some exceptions to the rule. Take the Saturdays, they probably should have been dropped. Their last album lasted 2 weeks in the top 40, but Polydor obviously believe in them and it seems to have paid off as they have just had a number 1. If their new album does badly, I expect them to come under renewed pressure as record labels don't make a lot of money of single sales.
I am not taking it personally. I am simply stating my observations learnt through reading books on the music business and interning etc. You seemed not to believe in what I was saying.
Not really. On a new band who is releasing their first album expenditure will probably be fairly low to protect the label from huge losses. If the label believes in the artist, they might spend a bit more money. If the record does amazingly well, then the amount they spend on albums number 2 and 3 will rapidly increase.
This is simple. The Adele's and the One Directions subsidise the poorer selling artists. A record label would love to have a roster of Adele and 1D selling acts. The truth is that 95% of artists signed will not have anywhere near their success. A fair proportion of signed artists will not have any sucess. The higher selling acts are subsidising them.
The point I made before stands that most record labels have a viewpoint that the artist is only as good as the sales of their last album. It's very harsh and unfair, but that's business I guess. There are some exceptions to the rule. Take the Saturdays, they probably should have been dropped. Their last album lasted 2 weeks in the top 40, but Polydor obviously believe in them and it seems to have paid off as they have just had a number 1. If their new album does badly, I expect them to come under renewed pressure as record labels don't make a lot of money of single sales.
It's not that I don't believe what you're saying - no more than you don't believe what I'm saying, anyway. It's just that you are using a few limited examples of your own experience and not taking into consideration other factors. I don't know much about the music industry but I know basic business logic. Not to mention that, as others on here have pointed out, there are different kinds of deals and different kinds of situations that might be the case for JLS.
I still don't understand your point about Adele and 1D. If 95% of acts don't have their success, how do 95% of record labels stay in business? Not every label has an equivelant selling Adele or 1D signed to them. Some don't even have someone equivelant to, say, The Wanted. Labels spend what they can afford, or they should do if they have any sense. Plus it completely negates your point about JLS, surely, if their label had a 1D or Adele type act propping up their sales - why would their label need to drop them, as you seem to believe has happened, if that's the case? In fact, why would any act ever be dropped if that was the case?
What I'm basically trying to say here is that you seem to believe labels only make profits with their million selling artists but that is obviously untrue. Labels make money in all sorts of way, and if JLS genuinely weren't making money for their label, we'd have probably known about it!
It's not that I don't believe what you're saying - no more than you don't believe what I'm saying, anyway. It's just that you are using a few limited examples of your own experience and not taking into consideration other factors. I don't know much about the music industry but I know basic business logic. Not to mention that, as others on here have pointed out, there are different kinds of deals and different kinds of situations that might be the case for JLS.
I still don't understand your point about Adele and 1D. If 95% of acts don't have their success, how do 95% of record labels stay in business? Not every label has an equivelant selling Adele or 1D signed to them. Some don't even have someone equivelant to, say, The Wanted. Labels spend what they can afford, or they should do if they have any sense. Plus it completely negates your point about JLS, surely, if their label had a 1D or Adele type act propping up their sales - why would their label need to drop them, as you seem to believe has happened, if that's the case? In fact, why would any act ever be dropped if that was the case?
What I'm basically trying to say here is that you seem to believe labels only make profits with their million selling artists but that is obviously untrue. Labels make money in all sorts of way, and if JLS genuinely weren't making money for their label, we'd have probably known about it!
They were! Up until recently!!! They stopped, which is why the label didn't offer them a new contract! Do you not think, that if they were making loads of money, Sony Music would have jumped at the chance of keeping them?
With regards to the fact not every label has a 1D or an Adele selling artist, this is true for the smaller labels yes, but if you sign to a smaller label without any promotional help from a bigger label, as an artist, you will not get much money to spend on Promotion/videos/billboards etc, and you are not as likely to have as big success as you would with a major. The Majors such as Sony will have big acts. If you look at the roster of a major record label, they will probably have thousands of artists on their books and only a small percentage of them will be doing well. The others that don't do well will be dropped overtime. This is why record labels are always on the lookout for the next big thing.
Pretty sad to be honest, at least they weren't a manufactured band like 1D.
I don't care if a band is manufactured. It's just the narative, to sell the band, but it's not what actually matters to me. People are free to like or dislike whatever they like/dislike, but personally, I just don't understand the manufactured band snobbery.
I think you like or dislike the songs, the people in a group... The narative should come second and not be the main criteria, but I can see that many people disagree with my idea.
A terrible french boyband in the 90's was sold solely on the narative (they were chilhood friends + hunks), and they had great success though, so, while I find it silly, this approach has been working for a while I suppose.
JLS are nice good looking guys and have good voices from what I read, they had chemistry too.
They were! Up until recently!!! They stopped, which is why the label didn't offer them a new contract! Do you not think, that if they were making loads of money, Sony Music would have jumped at the chance of keeping them?
You don't know that the label didn't offer to renew their contract though! It could have easily been JLS' own decision not to accept it because of both personal and professional reasons. They're growing up wanting to go onto new things and in the case of Marvin starting a family. We don't know yet if they weren't offered a new contract so why are you stating that as fact? :sleep:
You don't know that the label didn't offer to renew their contract though! It could have easily been JLS' own decision not to accept it because of both personal and professional reasons. They're growing up wanting to go onto new things and in the case of Marvin starting a family. We don't know yet if they weren't offered a new contract so why are you stating that as fact? :sleep:
It seems obvious to me. Aston said in the sun article that they could have gone to another label. Why would he say that? The whole thing seems to have been spun to make it look like it was their decision.
JLS are splitting up. Whether you greet this news with tears or a shrug probably depends on your age and gender.
The 10-year-old niece of one Telegraph journalist pronounced herself “devastated”, as she experienced what may be her first pangs of heartbreak, a foretaste of the bittersweet world of adult romance experienced through the proxy of a prepubescent pop obsession.
Yet it is fair to assume that most of the nation will be considerably less fraught by this announcement. My own niece, now in her late teens, was of the view that JLS were already “past it,” which seems rather cruel for a group of young men in their mid-twenties. But pop music is fickle. The mass market of young girls of teen crush age have already transferred their affections to the younger, fresher One Direction, whilst older girls have moved on to tattooed nu metal bands, swaggering rappers or other more nuanced tastes. Boy bands (at least in their first, wide-eyed incarnation) have a notoriously short lifespan, which can probably be almost directly correlated with the emotional and sexual growth of their target audience. It’s not about hooks, it’s about hormones.
Not that anyone should sneer about that. The teen pin up is surely one of the prime functions of pop, a safe place to express and explore burgeoning feelings. If it is wrapped up in a catchy tune and a slick dance move, all the better. JLS can be credited with restoring the boy band to the UK pop landscape, after a period dominated by girl groups and solo stars. They only came second on the 2008 series of X Factor, but championed by Louis Walsh (the Irish Svengali behind Westlife and Boyzone) they went on to be one of the series biggest successes, on home territory at least. They served to remind Simon Cowell and the rest of his manipulative ilk of the power of buff boys and close harmony, which led directly to One Direction, who found greater fame by mixing in Justin Bieber’s puppyish charm. 1D have left JLS in the dust, which is probably one of underlying causes of their apparently premature retirement.
If you want to know the real reason why JLS are splitting, take a look at the chart positions of their singles. From 2009 to 2011, all their singles were top ten in the UK, with five number ones. After four albums, two Brit awards and 10 million sales, the band’s official statement announced that they want “to end on a high”. Well, if you consider reaching number 112 a career high, then fair enough. That, indeed, was the lowly position achieved by the most recent JLS single, Hold Me Down, the latest in a series of declining sales throughout 2012. The truth is, they quit before the public sacked them. With the announcement of a Greatest Hits and a farewell tour, they have made a hard headed, smart decision to milk the last drops from a fading career.
But stay those tears, JLS fans. Whatever they say now, we all know they will be back. If there is one thing we have learned, it is that no band breaks up forever (well, except The Jam and The Smiths, apparently. But they’ve still got time to reconsider). There are two lives of a boy band – the first flush when they connect to the affections of teenage girls and a second shot when those girls hit their thirties, experiencing some of the post-romantic disillusionment of adulthood, and starting to feel nostalgia for their first innocent loves. This is usually about the same time that all those solo careers have gone nowhere, the reality TV shows are drying up, and funds are starting to look perilously low. By my calculations, the JLS reunion should be announced around 2025.
Thanks for that. Some posters on here tried to make out I was talking rubbish when I made the point you highlighted.
no problem. i don't really have an opinion regarding jls aside from them being considered friends by the boys and i read the article coz of the 1D connection... then the points being made on there reminded me of the points you were making on here, lolz!!;):D
Going out on a high would have been ending with Jukebox. Evolution was an era of repeated failure - a lead single that could only just scrape 100k; a follow up that bombed in at #112 and an album that dropped down the charts like a stone and failed to get even close to going Platinum.
They outstayed their welcome by an album. Each JLS LP has without fail, sold only half of it's predecessor; they had no choice but to split or continue down this path of reduced sales and get to the point where it's embarrassing. Album Five would have been lucky to scrape Gold, Album Six Silver...
I wouldn't say I was a huge fan of theirs but I did like them and I have a couple of their songs on my iTunes.
I still think they are one of the best bands/boy bands to come out of the X Factor, they kind of led the way for One Direction to emerge and be successful as JLS had a good success run in their first couple of years.
I do remember, a couple of months after the X Factor finished, in May 2009, I was working at an event, this was just before JLS released Beat Again and their was so many girls waiting around for them in JLS t shirts as they were at this event, I think that was the moment I realised how popular they were.
They had a good run, in the five years they've been around, so I do wish them the best in whatever they all individually decided to do next in their career.
The first album was as mainstream as you can get. It was hardly cutting edge R&B.
Yeah but the others were far more. I the break is good for them. Really they should've gone the R&B route. I haven't liked their new songs as much as the older album either.
I can't see them splitting up for good their bound to get back together in a few years. It's better they quit now they were slowly falling in the charts. There's also so many boybands around now.
Comments
I'm not having any problem comprehending what you're saying. Why are you being defensive when I'm trying to discuss the points you're making on a discussion board? It's not personal, and I have no opinion on you outside of the posts you're making on here. If you think I'm being difficult or something, you're very welcome to stop replying to my posts, I won't take any offence, I promise. I know I write a lot but I'm a very wordy person, unfortunately.
Anyway, if we were to use your example, every artist that doesn't make 500k + is going to run at a loss because that's what they need to make back through expenses? I'm not sure how that works! And I also don't see what that's got to do with the label themselves, who eventually would have got that money (unless they went on to sue the artist) or exactly what it has to do with JLS, who you have no idea what their expenses were. And honestly, if all artists needed to sell Adele and 1D amounts to make a profit on their music, I'm not sure how labels have stayed in business for so long! Where are the labels who haven't signed 1D and Adele getting their money from?!
But this is all just conjecture, isn't it? We don't know how healthy JLS's finances were looking when they split but they were all around number ten on the under thirties rich list so I'm guessing not too bad. As for their label, some labels are incredibly wise with their money and some aren't, just like good and bad businesses. My point is that if JLS's label had any sense, they would easily have made a profit from them throughout their career and wouldn't have been finanically unsafe through one underperforming album.
"You can follow the guys on Twitter @astonmerrygold @marvinhumes @jbgill @oritse. JLSHQ will still be tweeting from this account! JLSHQ x"
That totally depends on what kind of record deal they signed. Seeing as though they came out of a TV Talent Show, I wouldn't be surprised if they signed a 360 deal meaning the label would earn from tours as well. But that's purely me speculating.
That and they've been around longer - pop acts generally have a shelf life of 5-6 years; JLS are now in that territory.
Even when pop was in its hayday bands on really lasted that long before splitting up and now off course its en vogue to come back together.
The Wanted barring 2 songs have never set the UK charts alight and really because GYC crossed over so well to the US its kept them afloat, but I can't see them lasting for much longer, especially with UJ and E3 launching in UK/ US.
1D as a pop act are an unknown quantity due to their success
I am not taking it personally. I am simply stating my observations learnt through reading books on the music business and interning etc. You seemed not to believe in what I was saying.
Not really. On a new band who is releasing their first album expenditure will probably be fairly low to protect the label from huge losses. If the label believes in the artist, they might spend a bit more money. If the record does amazingly well, then the amount they spend on albums number 2 and 3 will rapidly increase.
This is simple. The Adele's and the One Directions subsidise the poorer selling artists. A record label would love to have a roster of Adele and 1D selling acts. The truth is that 95% of artists signed will not have anywhere near their success. A fair proportion of signed artists will not have any sucess. The higher selling acts are subsidising them.
The point I made before stands that most record labels have a viewpoint that the artist is only as good as the sales of their last album. It's very harsh and unfair, but that's business I guess. There are some exceptions to the rule. Take the Saturdays, they probably should have been dropped. Their last album lasted 2 weeks in the top 40, but Polydor obviously believe in them and it seems to have paid off as they have just had a number 1. If their new album does badly, I expect them to come under renewed pressure as record labels don't make a lot of money of single sales.
It's not that I don't believe what you're saying - no more than you don't believe what I'm saying, anyway. It's just that you are using a few limited examples of your own experience and not taking into consideration other factors. I don't know much about the music industry but I know basic business logic. Not to mention that, as others on here have pointed out, there are different kinds of deals and different kinds of situations that might be the case for JLS.
I still don't understand your point about Adele and 1D. If 95% of acts don't have their success, how do 95% of record labels stay in business? Not every label has an equivelant selling Adele or 1D signed to them. Some don't even have someone equivelant to, say, The Wanted. Labels spend what they can afford, or they should do if they have any sense. Plus it completely negates your point about JLS, surely, if their label had a 1D or Adele type act propping up their sales - why would their label need to drop them, as you seem to believe has happened, if that's the case? In fact, why would any act ever be dropped if that was the case?
What I'm basically trying to say here is that you seem to believe labels only make profits with their million selling artists but that is obviously untrue. Labels make money in all sorts of way, and if JLS genuinely weren't making money for their label, we'd have probably known about it!
They were! Up until recently!!!
With regards to the fact not every label has a 1D or an Adele selling artist, this is true for the smaller labels yes, but if you sign to a smaller label without any promotional help from a bigger label, as an artist, you will not get much money to spend on Promotion/videos/billboards etc, and you are not as likely to have as big success as you would with a major. The Majors such as Sony will have big acts. If you look at the roster of a major record label, they will probably have thousands of artists on their books and only a small percentage of them will be doing well. The others that don't do well will be dropped overtime. This is why record labels are always on the lookout for the next big thing.
I don't care if a band is manufactured. It's just the narative, to sell the band, but it's not what actually matters to me. People are free to like or dislike whatever they like/dislike, but personally, I just don't understand the manufactured band snobbery.
I think you like or dislike the songs, the people in a group... The narative should come second and not be the main criteria, but I can see that many people disagree with my idea.
A terrible french boyband in the 90's was sold solely on the narative (they were chilhood friends + hunks), and they had great success though, so, while I find it silly, this approach has been working for a while I suppose.
JLS are nice good looking guys and have good voices from what I read, they had chemistry too.
You don't know that the label didn't offer to renew their contract though! It could have easily been JLS' own decision not to accept it because of both personal and professional reasons. They're growing up wanting to go onto new things and in the case of Marvin starting a family. We don't know yet if they weren't offered a new contract so why are you stating that as fact? :sleep:
that's very presumptious:o
It seems obvious to me. Aston said in the sun article that they could have gone to another label. Why would he say that? The whole thing seems to have been spun to make it look like it was their decision.
"JLS split: without JLS there would be no One Direction"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopmusic/10015053/JLS-split-without-JLS-there-would-be-no-One-Direction.html
Thanks for that. Some posters on here tried to make out I was talking rubbish when I made the point you highlighted.
no problem. i don't really have an opinion regarding jls aside from them being considered friends by the boys and i read the article coz of the 1D connection... then the points being made on there reminded me of the points you were making on here, lolz!!;):D
They outstayed their welcome by an album. Each JLS LP has without fail, sold only half of it's predecessor; they had no choice but to split or continue down this path of reduced sales and get to the point where it's embarrassing. Album Five would have been lucky to scrape Gold, Album Six Silver...
I still think they are one of the best bands/boy bands to come out of the X Factor, they kind of led the way for One Direction to emerge and be successful as JLS had a good success run in their first couple of years.
I do remember, a couple of months after the X Factor finished, in May 2009, I was working at an event, this was just before JLS released Beat Again and their was so many girls waiting around for them in JLS t shirts as they were at this event, I think that was the moment I realised how popular they were.
They had a good run, in the five years they've been around, so I do wish them the best in whatever they all individually decided to do next in their career.
Yeah but the others were far more. I the break is good for them. Really they should've gone the R&B route. I haven't liked their new songs as much as the older album either.
I can't see them splitting up for good their bound to get back together in a few years. It's better they quit now they were slowly falling in the charts. There's also so many boybands around now.
This^^^. Dropped.
They've done well. They could have just gone away for a few years, instead of announcing a split though.