Jump to content

So how come Warner isn't pulling out anything from the vaults?


Apples388

Recommended Posts

Are we at all surprised that we're not seeing a myriad of budget compilations or re-releases or anything like that?

Would they technically need Madonna's consent or blessing if they were to do that? I'm not an industry expert, so I'd appreciate anyone's insight.

I'm just a bit surprised that there hasn't been anything like that. Granted, the industry is in trouble so they may not make a lot of money and I suppose her stock at the moment isn't very high but I'd have still expected some cheapo cash-ins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's had so many greatest hits, I think the market is saturated at the moment. Also, they released the studio album box sets a couple of years ago along with the vinyl reissues. I seem to think she has to give her consent to certain releases so I imagine the vaults will stay closed until she is ready.

I don't think there is a market for her at the moment. Normally an artist has to be gone ten years before there is renewed interest in their back catalogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did just drop IGTTYAS onto iTunes. It's not much, maybe a little market research?

At this point if they were to re-release anything it should be BRs of concerts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wondered this. And the stuff Warner has released seems very restricted, like with the studio album box set there were no new remasters post True Blue and no bonus tracks.

I would love a definitive collection released one day with all single versions, b-sides, unreleased tracks compiled into a nice box set. I just hope Madonna isn't like Abba, because they wouldn't allow any deluxe treatments until recently, despite the fact the label wanted to do it years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's had so many greatest hits, I think the market is saturated at the moment. Also, they released the studio album box sets a couple of years ago along with the vinyl reissues. I seem to think she has to give her consent to certain releases so I imagine the vaults will stay closed until she is ready.

I don't think there is a market for her at the moment. Normally an artist has to be gone ten years before there is renewed interest in their back catalogue.

Not so sure I agree. A big strategy lately has been to do those "20th anniversary reissues" - anything from Nirvana to Depeche Mode. The latter, by the way, still making records.

While not huge moneymakers, they do help in terms of branding and keeping the fanbase engaged. And I wonder if Warner is not interested in investing in Madonna's branding/reputation because, you know... She left them. So if she spikes Warner album sales with new albums and tours (paid by LN or Interscope) then great, otherwise - they won't invest.

Just a thought.

My sense is that there *would* be a market to reissue some of the landmark albums of her career - LAV, TB, LAP, ROL. Include a couple of extra songs (demos, remixes, etc), throw in a mini-documentary of old album footage on itunes, etc. There is just no willingness to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a combo of all of the things you guys have said. My guess is that Madonna's management has some sort of veto power depending on the type of release. Re-issues should be fair game though, and I'm surprised and disappointed we haven't gotten remastered versions of the 80s and 90s albums yet. Post-Super Bowl would have been the ideal time, but I just don't think there's anyone over at WB who cares much anymore. The label is practically in shambles now.

Also, Rhino would be the arm of WB that releases reissues, not WB itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It continues to be very disappointing that much of M music has not been remastered or rereleased as a deluxe. :sad: So many artists who have been less influential then her have had multiple reissues from their back catalogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, M has to approve it all and she doesn't have too much interest in looking back as we know. There is also no plans to do anything for Like A Prayer 25 - the best we can hope for is a Blond Ambition release, even just to iTunes for it's 25th anniversary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately they are probably going to do it after she is no longer with us.. :(

My thoughts exactly, they're waiting until she kicks the bucket for maximum profit. They did it with MJ, they'll do it with Madonna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rachelle of London

But Michael was still alive when they did Thriller 25 and Bad 20. There's no excuse I think it's Madonna that probably doesn't want to do these things. Maybe when she's older she might feel a bit more nostalgic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Michael was still alive when they did Thriller 25 and Bad 20. There's no excuse I think it's Madonna that probably doesn't want to do these things. Maybe when she's older she might feel a bit more nostalgic.

True!

A lot of it probably does lie with Madonna. If she is not on board....then it won't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rachelle of London

True!

A lot of it probably does lie with Madonna. If she is not on board....then it won't happen.

The thing is I bet we'll get Hard Candy 25 :lmao: I think some fans would combust. I'd love it! A remastered version of incredible. I'm here for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Michael was still alive when they did Thriller 25 and Bad 20. There's no excuse I think it's Madonna that probably doesn't want to do these things. Maybe when she's older she might feel a bit more nostalgic.

:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually when they did Bad 20 Michael was already dead, he personally did only Thriller 25 and the Ultimate boxset.

And Michael was bankrupt big time! He needed that cash so no wonder he was trading on his past glories.

If there is money to be made, the record company will exploit it. I wonder how much a remastered madonna cd would bring in for them. Touring is where she makes the big dollars.

So much of madonna's unreleased stuff has leaked too, I wonder if that has affected potential releases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rachelle of London

Actually when they did Bad 20 Michael was already dead, he personally did only Thriller 25 and the Ultimate boxset.

That's confusing. At his time of death M Bad would've been 22. Why release the 20th anniversary edition 2 years after the fact. :lmao:

Only MJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rachelle of London

And Michael was bankrupt big time! He needed that cash so no wonder he was trading on his past glories.

If there is money to be made, the record company will exploit it. I wonder how much a remastered madonna cd would bring in for them. Touring is where she makes the big dollars.

So much of madonna's unreleased stuff has leaked too, I wonder if that has affected potential releases.

Her 22 year old greatest hits compilation is STILL selling and charting. There's money to be made when it comes to Madonna. A re release would probably sell near about the same as a new release. Touring isn't her only money maker, her albums still sell. In HMV MDNA is her cheapest album. The older ones are full price.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's confusing. At his time of death M Bad would've been 22. Why release the 20th anniversary edition 2 years after the fact. :lmao:

Only MJ

It was Bad 25, released in 2012. I have three versions of Bad on iTunes - the first pressing (which has slightly different mixes), the 2001 remaster and then Bad 25. It might be shameless milking of the fans, but at least the re-releases are high-quality packages with lots of new stuff from the archives. I dread to think what Warner would come up with for Madonna if the same people who put together Celebration or the vinyls with the re-scanned blurry artwork are still in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the album sessions are payed by Madonna herself? It's far different for other artists that sing the tracks that the record deal offers. Maybe she's given money in advance but how she spends in the studio is up to her. It makes sense: Warner has only reissued the first 3 albums, and normally 3 albums are the one that are included in a contract, with a compilation (You Can Dance). After LAP there had to be another contract where she decided things?

When she was recording TUTBMP, Shep commented that she found the orchestra too expensive and she made them play this and this other thing to pay less. If Warner had payed, she wouldn't have cared.

Anybody knows if this is true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been discussed at length here before. When the 360 deal with Live Nation was announced, there was also an article published in which it was discussed that Madonna's split with Warners had been amicable, and that, in a rare occurrence for a recording artist that leaves a record company, she retained control over her recorded output with Warners. In effect, this means that they can't release ANYTHING at all without her explicit permission. The box set and the vinyl reissues were green lit by Madonna/Guy. Most artists don't retain this sort of control over their recorded work, which is why it was described as an unusual agreement. The fact that Warners were chosen to issue Sticky & Sweet after her contract was over supports the notion that the split was amicable. Basically, they couldn't afford to match Live Nation's offer, so they reluctantly let her walk.

Had Interscope not struck their three-album deal to distribute Madonna's three albums under her Live Nation contract, it's highly possible that Warners would have ended up distributing them, too. Personally, I think she would have been better off for it, since Interscope proved with MDNA that they're really only interested in promoting their own artists (as opposed to those whose product they simply ship to stores). Having said that, they certainly haven't done Lady Gaga any favours with ARTpop. It's almost as though they want her to fail and either move on, or follow their advice more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Thank you. But I disagree with your assessment of Interscope. Given that Madonna was hell-bent on touring immediately, I doubt WB would have done much better. What, pick different singles? Not so sure about that. Maxi-singles? Sure. But what else? Didn't M sign with Interscope for three albums? She is, for all intents and purposes, an "Interscope artist" right now. In fact, it's a better deal for them because they don't have to front any of the money to record the album.

As far as I know, M has to approve it all and she doesn't have too much interest in looking back as we know. There is also no plans to do anything for Like A Prayer 25 - the best we can hope for is a Blond Ambition release, even just to iTunes for it's 25th anniversary

This isn't really true anymore. She's much more open to looking back now than she was 15 years ago. She's become quite fond of her older material/self, particularly early '90s Madonna, as we can see from her recent looks/messages. I think it's a cost/benefit analysis to be honest. I think she doesn't think it's worth the time/energy for such a small financial payoff.

Maybe the album sessions are payed by Madonna herself? It's far different for other artists that sing the tracks that the record deal offers. Maybe she's given money in advance but how she spends in the studio is up to her. It makes sense: Warner has only reissued the first 3 albums, and normally 3 albums are the one that are included in a contract, with a compilation (You Can Dance). After LAP there had to be another contract where she decided things?

When she was recording TUTBMP, Shep commented that she found the orchestra too expensive and she made them play this and this other thing to pay less. If Warner had payed, she wouldn't have cared.

Anybody knows if this is true?

Well, technically the money was WB's. But it would have to be recouped with the album sales before Madonna would see any profit. So yes, technically she's "paying" for it, but it's not any different than any other artist. The record label pays, the artist pays back with album sales, and THEN they both start making a profit. That's why when an album flops you often seen an artist do whatever the label tells them to. Because the artist technically still owes them money from their last release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...