Madonna and U2 manager Guy oseary unveils LN Maverick project

[Guest bluejean]

I laughed so hard the other when a saw a commercial that actually went:

Shakira presents Oral B

[Kim]

One does have to wonder where exactly MUSIC comes into all of this. These fucks need to stop worrying about their ever decreasing 15% cut and step the fuck away from the camera lens. Especially the money grubbing egotist, Oseary. (and that view has nothing at all to do with Freddy deMann, thanks)

[XXL]

One does have to wonder where exactly MUSIC comes into all of this. These fucks need to stop worrying about their ever decreasing 15% cut and step the fuck away from the camera lens. Especially the money grubbing egotist, Oseary. (and that view has nothing at all to do with Freddy deMann, thanks).

Well it's clear Madonna wants more money. You can have business focus and not take away from quality. Madonna's entire career is testament to that. let's not forget that Madonna pulls the strings from behind the curtains. If it wasn't for Madonna Guy wouldn't even exist

She's the one making those decisions in the first place. As long as she puts an MDNA Tour out and she engages with her fans, I honestly couldn't care less that in 2010 she made $60m (per Forbes) out of her Macy MG line/licensing/D&G ads alone in a year where she didn't even have an album or tour out

[Ivy]

It all sounds too corporate for me.

Exactly! It's just a matter of time until all record companies have amalgamated, and now managers and than watch them fuck us over even more with hair brained ideas like giving/ forcing U2's shit album on us. The hold up with Madonnas album is not the actual music ( already completed- sounds amazing) just deciding if they should sell it with choc chip cookies or ANZAC biscuits, just waiting to see which company gives them the better deal because fuck the actual music when you have biscuits products to sell.

[Kim]

Well it's clear Madonna wants more money. You can have business focus and not take away from quality. Madonna's entire career is testament to that. let's not forget that Madonna pulls the strings from behind the curtains. If it wasn't for Madonna Guy wouldn't even exist

She's the one making those decisions in the first place. As long as she puts an MDNA Tour out and she engages with her fans, I honestly couldn't care less that in 2010 she made $60m (per Forbes) out of her Macy MG line/licensing/D&G ads alone in a year where she didn't even have an album or tour out

It's a delicate balance I think, XXL, tipped too much in favour of immediate profit. I don't feel Oseary has a proper understanding of Madonna's musical legacy, or her fanbase, despite being an extremely good financial manager, that's just my opinion.

[XXL]

It's a delicate balance I think, XXL, tipped too much in favour of immediate profit. I don't feel Oseary has a proper understanding of Madonna's musical legacy, or her fanbase, despite being an extremely good financial manager, that's just my opinion.

And I respect your opinion even though I don't share it.

The point Kim is rooted exactly in what you highlighted above: Madonna does have a proper understanding of her own legacy and on top of that she's a great entrepeneur. Look at how she's been re-asserting her legacy through the MDNA era and how much money she made out of it. And it's sad I know but everything in this world today is tipped too much in favour of immediate profit, not just the recording industry.

If she gave him an opportunity when he was only 18 together with Freddy etc etc and has kept working with him on different levels for over 20 years it just means she trusts him and is consenting to all of this because she herself sees the opportunities in pursuing this road.

Everything that gets released today, big or small and not just in music, automatically becomes part of corporate mechanisms. And it's Madonna we are talking about, who better than the fans know about this stuff. She was doing Mitsubishi commercials in 1986 and tons of other not so music-related things throughout her entire career. It's always been also about the money and she's great at it.

I don't understand why people are surprised now 30 years on to be honest as she was making tons of money that weren't necessarily deriving straight from music back in the 80s too or in times where she was releasing things considered to be the ultimate creative Madonna projects: look at how the whole Erotica era for instance (and I am not necessarily referring to the stellar sales of her then $50 priced coffe-table book).

We could make so many other examples. If you look at all corporate sectors there's been such an astounding amount of mergers. It was inevitable that it would touch the music industry as well, especially considering it's literally dying.

[Kim]

I agree to an extent, in this internet age we know everything there is to know. I doubt most of us were aware Madge was hawking Japanese whiskey or whatever back in the 80s, but that kind of endorsement was almost always in foreign markets back then, it was just tacky to do it on home soil, no matter how much $$$ was offered.

I think Oseary sees us all as fast food consumers who just want instant gratification before we move onto the next thing. That's provided by the current tours and current music (and nets Madonna & Guy their major cut of the profits) Madonna is implicit in that, yes, and her argument is that the more money she makes, the more good she can do with it, which is an admirable (and sketchy) argument at best. Her almost total disinterest in this 360 merchandising deal is palpable and so obvious (from what i've read) that this was both the deal-breaker and main revenue stream for Live Nation (with very little going to Madonna herself) when she inked her deal with them,

Is there instant gratification (cash) to be had from engaging Warners in special editions, remasters, tours on new formats, boxsets etc? Not so much it seems, despite being manna from heaven for us, her fans.

So while my business head applauds M & G as always, my fan heart is... just a little heavy.

[jacket]

Interesting.

But will Guy put Madonna's new album in every computer with iTunes too?

[Platinum Gold]

So excited to see how all this will influence the new Madonna era

[horn]

So they bought the Maverick's music division from WB?

[Raider of the lost Ark]

Interesting read overall. But there is one thing that made me loose respect big time (if it is true). He is an investor in Airbnb and Uber? And before someone jumps at me and telling me he is just an investor, get yourself educated about the so called "Share Economy". From my perspective it's one of the biggest scams capitalism has ever come up with. It looks all so nice and social from the outside but if you take a closer look and the results those businesses have on established industries, the housing system, taxes .... you may think otherwise. So glad to see that the NY state attorney is kicking Airbnb's ass at the moment and that Uber is hardly allowed to work in European countries by court orders. Even a lot of polls show people actually don't like Airbnb and Uber.

You wanna know what this is really about? Valuation of the App! The Uber app has been valued at 18 billion dollars. 18 billion! Yet the company only had 200 million in earnings last year. See the problem? It's absurd. But it is very much in line with recent IPOs such as twitter. Twitter so far has never posted a profit, yet it has a market capitalization of 30 billion dollars. Is it a surprise that many in the know already warn about the next bubble to burst in the near future. Many people will lose money. Of course, the original investors has left the sinking ship. I don't have a problem with people making money by investing in things. But I have a problem if those projects invested in raise tons of questions about morality and even crminial behaviour.

[Kim]

But it is very much in line with recent IPOs such as twitter. Twitter so far has never posted a profit, yet it has a market capitalization of 30 billion dollars. Is it a surprise that many in the know already warn about the next bubble to burst in the near future. Many people will lose money. Of course, the original investors has left the sinking ship. I don't have a problem with people making money by investing in things. But I have a problem if those projects invested in raise tons of questions about morality and even crminial behaviour.

I was reading about this fairly recently. I'm not surprised at all that he has his finger in these types of pies.

[XXL]

I agree to an extent, in this internet age we know everything there is to know. I doubt most of us were aware Madge was hawking Japanese whiskey or whatever back in the 80s, but that kind of endorsement was almost always in foreign markets back then, it was just tacky to do it on home soil, no matter how much $$$ was offered.

I think Oseary sees us all as fast food consumers who just want instant gratification before we move onto the next thing. That's provided by the current tours and current music (and nets Madonna & Guy their major cut of the profits) Madonna is implicit in that, yes, and her argument is that the more money she makes, the more good she can do with it, which is an admirable (and sketchy) argument at best. Her almost total disinterest in this 360 merchandising deal is palpable and so obvious (from what i've read) that this was both the deal-breaker and main revenue stream for Live Nation (with very little going to Madonna herself) when she inked her deal with them.

Is there instant gratification (cash) to be had from engaging Warners in special editions, remasters, tours on new formats, boxsets etc? Not so much it seems, despite being manna from heaven for us, her fans.

So while my business head applauds M & G as always, my fan heart is... just a little heavy.

I am glad that it's been 4 years since WB last Madonna release and we haven't been flooded by any of that

It's what's keeping Madonna's career in the NOW and making sure Warners doesn't make a single extra profit out of butcher-releasing her entire catalogue start to finish after they've already robbed her out of Maverick (the $20m she got out of it was nothing compared to how instrumental she was in its foundation 12 years earlier). Not for nothing Madonna owns all the rights to her catalogue through her WEBO Girl publishing division

Also you said that Madonna's disinterest in the 360 deal is palpable which, for the sake of accuracy, is factually wrong since she eagerly pursued that deal and signed it in 2007 herself, to the point that WB released a statement saying "we don't have that kind of money to offer" ($120m), comprehensibly as most record companies didn't then for any artist and certainly much less now.

That Live Nation deal was shaped like a 360 deal from the start. Per contract she makes 90% on touring earnings (gross minus costs) and 50 % on all of these collateral activities, licensing, merchandising, gyms, clothing, perfumes so and so forth.

But if you mean they could release the VT, BAT and RIT on dvd/blu ray that's another issue, I would love to see that happen myself but if it hasn't happened yet it's because Madonna didn't want it to happen not because Guy is whispering in her ear about gyms.

Not everything is Guy's making

[XXL]

[XXL]

October 17, 2014

Guy Oseary, Ashton Kutcher's Tech Fund A-Grade valued at $150 Million

A-Grade's portfolio of more than 20 companies includes stakes in Airbnb, Shazam, Path, Flipboard, Foursquare, Uber, Spotify, Fab.com and Soundcloud

A-Grade Investments, a venture capital fund founded in 2010 by Guy Oseary, Ashton Kutcher and Ron Burkle, has a new valuation: $150 million, as Billboard reveals in a cover story detailing Oseary's new management consortium, Maverick. The fund had most recently been valued at $100 million, as announced at TechCrunch's Disrupt NY Conference in May 2013.

As Billboard previously reported in an April 2013 cover story detailing the tech investments of Oseary and fellow music moguls Scooter Braun and Troy Carter, A-Grade's portfolio of more than 20 companies includes Airbnb, Shazam, Path, Flipboard, Foursquare, Uber, Spotify, Fab.com and Soundcloud. Other investments include Pinterest, Washio, Nextdoor and Houzz

"Not dissimilar to music," Oseary says, "supporting a startup can at times be like supporting an artist. They have to have a voice and a vision so you can back them. It's your job, like in A&R at a record company, to identify the voice and to say, 'That voice speaks to people, let's get it out there to as many people as possible.'

Other music moguls-turned-investors include fellow Maverick manager Adam Leber, who reveals in this week's Billboard an investment in Shervin Pishevar's Sherpa Ventures (Uber, Tumblr, Warby Parker), as well as WME head of music Marc Geiger, Roc Nation president Jay Brown, Pepsi's Frank Cooper, Three Six Zero Group's Marc Gillespie and, most recently, DJs Tiesto and Steve Angello.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6288902/guy-oseary-ashton-kutcher-tech-fund-a-grade-150-million

[Kim]

I am glad that it's been 4 years since WB last Madonna release and we haven't been flooded by any of that

It's what's keeping Madonna's career in the NOW and making sure Warners doesn't make a single extra profit out of butcher-releasing her entire catalogue start to finish after they've already robbed her out of Maverick (the $20m she got out of it was nothing compared to how instrumental she was in its foundation 12 years earlier). Not for nothing Madonna owns all the rights to her catalogue through her WEBO Girl publishing division

Also you said that Madonna's disinterest in the 360 deal is palpable which, for the sake of accuracy, is factually wrong since she eagerly pursued that deal and signed it in 2007 herself, to the point that WB released a statement saying "we don't have that kind of money to offer" ($120m), comprehensibly as most record companies didn't then for any artist and certainly much less now.

That Live Nation deal was shaped like a 360 deal from the start. Per contract she makes 90% on touring earnings (gross minus costs) and 50 % on all of these collateral activities, licensing, merchandising, gyms, clothing, perfumes so and so forth.

But if you mean they could release the VT, BAT and RIT on dvd/blu ray that's another issue, I would love to see that happen myself but if it hasn't happened yet it's because Madonna didn't want it to happen not because Guy is whispering in her ear about gyms.

Not everything is Guy's making

Well yes, like I said, tours and albums; Madonna gets 90% and LN less than 10% compared to M getting only 50% of whatever profit LN makes from licensing her name. It's easy to see where the real money is to be made for Madonna, hence she works her ass off for her tours and rolls her eyes at the merest mention of her perfume these days.

Yes, Warner has repackaged and re-released everything they can within the paramaters of their back catalogue contract with Madonna. I'm not talking about that stuff, I meant negotiating new releases. There was no reason not to have a 25th LAP edition, proper rarities release, Caress Henry type boxset, new tour releases etc

Yes, Madonna has a good business brain etc but she CLEARLY puts a lot of stock in her managers when it comes to decision making and financial matters. If someone tells her that a RIT tour release isn't worth the profit margin, she ain't going to argue the toss "for my fans".

Those egocentric articles and vids on Oseary just serve to detract from what you're saying about Madonna's power tbh...like he's the "man behind Madonna's success" or something.

[Raf]

Is Gaga's manager in this?

[Guest bluejean]

I see nothing wrong with profit being the primary focus of a manager, that is his job. I have no doubt when Freddy was with Madonna that was also his primary focus. All that has changed is the industry itself (dramatically in the last 10 years) so Guy is simply moving with these changes. Some fans can't accept the change because they are too attached to how things happened in the past.

Madonna continues to be an artist taking on projects that aren't profit focused as well as all these endorsement deals etc. As she has always done. She hasn't done anything IMO that cheapens her brand. She hasn't opened a theme park or released a brand of toothpaste. It's perfectly acceptable these days for music artists to build their brand and release products with their name attached to it without being considered "sell outs." The public expect it and accept it just as they do with sports stars and Guy clearly knows this or he wouldn't have done so much of it. He knows what he's doing and perhaps it doesn't please some hardcore fans but frankly I doubt neither Guy nor Madonna give a rats about that. They are a small minority so why do they matter in the bigger picture?

[Guest bluejean]

Is Gaga's manager in this?

Does she even have one anymore?

[karbatal]

U2 and Madonna's manager is trying to reinvent the Music Biz

http://www.billboard.com/articles/6289026/u2-and-madonna-manager-guy-oseary-is-trying-to-reinvent-the-music-biz

ACHIEVEMENTS

Oseary started as an independent A&R rep in 1989, at age 17, managing hip-hop performers Hen-Gee and Evil-E, and soon became one of the first employees of Madonna’s Maverick record label in 1992, where he eventually rose to partner (alongside the singer’s former manager Freddy DeMann). His first major signing was Candlebox in early 1994, at the age of 21, followed by Alanis Morissette -- whose Jagged Little Pill ranks as one of the biggest-selling albums of the 1990s, with U.S. sales of more than 16 million, according to SoundScan. The name Maverick “has been part of so much of my life, and it really says it all,” says Oseary. “It didn’t come from some executive somewhere. It came from a manager and an artist.” More than 20 years later, Oseary is still working with Madonna, whose MDNA Tour was the biggest of 2012 (at $305.1 million, according to Billboard Boxscore) and ranks among the top 10 highest-grossing of all time. And last November, he merged with Paul McGuinness’ Principle Management to add U2, whose Songs of Innocence just racked up 26 million free downloads on Apple’s iTunes. Oseary has already asked his new Maverick colleague Gee Roberson for input on Madonna’s 13th studio album, due in 2015. “What’s clear is that this group has huge reach together, and a shared vision. The idea here is for everyone to be better at what they do and for artists to have more opportunities,” says Oseary.

NEW CONNECTIONS

“Bono has always had a vision for a collective of artists who support each other, and I’ve always liked that idea and have been proactive about starting it. With Michael Rapino’s support I began engaging with managers at Artist Nation. Ron Laffitte is one of those managers and he asked me if I still had the name Maverick, and that he’d love to work with me under that brand. It all came together organically.”

WHAT MAVERICK ISN'T

“It’s not a rollup. I consider it a collective under one brand, with the goal of helping the clients reach their potential.”

MAJOR CHALLENGE

“There are a lot of people who operate with an outdated mentality, where even though they’re fully aware that a certain business is dying and in need of innovation, they’re scared of new possibilities. The industry is full of people with a lot of power who don’t engage well with innovation. And I wish they had a support group who could be at the other end of the phone when they’re confused.”

SIGN OF THE TIMES

“No. 1 albums are selling less than 100,000 units a week. That’s not just a change; that’s a wake-up call. If you’re a manager out there that isn’t aware and getting involved in new ways to do things, you’ll be left out. You have to pay attention. There are all sorts of new ways to reach an audience.”

KEY LESSON

“I don’t know what failure is ... it’s the opportunity to get it right the next time. In tech, some of the most successful companies started out by failing. But by pivoting they end up finding their way and are now very successful.”

MAKING THE TECH SCENE

Since 2010, ­Oseary has doubled as an influential tech investor with A-Grade Investments, a fund he started with Ashton Kutcher and billionaire Ron Burkle, and which was valued at $100 million in 2013. Today, an industry source says, that valuation has soared to $150 million. “Not dissimilar to music,” says Oseary, “supporting a startup can at times be like supporting an artist. They have to have a voice and a vision so you can back them. It’s your job, like in A&R at a record company, to identify the voice and to say, ‘That voice speaks to people. Let’s get it out there to as many people as possible.’ ”

GOING ALL-IN

”One day I walked into Ashton’s office and he said, ‘I was just sent this really cool company called Airbnb.’ I didn’t know if they had 10 people using it or thousands -- I just fell in love with the idea immediately. We flew out with Ron Burkle to meet with the guys in San Francisco and I pretty much offered to invest every dollar I had in the company. That was the only time I was willing to put everything into an idea. They didn’t take everything, but they took enough.”

IF I WASN'T A MUSIC MANAGER...

“I would be fully focused on tech. It’s everything I’m excited about: disruption, innovation, working with people who want to change the world. The world of startups has the same excitement as when I first started working for Maverick Records.”

MYSELF, IN FIVE WORDS (OR LESS)

“Curious, focused, father, Maverick.”

Bla bla bla. Lots of words, empty air. I hope he can invent the world, but to be fair it's 2 + 2 = either you sell albums or you have lots of interest in radio or social media. And then if you are a legend you can have long tours with lots of people.

End.

The rest is gimmicks like giving albums for free or creat stupid apps that casual listeners won't download.

What's with the world nowadays, always selling empty air.

[Guest bluejean]

Well yes, like I said, tours and albums; Madonna gets 90% and LN less than 10% compared to M getting only 50% of whatever profit LN makes from licensing her name. It's easy to see where the real money is to be made for Madonna, hence she works her ass off for her tours and rolls her eyes at the merest mention of her perfume these days.

Yes, Warner has repackaged and re-released everything they can within the paramaters of their back catalogue contract with Madonna. I'm not talking about that stuff, I meant negotiating new releases. There was no reason not to have a 25th LAP edition, proper rarities release, Caress Henry type boxset, new tour releases etc

Yes, Madonna has a good business brain etc but she CLEARLY puts a lot of stock in her managers when it comes to decision making and financial matters. If someone tells her that a RIT tour release isn't worth the profit margin, she ain't going to argue the toss "for my fans".

Those egocentric articles and vids on Oseary just serve to detract from what you're saying about Madonna's power tbh...like he's the "man behind Madonna's success" or something.

Well he HAS been on the Madonna scene for over 15 years.

I know this isn't your view but the popular deluded fan theory seems to be that Madonna does it all and Guy is just there to kiss (or wipe) her arse. Guy must be a huge part of her continued success in the past 15 years otherwise he wouldn't have risen and risen like he has. The idea put forward in this thread that "he wouldn't be successful if Madonna didn't put him there" is totally ludicrous. He's obviously extremely savvy and hardworking and would have reached similar success without having met Madonna.

[Guest bluejean]

Bla bla bla. Lots of words, empty air. I hope he can invent the world, but to be fair it's 2 + 2 = either you sell albums or you have lots of interest in radio or social media. And then if you are a legend you can have long tours with lots of people.

End.

The rest is gimmicks like giving albums for free or creat stupid apps that casual listeners won't download.

What's with the world nowadays, always selling empty air.

Well as Guy said, failure means getting it right the next time (or something to that effect.)

Luckily that U2 iPhone idea was trialled on U2 instead of Madonna

[Guest bluejean]

Oh and before someone says for the millionth time "oh but they do great rereleases for Belinda Carlisle why not Madonna." That's because that's a profitable project for an artist who makes little money elsewhere.

[XXL]

Well yes, like I said, tours and albums; Madonna gets 90% and LN less than 10% compared to M getting only 50% of whatever profit LN makes from licensing her name. It's easy to see where the real money is to be made for Madonna, hence she works her ass off for her tours and rolls her eyes at the merest mention of her perfume these days.

Yes, Warner has repackaged and re-released everything they can within the paramaters of their back catalogue contract with Madonna. I'm not talking about that stuff, I meant negotiating new releases. There was no reason not to have a 25th LAP edition, proper rarities release, Caress Henry type boxset, new tour releases etc

Yes, Madonna has a good business brain etc but she CLEARLY puts a lot of stock in her managers when it comes to decision making and financial matters. If someone tells her that a RIT tour release isn't worth the profit margin, she ain't going to argue the toss "for my fans".

Those egocentric articles and vids on Oseary just serve to detract from what you're saying about Madonna's power tbh...like he's the "man behind Madonna's success" or something

I don't think so, it is renowned that Madonna founded Maverick with Freddy, another of Freddy's partners at the time and Warner. If anything, the 42-year-old Guy Oseary is a man made by Madonna not the other way around. Madonna makes tons of money in equal measure from both touring and merchandising/licensing/gym etc

The $17m "advance" she gets from Live Nation per album released is later subtracted from touring, merchandising etc revenue. If she makes $60m out of her Macy lines alone and every three years on average she rakes in hundreds of millions from touring alone, those $17m every three years are re-made in 5 minutes by LN

That's why it's called a 360 deal, it wasn't cd-centred to begin with. Same thing for U2, pre Guy Oseary and anyone in the music industry lucky enough to have one of those mega lucrative deals (for all parties involved).

Does all of the above mean Madonna is going to release shit music from now on? Not necessarily, Madonna has been about BUSINESS since Oseary was in primary school. The business models have changed but the bottom line is the same. The world has been getting into a merger frenzy for many years now, it's not Guy's idea for sure. Doesn't mean any monopoly is a good thing for people of course but we're talking about businesses here, they're not charities, they never were and of all possible sectors it's the music industry we're talking about.

I just don't understand why everything Madonna does these days becomes a unanimous chorus of indignation "oh great that money grabber Oseary!"

He gets a minimal percentage out of everything Madonna does (which is obviously still a huge amount of money for the average person I know) but Madonna Ciccone is the primary earner in their affiliation, so maybe she has more reasons to push for this kind of deals than he has. His other ventures shouldn't concern us unless they impact in any capacity on the way Madonna chooses to market herself and distribute her work.

[Guest bluejean]

Interesting thoughts. Just a question about your first point XXL. Freddy founded Maverick with Madonna but wasn't it after Guy became involved that the business started to do well? And at what point did Freddy leave?

Wasn't Guy the one who brought in the more successful artists like Alanis, Prodigy etc and prior to that it was viewed more as a Madonna vanity project?

[Guest bluejean]

I don't agree with the idea that Madonna created Guy though. I don't think she would employ someone who wasn't good enough to be successful in their own right. He obviously brought things to the table, presumably alot of fresh and creative ideas.

[Kim]

The $17m "advance" she gets from Live Nation per album released is later subtracted from touring, merchandising etc revenue. If she makes $60m out of her Macy lines alone and every three years on average she rakes in hundreds of millions from touring alone, those $17m every three years are re-made in 5 minutes by LN

That's why it's called a 360 deal, it wasn't cd-centred to begin with. Same thing for U2, pre Guy Oseary and anyone in the music industry lucky enough to have one of those mega lucrative deals (for all parties involved).

Yes my darling XXL, I agree that the 360 deal is a game-changer, lucrative, in Madonna's favour and everything else. (Though your figures seem off. Madonna got 17 million just for being... Madonna, the album advances are in the ballpark of 40 million, and the 60 million Macy's profit is overreaching!) What I was referring to when saying Madonna seemed disinterested, (and the word I should have highlighted) was the merchandising side of the 360 deal, the branding of her name. From what I read and can remember, LN would make about 40c from every merchandise dollar with Madonna getting half (yes only 20cents) of that, as opposed to the 90/10 deal in Madonna's favour from the touring side of things. However, without the selling of the 'Madonna' brand as part of the deal, LN would never have signed on, fact. I'm glad btw that Madonna isn't actually out there flogging the shoes, bras and wrinkle cream, as it's tacky in my view (I don't care if everyone does it or whatever else, this is Madonna) In fact, without this forum, I wouldn't even know there was anything other than the first perfume out there.

[TRVC]

Guy oseary is so hot. Are there any shirtless pictures of him?

[mnino]

And I respect your opinion even though I don't share it.

The point Kim is rooted exactly in what you highlighted above: Madonna does have a proper understanding of her own legacy and on top of that she's a great entrepeneur. Look at how she's been re-asserting her legacy through the MDNA era and how much money she made out of it. And it's sad I know but everything in this world today is tipped too much in favour of immediate profit, not just the recording industry.

If she gave him an opportunity when he was only 18 together with Freddy etc etc and has kept working with him on different levels for over 20 years it just means she trusts him and is consenting to all of this because she herself sees the opportunities in pursuing this road.

Everything that gets released today, big or small and not just in music, automatically becomes part of corporate mechanisms. And it's Madonna we are talking about, who better than the fans know about this stuff. She was doing Mitsubishi commercials in 1986 and tons of other not so music-related things throughout her entire career. It's always been also about the money and she's great at it.

I don't understand why people are surprised now 30 years on to be honest as she was making tons of money that weren't necessarily deriving straight from music back in the 80s too or in times where she was releasing things considered to be the ultimate creative Madonna projects: look at how the whole Erotica era for instance (and I am not necessarily referring to the stellar sales of her then $50 priced coffe-table book).

We could make so many other examples. If you look at all corporate sectors there's been such an astounding amount of mergers. It was inevitable that it would touch the music industry as well, especially considering it's literally dying.

Bingo!

Madonna was always a Material Girl. Yes, she's an artist and wants to express herself but even deals like the Pepsi commercial way back in 1989 were not about the music.

Madonna wanted to be famous and powerful. She tried dance and movies but music is what ultimately worked. She'll probably be famous forever now but she knows that in order to stay powerful she needs to be profitable because as long as she is making money for herself and everyone around her (LN, Universal, Macy's, LV, etc...) she'll have a stable career. A music career just like a movie career ends when the star stops making money for those who are making a profit from the behind the scenes business, it has little to do with talent or originality in the end.

People that think that Madonna lasted this long because of her music/videos only don't get the whole picture. It costs a huge amount of money to have a career like hers. She knows it and she's always making sure that everyone around her profits too so she can always have the best at her disposal. She LITERALLY earned her status as the most successful female artist of all time.

[karbatal]

But she has said millions of times that she's not a material girl, she even said tha in the Virgin Tour, and made fun of the song in the WTG tour and BA tour!!!!!!

She should give away all the money she gets from those things to some fan. For example, to me.