Anita Baker Asks Fans Not To Buy Or Stream Her Music As She Battles For Her Masters.....
- Thread starter Simply_Black
- Start date
Nice!
Just wanted to add that after her divorce Walter, the man of her dreams fleeced her for over half of her estate. Guess “you belong to me” “ Giving you the best that I got” took a different meaning.
www.iloveoldschoolmusic.com
Despite Rocky Divorce, Anita Baker And Ex Proud Of Sons Who Look So Much Like Anita It's Scary
-
www.iloveoldschoolmusic.com
Not really the artist have to pay back the money before they see any royalties. They are really paying for producing and distributing their products, yet they only get like 5 percent of the revenues.
That’s why it’s a shitty business. No other business would have one partner put up all the costs and another get most of the profit.
Nobody would agree to that in any other business (restaurant, retail store, bar, club)
Fleeced???Just wanted to add that after her divorce Walter, the man of her dreams fleeced her for over half of her estate. Guess “you belong to me” “ Giving you the best that I got” took a different meaning.
Despite Rocky Divorce, Anita Baker And Ex Proud Of Sons Who Look So Much Like Anita It's Scary
-
Bro, they were married for 18 years. He was there through ‘Giving You the Best I Got” in 1988, and “Rhythm of Love” in 1994.
If it was the other way around, people would applaud her getting half.
After 18 years, you both share everything.
You are leaving out some very important details. First, the money is paid back from royalties only. Not performances, unless a person has a 360 deal that stipulates this. And yes, this is similar to other businesses. Say you wanted to open a restaurant and I fronted the cash for the building, equipment, advertising, and used my relationships to get you and the restaurant promoted in the top food periodicals. I would want to be paid back for my investment as well as receive a substantial percentage from the profits of the business. This is essentially what happens with artists. Although, artists due get nickled and dimed to death.
Second and this is the most important piece that everyone seems to leave out. When an artist flops or doesn't blow, the artist does not pay back anything. Not one dime. The company is left holding the bag.
That's the thing about it. My man played the long game and now got her loot and fine young bitches as HE is paid.
Okay but in that scenario the profits you take out will count towards what I owe you. Once you recoup your investment , plus the agreed upon interest , then you get no more money.
The profits that record companies take out don't count toward what the artists owe them. They have to pay it back out of the measly royalties they get. Furthermore, it never stops, Anita Baker's profits have paid for the costs of producing her albums ten times over in 30+ years. But if you buy one of them today, the record company is still getting 95% of that money[/quote]
That's not the successful artists fault why should they be held accountable. Most of the time those record companies take the profits from good artists like Anita Baker and waste it trying to force no talents down our throats because it fits some agenda they want to promote. People who have a certain look but can't sing.
A lot of successful artists have less money invested in their projects starting out but get over anyway because people like their music
Anita Baker Concert Highlights 7/22/22 Detroit,Michigan
You could have stopped right there. That's the crux of the issue. I think artists appreciate everything a record label can do for them but then the cut throat shit starts and that's where the conflict begins
She did. She fulfilled the terms of the contract. The label balked at handing them over.
That's not the successful artists fault why should they be held accountable. Most of the time those record companies take the profits from good artists like Anita Baker and waste it trying to force no talents down our throats because it fits some agenda they want to promote. People who have a certain look but can't sing.
A lot of successful artists have less money invested in their projects starting out but get over anyway because people like their music
[/QUOTE]
But just like the restaurant scenario, just because you paid me back doesn't mean I'm cut out of the deal. I should be able to profit off of my investment into perpetuity.
Yep. I'm not going to pretend as though record labels work in the best interest of artists. Unfortunately, much of this could be caught with good lawyers and accountants.
Last edited by a moderator:
[/QUOTE]
But just like the restaurant scenario, just because you paid me back doesn't mean I'm cut out of the deal. I should be able to profit off of my investment into perpetuity.
[/QUOTE]
If it is an investment it shouldn’t have to be paid back. If you put up the money and I run the place then you are the owner and Im your employee. Im no different then the guy who manages a McDonalds he gets a check every week maybe a bonus if the it’s certain numbers.
But just like the restaurant scenario, just because you paid me back doesn't mean I'm cut out of the deal. I should be able to profit off of my investment into perpetuity.
[/QUOTE]
If it is an investment it shouldn’t have to be paid back. If you put up the money and I run the place then you are the owner and Im your employee. Im no different then the guy who manages a McDonalds he gets a check every week maybe a bonus if the it’s certain numbers.
[/QUOTE]
If it is an investment it shouldn’t have to be paid back. If you put up the money and I run the place then you are the owner and Im your employee. Im no different then the guy who manages a McDonalds he gets a check every week maybe a bonus if the it’s certain numbers.
[/QUOTE]
No, that is not correct.
If it is an investment it shouldn’t have to be paid back. If you put up the money and I run the place then you are the owner and Im your employee. Im no different then the guy who manages a McDonalds he gets a check every week maybe a bonus if the it’s certain numbers.
[/QUOTE]
No, that is not correct.
Exactly!! That is far from correct.
In your scenario, as owner, I can fire you, or you can quit. In your scenario, there is no profit sharing. No matter how well the restaurant does, you earn the same amount.
A more accurate depiction would be an investor giving money to an entrepreneur who wants to buy a McDonald's. The investor puts up money to ensure the success of the entrepreneur. If the business is successful, the entrepreneur pays the investor back and they share the profits. If the business fails, the investor is usually up the creek.
With all due respect, some of you should really consider taking a business 101 course to gain some basic understanding of how businesses/ investments work and operate.
yall are fuckin up quoting these posts 
Well I guess it depends on the terms that both parties agree too before they start a business venture.
If I'm desperate to start a business and need your money then you have the leverage.
If you want me to leave a good job and come work for you then I can leverage a better deal for myself
I am just saying that the terms of music contracts are shitty for the artists. In real life you would have to be really desperate to agree to those type of terms.
So happy for Auntie Anita! Her music has been such a blessing in my life. Glad to hear she's now enjoying the benefits of owning her artwork! 
Similar threads
