UMG moratorium on exclusives may have killed Lady Gaga deal with Apple Music

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
The decision by Universal Music Group to end exclusives may have also quashed an Apple Music deal involving Lady Gaga and Universal's Interscope label, a report claimed on Friday.




The exact terms of the Lady Gaga deal weren't mentioned by HITS Daily Double. Universal CEO Lucian Grainge is believed to have halted exclusives after a debacle with Frank Ocean, who recently released a visual album on Apple Music for Universal's Def Jam in order to fulfill obligations, but then quickly released another album -- Blonde -- on his own label as an Apple Music exclusive. As a more conventional release, Blonde is also likely to be more profitable.

Sources for HDD claimed that Universal was unaware Ocean had a second album ready to go. The artist could potentially find himself in legal trouble, depending on whether or not his contract included a standard clause preventing him from releasing two albums simultaneously the way he did.

Apple is now regularly wielding exclusives as its main weapon against rivals in the streaming space. While most of these deals are temporary, some albums -- most notably Taylor Swift's 1989 -- are permanently locked up. Universal's shift away from exclusives could undermine Apple's strategy.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,225member
    "The artist formerly known as Lady Gaga" could perhaps do exclusives with Apple :)

    She rocks what ever!
    edited August 2016 argonaut
  • Reply 2 of 20
    holyoneholyone Posts: 389member
    Those buffoons don't they get that the music industry is the Titanic streaming is literally the last deck with lights on. Biting the hand that feeds you will only put exploiter supper evil mega corps like UMG out of business, can't wait till all artists in all fields are freely independent and retain all the benefits of their labours, not that I fully support what Frank did seems a bit shady but one can understand
  • Reply 3 of 20
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    Man this exclusive would have been awesome for Apple.

    I say give the artists some money for their hard work. I'm sure these exclusives help artists in an era where YouTube can stream your sh** for free, Spotify and kids steal music.
    magman1979mdriftmeyerargonautjay-t
  • Reply 4 of 20
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,262member
    The sooner artists all sell directly to listeners the better. Screw worthless middlemen. Then, if they want to offer something as an exclusive to Apple or whoever, they can. The entire music "industry" are the walking dead. 
    calimagman1979argonaut
  • Reply 5 of 20
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 916member
    The artists who WANT to run their own business would thrive in a post-label world. 

    What at about the ones who would rather not be CEOs of their own management, touring, recording, etc company?

    i point this out being a small business owner who consciously made the decision to build my own business. Though it works for me, and others (including some musicians), it's not for everyone. 
  • Reply 6 of 20
    holyone said:
     exploiter supper evil mega corps 
    Oh no, not the supper evil corps!
  • Reply 7 of 20
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,593member
    The sooner artists all sell directly to listeners the better. Screw worthless middlemen. Then, if they want to offer something as an exclusive to Apple or whoever, they can. The entire music "industry" are the walking dead. 
    Without the backing of a "label" Gaga might still be shaking her tush in a burlesque show, never having seem the success and money she has now. Thooe artists capable of promoting themselves and commanding the public's attention are rare. 
    caliargonaut
  • Reply 8 of 20
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,072member
    So I guess UMG is afraid of a certain music streaming service gaining too much dominance over the industry. So much for the “Apple Music is a failure” troll meme.
    badmonk
  • Reply 9 of 20
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member
    Hey, Gaga.  

    Start your own record label like Frank Ocean did.
    Then do exclusives with Apple with content you create on your own label.
    (But check with your lawyers first.)
    edited August 2016 caliargonaut
  • Reply 10 of 20
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,593member
    lkrupp said:
    So I guess UMG is afraid of a certain music streaming service gaining too much dominance over the industry. So much for the “Apple Music is a failure” troll meme.
    It would appear that the entertainment industry in general is wary of being run over and tossed aside by the Apple Train as they've seen happen in other industries. 
    singularityargonautbadmonk
  • Reply 11 of 20
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,108member
    The sooner artists all sell directly to listeners the better. Screw worthless middlemen. Then, if they want to offer something as an exclusive to Apple or whoever, they can. The entire music "industry" are the walking dead. 
    Music headliners make their money on touring, licensing and merchandise sales, not so much on the actual music sales. It's been this way for a long time.

    Less well-known acts are typically money losers.
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 12 of 20
    holyoneholyone Posts: 389member
    polymnia said:
    The artists who WANT to run their own business would thrive in a post-label world. 

    What at about the ones who would rather not be CEOs of their own management, touring, recording, etc company?

    i point this out being a small business owner who consciously made the decision to build my own business. Though it works for me, and others (including some musicians), it's not for everyone. 
    Not running the business side of things is probably best as most creatives are quite unsuited, but that doesn't mean that the big corps know best, at the end of the day to big businesses artist are just asserts to be milked until dry even after dearth as the pursuit of profits at all cost is the point of business, as its been said time and again " ain't no friends in the game" artist need to start thinking of themselves as business entities with employees obligated and dedicatert to the thriving prosperity of the enterprise under a fiduciary responsibility
  • Reply 13 of 20
    I hold a minority opinion, I'm sure, but I detest streaming and download exclusive partnerships between artists and content deliverers, regardless of who it is. But, then, I still prefer physical media like CDs and vinyl, and I don't pay to download music if a lossless bitrate isn't available. Two exclusive albums in two days is god PR for Ocean, and all. But I just want to know when can I get the CD or LP?
    argonaut
  • Reply 14 of 20
    Hey keep the exclusives coming! At least I know I'm getting my money's worth
    magman1979badmonk
  • Reply 15 of 20
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,108member
    So, TLDR... Is she still alive or not?  :#
  • Reply 16 of 20
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,259member
    cali said:
    Man this exclusive would have been awesome for Apple.

    I say give the artists some money for their hard work. I'm sure these exclusives help artists in an era where YouTube can stream your sh** for free, Spotify and kids steal music.
    Someone with as much pull as Gaga won't surprise me if she reincorporates her own label and goes Apple Music exclusive, then coordinates with Amazon and others to distribute pressed CDs from regional companies looking to break into the industry.
    argonautbadmonk
  • Reply 17 of 20
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 916member
    holyone said:
    polymnia said:
    The artists who WANT to run their own business would thrive in a post-label world. 

    What at about the ones who would rather not be CEOs of their own management, touring, recording, etc company?

    i point this out being a small business owner who consciously made the decision to build my own business. Though it works for me, and others (including some musicians), it's not for everyone. 
    Not running the business side of things is probably best as most creatives are quite unsuited, but that doesn't mean that the big corps know best, at the end of the day to big businesses artist are just asserts to be milked until dry even after dearth as the pursuit of profits at all cost is the point of business, as its been said time and again " ain't no friends in the game" artist need to start thinking of themselves as business entities with employees obligated and dedicatert to the thriving prosperity of the enterprise under a fiduciary responsibility
    Totally agree that your suggestion is best practices, though you seem to agree running a business isn't for everyone, perhaps especially musicians. I'm a graphic designer, and I know lots of talented artists who should be freelancers, but aren't. Or they are, but they aren't very successful. 

    What at is better than the current major label system but less hands-on than starting your own label?

    in the 90's three were lots of successful indie label acts. 
  • Reply 18 of 20
    gprovidagprovida Posts: 247member
    While lesser known artists will have to follow the labels rules, I suspect the big names e.g., Gaga, will not be happy if they are constrained in a manner that limits either their audience or income.  They can have a lot of leverage, especially, as the number of big name affected artists grows. 

  • Reply 19 of 20
    holyone said:
    Those buffoons don't they get that the music industry is the Titanic streaming is literally the last deck with lights on. Biting the hand that feeds you will only put exploiter supper evil mega corps like UMG out of business, can't wait till all artists in all fields are freely independent and retain all the benefits of their labours, not that I fully support what Frank did seems a bit shady but one can understand
    Lucian Grainge's furor over Frank Ocean's FU moment is about the survival of record labels. With deep pockets like Apple dabbling in recording artist promotion and production (music videos now, more to come!), record labels are seeing themselves die right before their own eyes. What Grainge fails to see, or maybe he sees quite clearly, is that releasing your music on a major label is the original form of exclusivity. You can't put your single or album out on Sony, Warner and Universal at the same time and let the market decide which label to buy it from. Grainge wants to keep control of artists through label exclusivity, and major acts with a ridiculously large fan base are deciding they can do better on their own (or, at least in the case of Madonna, basically guarantee her tours — where the real money is made — are the top-grossing concerts that year in the United States).
    badmonk
Sign In or Register to comment.