Jump to content

AJ from Backstreet Boys wants to make a music video for "Matches" with Britney Spears


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, godneyjspears said:
148fb4f700e7da9998e8bf5c70a8d3b3.jpg.98810357aa28cc8ddcec12b10a16e685.jpgHe also clarifies the track was recorded in 2017 for their last album DNA and was then picked up by Britney after they rejected it.

That makes sense. Someone said it was originally Britney's song and that didn't add up at all. It sounds like a Backstreet Boys song from DNA. 

Good luck making the video happen, though, AJ. :angietea_angelina_jolie_tea_sips_coffee_mug_cup_drink_spilling_spill:

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, s&m said:

So is it a possibility that Swimming in the stars could be a post glory song? :yaknow_britney_xfactor_X_factor_talk_tell_chat_you_know:

I don't believe so. It was written around the same time as MoTM. They were very similar in concept so I wouldn't be surprised if they were written in very close proximity. I believe I saw somewhere it was registered before 2016? 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

This would have had to have been approved by Britneys team as its using her name and work.

 

Britney is refusing to work.

unless the contract, which we ignore, says otherwise, the record label has all the rights to release or withhold any music recorded by the artist, at any given moment, in any shape or format, without the approval of the artist or their management, because they already agreed after signing that they'll give up the rights of any material they record, and that has nothing to do with the conservatorship. That's why even the tracks that don't make the album, aren't supposed to leak, because they most likely belong to the record label, and they can save them for a future release, compilation, re-issue, or save them for another artist, or just simply keep them away from the public if they prefer.

That's assuming they didn't ask her, because if they have a good relationship with her, they might have. In order for the vinyls to get pressed and everything that involves the release, things should have had to be planned with months in advance. Also, believing that Britney refusing to perform equals to Britney unable to answer a call and say "yup", that's an assumption. But again, even if that's the case, they don't need her permission to release the material they already own, just like they didn't need the permission of the Backstreet Boys to appear on a Britney track. They had already recorded the song, they scrapped it, and the record label said "we're not wasting this".

 

  • Love 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, PokemonSpears said:

unless the contract, which we ignore, says otherwise, the record label has all the rights to release or withhold any music recorded by the artist, at any given moment, in any shape or format, without the approval of the artist or their management, because they already agreed after signing that they'll give up the rights of any material they record, and that has nothing to do with the conservatorship. That's why even the tracks that don't make the album, aren't supposed to leak, because they most likely belong to the record label, and they can save them for a future release, compilation, re-issue, or save them for another artist, or just simply keep them away from the public if they prefer.

That's assuming they didn't ask her, because if they have a good relationship with her, they might have. In order for the vinyls to get pressed and everything that involves the release, things should have had to be planned with months in advance. Also, believing that Britney refusing to perform equals to Britney unable to answer a call and say "yup", that's an assumption. But again, even if that's the case, they don't need her permission to release the material they already own, just like they didn't need the permission of the Backstreet Boys to appear on a Britney track. They had already recorded the song, they scrapped it, and the record label said "we're not wasting this".

 

I have to agree with this. It happened to many artist as well, even to the local artist in my country. She recorded quite a lot of songs for her album, and only like 11 made the cut. After a while, the record company released 2 of her unreleased songs, that previously already recorded by other artists (meaning, she/record label rejected the songs at the first place and the composers gave them to other singers. But, since the record label has the rights of her version, they released it under compilation album).

So, I really understand that once you signed the contract, you are obliged to release whatever you have recorded if the label wants to.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, sutramaya said:

I have to agree with this. It happened to many artist as well, even to the local artist in my country. She recorded quite a lot of songs for her album, and only like 11 made the cut. After a while, the record company released 2 of her unreleased songs, that previously already recorded by other artists (meaning, she/record label rejected the songs at the first place and the composers gave them to other singers. But, since the record label has the rights of her version, they released it under compilation album).

So, I really understand that once you signed the contract, you are obliged to release whatever you have recorded if the label wants to.

or not release it, like wasn't that JoJo or something that had an album ready but the record label wouldn't publish it?

Link to comment

That's incredibly tone deaf lol, rot

14 hours ago, MM0219 said:

The difference is, Britney was very much involved in her career in 2003. She wanted Madonna on MATM - which was an error of judgment on her part in my opinion, but that's a story for another day. 

Compare that to now, we don't know if Britney even approved of her version being mixed with the Backstreet Boys. That's the issue and that's what sits uneasy with me. 

Are they both on the same **** label that is RCA? 

I agree, she should've gotten Janet

Link to comment
12 hours ago, PokemonSpears said:

unless the contract, which we ignore, says otherwise, the record label has all the rights to release or withhold any music recorded by the artist, at any given moment, in any shape or format, without the approval of the artist or their management, because they already agreed after signing that they'll give up the rights of any material they record, and that has nothing to do with the conservatorship. That's why even the tracks that don't make the album, aren't supposed to leak, because they most likely belong to the record label, and they can save them for a future release, compilation, re-issue, or save them for another artist, or just simply keep them away from the public if they prefer.

That's assuming they didn't ask her, because if they have a good relationship with her, they might have. In order for the vinyls to get pressed and everything that involves the release, things should have had to be planned with months in advance. Also, believing that Britney refusing to perform equals to Britney unable to answer a call and say "yup", that's an assumption. But again, even if that's the case, they don't need her permission to release the material they already own, just like they didn't need the permission of the Backstreet Boys to appear on a Britney track. They had already recorded the song, they scrapped it, and the record label said "we're not wasting this".

 

Preaching GIFs | Tenor

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :ehum_britney_um_unsure_confused_what:

Thanks for visiting Exhale! Your support is greatly appreciated 💜  

Exhale survives through advertising revenue. Please, disable your ad block extension to help us and continue browsing Exhale. 🙏

I've disabled ad block