Jump to content

Britney Has Still 3 Albums Left Under RCA

andreafly1

By andreafly1
in Britney Community

Recommended Posts

andreafly1 Mentor

andreafly1

Posted
Posted

As far as i remember, Britney renewed her contract with RCA in 2014, where the label basically gave her more 'creative control' and at least 4 albums to record whenever she wanted to do so.

Glory is one of the four albums by contract, so now she still has 3 left! :gloss_mirror_young_little_girl_smile_child_makeup_lipstick_lipgloss_lips_pink:

 

Since Britney is, at the moment, rightfully refusing to work in any form, will RCA start looking forward her unreleased material in the near future as a way to fulfill her obligations?

I honestly wouldn't mind at all a boxed set with all her best unreleased remastered catalogue form each era, tbh. :yaknow_britney_xfactor_X_factor_talk_tell_chat_you_know:

Thoughts? :parisok_hilton_chewing_gum_pink_phone_Reading:

 

  • Love 4
  • Like 5
Link to comment
  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

KrisJ
KrisJ

B in the Mix vol.3  Greatest hits Vol .2  B in the mix vol.4  The end..

davelivesfree
davelivesfree

I absolutely loathe RCA 

Slayer
Slayer

I wonder if Glory 2020 counted as an album?

andreafly1 Mentor

andreafly1

Posted
  • Author
Posted
11 minutes ago, davelivesfree said:

:gross_britney_ew_sick_red_sunglasses_cringe_disgusted:

I absolutely loathe RCA :heresthetea_reading_telling_glasses_talking_preaching_facts_paper_wendy_williams:

Oh sis, i see you. :selenerz_selena_crying_tears_sad:

9 minutes ago, Void said:

Well, she could call Rosengart to end the contract but it will cost lot of money when artists try to leave their record label 

Yes, i don't think it would be a smart move, dissolving such contracts require time and a lot of $$$ sadly.

 

7 minutes ago, Slayer said:

I wonder if Glory 2020 counted as an album?

It's more like an additional edition of the same album, it shouldn't be counted as a new full LP release or collection, tbh.

  • Love 3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
  • Popular Post
Mr. Cavill Master

Mr. Cavill

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
15 minutes ago, andreafly1 said:

Oh sis, i see you. :selenerz_selena_crying_tears_sad:

Yes, i don't think it would be a smart move, dissolving such contracts require time and a lot of $$$ sadly.

 

It's more like an additional edition of the same album, it shouldn't be counted as a new full LP release or collection, tbh.

Wasn't there like a rumour that Brit had called someone from RCA to her house shortly after the conservatorship ended? I mean, it might've been to do with readjustment document-wise (Britney resigning some papers on the new terms with her own signature, etc). I don't know. Britney is RCA's biggest star and we've thrown quite a lot of judgement at Brit's album rollouts, promotional campaigns, but we don't really know who's to blame. Britney was under a conservatorship for the past 4 albums and she wasn't happy promoting. 

It'd be interesting what a potential campaign would look now. I think at the end of the day it all comes down to how willing she is to put herself out there. I feel like RCA would be willing to spend some money on that... but who knows? They're notorious for being frugal.

  • Love 9
  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • Popular Post
ICouldntThinkOfOne Master

ICouldntThinkOfOne

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

I think we shouldn't really hold our breath for new material until the fee petitions are out of the way. 

 

Jamie mismanaged Britney's career and estate, and all they need is one example of that to reopen all the books. That would more than likely bring contracts into question eg. The Vegas Contract that didn't feature Britney's signature.

 

Whether Britney stays with RCA and fulfils the contract will depend on two things; who signed the contract and does she want to?

 

If Britney didn't sign a contract and her involvement is a result of the actions of another due to the conservatorship, Britney couldn't really be held to that agreement because it wasn't a decision she made, particularly as it involves management under RCA.

 

  • Love 8
  • Like 2
Link to comment
LeglessJamie Master

LeglessJamie

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

I think we shouldn't really hold our breath for new material until the fee petitions are out of the way. 

 

Jamie mismanaged Britney's career and estate, and all they need is one example of that to reopen all the books. That would more than likely bring contracts into question eg. The Vegas Contract that didn't feature Britney's signature.

 

Whether Britney stays with RCA and fulfils the contract will depend on two things; who signed the contract and does she want to?

 

If Britney didn't sign a contract and her involvement is a result of the actions of another due to the conservatorship, Britney couldn't really be held to that agreement because it wasn't a decision she made, particularly as it involves management under RCA.

 

I don't think the law works that way.

If the contract was signed while being in the conservatorship, a signature by Britney wasn't needed since Jamie had the legal right to make these kind of decisions.

The fact she got out of the cship while having a signed contract doesn't particulary change ongoing contracts cause of that change.

Unless there's a clausule that includes future changes in legal statusses can be a reason to have a breach of contract ofcourse...but I highly doubt that.

  • Love 3
  • Like 5
Link to comment
andreafly1 Mentor

andreafly1

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, RAITEI said:

That's why I didnt hear about it.

Well nobody did except her fanbase, i assume. :selenerz_selena_crying_tears_sad:

3 minutes ago, brightchildremix said:

Please go ahead and release those unreleased stuff to fulfill her contractual agreement, on one hand we want to hear those unreleased songs, on the other britney could get out of RCA as far as possible. :jl_jamie_lynn_awkward_cringe_eek:

The way we would win, tbh! :clicktina_xtina_christina_aguilera_mouse_computer:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
ICouldntThinkOfOne Master

ICouldntThinkOfOne

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, IForgotYouExisted said:

I don't think the law works that way.

If the contract was signed while being in the conservatorship, a signature by Britney wasn't needed since Jamie had the legal right to make these kind of decisions.

The fact she got out of the cship while having a signed contract doesn't particulary change ongoing contracts cause of that change.

Unless there's a clausule that includes future changes in legal statusses can be a reason to have a breach of contract ofcourse...but I highly doubt that.

If the conservatorship ended with no wrong doing, then I'd agree, but it is looking more and more likely that potential criminal charges, both state and federal, will invoke RICO laws, human trafficking laws etc outside of the expiriences of abuse Britney faced.

Contracts will be brought into question if charges are put forward, which is looking more and more likely. 

The language will be important as right now, Jamie has no legal capacity to make Britney do anything. If the contract is worded in a manner that removed Britney's capacity, and placed it under Jamie's authority on the basis that yhe conservatorship wouldnt end, then the only people at fault are the individuals for both RCA and Jamie's Legal Team who agreed to a contract that did not consider this outcome...

...and is this only if we're talking language, if the conservatorships foundation is brought into question and proven to have been under false pretences, that would give Britney a strong case to say that any and all contracts signed by Jamie were done under false pretences....

...and this is before any potential contract is examined for language that means that Jamie, or anyone on team con profits from Britney's work, which would, at the very least be something Britney would want to clear, and renegotiate.

This is all hypothetical of course.

  • Love 7
  • Like 2
Link to comment
SosEtaSeth Mentor

SosEtaSeth

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

If the conservatorship ended with no wrong doing, then I'd agree, but it is looking more and more likely that potential criminal charges, both state and federal, will invoke RICO laws, human trafficking laws etc outside of the expiriences of abuse Britney faced.

Contracts will be brought into question if charges are put forward, which is looking more and more likely. 

The language will be important as right now, Jamie has no legal capacity to make Britney do anything. If the contract is worded in a manner that removed Britney's capacity, and placed it under Jamie's authority on the basis that yhe conservatorship wouldnt end, then the only people at fault are the individuals for both RCA and Jamie's Legal Team who agreed to a contract that did not consider this outcome...

...and is this only if we're talking language, if the conservatorships foundation is brought into question and proven to have been under false pretences, that would give Britney a strong case to say that any and all contracts signed by Jamie were done under false pretences....

...and this is before any potential contract is examined for language that means that Jamie, or anyone on team con profits from Britney's work, which would, at the very least be something Britney would want to clear, and renegotiate.

This is all hypothetical of course.

DIdn't one of B's contracts have a clause in it that stipulated that she had to remain in the CShip for it to still be legally binding? I think I recall something along the lines, but I can't remember which specific contract was the one.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Switchy Mentor

Switchy

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

The language will be important as right now, Jamie has no legal capacity to make Britney do anything. If the contract is worded in a manner that removed Britney's capacity, and placed it under Jamie's authority on the basis that yhe conservatorship wouldnt end, then the only people at fault are the individuals for both RCA and Jamie's Legal Team who agreed to a contract that did not consider this outcome...

I wonder if it would be similar to the leaked POM residency contract. Where it said someone (either the conservator or Atara) "shall cause the conservatee to..."

If this were the case with RCA, RCA would have a problem with the conservator (former) or with Atara. I might be mixing some details up, but regarding Atara, didn't Jamie &Co pull a slick move and make Britney the president of Atara, so she'd have to take the heat for breaking any contracts?

  • Love 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment

Leave a comment!

Not so fast! Did you know you can post now and register later? If you are already a member of Exhale, sign in here and start posting!
If you are not logged in, your post will need to be manually approved by an Exhale moderator before it's visible to everyone.

Guest
Tap to reply!

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go To Topic Listing
×
×
  • 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