music Britney Has Still 3 Albums Left Under RCA

[ICouldntThinkOfOne]

8 minutes ago, Switchy said:

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?

That was my thinking.

 

If I'm correct, Britney was put into the position in early 2019. Given what we now know, it seems that this was done when Britney was forced into a facility against her will, while on medication she was forced to take. 

[ICouldntThinkOfOne]

28 minutes ago, Ryan Robles said:

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.

I cant remember if I've seen it myself, but it was always rumoured that insurance companies and tour sponsors etc. would make it a condition that it was in place.

[blackingouthenegativity]

Britney should not have to obligate that contract. She was not allowed to make legal decisions for herself nor hire the people she wants to iron out a deal. She should be able to make a new deal, or no deal, on her own terms.

[RedBloodedWoman]

2 hours ago, Ryan Robles said:

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.

Vegas. Lou was monumental in negotiating that deal, she bragged about it several times. Wouldn’t be surprised if she was the one who pushed for that requirement

[ToxicMadLove]

From a legal stand point, she might not be liable for contracts signed in the conservatorship. Especially if it is deemed it was an unnecessary one. BRITNEY didn’t sign it, technically her conservatorship did. So they are liable. Considering she didn’t have the right to agree to the contract, it’s not necessarily on her. Her lawyer is extremely good at what he does and could probably get her out of every contract signed by the conservatorship. 

[Kletus]

The case could be made that she was forced into the contract and RCA wouldn’t want the heat so they’d dissolve it

[SosEtaSeth]

28 minutes ago, Kletus said:

The case could be made that she was forced into the contract and RCA wouldn’t want the heat so they’d dissolve it

Except that RCA is a Sony owned label. They're known to be greedy MFs in the industry.

[DonMegaX]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Robles said:

Except that RCA is a Sony owned label. They're known to be greedy MFs in the industry.

Not greedy enough to reissue Sweet Kisses on vinyl.

[Olikujjkl]

Maybe she could release them and promote them only on her IG 

[SosEtaSeth]

5 minutes ago, DonMegaX said:

Not greedy enough to reissue Sweet Kisses on vinyl.

Greedy enough to battle it out in court, should Britney want out. Our only options as a fanbase would be to boycott, but that'd also hurt Britney's chances of getting a new record deal with a better label, since no label likes fanbases that they can't control (example: TS only having a distribution deal with Republic after the whole Scooter Braun masters mess)

[DonMegaX]

Given this extraordinary case and the fact that we haven't heard of any pressure from the label for her to get back in the booth, I'm less likely to buy into your doomsday scenario. Now, once everything is finalized in her Probate case...maybe we'll hear something one way or the other from them. I do think final accounting is holding up further business ventures, including this.

Yes, is she capable of signing and making business deals, but a lot of money and fees are being held up, and could change the way the wind blows for her.

[jordeezy river red]

Whatever Britney does, I am okay with it. It will suck to be stuck at #9 on albums, though. I just wish she'd release a # 10 and GH:V2 just because it will wrap everything in a pretty bow lol 

[Neydelinska Spearsi]

4 hours ago, Prachi said:

In no world a re-release with 2 -3 extra songs would be considered as a new album by the label. 

 

Then why releasing it and milking 2 songs as ''singles''?

 

I do think they pumped it as a ''release'' and they'll probably make more dry, boring vinyl only releases to finish her contract

[Moscow]

11 minutes ago, FreeBritBrit said:

 

Then why releasing it and milking 2 songs as ''singles''?

 

I do think they pumped it as a ''release'' and they'll probably make more dry, boring vinyl only releases to finish her contract

Definitely a cash grab by her team mainly, never ever a label would consider a re-issue a new album. Or maybe Britney wanted those songs to be released, no idea on that but RCA won't count this as a new album at all. 

[limezd]

7 hours ago, andreafly1 said:

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!

 

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.

Thoughts?

 

That contract should not be legal. State of California should return to her all the sales RCA made off of it. All of it. And Planet Hollywood should be sued as well to rerun all of the Britney profits they made off of her because they too were onto this conservatorship and slave workers. 

[jonloch1]

Can i just say though, even if shes contracted for 3 more albums, she doesnt need to release 3 more albums anytime soon. Cher signed a deal i think it was in 2003 and released a Very Best Of Cher album then didnt release an album for another 10  years until Closer to the Truth in 2013. and ive heard that if an artist signs like a 5 album deal, it doesnt mean they have to release 5 albums, it means they cant go to another record label until they release 5 albums or buy themselves out 

[rik]

11 minutes ago, jonloch1 said:

Can i just say though, even if shes contracted for 3 more albums, she doesnt need to release 3 more albums anytime soon. Cher signed a deal i think it was in 2003 and released a Very Best Of Cher album then didnt release an album for another 10  years until Closer to the Truth in 2013. and ive heard that if an artist signs like a 5 album deal, it doesnt mean they have to release 5 albums, it means they cant go to another record label until they release 5 albums or buy themselves out 

Not to mention, she’s a legacy artist and there’s less pressure to put stuff out I think 

[Moscow]

4 minutes ago, Rik said:

Not to mention, she’s a legacy artist and there’s less pressure to put stuff out I think 

Nope, that's not how labels work and it depends label to label.

[Cqleb]

Im sure that 3 album deal went out the window after the conservatorship ended, that situation was one big messed up contract. Rosengart’s team dealt with it and she’s relieved that she doesn’t have to make music she’s doesn’t want to make. 🙌👏

[eddieeddie]

9 hours ago, Slayer said:

I wonder if Glory 2020 counted as an album?

It did