|
Post by R to da G on Apr 18, 2004 7:50:21 GMT -5
butch said in an interview that BG was 25 million to make .......just saw this on the subhuman.net tag board.....is it true? does someone know this?
|
|
|
Post by slack alice on Apr 18, 2004 9:37:44 GMT -5
Really? seems a bit excessive.
|
|
|
Post by Dan the G-Man on Apr 18, 2004 16:20:18 GMT -5
Sounds way too excessive. If it cost that much, I doubt Garbage would still have a label. They would have been dropped like a hot potato. Especially when the gross album sales were less that that (A guess).
|
|
|
Post by bowdowntoanette on Apr 19, 2004 3:45:28 GMT -5
It couldn't possibly have.......... They would have been bankrupt by now with the low sales it had...
@nette
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Chris on Apr 19, 2004 11:52:09 GMT -5
There is no way on gods earth the album cost $25 million to make. Britney Spears albums only cost around $5 million and she has to pay to have songs written. If I had to guess and this is only a guess I would say around $1 million for BG. I think smart studios is only about $800 or so a day. Plus the guys own the studio so I am sure there was a better rate for them.
If you take 365 days and multiply that by $850 per day that is only $310,250.
Chris
|
|
ANT 1
Sanitation Engineer
I think I Lost My Headache
Posts: 103
|
Post by ANT 1 on Apr 19, 2004 14:12:43 GMT -5
I have no idea how much it cost to release a record , but I believe that a record from Britney Spears is less expensive than a Garbage record . ( or you must include marketing and promotion ) .
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Chris on Apr 19, 2004 14:22:02 GMT -5
As far as marketing goes I read somewhere that for the "In The Zone" album by Britney they spent around $10 million in promotion. I remember the national radio and TV campagin for that album. By far more is spent on a britney ablum. Also as we all know there was NO promotion for BG. Still if you figure in all the factors there is no way BG could have cost $25 million to make. I dont think any album costs $25 million to make.
Chris
|
|
ANT 1
Sanitation Engineer
I think I Lost My Headache
Posts: 103
|
Post by ANT 1 on Apr 19, 2004 15:11:41 GMT -5
Also as we all know there was NO promotion for BG. Still if you figure in all the factors there is no way BG could have cost $25 million to make. I dont think any album costs $25 million to make. I think so , but I don't know what includes the "$25 million ".
|
|
|
Post by Paper Doll on Apr 19, 2004 16:43:45 GMT -5
Maybe it was 2.5 million and the number got messed up in the transcript.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Chris on Apr 19, 2004 17:16:57 GMT -5
I agree 2.5 million sounds much more like the real number.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by xnightx on Apr 19, 2004 23:01:01 GMT -5
Also, Garbage know their place in pop music, and I seriously doubt they would let themselves or their label spend $25 mil on them. Besides, Interscope hates them and wouldn't do it even if Garbage begged them.
|
|
|
Post by ShirleebeeNJ on Apr 21, 2004 0:14:45 GMT -5
Also, Garbage know their place in pop music, and I seriously doubt they would let themselves or their label spend $25 mil on them. Besides, Interscope hates them and wouldn't do it even if Garbage begged them. What do you mean, they know their "place" in pop music? During the recording of BG they had no reason to think that it would be anything but a huge success like the first two. And the label allowed them to go all out with it, so they believed in it, too. It wasn't until the lukewarm reaction to the first single and BG previews, that Interscope pulled out their support.
|
|
|
Post by ShirleebeeNJ on Apr 21, 2004 0:20:37 GMT -5
Hmm, I don't think you all realize just how rich Butch and Shirley are. I wouldn't be surprised if BG cost several million dollars to make (I doubt 25 though). Garbage made a huge profit on Version 2.0, and it wouldn't be weird if they splurged on the recording of the followup. I mean, yeah the label pays for a part of the recording, but the band has to pay for part themselves, and G albums are like Steven Spielberg movies--very expensive to make. All the special tools, computers, etc they use are unique and some are tens and thousands of dollars. Whoever said $310k is totally wrong. A Garbage album would cost way more than a Britney album. Garbage follow in the footsteps of My Bloody Valentine, and they almost bankrupted their label with the recording of Loveless. So, yes it is possible.
|
|
|
Post by ShirleebeeNJ on Apr 21, 2004 0:27:43 GMT -5
As far as marketing goes I read somewhere that for the "In The Zone" album by Britney they spent around $10 million in promotion. I remember the national radio and TV campagin for that album. By far more is spent on a britney ablum. Also as we all know there was NO promotion for BG. Still if you figure in all the factors there is no way BG could have cost $25 million to make. I dont think any album costs $25 million to make. Chris Michael Jackson's album cost $100 million. And there was promotion for BG initially--it was very hyped up since the beginning of 2001. Once "Androgyny" was released ( A HUGE MISTAKE), and the early previews for BG were less than favorable, Interscope withdrew their support. This happens all the time with music AND movies (The Alamo, hello?)
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Chris on Apr 21, 2004 1:10:38 GMT -5
I really dont think any album cost $100 million to make. There have been record deals for close to $100 million but NO album cost that much to make promotion included. Movies cost that much but no album. MJ albums are rumored to have run $10-15 million.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by xnightx on Apr 21, 2004 10:08:33 GMT -5
What do you mean, they know their "place" in pop music? I just meant they know they're not gonna sell millions of records in their first week. I mean, I don't know what exactly their mind set is, but they seem to be realistic about their position.
|
|
|
Post by Manic Bliss on Apr 21, 2004 13:09:05 GMT -5
Maybe they meant 2.5 million
|
|
|
Post by ShirleebeeNJ on Apr 21, 2004 18:53:09 GMT -5
I just meant they know they're not gonna sell millions of records in their first week. I mean, I don't know what exactly their mind set is, but they seem to be realistic about their position. Their position in pop music up until BG was pretty damn impressive, so I don't think they would spare any expense. And even now, I bet they aren't. Garbage are an expensive band, but it's totally worth it.
|
|