Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it's not at all unusual for a performer to insist the money is in the bank before they perform. It's most often $10,000- $15,000. $25,000 is high, but was justified by Aretha's continuous popularity. No one ever lost a dime putting together an Aretha Franklin show.
What is unusual is her demand for cash. That means Aretha didn't sign the contract until the suitcase was on the desk in front of her. When she saw the bricks of Bens, she signed.
That suitcase was handed over to her manager instantly. All that $25,000 did was insure she would be there to perform. For Aretha and Trump, the serious money followed later.
And if Aretha failed to show, she got to keep the money anyway. That's how it works in the entertainment big leagues.
That cash up front only happens when a presenter is a known deadbeat and has stiffed some artists in the past. The concert presentation business abounds with shysters; some of them create intricate financial webs that are so dense it's impossible for a performer's agents to realize the money that's promised doesn't exist.
But very few are good enough to do that. With performers at Aretha's caliber, the money is always there because there is even more- a lot more- that will be made the instant the contract is signed. Evidence of the money in an escrow deposit is almost always good enough for a signature on a contract. A demand for cash is extraordinarily rare.
It shows an enormous amount of mistrust on the performer's part, and that can hurt a performer's career very deeply. But it doesn't hurt a career when the shyster is a very well known presenter inside the industry.
So the word gets around inside the industry pretty quickly when a big time artist gets conned once. It never happens twice. Prevention is how agents and managers keep their own careers and reputations.
The guys who can pull it off once are so rare their names wouldn't fill up the back cover of a matchbook.
Interesting, I read it was a holdover from the '60s when black entertainers repeatedly got stiffed.
Quote:
Franklin’s friend Tavis Smiley revealed in a story published by The New Yorker, as reported by Money, that her cash-only demand “stemmed from her observations of the music business during her early days when black singers were underpaid and often cheated out of royalties.”
There was also this information mixed in:
Quote:
Money Magazine also reported that in the 2014 book Respect: The Life of Aretha Franklin, talent agent Dick Alen revealed that she used the money delivered at her shows to pay her staff “off the books.”
“She deducted no taxes and made no records. I’d beg her to implement some system of documentation, but she refused,” he stated.
At the time of her death, Franklin had an estimated net worth of $60 million according to Money.
That's kind of an odd comment. It's possible that your own interests are very narrow, but any good citizen should take an interest in what the president it doing, whoever the president may be.
That's true, but bashing the president at an entertainer's funeral is just in very poor taste and has no place there. It shows just how unglued you people have become.
The title of the thread is "Are you familiar with the famous "nattering nabobs of negativism"?". To answer that, yes, I am familiar with the expression. And it fits the leftists and the Democrats to a tee.
At Aretha Franklin's funeral, Michael Eric Dyson let loose about Trump with similarly enjoyable alliteration:
"You lugubrious leech. You doppelganger of deceit and deviance. You lethal liar, you dimwitted dictator, you foolish fascist."
Actually, leech is an apt word, one I haven't seen applied to Trump before.
Good 'ol Spiro. Crooked as a barrel of snakes, and his supporters weren't smart enough to understand a damned word he said, but it sounded good to them, whatever it was.
LOL! A funeral for a celebrity who has absolutely nothing to do with Trump and they still can't get him out of his head.
Did Nazi sympathizer and esteemed guest Louis Farrakhan get a chance to speak BTW?
Probably because Trump has sucked all the oxygen out of the nation. He's made it all about him. Everything is all about Trump. When I sit on the can, it's all about Trump. Every news program is all about Trump. Every event in America is all about Trump. Every social site is all about trump. Every form of social communication is all about Trump.
Remember, Trump said so himself. "Only I can fix everything. Only I tell the truth. Everything else is fake news."
We have become a nation of Trumpeters, all playing the same tune on the same meat whistle. Refuse to play and you are an enemy of the people.
it's not at all unusual for a performer to insist the money is in the bank before they perform. It's most often $10,000- $15,000. $25,000 is high, but was justified by Aretha's continuous popularity. No one ever lost a dime putting together an Aretha Franklin show.
What is unusual is her demand for cash. That means Aretha didn't sign the contract until the suitcase was on the desk in front of her. When she saw the bricks of Bens, she signed.
That suitcase was handed over to her manager instantly. All that $25,000 did was insure she would be there to perform. For Aretha and Trump, the serious money followed later.
And if Aretha failed to show, she got to keep the money anyway. That's how it works in the entertainment big leagues.
That cash up front only happens when a presenter is a known deadbeat and has stiffed some artists in the past. The concert presentation business abounds with shysters; some of them create intricate financial webs that are so dense it's impossible for a performer's agents to realize the money that's promised doesn't exist.
But very few are good enough to do that. With performers at Aretha's caliber, the money is always there because there is even more- a lot more- that will be made the instant the contract is signed. Evidence of the money in an escrow deposit is almost always good enough for a signature on a contract. A demand for cash is extraordinarily rare.
It shows an enormous amount of mistrust on the performer's part, and that can hurt a performer's career very deeply. But it doesn't hurt a career when the shyster is a very well known presenter inside the industry.
So the word gets around inside the industry pretty quickly when a big time artist gets conned once. It never happens twice. Prevention is how agents and managers keep their own careers and reputations.
The guys who can pull it off once are so rare their names wouldn't fill up the back cover of a matchbook.
So IF Aretha performed at a Trump event - given Trump's reputation for stiffing people - I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was justified or done.
At Aretha Franklin's funeral, Michael Eric Dyson let loose about Trump with similarly enjoyable alliteration:
"You lugubrious leech. You doppelganger of deceit and deviance. You lethal liar, you dimwitted dictator, you foolish fascist."
Actually, leech is an apt word, one I haven't seen applied to Trump before.
Sounds like Dyson was the nattering nabob of negativism. Using a funeral to spout a string of mean-spirited adjectives because it sounded "cute," said more about him than it ever will about Trump.
The truly dim-witted (wherever they are) are the ones who laughed--and continue to laugh--uproariously, at a biased clown's unsubstantiated nonsense.
That's true, but bashing the president at an entertainer's funeral is just in very poor taste and has no place there. It shows just how unglued you people have become.
In theory, any bashing at a funeral is depressing. It just shows you how a president unmoored from all norms of traditional behavior now has the general population action outside our norms as well.
But I guess you think that it's specifically entertainers who don't have the right to bash presidents? By the way, are you even-handed enough to fault the president when he bashes entertainers? Do you speak up to say that it's in poor taste for him to insult Kaepernick and Streep?
Interesting that a crook (Agnew) also didn't like the Press...same with the Crook Nixon. Those who do not like the Light....don't like a free press.
Well that explains why Obama and Candidate Hillary avoided the press as much as possible. Some of the LEAST transparent people yet...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) are the ones who laughed--and continue to laugh--uproariously, at a biased clown's unsubstantiated nonsense.
