The most expensive record in the world... to make

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

1.What record was it?
2.What future record will it be?

― donut bitch (donut), Sunday, 25 April 2004 00:38 (twenty-two years ago)

1. Michael Jackson's Invincible (I think)
$30 million wasn't it?

2. the new Guns 'N Roses album

― Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Sunday, 25 April 2004 00:48 (twenty-two years ago)

1. I'm betting Fleetwood Mac's Tusk, adjusted for inflation, still wins.

2. Got me. What's Boston up to?

― m.e.a. (m.e.a.), Sunday, 25 April 2004 00:54 (twenty-two years ago)

soundtrack to the film Ishtar?

― hihihi, Sunday, 25 April 2004 01:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Not the most expensive, but I remember when my mate played me Loveless on tape for the first time, and that bit on "Only Shallow" that sounds like the tape is fucking up, and we fell about laughing at the thought that they'd spent x hundred thousand of McGee's money making something that people would be returning to the shop and demanding be replaced.

― noodle vague (noodle vague), Sunday, 25 April 2004 07:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I found this on a crappy pop-up-infested site, so I'm not linking to it. I also don't find reference to it on msnbc.com, so caveat whatever:

"MSNBC reports Michael Jackson's Invincible ran up it's huge $30 million production price tag because Jacko recorded 87 tracks before the final 16 were selected for the album. A source also told MSNBC Jackson booked 3 studios 'because he didn't know which one he’d feel like recording at when he woke up that day.'"

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 25 April 2004 08:43 (twenty-two years ago)

If Invincible is the #1 and the $30 million price tag is to be believed, I really don't see how anything will match it in the foreseeable future. There's just no other star out there who has both a) a comparable track record in translating huge record company investments into impressive record sales, and b) the kind of arrogant mindset where $30 million or more seems worth it aesthetically -- not even Michael Jackson, not anymore. Even the folks who might concievably fall into meet criterion a) (though I'm not sure who they are anymore -- Bruce? Madonna?) aren't financially reckless enough to have b).

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 25 April 2004 08:57 (twenty-two years ago)

However, there might be other contenders in the "most expensive record ever" category if you factor in some of the absurd artist contract price-tags of the nineties (Mariah Carey, R.E.M., etc.).

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 25 April 2004 09:01 (twenty-two years ago)

In fact, according to ariticles in Billboard and allmusic.com, Mariah's initial contract with EMI was $80 million; her only album for EMI/Virgin, Glitter, cost them $10 million in losses; and finally, and EMI ended up paying her $28 million* to release her from her contract.

*The Billboard article cites a speculative $50 million; Carey's bio on allmusic.com, to which I can't link, says it ended up being $28 million.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 25 April 2004 09:11 (twenty-two years ago)

If we had proportional representation here, it'd be MBV's Loveless.

― Jez (Jez), Monday, 26 April 2004 08:33 (twenty-two years ago)

and the liberal democrats.

― mark grout (mark grout), Monday, 26 April 2004 08:38 (twenty-two years ago)

So Glitter ended up costing $118,000,000? I hope she dies of something nasty. That's the most filthy and disgusting and inhuman thing I've ever heard. $28m to be RELEASED from a contract? It's no wonder the record industry is going to shit.

― Sick Nouthall (Nick Southall), Monday, 26 April 2004 08:50 (twenty-two years ago)

.. and Malcolm McLaren should have his head patted and told "Yes, very nice, bless yourself."

― mark grout (mark grout), Monday, 26 April 2004 08:54 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.