Post: #1

Quote:The rapper DMX filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, court records show, days after his arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence.

Filed Monday in the Manhattan bankruptcy court, the Chapter 11 petition of Earl Simmons, aka DMX, lists less than $50,000 in assets and $1 million to $10 million in debt. The rapper said in court papers that he filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which is available to both businesses and consumers, “to enable me to reorganize my financial affairs.”

The New York native and current South Carolina resident owes $1.24 million in child support and more than $21,000 on an auto lease, among other obligations. His principal asset is a 50% stake in property in Mount Kisco, N.Y.

DMX was arrested last Friday in South Carolina for suspicion of driving under the influence and for failing to have a valid driver’s license, according to Reuters. However, a representative for DMX said the rapper was never charged with a DUI because he passed a breath test in jail and was quickly released after posting $1,235 in bail.

A rapper known for the late ‘90s hit “Party Up (Up in Here),” DMX has also appeared in such movies as “Romeo Must Die.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2013/07/...ankruptcy/





How the hell does DMX only have 253,329 view on youtube?

And Drake has 250,000,000.

No wonder the youth is so screwed up.

Post: #2

He'd have a shitload more if he had spent the last decade following up on his turn-of-the-millennium megahits instead of going back to prison.

Post: #3

X not gon' give it to ya

Post: #4

(07-30-2013 08:30 PM)lurker Wrote:  He'd have a shitload more if he had spent the last decade following up on his turn-of-the-millennium megahits instead of going back to prison.

I disagree. His style was over the top, gangsta shit. It was popular at the time he was out before Southern rap was popular.

The guys has some serious mental issues. He impersonated an FBI agent at an airport a few years ago and cops always find crack on him when he's arrested.

I don't see this panning out well for him. He was so talented.

Post: #5

(07-30-2013 08:30 PM)lurker Wrote:  He'd have a shitload more if he had spent the last decade following up on his turn-of-the-millennium megahits instead of going back to prison.

It is pretty crazy to think he was the number #1 hip hop artist for a few years there.

I was talking about this with my brother over the weekend, he basically was on top at the worst possible time ie pre-twitter, pre-facebook etc.

The best time to hit your peak would have been with the ascent of Social Media.

You could have gained enough followers to sustain yourself thru the lean years (unless of course social media as we know it today goes thru a big change, which it probably will.)

But if you think about it, the people with the largest social media presences, are people that got famous as social media was getting big, ie Gaga, Bieber, Drake, Kardashian. Those people are set no matter what because of their online influence.

Even if Gaga and Kardashian's careers were over tomorrow, they could pitch diet pills for the rest of their lives and make millions.

Drake and Bieber could pitch lipstick to the cross dressing crowd and be millionaires if their music careers are over.

DMX missed out.

-----

Update: Just checked it out, 175,000 followers on twitter https://twitter.com/DMX .

That is woefully low for a guy who was recently one of the biggest acts in the world.

Not to mention a huge crossover star into film.

Pretty amazing actually.

Post: #6

Alcohol and drugs have brought down countless, countless, talented people. He's carrying around crack after becoming a major star? Couldn't he have fun some OTHER way than that?

Post: #7

One of my favorite rappers back in the day. Sad.

Post: #8

Post: #9

(07-30-2013 09:05 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 08:30 PM)lurker Wrote:  He'd have a shitload more if he had spent the last decade following up on his turn-of-the-millennium megahits instead of going back to prison.

I disagree. His style was over the top, gangsta shit. It was popular at the time he was out before Southern rap was popular.

The guys has some serious mental issues. He impersonated an FBI agent at an airport a few years ago and cops always find crack on him when he's arrested.

I don't see this panning out well for him. He was so talented.

You seem to be forgetting that it's a lot easier to record and promote an album when you're not physically confined to a cell.

Post: #10

(07-30-2013 09:16 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 08:30 PM)lurker Wrote:  He'd have a shitload more if he had spent the last decade following up on his turn-of-the-millennium megahits instead of going back to prison.

It is pretty crazy to think he was the number #1 hip hop artist for a few years there.

I was talking about this with my brother over the weekend, he basically was on top at the worst possible time ie pre-twitter, pre-facebook etc.

The best time to hit your peak would have been with the ascent of Social Media.

You could have gained enough followers to sustain yourself thru the lean years (unless of course social media as we know it today goes thru a big change, which it probably will.)

But if you think about it, the people with the largest social media presences, are people that got famous as social media was getting big, ie Gaga, Bieber, Drake, Kardashian. Those people are set no matter what because of their online influence.

Even if Gaga and Kardashian's careers were over tomorrow, they could pitch diet pills for the rest of their lives and make millions.

Drake and Bieber could pitch lipstick to the cross dressing crowd and be millionaires if their music careers are over.

DMX missed out.

-----

Update: Just checked it out, 175,000 followers on twitter https://twitter.com/DMX .

That is woefully low for a guy who was recently one of the biggest acts in the world.

Not to mention a huge crossover star into film.

Pretty amazing actually.

Yeah, but he was on top when people actually bought albums. What sort of royalty cash are today's artists getting in comparison?

Post: #11

(07-30-2013 11:11 PM)lurker Wrote:  Yeah, but he was on top when people actually bought albums. What sort of royalty cash are today's artists getting in comparison?

I wonder about that too.

When I was a kid in the mid-90's cassettes at Media play costed about $10 and CDs costed $15-$20. What percentage of the sales were the artists getting then?

Compare that to today. I don't know how album sales are faring but I'm guessing not well. On the other hand, if an artist makes a decent percentage of $0.99 MP3 downloads of pop singles, and millions are downloaded, they may still be doing quite well.

Post: #12

I just read the thread title out loud at work, my supervisor's (a woman) first comment was "what a prick".

I need to find another job

Post: #13

(07-30-2013 11:11 PM)lurker Wrote:  Yeah, but he was on top when people actually bought albums. What sort of royalty cash are today's artists getting in comparison?

I took a course in university that was focused on entertainment marketing. Our professor who is kind of well-connected and has worked with some pretty famous artists said that these days the money for artists isn't in royalties. The money for them these days comes from concert bookings, worldwide tours, and endorsements. He said that artists actually want you to pirate/download their albums because they want to get famous and cash-in their fame for your dollars at their concerts.

His view was that it's the record companies that make all the fuss about illegal downloading but artists actually couldn't care less if you download their album for free. The 'singles' concept of selling songs for $0.99 isn't where the artist makes the money these days.

Post: #14

(07-30-2013 11:28 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  I took a course in university that was focused on entertainment marketing. Our professor who is kind of well-connected and has worked with some pretty famous artists said that these days the money for artists isn't in royalties. The money for them these days comes from concert bookings, worldwide tours, and endorsements. He said that artists actually want you to pirate/download their albums because they want to get famous and cash-in their fame for your dollars at their concerts.

His view was that it's the record companies that make all the fuss about illegal downloading but artists actually couldn't care less if you download their album for free. The 'singles' concept of selling songs for $0.99 isn't where the artist makes the money these days.

Sure but artists made money from concert bookings, tours, and endorsements in the 90's and 80's too. Or is it that the global market has grown so much that it makes up for the dramatic erosion in album sales?

Post: #15

(07-30-2013 11:31 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 11:28 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  I took a course in university that was focused on entertainment marketing. Our professor who is kind of well-connected and has worked with some pretty famous artists said that these days the money for artists isn't in royalties. The money for them these days comes from concert bookings, worldwide tours, and endorsements. He said that artists actually want you to pirate/download their albums because they want to get famous and cash-in their fame for your dollars at their concerts.

His view was that it's the record companies that make all the fuss about illegal downloading but artists actually couldn't care less if you download their album for free. The 'singles' concept of selling songs for $0.99 isn't where the artist makes the money these days.

Sure but artists made money from concert bookings, tours, and endorsements in the 90's and 80's too. Or is it that the global market has grown so much that it makes up for the dramatic erosion in album sales?

Yes, that was exactly his point. He said that social media/internet has taken the American pop culture truly global and you have American artists performing all over the world. He also talked about the decline of bands and the rise of the solo-act pop star from the 80s and 90s to now.

Album sales have been declining steadily and with the growing influence of social media/internet downloading, artists make more money from concerts, endorsements, and other business ventures.

Post: #16

(07-30-2013 11:28 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 11:11 PM)lurker Wrote:  Yeah, but he was on top when people actually bought albums. What sort of royalty cash are today's artists getting in comparison?

I took a course in university that was focused on entertainment marketing. Our professor who is kind of well-connected and has worked with some pretty famous artists said that these days the money for artists isn't in royalties. The money for them these days comes from concert bookings, worldwide tours, and endorsements. He said that artists actually want you to pirate/download their albums because they want to get famous and cash-in their fame for your dollars at their concerts.

His view was that it's the record companies that make all the fuss about illegal downloading but artists actually couldn't care less if you download their album for free. The 'singles' concept of selling songs for $0.99 isn't where the artist makes the money these days.

That's always been true. I remember reading a book in the early 90s about the industry when I had rockstar dreams that was focused entirely on merchandising and tour revenue. My point was they no longer have both streams.

Post: #17

(07-30-2013 11:50 PM)lurker Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 11:28 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 11:11 PM)lurker Wrote:  Yeah, but he was on top when people actually bought albums. What sort of royalty cash are today's artists getting in comparison?

I took a course in university that was focused on entertainment marketing. Our professor who is kind of well-connected and has worked with some pretty famous artists said that these days the money for artists isn't in royalties. The money for them these days comes from concert bookings, worldwide tours, and endorsements. He said that artists actually want you to pirate/download their albums because they want to get famous and cash-in their fame for your dollars at their concerts.

His view was that it's the record companies that make all the fuss about illegal downloading but artists actually couldn't care less if you download their album for free. The 'singles' concept of selling songs for $0.99 isn't where the artist makes the money these days.

That's always been true. I remember reading a book in the early 90s about the industry when I had rockstar dreams that was focused entirely on merchandising and tour revenue. My point was they no longer have both streams.

I agree but my point was that with social media/internet merchandising, tour revenue, and endorsements account for most of the money the artist makes (and they make much more from these streams than they did in the past). In the past they had a balance between album sales and all those other streams but now it is much more lopsided in favour of concerts, endorsements, and merchandising etc.

Look at Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Bieber etc. All of them have close to 40 million followers on twitter. Even G mentioned that many of the other artists these days have a really strong social media presence and that translates into more endorsements. These artists and many athletes included (LeBron James for example) have multiple tie-ins with companies where the companies are given access to their facebook and twitter followers or they will simply tweet products without even appearing in commercials for these companies.

You are right that merchandising was very big in the 90s as well but the entire music industry has shifted and artists are not reliant on album sales for income anymore. Somebody like Justin Timberlake who hasn't released a lot of albums or songs in the past 4-5 years (I think he did release one this year) is still making tons of money going on tours. Him and JayZ just played here in Toronto a couple of weeks ago and both of their shows were soldout.

Post: #18

"Ay yo I'm slippin' I'm fallin' I can't get up"

Post: #19

I always liked this track:

Post: #20

Pretty sad for the only musician in history to have his first five albums all debut at number one on the Billboard 200.

Homeboy released "It's Dark and Hell Is Hot" and "Flesh of My Flesh and Blood of My Blood" in the same year, having both debut at No. 1.

F*cking sad.

Post: #21

$1.24 Million in Child Support





Obviously they are worth every dollar spent on them That's the curse for thinking with the cock of your dick instead of the real one.

Post: #22

Grimy:




Player style:

Post: #23

(07-30-2013 09:16 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 08:30 PM)lurker Wrote:  He'd have a shitload more if he had spent the last decade following up on his turn-of-the-millennium megahits instead of going back to prison.

It is pretty crazy to think he was the number #1 hip hop artist for a few years there.

I was talking about this with my brother over the weekend, he basically was on top at the worst possible time ie pre-twitter, pre-facebook etc.

The best time to hit your peak would have been with the ascent of Social Media.

You could have gained enough followers to sustain yourself thru the lean years (unless of course social media as we know it today goes thru a big change, which it probably will.)

But if you think about it, the people with the largest social media presences, are people that got famous as social media was getting big, ie Gaga, Bieber, Drake, Kardashian. Those people are set no matter what because of their online influence.

Even if Gaga and Kardashian's careers were over tomorrow, they could pitch diet pills for the rest of their lives and make millions.

Drake and Bieber could pitch lipstick to the cross dressing crowd and be millionaires if their music careers are over.

DMX missed out.

Jay-Z and Eminem got popular at around the same time as him though.

Post: #24

(07-30-2013 11:11 PM)lurker Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 09:16 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 08:30 PM)lurker Wrote:  He'd have a shitload more if he had spent the last decade following up on his turn-of-the-millennium megahits instead of going back to prison.

It is pretty crazy to think he was the number #1 hip hop artist for a few years there.

I was talking about this with my brother over the weekend, he basically was on top at the worst possible time ie pre-twitter, pre-facebook etc.

The best time to hit your peak would have been with the ascent of Social Media.

You could have gained enough followers to sustain yourself thru the lean years (unless of course social media as we know it today goes thru a big change, which it probably will.)

But if you think about it, the people with the largest social media presences, are people that got famous as social media was getting big, ie Gaga, Bieber, Drake, Kardashian. Those people are set no matter what because of their online influence.

Even if Gaga and Kardashian's careers were over tomorrow, they could pitch diet pills for the rest of their lives and make millions.

Drake and Bieber could pitch lipstick to the cross dressing crowd and be millionaires if their music careers are over.

DMX missed out.

-----

Update: Just checked it out, 175,000 followers on twitter https://twitter.com/DMX .

That is woefully low for a guy who was recently one of the biggest acts in the world.

Not to mention a huge crossover star into film.

Pretty amazing actually.

Yeah, but he was on top when people actually bought albums. What sort of royalty cash are today's artists getting in comparison?

I am not sure how good they were doing back then either.

It all depended on their deal.

TLC went broke right at the same time they were the biggest R&B group.

I remember reading A Tribe called Quest profited something like $30,000 on their 2nd album, which was a classic.

----------

Any of you music industry experts know how artists are doing today VS pre-internet?

Like Lurker said, they had 2 revenue streams (at least) before.

I get it that Timberfake makes a bunch of money touring with Jay-Z, but what about a middling artist that doesn't sell out MSG three nights in a row?

What about the guys playing small clubs? That has to be a barely profitable grind.

Post: #25

DMX is being targetted like others because he spoke about the establishment. The media LOVES these stories about rappers, they can make or break you.

The sad thing about this story, is the fact that useless talent like the Kardashians, Gaga and Bieber are making money.

Timberfake, that is a good one. If you notice he does alot of movies and pimps himself out as much as possible, plus I hear he is connected.

Look at Toni Braxton, she lost out recently in purchasing the rights to her music for like $40K. How messed up is that!!