Since the audience is older and richer and tends to see ~1 venue a year they don't mind paying $500 for tickets. Do you know who else made it rich with Live Nation in the over 50 circuit? The Rolling Stones.

...she's an over paid circus act, not a musician.

Madonna hasn't come near selling 15 million of her albums worldwide since the mid-1980s. How many times is she going to have to tour to make up the shortfall?

I love reading any article about how musicians continue to find ways to stick it to the music labels. Corporate record labels are going the way of buggy whips and BetaMax, and that's a good thing.

That being said, I wonder if LiveNation is making a good decision with this deal. It reminds me of the deal R.E.M. made with Warner Bros. back in '97 for a then-record $80 million. After signing, the band promptly fell off the face of the earth, from a hit-making perspective. Madonna can still fill venues, but that's a lot of money to throw at a 50-year-old pop diva who's known more for spectacle than musical substance. Still, if Cher and Streisand and Midler can keep it going, why not the Material Girl? Such generous terms would also be good marketing for Live Nation, an incentive for other acts to sign with them.

My guess is that the CD is dead - or dead enough to keep 45 million albums from being sold collectively. More likely they'll make their cash back on individual track sales through the Amazon store, iTunes, and similar services as well as licensing the singles to "NOW That's What I Call Music" compilations. Then somewhere down the line more Greatest Hits albums come out and they take a cut of licensing. They probably also get a taste of the merch sales.

Let's be clear, it's a spin off of The Great Satan: Clear Channel. They aren't idiots. Whatever the numbers work out to, there's going to be plenty of money to go around.

And that doesn't begin to count all of the indirect ways she'll contribute to their bottom line.

Kudos to Madonna for finding a deal that allows her to reap the windfall too.

I admit that I just did not want to finish reading this article. But, I did.

I like Madonna, but ditching her record company? That doesn't seem smart.

I haven't bought a Madonna CD in over 15 years. And the gay guys I work with haven't bought one in at least 8 to 10 (or more) years. (Oh, and seeing her in concert? Puh-leez! I'm not spending $200 or more for anyone, unless Frank or Elvis are coming back!)

Here just might be the problem with the "record" companies: let the "teeny-boppers" have their music. Let the 20s and 30s have theirs. That's fine. I like much of it. Can those of us over 40 or 50 have some "somethin', somethin'", too?

Would like to be able to afford Diana Krall, Harry Connick, Jr., Brian Setzer, and even the RS tickets. Loved the last two Queen Latifah CDs. Lots of good current country acts out there, as well as some 80s and 90s acts (Kathy Mattea, George Strait, Dwight Yoakum, Reba). And other groups.

But, Madonna, how relevant can she be when she basically got "uppity" and pretentious (how's that Brit accent working out for you, Mad?) and left current American music behind?

CDs cost a lot of money. Why would anyone buy a Madonna CD, much less spend money to "buy" a concert on the little computer monitor? She hasn't done enough over the last decade to deserve my money, at least.

This isn't Frank coming back after being bitch-slapped by Ava with "In the Wee Small Hours."

Madonna just don't rock enough to take my cash.