Tangerine17 said:

So there was some discussion about this, presumably around the time of the PR DVD and the Musicology tour. Interesting...

prince can really come off like a lil b*tch.

booyah said:

Can't blame him, he needs leverage.

Talked about this in Anxy's thread. I can't imagine he'd have any interest in making more $$$ for WB unless there was a serious renegotiation.


what's the official source on that news?
[Edited 1/24/06 11:15am]

sosgemini said:

Why? At least he is consequent (once in a lifetime) and doesn't change his mind within 20 minutes.

EmancipationLover said:

thats a good point...

and i think he looks like a b*tch because he is holding a financial grudge..he is hurting his legacy by putting monitary isues aside...

come to think of it, his attitude isnt very christian-like either...

Universaluv said:

What about 'Ultimate Prince' ?

NouveauDance said:

Is that remastered? WB can re-release stuff as much as they want. But remastering would require his approval.

sosgemini said:

Well if we're gonna go there then he should probably disown the songs altogether rather than remaster them in all their hedonistic glory! Which is why I pray religion will play little or no role in his decision.

EmancipationLover said:

Seems he's just more likely to change his mind at the last minute

Universaluv said:

scary spice point.

sosgemini said:

I don't fully agree with that. For me, this whole issue of owning the masters has always been a priciple standpoint of him - "I don't own my own work". On the other hand, ownership of the masters could offer him the chance to sell the remastering rights to a different company for tons of bugs. But a 20th anniversary edition of PR would have brought him (and WB) tons of bugs too, so, if it's just about getting money into Pronce-world, that would have been the easiest way. In addition, a "donation" of the masters to Prince by WB will probably NEVER happen, so the aforementioned chance of making even more money with remasters is a pretty unrealistic one (even if you tend to mentally live in la-la-land as Mr. Nelson sometimes does).

For the religious point: I don't see what is "non-christian" about NOT making a lot of money for yourselves (and a huge company). Is he expected to give away his work for free just because he has a religious confession?

Ultimate Prince is remastered. What Tangerine said (paraphrased) is that WB (through Rhino it seems) can remaster things all they want. They cannot remix things or include bonus materials that were previously unreleased.

So, album remasters (possibly with a few b-sides or maxi single mixes) are possible. Including other materials is not.

WB also still tries to respect Prince's wishes up to a degree even though they don't have to.

Correct me if I paraphrased wrong, but that is what I got out of the discussion.

I wonder if Prince's lack of interest in the Purple Rain 20th Anniversary actually BLOCKED the release, or if WB just DECIDED it wasn't worth the effort (and hence handing all of it off to Rhino now).

Universaluv said:

I thought that too, but Tangerine17 stated on the "Ultimate Prince" thread that pure remastering alone does NOT require his permission.

EmancipationLover said:

its not very christian-like to hold grudges....

TheAStarr said:

That's something? Well if that's the case, it certainly didn't stop them from releasing an Anniversary Edition of the movie, so I don't know why they'd be worried about his involvement with the album.

sosgemini said:

Is refusing to work under a bad contract holding a grudge?

sosgemini said:

That is correct, but the fact that he worked with WB on the "Ultimate Prince" issue (according to Tangerine17) does not really prove grudges, I think. Being a forgiving person does not mean to forget about previous standpoints.

In the end, not owning the masters is his fault anyway because he signed the deals. Now, for the first time that is a different story, he was young and could be happy to have a supporting record company, but for the several resigns, why not negotiate ownership of masters? Maybe la-la-land blocked this until he woke up in 1993...

Universaluv said:

no..he had every right to leave them..and he has every right not to work with the..its his petty comments about them and his refusal to protect his legacy and refuse to coordinate reissues that make him petty in my opinion...

EmancipationLover said:

we be on the same page...

sosgemini said:

He didn't refuse, just told them his terms.

Universaluv said:

which from a business perspective was totally unrealistic...and in the end, prince's legacy, his fans and his music hurts....

all because of his grudge...

he wasnt complaining when he was making the $$$$..

sosgemini said:

People live and learn. Especially when it comes to musicians and recording contracts.

Universaluv said:

so then he should cherish the lesson learned, let bygones be bygones and negotiate a realistic contract. one that restores his awesome legacy. IMHO.

i ask, "what would jesus do?"

sosgemini said:

Probably wouldn't sign a recording contract to begin with, but that's neither here nor there. I don't know whether or not he's tried to negotiate a realistic contract with them. He hasn't IM'd me lately.

He has said in the past that he's offered to buy back his masters and been summarilly turned down, so there may not be alot of will to negotiate on either side.

.
[Edited 1/24/06 12:49pm]

Universaluv said:

im not talking about a recording contract..im talking about a contract to reissue his previous albums...


and i have a huge issue with stating "buy back *his* masters". the guy signed a contract that made him a work for hire...they were never his masters..so the best thing he can do at this point is negotiate remastering the work so that his legacy is in tact.

sosgemini said:

They have something he wants, he has something they want, it's more than fair to try to negotiate a means to satisfy all parties. May not always work out, but such is life.

Universaluv said:

and so his legacy is hurt by it..remember, he signed the contract..he is the one that's made petty comments to the public..IMHO, ownership is on him...

sosgemini said:

I'm confused about how his legacy is being "hurt" All of the Warner albums (which are the most important) are still available and still in print right?
[Edited 1/24/06 13:23pm]

sosgemini said:

Yes his legacy is hurt by it. Yes he signed a bad deal. Yes, he REALLY should have known better by that point in his career.

Now if he wants a continuing relationship with WB he apparently has his terms. They may be unreasonable to you and me, but it's easy to say that when it's someone else's money at issue.


If I had to guess on remasters, either they'll work something out or he'll just wait till he owns them outright. C'est la vie.