leonche64 said:

Tremolina said:

Add a live CD and DVD and a CD of previously unreleased (bootleg) material, package it in a nice box and I will be more than happy to buy it.

Now you have added cost to the project, that will make it prohibitive to many fence sitters. Remember, a big reason the music companies are dying is that they got too greedy. If the added features push it up around the $50 USD mark, it may be doomed.

But now you are contradicting yourself. First you suggest that there isn't enough demand for remasters and then when I suggest to add some more bonuses, you suggest it would be too costly.

Of course Prince fans want to have as much as possible, especially bootlegs and live concerts (you do know the likes of us do you?). And that won'have to cost more than 50$.

leonche64 said:

Someone help me understand exactly how these "remasters" are going to make the ton of cash the folks here think that it is going to? Prince could have, at anytime, re-recorded this material.

How the frak someone made it to 2011 while not having a clue about what remasters are... Seriously, have you never read a music mag? Never entered a record store? Never picked up a remastered album?

A remastering is going to do what? Make it clearer?

Have you listened to SOTT? Sounds like shit. Was mastered for CD back in the stone ages of CD technology, and is downright horrible. The other 80s releases are better, but mediocre at best. These recordings deserve a proper remaster, preferably to Blu-ray audio (far better than CD-quality). They deserve context, like B-Sides and outtakes and liner notes. They deserve to sound pristine.

Hell, by now we should have already seen at least two remastered editions of his 80s classics:

- one in the mid-1990s

- one in the mid-2000s

Just look at Elvis Costello: several of his records have been remastered and re-released several times: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...im_Is_True .

Or look at Sly & the Family Stone's There's a Riot Goin' On, which has been remastered several times.

Instead we're nearing the quarter of a century anniversary of his masterpiece, and it sounds like rubbish. Just compare to the SOTT tracks on the Girl 6 soundtrack...

Is it possible that any musician involved can claim a share of the masters? I don't think so: can Jonathan Moffett claim a share of all-powerful Madonna's Open Your Heart after 35 years just because he plays drums on it? Can any member of Clare Fischer's orchestra claim the rights to the songs Fischer orchestrated for Prince just because he/she plays on it? That's maybe 35/40 people to share the copyrights with, i don't think so

It seems the only reason Prince is blocking The Time to release their new album under The Time's name is because he doesn't want them to use this as an excuse to claim their right on The Time's old albums when they're freed from WB. That's the only possible reason (unless he hates them so much he wants to piss 'em a whole lot, but he's a bit old for that isn't he?).

I think the only one who can claim any riight to anything is the signed artist (and if i'm not mistaken, based on things i've read it seems that every act Prince ghostwrote for WB was signed through his own contract, not as an independant artist). On the other hand where does it stop? Can Prince claim the rights to Sugar Walls's masters from EMI? Sheena Easton was the artist under contract here, but Prince did everything but the vocals on the track. I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted his share of it, considering how he considers everything he touches to be "his".

As for the delay, yeah of course CD's will be outta the picture in 10 years save a collector's market, but people will always BUY music and it's likely that digital platforms will offer high-res flac or wav formats, particularly for remasters who are sold on the only argument that they have a better sound quality. And when u think of it, it could be more profitable to release a few records every couple of years than to release 30 albums at a time that no one could afford to buy at once (yeah, don't forget everything that's not "Prince", such as The Time, The Family, Madhouse, etc.).

Besides, i don't think a dude who's paid an average of one million bucks for every concert he performs needs the money from these remasters. He will certainly make a profit outta them, but none as the profit he does from his concerts, so i don't think money is the big issue here (of course it is when he negociates with WB, because he wants them to pay their ass off in order to use his music again: that's called pride, not greed. He probably wouldn't ask half what he asks from Warner if he was to do it with Sony or Universal).

Anyway that's all speculation. Only a lawyer can answer our questions but it seems there's none here

People who listen to cd's/whatever on cheaper music systems (ie midi, and mini systems etc) would probably not notice a difference if the likes of SOTT were remastered. SOTT etc probably sound just as crap as everything else they play on such a system, but to their ears, it sounds ok because that is all they know. That is not a criticism, that is just the way it is.

It is not until you play these cd's on proper hi-fi equipment that one can really hear the flaws and how bad they do actually sound.

People who choose to have cheaper equipment will one day rush out and spend a lot of money on Prince remasters, only to find that it possibly sounds pretty much the same as what they already have.

[Edited 4/22/11 5:53am]

BartVanHemelen said:

leonche64 said:

Someone help me understand exactly how these "remasters" are going to make the ton of cash the folks here think that it is going to? Prince could have, at anytime, re-recorded this material.

How the frak someone made it to 2011 while not having a clue about what remasters are... Seriously, have you never read a music mag? Never entered a record store? Never picked up a remastered album?

A remastering is going to do what? Make it clearer?

Have you listened to SOTT? Sounds like shit. Was mastered for CD back in the stone ages of CD technology, and is downright horrible. The other 80s releases are better, but mediocre at best. These recordings deserve a proper remaster, preferably to Blu-ray audio (far better than CD-quality). They deserve context, like B-Sides and outtakes and liner notes. They deserve to sound pristine.

Hell, by now we should have already seen at least two remastered editions of his 80s classics:

- one in the mid-1990s

- one in the mid-2000s

Just look at Elvis Costello: several of his records have been remastered and re-released several times: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...im_Is_True .

Or look at Sly & the Family Stone's There's a Riot Goin' On, which has been remastered several times.

Instead we're nearing the quarter of a century anniversary of his masterpiece, and it sounds like rubbish. Just compare to the SOTT tracks on the Girl 6 soundtrack...

1) Just how far, chronologically, do u remaster? Would u remaster The Gold Experience? Whould u remaster The Rainbow Children?

2) Just how long will we keep remastering again and again? Some here say the current technology beats everything past: does it mean that all the CD remasters that've been released these last 10 years are now obsolete? Would u remaster LotusFlower in 2020? Would u remaster Prince's 2020 album in 2030?

3) And while we're at it, when is the next video format due? Can we ever do better than Blue-ray? After buying everything on VHS then buying it all again on DVD then buying it all again on Blue-ray, when should we expect to buy everything again on a new format?

Just naive questions, i'm not trying to be cynical or shit, so if u know the answers please answer.

databank said:

1) Just how far, chronologically, do u remaster? Would u remaster The Gold Experience? Whould u remaster The Rainbow Children?

2) Just how long will we keep remastering again and again? Some here say the current technology beats everything past: does it mean that all the CD remasters that've been released these last 10 years are now obsolete? Would u remaster LotusFlower in 2020? Would u remaster Prince's 2020 album in 2030?

3) And while we're at it, when is the next video format due? Can we ever do better than Blue-ray? After buying everything on VHS then buying it all again on DVD then buying it all again on Blue-ray, when should we expect to buy everything again on a new format?

Just naive questions, i'm not trying to be cynical or shit, so if u know the answers please answer.

This thread is relevant to your first question:

http://prince.org/msg/7/3...?&pg=1

There is no question that the albums that were initially relased on analog formats only, followed by a CD later on, need to be remastered. I haven't yet figured out which was the first Prince album to be released on CD the same year as the vinyl and cassette versions. Parade was released in that fashion, as I noted in the thread above. I'm not sure about ATWIAD--the CD of that album looks different than the ones that came before (more Paisley and distinctive), so maybe it was the first to be released on CD. But the albums that were originally mastered exclusively with vinyl and cassette in mind need to be remastered, because the CDs came later at a point when CD mastering was in its infancy and the engineers didn't know what they were doing.

At the other end of the spectrum, I think it's hard to tell a difference in quality between CD and vinyl after Graffiti Bridge. I have compared the vinyl versions of Diamonds & Pearls and the Love Symbol Album to their CD equivalents, and I can't hear a difference. After 1990, most people were buying Prince's albums on CD (which is why D&P and Symbol weren't released on vinyl in the US). So I don't see much point in remastering those, although reissues with unreleased bonus tracks from the vault would be great.

The question is what to do about the albums in the middle, when CDs and vinyl were competing for sales. Many of us can hear a significant difference between the vinyl and CD versions of SOTT and Lovesexy, and some can hear a difference on Graffiti Bridge (although I haven't tested that one myself). The general consensus is that the vinyl sounds better. On the other hand, Prince must have been aware of CDs at that point, and it's possible that he was starting to think about how the albums would sound on CD. In other words, the CDs might be an authentic twist on Prince's original vision for those albums. But I already have the original CDs, so I'd like to hear remasters that sound like the vinyl and/or the master tapes.

Having listened more carefully to some of Prince's original CDs during the "crossover" years, I don't think the CDs are as bad as some think, particularly when you compare them to the compressed brickwall remasters issued by other artists during the past decade. If we eventually get remasters that aren't any better, just louder, hang on to your original CDs, because eventually people may discover that the originals don't sound that bad when you just turn up the volume. But a competent audio engineer working from the master tapes could certainly produce high quality remasters of Prince's 1980s work that sound better than the original CDs and are a reasonable alternative to the vinyl.

So, my bottom line is, I'd like some decent remasters of the albums from For You through Graffiti Bridge (including the Black Album, which was mastered during that period although it was released later). If technology improves in the future, as it probably will, then Prince can issue them again and make more money off of us. But for now I will be happy if I just get CDs that sound as good as the vinyl, without being censored, edited, or compressed to fit anyone's new ideas about how the music should sound. I'll be ecstatic if we get some unreleased bonus material as well. Of course, the pessimists among us who think that none of this will happen may be right.

Update: I just found out that Purple Rain was actually released on CD in 1984. Since WB did not enter the CD market until 1983, Prince's 1999 could not have been released on CD the same year it was released on vinyl.

[Edited 4/22/11 18:44pm]

It's true that, to some peoples' ears (or equipment) a remaster isn't noticeable enough to be desirable for its own sake. That's where the bonus tracks come in - even the people who can't hear the difference in quality are gonna be tempted by those.

Like, Bart mentioned Elvis Costello. I bought All This Useless Beauty on cd when it came out in '96. Did the album really need a remaster in 2001? Probably not... but the extra disc of outtakes sure sold me!

I should add that, although I'd very much like to see Prince's albums remastered, there is plenty of other good music out there, and if Prince doesn't want my money, I'm happy to spend it on other artists.

electricberet said:

I should add that, although I'd very much like to see Prince's albums remastered, there is plenty of other good music out there, and if Prince doesn't want my money, I'm happy to spend it on other artists.

Yes.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly which of Prince's albums was the first to be released the same year on CD. Now I know that Purple Rain falls into that category. The Dec. 22, 1984 year-end-review issue of Billboard (which you can find on Google Books), has a story about Prince that includes the following information:

"Prince made himself available on record, on cassette, on Compact Disc, on movie screens, on home videocassette, on tour, and on a myriad of merchandising items, of every size and description."

In the ATWIAD thread, I noted that Billboard also has a story about that album being released on CD in 1985.

Still digging... The March 5, 1983 issue of Billboard says that Warner Communications made its initial commitment to the compact disc market the previous week. Thus, the earliest that 1999 could have been issued on CD would have been sometime in 1983, which means that Purple Rain was the first Prince album to be released on both vinyl and CD in the same year (1984). I don't know if 1999 actually was released on CD in 1983, or if the CD came later, but in either case it couldn't have been mastered with CD in mind.

it seems that I, as a fan, am more concerned about Prince´s legacy than he is. Sometimes, he seems to boycott his own legacy, like he wants to be forgotten.

Interesting early review of Purple Rain from the Boston Phoenix here:

http://news.google.com/ne...&hl=en

The review confirms that the Purple Rain CD "was released about a week later than the album." In retrospect, this line seems particularly funny:

"By now, it should be accepted as a given that a pop album will sound cleaner on CD, so there's really no need to detail the 1001 differences between the CD and the LP or tape."

That was what someone thought in 1984 when the album was first released. My, how times have changed.

[Edited 4/22/11 17:25pm]

More research:

An L.A. Times story from Oct. 20, 1985 states that Prince's 1999 was available in CD format by that date.

A Philadelphia Inquirer story from March 8, 1987 says that all of Prince's post-Dirty Mind albums were available on CD by that date, "and each features sound superior to the album," but warns the reader to "beware of 1999, though, which is missing the dance vamp 'D.M.S.R.'"

I notice, looking at my original CDs, that For You, Prince, and Dirty Mind have more distinctive titles on the side of the jewel box insert than Controversy and 1999. That makes sense given that Controversy and 1999 were released on CD before the first three.

So, here's what I've learned so far:

1. None of Prince's albums could have been released on CD prior to 1983, because WB didn't enter the CD market until that year.

2. Purple Rain was the first Prince album to be released on CD in the same year (1984) as its vinyl release, apparently within a week or so of the vinyl.

3. 1999 was available on CD by 1985 (but missing D.M.S.R. in the first pressing), and Controversy was available by 1987. The first three albums were released on CD at some point after March 8, 1987.

4. In the mid-1980s, at least some critics thought that Prince's albums sounded better on their original CD versions than they did on vinyl. The anti-CD backlash came later.

There must be some way of finding precise release dates for each album on CD, but I haven't discovered it yet.

[Edited 4/22/11 18:06pm]

BartVanHemelen said:

leonche64 said:

Someone help me understand exactly how these "remasters" are going to make the ton of cash the folks here think that it is going to? Prince could have, at anytime, re-recorded this material.

How the frak someone made it to 2011 while not having a clue about what remasters are... Seriously, have you never read a music mag? Never entered a record store? Never picked up a remastered album?

A remastering is going to do what? Make it clearer?

Have you listened to SOTT? Sounds like shit. Was mastered for CD back in the stone ages of CD technology, and is downright horrible. The other 80s releases are better, but mediocre at best. These recordings deserve a proper remaster, preferably to Blu-ray audio (far better than CD-quality). They deserve context, like B-Sides and outtakes and liner notes. They deserve to sound pristine.

Hell, by now we should have already seen at least two remastered editions of his 80s classics:

- one in the mid-1990s

- one in the mid-2000s

Just look at Elvis Costello: several of his records have been remastered and re-released several times: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...im_Is_True .

Or look at Sly & the Family Stone's There's a Riot Goin' On, which has been remastered several times.

Instead we're nearing the quarter of a century anniversary of his masterpiece, and it sounds like rubbish. Just compare to the SOTT tracks on the Girl 6 soundtrack...

I did not say "what is a remaster" I asked "how is a remaster going to make the kind of money people were talking about". And you chopped off the rest of my statement about updating the "sound" in order to attract a new audience. I addressed the rest of your comments is subsequent post.

Continuing the saga of Prince first issues on CD, I found the September 1984 issue of Digital Audio, which has a list of all the pop music on CD at that time. Controversy, 1999, and Purple Rain are on the list. I still haven't narrowed down when Controversy and 1999 were released on CD, but, as I explained in earlier posts, it can't have been any earlier than 1983. For You, Prince, and Dirty Mind were first issued on CD after 1987. The albums from Purple Rain onward were issued on CD the same years they were issued on vinyl.

The reason why this is interesting to me is that it's now clear that SOTT was actually the sixth Prince album to be issued on CD, and Lovesexy was either the seventh or the eighth depending on whether you count the near-issue of the Black Album. Prince wasn't personally mastering any of these albums: the vinyl issues were mastered by Bernie Grundman and the CDs were mastered by "WCI Record Group." But at some point, he probably heard a CD being played. When did he start thinking about how his music might sound in digital format? If he was thinking about that at the time of Lovesexy, for example, then you can't reject the original Lovesexy CD out of hand as an inauthentic version of the album. Unless you hear the master tape, you won't know exactly what Prince wanted the album to sound like. If there is a remaster at some point, I'm sure the engineers will tell us that it sounds exactly the way it's supposed to sound on CD, because they'll want us to buy it.

One more clarification (for now): Dirty Mind still hadn't been issued on CD when the New York Times reviewed Lovesexy in 1988:

http://www.nytimes.com/19...amp;src=pm

Back to the original thread topic, we have some more actual news. WMG has entered into a deal with Apple to allow users to store WMG titles on Apple's new cloud service:

http://news.cnet.com/8301...8-261.html

Can't wait for the casual fans to dust off and upload their un-remastered CDs of Purple Rain, listen to them, and say, "Huh? This doesn't sound right to me."

[Edited 4/23/11 6:37am]

electricberet said:

Back to the original thread topic, we have some more actual news. WMG has entered into a deal with Apple to allow users to store WMG titles on Apple's new cloud service:

http://news.cnet.com/8301...8-261.html

Can't wait for the casual fans to dust off and upload their un-remastered CDs of Purple Rain, listen to them, and say, "Huh? This doesn't sound right to me."

[Edited 4/23/11 6:37am]

I think the reason Apple sought an agreement with the record companies was because the main part of it's plan is to store a "master copy" of recordings at it's data center, instead of having users upload their own copies for the major artists. Making your entire music collection available to you via iTunes from whatever device you use. Simplifying the experience for all involved.

My understanding is that organizations that cannot reach an agreement with the record companies for streaming, use "lockers" for customers to upload their collections. Hence circumnavigating the record companies.

[Edited 4/23/11 11:15am]

Tremolina said:

leonche64 said:

Now you have added cost to the project, that will make it prohibitive to many fence sitters. Remember, a big reason the music companies are dying is that they got too greedy. If the added features push it up around the $50 USD mark, it may be doomed.

But now you are contradicting yourself. First you suggest that there isn't enough demand for remasters and then when I suggest to add some more bonuses, you suggest it would be too costly.

Of course Prince fans want to have as much as possible, especially bootlegs and live concerts (you do know the likes of us do you?). And that won'have to cost more than 50$.

I don't think it is a contradiction. The key is to get added value without too much added cost. One is perception, "I get an album I love, plus some new songs, and booklet for $20. Great deal". The other is financial. "This project, with the re-release, new songs, DVD-Blu Ray, photos, and promotion are going to cost us $15 per unit to produce." Say they use the 3 to 1 formula, then they have to price it at $45 min. Most of us diehards are going to snap them up. But many won't. This is the digital age and cd players have not been a top seller for 10 years and the ipad does not even have a disc drive option.

V10LETBLUES said:

I think the reason Apple sought an agreement with the record companies was because the main part of it's plan is to store a "master copy" of recordings at it's data center, instead of having users upload their own copies for the major artists. Making your entire music collection available to you via iTunes from whatever device you use. Simplifying the experience for all involved.

My understanding is that organizations that cannot reach an agreement with the record companies for streaming, use "lockers" for customers to upload their collections. Hence circumnavigating the record companies.

[Edited 4/23/11 11:15am]

That's what I've read as well. I think the Apple agreement is good news for Prince fans, because Apple would probably like to have new Prince remasters available so that Prince fans will keep those in their cloud library instead of homemade vinyl rips. The success of Apple's plan depends on having some standardization in music catalogs. Prince's music not being remastered is an obstacle to that. If Apple tells WMG that standardization is the key to their venture, then WMG might have a bigger incentive to cut a deal with Prince.

If people think Prince's music isn't a significant part of the deal between WMG and Apple, it's worth remembering that Purple Rain is one of the biggest-selling albums of all time and the third-biggest selling album on the Warner Brothers label (after Fleetwood Mac's Rumours and Metallica's self-titled album). Apple would notice a product like that.

electricberet said:

V10LETBLUES said:

I think the reason Apple sought an agreement with the record companies was because the main part of it's plan is to store a "master copy" of recordings at it's data center, instead of having users upload their own copies for the major artists. Making your entire music collection available to you via iTunes from whatever device you use. Simplifying the experience for all involved.

My understanding is that organizations that cannot reach an agreement with the record companies for streaming, use "lockers" for customers to upload their collections. Hence circumnavigating the record companies.

[Edited 4/23/11 11:15am]

That's what I've read as well. I think the Apple agreement is good news for Prince fans, because Apple would probably like to have new Prince remasters available so that Prince fans will keep those in their cloud library instead of homemade vinyl rips. The success of Apple's plan depends on having some standardization in music catalogs. Prince's music not being remastered is an obstacle to that. If Apple tells WMG that standardization is the key to their venture, then WMG might have a bigger incentive to cut a deal with Prince.

If people think Prince's music isn't a significant part of the deal between WMG and Apple, it's worth remembering that Purple Rain is one of the biggest-selling albums of all time and the third-biggest selling album on the Warner Brothers label (after Fleetwood Mac's Rumours and Metallica's self-titled album). Apple would notice a product like that.

I think this will be a big plus for Prince's and the entire WB catalog. Tech companies are the only ones pushing innovation and seem to be the only one's that understand what the media companies are sitting on and squandering.

I bought almost every packaged Prince recording until around 2000. They are in a box somewhere. I almost never dig through my cd's, if I want to listen to something I just click on the media device at hand. I think the majority of folks could really care less about Blue-ray or any other physical media. We are accustomed to just press play on our computers or devices.

What this means is that I will probably purchase Prince's entire collection one more time through iTunes or Amazon's cloud services so I never have to worry about having to dig through files or boxes. It means that the Prince material will get the modern treatment that will not only play the music but have the linear notes, artwork and additional material easily accessed while the music is playing.

Amazon, Google and Apple will do what the music industry should have done from the beginning and make a boatload of money doing so.

I do not see remastering on most catalogs in the horizon. The media companies just want to focus on stopping the hemorrhaging of money for the moment. Once the bleeding stops we will see them look to invest back into to it. But not until then.

[Edited 4/24/11 8:42am]

V10LETBLUES said:

I think this will be a big plus for Prince's and the entire WB catalog. Tech companies are the only ones pushing innovation and seem to be the only one's that understand what the media companies are sitting on and squandering.

I bought almost every packaged Prince recording until around 2000. They are in a box somewhere. I almost never dig through my cd's, if I want to listen to something I just click on the media device at hand. I think the majority of folks could really care less about Blue-ray or any other physical media. We are accustomed to just press play on our computers or devices.

What this means is that I will probably purchase Prince's entire collection one more time through iTunes or Amazon's cloud services so I never have to worry about having to dig through files or boxes. It means that the Prince material will get the modern treatment that will not only play the music but have the linear notes, artwork and additional material easily accessed while the music is playing.

Amazon, Google and Apple will do what the music industry should have done from the beginning and make a boatload of money doing so.

[Edited 4/24/11 8:33am]

One thing that surprised a lot of observers is that, when the Beatles put their catalog on iTunes, a lot of people paid to download the entire stereo box set. It wasn't surprising that a few casual fans might pay to download a song or two, but who would want to pay for the whole catalog that had already been available on CD, with beautiful packaging, for more than a year? The answer: people who don't want to go through the hassle of paying for physical product and then individually uploading the CDs. I imagine most of those purchases were made by busy professionals who would charge more for an hour of their time than Apple charged them to download the entire stereo Beatles catalog.

Another stroke of genius behind Apple's plan is that they may have discovered a way to make money even from people who download music illegally from the internet. They can't get those people to pay to purchase music that they can find for free (albeit illegally), but they might get them to pay to store it on the cloud so that they can listen to it wherever they are, on any device that can connect to the web, without having to download it again. Once the major record companies have all signed on, they'll get a cut from the storage fees, so they won't be suing anyone to find out where the music came from.

One concern I have is, once the Apple cloud is up and running, what about some of the [cough] "unofficial" Prince releases that we're often discussing? WMG may forgive our past sins but Prince doesn't like bootlegs. One solution: give us better-sounding versions straight from the vault, then I won't need the bootlegs anymore. That's what Frank Zappa and Bob Dylan have done.

electricberet said:

One thing that surprised a lot of observers is that, when the Beatles put their catalog on iTunes, a lot of people paid to download the entire stereo box set. It wasn't surprising that a few casual fans might pay to download a song or two, but who would want to pay for the whole catalog that had already been available on CD, with beautiful packaging, for more than a year? The answer: people who don't want to go through the hassle of paying for physical product and then individually uploading the CDs. I imagine most of those purchases were made by busy professionals who would charge more for an hour of their time than Apple charged them to download the entire stereo Beatles catalog.

Another stroke of genius behind Apple's plan is that they may have discovered a way to make money even from people who download music illegally from the internet. They can't get those people to pay to purchase music that they can find for free (albeit illegally), but they might get them to pay to store it on the cloud so that they can listen to it wherever they are, on any device that can connect to the web, without having to download it again. Once the major record companies have all signed on, they'll get a cut from the storage fees, so they won't be suing anyone to find out where the music came from.

One concern I have is, once the Apple cloud is up and running, what about some of the [cough] "unofficial" Prince releases that we're often discussing? WMG may forgive our past sins but Prince doesn't like bootlegs. One solution: give us better-sounding versions straight from the vault, then I won't need the bootlegs anymore. That's what Frank Zappa and Bob Dylan have done.

You're right. I pay Dropbox what I could be paying Amazon or Apple. And the music industry could be getting it's cut.

I don't like downloading bootlegs without Prince's permission. It makes me feel all dirty. But I can't help myself.

electricberet said:

I don't like downloading bootlegs without Prince's permission. It makes me feel all dirty. But I can't help myself.

And if the music industry had any bit on sense left. They would forbid ALL MUSIC VIDEOS or any of their music from being played on Youtube or sites like it in any form. Dancing baby and all. They would only allow them on the music streaming sites. Prince has been right on this all along. It devalued music. It is basically the same cloud services being announced but it only benefited Google's advertising machine.

If the music industry wants to get back in the black, they should embrace cloud services and forever ban their music on Youtube unless it is a direct channel that compensates the music publisher and tracks artist and catalog views/hits.

[Edited 4/24/11 9:33am]

V10LETBLUES said:

electricberet said:

I don't like downloading bootlegs without Prince's permission. It makes me feel all dirty. But I can't help myself.

And if the music industry had any bit on sense left. They would forbid ALL MUSIC VIDEOS or any of their music from being played on Youtube or sites like it in any form. Dancing baby and all. They would only allow them on the music streaming sites. Prince has been right on this all along. It devalued music. It is basically the same cloud service but that only benefited Google's advertising machine.

If the music industry wants to get back in the black they should embrace cloud services and forever ban their music on Youtube.

[Edited 4/24/11 9:28am]

I don't know about that. I think YouTube can be a valuable tool for promoting new artists (even if they suck--see Rebecca Black). If you had to pay to see and hear new artists in any form, how would you ever discover their music? Plus, even if you shut down YouTube, it would be hard to shut down various sites in Asia where copyright laws are not enforced.

But I agree that the music industry should be trying to control what's available on YouTube, so that it's serving a promotional purpose and not giving away the whole store. Let them release enough content to get people interested, and then direct them to official sites where they can pay for more good stuff. Anyway, I agree with your main point that the record companies have no strategy at the moment and are just floundering around trying to keep up with all the changes.

electricberet said:

V10LETBLUES said:

And if the music industry had any bit on sense left. They would forbid ALL MUSIC VIDEOS or any of their music from being played on Youtube or sites like it in any form. Dancing baby and all. They would only allow them on the music streaming sites. Prince has been right on this all along. It devalued music. It is basically the same cloud service but that only benefited Google's advertising machine.

If the music industry wants to get back in the black they should embrace cloud services and forever ban their music on Youtube.

[Edited 4/24/11 9:28am]

I don't know about that. I think YouTube can be a valuable tool for promoting new artists (even if they suck--see Rebecca Black). If you had to pay to see and hear new artists in any form, how would you ever discover their music? Plus, even if you shut down YouTube, it would be hard to shut down various sites in Asia where copyright laws are not enforced.

But I agree that the music industry should be trying to control what's available on YouTube, so that it's serving a promotional purpose and not giving away the whole store. Let them release enough content to get people interested, and then direct them to official sites where they can pay for more good stuff. Anyway, I agree with your main point that the record companies have no strategy at the moment and are just floundering around trying to keep up with all the changes.

I never said shut it down. They just have to make YouTube put a ring on it.

They must teach the consumers that the content is still out there, but it is legit. It's all about the proper channels. Apple and Amazon do not need any advice form anyone on how to attract willing customers, it's about YouTube not helping anyone but Google. YouTube must conform to a music industry internet policy. Something that would be up to the music industry to at least get around to seriously start acknowledging, that whatever they are doing at the moment is not working.

It seems pretty clear that the old record companies failed to adapt to change and will soon cease to exist in their current form, thanks to the various mergers and acquisitions that are currently in progress (and that are the main subject of this thread). But as SquirrelMeat pointed out earlier, WMG and the other record labels still have valuable intellectual property rights in the music they sell. Before they expire, those rights will be exploited successfully by companies that know how to make money from them.

As for our hero, Prince, once he is offered a check that has the right number of zeroes and starts with the right digit, I think that his buddies will tell him that Jehovah would approve of that deal, and a consultation of the chemtrails will reveal that he should go ahead and cash that check. For all we know, this has already happened. Put me on record as predicting that Prince's classic albums will be remastered someday, and I think sooner rather than later. Whether the remasters will sound any better than the current CDs, or be worth buying for other reasons, is another question.

[Edited 4/24/11 15:55pm]