I always thought the main feature of slavery is that it was involuntary.

Comparing anything that's negative, manipulative, etc. to it comes off as dramatic.

radici27 said:

I always thought the main feature of slavery is that it was involuntary.

Comparing anything that's negative, manipulative, etc. to it comes off as dramatic.

It's called an analogy, or using the word figuratively.

People in sweatshops can earn some money, except it's barely enough to survive. While not literally "slaves" (unpaid, legally owned individuals), they are subjected to a form of modern slavery. This is an example of a non-literal use of the word.

You might compare anything that creates a situation of virtual servitude to "slavery". That is another level of analogy, for instance when people say that addicts are figuratively enslaved to a drug. You might say that any situation that contractually obligates someone to take on a huge financial risk for something he/she will not end up owning while still owing a great deal of money through the system of advances, may not be very different from loan sharking if you fail to make it big (or big enough).

There is something wrong with the way aspiring artists are forced to shoulder so much of the risk while standardly not owning what they actually created. The system is inherently exploitative, for every success you have legions of people that don't make it that big and end up owing money while the record company keeps the intellectual property and moves on.

Is it excessive to call it slavery? Strong words, for sure, but consistent with other non-literal uses of the word.

radici27 said:

I always thought the main feature of slavery is that it was involuntary.

Comparing anything that's negative, manipulative, etc. to it comes off as dramatic.

^ Nailed it.

SoulAlive said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Prince knows there was no racism whatsoever involved with WB. Prince was opened to a whole playground where he could do almost anything he wanted. Use studios record videos make movie, sign on protege acts or independants artists. Prince was just unhappy because he felt somewhere that America did not accept every album of music he did. He was unhappy after the Revolution years when WB did not let him do whatever he felt with the album/music release. Starting with Crystal Ball being brought down to Sign o the Times. All the money WB poured into him doing the Lovesexy show. in those later mid 90s when they wouldn't let him release more music as he saw fit all of a sudden he is a Slave who needs Emancipation. Race had absolutely nothing to do with it then and nothing now.

I too was disappointed with the whole 'slave' thing.Prince was never a "slave" to Warners.Slaves do not get multi-million dollar contracts and huge advances.Whatever problems that Prince had with Warners,it was never slavery.Nobody held a gun to his head and forced him to sign those contracts and do business with them.He was well paid for all the music that he submitted to them.They even funded his movies.That's not slavery.

...

[Edited 8/15/15 13:28pm]

I agree.

We all make contractual deals in life.
He could have taken a different direction, learning more about Music Record deals and after his contract was fullfilled taken further educational steps to better himself for his own music release and help other established and upcoming artists.

Prince has done things and been places most people even artists will never in their lifetime. Freely. That is not slavery

Aerogram said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Prince is a celebrity. Age doesn't mature those things. Celebrities live in a whole different priviledged world..
.
Prince changes with the tide concerning this. So is he now only speaking for 'black' ownership of music? Sorry, he is just tying his musical concerns with the social political tide of the moment.
And it is an uneducated response, because there are many black owned business in Ferguson -remember they were destroyed and ransacked by those protest usurpers who swept through. And everyone isn't going to own their own business. If that was the case then who would do the work to help build the business. And Prince's recent Shout out to his business endevour connected with the riots that happened a few days ago, was about black neighborhoods having their own black police officers. That isn't the problem. The problem this past week was the cousin of Michael Brown starting some crap and a bunch of thoughtless purposeless people again for the 3rd time in conneciton with the peaceful marchers took advantage of the issue to loot and riot. Having your own black police will not stop black criminals.

.

Pauls sarcastic comment toward anyone here, not agreeing with the usage of these imagery suggests racists.

I think people can have educated thought out opinions on these things without having to be put into a catagory. And I don't back down from taunts and bullyings. There was no reason for anyone to try to define the intentions of others who disagree with the usage of these historic images.

Wealthy people will always (whether right or wrong) be viewed at with some degree of contempt when they complain about having it hard and comparing their priviledged lives with that of poor and marginalized people.

Prince couldn't even be a real Jehovahs Witness because the morning witness trecks were overshadowed by his celebrity. His celebrity within the Halls gave him freedoms other JWs obviously could not have.
I'm just being real about this.
Prince has a legitimate cause 4 ARTISTS 'Artists Lives Matter' there are many in his field that look up to him from around the world and in every ethnic group and genre of music.
His cause is so far removed from what is happening in Ferguson or Baltimore.

And I still never received refund or the songs from that 3rdEye website a few years ago.

Paul's comment wasn't directed at everyone, neither was mine. There's a few comments up there that feel close to what he described and we pointed it out.

Prince is not now only speaking for black ownership, again that is your interpretation. He toured in Canada since he started mentionning that theme in Baltimore, and no the concert venues were not black-owned. Tidal itself isn't 100 % black owned either, though I understand Jay-Z has/had a controlling interest and that may be sufficient for Prince.

It seems to me you paint all celebrities and musicians with the same wide brush, saying for the most part they are privileged. There's all sorts of celebrities, they're people, they fall from grace, they get back up... or not. Just think about Sly Stone, he lived in his van for years before recently winning a judgement. The "slavery" thing is not something you need to take literally, he's simply pointing out (along with a lot of people) that standard recording contracts can end up hurting the artist. If they fail to sell enough, they can be left with huge debts, especially when they have to finance their promotion through their advances, pick up the bills for the videos, etc.

Prince is not alone in saying the practices are exploitative when things don't go as well as expected. Simply put, musicians take on a great deal of financial risk, then they often end up with a huge debt while not even having ownership in what they created. Talk to Teena Marie, it's not all champagne and caviar on a silver plate forever and ever.

Musicians, even very successful recording artists like Taylor Swift, are saying it's time to think of the artists as they have been getting a smaller slice for their work through services that don't compensate them as well as traditional record sales (streaming). Musicians don't have a guild like writers, actors and directors in Hollywood -- they should have one to represent their interests, as right now the system heavily favors the labels.

I'm in favor of musicians having a bigger say because it seems most other artistic professions are better represented and far less likely to end up with massive bills for the "privilege" of working in their chosen profession. Remember that for one hit record, you have two dozens that are not very successful, so it's not all a world of ferraris and castles in the French countryside. No other artistic profession shoulders so much of the risk, that's the problem that is being pointed out, albeit with provocative words, by a guy who may not be the ideal mascot, but that still knows what he's talking about.

Honestly, we're living in days of massive overreaction, we'll probably laugh about all this in three months.

[Edited 8/15/15 12:51pm]

Of course it wasn't directed at everyone. Only those who took a different stance.
A whitebrushed comment at 'no one in particular' causes more trouble that help.
Paul could address peoples comments individually.

.

No it isn't my interpretation. From my first post I directly commented on the WB-Slave, the Albums Matter comment, and the recent meshing of the Tidal deal with what just happened in Ferguson as a young black man triggered unneccissary rioting and looting in Ferguson(destroying black owned prop)

Yes, they are privileged. Come on we are talking about celebrity. They have access to powerful rich and influential people. the Public will pity and forgive them for thing the regular joe/jane will be crucified over. Prince has lived a priviledged life. Flown and performed all over the world met celebs and royalty of all celiber. Own multiple homes, made 3 1/2 movies given studio access and money many other musicians could only dream of. I'm not saying that in a bad way. It is just a fact. Just because Sly was homeless doesn't mean he was/is not priviledged. Just because someone mismanages money doesn't mean they were not priviledged.

No where did I ever say Prince's concerns are not valid, on the contrary in all my posts I've supported it. It's something that all musicians and artists need to know. But take it where it should go. Michael Browns cousin who created havoc, insiting riots taking over the peaceful peoples march is not concerned about ownership. Nor bettering himself.

That fact that we might laugh about this later, is my point. I don't think Slavery is something to laugh about, nor using it willynilly to further my own personal issues with making money.

Prince has a platform to reach all races ethnic groups and genders of musicians and artists.
Albums Still Matter, 2Night and Always. That is Prince area of revolution.

OldFriends4Sale said:

Aerogram said:

Paul's comment wasn't directed at everyone, neither was mine. There's a few comments up there that feel close to what he described and we pointed it out.

Prince is not now only speaking for black ownership, again that is your interpretation. He toured in Canada since he started mentionning that theme in Baltimore, and no the concert venues were not black-owned. Tidal itself isn't 100 % black owned either, though I understand Jay-Z has/had a controlling interest and that may be sufficient for Prince.

It seems to me you paint all celebrities and musicians with the same wide brush, saying for the most part they are privileged. There's all sorts of celebrities, they're people, they fall from grace, they get back up... or not. Just think about Sly Stone, he lived in his van for years before recently winning a judgement. The "slavery" thing is not something you need to take literally, he's simply pointing out (along with a lot of people) that standard recording contracts can end up hurting the artist. If they fail to sell enough, they can be left with huge debts, especially when they have to finance their promotion through their advances, pick up the bills for the videos, etc.

Prince is not alone in saying the practices are exploitative when things don't go as well as expected. Simply put, musicians take on a great deal of financial risk, then they often end up with a huge debt while not even having ownership in what they created. Talk to Teena Marie, it's not all champagne and caviar on a silver plate forever and ever.

Musicians, even very successful recording artists like Taylor Swift, are saying it's time to think of the artists as they have been getting a smaller slice for their work through services that don't compensate them as well as traditional record sales (streaming). Musicians don't have a guild like writers, actors and directors in Hollywood -- they should have one to represent their interests, as right now the system heavily favors the labels.

I'm in favor of musicians having a bigger say because it seems most other artistic professions are better represented and far less likely to end up with massive bills for the "privilege" of working in their chosen profession. Remember that for one hit record, you have two dozens that are not very successful, so it's not all a world of ferraris and castles in the French countryside. No other artistic profession shoulders so much of the risk, that's the problem that is being pointed out, albeit with provocative words, by a guy who may not be the ideal mascot, but that still knows what he's talking about.

Honestly, we're living in days of massive overreaction, we'll probably laugh about all this in three months.

[Edited 8/15/15 12:51pm]

Of course it wasn't directed at everyone. Only those who took a different stance.
A whitebrushed comment at 'no one in particular' causes more trouble that help.
Paul could address peoples comments individually.

.

No it isn't my interpretation. From my first post I directly commented on the WB-Slave, the Albums Matter comment, and the recent meshing of the Tidal deal with what just happened in Ferguson as a young black man triggered unneccissary rioting and looting in Ferguson(destroying black owned prop)

Yes, they are privileged. Come on we are talking about celebrity. They have access to powerful rich and influential people. the Public will pity and forgive them for thing the regular joe/jane will be crucified over. Prince has lived a priviledged life. Flown and performed all over the world met celebs and royalty of all celiber. Own multiple homes, made 3 1/2 movies given studio access and money many other musicians could only dream of. I'm not saying that in a bad way. It is just a fact. Just because Sly was homeless doesn't mean he was/is not priviledged. Just because someone mismanages money doesn't mean they were not priviledged.

No where did I ever say Prince's concerns are not valid, on the contrary in all my posts I've supported it. It's something that all musicians and artists need to know. But take it where it should go. Michael Browns cousin who created havoc, insiting riots taking over the peaceful peoples march is not concerned about ownership. Nor bettering himself.

That fact that we might laugh about this later, is my point. I don't think Slavery is something to laugh about, nor using it willynilly to further my own personal issues with making money.

Prince has a platform to reach all races ethnic groups and genders of musicians and artists.
Albums Still Matter, 2Night and Always. That is Prince area of revolution.

Sorry, dear Mod, as fantastic I think your threads are, I don't actually follow everyone's opinions meticulously, so many of them are way too flippant and purely provocative to do that.

Your own posts never came to mind when I was thinking of Paul's or mine's.

As well no one is thinking slavery is something to laugh about but you can't police the way the word is used, Prince's point is that the standard practice for young artist getting into the business is not fair to them and I understand many lawyers take the same view: that in that industry, artists shoulder too much of the risk for something they won't own and that is maybe not unique, but certainly not on par with what happens elsewhere in the entertainment professions.

Musicians don't all become celebrities, and even those who do can get stiffed by their managers or label. I understand the Backstreet Boys had relatively little to show when they fizzled after a string of albums and hits, and you know they were an enormous success. If that's the case when you made it big, what happens to those who did not? Three albums of attempt and they can have an enormous debt for the privilege of trying to become a celebrity. This is not like you and me signing on contract for a business venture, you're generally guaranteed part of the ownership. Musicians are not and that is the crucial difference and why Prince called it servitude.

Now, about that tweet you pasted, I'm sorry to say I find it extremely reductive. Where there's economic oppression, whether it was the Irish in the 19th century, the Italians in the first half of the 20th century or other newly arrived ethnic groups later on, there's lots of violence within that group and that may be a reflection that "life is cheap" that has happened over and over within the history of oppression, but gratuitous police brutality is chiefly part of the oppression, it can't be justified on the basis of "they kill each other anyway". It's a reductive shortcut -- sure, each community has to see what they can improve, but come on. Check out just one the recent stories, where a policy union is chastising someone for putting up a video where an handcuffed suspect is assaulted:

http://gawker.com/police-...1724332701

TheEnglishGent said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

No matter how much evidence is presented, you still won't believe it. Here's an idea: look at what has happened since May last year, and try to discern some patterns.

What evidence is there that Prince tied himself down to WB again? What details do you have of any agreement between Prince and WB?

There's no evidence Prince signed a traditional contract with WB at all. In fact, there's evidence against it as he's now releasing music independently of WB and is obviously free to do so.

Aerogram said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Of course it wasn't directed at everyone. Only those who took a different stance.
A whitebrushed comment at 'no one in particular' causes more trouble that help.
Paul could address peoples comments individually.

.

No it isn't my interpretation. From my first post I directly commented on the WB-Slave, the Albums Matter comment, and the recent meshing of the Tidal deal with what just happened in Ferguson as a young black man triggered unneccissary rioting and looting in Ferguson(destroying black owned prop)

Yes, they are privileged. Come on we are talking about celebrity. They have access to powerful rich and influential people. the Public will pity and forgive them for thing the regular joe/jane will be crucified over. Prince has lived a priviledged life. Flown and performed all over the world met celebs and royalty of all celiber. Own multiple homes, made 3 1/2 movies given studio access and money many other musicians could only dream of. I'm not saying that in a bad way. It is just a fact. Just because Sly was homeless doesn't mean he was/is not priviledged. Just because someone mismanages money doesn't mean they were not priviledged.

No where did I ever say Prince's concerns are not valid, on the contrary in all my posts I've supported it. It's something that all musicians and artists need to know. But take it where it should go. Michael Browns cousin who created havoc, insiting riots taking over the peaceful peoples march is not concerned about ownership. Nor bettering himself.

That fact that we might laugh about this later, is my point. I don't think Slavery is something to laugh about, nor using it willynilly to further my own personal issues with making money.

Prince has a platform to reach all races ethnic groups and genders of musicians and artists.
Albums Still Matter, 2Night and Always. That is Prince area of revolution.

Sorry, dear Mod, as fantastic I think your threads are, I don't actually follow everyone's opinions meticulously, so many of them are way too flippant and purely provocative to do that.

Your own posts never came to mind when I was thinking of Paul's or mine's.

As well no one is thinking slavery is something to laugh about but you can't police the way the word is used, Prince's point is that the standard practice for young artist getting into the business is not fair to them and I understand many lawyers take the same view: that in that industry, artists shoulder too much of the risk for something they won't own and that is maybe not unique, but certainly not on par with what happens elsewhere in the entertainment professions.

Musicians don't all become celebrities, and even those who do can get stiffed by their managers or label. I understand the Backstreet Boys had relatively little to show when they fizzled after a string of albums and hits, and you know they were an enormous success. If that's the case when you made it big, what happens to those who did not? Three albums of attempt and they can have an enormous debt for the privilege of trying to become a celebrity. This is not like you and me signing on contract for a business venture, you're generally guaranteed part of the ownership. Musicians are not and that is the crucial difference and why Prince called it servitude.

Now, about that tweet you pasted, I'm sorry to say I find it extremely reductive. Where there's economic oppression, whether it was the Irish in the 19th century, the Italians in the first half of the 20th century or other newly arrived ethnic groups later on, there's lots of violence within that group and that may be a reflection that "life is cheap" that has happened over and over within the history of oppression, but gratuitous police brutality is chiefly part of the oppression, it can't be justified on the basis of "they kill each other anyway". It's a reductive shortcut -- sure, each community has to see what they can improve, but come on. Check out just one the recent stories, where a policy union is chastising someone for putting up a video where an handcuffed suspect is assaulted:

http://gawker.com/police-...1724332701

Please don't being up me being a Mod, it has nothing to do with the discussion. We are not talking about site rules and site issues. We are talking about our individual informationn about Prince record deals and use of imagery. Policing? After I read this I stopped reading your post. Because things tend to go downhill after that. Because now it seems you are getting personal. My issue was with Pauls post not yours-you did not say it-u just agreed.

My belief stands as is.

TheEnglishGent said:

rusty1 said:

Prince is very confusing ..Writes "Slave" on his face back in 1994.. He Battles WB & the resigns with them April of 2014.. He's all over the place. I'll say it again he is now irrelevant..

You're assuming he resigned with them in the traditional manner, which I'm pretty sure he didn't. Are there any details about what was or wasn't agreed, or just a load of assumptions? There's no way Prince tied himself down to anything.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbyowsinski/2014/04/21/prince-comes-back-to-warner-bros-and-shows-the-boundaries-of-diy/

Apr 21, 2014 @ 11:45 AM 7,758 views

Prince Comes Back To Warner Bros And Shows The Boundaries of DIY

The rallying cry of many musicians today is “Do It Yourself” or DIY, meaning that it’s now possible to do so much of the grunt work necessary to make it without the help of a record label. For instance, you don’t need a label to act as a bank to supply money for recording any more, since most every musician has a studio at home that’s far more powerful than what The Beatles used in their heyday. You don’t need the label to manufacture your product, since it’s now possible to print limited runs of CDs if necessary, and virtual products cost very little to distribute. As far as promotion, social media and YouTube play such a big part in getting the word out, and so much of that can be done directly by the artist.

DIY is indeed a viable option until the point where the artist rises to the level of star, then all DIY bets are off. In order to break on through to the other side of international superstardom, the marketing infrastructure provided by a major record label is almost a necessity. A DIY artist can opt to try to reinvent the wheel, or go to a label with experience and expertise to make things happen on a larger scale.

This is exactly where superstar Prince finds himself, as his recently announced new deal once again returns him to the Warner Music fold, a surprising move that many industry observers thought could never happen. Warners was the label that originally launched Prince into stardom, but the falling out between the parties became so vile that Prince labeled himself a “slave,” then changed his name to that unpronounceable insignia as to create a new trademark that would not promote his previous Warner releases.

The problem is that the years hence haven’t been that great to the Artist financially. For a major artist, Prince hasn’t sold all that well since he’s gone out on his own. According to Soundscan numbers posted by Billboard, the artist has sold 18.5 million albums in the United States since 1991, but 14.3 million of those were with Warners. Most of an artist’s income comes from touring and merchandise sales but the fact of the matter is that he hasn’t had a big blockbuster tour in a long time either. There’s nothing like an cash infusion from a deal with a major label, even if it is an old nemesis, which was probably a good enough reason in itself to do the deal.

It’s also been said that in the deal with Warners, Prince will get back ownership of his old Warner Brothers masters, which include some of his most loved albums. The fact of the matter is that he would soon have the ability to get them back under the Copyright Revision Act of 1976, which states that any master recording copyright can be terminated 35 years after it was granted. The law went into effect in 1978, which happens to be the same year that Prince’s first album came out. All of his albums are about to come back to him in the upcoming years anyway, so that means there must be a better reason than that to do the deal.

The fact is that being out on your own can be liberating, but a tough go at the same time. The economies of scale that a label has don’t exist for a DIY artist, even one as big as Prince, and the marketing benefits that today’s social media platforms offer take time and a specialized infrastructure to take advantage of. There’s a lot of additional work required from an artist that goes beyond simple music creation, so much so that the comfort of a major label begins to look pretty good after a while. A great example of this is Nine Inch Nails founder Trent Reznor, who’s as savvy a social media entrepreneur as there is, and who’s now back with in the major label fold with Columbia as well. Ceding control equals more time for the things that artists love the most, which is making music.

With a new album, an upcoming tour, and a 30th anniversary Purple Rain box set ready to drop, there’s a lot on the line for The Artist. Prince, and Warner Music, can make a lot more money working together than they can apart. If that isn’t a good reason to bury the hatchet, nothing is.

OldFriends4Sale said:

TheEnglishGent said:

You're assuming he resigned with them in the traditional manner, which I'm pretty sure he didn't. Are there any details about what was or wasn't agreed, or just a load of assumptions? There's no way Prince tied himself down to anything.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbyowsinski/2014/04/21/prince-comes-back-to-warner-bros-and-shows-the-boundaries-of-diy/

Apr 21, 2014 @ 11:45 AM 7,758 views

Prince Comes Back To Warner Bros And Shows The Boundaries of DIY

Bobby Owsinski ,

Contributor

The rallying cry of many musicians today is “Do It Yourself” or DIY, meaning that it’s now possible to do so much of the grunt work necessary to make it without the help of a record label. For instance, you don’t need a label to act as a bank to supply money for recording any more, since most every musician has a studio at home that’s far more powerful than what The Beatles used in their heyday. You don’t need the label to manufacture your product, since it’s now possible to print limited runs of CDs if necessary, and virtual products cost very little to distribute. As far as promotion, social media and YouTube play such a big part in getting the word out, and so much of that can be done directly by the artist.

DIY is indeed a viable option until the point where the artist rises to the level of star, then all DIY bets are off. In order to break on through to the other side of international superstardom, the marketing infrastructure provided by a major record label is almost a necessity. A DIY artist can opt to try to reinvent the wheel, or go to a label with experience and expertise to make things happen on a larger scale.

This is exactly where superstar Prince finds himself, as his recently announced new deal once again returns him to the Warner Music fold, a surprising move that many industry observers thought could never happen. Warners was the label that originally launched Prince into stardom, but the falling out between the parties became so vile that Prince labeled himself a “slave,” then changed his name to that unpronounceable insignia as to create a new trademark that would not promote his previous Warner releases.

The problem is that the years hence haven’t been that great to the Artist financially. For a major artist, Prince hasn’t sold all that well since he’s gone out on his own. According to Soundscan numbers posted by Billboard, the artist has sold 18.5 million albums in the United States since 1991, but 14.3 million of those were with Warners. Most of an artist’s income comes from touring and merchandise sales but the fact of the matter is that he hasn’t had a big blockbuster tour in a long time either. There’s nothing like an cash infusion from a deal with a major label, even if it is an old nemesis, which was probably a good enough reason in itself to do the deal.

It’s also been said that in the deal with Warners, Prince will get back ownership of his old Warner Brothers masters, which include some of his most loved albums. The fact of the matter is that he would soon have the ability to get them back under the Copyright Revision Act of 1976, which states that any master recording copyright can be terminated 35 years after it was granted. The law went into effect in 1978, which happens to be the same year that Prince’s first album came out. All of his albums are about to come back to him in the upcoming years anyway, so that means there must be a better reason than that to do the deal.

The fact is that being out on your own can be liberating, but a tough go at the same time. The economies of scale that a label has don’t exist for a DIY artist, even one as big as Prince, and the marketing benefits that today’s social media platforms offer take time and a specialized infrastructure to take advantage of. There’s a lot of additional work required from an artist that goes beyond simple music creation, so much so that the comfort of a major label begins to look pretty good after a while. A great example of this is Nine Inch Nails founder Trent Reznor, who’s as savvy a social media entrepreneur as there is, and who’s now back with in the major label fold with Columbia as well. Ceding control equals more time for the things that artists love the most, which is making music.

With a new album, an upcoming tour, and a 30th anniversary Purple Rain box set ready to drop, there’s a lot on the line for The Artist. Prince, and Warner Music, can make a lot more money working together than they can apart. If that isn’t a good reason to bury the hatchet, nothing is.

This tease of "what could have been" makes me want to cry. Like a dove. Okay, that was cheesy, but you get my point.

lol I know what you mean

OldFriends4Sale said:

Aerogram said:

Sorry, dear Mod, as fantastic I think your threads are, I don't actually follow everyone's opinions meticulously, so many of them are way too flippant and purely provocative to do that.

Your own posts never came to mind when I was thinking of Paul's or mine's.

As well no one is thinking slavery is something to laugh about but you can't police the way the word is used, Prince's point is that the standard practice for young artist getting into the business is not fair to them and I understand many lawyers take the same view: that in that industry, artists shoulder too much of the risk for something they won't own and that is maybe not unique, but certainly not on par with what happens elsewhere in the entertainment professions.

Musicians don't all become celebrities, and even those who do can get stiffed by their managers or label. I understand the Backstreet Boys had relatively little to show when they fizzled after a string of albums and hits, and you know they were an enormous success. If that's the case when you made it big, what happens to those who did not? Three albums of attempt and they can have an enormous debt for the privilege of trying to become a celebrity. This is not like you and me signing on contract for a business venture, you're generally guaranteed part of the ownership. Musicians are not and that is the crucial difference and why Prince called it servitude.

Now, about that tweet you pasted, I'm sorry to say I find it extremely reductive. Where there's economic oppression, whether it was the Irish in the 19th century, the Italians in the first half of the 20th century or other newly arrived ethnic groups later on, there's lots of violence within that group and that may be a reflection that "life is cheap" that has happened over and over within the history of oppression, but gratuitous police brutality is chiefly part of the oppression, it can't be justified on the basis of "they kill each other anyway". It's a reductive shortcut -- sure, each community has to see what they can improve, but come on. Check out just one the recent stories, where a policy union is chastising someone for putting up a video where an handcuffed suspect is assaulted:

http://gawker.com/police-...1724332701

Please don't being up me being a Mod, it has nothing to do with the discussion. We are not talking about site rules and site issues. We are talking about our individual informationn about Prince record deals and use of imagery. Policing? After I read this I stopped reading your post. Because things tend to go downhill after that. Because now it seems you are getting personal. My issue was with Pauls post not yours-you did not say it-u just agreed.

My belief stands as is.

I wasn't saying you were personally "policing"as a moderator, I was talking in general, as in "we can't police how the word is used". Enough anyway if we keep misunderstanding each other.

radici27 said:

I always thought the main feature of slavery is that it was involuntary.

Comparing anything that's negative, manipulative, etc. to it comes off as dramatic.

Gayle Chapman on being an “employed” musician: I think people romanticize how much (money) rock stars make. It's a business like anything else. Unless you're the “star,” you're not going to make as much money. That's the way it is.
They're going to pay you a wage and take care of you, because, you signed on willingly for what you're getting to be there. So, to complain about it is stupid. When you agree to take a job and they offer you a wage, if you're not happy with it, you have say so up front. Otherwise, you're stuck getting that ... If you're not happy, you shouldn't stay. In the negotiation process, some people really aren't happy, but, they stay anyway.
I was happy, because, I didn't have to be a maid in a hotel or a waitress in a cafe. That just wasn't in the cards for me. I had to work with a rock star or look like one.

Prince getting paid millions of dollars to make music is not slavery. Not even close.

.

He gets paid a lot of money for doing something that he loves to do. That might actually be considered the opposite of slavery.

Aerogram said:

radici27 said:

I always thought the main feature of slavery is that it was involuntary.

Comparing anything that's negative, manipulative, etc. to it comes off as dramatic.

It's called an analogy, or using the word figuratively.

People in sweatshops can earn some money, except it's barely enough to survive. While not literally "slaves" (unpaid, legally owned individuals), they are subjected to a form of modern slavery. This is an example of a non-literal use of the word.

You might compare anything that creates a situation of virtual servitude to "slavery". That is another level of analogy, for instance when people say that addicts are figuratively enslaved to a drug. You might say that any situation that contractually obligates someone to take on a huge financial risk for something he/she will not end up owning while still owing a great deal of money through the system of advances, may not be very different from loan sharking if you fail to make it big (or big enough).

There is something wrong with the way aspiring artists are forced to shoulder so much of the risk while standardly not owning what they actually created. The system is inherently exploitative, for every success you have legions of people that don't make it that big and end up owing money while the record company keeps the intellectual property and moves on.

Is it excessive to call it slavery? Strong words, for sure, but consistent with other non-literal uses of the word.

[Edited 8/19/15 10:20am]

[Edited 8/19/15 10:24am]

Se7en said:

Prince getting paid millions of dollars to make music is not slavery. Not even close.

.

He gets paid a lot of money for doing something that he loves to do. That might actually be considered the opposite of slavery.

Exactly!

Aerogram said:

radici27 said:

I always thought the main feature of slavery is that it was involuntary.

Comparing anything that's negative, manipulative, etc. to it comes off as dramatic.

It's called an analogy, or using the word figuratively.

People in sweatshops can earn some money, except it's barely enough to survive. While not literally "slaves" (unpaid, legally owned individuals), they are subjected to a form of modern slavery. This is an example of a non-literal use of the word.

.

They have the choice between starvation of exploitation, so it's an appropriate analogy. Prince not signing with WBR wouldn't cause him to starve.

.

There is something wrong with the way aspiring artists are forced to shoulder so much of the risk while standardly not owning what they actually created. The system is inherently exploitative, for every success you have legions of people that don't make it that big and end up owing money while the record company keeps the intellectual property and moves on.

.

Yes, how dare those evil record companies dare to LOAN money to artists and expect them to pay them back.

I said he was gonna pull his 90's "slave" crap, and many of ya'll jumped down my throat for saying it. Well......what do we see here? Prince digging up his old "contracts is like slavery talk, because yet again, he finds himself in another contract with Warner Bros that he wants to back out of yet again. Prince has an pretty warped view of the word "slavery", because I don't recall any multi-millionaire slaves.....it's not hating, or take an rocket scientist to say this about Prince, when he pulls the same shit, over and over, and over.......and yet many still defend him, and make record deals with him. That's what amazes me to no end.

When did Prince say he wanted Black Police officers in Black Neighborhoods?

Seems kinda backwards thinking to me because it assumes that only white (and and any other race than black) officers can assault black civilians.

I once saw a Vice documentary about a kid with aspergers that was the victim of a police sting within a school that was in one of the safest towns in California. Basically, these cops went into a school to find drugs and ended up targeting all of the special needs, minority and misfit groups and persuading them to buy them drugs because like I said, safe town = hardly any drugs on campus.

It explained at the end that the reason why they wanted to make so many arrests was because it increases cash flow into that police station based on the amount of arrests made that month or so.

To me (as an outsider, I live in England) that just looks like finding the most vunerable in society and exploiting that for personal gain. I don't doubt that racism plays a part within police stations and the brutality witnessed but I don't think it's JUST that. It's more of a mix imho. So idk, would just having black officers patrol black neighborhoods make it any better? I don't know. Maybe.

http://www.vice.com/video...ar-on-kids

For anyone interested.

A lot of the time I find Identity Politics does more harm than good...

Embrace said:

As for his current deal Obviously he owns everything now And he is not exclusively tied to WB for new releases How much of the money pie is his one can only guess But i bet its more than before WB still profits too and they avoided a lawsuit that probably would have set a bad precedent for them So my guess is they are content too Why remasters are still not released i dont know but i doubt it has antthing to do with falling out again as Some like to speculate My bet is it has more to do with sales strategy or legal issues that have risen after the deal Maybe Some associated artists also want a piece of the remaster pie

I don't know if I would classify Prince's claim for master ownerships from WB as a lawsuit, not the way you're portraying it. Legal proceedings, yes. Lawsuit with negative public relations for WB, no. Plus, WB most likely has an entire team of lawyers who do nothing but this all day, every day.

.

I would classify it more like a petition or an application.

Embrace said:

t So no a record contract is not the same as slavery but it sure could feel like it The analogy is understandable . [Edited 8/29/15 13:56pm]

.

No it isn't. Nobody's forcing artists to sign them. They've got plenty of other options, and yes, each comes with its own set of problems. Bandcamp for instance ain't financing your tour or investing in promo etc.

.

I'm getting sick of all this "boohoo record companies are so evil" bitching from people who have yet to come up with a more honest system that is also profitable.

.

Explain to me why Prince should own the master rights to The Time's Pandemonium. And if he shouldn't, explain who should. If there's more than one owner in your system, explain how you could release a remastered or expanded version when the rights belong to half a dozen people, or a dozen people.

.

Explain to me why a record company should invest thousands of dollars, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, when the band that gets that money also gets to keep all of its rights and isn't obligated to that company.

.

Look at RHCP: were nurtured for years by EMI, their contract running out after Mother's Milk. Peppers struck it big at WBR, but EMI had a deal with WBR so they could pick one track from the Peppers' WBR catalog for use on their compilation What Hits and they picked "Under The Bridge"; thanks to the Peppers becoming a major band EMI finally recouped their investment. Now imagine that the Peppers had retained all the rights to their albums...

Prince is correct, so I don't have a problem with it. The other issue is that Internet companies are no better, for artists that are truly about the music. Today you need to also build your own platform. I think Dr Dre's Apple deal shook Prince and that may be another factor in the rise of Josh at Paisley Park. Prince may have realized that he needs to add a bit more, to his already impressive array of skills. Prince isn't likely to trust anyone to negotiate on his behalf, so he's got to get out there and do it himself. He doesn't have as much time to focus on the hot new sounds of the day. The thing is though, Prince pretty much killed his brand 5 years ago when he snubbed The Time, The Family, Sheila E and The Revolution. He killed their momentum, when he should have userped it, to launch reissues and a new album similar to how MJ used Motown 25th to launch "Billie Jean". BTW, MJ also thought a tired-azz reunion show was the worst thing he could do for his career and it took Berry Gordy to corner his ass up in a studio and guilt him into appearing. I'm not surprised that Prince thought similarly of a PR reunion, however, usually Prince is saavy enough to make the correct decision. He was wrong about the PR reunion. Prince let everybody down, and proved that he was far more of a Killjoy than a PartyMan.

Se7en said:

I would classify it more like a petition or an application.

Well yes of course, but also one accompanied by the threat of vigorous legal actions if not fully complied with.

Obviously WB didn't prefer that. They have an exclusive license deal now that still makes them some.

BartVanHemelen said:

Embrace said:

t So no a record contract is not the same as slavery but it sure could feel like it The analogy is understandable . [Edited 8/29/15 13:56pm]

.

No it isn't. Nobody's forcing artists to sign them. They've got plenty of other options, and yes, each comes with its own set of problems. Bandcamp for instance ain't financing your tour or investing in promo etc.

.

I'm getting sick of all this "boohoo record companies are so evil" bitching from people who have yet to come up with a more honest system that is also profitable.

.

Explain to me why Prince should own the master rights to The Time's Pandemonium. And if he shouldn't, explain who should.

True, nobody is holding a gun to their head. And these days artists do have a lot more options than before.

And for the record: I never said that "record companies are evil", nor that Prince should own the master rights to Pandemonium.

If there's more than one owner in your system, explain how you could release a remastered or expanded version when the rights belong to half a dozen people, or a dozen people.

.

Explain to me why a record company should invest thousands of dollars, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, when the band that gets that money also gets to keep all of its rights and isn't obligated to that company.

.

Look at RHCP: were nurtured for years by EMI, their contract running out after Mother's Milk. Peppers struck it big at WBR, but EMI had a deal with WBR so they could pick one track from the Peppers' WBR catalog for use on their compilation What Hits and they picked "Under The Bridge"; thanks to the Peppers becoming a major band EMI finally recouped their investment. Now imagine that the Peppers had retained all the rights to their albums...

I imagine the Peppers would have done the same thing.

Sign their rights away again for an advance.

As long as artists keep on doing that, there is little chance of changing anything.

The irony of it all, is that the freedom of the internet and the entrepeneurships of other creatives, is forcing the music industry to change their entire game.

But the music industry is still highly reluctant. And hardly able to adapt. Most of the music will therefore eventually be pushed outside the realm of big business.