SoulAlive said:

laurarichardson said:

SoulAlive said: /\\What is the point if the estate can't make a profit? And we can't own it.

There are many other ways for the estate to make money.For example,they can allow Prince's music to appear in movies.That will not only give them a nice paycheck,but it will also keep Prince's music alive and expose it to future generations.Or they could allow 'Purple Rain' to become a Broadway musical.The possibilities are endless.Stop acting as if Prince's music appearing on those streaming services means that the estate will go broke.As I pointed out,there are many,many ways for the estate to make lots of money.

I did not say they were going to go broke I said they will not make any money. No one is making any money except the record companies.

This is a fact and very easy to look up. If you are going to make up stuff I did not say at least be somewhere close to being correct and try doing some reserch first.

rogifan said:

Purplestar88 said:

That's what I am wondering. People are praising the streaming deals but what is the vaule? I don't any about streaming. Sounds like a rip off for artist and people buying the streams.

[Edited 1/10/17 16:56pm]

I'm not praising anything. I'm dealing with reality. Does anyone really think record labels would support streaming if they could still get people to spend $10-$15 on a CD (where they maybe only liked a couple tracks)? It's pretty clear the public has decided and renting it is. Look at how many people subscribe to Netflix. Is Netflix bad because people are willing to pay $10/mo to watch the programming they offer vs. buying individual seasons of shows? This is the way the market is going. And I see zero evidence that putting his music on streaming services will cost the Estate anything. Those that want to "own" his music can still do so.

Questioning the vaule of these deals is dealing with reality. Are the artist and the comsuser getting the best vaule out of the deals? Illegal downloading is not going anywhere, so I quess those who have steaming deals will be lucky if any one makes a dime on streaming.

Germanegro said:

Purplestar88 said:

SoulAlive said:

rogifan said:

SoulAlive said:

There are many other ways for the estate to make money.For example,they can allow Prince's music to appear in movies.That will not only give them a nice paycheck,but it will also keep Prince's music alive and expose it to future generations.Or they could allow 'Purple Rain' to become a Broadway musical.The possibilities are endless.Stop acting as if Prince's music appearing on those streaming services means that the estate will go broke.As I pointed out,there are many,many ways for the estate to make lots of money.

You are right about this but I hope the Estate is judicious in how they license out his name/music. No commercials. And don't stick his music in every TV show and movie out there.

rogifan said:

Purplestar88 said:

Questioning the vaule of these deals is dealing with reality. Are the artist and the comsuser getting the best vaule out of the deals? Illegal downloading is not going anywhere, so I quess those who have steaming deals will be lucky if any one makes a dime on streaming.

Practically every popular artist is on these streaming services. Including ones that were previous holdouts like The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Metallica and AC/DC. Streaming isn't going anywhere. And streaming isn't going to cause the Estate to lose money or to broke.

No, streaming is not going away because there is too much money being circulated into hands by people using it, including the pirates that ultimately piggyback onto these functions. It will siphon earnings from the estate--it is hard to argue against this. The simple point is that funds being generated through streaming enterprises need to be channeled more equitably in the proper direction. Better reimbursement deals need to be extended by Apple Music, Spotify, Google Play, etc. to content providers. Because for now the artists simply aren't making much to spend on anything through the current payouts by these services, and the recording industry is hanging on by the nails with companies requiring to reformulate themselves into larger conglomerates to justify their existence. This is not paranoia--ask an executive. I'm speaking about common business sense, too, you know.

>

The estate needs to take their time and choose services wisely for streaming to make a deal for the best reimbursement/upfront cash payout in a limited-term contract to keep these service-providers' offerings competitive. Working things out that way would be fine for Prince's music, I think.

Germanegro said:

Wonderful. Can't wait to finally get Prince on my Spotify! A bit pissed though - I'll have to delete a lot to make room for his whole catalog.

Germanegro said:

rogifan said:

laurarichardson said:

renfield said:

laurarichardson said:

Taxes have to be paid and looking at his assests that are going to struggle to pay it or be on a payment plan for years while interest and late fees pile up.

You need to do some reserch plenty of artist are struggling because of streaming especially older artist who were going to use their royalties as their retirment income. Many have to still work. Plenty of articles about this.

Prince is not around to tour anymore so were is the big money going to come from.

That big money surely isn't going to come from album sales. People don't buy albums anymore, especially not Prince albums. His sales surged following his death but that is never going to happen again. He's not here to tour or appear on TV so there will be no exposing his work to new listeners in the future. If he's not on streaming services younger audiences won't discover him. That's just the reality of 2017. The estate can always sell vault albums to us but his hardcore base isn't big enough to pay the bills either. What they will have to do (and we will all hate this but it's necessary) is license his music to tv, film, and (shudder) commercials. THAT will be where the big money comes from in the future. 10,000 streams of "1999", and the exposure that generates, is probably worth more than the 200 copies 'Dirty Mind' will sell next year.

I agree with you completely here. I don't like what streaming has done to the music business, but the reality is that it is the only way to get exposure anymore other than promote through tv, touring etc. Prince is no longer here to do that .

rogifan said:

How is it going to siphon earnings from the estate? The number of people buying Prince's music outright is minuscule. Of course last year was an anomaly because he died. I agree that the estate needs to make the best deal possible, and I think it can happen. [Edited 1/11/17 6:46am]

The streaming services provide another gateway to pirating-- a superhighway, really, from what I understand. The subject may be fit for a separate thread. People buing music today in general is a miniscule number.

>

While streaming can get Prince's music out there it can also get it gone in terms of potential revenue evaporated in the the ether of pirating networks and their associated advertisements that bring the pirates their income (associated advertising revenue--hmm--more monies lost to the estate!) So I criticize the format, with their paltry pay schemes and boosting of pirating activlty, and despite the seeming ease by which people can have all their music at their fingertips with such subscriptions.

>

A nice payout by the streaming services would give the estate some cash to work with, though, if they can make a better deal with 'em, and if our legislative agents/agencies can keep pushing for better controls against these nasty pirates that ultimately parallel the legitimate dealings.

>

Commerce can be so fraught with competitive agents from angles that you'd have never thought of. That's innovation for you!

rogifan said:

laurarichardson said:

He sold music last year and unless you have the royalty rate from Tidal you have no idea.

We don't have the figures but I'm willing to be non-death related sales were small. Again Tidal is not a big platform and most people are buying and listening to music elsewhere.

I am just repeating what was in Billboard and several other publications if what he sold was small it was more than everyone else and music sales overall are not much for all artist.

Germanegro said:

rogifan said:

The streaming services provide another gateway to pirating-- a superhighway, really, from what I understand. The subject may be fit for a separate thread. People buing music today in general is a miniscule number.

>

While streaming can get Prince's music out there it can also get it gone in terms of potential revenue evaporated in the the ether of pirating networks and their associated advertisements that bring the pirates their income (associated advertising revenue--hmm--more monies lost to the estate!) So I criticize the format, with their paltry pay schemes and boosting of pirating activlty, and despite the seeming ease by which people can have all their music at their fingertips with such subscriptions.

>

A nice payout by the streaming services would give the estate some cash to work with, though, if they can make a better deal with 'em, and if our legislative agents/agencies can keep pushing for better controls against these nasty pirates that ultimately parallel the legitimate dealings.

>

Commerce can be so fraught with competitive agents from angles that you'd have never thought of. That's innovation for you!

I agree with you but let's up hope the estate can get a big upfront payment to offset the piracy and pennies from the streaming.

Ah, I long for the days for when I went and paid for something it was mine and I didn't have to get caught in the crosshairs of legal battles, hackers or whatever.

Prince Estate Signs Deal With Azoff for Songwriting Royalties

• Agreement covers composer’s rights on radio, public venues
• Music executive has vowed to get more for writers, performers

https://www.bloomberg.com...-royalties

morningsong said:

Ah, I long for the days for when I went and paid for something it was mine and I didn't have to get caught in the crosshairs of legal battles, hackers or whatever.

You know you can still do that...right?

Genesia said:

morningsong said:

Ah, I long for the days for when I went and paid for something it was mine and I didn't have to get caught in the crosshairs of legal battles, hackers or whatever.

You know you can still do that...right?

Not with the same ease.

coldasice said:

It's only gonna be to up until Come.

says who?

morningsong said:

Genesia said:

You know you can still do that...right?

Not with the same ease.

Really? Here: www.amazon.com

People here keep talking about Prince needing to get a wider audience and/or that being the objective of efforts upon his legacy.
In fact, Prince's major effort from Purple Rain onward, was transparently to create himself a specialist audience in the manner of Miles Davis, Frank Zappa and many others whose modus operandi was about the music played not the music sold. None of them were complete 'purists' in this but they all knew which fader was up. The artistic fader.

I think that he chose Tidal as a perfect fit and even the fact that Tidal was already known as not going to be a Spotify or Apple killer was probably all the more reason to choose them. Prince had a fixation upon cult audience even when he had come from way above the numbers such cult items enjoy.
Although he experimented, being something of global sales phenomenon and cult figure at the same time was a hard zone to work and the evidence showed he felt most comfortable in the latter.

And that's where things stand.
One only has to look at and feel the difference between the 'supermarket' items of Prince greatest hits CDs and the rarified environment of high-fidelity Tidal rarities to understand why he ended up and should stay with Tidal.
Even if Tidal should go under in the next few years, they and Prince will ultimately rise in the zone they properly should occupy, a cult zone, a legendary zone.
I'm kind of glad to hear that there's major investment in Tidal as I feel that it's one company in the current market that can probably hang in there by moving into the 'old school' idea of 'label that permits artistic development'. Virgin Records is one example that comes ot mind of this old-school where artists were signed for periods not dependent entirely on their sales but on their artistic development. It was part of some labels' remit and vibe to really emphasise this. You can think of dozens of others where this was generally the modus operandi.
Only lately into the X Factor era has it all been about instant return and short lifespan in the manner of the original record industry which was all about returns not art. Prince was about returns for sure but he was idealist, knowing there's an ideal balance to be found where you can fire on both cylinders. Record executives have occasionally struck such balances and artistic/financial paydirt is not unknown.

I think Prince has consistently shown presience and he knew that Tidal will follow that old-school route even if there had been investor hopes of creating a new Spotify. We don't need a new Spotify. We need a Tidal.

'And that's where we's livin'
Keep on keepin on.

[Edited 1/13/17 16:14pm]

XSX said:

People here keep talking about Prince needing to get a wider audience and/or that being the objective of efforts upon his legacy.
In fact, Prince's major effort from Purple Rain onward, was transparently to create himself a specialist audience in the manner of Miles Davis, Frank Zappa and many others whose modus operandi was about the music played not the music sold.

Come now, that's not true at all. The dude tried so hard and so many times to have big hits from Diamonds & Pearls onwards whether it be the big push for Musicology or putting "Prince" as the producer on Rave and following the ultra-successful Santana method of guest stars. He didn't want to be a cult artist, he wanted it both ways (uncompromised art and full success) because that's what he got with Purple Rain.

jaawwnn said:

XSX said:

People here keep talking about Prince needing to get a wider audience and/or that being the objective of efforts upon his legacy.
In fact, Prince's major effort from Purple Rain onward, was transparently to create himself a specialist audience in the manner of Miles Davis, Frank Zappa and many others whose modus operandi was about the music played not the music sold.

Come now, that's not true at all. The dude tried so hard and so many times to have big hits from Diamonds & Pearls onwards whether it be the big push for Musicology or putting "Prince" as the producer on Rave and following the ultra-successful Santana method of guest stars. He didn't want to be a cult artist, he wanted it both ways (uncompromised art and full success) because that's what he got with Purple Rain.

On the contrary, Prince's career was one big escape from Purple Rain.
What he got from it was an artistic success but that was BEFORE it was released.
When it spiralled into a phenomenon, what he got was a palace, Paisley Park and he chose to go in there and, pretty much, to stay there.
The rest was about the art and, sure, he was no slouch at being a business genius but that was only when he fancied swaggering in that area. When he swaggered, he rocked the financial charts but it was only for a 'refill' before artistic aspects reconsumed him. Hence the apparent inconsistency. The bulk of the time, he was about all and everything to do with music and artistry and his spending shows at every moment that he could care less about money unless he found he couldn't do what he wanted to do without more of it.

Fans seem to think that if he's in the charts, that is success.
But that's where he came from.
Everything he did was success. Even when it looked like failure from a press point of view.
If Prince wanted press as success, he, as he said, could have made Purple Rain Part II.
That he did toy with revisiting himself at times more recently was also the mark of a temporarily-lost way. In these times, he learned to rely upon performance and as that became more lucrative, he paid little attention to the record market, even to packaging.

Again, that's because he was about the music which stands for itself and will be discovered by future kids not because it's on cheap supermarket shelves like 4EVER but hiding in some basements where people are obsessing over it.

He's already ensured future success.

[Edited 1/13/17 16:24pm]

jaawwnn said:

SoulAlive said:

jaawwnn said:

Come now, that's not true at all. The dude tried so hard and so many times to have big hits from Diamonds & Pearls onwards whether it be the big push for Musicology or putting "Prince" as the producer on Rave and following the ultra-successful Santana method of guest stars. He didn't want to be a cult artist, he wanted it both ways (uncompromised art and full success) because that's what he got with Purple Rain.

Exactly.Prince wanted to have it both ways.

Well you could say that, sure. But that's only if there are ONLY two ways.
I don't think there are. There was a sweet spot which not only artists but executives once sought to tune in where artistic and financial paydirt went hand in hand.
It's just that getting there was always a question of a re-do, because formulas were not in stock as per the traditional album-tour-album.
If you wanted to get financial and artistic success balanced, it was always a neat trick.
The trick was still the trick though.

Both press and fans seem to have wanted Prince to 'do Purple Rain again'.
But you can't do it again, you have to start with new ingredients and blend them as perfectly as that had been. Not an easy trick but that was the trick.
He got different flavours of it. Most of them aren't, literally, 'recognised'.
But even before his passing, some of those that followed Purple Rain were beginning to be seen and now people are looking at everything he did as genius in some way.
That's not the case either. Prince was just a restless experimenter. He definitely didn't want to eat the same dinner twice.

[Edited 1/13/17 16:32pm]

Noodled24 said:

The estate of Prince Rogers Nelson, one of the few musicians unavailable on most streaming services, is closing in on deals that will pave the way for the artist’s music to play at major outlets like Spotify and Apple Music, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

Instead of going to PaisleyPark.music and giving the estate $10 for a CD that cost $1 to make (in fact I'd be downloading so that $1 CD actually cost $0) Instead of that, I'm going to give Spotify $10 and spotify will give 20 cents to the estate... (is there a Prince school of business I'm not aware of?)

I don't see an upside for the estate in this. Nobody makes millions from streaming - unless you're the company in control of the stream. Not to mention he fact they're undoing what Prince did.

I get that there is a need to give a little so that people rekindle their interest... But you don't hand over the entire catalog. Just put his music videos on Youtube/Vimeo? That covers all the big singles, and let's people get a flavour - then they can fuck off to a shop and buy something.

Maybe not as brash

XSX said:

[...]

Again, that's because he was about the music which stands for itself and will be discovered by future kids not because it's on cheap supermarket shelves like 4EVER but hiding in some basements where people are obsessing over it.

He's already ensured future success.

[Edited 1/13/17 16:24pm]

If that was the case, he wouldn't have done the Superbowl performance just in time before the Earth Tour.
Nor would he have distributed his CD's in the Daily Mail, one of the most popular British tabloid newspaper prior to the 21 Nights in London. I know the CD was free, but surely that must have helped promoting the shows. And what about 'Hitnrun Phase 1'? It certainly has that 'charts' vibe to it (and a great one too )... I think even in his later eras, it is possible that a part of him still seeked popularity, as he had after all always seemed to try and make his music accessible to all, not just the elite of hardcore fans.

[Edited 1/14/17 8:54am]