alannevets said:

My apologies if this was already posted elsewhere. https://www.nytimes.com/2...state.html

Thanks for posting this! I noticed this, which came up here recently: "Warner Bros. is set to release a new version of Prince’s biggest album, “Purple Rain,” this spring, with a full disc of unreleased material". Hadn't heard about a full disc of unreleased material though!

This Spotify/Grammy event could be potentially huge, if the tribute is done right. It needsto be at least as good as what Sheila did.

But as any P can testify, nothing is ever as simple as it could be, would be or should be in the wold of purple.

[le sigh]

NO kidding. I won't count my purple chickens until they hatch.

A different bank (Coamerica) is now running the estate, so anything can happen I guess.

LBrent said:

But as any P can testify, nothing is ever as simple as it could be, would be or should be in the wold of purple.

[le sigh]

purplerabbithole said:

NO kidding. I won't count my purple chickens until they hatch.

A different bank (Coamerica) is now running the estate, so anything can happen I guess.

LBrent said:

But as any P can testify, nothing is ever as simple as it could be, would be or should be in the wold of purple.

[le sigh]

As a long-time Prince fan, completely agree.

There are a few reasons, however, to actually believe that at least some of this is happening:

- His performing rights and song copyrights are now managed by third parties who have a vested interest in not letting his music collect dust.

- The estate needs to keep the revenue coming, which will not happen from new sales of CDs or downloads.

- This may have been posted already, but a judge ruled that a liaison is not needed between the estate and the administrator.* In other words, less people gumming up the process.

So while anything is possible, or not possible, this time it seems, the possibles are becoming more possible.

One quick note to anyone who might say, "I own the CDs. Who cares about streaming?"

Two things. First, music streaming provides a long tail of revenue. It's relatively small money now, but add that up over years and it could equal a lot of money. And if we purchase a CD? That's it, that's all the money the artist will receive. But streaming allows us to support Prince and his estate for years to come.

Second, and most importantly, if an artist wants to remain vital in culture they have to be available. Right now an entire generation of music fans are saying, "Prince, who?" because they can't listen to his music the way they want to, on a streaming service. It's like being an artist who made vinyl records in the 80s but then refusing to move their catalog to CDs. Eventually, they would fade from memory.

So in order to for Prince to be discovered and appreciated by new generations and fans, and in order to maintain his legacy for years to come, he needs to be easily accessible to new listeners.

* http://www.billboard.com/...t-comerica

alannevets said:

purplerabbithole said:

NO kidding. I won't count my purple chickens until they hatch.

A different bank (Coamerica) is now running the estate, so anything can happen I guess.

As a long-time Prince fan, completely agree.

There are a few reasons, however, to actually believe that at least some of this is happening:

- His performing rights and song copyrights are now managed by third parties who have a vested interest in not letting his music collect dust.

- The estate needs to keep the revenue coming, which will not happen from new sales of CDs or downloads.

- This may have been posted already, but a judge ruled that a liaison is not needed between the estate and the administrator.* In other words, less people gumming up the process.

So while anything is possible, or not possible, this time it seems, the possibles are becoming more possible.

One quick note to anyone who might say, "I own the CDs. Who cares about streaming?"

Two things. First, music streaming provides a long tail of revenue. It's relatively small money now, but add that up over years and it could equal a lot of money. And if we purchase a CD? That's it, that's all the money the artist will receive. But streaming allows us to support Prince and his estate for years to come.

Second, and most importantly, if an artist wants to remain vital in culture they have to be available. Right now an entire generation of music fans are saying, "Prince, who?" because they can't listen to his music the way they want to, on a streaming service. It's like being an artist who made vinyl records in the 80s but then refusing to move their catalog to CDs. Eventually, they would fade from memory.

So in order to for Prince to be discovered and appreciated by new generations and fans, and in order to maintain his legacy for years to come, he needs to be easily accessible to new listeners.

* http://www.billboard.com/...t-comerica

Yup.

Streaming is to the younger generation what radio was to my generation.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed and trying not to take too many deep breaths or make any sudden movements until it's all signed, sealed and delivered though.

Damn that complicated stubborn sexy talented lil purple Yoda.

[Edited 1/24/17 22:13pm]

alannevets said:

Mumio said:

alannevets said:

My apologies if this was already posted elsewhere. https://www.nytimes.com/2...state.html

Thanks for posting this! I noticed this, which came up here recently: "Warner Bros. is set to release a new version of Prince’s biggest album, “Purple Rain,” this spring, with a full disc of unreleased material". Hadn't heard about a full disc of unreleased material though! :-o

That was widely reported last October. See here for one : http://www.rollingstone.c...in-w446053

While the contents of the deluxe edition have not been announced, the set promises to include "a second album of previously unreleased material."

alannevets said:

Thanks Gent...clearly I had missed it then

TheEnglishGent said:

Mumio said:

That was widely reported last October. See here for one : http://www.rollingstone.c...in-w446053

While the contents of the deluxe edition have not been announced, the set promises to include "a second album of previously unreleased material."

Mumio said:

Thanks Gent...clearly I had missed it then

TheEnglishGent said:

No problem .


Let's just hope it is as exciting as it sounds.

TheEnglishGent said:

laurarichardson said:

TheEnglishGent said:

No problem .


Let's just hope it is as exciting as it sounds.

There is a possibility this will not be happening.

Of course nothing is definite until it's in our hands but at this point there's nothing to suggest that it won't happen.

TheEnglishGent said:

alannevets said:

One quick note to anyone who might say, "I own the CDs. Who cares about streaming?"

Two things. First, music streaming provides a long tail of revenue. It's relatively small money now, but add that up over years and it could equal a lot of money. And if we purchase a CD? That's it, that's all the money the artist will receive. But streaming allows us to support Prince and his estate for years to come.

Second, and most importantly, if an artist wants to remain vital in culture they have to be available. Right now an entire generation of music fans are saying, "Prince, who?" because they can't listen to his music the way they want to, on a streaming service. It's like being an artist who made vinyl records in the 80s but then refusing to move their catalog to CDs. Eventually, they would fade from memory.

So in order to for Prince to be discovered and appreciated by new generations and fans, and in order to maintain his legacy for years to come, he needs to be easily accessible to new listeners.

Your argument in favor of streaming is misdirected because as laurarichardson noted, Prince's music is already available on a streaming service for anyone to hear. It's just not the streaming service to which most people subscribe. Subsitute Spotify for the word streaming and then you'd be more accurate.

sexton said:

You could just put some of his catalogue on Spotify to get people interested, the big hits. I wonder would new fans be more interested in hearing Purple Rain including all outtakes or his entire released catalogue? I have friends who would jump at the Purple Rain stuff who have never given any time to his post WB catalogue. Then again, Spotify is perfect for playlisting which would benefit his later stuff greatly.

At the end of the day Spotify is still losing money and CD sales are at an all time low so who knows what the future for the industry is.

laytonian said:

sexton said:

Your argument in favor of streaming is misdirected because as laurarichardson noted, Prince's music is already available on a streaming service for anyone to hear. It's just not the streaming service to which most people subscribe. Subsitute Spotify for the word streaming and then you'd be more accurate.

ACTUALLY, an artist makes more money by selling to the consumer than from streaming. P knew that 850,000 song dreams would only reap about $15,000. Each stream is an incredibly small percentage of a penny. Think about it. You pay $10 a month and afraction of that is split among EVERY song you listen to. You pay $10 our do for a CD, and the artist gets a fair share, especially if they have control. P was getting about 50% in some cases. Streaming and owning should co-exist.

I purchase all my music and don't have any streaming accounts so I'm not really the person with whom to debate about the benefits of physical media for the artist.

Sadly streaming is the death of music.

.

But oddly people a rushing to the edge of the cliff.

.

The mind boggles!!!

.

This is a good thing.In order for Prince's music to live on and attract younger listeners,it simply must be accessible (and by accessible I mean....not just on one streaming service.I believe that Spotify has many more listeners than Tidal).

....

[Edited 1/25/17 13:19pm]

SoulAlive said:

sexton said:

laytonian said:

ACTUALLY, an artist makes more money by selling to the consumer than from streaming. P knew that 850,000 song dreams would only reap about $15,000. Each stream is an incredibly small percentage of a penny. Think about it. You pay $10 a month and afraction of that is split among EVERY song you listen to. You pay $10 our do for a CD, and the artist gets a fair share, especially if they have control. P was getting about 50% in some cases. Streaming and owning should co-exist.

I purchase all my music and don't have any streaming accounts so I'm not really the person with whom to debate about the benefits of physical media for the artist.

.

I was making a general reply from my phone and fat-fingered who I was talking to.

But the words were flowing...and the "gotta control MY music" part of me (like Prince) started flowing.

jaawwnn said:

You could just put some of his catalogue on Spotify to get people interested, the big hits. I wonder would new fans be more interested in hearing Purple Rain including all outtakes or his entire released catalogue? I have friends who would jump at the Purple Rain stuff who have never given any time to his post WB catalogue. Then again, Spotify is perfect for playlisting which would benefit his later stuff greatly.

At the end of the day Spotify is still losing money and CD sales are at an all time low so who knows what the future for the industry is.

.

The only way (I see) to increase SALES (most lucrative) would be to put one or two songs from each album, rather than the entire catalogue.

New fans won't be at the "every version" point for many years, if ever.

But damn. We need to get beyond Purple Rain, no matter how much we love it.

laytonian said:

ACTUALLY, an artist makes more money by selling to the consumer than from streaming. P knew that 850,000 song streams would only reap about $15,000. Each stream is an incredibly small percentage of a penny. Think about it. You pay $10 a month and a fraction of that is split among EVERY song you listen to. You pay $10 or so for a CD, and the artist gets a fair share, especially if they have control. P was getting about 50% in some cases. Streaming and owning should co-exist.

Whilst selling definitely brings in more revenue, and I agree both options need to be available, streaming allows the music to reach a wider audience - people who are new to your music, or are only extremely casual fans. It doesn't solve the problem of less physical sales, but it does make a huge impact on illegal downloads - particularly with Spotify since it has a free, ad-supported version.

It's really interesting as an artist myself - as a band we've made far more money from physical sales than we have from streaming, but it's from a small minority of hardcore fans. But when you go into any meeting with any label, they only want to know about how many "Likes" you have on FB, how many Instagram followers, how many YouTube views........and those numbers aren't coming from the people that spend £10 to buy your physical release.

laytonian said:

Militant said:

laytonian said:

ACTUALLY, an artist makes more money by selling to the consumer than from streaming. P knew that 850,000 song streams would only reap about $15,000. Each stream is an incredibly small percentage of a penny. Think about it. You pay $10 a month and a fraction of that is split among EVERY song you listen to. You pay $10 or so for a CD, and the artist gets a fair share, especially if they have control. P was getting about 50% in some cases. Streaming and owning should co-exist.

Whilst selling definitely brings in more revenue, and I agree both options need to be available, streaming allows the music to reach a wider audience - people who are new to your music, or are only extremely casual fans. It doesn't solve the problem of less physical sales, but it does make a huge impact on illegal downloads - particularly with Spotify since it has a free, ad-supported version.

It's really interesting as an artist myself - as a band we've made far more money from physical sales than we have from streaming, but it's from a small minority of hardcore fans. But when you go into any meeting with any label, they only want to know about how many "Likes" you have on FB, how many Instagram followers, how many YouTube views........and those numbers aren't coming from the people that spend £10 to buy your physical release.

I suggest streaming the hits and new stuff only first on CD/vinyl for the hard core Prince fans. I don't think throwing your new material on streaming is a good idea when people actually want your music. See Adele's last music release concept. Prince isn't going to bring in new fans with unreleased music-it's not going to be played on pop radio. Prince brings in new fans with his hits. Then they will seek out his newer/vault material.

Kara said:

I'm looking forward to Prince being on Spotify, which is the service I use. I like the permanence of physical CDs (I have so many, I have to keep them in a storage unit), and the convenience of streaming (I don't have to rip all of those aforementioned CDs). Much of what I stream, I already own, and the rest is me searching for new music I like. It will be nice to have Prince mixed in there, too.

I feel the same way.I have a ton of CDs,vinyl records,etc and I still use Spotify.I like being able to stream albums that I'm curious about and discover new music every once in a while.It's fun.And for those who say that streaming hurts record sales,guess what? The other night,I was on Spotify and I discovered an album (Red Lips by Cerrone)....see my thread about it in the music:non Prince section) and after I streamed it,I went straight to Amazon and purchased the CD

SoulAlive said:

Kara said:

I'm looking forward to Prince being on Spotify, which is the service I use. I like the permanence of physical CDs (I have so many, I have to keep them in a storage unit), and the convenience of streaming (I don't have to rip all of those aforementioned CDs). Much of what I stream, I already own, and the rest is me searching for new music I like. It will be nice to have Prince mixed in there, too.

I feel the same way.I have a ton of CDs,vinyl records,etc and I still use Spotify.I like being able to stream albums that I'm curious about and discover new music every once in a while.It's fun.And for those who say that streaming hurts record sales,guess what? The other night,I was on Spotify and I discovered an album (Red Lips by Cerrone)....see my thread about it in the music:non Prince section) and after I streamed it,I went straight to Amazon and purchased the CD

It's really cool to hear that there are some people willing to buy some music these days. I'm afraid that your (and also my) purchasing behavior is of the minority--I'm not very confident that such behavior is widely replicated among listeners today.

>

People's cash from these subscriptions will go mainly to the streaming distributors and I'm afraid that we'll see unfortunate results for a while in terms of lessened music sales and revenue support to artists being cut short at this potential source.That's just what I see happening right now. I guess for most musicians, however, whatever promotion of name and work that they gain from here might be worth more than the cents of pay they collect through the streaming enterprise.

>

Perhaps in the long run the streaming services might cut their fee demand and this digital distribution could replace what radio once was for music. Alternatively, maybe the market's tolerance to $10 + monthly service fees will grow among consumers; the minimum wage keeps bumping up, so just maybe, yeah?

>

For the time being, I'll agree it couldn't hurt to put some of the popular 80s albums on all of the popular streaming services--Prince's hits would otherwise never be as accessible, and this fire-hydrant approach might just work to float people's curiosity to find other music by Prince that they could actually buy (if so inclined) to build an investment to the Prince estate and Paisley Park endeavors.

>

Keep hope alive!