independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Prince preached but, how many artists actually "own" their master recordings?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 10/15/17 12:08pm

macaylasdad

Prince preached but, how many artists actually "own" their master recordings?

We know his story about artists owning their own master recordings and talked amongest his peers about the importance of it... but how many actually do? I saw an interview with Pink (who i think is an extremely overated artist) and she threw some shade about Prince asking her...

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 10/15/17 12:26pm

databank

avatar

Some big acts had managed to get some or most of theirs before Prince even brought it up (Bowie, Zappa) and some other big acts got theirs back ever since. And those new 360 contracts allow tha artist to keep them, too (but again, usually big acts). I don't think Prince has changed the situation for most artist. It doesn't mean he was wrong bringing it up. Maybe indie labels are cooler with that now, idk .
[Edited 10/15/17 12:26pm]
A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...scography/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 10/15/17 1:02pm

OldFriends4Sal
e

there are many before Prince's WB battle owned their masters

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 10/15/17 2:02pm

TrivialPursuit

avatar

Ray Charles negotiated that deal ages ago. Stevie Wonder owns his stuff. I think MJ did, too. I can't imagine that the Stones don't.

"eye don’t really care so much what people say about me because it is a reflection of who they r."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 10/15/17 5:27pm

macaylasdad

TrivialPursuit said:

Ray Charles negotiated that deal ages ago. Stevie Wonder owns his stuff. I think MJ did, too. I can't imagine that the Stones don't.

Thanks Trivs.... I am curious of artists like Katy Perry, Pink, Ga Ga, etc... what do you think?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 10/15/17 7:05pm

poppys

I think Ray Charles was the first. And it was not an easy thing to do. A few artists are rumored to have been murdered back in the day trying to own the rights to their music or direct their own careers. Hank Ballard had The Twist stolen from him because he wasn't on Dick Clark's label.

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 10/16/17 3:28am

jaawwnn

macaylasdad said:

TrivialPursuit said:

Ray Charles negotiated that deal ages ago. Stevie Wonder owns his stuff. I think MJ did, too. I can't imagine that the Stones don't.

Thanks Trivs.... I am curious of artists like Katy Perry, Pink, Ga Ga, etc... what do you think?

Someone like Katy Perry would sign a 360 deal, so even if she owns the masters as part of the deal she'll be agreeing to, for example, hand over a large portion of live show and merch money to the record company. Back in Prince's day the money was in record sales so that's what they mostly cared about.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 10/16/17 4:03am

rogifan

Old thread but lists artists who do or partially do.

http://forums.stevehoffma...ngs.93601/
Paisley Park is in your heart
#PrinceForever 💜
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 10/16/17 2:25pm

laurarichardso
n

OldFriends4Sale said:



there are many before Prince's WB battle owned their masters




Not that many as keeping the masters was standard operating procedure. It was really Fargnoli and Company’s job to handle this and per P.J. Jones they were working in cohorts from WB from the beginning.
Anyway Bono said that he knew nothing about this until Prince brought it up and U2 was able to negotiate to get theirs back so he helped one band. He also lent legal and financial support to Chaka, Toni, and Mariah when they had issues with their labels. The music industry is not going to see anybody like Prince again and they do not want.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 10/16/17 2:27pm

laurarichardso
n

jaawwnn said:



macaylasdad said:




TrivialPursuit said:


Ray Charles negotiated that deal ages ago. Stevie Wonder owns his stuff. I think MJ did, too. I can't imagine that the Stones don't.




Thanks Trivs.... I am curious of artists like Katy Perry, Pink, Ga Ga, etc... what do you think?



Someone like Katy Perry would sign a 360 deal, so even if she owns the masters as part of the deal she'll be agreeing to, for example, hand over a large portion of live show and merch money to the record company. Back in Prince's day the money was in record sales so that's what they mostly cared about.


—She will have a master that will not be worth much looking at the way her carreer is going and very little money from her live shows or merchandise. 360 deals are ridiculous. I bet a lot of artist will sell that master back to the record company down the road.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 10/18/17 3:20am

Adorecream

Many of the pioneers of Rock and roll didn't, but apparently when Michael Jackson bought the ATV/Northern Songs catalogue, he gave Little Richard back his masters and copyrights so he could make money of his classics.

Got some kind of love for you, and I don't even know your name
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 10/18/17 3:36am

NorthC

rogifan said:

Old thread but lists artists who do or partially do.

http://forums.stevehoffma...ngs.93601/

I read a lot of "I believe" and "pretty sure" there...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 10/20/17 6:03pm

GustavoRibas

avatar

Found it on another thread:

.

Bono on Prince...

(original link not working anymore, but this one is
https://books.google.com....mp;f=false )

.
Masters of Our Own Destiny
.
"That's Chris Blackwell [of Island Records] with the camera. We owe a
lot to him. I met Prince some years back -- I believe in Prince almost
as much as Prince believes in Prince, which is saying something -- and
he had 'Slave' written on the side of his face. I asked him why he was
doing that. He said, 'I don't own my master tapes. I don't own my
copyrights.' Then he said, 'You do own your master tapes. You do own
your copyrights. How did you do that?' I said, 'Lower royalty rate.' We
had a manager [Paul McGuinness] who believed it was a fundamental right
that eventually the stuff should come back to us. And it was this man,
Chris, who agreed to it. It means that on big sellers like /The Joshua
Tree/ and /Achtung Baby/ we took a lower royalty rate. But I will be
eternally grateful to Chris Blackwell for giving us those rights.
Because I am not a slave."

[Edited 10/20/17 18:05pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 10/20/17 6:09pm

GustavoRibas

avatar

It seems REM owned too:

.

"Speaking of those pitfalls, Stipe mentioned that Prince “always hated” him because R.E.M. owned their own masters and Prince never did"

.

https://consequenceofsoun...ng-listen/

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 10/21/17 6:05am

ThePanther

avatar

I feel bad for Prince re: his masters, of course, but in a way he didn't really help himself by spending money like it was going out of style, circa 1985-1995. He was the golden boy after Purple Rain, and Warner Bros. felt obligated to indulge his every whim for a while (ergo, Under the Cherry Moon), but by the very-early 90s Prince actually didn't have enough money to do a lot of things. That's because he spent a fortune on a bunch of stuff that didn't have much of a return, and if his management tried to warn him off stuff he just fired them. In 1988, he fired everyone and cleaned house. I feel like those bands like R.E.M. and U2 were smarter about things like that, and treated management better.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 10/21/17 1:54pm

darkroman

Many artists own their own masters.

Don't get caught up in Prince's conspiracies about demonising record companies. How Prince ran his music and his contracts isn't how the world works for everyone.

Pet Shop Boys own their own masters and have done so for decades.

Stereophonics own their own masters and have their own label.

Howard Jones owns his own masters and has been independent for 20+ years.

George Michael has owned his own masters since the Sony court cast in 1994.


There are too many examples to list them all.


smile

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 10/21/17 1:56pm

darkroman

jaawwnn said:

macaylasdad said:

Thanks Trivs.... I am curious of artists like Katy Perry, Pink, Ga Ga, etc... what do you think?

Someone like Katy Perry would sign a 360 deal, so even if she owns the masters as part of the deal she'll be agreeing to, for example, hand over a large portion of live show and merch money to the record company. Back in Prince's day the money was in record sales so that's what they mostly cared about.



The revenue earned from live performances (+MU fees) and merchandise is not part of a standard form contract to recoup against recording and marketing costs.

neutral

[Edited 10/21/17 13:56pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 10/21/17 8:15pm

ThePanther

avatar

darkroman said:

Many artists own their own masters.

Don't get caught up in Prince's conspiracies about demonising record companies. How Prince ran his music and his contracts isn't how the world works for everyone.

Pet Shop Boys own their own masters and have done so for decades.

Stereophonics own their own masters and have their own label.

Howard Jones owns his own masters and has been independent for 20+ years.

George Michael has owned his own masters since the Sony court cast in 1994.


There are too many examples to list them all.


smile

Yes, and the classic example of a smart way to do it is from the early 1960s -- the Dave Clark Five!

Prince was really young and a very-"solo" artist when he started, so it was always going to be tough. But they were periods there -- like, 1985 comes to mind -- when, if he hadn't decided to waste 10 million or whatever on a ego-trip, pointless film that everyone advised him against, he could have channelled his massive currency and cash into getting control of his masters.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 10/22/17 6:57am

databank

avatar

ThePanther said:

darkroman said:

Many artists own their own masters.

Don't get caught up in Prince's conspiracies about demonising record companies. How Prince ran his music and his contracts isn't how the world works for everyone.

Pet Shop Boys own their own masters and have done so for decades.

Stereophonics own their own masters and have their own label.

Howard Jones owns his own masters and has been independent for 20+ years.

George Michael has owned his own masters since the Sony court cast in 1994.


There are too many examples to list them all.


smile

Yes, and the classic example of a smart way to do it is from the early 1960s -- the Dave Clark Five!

Prince was really young and a very-"solo" artist when he started, so it was always going to be tough. But they were periods there -- like, 1985 comes to mind -- when, if he hadn't decided to waste 10 million or whatever on a ego-trip, pointless film that everyone advised him against, he could have channelled his massive currency and cash into getting control of his masters.

I might be wrong, but I don't recall Prince spending a dime on UTCM: it was all WB money.

A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...scography/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 10/22/17 7:29am

poppys

Not to mention we would not have Under the Cherry Moon. Perish the thought.

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 10/22/17 8:01am

muleFunk

avatar

What needs to be recognized here in regards to Prince is that he was 17/18 when he signed with Warner Brothers. As he got older and started talking to other artists like Bono he started to realize he had been had.

To say that there are "lots " of artists that have their masters is not true. A good guess would say that 90% of artists in history didn't have their master recordings. I can understand both sides of this story.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 10/22/17 8:12am

NorthC

He wasn't 18 when he signed that infamous $ 100 million contract in 1992.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 10/22/17 9:38am

muleFunk

avatar

NorthC said:

He wasn't 18 when he signed that infamous $ 100 million contract in 1992.

I blame his own ignorance for that. I wouldn't have signed that contract.

However I do know that once Mo Ostin's influence declined at WB Prince was put in the R&B division of Warners it limited his promotion and radio play to a possible 60% of his audience. This hurt the sales of those albums and singles. He had a reason to be angry because they were trying to sabatoge his career.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 10/22/17 10:33am

savagedreams

databank said:

Some big acts had managed to get some or most of theirs before Prince even brought it up (Bowie, Zappa) and some other big acts got theirs back ever since. And those new 360 contracts allow tha artist to keep them, too (but again, usually big acts). I don't think Prince has changed the situation for most artist. It doesn't mean he was wrong bringing it up. Maybe indie labels are cooler with that now, idk . [Edited 10/15/17 12:26pm]

.

360 deals are the new crap for artists. these deals are in no way any type of guaruntee you will own your masters, and even if you do they are probably the least valuable thing in the deal, so again, the label wins.

.

a 360 deal allows the label to get money out of touring, merch, and other areas that would normally go all to the artist. they get a piece of EVERYTHING you do, movies, books, comercials, endorsements, EVERYTHING. since many artists these days make the most of their money off of shows and merch and other things, record companies use the 360 deal to get in on that money since they dont get what they used to out of record sales. the 360 is jst the new way for labels to screw the artists.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 10/22/17 11:00am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

NorthC said:

He wasn't 18 when he signed that infamous $ 100 million contract in 1992.

in fact he had been in the biz for 15 years!

"Keep on shilling for Big Pharm!"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 10/22/17 4:37pm

savagedreams

darkroman said:

jaawwnn said:

Someone like Katy Perry would sign a 360 deal, so even if she owns the masters as part of the deal she'll be agreeing to, for example, hand over a large portion of live show and merch money to the record company. Back in Prince's day the money was in record sales so that's what they mostly cared about.



The revenue earned from live performances (+MU fees) and merchandise is not part of a standard form contract to recoup against recording and marketing costs.

neutral

[Edited 10/21/17 13:56pm]

.

in a 360 deal the label does get money from everything you do, including money earned from live shows and merch.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Prince preached but, how many artists actually "own" their master recordings?