This is an essay written by the same author who wrote that book about Prince, I can't remember the name of it.
anyway, here goes:

>>POV: prince & michael jackson-art & economics
===

Prince and Michael Jackson: Two Sides of a Different Coin

by C. Liegh McInnis


"I had put myself in the hole with the first record. I wanted to remedy that
with the second album. I wanted a 'hit' album. It was for radio rather than
for me, and it got a lot of people interested in my music. But it wasn't the
kind of audience you really want. They only come around to see you when you
have another hit. They won't come to see you when you change directions and
try something new. That's the kind of audience I wanted." (Prince, Los
Angeles Times, 1982.)


In light of Michael Jackson's latest troubles with Sony Music, many black
people have been appalled at Jackson's obvious playing of the race card. The
basic issue for many blacks is the notion that Jackson has been happy being
the crossover, mainstream icon as long as his albums have been selling. In
fact, Jackson has remained basically mute when other black artists have
complained of racism. Now that Jackson wishes to cry wolf, very few African
Americans are coming to his aid. In fact, one prominent DJ compared Jackson's
issue of sour grapes to Prince's issue of sour grapes. Jackson and Prince
have been lumped together as two black men who have sold their souls to the
devil and then were dumb enough to complain when they were burned. While I
agree that both have been two black men who have not wanted to be
identifiably black, that is where the similarities end. Jackson's issue with
Sony is about money. Prince's issue with Warner Bros. was about artistic
freedom. Jackson's issue is about a loan and lack of promotion. Prince's
issue is about masters, which does equate to money, but is more about
artistic ownership and control.


Prince's issue was not about Warner Bros.' lack of promotion, how much money
they paid him, or whether or not his albums were selling. Prince's initial
issue was that Warner Bros. wanted the right to be both judge and jury.
Warner Bros. wanted the right not to release any work that it deemed
unacceptable, and they wanted the right to keep that work, which they deemed
unacceptable, from being shopped around to other outlets, including
self-distribution by the artist. In essence, Warner Bros. wants the right to
have total control over an artist and his offspring, as if that artist and
all the art he produces is their chattel. Warner Bros. not only wanted the
right to judge Prince's art; they wanted the right to keep others from
judging it even after they had rejected it. Once Prince realized that he only
needed to submit five more albums to fulfill his contract with Warner Bros.,
Prince merely gave them five albums. Yet, Warner Bros. was at it once again,
asserting that they had the right to accept or reject the work as fulfillment
to Prince's contract and that Prince's contract would not be fulfilled until
they released the albums, which could have tied Prince to Warner Bros. for an
additional ten years. If this is not slavery, then we need a referendum. In
fact, Prince initially refused to promote his last few albums on Warner Bros.
until they asserted that he was legally bound to do so. What is important
about Prince's refusal to promote his art owned by Warner Bros. is that it
speaks to his lack of concern over how much money the albums would generate.
Once Prince realized that he could not have control over his artistic
direction, he was willing to loose or not make money if it would allow him to
leave Warner Bros. and regain control of his artistic life and direction. The
core of Prince's issue was the right of an artist to market/barter his work
after one company deems that they can not/will not be able to sell that work.
This issue lead into the deeper waters of who should own and control the
masters or master recordings. Put clearly, Prince asserted:


"As a businessman and the owner of NPG Records...I realize that the record
companies are a natural part of the food chain. It is the record label that
allows a musical artist to reach out to his or her audience, but that does
not mean that whichever organization markets and distributes the music should
own the final product, i.e. the Masters...All artists, whether new or
established, must have a substantial ownership interest in the music they
create. Conversely, all record labels need an incentive to market music and
push it through their distribution system; still, that incentive should not
be ultimate control. Record labels have no right to enslave the creators"
(Prince, "Message from the Artist." 1995).


Unlike Prince, Jackson was groomed in the hit-making machine of Motown, where
hits were produced on an assembly line, like cars, specifically to pander to
a mainstream taste. Barry Gordy admits that he tried to talk Marvin Gaye into
not making a "political" record, such as What's Going On, and he often wished
that Stevie Wonder would put more emphasis on making records rather than
traveling the globe as a political activist. Accordingly, from the age of
eight, Jackson has been groomed to be a mainstream, apolitical icon. In stark
contrast to this, Prince has consistently, and in the face of great economic
gain, asserted that artistic satisfaction, not money, has been his driving
force. In 1990, a full six years before his falling out with Warner Bros., he
stated "I'm always going forward, always trying to surprise myself. It's not
about hits. I knew how to make hits by my second album." (Karlen, "Prince
Talks," 60). Even earlier, in 1986, at the height of his Purple Reign, he
asserted to Detroit DJ, the Electrifying Mojo, "The only purpose of hit
records is to keep money in the pockets of the people hanging around." We
have several documented statements, along with Prince's artistic history of
defying or refusing to go the way of what's hot on radio, that suggest that
Prince's emphasis has always been art over money--all years before his
encounter with Warner Bros. "When everyone else goes right, I go left." In
fact, during a 1990 legal battle, his former mangers, Cavallo, Ruffalo &
Fargnoli wanted to be compensated by Prince for lost "wages and profits" for
not following their advice and making more marketable/profitable art. This,
then, refutes Rolling Stone/MTV reporter, Kurt Loader's notion that Prince's
issue with Warner Bros. was merely sour grapes due to lacking sales. In fact,
in a 1996 Forbes interview, reprinted by The Prince Family Newsletter, there
is a clear notion that Prince is more concerned with artistic expression and
freedom than economic gain.


"He wants to flood the market with his work. That's something Warner would
never let him do, and it was the issue that helped trigger the split...a
Warner executive states, 'Despite his brilliance, one record after another
causes burnout.' If so, then it's burn, baby, burn, the singer retorts. 'My
music wants to do what it wants to do, and I just want to get out of its
way...I know they're not all going to sell.'...With the shackles off, his
fans can expect what the poet Shelley called 'profuse strains of
unpremeditated art'" (Dawkins 116).


So, if selling is not the point for Prince, what is? "My music wants to do
what it wants to do, and Warner Bros. and nobody else has the right to tell
me or my music what to do." This is the line that separates Prince from
Jackson, making his issue an artistic one and Jackson's issue an economic
one. In addition, in 1985, Prince asserted:


"I think the smartest thing I did was record Around the World in a Day right
after I finished Purple Rain. I didn't wait to see what would happen with
Purple Rain. That's why the two albums sound completely different. People
think , 'Oh, the new album isn't half as powerful as Purple Rain or 1999.'
You know how easy it would have been to open Around the World in A Day with
the guitar solo that's on the end of 'Let's Go Crazy?' You know how easy it
would have been to just put it in a different key? That would have shut
everybody up who said the album wasn't half as powerful. I don't want to make
an album like the earlier ones...More than anything else, I try not to repeat
myself...I think that's the problem with the music industry today. When a
person does get a hit, they try to do it again, the same way." (Karlen,
"Prince of Paisley Park," 30, 86).


Throughout his career, Prince has been an artist who has followed his
artistic inspiration and not the charts. Jackson, on the other hand, has made
sure that he always used the hippest producers, the best marketing, and the
most "in-the-now" choreographers. So it seems that Jackson's entire career,
unlike Prince's, has been about hit's, which equates to money. Therefore, his
issue now with Sony is not about art but about money, which is what separates
him from Prince. Of course, the argument can be made that Jackson has a more
impressive record of being a humanitarian, citing the USA for Africa project,
where Prince was seemingly absent. However, the truth is that Prince was not
absent. He wrote and donated a song for the project, electing not to
participate in the "We Are the World" single. Yet, just because Jackson has
been more visible does not mean that Prince has not used his talents and
financial gains to help others. Prince was one of the first artists to lend
his talents to the Million Man March (writing the song "We March"), Prince
was one of the first artists to donate to the Tom Joyner HBCU Scholarship
Initiative, and Prince was one of the first artists to assist Marva Collins
in her project to develop a school that meets the needs of black children in
Chicago. One's humanitarian deeds should not be used for a pissing contest,
but it is necessary to cite these works as a means to show that Prince's work
has been equal to his rhetoric.


Despite their artistic differences, both Jackson's and Prince's problems with
their record companies are directly related to the consistent pressure to
assimilate and achieve by the standards of Eurocentrism and capitalism, which
often places a double standard in regards to the treatment and valuing of
African Americans. While both black and white artists continue to suffer the
ill of not being paid properly, white artists tend to get a bit more leeway
when their records do not sell as well, especially if that white artist is
considered to be "artistically influential." On the other hand, black
artists, in their relationship with their record labels, are judged more
sternly by the amount of units they are able to move, especially when a black
artists attempts to break away from the current system of distributing and
selling music. Rolling Stone and Vibe both treated Emancipation as a flop,
even though Prince netted 50 million that year for the entire project,
including multi-platinum status. Unfortunately, the masses accepted RS and
Vibe's analysis because we have been trained to accept the opinion of the
master and his lackey. In light of the atmosphere that RS and Vibe created,
Prince was unable to get his videos for Emancipation played on MTV, and they
were played in a very limited manner on BET. (It also should be noted that
many critics did indicate that Prince should have chosen more commercial
tunes for video release.) We must remember that magazines are in bed with the
record companies. Thus, the journalism in those mags can be only so
objective, especially if they want to continue to get the interviews and
pictures that they need to sell mags. The whole system is based on one party
using the other to make money; therefore, black independent artists, who are
not making money for major labels, tend to be marginalized.


The problem with Jackson, Prince and far too many other black artists is that
we all have been trained to think as integrationists and not as black
nationalists. And generally, it is not until something happens to us, as
individuals, that we are willing to address the inconsistencies and
injustices of our so-called integrated society. However, this is not an issue
or a problem just for Jackson and Prince. Most African Americans do not care
about racism until they are the one who has been denied the job. Let's not
over romanticize the past. Only about ten percent of the black population
actively participated in the Civil Rights Movement during the 1950s-1970s.
And even less actually marched, sat-in or engaged in any type of protest. So,
Jackson's "Johnny Come Lately" attitude should not be placed in a glass box
for all to ridicule. But furthermore, Prince should not be sweepingly lumped
into the same category as Jackson. The record clearly shows that Prince,
unlike Jackson, has been a champion of artistic freedom and individual
liberation throughout his career, which was the crust of his issue with
Warner Bros. The problem for Prince is that it takes a mass not an individual
to change a social injustice. To paraphrase Stokely Carmichael, no matter how
bad George Washington was, he would have been just another dead settler by
himself. Prince's inability to impact or change what he saw as an injustice
was because he has spent his career so in search of his "individual" higher
self and his "individual" freedoms that he has alienated himself from any
mass, especially the African American mass. Despite his alienation from any
particular group or mass, he had, unlike Jackson, a history of fighting for
artistic and individual freedom and liberation against all types of
oppression, especially in his music. Unfortunately for him, he is seen as
having taken the same road as Jackson and many other black artists who have
wanted to be more individual and less Negro. Thus, Prince appears to suffer
from what Langston Hughes calls "the desire to pour racial individuality into
the mold of American standardization, and to be as little Negro and as much
American as possible" (Gates and McKay 1267).


Regardless of Prince's artistic and individual reasons, two wrongs (or
misguided efforts) never seem to make a right. Whether someone smokes
marijuana to unlock the mystical truths of the universe, for medical
purposes, or for mere physical gratification, the general public, which views
drug use as wrong, lumps all three of these users into the same category.
Thus, the same holds for Prince and Michael Jackson, two distinct artists who
traveled the same paths for different reasons. Regardless of the reason, the
general black populous sees them the same. This same notion holds true when
African Americans attempt to mold themselves in a certain manner to achieve
professional success. On the one hand, Jackson molded himself to make himself
more palatable for mainstream, crossover success. On the other hand, Prince
molded himself as a way to gain access to play/produce all the music to which
he felt he had a right to make. For Prince, being classified as a R&B (Real
Black) artist meant being limited and, often, being dead in the water before
you have an opportunity to swim. Black artist have been and continue to be
limited in the range of music that they are allowed to produce, while white
acts, such as the Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton, are allowed to produce
music that is all over the musical spectrum, which also allows them to be
heard on more than one radio station at once, which allows them greater
access to the public. For instance, Jimi Hendrix can be heard on the class
rock station, but he is not played on the R&B or Pop station because he is
not black enough. This racism is also true of black listeners. Recently,
BET's 106 and Park premièred Darious Rucker's (Hootie and the Blowfish) new
solo video. One audience member, a young African American male, stated "I
like him as an alternative act. He should stick to that." So, it is clear
that African American artists are held to a more limited capacity, and those
who choose to struggle against that limitation are more often maligned than
celebrated. The young black male who desires for Rucker to "stick to that,"
which implies to "stay in his place," clearly shows that blacks too commonly
accept their assigned places and limitations, which ultimately limits their
growth and evolution both personally and collectively. Prince has been vocal
about this racial disparity for his entire career, even as early as 1987. "I
don't go to awards shows anymore. I'm not saying I'm better than anybody
else. But you'll be sitting there at the Grammys, and U2 will beat you. And
you say to yourself. 'Wait a minute. I can play that kind of music, too...I
know how to do that, you dig? But you will not do 'Housequake'" (Karlen,
"Prince Talks," 58). That year, Prince was pitted in one category against U2
and in another category against Luther Vandross, and both times he lost
because Sign "O" the Times was deemed as too eclectic. I continue to wonder
if this means too eclectic for a black men, since white acts continue to get
played in multiple categories. For Prince, not being aligned to anyone or
anything--race, gender, and musical category--was a issue of
musical/artistic/spiritual survival, not crossover appeal. However, when a
black artist refuses to directly aligned himself with the accepted,
traditional. and programmed tastes of the black mass, he is setting himself
up for permanent banishment from black radio. More importantly, his
self-isolation/banishment from the collective to pursue his individual
desires has caused his attempts to rally the collective around a serious
issue of artist infringement to fall on death ears.


Maybe Prince and Jackson's rhetoric have fallen on death ears because they
are perceived as men who can finally do something about these injustices but
who have done nothing more than talk. Essentially, Jackson's problem is about
a loan from Sony, which is standard operating procedure. The question that
should be raised is, "Why is Jackson still getting loans from other people to
produce records?" With his financial security and global icon status, Jackson
should be looking to become an institution--not work for one. When a
financially successful artist like Jackson continues to work for a system
that he knows is unjust, we must question the mentality of a people who
continue to invest in integration when it continues to fail them. Even with
his success, Jackson will continue to earn only ten percent of the profits as
long as he continues to work for Sony instead of himself. On the other hand,
Prince has broken away from the traditional system of making and
disseminating music, but his efforts, for the most part, have remained
individualistic--or at least they are perceived that way. For all of their
financial success and professional frustrations, neither man has seemingly
really considered the idea of black nationalism, to a degree where they are
willing to make themselves institutions in order to create an entirely new
system. Thus, it is this lack of "work" which causes their rhetoric to fall
on death ears. It seems that Jackson does not want to be free; he just wants
to be a well paid slave. And Prince is willing to escape from the plantation,
but he is no Harriet Tubman. In both cases, African Americans are missing a
golden opportunity to use one of their greatest gifts for something more than
pleasure.


Every artist who achieves large financial gain will not be the type to invest
that financial gain into the creation of a new system that better serves his
people. All artists are not able to make the jump to being a capitalist first
and an artist second. Prince came to this realization with his first record
company, Paisley Park Records, which was distributed by Warner Bros. Most of
the acts that he signed were aesthetically pleasing to him, but those acts
did not generate enough revenue to satisfy the demands of Warner Bros.
Scarface of the Ghetto Boys affirms this dilemma. When Scarface became an
executive of a major label, he was clear that he would have to sign acts that
he thought would make the company money even if they did not peak his
artistic interest. So, there is always going to be an ongoing battle between
art and economics because it is the music business. But, if Jackson is going
to be marching and picketing Sony and asking well known black people, such as
Johnnie Cochran and Al Sharpton, to join with him to help rally the masses,
he should know that the general black public will expect that something will
come of this other than some individual gain for Jackson. The hurdle is that
the masses suspect that once Jackson receives his personal satisfaction, it
will business as usual, which means back to the plantation.


Bibliography


Dawkins, Diana, ed. The Prince Family Newsletter. Vol. 4, Issue 20. September
28, 1996.


Gates, Henry Louis and Nellie Y. McKay. The Norton Anthology of African
American Literature. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1997.


Hilburn, Robert. "A Sexual Outlaw of the Eighties." Los Angeles Times. April
2, 1981.


Hilburn, Robert. "The Renegade Prince." Los Angeles Times. November 21, 1982.


Hill, Dave. Prince: A Pop Life. London: Faber and Faber, 1989. (New York:
Harmony, 1989).


Karlen, Neal. "The Prince of Paisley Park." Rolling Stone. Issue 456.
September 12, 1985.


Karlen, Neal. "Prince Talks." Rolling Stone. Issue 589. October 18, 1990.


Light, Allen. "Prince Breaks the Silence." Vibe. Vol. 4, No. 6. August, 1994.


Prince. "Interview with The Electrifying Mojo." WHYT: Detroit, MI, 1986.


Prince. "Message from the Artist." The Dawn.Com. (Online Posting). December
22, 1995. http://www.thedawn.com/ac...sage/html.


Prince. "Freedom News." Rave Un2 the Year 2000. VHS/DVD. Paisley Park, 1999.


Prince. "What Should Be Souled." Rave Un2 the Year 2000. VHS/DVD. Paisley
Park, 1999. >>

Whoaaa...

Ok, give me 15 minutes.

Hmmm not bad
I just mass people actually get to read this

Nep2nes said:

LOL...I warned ya, didn't I?

Whew. Just by reading a few lines I can tell this is very deep. Should be featured on the homepage.

This probably the best post at the org. Thanks LadyCabDriver.

Now gotta go back and really read it fully!



~*~
[This message was edited Wed Jul 24 19:58:53 PDT 2002 by FlyingCloudPassenger]

While I think this article harps on the race factor a bit 2 much, I agree with the first 10 paragraphs fully.

Does any1 know where the full version of "Message from The Artist" 1995 is?

People like evilwhitemale need 2 c this...in fact, let me emale this 2 him right now.

HOMEPAGE HOMEPAGE!!

Better yet...

Ladycabdriver--I think u should send this entire thing 2 NPGMC. Prince needs 2 take a position on what MJ has been doing and he certainly needs 2 distinguish himself 4 those reasons. Besides, the folks at NPGMC LOVE pro-Prince articles.

gatorgirl said:

I disagree Gator Girl.. PRINCE *IS* ABOUT THE MONEY -- but its about the right TO MAKE MONEY off of *HIS* work...

Don't kid yourself -- you can't be an artist if you cant make money off it.. then you're just struggling. Prince is way past that --- so now its being able to own his artistry as well as profit from it.

nLA said:

good point, nla.

Wow, great essay, great points. Lots to think about for all.
Thanks LadyCab.

LadyCabDriver said:

The Lyrics of Prince.

a few typos here and there, but this is a pretty good distillation of the differences and similarities between P and MJ. great find LCD... where did this article appear?
[This message was edited Wed Jul 24 20:53:03 PDT 2002 by NuPwrSoul]

nLA said:

I see your point nLA, but it seems to me his disputes with WB were about control. Prince wants control of all of his creations, including the money that is being made off of his creations. He didn't even have control over the music groups he created under the Paisley Park Records label. Wouldn't anyone want the money and control of the money that their creations make? And you CAN be an artist and not make money off of it. Famous artists base their income on their art. In most artists' situations, they have to find another source of income to provide for their art. A REAL artist will continue to make their art because they ENJOY it, not because they don't have satisfactory fame or money.

This is a very powerful essay -- I especially dig the thought that "black artists aren't allowed the same leeway" being expressed.

Anyone ever give any thought to what direction Prince's career may have taken had the album Dirty Mind been treated as the "demo material" that it was? Think about it -- WB gave that boy a huge amount of leeway when it released that material -- essentially helping CREATE the Prince that we all know and love today.

I think that Prince has been on message his entire career; I think that MJ is being a disingenious hypocrite with his cries of racism today. Are U Black Or White, Mike?

kmc said:

Yeah, I called him a boy above... I am now a 30 something black man and I consider all nineteen year old kids punks!

Anyone read Richard Wright's "Black Boy"? That is one heck of a book. It and Native Son are must reads, if you ask me.

NuPwrSoul said:

I stumbled upon it on Okayplayer.com (and by "stumbled" I mean that I was in a different forum than the one I usually go to, I was in there looking for something and just ran into this article)

2the9s said:

thank you, 9s.

Nep2nes said:

already on top of it, Nep...

kmc said:[quote]

kmc said:

Haven't read Black Boy, but I love Native Son!

gatorgirl said:

While your point is relevant Gator Girl, IMHO I believe its not necessarily true.

Let me liken it to the movies: An indie director/writer wants to make his "creative" movie where no fucking studio head is going to tell him how, when, or where to do it... so he makes his little art piece film. Its one of three things; good, bad or in between. Now because he financed it himself or got backers, he is still in the whole for some money (ya gotta put money into all creative endeavors).. so he goes to Cannes, Sundance that bullshit to try and *SELL* his art, he has to pay the actors, etc and of course, he has to live.. being a director/writer/ and in this case musician is a full time gig as with any other job.

(Sure some ppl have to create additional income but... it's all a matter of perspective as far as what you consider "a true artist"... i can sit home all day and paint.. have no money and starve but at the end of the day, I may enjoy it.. but if all I can draw are stick figures, then, I'm not a real artist, I'm a fool -- check ASIAM's threads for proof -- i know that was LOL..) anyway, I digress:

So the director/writer hocks his materials at the festival hoping to sell to the highest bidder... Essentially, a studio will pick up the movie, market it, distribute it and begin the publicity machine to stir up hype and generate revenue.

NOW... is the "director" selling out by turning around and selling his movie to a studio? Yes and NO. NO - because he made his movie on his own, his own way without the studios help. YES - because he had to sell it to them to survive.

Sometimes artist HAVE to have someone else CONTROL their work or else they will DESTROY it.. being an artist is hell. They are overcritical and disatisfied for the most part (case in point: MJ not happy with his trillion takes on the songs and went over budget on his album BY MILLIONS -- why? who knows, but the producers many times over said that each take was perfect, Michael was just never satisfied). Does this make him a greater artist because he's nitpicky? No, it just makes him wasteful.

Prince is the director in this case. WE ALL KNOW that the man cannot MARKET FOR SHIT. And that's no offense to him, it's just plain true.. he is indeed an ARTISTE with no goddamn business sense, to a fault! Prince doesnt *need* a record company now, because he has a career and a following. He would need a company now, only to control promotion and marketing -- but since Prince *and* most artists are control freaks by nature, this union would never work (at this time).. I'm still a firm believer that one day he will at least give in to a promotional company specialized to handle his publicity and marketing... we can only .

But here's my point: Prince's control issue doesnt have anything to do with anything other than the injustice of having someone else make *MORE MONEY* off of his blood sweat and tears. That's it. I feel that he *IS* personally attached to his works, but the bottom line is -- the BOTTOM DOLLAR ALWAYS hurts the most. And that's what he's pissed about. As he should be. As I would be. This industry aint no joke.

Good read. Thank you.

gatorgirl said:

WRONG GAT

PRINCE IS NOT ABOUT MONEY

PRINCE IS ABOUT MONKEY!

AND WHICH RACE CARD JACKO PLAYING ANYWAY

IS IT QUEEN OF WHITE DIAMONDS?

nLA said:

Not quite...control over his output would have still been a sticking point in Prince's views during his career even if he was making 50% of the profits from his albums...would he have still jumped ship if his royalty rate was that high??...Perhaps...perhaps not...money may have been the motivating factor in Prince's career decisions concerning staying with a major label in the fact that he felt he could make the same $$$ selling less albums but bringing home a higher percentage rate...

In other words, Prince's "it's all about the money" stance may have simply been him saying to himself "I stick with Warners, I sell 1 million CDs, I get 2 million dollars...I go out on my own, I sell 300,000 CDs, I make 2 million dollars due to a higher royalty rate, plus I get to put out whatever I want, wheneve I want, however I want..."...he can choose to stay and fight for a higher royalty rate...or he can take his chances and leave, with the promise of more artistic freedom the lure moreso than increased revenue...I think there's evidence that artistic freedom was a large factor in Prince's decisions.

That was a real good read. I look forward to hearing what Prince has to say about MJ's situation and I hope he does it soon.

LadyCabDriver said:

Cool.

Ladycabdriver: +356,235,987

MJ: 0


MJ


MJ

:Hammer:
MJ

Well I do agree with some of the article, I dont feel that the Michael and Prince issue are the same. Now Jermaine Jackson has rushed to the aide of his brother and lashed out against anyone who has said that Mottola is not a racist. He is publically ripping anyone who defends mottola and disagrees with Jackson, he says that comedians Robin Williams and Dennis Miller have no right to make jokes about Michael (free country last time i checked), Singer Ricky Martin has said he has never seen evidence of racism with Mottola, and Mariah Carey who was married to Mottola has said that Mottola is no way even close to being a racist and has warned Michael to stop using her name in statements that he makes since she has not spoken to Michael at all, (i would love it if Mariah sued Jackson, I mean she got 53 million for Glitter an album that sold 700,000 copies, hows that for math). Jermaine also points out that no artist has gotten behind Michael in his fight, gee i wonder why. Did Michael help Prince back in 1993- in his fight to just have the freedom to put out albums when he wanted too. No one has defended Michael because he is wrong, dead wrong. Mottola is not a racist, if he was someone would have spoken up alot sooner and we know thats true. Also it seems Michael can say what he wants and no one can have an opinion, let Michael sue sony see where that gets him. If Michael was a smart person he would have just done as others have done (such as Radiohead, Pearl Jam) become some kind of a leader in a fight. Pearl Jam was able to release 78 live albums in stores in the course of 3 months. Michael could have been a leader but he is not, when he was with Motown, all of those artists got ripped off, great songs and nothing in the bank to show for it. Well Berry Gordy made out well in the Motown game, but Michael never lashed out against him did he. Michael didnt defend Diana or Smokey when all of their masters are gone or Marvin and Stevie the 2 greatest ever, did Michael speak up for them, no he didnt, because hes not a leader. Thats the difference between PRINCE and MICHAEL, Prince always talks about other artists and fighting for their rights, for MICHAEL its all about me (AS MYA SINGS, sorry shes too hot), and MY ALBUM and MY SALES. Michael do yourself a favor STOP NOW!!! what few people still think you have something to offer are fastly disappearing

Both Artists have strong Points&Both want Control.I think the Crys coming from them considering there Huge Hey Days is Bound to throw some folks off.the Question is Why Now? the difference for me is Simple: Michael Jackson wasn't just a Worker for Sony but also a Board-Member.50%ATV 50% Sony Publishing.the Powers that Be wanted to Freeze His Ass out.they couldn't Hold His Masters from him&MJ was walking so they figured we can't let this MF Leave with a Huge Album&Go Elsewhere? that is how they got Him on "Invicible".they mention all this Money they spent on this Record but where are the Videos? where are The Singles in Stores?Re-Mixes?? no matter what you may think of MJ you always knew when a MJ project was out.Dude averages 4 Videos in a 4 month time period.SONY wants that Beatles Catelog Pure&Simple.MJ is a Board-Member.Prince's thing is about His Masters but He signed a Contract&had to Honor it.MJ has Stock in Sony Prince doesn't in Warner Brothers that is the Difference.if Prince had a Catelog Say in Warner brothers things would have been so Different.Both Artists are more Closer in the Control Department.MJ has His Masters Period as well.MJ isn't crying over a Album, His Gripe is about Sony,Tommy Mottola trying to shake that Beatles Catelog from him.for Me MJ's fight speaks on a Bigger Issue the Merging of Business of Artist&Company.what MJ has done isn't that Common at all.put it like this: I Doubt Seriously JA Rule will have 50% of DEF Jam's Publishing during His Career? or U2 having 50% of Island Publishing? Publishing is where the Money is&MJ got schooled on it really well.

gatorgirl said:

))
This girl iz sooo FUNKY!!!
Yeah U NO whom U are ...