http://entertainment.uk.m...id=9201476

Tuesday, 12 August 2008
Prince blocks dentist's cover

The "singing dentist" has been prevented from putting his version of the Prince track Purple Rain on his debut album despite winning over record company bosses with his take on the song.

Andrew Bain, 35, landed a £1 million record deal in July after wowing record company SonyBMG with his operatic version of the ballad.

He planned to put his cover of the song on his first album, together with operatic versions of tracks by the likes of Abba and Snow Patrol.

But Andrew, who gave up his job fixing teeth after securing the record contract, has been told by Prince's publishers that he cannot put the track on the new album.

A spokesman for the singer said: "Andrew is absolutely thrilled with his debut album, but it is a huge personal blow to him that Prince has declined the use of Purple Rain.

"It is disappointing that the track that got him signed and was loved by the record company could jeopardise the album release, so it had to be removed."

Andrew said: "I have the utmost respect for Prince, without Purple Rain I wouldn't be where I am today."

He is releasing his debut album, featuring versions of hits from David Essex, Whitney Houston, Bryan Adams and others, in September.

what has made prince so upset over people covering his music? he covers other peoples music himself! i don't get it?

I thought Warner Bros. own the right to this song. How can Prince have any say in the matter. Prince if you want to keep your current fan and gain more, cut us some slack. Your name is Prine but with this attitude you are not a Prince.

Hey, you know guys know what I heard about what Prince calls a doctor who fails out of med school?

A dentist.



[Edited 8/14/08 0:06am]

I say well done Prince, the last thing we need is more crap like this.

Ahhhh...now we may better understand why there has been a delay in viable music from our favorite little friend. P. has two choices: either create the music he was divinely gifted to make, OR create havoc for folks that love him and his music, via lawsuit after lawsuit. Clearly, he has made his choice.

One can't expect a perpetual font of creativity to spring forth under such conditions. It simply cannot happen, one's energy becomes too scattered. It's just like gripping a $5 bill in a tightly clenched fist. Sure, you'll always have five dollars, but you'll never have six.

Prince, do an Andrew Bain cover, just to rub his nose in it.

Mighty Celestial is an antidentite bastard

I'm a dentist and musician, and still think this is about as nonnews as it comes.

http://prince.org/msg/7/278998


mods

Imago said:

loool i thought mods of all people woulda known when a topic has already been talked about.

Jokein

I think Prince as shown by that whole ''fued' with Warner Bros he is very careful when it comes to his work (music)
Apart from Tom Jones - Kiss
Ive never had 2 suffer hearing a bad rendition of Prince's songs..who knows maybe the dentist couldnt do the song justice

In the United States, the singer would not need Prince's permission. All he would have to do is pay the mechanical rate for covering the song, which has risen to a pretty high amount. Prince covers others' songs. Sometimes he offers free downloads of the cover songs, which rob the writers of royalties. and how did Warner Bros. let Prince get away with offering streams and downloads of songs where it owned the rights?

Just based on this guys covers of David Bowie's "Life on Mars" and Aerosmith's "Don't Wanna Miss A Thing" I would have denied his request too.
Just because this guy is doing operatic versions of his covers doesn't make this project any less cheesy than that William Hung off key singing crap.

kbarso said:

I know...the whole 'Master' thing is a little confusing....They own the Master's but Prince gets the final say?

TheMightyCelestial said:

That's a goofy thing to say about a Dentist...because physicians that comprehend the entire body...aren't as specialized in the region above the shoulder's as a Dentist is.

The guy's cover may be crap ( haven't heard it) but, sorry, Prince's "Creep" was a waste of time...and boring us with " Crazy" (great song) at the o2 was just lazy.
[Edited 8/14/08 9:32am]

eireboy34 said:

That may be true but he did those covers in a concert setting not slap them on an album full of covers not consistent with the genre the songs were originally created in.

ayayayayay ehrn will this slow no prince news end??

id even take some honeybee collective sightings than this crap!

Prince dont owe him shit.


Prince didnt ask that man to quit his job.

Prince didnt say cover my song to help u get rich.


Lasty though Prince is a human, and he can do whatever he wants with his creativity.

prince owns the copyright of the song purple rain where as warner owns the master recordings of the prince version of purple rain. the difference is when warner chappel (warner bros) owned prince's publishing rights, cover versions were running rampid. now that prince regained his publishing rights, he can veto any cover versions of his songs unless he agrees 2 it with fees, royalites etc.

so it's not like he sued this dentist as someone suggested, but merly vetoed the inclusion of the cover

paisleypark4 said:

yeah and while were at it-FUCK DENTISTRY

"HOW MUCH FOR A FILLING?????"

dude probably earns more than prince anyway just doing a root canal

jonylawson said:

Hell they making BANK u got that right. If I had a choice between getting a good GOOD check every 2 weeks or strugging to be a singer.....

1p1p1i3 said:

Agreed! It is Prince's song, and he has a right to deny coverage of it.

K. You know something, Prince - you really do need to learn how to stop taking yourself so damn serious all the time, and get a sense of humor. GAAAAWWWD!

kbarso said:

Prince owns the rights to the song and all songs from the album 'Purple Rain" as of 2004. Warner Bros. held exclusive rights to his material for 20 years after they were published.
Blocking an "artist" from covering his songs is nothing new or surprising from Prince, Weird Al Yancovich or whoever it's spelled has been battling Prince to cover his songs with his random ridiculousness for years and keeps getting turned down(thankfully). Prince chooses who he wants to cover his songs, I find nothing wrong with that. Genuine completely ruined "When Doves Cry" and some bald-headed nut ruined "Adore" so I can see why he would be skeptical about letting some new comer cover one of his most popular tunes.

kenlacam said:

I think he does only if it's changed significantly, a straight cover is fine. But an operatic version is a bit much.

In the UK we have shit like G4 and Blake to deal with, and some fat tosser who won a "talent" show. And Jamie Cullum. Pity us.

I hope at least this fella sticks to your side of the pond!

dseann said:

So everything form 1988 - back he now own's? I remember reading something about after 20 years he starts getting stuff back one by one. I remember Weird All being on Arsenio and he was asked if anyone refused him and his replay was "there is a little purple guy in Minneapolis....". Even though the clip they show had Weird Al in a purple rain jacket but he said "I just can't do his music."

I think it is funny how he does covers but other folks can't. I read two different versions about G's When Doves Cry. G was on Mtv and he said "I heard that he liked it..." and then another time I heard or read that P stepped to him in a club and asked "why did you cover my song?" and G said "It was out of respect." ... I don't know maybe there are only a few he will let cover (Patti, Larry G., Chaka, etc.)...Emancipation had four cover songs.... I wonder what he thought of The beautiful ones being cover by Dirty a** MC and the fruit cake from Dru Hill....

i think prince has trust issues and has trouble finding himself in what others do.


If you loose control, you'll loose your mind.

Warner Brothers owns the master recordings i.e. the perforance of the music that was issued by Prince as by product of his then contract. Music recorded and not released during that period( stuff in the vaults) they have no legal title to. Prince as the owner of the said copywrighted piece does in some locals have the authority to dictate the manner in which said property is used, in any way. In the U.S, it is usually a courtesy to ask for the right to cover an artists work and most do grant it. If Prince tells someone no, he may have the legal recourse if they go ahead. Since He owns the publishing and refuses the payment fee for said usage,you then are in violation if you proceed to use said property. At that point no one will want to deal with courts etc.and leave that song unused.

Am I right in thinking that you don't need to ask permission to do a cover unless you are changing it in some significant way... thus the need for Weird Al to get permission. Maybe this includes this operatic version, or is the dentist just avoiding argument....

Phew, whatever!

I don't think that purple rain should ever be covered... can you think of anyone who could do it justice?

Just as citizens of a nation must be educated about their rights to ensure that they are
protected and upheld, so too must those who compose words and music know the rights that
support their own acts of creation. Without these rights, which directly emanate from the U.S.
Constitution, many who dream of focusing their talents and energies on music creation would be
economically unable to do so - an outcome that would diminish artistic expression today and for
future generations.
At this time, when so many forces are seeking to diminish copyright protections and
devalue artistic expression, this Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers looks to clarify the
entitlements that every music creator enjoys.

1. We have the right to be compensated for the use of our creative works, and
share in the revenues that they generate.
2. We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they
are used.
3. We have the right to withhold permission for uses of our works on artistic,
economic or philosophical grounds.
4. We have the right to protect our creative works to the fullest extent of the law
from all forms of piracy, theft and unauthorized use, which deprive us of our
right to earn a living based on our creativity.
5. We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be
used for free.
6. We have the right to develop, document and distribute our works through new
media channels - while retaining the right to a share in all associated profits.
7. We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us and
to join our voices together to protect our rights and negotiate for the value of
our music.
8. We have the right to earn compensation from all types of “performances,”
including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts,
digital streams and more.
9. We have the right to decline participation in business models that require us to
relinquish all or part of our creative rights - or which do not respect our right to
be compensated for our work.
10. We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and
demand that
[Edited 8/14/08 18:17pm]