Masters of Our Own Destiny http://www.rollingstone.c...p?pid=1304

"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."

---

(Note by myself, i.e. BVH: Of course, Prince would never use that solution for himself, since he wants his cake and eat it too: he wants both lotsa money NOW and full control to get more lotsa money LATER, obviously forgetting that record labels ain't charities and thus want to get paid too.)

Bart, so you are saying that an artist should not have the right to own his master tapes ?

What should happen is a 60/40 split in profits going to the music company. Bono's people treated them right by offering lower royalties & still retaining ownership.

Same old, same old, bartey-pooh...Prince is an idealist, and U2 was more realistic and pragmatic. You think, deep down, Bono doesn't think he deserved the higher royalty rate AND ownership of their masters? Of course he does, but he was realistic within the context of the most rotten and corrupt industry. Since then, artists have increasingly tried to get the rules of the game changed. Bono and al. worked within the system instead of challenging it. Two approaches, one more fruitful in the short term, the other more fundamental and principled. Not that Prince himself is this great Defender of Artists Rights... just his own.
[This message was edited Sat Nov 23 9:14:26 PST 2002 by Aerogram]

a smartypants at prince.org wrote:
(Note by myself, i.e. BVH: Of course, Prince would never use that solution for himself, since he wants his cake and eat it too: he wants both lotsa money NOW and full control to get more lotsa money LATER, obviously forgetting that record labels ain't charities and thus want to get paid too.)

Why would anyone want cake and then NOT want 2 eat it?

Of course record companies want 2 get paid. But shouldn't they be paying their top-selling artists more than 1% of what they take in off that artist's albums? Would u be happy if someone hired u 2 make paintings that they'd sell 4 $1000 bux a pop and they only paid u $10 each? Do some homework and read about what the Dixie Chicks say about that.

Aerogram said:

Is that a nice way of saying naive?

joeycoco said:

No. All ideas that require more profound changes start out as "idealistic". It's always easier to be pragmatic and work within the system, making smart compromises here and there to achieve your essential objectives. You may get what you essentially wanted, but it may not be what you thought was fair. Some compromises might be costly to you as well as unjustified.

In 1950, if you believed blacks and whites should be allowed to enter a restaurant in Alabama and sit wherever they want, you would have been "idealistic" In retrospect, you would now be "ahead of your time" and commanded for being able to see beyond the seemingly unsurmountable obstacles of the day. Can you imagine Martin Luther King having some meeting and come to terms like "From now on, the coloured will be able to sit wherever they want in a bus. In exchange, they'll stay away from White Only fountains."? It may well have made life a little easier, but it doesn't really take care of the real problem, does it?

Not that I'm comparing Prince's demands with the above struggle, but you know, we forget that history is full men and women that were once "idealists" and perhaps even "naive", but they made history anyhoo.

I wonder what the "lower royalty rate" was that U2 accepted in return for gaining control of their masters??..Because the masters give record labels HUGE profits further down the line...reissues and "best of" compilations have only a miniscule fraction of the costs that both production and promotional costs achieve with a brand new release...the profit return margin is amazingly high and almost guaranteed...I don't see labels giving up the rights to a cash cow like that very easily...

I also read recently that the royalty percentage rates of artists have all sorts of hidden costs within them as well...the article showed a 13% royalty rate as being, in reality, only 9% when all the hidden costs and deductions are figured into the equation (those free promo CDs that labels give out to radio stations and clubs??...There's like a standard 1% deducted from the artists' royalty rate to pay for that shit...I always thought it was the labels who fronted all promotional costs??..)

wellbeyond said:

---

I think if you subtract out all of the items you mentioned and the fact that U2 was taking a low rate they were probaly getting next nothing on the CD's they were selling.

This could be a bad situation money wise once you start selling millions of records like the Josuha Tree or Purple Rain. Keep in mind Prince has had a couple of single songs sell over a million copies as well as writing songs for his side groups.

I read that some deals are so bad that the label charges the promotional expenses back to the artist.

I think at some point in time the artist and the label should share the master tapes. There should be some sort of co-ownership.

Aerogram said:

- Aero...I got his point. Prince may have an idealist speech, and even has inspired some artists, but he loves money, and he is more concerned about HIS rights.
Of course I agree he shold have his masters, etc etc. But the point is: he is stil obssessed with money, and he charges very high prices for tickets. And...
Remember when he fought Warners for not letting him release all the albums he wanted to?
Well, he releases less stuff now than when he was in WB. In other words, he said WB didnt take the risks, but now that he is free, he takes even less risks.

GustavoRibas said:

1. Explain to me how he has realeased less records than WB did? I have received more music from his in the last 6 years than I did in 15 years with WB.
Emancipation (3) records, Cyrstal Ball (3) records, The Truth (1) Kamasultra (1),NPS (1) The exodus has begun (1) Rave into the Joy Fantastic (1) Rave unto the Joy special edition (1) TRC (1) ONA (1). About 25 down loads. And now The box set (3).
That is atleast 17 records in the last 6 years.

2. Why would he not be concerned about his rights, If an artist is not willing to fight for his own rights, then he has surrendered his rights. Please don't fault Prince for fighting for his own rights, because you are not going to fight for his rights. And none of these others finger pointers will fight for his rights either.

3. You say he charges very high Prices for tickets, if you have gone to one of his concert, tell me if the event was worth the money, because every concert I went to I was willing to buy the ticket, the t-shirts, the tour book, the symbol pendant etc. Because it was a concert that could not be forgotten, if you don't agree then go see Britney.

4. He takes less risks, that is BS. The Npgmc is a risk, to go without a major label is a bigger risk, to shut down websights is a risk, to speak his mind is a risk, to not be played on the radio is a risk, what in the world are you talking about? He is the biggest risk taker that I know.

Bottom line is if you really feel that the artist should own his recordings, then stop bad mouthing those that refuse to go back to that old slave system.

muleFunk said:

The lack of reading skill of Org members is showing again.

Aerogram said:

No, he's greedy. He's shown so time and time again.

Aerogram said:

Perhaps he does, and then again Bono also knows that this industry (which IMHO isn't the most rotten and corrupt industry around, certainly not compared to the movie industry, or oil companies, or weapons manufacturers -- though granted, most of those companies are involved in all of those at the same time) has given hm the opportunity to be a rock star and earn mucho dinero through music.

Aerogram said:

Bollocks. And you know it damn well:

Aerogram said:

Next!

concordance said:

Because they're a grown-up?

concordance said:

Do some homework yourself and notice that there are artists that are getting paid plenty. And no one is forcing artists to sign with a major label. You'd have to be ignorant not to know how they operate.

laurarichardson said:

I doubt that seriously.

laurarichardson said:

That's only a SHORT TERM problem. In the long term, the masters of those valuable songs return back to the artist and he can them "lease" them to another company that might pay big money because they know that those songs can generate great profits (see: Bowie, Rolling Stones,...). Compare to Prince: he doesn't own his biggest hits (and won't untill he's a very old man, while he should have renegociated his infamous 1992 $ 100 million contract) but owns the rights to his post-1995 catalogue which virtually no-one cares about (Emancipation is still doing the rounds for next to no money).

laurarichardson said:

Ridiculous. Why not the songs' author(s)? Or the musicians? Or the producer?

GustavoRibas said:

He isn't even. If a record label offers him enough, he'll reverse his position at the drop of a hat? Notice how he was singing Arista's praise in late 1999? And how he started badmouthing them before the year was over? Did they infringe on his rights? Of course not, what happened is the album bombed (result: less money for Prince).

jazzy328is said:

BS. Exodus was released during the WB reign, for one. Two versions of Rave don't count as 2 albums. CB was a compilation. ONA is barely an EP. Now add these to the list of WB releases: singles, videos, movies, side projects, tours. And then count in the QUALITY of the work, and the availability.

jazzy328is said:

NO concert is worth $100, lest alone $150. $50 is IMHO already a very steep price, $150 is simply greedy beyond reason. FACT: back in the 1980s, Prince's concerts didn't cost an arm and a leg, and yet were among the best around. Post-1995, Prince hasn't done a single impressive concert. That includes the current "doing it for the profitable Okayplayer crowd" tour, with concerts that aren't concerts but pretentious "let's give the fans just enough of the stuff they crave so they'll be nuts to pay even more next time because they got the impression it's worth it" crap. The only story the current concerts tell is "I like money, and I'm willing to prostitute myself to get more of it".

jazzy328is said:

BS. He gets most of the NPGMC stuff for free or for cheap, and the rest of it is so overpriced that there's no chance of a risk. The shipping charges alone are a disgrace.

jazzy328is said:

BS. Fugazi have sold millions of records and have always refused to play the major label game. Eddie Vedder would kill for their respectability. And at the same time Fugazi have been at the center of the Washington DC alternative music scene, their Dischord label is immensly respected and revered.

jazzy328is said:

:rolls eyes:

jazzy328is said:

You mistake "risk" with "boring".

jazzy328is said:

BS. There are numerous artists that have scored massive hits without radio support.

GustavoRibas said:

I acknowledge that in my post. You can be both an idealist and be totally self-interested, especially if you insist on rationalizing your very mundane needs by insisting they are borne out of deeply-held beliefs.

I'm sure most artists went the route of Prince and do not own their master tapes. So he may have been naive and didn't think things through well enough, but Bono's wise move is the exception rather than the rule.

Then again Bono performs at the Super Bowl when Prince appears to have more integrity than that, so I'll take Prince over Bono any day for that reason alone.

The music business is a rather corrupt oligopoly and is not exactly a "free market" where competition determines prices/wages. This won't change without government interviention, which probably won't happen. But at least the artists can still tour and make their big money that way.
[This message was edited Sun Nov 24 11:45:42 PST 2002 by TonyC]

It doesn't explain why, outside of all Prince matters, "working within the system" as U2 did is always the way to go. Say what you want about Prince, he has shaken things up and been an influence on other artists in this movement.

As for "greed", it says a lot that an artist is supposed to know his place and not be greedy while the big corporations are presented as naturally wanting to make the biggest profit possible. It sounds like they both want the same thing, but only one is judged for being greedy.Perhaps what is really judged here is not the lack of principles or the hypocrisy, but the lack of business acumen. So Prince is not a great businessman... I'll amend the Revelations.

BartVanHemelen said:

---I think if you subtract out all of the items you mentioned and the fact that U2 was taking a low rate they were probaly getting next nothing on the CD's they were selling. [/quote]

I doubt that seriously.

Laura said "I think if you subtract out all of the items you mentioned and the fact that U2 was taking a low rate they were probaly getting next nothing on the CD's they were selling. [/quote]"

Bart said "I doubt that seriously."

I do not give a rat's ass about what you doubt. You have numerous artist coming out right now and saying that the average rate works out to six cents a cd. How much less money would you have artist receive. In addtion, if the record industry charges the artist for all expenses up front and takes the money out of the sales of the record you need a high royalty rate.


"

laurarichardson said:

"

Bart said "Ridiculous. Why not the songs' author(s)? Or the musicians? Or the producer?"

Well asshole it is not ridiculous because this is the idea that Londell Mcmillian has put forth. Mr. Mcmillian heads of a artist right group that is involved in some pending legislation in California concerning the music industries corrupt practices. If a artist or record label wanted to include the the producer that would be up to the parties involved. It is obvious that the muscians and authors should be covered by their unions or receive rolayties for writing the songs.

I am not going to waste my time with your other ignorant comments. It is obvious that you do not keep up with what is going on with the artist rights movements. Numerous people have come out and spoken about bad deals. It is not just Prince who is unhappy with music industry practices.

There is a lawsuit pending against all of the major record labels for not paying into the artist pension fund.

There is pending legislation in California to change the law concerning the timeframe of recording contracts.

The Dixie chicks just re-signed their recording contract after complaining that they each had only a million dollars a piece after selling millions of records. They never received a accounting of their royalties from their record company.

All of the groups that Puff Daddy signed left him because of money.

Rappers who worked for Suge Knight received gold chains and pot instead of royalty checks.

I could go on and on and on if I wanted to. It is obvious that you are ignorant about music industry practices or you work in the music industry.

Yes! Work within the corrupt system! Settle for less! This also makes me pose the question "What was Martin Luther King thinking when he wanted permission to sit on the front of the bus, drink from the same water fountains as whites and vote?" He should have never "challenged" that system! Just to think all because of him now I can sit anywhere I want to on the bus! Glad I can have my cake and eat it too! I think Prince and others know the music industry is garbage and in my opinion does not have the right to make people settle for less when they create something that should belong to them in the first place. However to say you should just accept what is wrong and not challenge it isn't the answer either. I can understand if an artist brings nothing to the table except for a voice and a couple of dances that is different, but when you are talking about an artist like Prince, who has so much more to offer, he shouldn't have to settle for less in order to own something he alone created.
[This message was edited Sun Nov 24 13:26:59 PST 2002 by adorable2]

do we know how much money prince earned per CD?

for 12$ how much did Prince got in pocket

jazzy328is said:

- About the concerts, I still think they are way too expensive. It´s not because he is a better musician than Dave Matthews that he should charge 5 times more. If so, the Santana new album would cost at least 10 times the price of a Backstreet Boys album. A concert is a concert, and Prince´s stage is kind of normal lately. If he built a great stage full of gimmicks, maybe it would justify the price. But it didnt happen (at least on Rave 2000)
- My point is: how could he bad mouth WB for not letting him release a 3-Cd set (Dream Factory/SOTT), saying they were afraid of taking the risk, and then he released only few official albums since he left? (I am not talking about the mp3s of High album)
Peace

GustavoRibas said:

The difference is that Prince has no big contract and is financing the whole thing himself or nearly, hence the higher prices. You can't compare that to Dave Matthews, let alone Santana, both of whom have considerable label support and sponsors.

Smiley said:

From the L.A. Times:

Example of current calculation

Royalty(rate) is based on suggested retail CD price of $17,98, but with the following deductions:

1. $17.98-$4.50 (25% packaging deduction)=$13.48 becomes the price on which the royalties are based upon

2. 12% (royalty rate) - 2.4 percent (Technology deduction, whatever that means)=9.6% (effective royalty rate)

3. $13.48 x 9.6% = $1.29 per-unit royalty

4. $1.29 - $0.26 (20% "free goods" deduction) = $1.03 per-unit royalty
(free goods being things like free CDs given to retailers and such)

So basically, when you buy a CD for $18, the artist who created the music you're buying gets $1 dollar of the $18 dollars you spent...at least if they're getting a 12% royalty rate (which I guess is the norm within the industry)...

Holy fuck!, give the man [Prince] a break. He lives by the sword and he dies by the sword, so what if the way HE does business is not your cup of tea, he does things HIS way; for better or worse. We've been with him long enough to know how he does things. Above all at least he's challenged the system and has been part of a movement that challenged the system.
I've been self employed since leaving college and i've always done things my way, along the way my pig headedness has cost me lots, so what?, its my journey and my staff either buy into it or not. The ones that stuck around have smiles on their faces and through my mistakes i've become a success. In my particular sector i've challenged processes and to cut a long story short companies now follow us. And guess what?, in Princes world musicians are buying into what he's been saying for years.
I'm still moving on, changing , making a few mistakes here and there but overall getting there; that's why i could never criticise Prince for his actions , if he wants his cake and he wants to eat it then let the man have his cake!.

Nicely said, javed...I can relate personally to a lot of what you're saying...

I think some who criticize Prince for his actions criticize him more because they doubt the sincerity of his higher-minded reasons given behind his actions..."he's only in it for himself, not for other artists", "he only cares about the money, not the art", etc, etc...with me, though, I really don't give a rat's patootie if he is only in it for himself or for the money over the art..lol..the argument he makes still holds shitloads of validity, no matter what the personal reason he has for making it...

Javed, you're right...he does things his own way and is entirely free to do so--and he may even do things that have "cost him lots".

I just wish he would take responsibility for things he has screwed up instead of continually blaming "the system"-which is the easy way out.
For example. the whole Crystal Ball fiasco was his own fault. Many fans felt cheated when the CD set came out in stores before the cd's they ordered via the 800-new-funk site were sent to them.
I know a few former fans who were burned by that. They still like his music, but they won't ever support him like they did.
I can see the same thing happening with the ONA 3CD set. So far, no cd's have been sent out, and already BestBuy.com and CDnow.com are setting up ONA Live release date for mid-December--about 3 weeks from today's date.
Club members were expecting exclusive music and now may see the cd's hit retail shelves after -- or, god forbid, just before-- receiving their copy in the mail.

That's bad business any way you look at it. And if Prince is unable to meet the demands and expectations that he himself has set, then he needs to go back to doing business the previous way--via a label/record company(where he can still own his masters mind you...)
It's either that or admit he doesn't give a shit what his fans think--all 5,000 of them that will be left-- and keep doing things his own way...it's becoming evident they're one and the same.

mrchristian said:

I don't know what Prince needs to do, but I certainly think this is the last year of the NPGMC if ONAlive hits stores before most members get the set.

Aerogram said:

I totally agree. I think the 3CD's will arrive a week or so before they go on sale in stores, so they will have effectively 'kept their end of the bargain'--not seeing it as an insult to club members. (?!)
Here's hoping they have something else up their sleeves for the 2002 members.