http://www.canada.com/new...b9e771227a

Prince assails record companies during rare appearance on Canadian TV

Chris Wilson-Smith
Canadian Press


Wednesday, July 28, 2004


TORONTO (CP) - Rock superstar Prince used a rare appearance on Canadian television Wednesday to attack record companies for what he calls their "restrictive" control of the music industry.

With computer technology allowing people to record and distribute their own music, the days of record companies making money off artists are numbered, he said during a 20-minute interview at a MuchMoreMusic taping. "Kids today, I mean, they're so talented and sophisticated," Prince said. "They can create their own albums on laptops. They can deliver it through the Internet. They can even be their own distribution service."

"I mean, what do we really need record companies for?" asked the performer, who lives in Toronto part-time with his wife, Toronto-born Manuela Testolini.

The Grammy winner got the audience of about 80 going before the interview with a three-song performance with his band. He even invited the foot-stomping crowd to dance alongside him on stage.

About 20 fans took him up on the offer as Prince gyrated and sang in front of several cameras.

Hours later, he was to perform his second concert in as many nights at the Air Canada Centre.

Even by MuchMusic standards, this was not a typical day. A quick scan of the audience hovering around the stage revealed many of them to be MuchMusic employees.

Veteran VJ Bill Welychka, the host of the show, said there "really is a sense of royalty" in the air with Prince in the building.

"What can I say?" Welychka said. "Everyone's really excited to see him because he's no less than a legend."

MuchMoreMusic's Intimate and Interactive with Prince airs Sunday at 9 p.m. EDT.

© The Canadian Press 2004

EROTICCITYNPG said:

i wonder what Sony thinks when he says things like this

I don't understand Prince's attitude towards record companies and the music industry. These institutions that he complains about have made him filthy rich. I don't understand him writing the word "Slave" on his face over his contract with Warner Brothers. Didn't that contract pay him $100M?!? He signed the contract voluntarily so what's he complaining about?

To me, it's like someone winning the lottery, then complaining about how lotteries are bad and corrupt and taking advantage of the players. You can make that argument, but if you play the lottery then you're a hypocrite.

Why shouldn't the record companies own the rights to his songs? what does he think he's getting paid for? It's like painters. Painters get paid to make a painting that's sold to a buyer. The buyer owns the original painting.

David

DavidSF said:

I don't understand why you can't understand.
[This message was edited Wed Jul 28 20:14:34 2004 by DorothyParkerWasCool]

i agree with davidSF, yes prince has a point with the whole record company thing, but they did make him damn rich. most musicians would flock at a record deal opportunity. things will never change.

DavidSF said:

his attitude is like that bcuz he don't own his masters...y should the record company own the masters is the question? they didn't write the lyrics..they didn't compose the melody's...they're not out on stage every night singin and dancin their ass off..and its not like painters bcuz painters willingly give away their paintings..they willingly sell them...and man as dumb as it sounds it makes sense "when u don't own ur masters ur master owns u"

I love how everyone recognizes how amazing he is now. Now it's less about the name change and more about his tremendous legacy.

PurpleKnight said:

I could not have put it better myself.



This is the oldest argument on this forum, its been argued and debated so many times yet many of us fail to see that initially, that record company did a lot in getting Prince's music out to the world.

We also fail to understand Prince's anger as he saw the same company exploiting his work for the sake of profit$ also making him incapable of protecting what is rightfully his own creations.

many of today's musicians are motivated by fame and fortune, in many cases they are fed this "commercial formula" that lifts them to INSTANT superstardom (as in Idol and other similar shows). The sad fact is that the motive behind such schemes isn't so much about giving someone a chance to develop their talent but to find the next consumable product that will generate cashflow.

We all need to study the pages of history to discover what the art of music was all about, just read the biographies about The Beatles, Miles Davis, The RollingStones, Led Zep, Jimi; I mean these guys practiced what they preached and they only lived for one thing - Their Music.
'Almost Famous' is one of my fave movies of all time. I recomend every young aspiring musicians see it and discover what music was all about...

Most of today's music has lost its artistic lustre, Prince is trying to restore it and in doing so he is earning the respect of those who once held him at high asteem in his early days as well as from new fans alike...

Moonwalkbjrain said:

fucking hell. read your own post. "painters are different cuz they sell their work...", SO DO MUSICIANS YOU TWAT. they sign a CONTRACT for MONEY. they give up the goods (music) in return for an anvance and thereafter royalties at an agreed rate. that the way it is.

prince needs to quit whining. WB made made his ass. this website wouldn't exist without wb taking risks and spending their own money. lay off the kool aid. it not like it's one rule for every other artist and a differnt one for prince. you sign the contract, you loose the masters. end of.

Moonwalkbjrain said:

I guess he should of known what he was signing up for. For example I work for a software company with employees who create applications etc which are then sold multiple times to other companies, now when we all joined we signed a contract to say when we produced some work or had an idea for work, the company owned it. We all new this when joining and we are getting paid the same regardless of how many times the product we created is sold, in fact all the computer companies I have worked for include this in their contracts. This is not use in me complaining that I am a 'slave', I entered into the agreement with free will and knew what the terms were.

NME said:[quote]

Moonwalkbjrain said:

So, since that's the way it's been done we shouldn't question it?
If I was tricked as a younger man, like Prince feels he was, I would be upset about it and I'd make some noise so that it wouldn't happen to others. Who wouldn't want their own creations returned to them?

whodknee said:[quote]

NME said:

Did Prince not re-sign with Warners in the early 90's? was this the contract regarding ownership of the masters? he ain't stupid so I find it hard to believe that he did not about the master ownership issue and at that point he had been in the industry for a quite a few years. I do agree that he should inform others about the ownership of their masters but it's down to the individual artist whether they want to argue this with their own record company, perhaps some are not bothered.

What do you need to make music not as a hobby, but to secure a living? Very easy - you need someone to pay advancements for recording session and production work, to press CDs and design covers, to create a website and to market your music to retail, radio and MTV, and someone to create a tour and merchandising strategy.

Now, your average musician does not have the skills nor the contacts to do all this. So he needs to find someone who does. But - what has he got to offer in exchange for this? Normally an upcoming musician does not have the necessary financial resources - but his has his art. So he pays with his art, instead of with cash. But - as music is not a material asset, as a record company you must secure the rights. Otherwise, it is not an attractive deal for the company, and they just wouldn't start/finance the activities above.

So, record companies need the rights to reduce their risks. Of course, some contracts are more restrictive than others, but then I say - bad negotiation skills on the side of the musician. Can't blame the record company to try to get as much as it can.

So, I never understand Prince moaning and moaning... How would he have done it otherwise? Who would have pre-financed his recordings? Who would have pushed him to radio and retail? If not for record companies, he now would probably an IT programmer working in MPLS who every once in a while tells his kids how he once toured the local music venues, playing to up to 400 people a night...

I'm so tired of this goofy ass argument. YES, Prince can say what he's saying now b/c he's so well established. YES, he signed contracts himself though he says that ain't the way to go anymore. YES, he is speaking from experience when he says "own your shit" b/c he knows what it feels like to feel kept & quieted & robbed.

In a way I think it's a joke for him to tell up & coming acts not to sign w/ record labels - he can afford to make his own way in this game, but it ain't easy for somebody just coming up. Maybe the way to go is for new acts to sign limited contracts & once they establish an audience, break out on their own. But are there any limited contracts offered? Probably not...

He's not necessarily talking about "making it" - he's talking about being an artist & being free to create @ YOUR will, not the will of executives who could give a shit. He's right, people should hold on to their rights & own their masters - the problem is they probably won't make it very far by doing so. The shit ain't that simple, nothing w/ Prince ever is. Get over it, go make a fuckin' sandwich...

CalhounSq said:

White or Brown bread?

I got to wait 2 hours until I can enjoy lunch.

g3ajg said:

Brown, of course

DavidSF said:

With the example of painters, it is more like selling a painting to someone and them reproducing it on posters, plates, merchandising etc for years to come without having to ask your permission, and them making a huge bundle out of it and not having to give the painter anything more.

Artists areoften taken on by record companies at a young age when they are not going to understand all the ins and outs of the contract or what it will mean in the future. They just get dazzled by the initial promise of the contract. Besides, the record companies are so big that they have a take it or leave it attitude, they don't have to negotiate. By speaking out, Prince is helping to warn new artists of the potential downfalls.

Prince did resign with Warners in the 90s - but his major problem was that the management personnel changed mid-contract and he was suddenly being told by new executives that this or that track wasn't good enough in their eyes - like a painter being told what colour to use by a non-artist but still being under contract to produce a number of paintings.

Record companies did help to make Prince big and he helped them to become richer - it's a horse and cart scenario. However, the cart has to change and modernise it's design to keep up with modern times - whereas the horse will always be a horse and can go off on it's own these days.

Sorry, I'm getting lost in metaphors!

I'm trying to say that the record companies need to change their ways and perhaps accept that they will earn less these days since their artists who didn't used to have a choice now do in the age of digital technology and the internet.

At the end of the day, Prince is simply imparting his wealth of experience, both musically and in business, to a new generation.

NME said:

-----
I don't think Prince was upset with WB until the company started to go downhill after the Time/Warner merger in the early 90's. Be honest W/B records was sold off because the lost money for over a decade after the merger. The old W/B is gone and Prince is still around. Maybe just maybe he knows what he is doing. He does not have a contract with Sony and he found a way to distribute his music with out giving up the master tape. Give credit were credit is due.

Krid said:

-----
Stop looking at in a drastic way. Let's be honest after a artist has become established and sold a vast amount of cd's the record company could share the master or turn ownership back over to the group. Record companies could also do the same deal that Prince has with Sony to lessen their risk. Just pay for the marketing and promotion. Any issue can be worked out if out of control greed is removed from the equation.

0rlando said:

laurarichardson said:

yes but if u have the masters do something with them! Prince owns The Gold Experience and its still out of print..here's a great album that should be available to the public thats not....if WB had them it would still be in print...im almost afraid of Prince getting the masters we may never see some of the albums again

Mazerati said:

See, I've discussed this on another thread without conclusion - where is the evidence that Prince owns the masters to the Gold Experience? According to The Vault, there was some wrangling over it's release but eventually it was just another of the albums to fulfill Prince's contract with Warners. I can't find anywhere it says Prince owns the masters to this particular Warners release.

I'm just interested where this info has come from if it is true.

metalorange said:

No, Prince does not own the masters for GE, however it carries the NPG records inprint on the label thasts why some people think Prince owns the master. GE is published and copywritten by WB.

laurarichardson said:

Of course they could share/give back the master rights. Only drawback - the record companies would earn less money, and thus invest fewer resources into new artists, or cut down the number of artists they invest in.

Well, one could argue that a more selective approach could also be good looking at all the crap that now gets pushed - but I fear that record companies will not cut on the Pop Idol or Britney Spears kind of fare, but on "margin" music such as jazz, blues, electronica, etc...

metalorange said:

I don't think that's a good example b/c we're talking about two different things here: 1) the original painting and its ownership, and 2) rights to the art work, which is what you're talking about. For the reproductions to be sold the artist must have allowed it, perhaps through a contract. The contract would dictate if what percentage, if any, he got from the proceeds. Now if the reproductions are being sold not to the terms of the contract that that's wrong.

I also disagree that Prince is helping new artists. New artists have no leverage and they know it. Record companies are taking a huge risk on unknown new artists.

I thought Prince's problem with WB was not owning the masters? Regardless, he must have been in his contract that they had final say on which songs were released. The notion that Prince was somehow "tricked" into signing a contract with such terms is ridiculous and an insult to his intelligence and business acumen.

metalorange said:

Nicely done.

Fact of the matter is that none of us knows all of the many details of any contractual agreement that he signed, and/or what he was led to believe about it one way or the other. Only WB, Prince, his manager, and lawyer(s) knows exactly what it was about. All any outsiders know is the fallout, and brief overview that Prince has said about it. It's not as if Prince or Warner Bros. took out a full page ad in Billboard to tell the world what the agreement actually implied and entailed. As spectators we like to go off half-cocked without the whole story...and beat a decapitated horse while doing so...


`
[This message was edited Thu Jul 29 10:41:22 2004 by Supernova]

Prince has stated that he owns TGE - I think it was on the Q&A board on year 2 of the club - when asked if WB would re-release TGE the answer was something to the effect "We own that one!"
Publishing and copyright have nothing to do with ownership of the master tapes, while TGE album might be co-published by WB the individual tracks are published by Controversy Music as is most of Prince's "catalogue".
http://www.ascap.com/ace/...20&start=1
http://www.ascap.com/ace/...20&start=1
[This message was edited Thu Jul 29 10:45:27 2004 by gsh]
[This message was edited Thu Jul 29 10:54:05 2004 by gsh]

DavidSF said:[quote]

metalorange said:

Well, you originally brought up the analogy of a painting! I merely expanded it to reflect the intricacies of intellectual copyright and such. It all comes down to the contract, and Prince speaking out about contracts might make a few artists about to sign look a bit closer at the small print and decide what is best for them rather than for the record company, which surely is a good thing? Fact is people sign contracts every day without realising until it is too late the full implications.



The fact that artists have no leverage is no reason to allow themselves to be screwed over! Your point about huge risk is true, depending on the contract. A lot of artists don't realise that the cost of videos, promotions, etc often comes out of any profits they make later. I remember the band Wet Wet Wet were still £100,000 in debt after their first hit album because of paying back all the costs. It wasn't until the 2nd album they made any money! So the risk by record companies might be less than you think.



I didn't say he was tricked. Prince was fairly happy with Warners letting him do what he wanted and so was probably quite lenient when it came to re-signing his contract. Then later the management he was comfortable with was booted out and replaced with people he didn't get on with. So it was basically like working for a new company without any choice. He didn't want this 'new' company earning money off him for decades to come, which is where the argument over 'masters' came in.

But you are basically right that if you sign a contract it's your probably your own fault for being greedy and regretting it later is not necessarily an excuse. Certainly largely thanks to Prince speaking out, if ever I needed to sign a contract for whatever reason, I would have a longer think about the ramifications.

CalhounSq said:

Pretty much sums it up. The Game has been changing for a long time. P has been trying to find ways to beat this game that has pretty much stymied the entire music business.

I feel he slams the companies that..even though they are helping him...they are merely thowing small bones his way. He now knows he needs to own the masters...that's pretty evident. I am not exactly sure why he signed the contract to begin with...and the whole Slave thing was pretty silly and hypocritical....hough it made a point, it was still his fault.

I don't see why the model isn't similar to making a movie...actors get paid a certain amount for film...much more than musicians will see. They also get rights and such (depending on the actor) for after the movie has been made. Music and musicians are so disposable, yet their music lives on for the record companies to make money off of years down the road.

People here just don't seem to get it! Yes, most of us poor working slobs would be glad to be offered 100 mil, record tracks obiediently and slink off quietly. But artist such as Prince aren't motivated "soley" by money. They have something inside them that needs to get out and be expressed, whenever and however they can. To be told when, where and how to express it is wrong! And if the rec. companies can afford to pay Prince, M.J. or Madonna 100 mil or whatever, how much do u think they are making? I'll tell you... for every $10 a recording makes, the artist makes 75 cents to $1.25. The Temptations, Smokie Robinson and others albums still sells, but they aren't making a dime! How do you think multi platinum artist... Toni Braxton..T.L.C. can sell all those recordings, but file for bankrupcy!? Because record companies have been screwing over, using up and throwing away Blues, Rock & Roll, and Jazz artists since forever. Granted Prince has had it pretty good, but how many don't? How many here today gone tomorrow singer are out there? I Think that Prince is simply saying to watch out.... Know fully what you're getting into... Don't simply be dazzled by the initial riches thrown at you and be mindful of your future financial AND artistic growth! Ultimately, the person is responsible for signing his or her name on the dotted line.
[This message was edited Thu Jul 29 14:08:01 2004 by sdekm1]