This is a "featured" topic! — From here you can jump to the « previous or next » featured topic.
New topic 
Printable sdekm1 said: 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] It's because they're stupid... just like Mike Tyson, MC Hammer, Will Smith, and the thousands of others that have filed for bankruptcy after making millions. Also your example of "$10 a recording makes, the artist makes 75 cents to $1.25..." refers to royalties not the value of a contract. Bottom line: if a contract is worth $100M then that's what the artist gets one way or another, be it royalies, bonuses, advances, salaries, whatever... there are dozens of way it can be structured, but Prince did get $100M. BTW, Prince is more into making money than you think. I read some interview where someone asked why he plays so many consecutive shows without taking a break. He said something like he could play a show and make $500k or stay at home and preferred to make the $500k. David | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
metalorange said: 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.
I was with you until this statement. Who said this is what happened, anymore than you say we don't know if the Gold Experience masters stayed with P? Besides, Prince could not get good legal advice at the point of a reported $100m contract, but he could, 4 months later? Warner are professionals, not con men. They would not have entered into a deal without lawyers being present on both sides. Its in their interest too. Its more likely Prince overruled legal advice, especially when they dangled a vice presidency in his face. It works wonders on the uneducated. . | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
superspaceboy said: CalhounSq said: 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... 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. He was just going along w/ the program, doing what worked for him then. Eventually, he woke up to a new reality. Nothing wrong w/ seeing past the walls...   I never met you, but I LOVE you & I will forever!! Thank you for being YOU - my little Princey, the best to EVER do it | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SquirrelMeat said: metalorange said: 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.
I was with you until this statement. Who said this is what happened, anymore than you say we don't know if the Gold Experience masters stayed with P? Besides, Prince could not get good legal advice at the point of a reported $100m contract, but he could, 4 months later? Warner are professionals, not con men. They would not have entered into a deal without lawyers being present on both sides. Its in their interest too. Its more likely Prince overruled legal advice, especially when they dangled a vice presidency in his face. It works wonders on the uneducated. ----- You have no way of no what kind of legal advice Prince had. If had great legal advice maybe his management would have negoiatied for him to get the masters back (like U2 and Bruce Springsteen.) W/B went into a terrible change of mgmt during the Time Warner merger. You can read more about a former executive at W/B music has written a book about. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidSF said: sdekm1 said: 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] . It's because they're stupid... just like Mike Tyson, MC Hammer, Will Smith, and the thousands of others that have filed for bankruptcy after making millions. Also your example of "$10 a recording makes, the artist makes 75 cents to $1.25..." refers to royalties not the value of a contract. Bottom line: if a contract is worth $100M then that's what the artist gets one way or another, be it royalies, bonuses, advances, salaries, whatever... there are dozens of way it can be structured, but Prince did get $100M. BTW, Prince is more into making money than you think. I read some interview where someone asked why he plays so many consecutive shows without taking a break. He said something like he could play a show and make $500k or stay at home and preferred to make the $500k. David David, Prince did not get a 100 million contract from W/B It was based on record sales. I believe he was suppose to receive some sort of bonus if the records sold X amount of copies. You can't really think all artist who file for bankrucpty spent all of the money. Read a couple of books about the industry. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Musicology2004 said: Most musicians would flock at a record deal opportunity. things will never change.
Yeah, but you know what? They shouldn't. If people weren't so ardent to send their goddamn demos for the companies in the hope of becoming an international celebrity the companies would come to them. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said: DavidSF said: . It's because they're stupid... just like Mike Tyson, MC Hammer, Will Smith, and the thousands of others that have filed for bankruptcy after making millions. Also your example of "$10 a recording makes, the artist makes 75 cents to $1.25..." refers to royalties not the value of a contract. Bottom line: if a contract is worth $100M then that's what the artist gets one way or another, be it royalies, bonuses, advances, salaries, whatever... there are dozens of way it can be structured, but Prince did get $100M. BTW, Prince is more into making money than you think. I read some interview where someone asked why he plays so many consecutive shows without taking a break. He said something like he could play a show and make $500k or stay at home and preferred to make the $500k. David David, Prince did not get a 100 million contract from W/B It was based on record sales. I believe he was suppose to receive some sort of bonus if the records sold X amount of copies. You can't really think all artist who file for bankrucpty spent all of the money. Read a couple of books about the industry. Whatever- he got whatever he was supposed to get as outlined in the contract. So he didn't meet all the performance incentives to get the full $100M. I really really think anyone who ever had $1M in the bank and later files for bankruptcy is an idiot, no matter what industry he works in. These people probably spent too much time reading books [about the industry] instead of using common sense. David | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidSF said: laurarichardson said: David, Prince did not get a 100 million contract from W/B It was based on record sales. I believe he was suppose to receive some sort of bonus if the records sold X amount of copies. You can't really think all artist who file for bankrucpty spent all of the money. Read a couple of books about the industry. Whatever- he got whatever he was supposed to get as outlined in the contract. So he didn't meet all the performance incentives to get the full $100M. I really really think anyone who ever had $1M in the bank and later files for bankruptcy is an idiot, no matter what industry he works in. These people probably spent too much time reading books [about the industry] instead of using common sense. David People are not always destitute when they file for bankruptcy, and sometimes just do it to get out of their obligations (i.e. owing money to the record company-particularly if you owe a lot more than you have). For example, you might have 1 million dollars, but owe the record company 2 million because of advances, expenses, whatever. Your lawyer then advises you to file for bankruptcy, which in the long run will have the effect of satisfying the contract. You are then free. This is not always 100% the case , but rich and famous types use bankruptcy this way often. S Filthy cute and baby U know it | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Redayh said: DavidSF said: Whatever- he got whatever he was supposed to get as outlined in the contract. So he didn't meet all the performance incentives to get the full $100M. I really really think anyone who ever had $1M in the bank and later files for bankruptcy is an idiot, no matter what industry he works in. These people probably spent too much time reading books [about the industry] instead of using common sense. David People are not always destitute when they file for bankruptcy, and sometimes just do it to get out of their obligations (i.e. owing money to the record company-particularly if you owe a lot more than you have). For example, you might have 1 million dollars, but owe the record company 2 million because of advances, expenses, whatever. Your lawyer then advises you to file for bankruptcy, which in the long run will have the effect of satisfying the contract. You are then free. This is not always 100% the case , but rich and famous types use bankruptcy this way often. S Yes I know all the reasons for filing for bankruptcy but my point is that it shouldn't come to that if you play it smart. There is such a thing as saving money; living within your means, and taking out insurance policies, etc.. and all the things you can do to protect your assets. If you're filing for bankruptcy you did something stupid or you weren't smart. Regarding your example of the record contract; you'd have to be stupid to sign such a contract. I don't see any difference between that contract and a contract with a loan shark that loans you $1M but you have to pay back $2M. And I don't even need a lawyer to tell me it's a rip-off contract. Common sense, that's all it takes. David [This message was edited Fri Jul 30 14:52:49 2004 by DavidSF] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I didn't Know GE was out of print???
I agree with everyone this topic is exhausted. Prince got a good deal in the beginning because he was able to write, produce, arrange and perform his album. Maurice White was supposed to do it but Prince got to do his own thing. Most first time artists NEVER get deals like that. So in a way he was "spoiled" from the jump and George Clinton has said this also. I imagine after all the success and women he woke up and realized that he was a "slave" to the company. But all artists feel this way about their record companies. Art and commerce always clash. Maybe he was tricked I don't know. But it seems to me business is just not his strong point. It was up to him and any artist to educated themselves about the business. This is why his record label flopped. And it is easier for him to talk crap because he is established and he has a talent like no other to pay the bills. I think he just wants young people to beware and learn to strike a balance between handling their business and doing their art. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Musicology2004 said: 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. Prince's talent made him damn rich! And trust me that signing P not only helped P but it helped WB's reputation also.U,ME,WE!....2FUNKY! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
True Five..I Believe that,but I gotta laugh at Prince's Rebellious Nature..I Used to say he Didn't Care for Large amounts of Fans he wanted like an Underground Following and this kinda was Happening as his Music was Quietly Promoted and well This Tour is Bringing all Older Fans Back from Purple Rain...This is the Real Deal Here.. What Other Artists get this BORN AGAIn Kinda LUCK? LOL....How can any Fan NOT Love Prince..to me he's a Genius of a Talent and well he should Realize that Those Suits weren't The Fans Cause Basically Us Fans will Never Leave him and we Love all his Efforts.. Prince getting all Testy is all Fun... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I Get Mad Excited when Prince does his Whole Power Vibe and starts getting all Anti and stuff cause it's so Young and PUNK.... And I Love when he Voices his Displeasure and how he just like he Get's all At them. Like I Loved his UTCM Antics against MR Sharon..I LOVE his DEFIANCE...It's a TURN-On...  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
metalorange said: 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. (If he really hadn't) then he should have negotiated a "change of control and/or management clause" in that contract, giving Prince the right to terminate the contract once the management of the company and/or the control over the company changes. He could have done that, it's not an unusual clause and WB was definitly willing to negotiate with him at the time, as rather clearly indicated by the -at the time- amazing offer of 100M. 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.
Most record companies won't really change their ways because they are unwilling an/or unable to change. - [This message was edited Thu Aug 5 8:24:59 2004 by Abrazo] [This message was edited Thu Aug 5 8:25:39 2004 by Abrazo] You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Abrazo said:[quote] metalorange said: 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. (If he really hadn't) then he should have negotiated a "change of control and/or management clause" in that contract, giving Prince the right to terminate the contract once the management of the company and/or the control over the company changes. He could have done that, it's not an unusual clause and WB was definitly willing to negotiate with him at the time, as rather clearly indicated by the -at the time- amazing offer of 100M.
Well, you would have thought he would have a legal team that covered all the bases, but who knows? Even famous wealthy people get caught out by the small print in contracts. Around the 'Slave' time Prince fired his legal team and hired Llondell who has been with him ever since, so it suggests he was unhappy with the job they'd done for him. 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.
Most record companies won't really change their ways because they are unwilling an/or unable to change. I agree that they are unwilling to change - so long as they are still making bucket loads of money - however, the industry is changing, they are making far less money now than they used to, for whatever reason, although downloading off the internet and lack of development of decent music acts are probably prime candidates. Quite simply, they are going to have to change to survive - and all Prince is doing is pointing that out to them. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
metalorange said: Well, you would have thought he would have a legal team that covered all the bases, but who knows? Even famous wealthy people get caught out by the small print in contracts. Around the 'Slave' time Prince fired his legal team and hired Llondell who has been with him ever since, so it suggests he was unhappy with the job they'd done for him. I never heard any stories of him blaming his lawyers of the time. And considering this was a Pasley park/ Warner Brothers business deal I don't think this an issue of "getting caught in the small print". He just as well may have had such a clause in his contract, but unwilling or - for some reason - unable to invoke it. Abrazo said: metalorange said: Most record companies won't really change their ways because they are unwilling an/or unable to change. I agree that they are unwilling to change - so long as they are still making bucket loads of money - however, the industry is changing, they are making far less money now than they used to, for whatever reason, although downloading off the internet and lack of development of decent music acts are probably prime candidates. Quite simply, they are going to have to change to survive - and all Prince is doing is pointing that out to them. Prince is indeed making a good point about new technology making it more and more possible and affordable for artists to record and distribute their own music themselves. I think he is mainly speaking out to other, aspiring, artists out there, not really to the record companies. There is only one problem with the (future) scenario that Prince is drawing. For most aspiring artists Prince's vision will also most probably mean: no big marketing campaigns, no MTV's, no big money/advances, no big avenues, ... no big fame... You know that fame that so many are chasing. Therefore it is likely that record/media companies will always have some kind of function. Different, that's for sure, and probably much less, but still.... there will laways be artists who fall for the big money and fame, as Prince, the emancipated himself, so clearly experienced himself in the early 90's. -- [This message was edited Thu Aug 5 16:39:54 2004 by Abrazo] You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Abrazo said:[quote] metalorange said: Well, you would have thought he would have a legal team that covered all the bases, but who knows? Even famous wealthy people get caught out by the small print in contracts. Around the 'Slave' time Prince fired his legal team and hired Llondell who has been with him ever since, so it suggests he was unhappy with the job they'd done for him. I never heard any stories of him blaming his lawyers of the time. And considering this was a Pasley park/ Warner Brothers business deal I don't think this an issue of "getting caught in the small print". He just as well may have had such a clause in his contract, but unwilling or - for some reason - unable to invoke it.
It's a fact that Prince fired his lawyers - which in itself suggests he was unhappy with them, otherwise why fire them? - there's no way to find out exactly what it was over - it's just a theory I'm putting forward that it could have been when he realised his contract tied him up in knots. There is only one problem with the (future) scenario that Prince is drawing. For most aspiring artists Prince's vision will also most probably mean: no big marketing campaigns, no MTV's, no big money/advances, no big avenues, ... no big fame...
Would that scenario be so bad? No more record companies wasting a fortune pushing some talentless boy/girl band on us instead of supporting a real rock band over the course of a few albums? Less fame, better music? You know that fame that so many are chasing. Therefore it is likely that record/media companies will always have some kind of function. Different, that's for sure, and probably much less, but still.... there will laways be artists who fall for the big money and fame, as Prince, the emancipated himself, so clearly experienced himself in the early 90's.
At first you told me record companies were incapable of change - now you seem to be coming round to my way of thinking! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
metalorange said: It's a fact that Prince fired his lawyers - which in itself suggests he was unhappy with them, otherwise why fire them? - there's no way to find out exactly what it was over - it's just a theory I'm putting forward that it could have been when he realised his contract tied him up in knots.
Well, you know Prince fired a lot of people in his carreer, especially those days. So that he fired them comes as no suprise, but I never heard anything about the question why he fired them (bad contract drafting e.g.). Would that scenario be so bad? No more record companies wasting a fortune pushing some talentless boy/girl band on us instead of supporting a real rock band over the course of a few albums? Less fame, better music?
I would agree with that and personally find it a good scenario, but also know that the media companies don't think the same. As long as they can milk the young, naive, money/fame rockstardom craving artists out there they will keep on doing it. Ultimately it's a cultural thing we are talking about here, you know. Music is an important cultural aspect in many people's lives. Once it can be marketed to the masses there will be people to do just that and get stinking rich off of it and of course promise the artists the same big money... plus... fame.... Money and fame is also important for many (artists) in our Western culture. There it all comes together... At first you told me record companies were incapable of change - now you seem to be coming round to my way of thinking!
No, as long as western society as a whole doesn't change it's attitude towards money and fame, they won't change much. The focus will remain on the money and fame carrots they can dangle in front of the artists (who are out of money). All they will do is try to adapt their busniess tactics to the digital era and they are doing a pretty lousy job a that so far, I can tell you that. -- [This message was edited Mon Aug 9 10:29:44 2004 by Abrazo] You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Abrazo said: metalorange said: It's a fact that Prince fired his lawyers - which in itself suggests he was unhappy with them, otherwise why fire them? - there's no way to find out exactly what it was over - it's just a theory I'm putting forward that it could have been when he realised his contract tied him up in knots.
Well, you know Prince fired a lot of people in his carreer, especially those days. So that he fired them comes as no suprise, but I never heard anything about the question why he fired them (bad contract drafting e.g.). I would agree with that and personally find it a good scenario, but also know that the media companies don't think the same. As long as they can milk the young, naive, money/fame rockstardom craving artists out there they will keep on doing it. Ultimately it's a cultural thing we are talking about here, you know. Music is an important cultural aspect in many people's lives. Once it can be marketed to the masses there will be people to do just that and get stinking rich off of it and of course promise the artists the same big money... plus... fame.... Money and fame is also important for many (artists) in our Western culture. There it all comes together... At first you told me record companies were incapable of change - now you seem to be coming round to my way of thinking!
No, as long as western society as a whole doesn't change it's attitude towards money and fame, they won't change much. The focus will remain on the money and fame carrots they can dangle in front of the artists (who are out of money). All they will do is try to adapt their busniess tactics to the digital era and they are doing a pretty lousy job a that so far, I can tell you that. Well, you make some fair points, I'm not gonna argue. I've been reading through Uptown's The Vault book which is of course the top source on all things Princely. I decided to type up what they have to say about the whole conflict with Warners and post a new thread pasting it all in, hope you'll check it out and see what you make of it with the facts all laid out. [This message was edited Tue Aug 10 17:24:48 2004 by metalorange] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Prince likes to think that record companies are unnecessary,but yet his latest CD is being distributed by a major company.So,at the very least,record companies are useful if you wanna sell alot of records and appeal to a wide audience.Of course,if you DON'T care about these things,then no,you don't need the services of a major label.Furthermore,if it wasn't for Warners,would Prince have become the superstar that he is now? If he had distributed albums like 'Dirty Mind' and '1999' on his own (without a major label),would he have even found an audience? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
New topic Printable This is a "featured" topic! — From here you can jump to the « previous or next » featured topic.