Ace said:

-----
Well Ace it looks like I was right. This is the same deal he had with Sony.
Universal does the Marketing and Promotion and P retains the masters.

He is not contradicting himself. He tried to put out music independly and you had the disater of "Crystal Ball" He tried working with "Best Buy". Looks to me like he tried to reall do it without the assistance of Record Companies but it did not work. Why not work with them but on your on terms.

It is too bad you only see the bowl as empty instead of half bowl.

laurarichardson said:

It's not the same deal he had with Sony. That was a distribution deal and this is a recording contract (hence the reason he felt it necessary to distinguish between the "slave ship" of Warner's and his new label).


He is certainly contradicting himself. He claimed his dispute with Warner's was all about total freedom and that is why he went independent. He is no longer independent and this deal contradicts many of the things he insisted he would no longer tolerate.

It is too bad you allow blind fanaticism to take away an objective perspective on what is really going down here.

Ace said:

God damn, thank you Ace!
I couldn't have said it better myself. It's funny how some fans are able to have an objective view of what the man does, but you become some "hater" if you state the obvious--like when he's being an ass, or contradicting himself.

AsianBomb777 said:

You can still love the man's music and call him on his bullshit. The two are not mutually exclusive (despite what some obsessive fans here will imply).

Ace said:

Agreed,
I crack up when people get offended we even bother to question him. I mean, Prince ain't the bible--and if he were, I'd question the shit out of him then.

Ace said:

If you actually read what was said in the press conference, Prince has categorically said that the deal is essentially the same as with Musicology, a one-off deal to distribute it. If you think he contradicted himself with that deal, and 'enslaved' himself to Sony, then fair enough. Not much slavery involved when you can jump ship when you feel like it. The record company not owning the masters was always the main problem Prince had, and with these deals, he does own the masters. And personally, I think working with the majors is the only way to get world-wide releases because of the networks they have in place.

No doubt you will say Prince is lying, but then I could argue that Universal are lying. I still maintain that a 'recording agreement' can mean many things - if it's just a one-album deal, and he's already recorded the album, then there's no more 'recording' to be done for Universal, is there? The relationship is already practically over apart from the marketing, shipping and selling which Universal will take care of and Prince will be off doing other things and probably signing for yet another label next year.

metalorange said:

If that's the case, why didn't he say so instead of feeling the need to distinguish Universal from Warner's "slave ship"? Could you quote the relevant remarks here, please?


No one in their right mind ever felt that Prince's deal with Warner's made him any kind of "slave" (in fact, a lot of people found that whole notion offensive). My point is he has, yet again, contradicted himself (that's the polite way of putting it, anyway).


No it's not. It's harder to do it without them and it might mean less money to you, but - hey - if your independence is as important to you as Prince claimed it was to him, that would be a sacrifice you'd make, right?


Yes, Prince is lying. If he's not, why won't he talk about the details of the deal? Seems to me the press release says it's a multi-album deal (and you can call it an "agreement" if you want, but it's still a contract).

It's okay, metalorange, you can question Prince's veracity and still be able to buy his records and attend his concerts.

Ace said:

metalorange said:

"The 47-year-old superstar has signed a one-album deal with Universal to release his upcoming album, "3121," early next year.

Prince declined to give financial details of the agreement, but said it was similar to the joint venture he struck with Columbia Records in 2003. In that deal, the label manufactured and distributed his 2004 hit album "Musicology," for NPG Records, Prince's label."


Fair enough, but I should think fans in far off places would rather have a solid CD in their local record shop on time provided by Universal's global distribution network than waiting weeks for Tony M in his independent NPG delivery truck to turn up with a few copies in the back.


Well, you can see from the quote above that it is a one-album deal so far. He won't talk about the financial details of the congreementract, but then he's never said much more than this about the Sony one either. Most people don't like to talk specifics about how much money they make. You can read into it what you want to. I think certainly he's touchy about seeing to go back on his contract philosophy, so that was why he wanted to make it clear signing with Universal wasn't going back into 'slavery', that he has maintained his independence and power, hence the 'Universal is not a slave ship' remark.


If he lies about the date and venue I won't...

metalorange said:

They're not similar. Despite what Prince is implying, the deal with Universal is a recording contract (not just a distribution contract) and I would bet dollars to doughnuts (based on the wording of Universal's release) that they have options in place on further records.


If you think Prince is doing this for his fans, I've got some swampland in Florida you might be interested in.


The quote is worded very carefully to omit the fact that there are options in place (which is standard for a record company taking-on an artist who may or may not sell enough units to satisfy them).



He hasn't maintained his independence nor as much power and this is why he feels the need to make this nebulous distinction between Universal and Warner's.

You're reading an awful lot into what HASN'T been said rather than what HAS. I guess we'll have to wait for more info.

Swampland, you say...

metalorange said:

The info will not be forthcoming as Prince has already made it clear he doesn't want to delve into the details (and I'm not talking about the money). Hmm...wonder why that would be?

The wording would indeed indicate that he is not that independent anymore. However, while it may be true that it's a recording deal and not a distribution deal, Prince could still be owning the masters. That Universal would own them just because it's a recording deal isn't a given.

Abrazo said:

Whether he will retain ownership of these masters or not is irrelevant; he's still contradicting a whole bunch of claims he made when he broke with Warner's. Again, if this deal were akin to the Sony one, he wouldn't feel the need to make a distinction between Warner's and Universal's business practices (which is hysterical in itself, because they are exactly the same).

Ace said:

There's a transcript of the press conference over at Housequake, it appears that a member of the press brought up the 'slave ship' analogy and Prince was merely responding to that question, which surely blows a hole in your theory about Prince's need to distinguish Universal from Warners:

Press: "Prince you once labelled your title Warner Brothers as slavery so why are you jumping aboard the biggest slavery ship of them all?"

Prince: "I don't consider Universal a slave ship first of all. Mostly the situation with Universal is similar to the one with Sony in so much asthat I did my own agreement, it wasn't a contract, I don't believe in contracts. I did my own agreement without the help of a lawyer and sat down and got exactly what I wanted to accomplish. The goals that I was trying to accomplish."

Press: "So did you sign a contract at all with Universal or was this a hand shake deal?"

Prince: "It's basically a hand shake deal but we do sign some agreements to ensure that business gets accomplished. I would challenge all artists before they get into these agreements to sit down and actually ask that everyone of these things be explained to them like free goods clauses and digital rights and ownership of masters and that type of stuff."

Press: "How long is this contract for?"

Prince: Laughs and holds up a number one with his finger as he smiles at the reporter nodding his head confirming it's a "one".

Press: "You said that this is the agreement that you wanted. What exactly did you get out of it that you were..?"

Prince: "First of all I've done, I've been independent for a long time so to doany sort of agreement with a record company at this point would have to be in my interest. So that's basically all I'm going to say about it. It's a wonderful agreement."

The rest of the transcript should just say "(UNINTELLIGIBLE GIBBERISH WHILST PRINCE EATS HIS WORDS)".

"Wasn't a contract"!

metalorange said:

It's still hysterical 'cause the only argument he's making is that Universal's business practices are different from Warner's - which they are not.





Ya don't say?


Gee, why so mum?

Ace said:

The hypocrisy of the situation can be shown with one simple example: Prince claimed record companies treat their artists like slaves (again, a very offensive comparison), yet here he is doing business with one of these companies that continues to treat their other artists the exact same way they did when Prince was making these statements. If he stood behind what he claimed this was all about, he would never do a deal with Universal out of principle (or Sony, for that matter).

Essentially, his current rationalization goes like this, "Hey, I got what I wanted*, so too bad for the other slaves". Gee, Prince, I thought it was all about the cause?


*And he is implying that he has the exact same autonomy he had as an independent and I don't believe it for a second.

Ace said:

Maybe you're right, but I could also argue he is leading by example - showing other artists that it is possible to avoid being rail-roaded into signing the typical usual record company deal. Yes, he's got more clout than a new or younger artist, but all he can do is lead from the front.

I think a lot of other artists are going to be saying, I want a deal like what Prince got.

metalorange said:

He ain't leading shit (unless you count leading us on); it's all about him.


Well, as we don't know exactly what kind of deal Prince got, that would be a little difficult, wouldn't it?

The deal with Universal covers 1 album ONLY.
Does that support ur assumptions, Ace?

peace

Anji said:

I agree with Ace. This may be a one-off CONtract, but it's not exactly leading by example for other artist. The company he signed with continues to "enslave" other artists (this would be by Prince's logic--not mine), and Prince has agreed to a contract with them. This move is more about him making a profit than about him pioneering the way for other artists. That being said, it's Prince's perogative if he wishes to do so. But like all contracts with major record labels, you can dress a pig up and it's still a pig.

Of course, being the shallow bastard that I am, I'm probably just agreeing with Ace becuase he's sexier then the rest of the folks up in this motherfucker.

Ace said:

That's true, and by the same token, you can't make claims about what sort of deal he has done either, which clearly you have in previous posts:

Y on earth should P carry the responsibility 4 pioneering the cause 4 other artists?
Pioneering ur own path based on ur own goals is what he's about.

He's dealing with record labels nowadays on his own terms, or nothing.
This is an entirely different mindset n ballgame 2 the 1 when he felt enslaved.

As long as he's pimping the industry, he leads by his own xample.
It is by no means his responsibility 2 n e 1 but himself.

peace

Ace said:

Well Ace, I wasn't responding to Prince's contradictions. Nothing new there and you are right about that interview: "it's not a contract", "it's a wonderful agreement". Uhm yeah, sure Prince.
What I was responding to were the claims by some that he wouldn't be owning his masters under this Universal deal. That isn't a given.

metalorange said:

Let me just say this: Prince should cease talking crap when it comes to record contracts and companies. An agreement is a contract, stop bullshitting people. And you should get help from your lawyer. If you think you can draft a safe deal with a company by yourself you are a fool. Also, there is no real difference between Sony, Universal or WB. When you let them they treat you like crap and exploit your work to the bone. Your choice if you let them or not.
Lastly, good that he urges other artists to ask teh company to explain all clauses, such as digital rights, master ownership and others. He should be talking more about that kind of stuff; education is key.
But stop talking BULLSHIT please.

Ace said:

One more thing ace. Would it be a wise thing to do for Prince to admit that Universal is just as much a "slaveship" as WB?

I really don't think so.

Anji said:

Prince has implied with a gesture (interesting that he didn't even answer that one verbally ) that it is a one-album deal. You should know that contracts including record company options for multiple albums may also be described as one-album deals.

metalorange said:

His silence says it all.

Anji said:

Anji you seem like a really great, intelligent guy, so I don't understand why you feel the need to defend everything Prince does.

Prince claimed he objected in principle to the way the majors treated their artists, so even if you believe his contract with Universal gives him all the freedom he had as an independent (which only Prince apologists do), signing with one is unbelievably hypocritcal. To go with Prince's odious metaphor, it's one former slave partying it up with the masters on the terrace while the other slaves break their backs in the fields below them.