Hi watched bits of the uk MOBO [Music of Black Origin] awards last night and on comes an Actor talking about slavery starting of by saying words to the effect of 'slavery is NOT some multi-millionaire rock star battling with his record company', personallly i have mixed feelings on this. The slave thing was 11 years ago, anyone whose heard the boot version of 'slave' will know that Prince did compare himself to African American slaves but changed the lyric. But really is there anything wrong with using slavery as a metaphore for how he felt?.

Many Artists both black and white, are still slaves in the music industry.

However, MOBO is an industry sponsored event.

I don't think it is necessary to become 'hyper-sensitive' about the words slave or slavery.

NewMr7 said:

That's just retarded logic.

Through recorded history people, jews blacks and others, were taken against their will and made to do labor. They had no choice to "sign" a contract.

Bullshit!

Pussy ass whinny bitch bullshit!

funkyhead said:

As a metaphore, no. It was a powerful statement.

funkyhead said:

Yeah, but I bet he was told to say that...

Prince's 'slave' statement was a bit over the top, but sometimes you don't get noticed without making a big splash.

Ha, nice to see Prince has the backing of the black music industry in the UK then. Would love to know who the actor is.

Its weird in the UK though, there doesn't seem to be a black 'voice' like in the US. Its not as open about black music etc, probably why 'urban' is such a buzzword so they can avoid saying 'black music'? maybe!

Wonder what Corinne Bailey Rae thought, as she was nominated and is a huge Prince fan.

Personally I think its quite crap and kinda misunderstands Prince abit, but then maybe it doesn't. Either way, I suppose Prince had to expect stuff like this happening, even now.

I posted the exact same sentiments over at the NPGMC and got crucified 4 it...

the word SLAVERY isnt exclusive to Black American slaves. it means many things. and its happening all over the world..out there. x

I wouldn't consider a slave someone who makes million dollars, no.

malbena said:

why not??

when u r a creative person and u got people stifling you, telling you you cant do this u gotta do that and u have to go ahead and do it, thats a form of slavery...millions of dollars or not. its a fucking disgusting feeling which u probably have to experience to understand.

im wit prince on this one. those record company mother fuckers r slave drivers. but only cuz the artists let it happen. still slavery. and sad thing is, these days, most artists dont even REALISE they r slaves.

sacredwarrior said:

Regardless of how much any1 makes, it's just a very 'poor' metaphor...undermines any real 'slavery' issues.
U baited me...Nuff said

christos7 said:

LIKE I SAID u have to EXPERIENCE IT to UNDERSTAND.



Prance u go on wit yo bad self baby. xx

sacredwarrior said:

EXACTLY... and U and Prince should thank Ur lucky stars.

I got the impression that he was also referring to those machines in studios that they call 'slaves'...
Could be mixed up on that though.

He was a Slave to the industry. I think the word slave means something different now. Like I'm an office slave. DOes that slam African Slaves from the past? Or make less of it?

he is a 100% correct Prince was wrong and his childish temper tantrum was a slap in the fact of real slaves.

much is like the myth that slavery was something limited to the past, the fact is by some accounts there are just as many slaves today than at any time it the past.

"They promise them freedom,
while they themselves are slaves of depravity-for a man is a SLAVE to whatever has mastered him."

Prince creative enslavement is far less an offensive metaphor than Britney and Justin's sexual titilation over "I'm a Slave 4 U" or "See these shackles baby I'm your slave, I'll let you whip me if I misbehave" surely?
[Edited 9/21/06 11:14am]

Websters defines Slave as:

1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence

African Americans don't own the term slave: Many races were slaves during different eras in the span of human history. Granted most recently African Americans so you can see why people would be offended.

It really is a pretty harsh term for comparing an artist to a record company. Slaves are taken against their will. Nobody forced Prince to sign that contract back in the day. "Slave" is a stretch. How about:

Naive
Fool
Dumbass
Stupid
Kid
Screwed
etc.
[Edited 9/21/06 12:56pm]

sgmusic said:

thank you.

sgmusic said:

unless it is a exceedingly long term contract... like 10 years.

SlamGlam said:

What exactly would have happened if Prince broke the contract?

superspaceboy said:

Who is NOT a slave then? By this logic, everyone's a slave in some way...

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

Websters defines Slave as:

1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence

do you understand the obligations you have when u've signed a CON-tract??? it might b naivety that signs one, but that doesnt discount the COMPLETE SERVITUDE with which you are expected to honour it. and they will HOLD U TO IT AGAINST UR WILL even when what u'd rather do is better for everyone INCLUDING THEM!

rec execs ARE A DOMINATING INFLUENCE. mayb u need to have the EXPERIENCE to UNDERSTAND. XXXXX

sgmusic said:

Warner Bros being the dominating influence.

Prince: Hey Warners, can I release this new single Lovesign?

Warners: Nope, U've enough stuff out already.

coolcat said:

Absolutely. This is why as a metaphor it's a valid statement. We all have to compromise something to survive.

But his slavery isn't exactly something Amnesty International is going to get involved with.

He used the word to grab attention, and that may be questionable.

sacredwarrior said:

you tell 'em!

HoneymoonXpress said:

Hmmm... no disrespect intended but that sounds like so much misinformed Bullshit!!!

Actually I have had the experience which is why I understand how this business works. Personal experience is the reason I can say that it is not slavery. It's business. It is ignorance of the contract you are signing. That's what record company execs bank on. They know the fu**** contract is slanted before you sign it and they hope you don't know enough about the business to realize it. That's why so many young artists get screwed. That's why they prefer young artists. Look how the industry has changed. It's very rare that anyone over 30 gets signed and there's a reason for it. If Prince knew he wouldn't have ownership of his masters, he could have made the informed decision not to give them up. Like most young eager artists, the only thing he was a slave to was his desire to be a star. Even if it meant signing a contract he didn't completely understand.

Next
[Edited 9/21/06 23:15pm]
[Edited 9/21/06 23:17pm]

sgmusic said:

So you're say Prince was so stupid he didn't know enough to hire a lawer?