http://www.nytimes.com/20....html?8dpc

The article is about artists re-recording old hits to make $$ from the new recording being used in advertisements. The record company ownes the original recording that was a hit, but the artist can makes $ from the new copy.
Sound familiar?

Prince was mentioned near the end:

till, advertisers caution that they are wary of shoddy attempts at recapturing the past. “I’ve heard a lot of really bad re-creations on the air. It just makes my hair stand up,” said Ira Antelis, director of music for the ad agency Leo Burnett.

At the other end of the spectrum are solo artists who produced their own original recordings. Prince, for example, has re-recorded significant portions of his catalog that — thanks partly to technological advances — may rival the original versions, according to one person close to him. A handful of artists have tried to package their new versions as a CD, in effect competing against their old record label and their own songs. Twisted Sister’s “Still Hungry,” a re-recording of 1984’s “Stay Hungry,” has sold an estimated 25,000 copies since it came out three years ago, according to Nielsen SoundScan data.

forgot to put the link edit
[Edited 4/17/07 21:51pm]

He does so much stuff he doesnt tell anyone about.

Ill bet he's contributed concepts for movies,
or released music under TOTALLY different
names.

weird that he did that

Dewrede said:

Not weird at all - it would mean he could release his own version of his albums and Warners wouldn't get a cut. Various band members have said he did in fact re-record his entire back-catalogue of albums in the late 90s with the intention of doing just that, but nothing came of it.

But, the recordings would be very different from the originals, very much of the time and the band members he had around him - which means you could get stuff like the 1999 new master which wasn't a patch on the original.