This is a "featured" topic! — From here you can jump to the « previous or next » featured topic.
New topic 
Printable KidaDynamite said: Paris9748430 said: But it's not like he committed mass murder or rape by removing some videos from a website!!! Put it where it feels good!!!!   
r u sure about that Paris?  I LOVE MYSELF | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Prince is only fucking himself. I love how that guy calls himself a former Prince fan! Me too. I used to LOVE him. He could do no wrong but his music now is sooo bad(not the Michael Jackson way). I can't wait to see how blocking all his videos is going to help his career! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mschirmer said: Prince is only fucking himself.
yes he is clinging to an old system of thought an old way of doing things it used to be relevant and necessary not any more. if he would like to cling to the old world it is absolutely certain he will go down with it he really needs to let go now I LOVE MYSELF | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: you know, i might agree with some of you all and i might disagree with others of you all, but the one thing i feel about EVERYBODY is they need to start acting like they have some damn manners. i have real problems believing some of you people hug your moms with the same hands you use to type out all this nastiness.
ALL TOGETHER NOW: IT'S ONLY THE INTERNET. IT'S ONLY PRINCE. IT'S ONLY YOUTUBE. IT'S ONLY MOUNTAINS. AND THE SEA. (sing that last part)  RIP, mom. I will forever miss and love you. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I know a little bit about copyright laws in australia from being in a performance group, and Prince has the right to protect any footage of this performance (no matter who filmed it).
He still owns the rights to the performance even if it is a cover. (radiohead should probably be allowed to get a copy though, surely) I find all this argument about his attitude to copyright a bit mad. I don't see why he should be expected to give his music away for free because he has in the past or because he can afford to or because he loves jesus. I imagine he has quality controll issues in mind too. I choose to think of it like this.... In this technological age the average artist is having a hard time selling their albums when it is free and easy to download or burn from friends or watch clips on utube. The amount of money lost must be huge. Granted, artists can now reach a wider audience etc, but what use is that if they have to give their material away. So... if Prince can come along and kick up a big fuss about utube, ebay etc for allowing piracy (and it is everywhere, even here on occasion, you must admit) and spend how ever much in legal fees to sort it out, then we should thank him. For the most part, the law is probably on his side. And his big 'stink' is probably going to trickle down and benefit lesser known artists that currently get taken advantage of. Personally, i love the pics, the videos and bootleg mp3's and spend hours hunting for them... but I do feel kind of bad about it and recognise that he has a right to be a little miffed | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said: It's funny because Radiohead is everything Prince used to be. They're still critics darlings with their studio work, not to mention trend setters, and they've embraced the internet in revolutionary ways like Prince once did.
Prince is so out of touch with music today, it's almost frightening. I'm all for protecting artists' rights so that it doesn't hamper their ability to make money from their music, but Prince has taken it too far. He's gone to this extreme to the point where his actions have come to appear laughably draconian to today's music audience. It's a good thing The Kid still tears it up in live performances because that's about all he has going for him anymore. I don't believe that anyone is really selling the CDs they claim to be---even Mr. Nelson. Why? CD-Rs and the price-gouging of CDs and CD-singles throughout their existence.. That's the reason for so many publicity-stunts and attention-getters in the industry now.. ..like the one that is the reason for this thread.. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
purplecam said: I have to wonder this, if his version of "Creep" is so bad, as a lot of people here believe it is, then why do we care if it's seen on youtube or not? I mean if it sucks and it's out there like on youtube, we'll complain. If it's not out there at all and it's sucks or is even great, we'll complain. When will we be satisfied? I want change too but if change happens on Prince's end, will we change our attitudes with it or will it be business as usual? I hope what I asked made some kind of sense.
Hey.. Hypocrisy lives in some people here.. If his cover was such a disservice to the band, why does it need to be available? He should not do any favors to some of these "Post-Grunge/VH1 Rockers" by covering any of their songs.. The last band he covered before this one during The Superbowl, seemed a bit uptight at first, this one seemed to milk-it for publicity. I'm sure they've seen it. Obviously, he liked the song as was no re-releasing it, he just wanted to turn his fans on to their music.. Radiohead acting as if its some kind of slight publicly on Yahoonews.com of alll places, could've just asked him for a DVD-R of the show. It was overblown on their part. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Linn4days said: PurpleKnight said: It's funny because Radiohead is everything Prince used to be. They're still critics darlings with their studio work, not to mention trend setters, and they've embraced the internet in revolutionary ways like Prince once did.
Prince is so out of touch with music today, it's almost frightening. I'm all for protecting artists' rights so that it doesn't hamper their ability to make money from their music, but Prince has taken it too far. He's gone to this extreme to the point where his actions have come to appear laughably draconian to today's music audience. It's a good thing The Kid still tears it up in live performances because that's about all he has going for him anymore. I don't believe that anyone is really selling the CDs they claim to be---even Mr. Nelson. Why? CD-Rs and the price-gouging of CDs and CD-singles throughout their existence.. That's the reason for so many publicity-stunts and attention-getters in the industry now.. ..like the one that is the reason for this thread.. ... but that's why you tour .. touring would pull in the revenue.. i dont believe CD sales have to do with why Prince is doing this... all artists of today dont sell CD's as before, but some of them know to do tours and International Tours...and the Rolling Stones was all over the place touring (and they're much older than Prince) ..so... Prince can do it too | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Linn4days said: purplecam said: I have to wonder this, if his version of "Creep" is so bad, as a lot of people here believe it is, then why do we care if it's seen on youtube or not? I mean if it sucks and it's out there like on youtube, we'll complain. If it's not out there at all and it's sucks or is even great, we'll complain. When will we be satisfied? I want change too but if change happens on Prince's end, will we change our attitudes with it or will it be business as usual? I hope what I asked made some kind of sense.
Hey.. Hypocrisy lives in some people here.. If his cover was such a disservice to the band, why does it need to be available? He should not do any favors to some of these "Post-Grunge/VH1 Rockers" by covering any of their songs.. The last band he covered before this one during The Superbowl, seemed a bit uptight at first, this one seemed to milk-it for publicity. I'm sure they've seen it. Obviously, he liked the song as was no re-releasing it, he just wanted to turn his fans on to their music.. Radiohead acting as if its some kind of slight publicly on Yahoonews.com of alll places, could've just asked him for a DVD-R of the show. It was overblown on their part. A fair number of folks here already are Radiohead fans. So, I doubt there was much revelation in Prince's "cover" of the song. If you watch the footage, you'll hear some folks cheering when they recognize the opening chords and lyrics. I tend to see it as BK has characterized it: Prince wants to occupy opposing sides of the same issue, depending on how it can benefit him. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Linn4days said: PurpleKnight said: It's funny because Radiohead is everything Prince used to be. They're still critics darlings with their studio work, not to mention trend setters, and they've embraced the internet in revolutionary ways like Prince once did.
Prince is so out of touch with music today, it's almost frightening. I'm all for protecting artists' rights so that it doesn't hamper their ability to make money from their music, but Prince has taken it too far. He's gone to this extreme to the point where his actions have come to appear laughably draconian to today's music audience. It's a good thing The Kid still tears it up in live performances because that's about all he has going for him anymore. I don't believe that anyone is really selling the CDs they claim to be---even Mr. Nelson. Why? CD-Rs and the price-gouging of CDs and CD-singles throughout their existence.. That's the reason for so many publicity-stunts and attention-getters in the industry now.. ..like the one that is the reason for this thread.. agree 100% | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Linn4days said: purplecam said: I have to wonder this, if his version of "Creep" is so bad, as a lot of people here believe it is, then why do we care if it's seen on youtube or not? I mean if it sucks and it's out there like on youtube, we'll complain. If it's not out there at all and it's sucks or is even great, we'll complain. When will we be satisfied? I want change too but if change happens on Prince's end, will we change our attitudes with it or will it be business as usual? I hope what I asked made some kind of sense.
Hey.. Hypocrisy lives in some people here.. If his cover was such a disservice to the band, why does it need to be available? He should not do any favors to some of these "Post-Grunge/VH1 Rockers" by covering any of their songs.. The last band he covered before this one during The Superbowl, seemed a bit uptight at first, this one seemed to milk-it for publicity. I'm sure they've seen it. Obviously, he liked the song as was no re-releasing it, he just wanted to turn his fans on to their music.. Radiohead acting as if its some kind of slight publicly on Yahoonews.com of alll places, could've just asked him for a DVD-R of the show. It was overblown on their part. again agree with you there | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Orange123 said: mschirmer said: Prince is only fucking himself.
yes he is clinging to an old system of thought an old way of doing things it used to be relevant and necessary not any more. if he would like to cling to the old world it is absolutely certain he will go down with it he really needs to let go now I do not agree with that at all, lol The man obviously knows that the old system does not work and he has been fighting it publically for 15 years now, he has tried many different ways to bring his music to the public, how many artists have even tried? Just because it benefits you the most free, does not make it automatically better for everyone else. Also this is good publicity; it puts the name "Prince", a great performance and demand for his music by a younger generation just to see what the fuss is about, in a way that they couldn’t have dreamed of. I think it makes him more of a badass that he does his own thing, and still leaves people wanting more!.... but "free" [Edited 6/8/08 9:02am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Flowerz said: ... but that's why you tour .. touring would pull in the revenue.. i dont believe CD sales have to do with why Prince is doing this... all artists of today dont sell CD's as before, but some of them know to do tours and International Tours...and the Rolling Stones was all over the place touring (and they're much older than Prince) ..so... Prince can do it too I think that’s funny, we tell an artist what he should do instead, to make his living because we would rather let people not pay the set price, if any for their product. How about this,.. if an artist works and spends his own money to bring you a product, then we either purchase the product or respectfully not....and not say "but you are a millionaire and you could probably make it back from touring" lol Just because it's easy and all your friends are doing it does not may it right, .....to quote my mom. [Edited 6/8/08 9:17am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JustErin said: ThreadBare said: Therein lies the disconnect.For real. 
Radiohead is the only reason Prince was able to sing that song in the first place. For him to be controlling over something that isn't his is outlandish. This coming from the guy who hated record labels messing around with artists' songs. Of course, there's also the whole issue of Prince taking an early '90's classic to begin with and turning it into a lame Disney-themed track, but anyway.... I don't believe that anyone is really selling the CDs they claim to be---even Mr. Nelson.
Why? CD-Rs and the price-gouging of CDs and CD-singles throughout their existence.. That's the reason for so many publicity-stunts and attention-getters in the industry now.. ..like the one that is the reason for this thread.. Who said anything about sales? Okay, it's a well-known fact that sales are nowhere near what they used to be, but what does that have to do with any of the major points I mentioned? Prince churns out albums these days that are embarrassing to most of his hardcore fans and are quickly forgotten by anyone else who hears them. When Radiohead releases an album, it's pretty much always universally praised and later appears on several lists about the greatest albums of all time. Radiohead ushered in a new era of music distribution by offering their album online without the help of a major label. Prince has regressed to a strategy that already failed when it was attempted years earlier by artists like Metallica. Trying to deny the prevalence of the internet is counter-productive and doomed to utter failure. So, as I said, Prince's only value right now is as a live artist. To be fair, though, he is probably the best live musical performer alive right now, so that still counts for a lot. [Edited 6/8/08 15:07pm] The world is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
"You still wanna take me to prison...just because I won't trade humanity for patriotism." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
well done to radiohead for trying to get the vids back up on youtube.
Prince really doesnt have a right to claim copyright infringement on someone elses song, its sad really | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said:[quote] JustErin said:
Of course, there's also the whole issue of Prince taking an early '90's classic to begin with and turning it into a lame Disney-themed track, but anyway.... [/color] [Edited 6/8/08 15:07pm] you're right, he did turn it into a lame disney track...I enjoyed the music, but the lyrics.... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Here is the video
http://showhype.com/video...chella_08/ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said:
Radiohead ushered in a new era of music distribution by offering their album online without the help of a major label .
When did Radiohead usher this in, Prince has been playing with this stuff for what 15 years now? and Radiohead said they would not be delivering their next cd like this one on the "pay-what-you-like" gimmick, i love Radiohead and I agree on what you said about the quality of their music, but c'mon be realistic in this "ushering" thing Prince has regressed to a strategy that already failed when it was attempted years earlier by artists like Metallica. Trying to deny the prevalence of the internet is counter-productive and doomed to utter failure .
Nobody is denying the prevalence of the internet, they are addressing it. They are addressing the dramatic drop in record sales because of it. The internet as it today is not the future, it’s just what we have now and it’s a mess, and discussions like these are what is needed to the future changes to it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violetblues said: Flowerz said: ... but that's why you tour .. touring would pull in the revenue.. i dont believe CD sales have to do with why Prince is doing this... all artists of today dont sell CD's as before, but some of them know to do tours and International Tours...and the Rolling Stones was all over the place touring (and they're much older than Prince) ..so... Prince can do it too I think that’s funny, we tell an artist what he should do instead, to make his living because we would rather let people not pay the set price, if any for their product. How about this,.. if an artist works and spends his own money to bring you a product, then we either purchase the product or respectfully not....and not say "but you are a millionaire and you could probably make it back from touring" lol Just because it's easy and all your friends are doing it does not may it right, .....to quote my mom. ... uhm.. nothing u said applies to my post.. whatever u're reading into..u're off topic... i responded to a post saying this whole issue is about CD sales .. and i dont believe Prince is hung up on the sales of CD's when he knows himself he can tour (he isnt too old).. so dunno where u're going with your response, has nothing to do with what i said.... i have not dictated to Prince in my post of what he should do | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Flowerz said: violetblues said: I think that’s funny, we tell an artist what he should do instead, to make his living because we would rather let people not pay the set price, if any for their product. How about this,.. if an artist works and spends his own money to bring you a product, then we either purchase the product or respectfully not....and not say "but you are a millionaire and you could probably make it back from touring" lol Just because it's easy and all your friends are doing it does not may it right, .....to quote my mom. ... uhm.. nothing u said applies to my post.. whatever u're reading into..u're off topic... i responded to a post saying this whole issue is about CD sales .. and i dont believe Prince is hung up on the sales of CD's when he knows himself he can tour (he isnt too old).. so dunno where u're going with your response, has nothing to do with what i said.... i have not dictated to Prince in my post of what he should do I know i was just making a point based on that one coment, but i do sometimes post too quickly after having just quicky glanced at a subject, i got to watch it. this one of is my goof-off site while at work an my attenion tends to jump around all over the place. [Edited 6/9/08 9:17am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said:[quote] JustErin said:
Radiohead is the only reason Prince was able to sing that song in the first place. For him to be controlling over something that isn't his is outlandish. This coming from the guy who hated record labels messing around with artists' songs. Of course, there's also the whole issue of Prince taking an early '90's classic to begin with and turning it into a lame Disney-themed track, but anyway.... I don't believe that anyone is really selling the CDs they claim to be---even Mr. Nelson.
Why? CD-Rs and the price-gouging of CDs and CD-singles throughout their existence.. That's the reason for so many publicity-stunts and attention-getters in the industry now.. ..like the one that is the reason for this thread.. Who said anything about sales? Okay, it's a well-known fact that sales are nowhere near what they used to be, but what does that have to do with any of the major points I mentioned? Prince churns out albums these days that are embarrassing to most of his hardcore fans and are quickly forgotten by anyone else who hears them. When Radiohead releases an album, it's pretty much always universally praised and later appears on several lists about the greatest albums of all time. Radiohead ushered in a new era of music distribution by offering their album online without the help of a major label. Prince has regressed to a strategy that already failed when it was attempted years earlier by artists like Metallica. Trying to deny the prevalence of the internet is counter-productive and doomed to utter failure. So, as I said, Prince's only value right now is as a live artist. To be fair, though, he is probably the best live musical performer alive right now, so that still counts for a lot. [Edited 6/8/08 15:07pm] who is playing embarassing setlists 2 the hardcore fans man, he has such an amazing body of music that it's sad to see him constrict it down to the basics. he's too talented for the lineup he's doing. estelle 81 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violetblues said: I think that’s funny, we tell an artist what he should do instead, to make his living because we would rather let people not pay the set price, if any for their product. How about this,.. if an artist works and spends his own money to bring you a product, then we either purchase the product or respectfully not....and not say "but you are a millionaire and you could probably make it back from touring" lol Just because it's easy and all your friends are doing it does not may it right, .....to quote my mom. [Edited 6/8/08 9:17am] You do realize that it is that overbloated "set price" that has been a part of the musical rebellion, right? The industry had its chance to do right by the public. When the division of CD profits were exposed to the nation, they COULD have went ahead and said "Okay, you got us; we'll drop the prices on CDs to something more reasonable", instead the pushed ahead full forward, running LESS sales on CDs in retail stores. As a result, stores like Target, Wal-Mart and other mass distributors took over and many, many record stores have closed around the country as a result. To make matters worse, the public became more rebellious and started downloading more. People will not pay $17.99 for a product that they KNOW should only cost them about 7 or 8 bucks retail. The public has rejected the music industry's business practices. The industry LOST. Prince and Metallica have LOST. There's no turning back now and shutting down Youtube will change NOTHING just like reducing Napster to whatever it is now did NOTHING. Its time to get with the program for ALL ARTISTS. For Prince, that would mean doing the one thing he seems to hate the most - catering to his fan base. The days of being "above it all" are over and while you and a few others may still follow that "Prince's way or the highway" path, that's just not the future. He'll always sell tickets. People will always go to his shows. Trying to control media formats (audio and video) - that's not gonna happen. You and him and all those that think like you may as well forget about it. Change is bigger than all of you. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ok, back on the subject of YouTube, I think its great I admit. Useful in ways limited to your imagination.
It can be used as a great marketing tool. It’s become the de-facto tool for movie trailers online for example. But what if someone doesn’t want their performance up there, what if the artist made it clear to organizers before a gig that he didn’t want his permormance streamed, what if your ticket said so right on it, does the artist have no rights to their performance to tell YouTube to please remove it? I agree with the value of YouTube, but should there be no way to remove yourself from it if you don’t want to be on it? [Edited 6/9/08 14:15pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
If you don't want to be seen then stay your ass the hell off stage. Most artists understand that a certain percentage of camera phone recordings and such are going to escape from a show and make no big deal of it because Youtube's low-quality graininess and upload size limitation ensures that even if it hits youtube against the artist's will, it ain't gonna get sold on the street as a bootleg. If anything, youtube put a lot of bootleggers out of business. Many people bought boots back in the day for large amounts of money, only to get the tape home and find a very low grade video that they might not have paid as much money for had they known.
As i said before, it seems like some people will simply side with Prince regardless of the circumstances. When it came to Jill and Prince having her live performance video removed, it was okay because he co-wrote the song with her and he & WB owned the rights to it. Now that its a song that he performed that someone else owns the rights to, all of a sudden its not okay? Hypocritical. I don't even like Radiohead but I can respect what they are doing to try to move forward in a music business that is changing drastically. Prince is the one still living in the 80s and getting upset when a baby dances to one of his songs on youtube.[/b] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: If you don't want to be seen then stay your ass the hell off stage. Most artists understand that a certain percentage of camera phone recordings and such are going to escape from a show and make no big deal of it because Youtube's low-quality graininess and upload size limitation ensures that even if it hits youtube against the artist's will, it ain't gonna get sold on the street as a bootleg. If anything, youtube put a lot of bootleggers out of business. Many people bought boots back in the day for large amounts of money, only to get the tape home and find a very low grade video that they might not have paid as much money for had they known.
As i said before, it seems like some people will simply side with Prince regardless of the circumstances. When it came to Jill and Prince having her live performance video removed, it was okay because he co-wrote the song with her and he & WB owned the rights to it. Now that its a song that he performed that someone else owns the rights to, all of a sudden its not okay? Hypocritical. I don't even like Radiohead but I can respect what they are doing to try to move forward in a music business that is changing drastically. Prince is the one still living in the 80s and getting upset when a baby dances to one of his songs on youtube.[/b] No Blaque, it's not about anything you posted about, it’s not about siding with Prince. The "Future" is not about posting whatever heck you want regardless of anyone’s rights. That’s a mess. Regardless of what you believe, that’s not the future, and its not going be like that, there is going to be a somewhat happy medium. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: If you don't want to be seen then stay your ass the hell off stage. Most artists understand that a certain percentage of camera phone recordings and such are going to escape from a show and make no big deal of it because Youtube's low-quality graininess and upload size limitation ensures that even if it hits youtube against the artist's will, it ain't gonna get sold on the street as a bootleg. If anything, youtube put a lot of bootleggers out of business. Many people bought boots back in the day for large amounts of money, only to get the tape home and find a very low grade video that they might not have paid as much money for had they known.
As i said before, it seems like some people will simply side with Prince regardless of the circumstances. When it came to Jill and Prince having her live performance video removed, it was okay because he co-wrote the song with her and he & WB owned the rights to it. Now that its a song that he performed that someone else owns the rights to, all of a sudden its not okay? Hypocritical. I don't even like Radiohead but I can respect what they are doing to try to move forward in a music business that is changing drastically. Prince is the one still living in the 80s and getting upset when a baby dances to one of his songs on youtube.[/b] correct me if i'm wrong but i thought the jill jones video pulled was a music video or a performance on a tv show something. was it a live concert? i'm not saying he's right but i see you're comparison and thought the formats were different. [Edited 6/9/08 14:59pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violetblues said: No Blaque, it's not about anything you posted about, it’s not about siding with Prince. The "Future" is not about posting whatever heck you want regardless of anyone’s rights. That’s a mess. Regardless of what you believe, that’s not the future, and its not going be like that, there is going to be a somewhat happy medium. Well, as it stands right now I can probably get damn near anything I want online. I have the Coachella "Creep" performance. I snatched it when I saw it because I figured it would get pulled. The future is about a REASONABLE happy medium but what you and Prince define as "reasonable" is obviously different from the majority. Right now it IS about being able to post whatever in the hell you want (within reason) and there's nothing you or Prince can do about it. It won't be decided by you or Prince, either. It will be decided by the people. Even if I didn't already have the Coachella performance, I know where i could go right now to see it and there's nothing you can do to change that. It, like the internet, is beyond your and Prince's control. Deal with it. [Edited 6/9/08 15:11pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: violetblues said: No Blaque, it's not about anything you posted about, it’s not about siding with Prince. The "Future" is not about posting whatever heck you want regardless of anyone’s rights. That’s a mess. Regardless of what you believe, that’s not the future, and its not going be like that, there is going to be a somewhat happy medium. Well, as it stands right now I can probably get damn near anything I want online. I have the Coachella "Creep" performance. I snatched it when I saw it because I figured it would get pulled. The future is about a REASONABLE happy medium but what you and Prince define as "reasonable" is obviously different from the majority. Right now it IS about being able to post whatever in the hell you want (within reason) and there's nothing you or Prince can do about it. It won't be decided by you or Prince, either. It will be decided by the people. Even if I didn't already have the Coachella performance, I know where i could go right now to see it and there's nothing you can do to change that. It, like the internet, is beyond your and Prince's control. Deal with it. [Edited 6/9/08 15:11pm] lol, if you say so, then why get all bent out of shape when Prince removes Jill Jones video, or his own videos,...if it all "beyond his control" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Who's bent? We're having a discussion here, right? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleKnight said:[quote] JustErin said:
Radiohead is the only reason Prince was able to sing that song in the first place. For him to be controlling over something that isn't his is outlandish. This coming from the guy who hated record labels messing around with artists' songs. Of course, there's also the whole issue of Prince taking an early '90's classic to begin with and turning it into a lame Disney-themed track, but anyway.... I don't believe that anyone is really selling the CDs they claim to be---even Mr. Nelson.
Why? CD-Rs and the price-gouging of CDs and CD-singles throughout their existence.. That's the reason for so many publicity-stunts and attention-getters in the industry now.. ..like the one that is the reason for this thread.. Who said anything about sales? Okay, it's a well-known fact that sales are nowhere near what they used to be, but what does that have to do with any of the major points I mentioned? Prince churns out albums these days that are embarrassing to most of his hardcore fans and are quickly forgotten by anyone else who hears them. When Radiohead releases an album, it's pretty much always universally praised and later appears on several lists about the greatest albums of all time. Radiohead ushered in a new era of music distribution by offering their album online without the help of a major label. Prince has regressed to a strategy that already failed when it was attempted years earlier by artists like Metallica. Trying to deny the prevalence of the internet is counter-productive and doomed to utter failure. So, as I said, Prince's only value right now is as a live artist. To be fair, though, he is probably the best live musical performer alive right now, so that still counts for a lot. [Edited 6/8/08 15:07pm] I think you are wrong on two things. 1) Prince is not trying to control something that "isn't his". The arrangement of the song and the sound track of the stage performance are "his". If you release a song to the public, you have to live with other people playing it, as long as those guys pay the proper fees to you. 2) Albums that are embarassing to most of his hardcore fans? Excuse me, but what is that assumption based on? Postings on the org? How many accounts are on prince.org? A couple of thousands maybe? Prince sold 21 x 20,000 concert tickets in London last year, so you can say that in the UK alone, ca. 400,000 people wanted to see his show. Even if only 25 % of that are what you call "hardcore fans", you have to take into account how many that would make worldwide. So, a couple of thousand org accounts vs. a number of "hardcore fans" probably high in the six digits region worldwide, how representative are we here?  | |
| - 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.