SomewhereHereOnEarth said:

babyjubilation said:

Im sorry for being naive but what the HELL does this mean?

same thing im wondering...

I just thought it was a mistake in the print. I read it that someone gets badgered by a Prince fan to listen to some stuff and then find they actually like it. That person usually (based on the Org) likes material from the 90s and onwards. Which is always a shame.

It sure is convenient to not want to mention his past mistakes. But it would be good to be in Canada now, with the upcoming concerts.

[Edited 11/24/11 1:35am]

NDRU said:

2freaky4church1 said:

He finally admits that the name change was not spiritual.

I wouldn't say that doing it to get out of a contract has to mean there was not a spiritual element to it.

The name itself incorporated spiritual elements, and the contract dispute had to do with being held back creatively

BUt yes, at least he admits it has to do with worldly things, too

He "admitted" that in 1998 already.

peter430044 said:

It sure is convenient to not want to mention his past mistakes. But it would be good to be in Canada now, with the upcoming concerts.

[Edited 11/24/11 1:35am]

Totally human trait. You got people on here who can't admit to what they typed 5 minutes prior.

Will a reporter ever have the stones to ask him what it feels like to have burned nearly every bridge in the business, making it harder & harder for him to actually get his music out? "Internet business model pioneer" or fool enough to declare the Internet is over, why can't I go into a Best Buy in NYC to find his latest album & instead have to look to eBay for copies stuffed into a UK newspaper?

RumAndRaisin said:

Prince just used LOL

dear god...

Larry Graham probably taught him how to deconstruct it so it means either Prince is being oppressed or women should be subserviant to men.

If he's just using it like "normal" people do, dear god, indeed.

2freaky4church1 said:

He finally admits that the name change was not spiritual.

He's BEEN admitted that. Since he changed his name back, actually.

2freaky4church1 said:

He finally admits that the name change was not spiritual.

Take it as you will, but the name change, taking full control of his business, and dealing with the associated "Ok, now what?" moments that had to occur all required a certain 'hope in things unseen.' At least, imho.

And I thought the whole 'slave narrative' was admission (or explanation) enough.

HonestMan13 said:

peter430044 said:

It sure is convenient to not want to mention his past mistakes. But it would be good to be in Canada now, with the upcoming concerts.

[Edited 11/24/11 1:35am]

Totally human trait. You got people on here who can't admit to what they typed 5 minutes prior.

Where'd that mirror go?

JumpUpOnThe1 said:

HonestMan13 said:

Totally human trait. You got people on here who can't admit to what they typed 5 minutes prior.

Where'd that mirror go?

Illuminating.

thebeautifulones777 said:

amazing interview thanx 4 sharing

Dave1992 said:

NDRU said:

I wouldn't say that doing it to get out of a contract has to mean there was not a spiritual element to it.

The name itself incorporated spiritual elements, and the contract dispute had to do with being held back creatively

BUt yes, at least he admits it has to do with worldly things, too

He "admitted" that in 1998 already.

What he did, by changing his name, was actually highly spiritual. Depending on your definition of that word of course, but in my view: very powerful.

Legally, the name change didn't mean anything. But because he lived by it (for a while at least) and persisted everybody identified him as such, even publically announcing everywhere that "prince is dead", he managed to commit (near) 'carreer suicide', to the point that WB figured it would be better for them to release him. In the end re-birth and victor(y) was his.

However, at a price.

[Edited 11/24/11 16:14pm]

JumpUpOnThe1 said:

HonestMan13 said:

Totally human trait. You got people on here who can't admit to what they typed 5 minutes prior.

Where'd that mirror go?

Almost immediately realized that someone would probably bring this up. Ok, let's bring out the mirror.

I initially wrote: "It sure is convenient to not want to talk about his past mistakes." Then it got changed to "not want to mention". Since it was an e-mail interview he didn't "talk", he wrote. I thought "mention" was more appropriate because of that. Or perhaps there is no difference. Of course I could have used "wrote" instead. And I added the second sentence about Canada to make the post a bit more positive. There you have it.

Now, the kind of mistakes I was thinking about when it comes to Prince are bigger ones and so obviously much harder to talk about. Like how he used to sing about sex and the cussing. I don't think myself that most of that were mistakes but Prince does, and he doesn't want to talk about it.

Q: The digital era is full of clear and present danger, especially for artists who subscribe to an Internet-based business model. You have been successful to this point in carving for yourself a path that appears to work on both a financial and artistic level. Are you surprised that others who stand to benefit from a similar moves haven’t followed suit? Is it that difficult to break free from the major label model?

A: Most artists use labels as banks. Any loan, of course, has interest attached to it. New artists 2day would benefit greatly by forming a real union & steering clear of all this. Protecting themselves from the legal piracy that happens within this corrupt system is the greatest advice we can give at this time.

Well said. Not saying the traditional system of advances should stay, but using "loans" (as in the actual meaning of the legal term and not "advances") should not be the way how artists make and release music. A good functioning union, working for ALL artists, could indeed be of great benefit there. But where are the people/artists leading this?

Moreover, with current technology, artists can produce and distribute their work all over the world, cost efficiently AND get paid for it. Nope, no guarantees on how much, but do nothing, and you know it would be zero anyway. Lower costs = lower price. Service = Customers. Take advantage of technology and sell your product based on what your customers/fans want. Whatever it is.

Q: What do you think is your boldest move yet as an artist? What do you feel most proud in terms of the path your career has taken?

A: Probably changing my name 2 an unpronounceable symbol 2 escape a restrictive recording contract. At the time, it was more necessary than bold, from r point of view.

This was necessary and bold, but not the "slave" thing. Understandable, but that was just bold. Too bold.

[Edited 11/24/11 16:24pm]

Tremolina said:

Dave1992 said:

He "admitted" that in 1998 already.

What he did, by changing his name, was actually highly spiritual. Depending on your definition of that word of course, but in my view: very powerful.

Of course it was and I am still fascinated by that action.

I just pointed out that this was not the first time to tried to rationalise that action.

Zannaloaf said:

"Probably changing my name 2 an unpronounceable symbol 2 escape a restrictive recording contract. At the time, it was more necessary than bold, from r point of view."

umm.you mean that WASN'T given to him by angels like he said????>>>I'm CONfused!

Newsflash, Prince talks shit.

LittlePurpleYoda said:

Will a reporter ever have the stones to ask him what it feels like to have burned nearly every bridge in the business, making it harder & harder for him to actually get his music out? "Internet business model pioneer" or fool enough to declare the Internet is over, why can't I go into a Best Buy in NYC to find his latest album & instead have to look to eBay for copies stuffed into a UK newspaper?

When did he burn "nearly every bridge in the business"? Most execs would be very hesitant to sign him today to anything like the new Madonna contract, but he's not interested in that. Him not signing new contracts other than distribution deals has been on his terms not anyone elses. The only thing the labels care about is whether they're gonna get a return on their investment. Even a bad selling Prince album is still gonna sell more than plenty other artists the labels have on their rosters, so they're not really losing out when going into business with him on those points.

shiloh66 said:

Nice interview...

BUT...

Doing only email interviews makes me a bit suspicious... do we really believe that he is personally answering these questions... or has he just given the general be of what he wants to say to someone who is answering on his behalf... notice he never uses "I" (or "Eye") but "we" and "r" instead.

Not entirely, but he must have signed off on the response.

Or

He was present whilst the new 'guitarist' typed them.

Dave1992 said:

Tremolina said:

What he did, by changing his name, was actually highly spiritual. Depending on your definition of that word of course, but in my view: very powerful.

Of course it was and I am still fascinated by that action.

I just pointed out that this was not the first time to tried to rationalise that action.

haha I know dave and i was just pointing out that I think it was highly spirirtual

The article hints to another greatest hits thing...

lezama said:

LittlePurpleYoda said:

Will a reporter ever have the stones to ask him what it feels like to have burned nearly every bridge in the business, making it harder & harder for him to actually get his music out? "Internet business model pioneer" or fool enough to declare the Internet is over, why can't I go into a Best Buy in NYC to find his latest album & instead have to look to eBay for copies stuffed into a UK newspaper?

When did he burn "nearly every bridge in the business"? Most execs would be very hesitant to sign him today to anything like the new Madonna contract, but he's not interested in that. Him not signing new contracts other than distribution deals has been on his terms not anyone elses. The only thing the labels care about is whether they're gonna get a return on their investment. Even a bad selling Prince album is still gonna sell more than plenty other artists the labels have on their rosters, so they're not really losing out when going into business with him on those points.

Previous to 3121, you would have been right. But obviously you haven't been keeping up with events since that time.

NDRU said:

shiloh66 said:

Nice interview...

BUT...

Doing only email interviews makes me a bit suspicious... do we really believe that he is personally answering these questions... or has he just given the general be of what he wants to say to someone who is answering on his behalf... notice he never uses "I" (or "Eye") but "we" and "r" instead.

I've been noticing the royal "we" for a while in his interviews, even the ones in person.

He said something about "we got our first drum machine and used it on Private Joy" and I was thinking "who the fuck is we?"

Clearly it's he and Jesus.

Clearly.

Has he been doing this in interviews? If not, then the use in the Royal We is probably in step with his faith conversion. So now Prince can have an intern answer these and then not feel like he's lying.

~shrug~

otherwise, it's he and Jesus.

D`aw, I was hoping for more of his astute political philosophy about the joy women experience in patriarchal theocracies.

The next interview should ask him about honour killings and stoning executions. I can imagine his response already:

"Women here don't go around doing anything they want like in America. They have rules to keep them in line, and they like it that way."

God bless Prince - spokesman of noble 15th century values.