ok...i was listening to SOTT yesterday...and we all know the sound of it is pretty poor and having it remastered will improve the sound...

Since P doesnt own the "masters"...why wouldnt WB want to remaster these recordings and put it out???

I dont see P wanting or ever doing this??

help me clear up my confusion!! Thanks

Working on the basis that rights to an album haven't yet reverted to Prince, this still wouldn't necessarily mean that WB had the right to remaster recordings and re-release the music in this form. The detail would be in the contractual agreement.

In other words, it's quite possible that both parties would need to reach further agreement for remastering to happen whilst the rights to use of the original recordings remain with WB.

In such a situation, you can imagine that an artist might refuse a recording company the opportunity to release a remastered album (and therefore for the record company to recoup some further financial gain) if the artist wanted the opportunity to regain the masters first and then decide who, if anyone else, should share in the spoils.

(There have been other recent threads on this subject, so you might well find more with a little search).

^got it in one.... PR is due to revert in the next year or 2...so I guess Prince is happy to 'wait it out'....

not sure WB need to recoup any more money from Prince though!

would be interesting to know the true balance sheet of their relationship. WB's total 'investment' in Prince against the total earnings.

Dandroppedadime said:

not sure WB need to recoup any more money from Prince though!

would be interesting to know the true balance sheet of their relationship. WB's total 'investment' in Prince against the total earnings.

Understand - 'recoup' could better read 'increase their return on investment'.

Then there's also the fact that a proper remaster should be done by using the original recording as it was before the original mastering, not just by toying with the original masters.

WB has only the original masters, not the "pre-masters". They sure could toy with them and make them sound better but it's likely fans would shout they're being ripped-off, and it's also likely that Prince could try and launch a legal shitstorm against them (there's always a way to go legal). + there couldn't be any unreleased track as a bonus.

The pre-mastering tracks are in Prince's hands and he has no legal obligation to deliver them.

Prince has already started recieving his masters back. Last year was "Controversy" This year "1999"...

always felt Prince came up with this Welcome 2 America tour to tour until he recieves all of his Masters back. While at the same time saving millions made 4rm the tour 2 promote the Masters mega package.....With no new music 4rm Prince's locked vault,people will swarm to get the re- packaged Masters in their possesions....

My theory that even if they revert to him he's not necessarily want to get them out as remasters..

Why?

1) It means years of meetings and discussions with WB. He spent years trying to be 'free' he's hardly likely to want to go back to that. This I can sympathise with, like going back to an old employer who you weren't happy with.

2) He probably figures he's got enough money already and is thinking what would I prefer, Freedom from WB or Money?

3) I doubt even without working with WB, other record companies couldn't or wouldn't take on the new remasters as there are probably a myraid of legal issues over it.

4) Prince would have to promote them. Something he wouldn't want to do again.

5) Prince talks about living in the now and not the past, coming out with these would mean he would keep going over the past. As he is now a JW i doubt he would sanction a re-release of Darlin Nikki or Head or Sister!

6) He would only probably release them if all the revenue etc went straight to him and not WB execs who he's never met. The only way he could do that is ONLINE and given his views on digital music unlikely.

7) Could reopen rights/royalty payment issues with former bandmembers, again dragging up the past.

However, I think they should be out there, his music is so great it's worthy of an excellent remasters package but the more I think about it, the more the above reasons make sense as to why he might not allow it for the time being or at least in his lifetime.

[Edited 10/8/12 13:49pm]

jimino1 said:

^got it in one.... PR is due to revert in the next year or 2...so I guess Prince is happy to 'wait it out'....

doutbtful. It's 35 years after the original release. Despite his comments to the contrary in his discussion with the Peach & Black podcast guys about already having the first several albums under his control, it's highly unlikely that the rights to anything will revert to him (after a legal challenge) before 2013. Unless it was explicitly stated in any of the several contracts that he signed with him. The last one, when he went in to renogotiate to get out of his last contract in 1996, is probably the most likely to contain such language (probably at 30 years, if he's telling the truth about already owning the first few).

But if he already had control of them up through Dirty Mind, as he said in late 2010, how did WB re-master and re-issue that album on vinyl last year?

errant said:

But if he already had control of them up through Dirty Mind, as he said in late 2010, how did WB re-master and re-issue that album on vinyl last year?

To make a point maybe, that they still had 'em

errant said:

jimino1 said:

^got it in one.... PR is due to revert in the next year or 2...so I guess Prince is happy to 'wait it out'....

doutbtful. It's 35 years after the original release. Despite his comments to the contrary in his discussion with the Peach & Black podcast guys about already having the first several albums under his control, it's highly unlikely that the rights to anything will revert to him (after a legal challenge) before 2013. Unless it was explicitly stated in any of the several contracts that he signed with him. The last one, when he went in to renogotiate to get out of his last contract in 1996, is probably the most likely to contain such language (probably at 30 years, if he's telling the truth about already owning the first few).

But if he already had control of them up through Dirty Mind, as he said in late 2010, how did WB re-master and re-issue that album on vinyl last year?

Because Prince is partial to vinyl. Its all him..

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

always felt Prince came up with this Welcome 2 America tour to tour until he recieves all of his Masters back. While at the same time saving millions made 4rm the tour 2 promote the Masters mega package.....With no new music 4rm Prince's locked vault,people will swarm to get the re- packaged Masters in their possesions....

I highly doubt that. I'm not buying Prince's entire catalogue twice, and I can't imagine why very many people would. How many Prince Opus'es were sold? Five?

The only way Prince would get any sales from a re-mastered catalogue is if outtakes, concerts and other unreleased material is included - at a reasonable price. Prince should have learned from the Opus debacle that people aren't going to pay an exorbitant price for a product that is made up mostly of music they already have.

Examine how Bruce Springsteen marketed the re-masters of "Born to Run" and "Darkness on the Edge of Town" to see how you must do it to make it profitable.

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

errant said:

doutbtful. It's 35 years after the original release. Despite his comments to the contrary in his discussion with the Peach & Black podcast guys about already having the first several albums under his control, it's highly unlikely that the rights to anything will revert to him (after a legal challenge) before 2013. Unless it was explicitly stated in any of the several contracts that he signed with him. The last one, when he went in to renogotiate to get out of his last contract in 1996, is probably the most likely to contain such language (probably at 30 years, if he's telling the truth about already owning the first few).

But if he already had control of them up through Dirty Mind, as he said in late 2010, how did WB re-master and re-issue that album on vinyl last year?

Because Prince is partial to vinyl. Its all him..

No that makes no sense, because the vinyl releases weren't true remasters and were released by Rhino, which is owned by Warner.

langebleu said:

Working on the basis that rights to an album haven't yet reverted to Prince, this still wouldn't necessarily mean that WB had the right to remaster recordings and re-release the music in this form. The detail would be in the contractual agreement.

In other words, it's quite possible that both parties would need to reach further agreement for remastering to happen whilst the rights to use of the original recordings remain with WB.

In such a situation, you can imagine that an artist might refuse a recording company the opportunity to release a remastered album (and therefore for the record company to recoup some further financial gain) if the artist wanted the opportunity to regain the masters first and then decide who, if anyone else, should share in the spoils.

(There have been other recent threads on this subject, so you might well find more with a little search).

That.

avasdad said:

ok...i was listening to SOTT yesterday...and we all know the sound of it is pretty poor and having it remastered will improve the sound...

Since P doesnt own the "masters"...why wouldnt WB want to remaster these recordings and put it out???

I dont see P wanting or ever doing this??

help me clear up my confusion!! Thanks

Ya know, you could just search for the answer since this has been discussed numerous times.

langebleu said:

Working on the basis that rights to an album haven't yet reverted to Prince,

Anyone who thinks WB is just gonna hand these albums back to Prince without a court battle needs to get their brain in gear. Oh, and if you'd bother to read the legalistics, Prince will also be screwed because the same law allows band members to have their say on those recordings too.

How many frikking times does this need to be repeated?

Tremolina said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Because Prince is partial to vinyl. Its all him..

No that makes no sense, because the vinyl releases weren't true remasters and were released by Rhino, which is owned by Warner.

Can you define "true remasters?"

BartVanHemelen said:

langebleu said:

Working on the basis that rights to an album haven't yet reverted to Prince,

Anyone who thinks WB is just gonna hand these albums back to Prince without a court battle needs to get their brain in gear. Oh, and if you'd bother to read the legalistics, Prince will also be screwed because the same law allows band members to have their say on those recordings too.

How many frikking times does this need to be repeated?

Those bandmembers did not write those songs...They barely had minimal inclusion.The total publishing goes to Prince..When they left Prince they left their publishing rights with him.Ask Jesse Johnson?

electricberet said:

Tremolina said:

No that makes no sense, because the vinyl releases weren't true remasters and were released by Rhino, which is owned by Warner.

Can you define "true remasters?"

Duh.

Made not from CD/vinyl/etc but from the original tapes used in the studio to record the song(s), or at least low-gen copies of those unaltered tapes.

udo said:

electricberet said:

Can you define "true remasters?"

Duh.

Made not from CD/vinyl/etc but from the original tapes used in the studio to record the song(s), or at least low-gen copies of those unaltered tapes.

By that definition the recent vinyl reissues were true remasters, at least according to the email I received from Bernie Grundman Mastering. Unless you mean they have to go back to the multitrack tapes, in which case you're talking about a remix. And if that's your definition, the Beatles' albums were not remastered in 2009.

I swear, every time this comes up, people seem to adopt the Humpty Dumpty theory of language:

A remaster is what you say it is, neither more more less.

[Edited 10/14/12 10:26am]

electricberet said:

udo said:

Duh.

Made not from CD/vinyl/etc but from the original tapes used in the studio to record the song(s), or at least low-gen copies of those unaltered tapes.

By that definition the recent vinyl reissues were true remasters, at least according to the email I received from Bernie Grundman Mastering. Unless you mean they have to go back to the multitrack tapes, in which case you're talking about a remix. And if that's your definition, the Beatles' albums were not remastered in 2009.

I swear, every time this comes up, people seem to adopt the Humpty Dumpty theory of language:

A remaster is what you say it is, neither more more less.

That is interesting info!

Now note that a vinyl remaster is different from a remaster for CD...

Udo

udo said:

That is interesting info!

Now note that a vinyl remaster is different from a remaster for CD...

Udo

It most certainly is. And that's what some of us want when we talk about remasters: digital remasters from the original tapes. But the term is thrown around loosely in this forum. Some fans just want louder CDs (which we already have--the Japanese SHM pressings are louder than the original pressings) to match the other songs in their iTunes folder. Others want remixes. But be careful what you wish for, because if we get remixes that means Prince will be mucking around with the original multitrack tapes, and I don't see much good coming out of that.

RodeoSchro said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

always felt Prince came up with this Welcome 2 America tour to tour until he recieves all of his Masters back. While at the same time saving millions made 4rm the tour 2 promote the Masters mega package.....With no new music 4rm Prince's locked vault,people will swarm to get the re- packaged Masters in their possesions....

I highly doubt that. I'm not buying Prince's entire catalogue twice, and I can't imagine why very many people would. How many Prince Opus'es were sold? Five?

The only way Prince would get any sales from a re-mastered catalogue is if outtakes, concerts and other unreleased material is included - at a reasonable price. Prince should have learned from the Opus debacle that people aren't going to pay an exorbitant price for a product that is made up mostly of music they already have.

Examine how Bruce Springsteen marketed the re-masters of "Born to Run" and "Darkness on the Edge of Town" to see how you must do it to make it profitable.

I would totally buy another SOTT just for better sound quality. But, that's about the only album, because it's easily the worst sounding. For me to purchase other remastered albums would require legit deluxe editions -- and seriously, Prince could have some of the most incredible deluxe editions ever if he put his heart into it (not just the original album, one 12" and an inaudible acoustic demo that many artists market as "deluxe). My god, alternative versions, vault tracks, live stuff, legit releases of common bootlegs, plus real substantive liner notes. The possibilties are endless. But, I'm afraid we'll never see it.

TheFreakerFantastic said:

My theory that even if they revert to him he's not necessarily want to get them out as remasters..

Why?

1) It means years of meetings and discussions with WB. He spent years trying to be 'free' he's hardly likely to want to go back to that. This I can sympathise with, like going back to an old employer who you weren't happy with.

2) He probably figures he's got enough money already and is thinking what would I prefer, Freedom from WB or Money?

3) I doubt even without working with WB, other record companies couldn't or wouldn't take on the new remasters as there are probably a myraid of legal issues over it.

4) Prince would have to promote them. Something he wouldn't want to do again.

5) Prince talks about living in the now and not the past, coming out with these would mean he would keep going over the past. As he is now a JW i doubt he would sanction a re-release of Darlin Nikki or Head or Sister!

6) He would only probably release them if all the revenue etc went straight to him and not WB execs who he's never met. The only way he could do that is ONLINE and given his views on digital music unlikely.

7) Could reopen rights/royalty payment issues with former bandmembers, again dragging up the past.

However, I think they should be out there, his music is so great it's worthy of an excellent remasters package but the more I think about it, the more the above reasons make sense as to why he might not allow it for the time being or at least in his lifetime.

[Edited 10/8/12 13:49pm]

I think you nailed it. We won't see any kind of remasters until after he's dead. WB may keep rehashing the old stuff, and release a few more "Very Best Of..." CDs. But I think if there was a buck to be made off of Prince and they didn't need his permission, they'd have a box set out for each of the albums. Remastered with a bonus DVD and some vinyl and a poster, etc. I would assume a remastered album would at the very least break even, even in today's market. They would be able to sell it as "You've heard the music, now hear the sound..." or something clever like that. I was looking at my Purple Rain CD that I got in 1985. I'm sure CD mastering technology is light years past what it was then.

Oh well, dare 2 dream.

My $0.02

Chas

Chas said:

TheFreakerFantastic said:

My theory that even if they revert to him he's not necessarily want to get them out as remasters..

Why?

1) It means years of meetings and discussions with WB. He spent years trying to be 'free' he's hardly likely to want to go back to that. This I can sympathise with, like going back to an old employer who you weren't happy with.

2) He probably figures he's got enough money already and is thinking what would I prefer, Freedom from WB or Money?

3) I doubt even without working with WB, other record companies couldn't or wouldn't take on the new remasters as there are probably a myraid of legal issues over it.

4) Prince would have to promote them. Something he wouldn't want to do again.

5) Prince talks about living in the now and not the past, coming out with these would mean he would keep going over the past. As he is now a JW i doubt he would sanction a re-release of Darlin Nikki or Head or Sister!

6) He would only probably release them if all the revenue etc went straight to him and not WB execs who he's never met. The only way he could do that is ONLINE and given his views on digital music unlikely.

7) Could reopen rights/royalty payment issues with former bandmembers, again dragging up the past.

However, I think they should be out there, his music is so great it's worthy of an excellent remasters package but the more I think about it, the more the above reasons make sense as to why he might not allow it for the time being or at least in his lifetime.

[Edited 10/8/12 13:49pm]

I think you nailed it. We won't see any kind of remasters until after he's dead. WB may keep rehashing the old stuff, and release a few more "Very Best Of..." CDs. But I think if there was a buck to be made off of Prince and they didn't need his permission, they'd have a box set out for each of the albums. Remastered with a bonus DVD and some vinyl and a poster, etc. I would assume a remastered album would at the very least break even, even in today's market. They would be able to sell it as "You've heard the music, now hear the sound..." or something clever like that. I was looking at my Purple Rain CD that I got in 1985. I'm sure CD mastering technology is light years past what it was then.

Oh well, dare 2 dream.

My $0.02

Chas

Sorry Wb CANNOT release any more Very Best of Cd's by Prince. unless he resigns with them or does another deal with them. Which doubt he will ever try again after the attempt two years ago...

BartVanHemelen said:

langebleu said:

Working on the basis that rights to an album haven't yet reverted to Prince,

Anyone who thinks WB is just gonna hand these albums back to Prince without a court battle needs to get their brain in gear. Oh, and if you'd bother to read the legalistics, Prince will also be screwed because the same law allows band members to have their say on those recordings too.

How many frikking times does this need to be repeated?

I doubt band members will be an issue. I'm sure most/all of them were paid on a work-for-hire basis, negating any rights to the music they created with him.

Now, when it comes to Paisley Park/NPG Records artists' releases.... those are a different story.

[Edited 10/14/12 19:56pm]

electricberet said:

udo said:

Duh.

Made not from CD/vinyl/etc but from the original tapes used in the studio to record the song(s), or at least low-gen copies of those unaltered tapes.

By that definition the recent vinyl reissues were true remasters, at least according to the email I received from Bernie Grundman Mastering. Unless you mean they have to go back to the multitrack tapes, in which case you're talking about a remix. And if that's your definition, the Beatles' albums were not remastered in 2009.

I swear, every time this comes up, people seem to adopt the Humpty Dumpty theory of language:

A remaster is what you say it is, neither more more less.

[Edited 10/14/12 10:26am]

Grundman made the remasters from a pre-masters tape, not his own original masters???

databank said:

Grundman made the remasters from a pre-masters tape, not his own original masters???

AFAIK those were made from the mixdown master tapes, i.e. not the multitrack ones but the ones where everything is mixed, and now only the mastering has to happen. There is currently even a trend of taking these "unmastered" recordings and stamping them on vinyl, sort of as a "what the artist heard and not what the mastering engineer made of it" version.

http://entertainment.hows...rding4.htm