Guess what? If you don't behave like a spoilt brat and actually renegociate your contract instead of just signing whatever paper that's put in front of you with lots of big numbers that would make your deal bigger than Michael's and Madonna's, you end up with actual control of your back catalogue one day:

http://www.glidemagazine....dings.html

Metallica have announced that they have taken ownership of all their master recordings including all music and long form videos, a move almost unprecedented for musicians signed to recording contracts. Under provision of their renegotiated joint venture agreement with the Warner Music Group in 1994, all masters revert back to the band as of November 30, 2012.

"We would like to thank everyone at the Warner Music Group for 28 years of a fantastic relationship, particularly since 1994 where we truly felt we had partners in every aspect of our business in North America," said the band's James Hetfield.

Bart, do u got a girlfriend?

Actually, when you think of it, Prince got a RIDICULOUS amount of freedom while at Warner. In the first few years of his career, Warner:

-Let him produce his first album, which is pratically unheard of these days

-First album was a flop, but unlike other record companies, Warner didn't drop him from the label immediately

-Didn't have any sort of sucess until his FIFTH album, which Warner let him release as a double album

-Let him and his producers borrow 7 MILLION to make a movie

And to think, with this amount of freedom he got that early in his career, Warner would be able to put some sort of quality control on him (reducing Crystal Ball to Sign, preventing oversaturation of the market, etc), but Prince would cry foul and paint SLAVE on his face, whining about "lack of freedom". Had Prince not had gone to war with his record label, Warner may have been more open to negtioation with him and maybe he could've left the label with something instad of nothing.

[Edited 12/2/12 16:03pm]

[Edited 12/2/12 16:13pm]

BartVanHemelen said:

Guess what? If you don't behave like a spoilt brat and actually renegociate your contract instead of just signing whatever paper that's put in front of you with lots of big numbers that would make your deal bigger than Michael's and Madonna's, you end up with actual control of your back catalogue one day:

http://www.glidemagazine....dings.html

Metallica have announced that they have taken ownership of all their master recordings including all music and long form videos, a move almost unprecedented for musicians signed to recording contracts. Under provision of their renegotiated joint venture agreement with the Warner Music Group in 1994, all masters revert back to the band as of November 30, 2012.

"We would like to thank everyone at the Warner Music Group for 28 years of a fantastic relationship, particularly since 1994 where we truly felt we had partners in every aspect of our business in North America," said the band's James Hetfield.

MOST artist have clauses in their contract like that. I know MJs masters were suppose to revert back to him in 2009, but who knows what happended with that.

I would say Prince made a mistake. Of coursehe wanted to have big contracts like the other stars did

rdhull said:

Bart, do u got a girlfriend?

Would that matter?

I guess the website ate your argumentation again.

Bart has a valid point that mr P failed w.r.t. the masters.

Of course it's a process of leasrning a you go, also in the music bizz, but Metallica had a better deal in the area of ownership.

PurpleMedley122 said:

Actually, when you think of it, Prince got a RIDICULOUS amount of freedom while at Warner. In the first few years of his career, Warner:

-Let him produce his first album, which is pratically unheard of these days

-First album was a flop, but unlike other record companies, Warner didn't drop him from the label immediately

-Didn't have any sort of sucess until his FIFTH album, which Warner let him release as a double album

-Let him and his producers borrow 7 MILLION to make a movie

And to think, with this amount of freedom he got that early in his career, Warner would be able to put some sort of quality control on him (reducing Crystal Ball to Sign, preventing oversaturation of the market, etc), but Prince would cry foul and paint SLAVE on his face, whining about "lack of freedom". Had Prince not had gone to war with his record label, Warner may have been more open to negtioation with him and maybe he could've left the label with something instad of nothing.

you hit the nail on the head.

PurpleMedley122 said:

Actually, when you think of it, Prince got a RIDICULOUS amount of freedom while at Warner. In the first few years of his career, Warner:

-Let him produce his first album, which is pratically unheard of these days

-First album was a flop, but unlike other record companies, Warner didn't drop him from the label immediately

-Didn't have any sort of sucess until his FIFTH album, which Warner let him release as a double album

-Let him and his producers borrow 7 MILLION to make a movie

And to think, with this amount of freedom he got that early in his career, Warner would be able to put some sort of quality control on him (reducing Crystal Ball to Sign, preventing oversaturation of the market, etc), but Prince would cry foul and paint SLAVE on his face, whining about "lack of freedom". Had Prince not had gone to war with his record label, Warner may have been more open to negtioation with him and maybe he could've left the label with something instad of nothing.

He did have a lot of freedom, obviously people there saw his talent and believed in it a great deal, but he did have success before 1999.

SoulAlive said:

PurpleMedley122 said:

-Let him and his producers borrow 7 MILLION to make a movie

you hit the nail on the head.

I do not think you get it.

In the 'modern' way of the record business, and perhaps also the movie business, the artist(s) get an 'advance payment'. Out of this payment the recording of the record is paid.

Then the promotion, the production, etc, etc.

By the time the record hits the street the artist might be in debt already.

Only when the record starts to sell there is a chance the artist will be able to pay the debt.

Another way is doing live shows.

Not every artist gets famous enough to break even or even make a profit.

Why do you think mr P did away with the big labels? To cut out a few middle men.

So that freedom, that loan is just a way to put the risk on the head of the artist and not on the recordlabel company. I.e.: the artist is not so free.

Dig?

He really got much credit from Warner over the years and delivered big time during the middle section of his contract.

I never got his Slave attitude directly after his own signing the 100 million contract (yes, it came in parts).

Nevertheless, in hindsight Warner added a qualitycontrol factor to the delivery by challenging his output from their view. Something to be sorely missed in many releases after 1995.

Warner really added a nice buffer between ecletic artist and millions of customers.

Instead of 1 nagging company he now has 100.000+ private customers (think of the T-shirt discussion).

I'm curious if Metallica releases a own Emancipation like record now they are free...

I don't think most artists have to pay back the advance money from the profit they make from live shows.

That was for Udo.

PurpleMedley122 said:

Actually, when you think of it, Prince got a RIDICULOUS amount of freedom while at Warner. In the first few years of his career, Warner:

-Let him produce his first album, which is pratically unheard of these days

-First album was a flop, but unlike other record companies, Warner didn't drop him from the label immediately

-Didn't have any sort of sucess until his FIFTH album, which Warner let him release as a double album

-Let him and his producers borrow 7 MILLION to make a movie

And to think, with this amount of freedom he got that early in his career, Warner would be able to put some sort of quality control on him (reducing Crystal Ball to Sign, preventing oversaturation of the market, etc), but Prince would cry foul and paint SLAVE on his face, whining about "lack of freedom". Had Prince not had gone to war with his record label, Warner may have been more open to negtioation with him and maybe he could've left the label with something instad of nothing.

[Edited 12/2/12 16:03pm]

[Edited 12/2/12 16:13pm]

.

i dont dispute that warners were very good to prince...i disagree that prince had no success until his fifth album...thats nonsense...no matter how good an artist is..no record company would let four albums be released without some payback for them....prince's second album sold well and he had a hit single....before 1999...prince had already sold millions of records...mainly in the usa of course but to say he had no success before 1999 is just wrong...

So what? Unless you've got a time machine, this information is useless.

Do you have a time machine? If so, I address you to the current episode of "Family Guy" for warnings on what can happen if you use it.

novabrkr said:

I don't think most artists have to pay back the advance money from the profit they make from live shows.

That depends on the contract details.

But what if they are in debt to the record company but make money with live shows?

Prince would never admit to himself that a different way of handling the WB relationship would have been better for both parties.

He probably always wants more and with every deal feel that other people are taking advantage of him.

That character is good for us, his fans.

He will allways keep working to make more money and fame. And he will always feel he has to prove the world he was right and can be more succesful without WB.

Which is also good news, because he'll be eager for that perfect album that will get him back to being No.1.

udo said:

novabrkr said:

I don't think most artists have to pay back the advance money from the profit they make from live shows.

That depends on the contract details.

But what if they are in debt to the record company but make money with live shows?

Can you give me an example of an artist that has had to pay back the advance money by doing live shows?

Live performances of musical compositions are legally seen as entirely different entities from their recordings. Artists can perform live songs from their entire repertoire and they often have released recordings under many labels - I can't really see how the situation would be handled in that case with multiple companies involved.

It's common to call advance money "debt" in an attempt to criticize the practice itself, but it's not really that. Usually when the albums fail to sell according to expectations and the contract is terminated the artist is not considered responsible for the losses the company has made. Record companies are not banks, after all.

I could reformulate that question of yours - "But what if they are in debt to the record company but make money with live shows?" - as "But what if they are in debt to the record company but make money by working in a supermarket?" in order to illustrate the absurdity of it.

[Edited 12/3/12 7:23am]

novabrkr said:

udo said:

That depends on the contract details.

But what if they are in debt to the record company but make money with live shows?

Can you give me an example of an artist that has had to pay back the advance money by doing live shows?

I did not say that they were required to pay from the live earnings, but if they have a debt what other income do they have?

It's not really debt. It's an investment by the company itself in the product they are themselves selling.

novabrkr said:

It's not really debt. It's an investment by the company itself in the product they are themselves selling.

If it were an investment by the company it would be their risk.

It is not their risk.

The artist has to pay stuff back because it is their risk.

So the company is not investing, just lending a hand by giving a service.

Yes, Prince didn't play the game and looked like a fool. BUT he had a valid point - once you sign a contract as a recording artiist you ARE a slave, regardless of how much money you earn. I've heard countless stories over the years where an artist fell out with the company or the company didn't like the music they were producing and as a result the record company wouldn't release anything for 5 years or something similar, which killsan artist's career.

Look at the way the industry is now. You wouldn't have heard of Prince if he arrived in the scene in the last 10 years. After one lacklustre album an artist is dropped. ARTISTS aren't nurtured the way they were. The industry has no interest in art anymore. Christ does it have to be all about record sales. i wouldn't listen to any good music if I only looked to the charts for it.

Rant over

Musiclover

Dazza said:

Yes, Prince didn't play the game and looked like a fool. BUT he had a valid point - once you sign a contract as a recording artiist you ARE a slave, regardless of how much money you earn. I've heard countless stories over the years where an artist fell out with the company or the company didn't like the music they were producing and as a result the record company wouldn't release anything for 5 years or something similar, which killsan artist's career.

Look at the way the industry is now. You wouldn't have heard of Prince if he arrived in the scene in the last 10 years. After one lacklustre album an artist is dropped. ARTISTS aren't nurtured the way they were. The industry has no interest in art anymore. Christ does it have to be all about record sales. i wouldn't listen to any good music if I only looked to the charts for it.

Rant over

Musiclover

Thank you Dazza just Thank you

millwall said:

I love Metallica... The big difference is prince is " black " no way were they gonna give his masters back. I agree with him writing slave on his face b cause that's how they have treated him.

Being black has zero to do with it, moron. It has everything to do with MONEY. If Prince's masters weren't worth anything Warners would sell them back to him at a reasonable price. Unlike Metallica, Prince's masters have the potential of continuing to sell quite a few copies.

Black? You must be joking.

If Prince had handled things differently,he would own his master recordings by now and would probably still be on good terms with Warners.Unfortunately,his bitter war with Warners prevented a peaceful resolution

No need with the "Shoulda Woulda Coulda"...Devine intervention came in & Prince's masters are already coming back to him....No need to rehash this tired argument over & over again...

millwall said:

I love Metallica... The big difference is prince is " black " no way were they gonna give his masters back. I agree with him writing slave on his face b cause that's how they have treated him.

Do yourself a favour and watch the movie "Ray".

steakfinger said:

millwall said:

Don't call me a moron & yes fuck face racism still exists. Just ask prince & any other ethnic star. It has a lot 2 do with race.. Just listen 2 rainbow children & emancipation. Then fuck off u cunt...

Stupidity still reigns supreme in here I see...

Race had nothing to do with it (Prince was THE act at Warners that had the most privileges concerning his releases and tantrums) and Prince opted for the big bucks and the big deal that bit him in his ass instead of ownership of his masters... And by writing "Slave" on his face and fucking with WB publicly, instead of renegociating the contract like professionals do, he nailed his own coffin and became a punchline at many a WB meetings for the years to come...

Neversin.

He aint even black, til it suits him to be. He's mixed. In more ways than one. How any of that makes any difference to the thread is beyond me though.

Ray's a completely different story from a completely different time.

No need for fucking cunts now is there Millwall? If there were, I'd like to chuck one in myself.

Up the Hammers.

ETA: Metallica are shit. So, so, shit.

[Edited 12/8/12 12:16pm]