Since WB paid huge advances to finance P's recording sessions and given that when he was with them he wasn't allowed to release anything, studio or live, or even appear on someone else's record if it wasn't on WB without WB's permission, it can be assumed that anything recorded, studio or live, during the WB contract years, couldn't be released without WB's permission, that's what Alan Leeds seemed to suggest and it's not impossible.

Anyway what we DO know is that WB owned the rights to the Come and TGE songs that appeared on CB, Good Love, Interactive, Horny Pony, Thieves In The Temple and the Undertaker tracks that appeared on NPGMC. There was no "courtesy of WB Records" or "(p) WB Records" notice on either CB or NPGMC, so whatever the situation with the unreleased material, P clearly send them a "fuck all y'all, this is MY music, sue me if u dare" message to WB between 1998 and 2001. Whether they reacted behind the curtains or not remains to be revealed, but I find it odd that not a SINGLE vault track from the WB years was ever released By P after 2001. Not saying he'd have released a full album on outtakes but he could have been tempted to release a track online every once in a while. The numerous WB tracks and music videos he "aired" in the various rooms of NPGMC in 2003-2005 and lotuscam.com shows that he was more inclined to "look back" than he says.

databank said:

it can be assumed that anything recorded, studio or live, during the WB contract years, couldn't be released without WB's permission

How would WB even know what Prince recorded and when?

All they have rights to is what he submitted for potential release.

Live shows would be limited so they don't compete with WB video releases.

It's the difference between Extraloveable redone and The Black Album.

Also, it's sot of code, the labels don't go after artists for mining old demos.

The idea seems sort of pointless considering he's apparently now back in good terms with WB again.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind it if he'd simply re-record some of his older songs for the upcoming albums in case he doesn't have strong enough new material around. The new version of "Extraloveable" might not have been even close to the quality of the original, but it's still a pretty strong composition, and in case he needs a few tracks with a "higher energy level" then revisiting some of those older vault tracks could just work out...

treehouse said:

databank said:

it can be assumed that anything recorded, studio or live, during the WB contract years, couldn't be released without WB's permission

How would WB even know what Prince recorded and when?

All they have rights to is what he submitted for potential release.

Live shows would be limited so they don't compete with WB video releases.

It's the difference between Extraloveable redone and The Black Album.

Also, it's sot of code, the labels don't go after artists for mining old demos.

Yeah of course we know exactly what DAY he released most of the songs in the 80's and WB doesn't... makes a lot of sense 4 sure

Live shows would be limited so they don't compete... where that comes from now? It's either yes or no, what's this "limited" theory?

Listen I totally thought WB had no claim on non-released material until Alan Leeds said so... He mau have been mistaken but c'mon man, we talking Alan Leeds here!

databank said:

treehouse said:

How would WB even know what Prince recorded and when?

All they have rights to is what he submitted for potential release.

Live shows would be limited so they don't compete with WB video releases.

It's the difference between Extraloveable redone and The Black Album.

Also, it's sot of code, the labels don't go after artists for mining old demos.

Yeah of course we know exactly what DAY he released most of the songs in the 80's and WB doesn't... makes a lot of sense 4 sure

Live shows would be limited so they don't compete... where that comes from now? It's either yes or no, what's this "limited" theory?

Listen I totally thought WB had no claim on non-released material until Alan Leeds said so... He mau have been mistaken but c'mon man, we talking Alan Leeds here!

What was the context of Leeds' statement?

treehouse said:

How would WB even know what Prince recorded and when?

The same way others have knowledge of this information? You realize session/recording information is heavily logged, etc...

All they have rights to is what he submitted for potential release.

Actually it's been suggested it's a "work for hire" situation and that any recording made while he was under contract belongs to them.

[Edited 4/25/14 14:20pm]

paulludvig said:

databank said:

Yeah of course we know exactly what DAY he released most of the songs in the 80's and WB doesn't... makes a lot of sense 4 sure

Live shows would be limited so they don't compete... where that comes from now? It's either yes or no, what's this "limited" theory?

Listen I totally thought WB had no claim on non-released material until Alan Leeds said so... He mau have been mistaken but c'mon man, we talking Alan Leeds here!

What was the context of Leeds' statement?

His innerview on HQ IIRC, circa maybe 2006. It should still be viewable thru the innernet archive. He said something like P oughta release a massive box-set of live recordings but he can't do it without WB so it wouldn't happen anytime soon.

databank said:

Yeah of course we know exactly what DAY he released most of the songs in the 80's and WB doesn't... makes a lot of sense 4 sure

Live shows would be limited so they don't compete... where that comes from now? It's either yes or no, what's this "limited" theory?

Listen I totally thought WB had no claim on non-released material until Alan Leeds said so... He mau have been mistaken but c'mon man, we talking Alan Leeds here!

You mean you think you know the dates he recorded his songs? All incomplete, all heresy.

We're talking about unreleased material. WB aren't out buying bootlegs, reading fan websites.

Unless Prince submitted it to the A&R guy (Like say, the Dream Factory material earmarked for relase) they wouldn't normally have ownership.

WB did not have a 360 deal over Prince. Those didn't exist then. There are situations where labels own every creative output, but then they would have owned Paisley Park (instead of just the LA offices) if that was the case. They would also have owned 5 more of Prince's non-WB releases AND the Vault, if so. On the contrary, we know Prince offered music to his own musical, and some Hollywood films, to get around the WB contract.

Not sure what Leeds' said, but I think he's kind of a quack who gets more respect than he deserves, because he seems to talk, and he's one of the only named sources who does. Prince got into trouble under his watch...and before that, he was just a tour manager.

Labels don't get automatic control over live recordings. All the live recordings coming from the Bill Graham Archives, for example... the various Labels have no control over those. Prince released concert videos, and performance films, and it's standard for labels to require exclusivity.

jtfolden said:

Actually it's been suggested it's a "work for hire" situation and that any recording made while he was under contract belongs to them.

[Edited 4/25/14 14:20pm]

I think there's some confusion over work for hires, and the industries famous "we own your soul" contracts. What Prince did sounds more like a master pick-up deal, much like the blueprint for the artist friendly deals of today where the artist is in a partnership.

treehouse said:

databank said:

Yeah of course we know exactly what DAY he released most of the songs in the 80's and WB doesn't... makes a lot of sense 4 sure

Live shows would be limited so they don't compete... where that comes from now? It's either yes or no, what's this "limited" theory?

Listen I totally thought WB had no claim on non-released material until Alan Leeds said so... He mau have been mistaken but c'mon man, we talking Alan Leeds here!

You mean you think you know the dates he recorded his songs? All incomplete, all heresy.

We're talking about unreleased material. WB aren't out buying bootlegs, reading fan websites.

Unless Prince submitted it to the A&R guy (Like say, the Dream Factory material earmarked for relase) they wouldn't normally have ownership.

WB did not have a 360 deal over Prince. Those didn't exist then. There are situations where labels own every creative output, but then they would have owned Paisley Park (instead of just the LA offices) if that was the case. They would also have owned 5 more of Prince's non-WB releases AND the Vault, if so. On the contrary, we know Prince offered music to his own musical, and some Hollywood films, to get around the WB contract.

Not sure what Leeds' said, but I think he's kind of a quack who gets more respect than he deserves, because he seems to talk, and he's one of the only named sources who does. Prince got into trouble under his watch...and before that, he was just a tour manager.

Labels don't get automatic control over live recordings. All the live recordings coming from the Bill Graham Archives, for example... the various Labels have no control over those. Prince released concert videos, and performance films, and it's standard for labels to require exclusivity.

The Bill Graham example is a very odd one because in that case neither labels NOR artists seem to be able to prevent NamingThisSiteIsNotAllowedByModerators.com to release their collections, though some have sued and though we don't know what deal were settled in the end, both parties seemed to be satisfied in the end. It is to be noted that 2 P shows are available there: one from 1993 that can only be streamed and one from 1998 that can be purchased. Obviously the decision to allow purchasing in one case and not in the other comes from P's organization and possibly in the case of the 93 show from WB.

This being said u've just said in a single post that Alan Leeds, Per Nielsen, the whole Uptown team are full of shit and that none of their information is to be assumed correct, so... man... if this is what u believe, that acknowledged sources aren't reliable but that, instead, your personal opinions and intuitions are the truth and what people on this site should believe, I'm going to end this conversation now, I'm sorry.

treehouse said:

You mean you think you know the dates he recorded his songs? All incomplete, all heresy.

We're talking about unreleased material. WB aren't out buying bootlegs, reading fan websites.

.

Who do you think paid those recording studio bills?

.

On the contrary, we know Prince offered music to his own musical, and some Hollywood films, to get around the WB contract.

.

The $100 million contract also involved P's contribution to two soundtrack albums, IIRC.

.

Not sure what Leeds' said, but I think he's kind of a quack who gets more respect than he deserves, because he seems to talk, and he's one of the only named sources who does. Prince got into trouble under his watch...and before that, he was just a tour manager.

.

That's because P ignored Leeds' advice.

BartVanHemelen said:

treehouse said:

You mean you think you know the dates he recorded his songs? All incomplete, all heresy.

We're talking about unreleased material. WB aren't out buying bootlegs, reading fan websites.

.

Who do you think paid those recording studio bills?

.

.

The $100 million contract also involved P's contribution to two soundtrack albums, IIRC.

.

Not sure what Leeds' said, but I think he's kind of a quack who gets more respect than he deserves, because he seems to talk, and he's one of the only named sources who does. Prince got into trouble under his watch...and before that, he was just a tour manager.

.

That's because P ignored Leeds' advice.

Relatively rare I agree with Bart (it has happened a few times) but WB do not actually have to know which songs Prince recorded when. They just had to know what songs were recorded between 78-96 to assert their ownership. All of Prince's songs are filed for copyright so there is a record of when a song is written (if perhaps not recorded). All WB had to do was refer to those records (it is through those records that it is possible to know all the pseudonyms Prince wrote under and the truth behind the writer of the protege tracks that may have been credited on the LP cover as members of, for example, The Time).

I had never considered that WB owned rights to the tracks in the Vault until the Alan Leeds stuff came out. However, it does make sense. Why else would Prince stop releasing vault material? Having pushed boundaries with Crystal Ball (1st and only CD set of vault material) then NPGMC (digital/download of vault material) it makes total sense that WB sent a few legal warning shots. AIt is also interesting that on times when Prince has released a classic from the Vault it is as a new recording (Extraloveable). Of course Prince may think this new version is superior but it may also simply be a necessary requirement to actually release that track!

Also re-read the actual press release from WB/Prince about this deal. It VERY clearly references unreleased material (so b-sides and extended/12" versions do not count).

Final point - pretty disrespectful to Alan Leeds to question his knowledge! He was President of Paisley Park Records. I would say that other than Prince himself NOBODY is better placed to have knowledge!!!!! Oh and saying he was "just a tour manager" is pretty blinkered. Everyone starts their career somewhere (and a tour manager is a pretty big job) but it is where he ended up before leaving Prince's employment that matters!

[Edited 4/26/14 6:11am]

BartVanHemelen said:

treehouse said:

You mean you think you know the dates he recorded his songs? All incomplete, all heresy.

We're talking about unreleased material. WB aren't out buying bootlegs, reading fan websites.

.

Who do you think paid those recording studio bills?

.

.

The $100 million contract also involved P's contribution to two soundtrack albums, IIRC.

.

Not sure what Leeds' said, but I think he's kind of a quack who gets more respect than he deserves, because he seems to talk, and he's one of the only named sources who does. Prince got into trouble under his watch...and before that, he was just a tour manager.

.

That's because P ignored Leeds' advice.

The musicals never invloved any OST release, and as for the movies there were only 3 of 'em in the 90's: I'll Do Anything (WB), Showgirl (courtesy of WB) and Girl 6 (WB), but our vegetal friend is too busy contemplating its own vegetal genius to check out credits on OST's anyway

Wait, please gimme a bucket, I feel like crying now... Oh, no, it's too late, the tears r running all over the goddamn place, i'l drawning! Treeman, please send me some seeweed to save me, u have the power to save me! Treeman! Pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaase, OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

databank said:

The Bill Graham example is a very odd one because in that case neither labels NOR artists seem to be able to prevent NamingThisSiteIsNotAllowedByModerators.com to release their collections, though some have sued and though we don't know what deal were settled in the end, both parties seemed to be satisfied in the end. It is to be noted that 2 P shows are available there: one from 1993 that can only be streamed and one from 1998 that can be purchased. Obviously the decision to allow purchasing in one case and not in the other comes from P's organization and possibly in the case of the 93 show from WB.

This being said u've just said in a single post that Alan Leeds, Per Nielsen, the whole Uptown team are full of shit and that none of their information is to be assumed correct, so... man... if this is what u believe, that acknowledged sources aren't reliable but that, instead, your personal opinions and intuitions are the truth and what people on this site should believe, I'm going to end this conversation now, I'm sorry.

A lot of sites are streaming live shows. Some, like Knitting Factory make it part of their standard show contract, and then allow artists to opt out, but in terms of old archival stuff, you don't have to license it from the label, you have to license it from the person with the performance rights, and rights to the footage. A lot of rare footage is getting sold without the performance rights now.

BartVanHemelen said:

Who do you think paid those recording studio bills?

.

.

.

.

.

It would depend. There were recording sessions where Prince or his management may have fronted the bills or defered payment.

In other cases, he was probably given a budget, which the label recouped.

In other cases, he used his own studio, so the question is who owned the note on the equipment.

I also would guess the situation changed at different points, just like his studios changed.

The production accounting isn't always cut and dry.

..

.

All interesting to me but ultimately trivial, because even if WB paid studio bills, it doesn't mean they would know when Purple Music was recorded, or sue over it.

jaypotton said:

They just had to know what songs were recorded between 78-96 to assert their ownership.

[...]

Why else would Prince stop releasing vault material?

[...]

but it may also simply be a necessary requirement to actually release that track!

[...]
Final point - pretty disrespectful to Alan Leeds to question his knowledge! He was President of Paisley Park Records. I would say that other than Prince himself NOBODY is better placed to have knowledge!!!!! Oh and saying he was "just a tour manager" is pretty blinkered.

[Edited 4/26/14 6:11am]

Never said they needed the exact date. You're 100% right, they just need to claim it was done within that period. Yet, in a court of law, could they prove the songs weren't recorded in 97?

....

..

.

Copyright doesn't require filing. Sketches of songs aren't always filed. They also may not have been filed until many years later. Would his copyrights incriminate him? Only in the case of a finished released song. The Vault is a grey area.

.

.

I don't think Prince stopped releasing old material due to a fear of legal action, there's no legal precedence for a label stopping an artist from rehashing old demos.

...

.

.

There is no legal difference between Prince re-recording a song, or using the original version of a song. WB would have the same ownership if what Leed's is saying, is true.

..

..

A tour manager is not involved in contractual affairs. I'm not slighting his ability to wrangle a crew, and produce a tour after it was booked for him, but conflating that with managing Prince's affairs is wrong. He had a different role for Prince, at the time. I think it's pretty common thinking that Paisley Park was a mess. Maybe it's unfair to pin it all on Leeds but he was involved but I find it curous that people never scrutinize him as a source, just because he'll talk.

databank said:

The musicals never invloved any OST release, and as for the movies there were only 3 of 'em in the 90's: I'll Do Anything (WB), Showgirl (courtesy of WB) and Girl 6 (WB),

so what? the point was WB didn't own everthing prince did.

do you really need me to tell you which songs conceptualized, and first recorded during his WB years resurfaced for release with other companies? one of those showgirls songs is a perfect example. crystal ball, rave un2 the joy fantastic......

I forgot Prince rerecorded his entire catalog. The thing that isn't mentioned in this thread so far is that any rerecording would have had to be substantially different from the original WB owned masters to be legally clear for release. Slight changes aren't good enough, it would have to be fairly major changes so that the average person cannot confuse Prine's New Masters for WB's original masters. I don't believe Prince knew that at the time of the rerecordings and that may be why he ended up not releasing them. I'd rather get those released though. I'd like to hear the rerecorded albums. Knowing Prince he also recreated the artwork. Release that. It's nice that they are finally talking about turning up the volume on PR, but creatively that doesn't excite me. I heard PretzelBodyGarbage for the first time today, and heard the most annoying aspects of PrettyMan written into the song. Prince has lost it. I don't want to hear Prince talk-sing puns and jokes. That ain't good. 17 years in he keeps cranking that writing style out. I don't want a new new Prince album. Maybe the old rercordings have something intereting to listen to on them.

treehouse said:

jaypotton said:

They just had to know what songs were recorded between 78-96 to assert their ownership.

[...]

Why else would Prince stop releasing vault material?

[...]

but it may also simply be a necessary requirement to actually release that track!

[...]
Final point - pretty disrespectful to Alan Leeds to question his knowledge! He was President of Paisley Park Records. I would say that other than Prince himself NOBODY is better placed to have knowledge!!!!! Oh and saying he was "just a tour manager" is pretty blinkered.

[Edited 4/26/14 6:11am]

Never said they needed the exact date. You're 100% right, they just need to claim it was done within that period. Yet, in a court of law, could they prove the songs weren't recorded in 97?

....

..

.

Copyright doesn't require filing. Sketches of songs aren't always filed. They also may not have been filed until many years later. Would his copyrights incriminate him? Only in the case of a finished released song. The Vault is a grey area.

.

.

I don't think Prince stopped releasing old material due to a fear of legal action, there's no legal precedence for a label stopping an artist from rehashing old demos.

...

.

.

There is no legal difference between Prince re-recording a song, or using the original version of a song. WB would have the same ownership if what Leed's is saying, is true.

..

..

A tour manager is not involved in contractual affairs. I'm not slighting his ability to wrangle a crew, and produce a tour after it was booked for him, but conflating that with managing Prince's affairs is wrong. He had a different role for Prince, at the time. I think it's pretty common thinking that Paisley Park was a mess. Maybe it's unfair to pin it all on Leeds but he was involved but I find it curous that people never scrutinize him as a source, just because he'll talk.

treehouse, don't want to get into an argument but unless you (or I) have read Prince's actual contracts with WB (which neither of us have) then this is all conjecture (both mine and yours).

But...

It would make sense that WB own the recordings of a song if they can prove when it was recorded. They cannot own the music/lyrics as they take a written form meaning re-recording that song after 1996 means Prince could release the new version. He couldn't release the version recorded between 78-96 as WB could assert ownership of that "recording".

I think you are conflating Alan Leeds being a Tour Manager with his eventual role as President of Paisley Park Records. Two different roles. Alan Leeds, as President of PP, would be in the best position to comment/know the facts around ownership of Prince's recordings! I agree a Tour Manager would not, but he had ceased being Prince's tour manager some years before.

Final point - if you refer to the excellent reference The Vault by the Uptown crew and Per Nilsen you will see that Prince has actively ensured he has registered his song copyrights throughout his career - for both released and unreleased songs.

[Edited 4/27/14 0:03am]

jaypotton said:

Final point - if you refer to the excellent reference The Vault by the Uptown crew and Per Nilsen you will see that Prince has actively ensured he has registered his song copyrights throughout his career - for both released and unreleased songs.

[Edited 4/27/14 0:03am]

Copyright registration doesn't always reflect on the actual copyright (which starts at time of conception), or production dates, which can span years of revisions. Likewise, not everything Prince has recorded is registered for copyright, or with ASCAP. The Vault uses these dates to approximate creation dates, but it shouldn't be mistaken for the dates that would be scribbled on a tape box. Even if you don't understand the not so subtle differences at hand, you best believe WB legal department does.

treehouse said:

jaypotton said:

Final point - if you refer to the excellent reference The Vault by the Uptown crew and Per Nilsen you will see that Prince has actively ensured he has registered his song copyrights throughout his career - for both released and unreleased songs.

[Edited 4/27/14 0:03am]

Copyright registration doesn't always reflect on the actual copyright (which starts at time of conception), or production dates, which can span years of revisions. Likewise, not everything Prince has recorded is registered for copyright, or with ASCAP. The Vault uses these dates to approximate creation dates, but it shouldn't be mistaken for the dates that would be scribbled on a tape box. Even if you don't understand the not so subtle differences at hand, you best believe WB legal department does.

OK, so obviously u're making a MAJOR confusion. The recording dates provided by Per Nilsen and the Uptown team are not based on copyrighting dates, they're based for the most part on recording "diaries" kept by engineers and musicians, who agreed to share their informations with Nilsen. Those guys aren't amateurs, they're serious devoted researchers with a method. U really must think low of them to believe they'd just go at the library of congress and say "oh, ok it was copyrighted that say so it must have been recorded that day, that will do, let's go watch a movie now": the info we have is the result of years of work and dozens of interviews.

treehouse said:

databank said:

The musicals never invloved any OST release, and as for the movies there were only 3 of 'em in the 90's: I'll Do Anything (WB), Showgirl (courtesy of WB) and Girl 6 (WB),

so what? the point was WB didn't own everthing prince did.

do you really need me to tell you which songs conceptualized, and first recorded during his WB years resurfaced for release with other companies? one of those showgirls songs is a perfect example. crystal ball, rave un2 the joy fantastic......

U didn't read a single word I wrote. R we supposed to go in a loop like this forever? I exposed very clearly my theory which is that P fucked WB over when he released CB and other WB material on NPGMC Year 1 and, indeed, Rave. He fucked them over anyway by releasing tracks thay WB had already released before and therefore owned without any ambiguity, so why not believe he fucked them over entirely? WHen Ripopgodazippa appeared in Showgirl P was still under contract and the song appeared "courtesy of WB", so technically WB most likely owned it too, but anyway there's no question whether they owned Good Love or Thieves In The Temple (among others).

funksterr said:

I forgot Prince rerecorded his entire catalog. The thing that isn't mentioned in this thread so far is that any rerecording would have had to be substantially different from the original WB owned masters to be legally clear for release. Slight changes aren't good enough, it would have to be fairly major changes so that the average person cannot confuse Prine's New Masters for WB's original masters. I don't believe Prince knew that at the time of the rerecordings and that may be why he ended up not releasing them. I'd rather get those released though. I'd like to hear the rerecorded albums. Knowing Prince he also recreated the artwork. Release that. It's nice that they are finally talking about turning up the volume on PR, but creatively that doesn't excite me. I heard PretzelBodyGarbage for the first time today, and heard the most annoying aspects of PrettyMan written into the song. Prince has lost it. I don't want to hear Prince talk-sing puns and jokes. That ain't good. 17 years in he keeps cranking that writing style out. I don't want a new new Prince album. Maybe the old rercordings have something intereting to listen to on them.

U can rerecord a song exactly as it was originally recorded, note for note. It doesn't have to be different from the original, just rerecorded.

If u don't want a new P album just don't buy it. I do want a new album.

databank said:

funksterr said:

I forgot Prince rerecorded his entire catalog. The thing that isn't mentioned in this thread so far is that any rerecording would have had to be substantially different from the original WB owned masters to be legally clear for release. Slight changes aren't good enough, it would have to be fairly major changes so that the average person cannot confuse Prine's New Masters for WB's original masters. I don't believe Prince knew that at the time of the rerecordings and that may be why he ended up not releasing them. I'd rather get those released though. I'd like to hear the rerecorded albums. Knowing Prince he also recreated the artwork. Release that. It's nice that they are finally talking about turning up the volume on PR, but creatively that doesn't excite me. I heard PretzelBodyGarbage for the first time today, and heard the most annoying aspects of PrettyMan written into the song. Prince has lost it. I don't want to hear Prince talk-sing puns and jokes. That ain't good. 17 years in he keeps cranking that writing style out. I don't want a new new Prince album. Maybe the old rercordings have something intereting to listen to on them.

U can rerecord a song exactly as it was originally recorded, note for note. It doesn't have to be different from the original, just rerecorded.

If u don't want a new P album just don't buy it. I do want a new album.

Nah.. and it's a moot point now if WB has the kind of deal with Prince peeps are hoping for, but there are rules to how an act can rerecord their hit material when they do not have legal ownership of their master tapes. And it can get complicated depending on a few variables, but the short version is they can release "live" versions as close to original material as they like, but new studio recordings have to be noticeably different. James Ingram and Jeffrey Osbourne come to mind for me as acts that have rerecorded their hits and the "new masters" are arranged and mixed so that they sound very little like the originals. If you look at Prince's release history of the old outtakes, post Crystal Ball there is a pattern of studio tracks sounding substantially different and "live" versions sounding fairly spot on to the originals. I would love to hear Prince's studio rerecordings of his hits in the late 90's. I think it could be a mindtrip, a surreal experience. I assume at some point they are going to get a proper release.

funksterr said:

databank said:

U can rerecord a song exactly as it was originally recorded, note for note. It doesn't have to be different from the original, just rerecorded.

If u don't want a new P album just don't buy it. I do want a new album.

Nah.. and it's a moot point now if WB has the kind of deal with Prince peeps are hoping for, but there are rules to how an act can rerecord their hit material when they do not have legal ownership of their master tapes. And it can get complicated depending on a few variables, but the short version is they can release "live" versions as close to original material as they like, but new studio recordings have to be noticeably different. James Ingram and Jeffrey Osbourne come to mind for me as acts that have rerecorded their hits and the "new masters" are arranged and mixed so that they sound very little like the originals. If you look at Prince's release history of the old outtakes, post Crystal Ball there is a pattern of studio tracks sounding substantially different and "live" versions sounding fairly spot on to the originals. I would love to hear Prince's studio rerecordings of his hits in the late 90's. I think it could be a mindtrip, a surreal experience. I assume at some point they are going to get a proper release.

No, databank is right. An artist can always rerecord a song for a new label, a movie soundtrack, whatever. They can't slightly edit an old recording (like was done with Good Love), they can rerecord old hit (like 1999 new master). This used to be standard procedure back in the day when an artist was signed to a new label. Also, check out "classic" hits on movie & video game soundtracks. Often they are rerecordings made so the artist can take all the profit without sharing with the record company that owns the original tracks. Happens all the time.

funksterr said:

databank said:

U can rerecord a song exactly as it was originally recorded, note for note. It doesn't have to be different from the original, just rerecorded.

If u don't want a new P album just don't buy it. I do want a new album.

Nah.. and it's a moot point now if WB has the kind of deal with Prince peeps are hoping for, but there are rules to how an act can rerecord their hit material when they do not have legal ownership of their master tapes. And it can get complicated depending on a few variables, but the short version is they can release "live" versions as close to original material as they like, but new studio recordings have to be noticeably different. James Ingram and Jeffrey Osbourne come to mind for me as acts that have rerecorded their hits and the "new masters" are arranged and mixed so that they sound very little like the originals. If you look at Prince's release history of the old outtakes, post Crystal Ball there is a pattern of studio tracks sounding substantially different and "live" versions sounding fairly spot on to the originals. I would love to hear Prince's studio rerecordings of his hits in the late 90's. I think it could be a mindtrip, a surreal experience. I assume at some point they are going to get a proper release.

What u r saying is that since all dogs have 4 legs everything that has 4 legs is a dog, I'm tired of the logical distortions and mental manipulations on this forum. There is no text in the American law that says that a cover version of a song, whether by the original artist or someone else, has to be subtantially different from the original. Fact. Period. End of debate. Provide such a text of law and we can pursue this conversation. If u can't, just stop. Thank u. Peace.

databank said:

treehouse said:

Copyright registration doesn't always reflect on the actual copyright (which starts at time of conception), or production dates, which can span years of revisions. Likewise, not everything Prince has recorded is registered for copyright, or with ASCAP. The Vault uses these dates to approximate creation dates, but it shouldn't be mistaken for the dates that would be scribbled on a tape box. Even if you don't understand the not so subtle differences at hand, you best believe WB legal department does.

OK, so obviously u're making a MAJOR confusion. The recording dates provided by Per Nilsen and the Uptown team are not based on copyrighting dates, they're based for the most part on recording "diaries" kept by engineers and musicians, who agreed to share their informations with Nilsen. Those guys aren't amateurs, they're serious devoted researchers with a method. U really must think low of them to believe they'd just go at the library of congress and say "oh, ok it was copyrighted that say so it must have been recorded that day, that will do, let's go watch a movie now": the info we have is the result of years of work and dozens of interviews.

At the risk of it seeming like this turning into a treehouse bashing thread -

jaypotton said:

databank said:

OK, so obviously u're making a MAJOR confusion. The recording dates provided by Per Nilsen and the Uptown team are not based on copyrighting dates, they're based for the most part on recording "diaries" kept by engineers and musicians, who agreed to share their informations with Nilsen. Those guys aren't amateurs, they're serious devoted researchers with a method. U really must think low of them to believe they'd just go at the library of congress and say "oh, ok it was copyrighted that say so it must have been recorded that day, that will do, let's go watch a movie now": the info we have is the result of years of work and dozens of interviews.

At the risk of it seeming like this turning into a treehouse bashing thread -

I git nutin against our little vegetal friend personally, but I made a vow of fighting for logic and reason against personal belief and superstition under any circumstances, this is my fight, here, on Facebook, everywhere.

databank said:

jaypotton said:

At the risk of it seeming like this turning into a treehouse bashing thread -

I git nutin against our little vegetal friend personally, but I made a vow of fighting for logic and reason against personal belief and superstition under any circumstances, this is my fight, here, on Facebook, everywhere.

Databank - on the topic of THIS thread right here I am with you. However, what you say above does not chime with your seeming defence of Prince's JW beliefs on this thread...


http://prince.org/msg/7/407043?&pg=4

What is any religion (incuding JW) if not "personal belief and superstition"

jaypotton said:

databank said:

I git nutin against our little vegetal friend personally, but I made a vow of fighting for logic and reason against personal belief and superstition under any circumstances, this is my fight, here, on Facebook, everywhere.

Databank - on the topic of THIS thread right here I am with you. However, what you say above does not chime with your seeming defence of Prince's JW beliefs on this thread...


http://prince.org/msg/7/407043?&pg=4

What is any religion (incuding JW) if not "personal belief and superstition"

I don't defend P's JW beliefs, only his right to have them and the fact that he's responsible for his own beliefs and that blaming Larry Graham for P having such beliefs is childish. I think acts of faith can generate beautiful works of art and I think it's been the case with Prince, even since he became a JW. I found his post-JW lyrics just as thought-provoking as his pre-JW lyrics. What it implies in people's lives is their problem. Neither Prince nor Larry Graham have ever pointed a gun at me saying I had to convert to their faith, nor did they come to this forum claiming creationist or similarly absurd theories, and when P mentions God in interview it hardly ever makes any sense at all (guess he understands himself, but fact is that no one else does), so I'm cool with them being JW's if it's their thing.