Stimpy said:

Prince, for all his studio success, is not a studio artist.

You're out of your mind, dear sir.

Stimpy said:

GetOfFunk said:

Guglielmo Marconi, the inventor of the radio, 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Don't be so disrespectful and arrogant when your ignorance could be greatest that the one you blame in your intelocutor.
You can go now, thanks for your (not so kind) contribution.

And Tom edison,who went on to found most of GE.

And Craig Venter, who sequneced the genome.

If you want 20 more read the Forbes Article "Two Ways to Become Rich"

*

Of the four examples y'all cite, only one--Thomas Edison--is correct while the other three actually support my position.

*

First, Edison, while being an ingenious inventor, was a wildly successful businessman first, having earned his fortune in the newspaper business along with at least three other ventures before becoming an inventor. But, he did use his own money to finance his research. Yet, this is not the case with Venter, Marconi, nor any of the Silicon Valley scientists-entrepreneurs.

*

Venter's early research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, for which he worked. After becoming frustrated with what he deemed as lacking support, he obtained funding from private investors to establish Celera Genomics. Along with Venter's scientific genius, he was also astute at developing business relationships with investors, some of whom have co-ownership of his research and some who wanted only financial returns. But, there is not one thing that Venter did with his own money.

*

As for Gugliemo Marconi, after developing his prototype on his own but being ignored and rejected by at least three government agencies, he finally received government funding and additional support from the British Government through the championing of William Preece, the Chief Electrical Engineer of the British Post Office.

*

As for the Forbes article, it actually faintly alludes to the notion that all of the Silicon Valley scientists-entrepreneurs developed relationships with investors. And if you read almost any biography on Bill Gates or Steve Jobs it is always made clear that after developing their prototypes they obtained investors for marketing but also for additional research and improvement. So, the Silicon Valley scientists-entrepreneurs all received private funding for individuals and organizations that, though often remained unpublicized, obtained various aspects of ownership or rights or obtained larger financial returns to relinquish those "rights." So, again, in most cases scientists rarely--other than the rare case of someone like Edison--have the financial capacity to fund completely their own research, which means that they rarely have "sole ownership" of that research or invention.

*

And, to my ultimate point, especially as my...err...your examples show, these people wanted to share their work with the world, which is why they all, with the exception of Edison, sought financial support. But, that says nothing about someone like Prince who seemingly has no desire to share the "rights of ownership" of his work with anyone, which means that he has the "right" not to share the thing that he owns.

*

Finally, I've never really been moved by Monet's work, but, if that what floats your boat, then so be it.

Noodled24 said:

leadline said:

He is worth 500mill, I would say he cashed in.

I have no idea where you plucked that figure from but I highly doubt he's worth anything close to 500 million. He struggles to sell 500 thousand albums.

Furthermore - in what way has he cashed in on his old albums? Have there been boxsets or remasters that I'm not aware of?

500M is probably just about right.

He CLEARS a million a night for stadium shows at 100$ a ticket.

Paisley is worth 50M easy

The catalogue is worth 200M give or take.

He could make it Billion if he went complete Burt Reynolds

2freaky4church1 said:

He may be our greatest studio artist.

Here comes the grief

No he is not.

Not even close.

Record sales (unfortunately) DO MATTER for this metric.

they may not be determinal, but they are important; and he doesnt have them.

what is skill in the studio?

Speed?

stamina?

knowledge of the boards and devices?

He has those, to be sure.

And the Batman stuff was impressive.

but like anything else to STAY the best you have to stay at it, and he doesnt do that stuff anymore.

Nor (IMO) should he.

You can HIRE great studio talent.

Nile Rodgers, Quincy, Parsons, Eno, Jellybean, Stu Matthewman.

The labels know who they are, we dont.

These are guys who can take ANY amount of talent, get a song written and crank out a hit.

Prince is a solid producer, a solid (and prolific) songwriter and the greatest live performer and guitar player alive.

1725topp said:

Stimpy said:

And Tom edison,who went on to found most of GE.

And Craig Venter, who sequneced the genome.

If you want 20 more read the Forbes Article "Two Ways to Become Rich"

*

Of the four examples y'all cite, only one--Thomas Edison--is correct while the other three actually support my position.

*

First, Edison, while being an ingenious inventor, was a wildly successful businessman first, having earned his fortune in the newspaper business along with at least three other ventures before becoming an inventor. But, he did use his own money to finance his research. Yet, this is not the case with Venter, Marconi, nor any of the Silicon Valley scientists-entrepreneurs.

*

Venter's early research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, for which he worked. After becoming frustrated with what he deemed as lacking support, he obtained funding from private investors to establish Celera Genomics. Along with Venter's scientific genius, he was also astute at developing business relationships with investors, some of whom have co-ownership of his research and some who wanted only financial returns. But, there is not one thing that Venter did with his own money.

*

As for Gugliemo Marconi, after developing his prototype on his own but being ignored and rejected by at least three government agencies, he finally received government funding and additional support from the British Government through the championing of William Preece, the Chief Electrical Engineer of the British Post Office.

*

As for the Forbes article, it actually faintly alludes to the notion that all of the Silicon Valley scientists-entrepreneurs developed relationships with investors. And if you read almost any biography on Bill Gates or Steve Jobs it is always made clear that after developing their prototypes they obtained investors for marketing but also for additional research and improvement. So, the Silicon Valley scientists-entrepreneurs all received private funding for individuals and organizations that, though often remained unpublicized, obtained various aspects of ownership or rights or obtained larger financial returns to relinquish those "rights." So, again, in most cases scientists rarely--other than the rare case of someone like Edison--have the financial capacity to fund completely their own research, which means that they rarely have "sole ownership" of that research or invention.

*

And, to my ultimate point, especially as my...err...your examples show, these people wanted to share their work with the world, which is why they all, with the exception of Edison, sought financial support. But, that says nothing about someone like Prince who seemingly has no desire to share the "rights of ownership" of his work with anyone, which means that he has the "right" not to share the thing that he owns.

*

Finally, I've never really been moved by Monet's work, but, if that what floats your boat, then so be it.

And your point is?

Name one: OK Edison. Per you.

As for all the others, define ownership (that is what this thread is about, right?)

Does having "funding" from "partners" mean that Venter couldn't have decided the woirld was not ready for his discovery and so he destroyed his results?

Prince HAD the EXACT SAME RELATIONSHIP with Warners early on that you describe above.

That is why he wrote "slave" on his face and changed his name.

Does he have the right to destry "Purple rain?"

BEFORE WE HEAR IT?

We saw this all play out with the Black Album, which was already pressed 500,000 times.

It is easy to find now.

My post, as I clarified by addendum, refers to LIVE RECORDINGS of concerts that were "shared with the world already" as finished work.

And again, legalities and other trivial debate points or analogies to science aside, art does belong to the world.

That is the price of fame.

Stimpy said:

1725topp said:

*

Of the four examples y'all cite, only one--Thomas Edison--is correct while the other three actually support my position.

*

First, Edison, while being an ingenious inventor, was a wildly successful businessman first, having earned his fortune in the newspaper business along with at least three other ventures before becoming an inventor. But, he did use his own money to finance his research. Yet, this is not the case with Venter, Marconi, nor any of the Silicon Valley scientists-entrepreneurs.

*

Venter's early research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, for which he worked. After becoming frustrated with what he deemed as lacking support, he obtained funding from private investors to establish Celera Genomics. Along with Venter's scientific genius, he was also astute at developing business relationships with investors, some of whom have co-ownership of his research and some who wanted only financial returns. But, there is not one thing that Venter did with his own money.

*

As for Gugliemo Marconi, after developing his prototype on his own but being ignored and rejected by at least three government agencies, he finally received government funding and additional support from the British Government through the championing of William Preece, the Chief Electrical Engineer of the British Post Office.

*

As for the Forbes article, it actually faintly alludes to the notion that all of the Silicon Valley scientists-entrepreneurs developed relationships with investors. And if you read almost any biography on Bill Gates or Steve Jobs it is always made clear that after developing their prototypes they obtained investors for marketing but also for additional research and improvement. So, the Silicon Valley scientists-entrepreneurs all received private funding for individuals and organizations that, though often remained unpublicized, obtained various aspects of ownership or rights or obtained larger financial returns to relinquish those "rights." So, again, in most cases scientists rarely--other than the rare case of someone like Edison--have the financial capacity to fund completely their own research, which means that they rarely have "sole ownership" of that research or invention.

*

And, to my ultimate point, especially as my...err...your examples show, these people wanted to share their work with the world, which is why they all, with the exception of Edison, sought financial support. But, that says nothing about someone like Prince who seemingly has no desire to share the "rights of ownership" of his work with anyone, which means that he has the "right" not to share the thing that he owns.

*

Finally, I've never really been moved by Monet's work, but, if that what floats your boat, then so be it.

And your point is?

Name one: OK Edison. Per you.

As for all the others, define ownership (that is what this thread is about, right?)

Does having "funding" from "partners" mean that Venter couldn't have decided the woirld was not ready for his discovery and so he destroyed his results?

Prince HAD the EXACT SAME RELATIONSHIP with Warners early on that you describe above.

That is why he wrote "slave" on his face and changed his name.

Does he have the right to destry "Purple rain?"

BEFORE WE HEAR IT?

We saw this all play out with the Black Album, which was already pressed 500,000 times.

It is easy to find now.

My post, as I clarified by addendum, refers to LIVE RECORDINGS of concerts that were "shared with the world already" as finished work.

And again, legalities and other trivial debate points or analogies to science aside, art does belong to the world.

That is the price of fame.

*

Yes, I did same name one, so touche. However, Venter's ownership or control over his work/research is impacted by whatever deal(s) he made over time. Clearly, Venter wanted his work/research to reach the masses. But, that was his choice. However, he also would have had the right to decide that I don't want to share my work/research with the world as long as he does not sign any contract/deal or accept money from investors that obligates him to do so. (Now, sometimes both science and art takes us where we don't intend to go, and even after having signed a contract or deal one may decide that I don't think that this is positive or helpful to society. Unfortunately, once one has signed a deal/contract that includes sharing/selling that work to society, one is limited in what one can do. The lesson in this scenario is that one must be careful what one signs and be diligent in one's research to have as good an idea as possible about where one's work/art/research may lead one. Of course, no one is perfect, so we live and we learn.) So, depending on the deal that Venter made with his investors, especially if that deal included those investors obtaining ownership, royalties, or reaping financial gains from the profit of his research, he, more than likely, would not have been able to say "Hey, I need to destroy this or keep it from society" unless a government agency would "step in" and say this is too dangerous to society."

*

Accordingly, Prince had, emphasis on "had," the same type of relationship with WB until he decided that he no longer wanted to have that type of relationship. Are you telling me that people can't decide the types of relationships (personal and professional) that they desire to have, especially if they are willing to relinquish financial gains to maintain the types of relationships (personal and professional) that they desire to have? Are you telling me that, Prince, or anybody else, does not have the right to say, "Hey, I don't want the money, so I'll just keep my work to myself" or "Hey, I want more money than you are willing to spend, so I'll just keep my work to myself""? In either case, it's his work to do with what he desires. As such, the people who believe that "art belongs to the world" should create their own art and disseminate it and stop trying to control what other people do with their art.

*

Also, a live recording is still a "copyrighted" work. That act/event/performance is a one-time "copyrighted" work to be shared or not shared according to the person who owns the copyright. When one purchases a ticket for a concert, one is paying for that night's performance not that performance in perpetuity. And, later, if that artist or whoever owns the right to that performance decides to share it with the world or not share it with the world, that is the decision of the copyright owner. (Let me be clear; I'm not saying that I don't want clear quality video and audio of Prince's live performances. I'm saying that I recognize that as the owner of that art it is Prince's sole decision to share or not share with the world. And, definitely, as an artist, I agree--not saying that all artist will agree with me, but that's my position.)

*

Finally, if there is a so-called "price of fame," then each person has the right to engage or negotiate that "price" as each so desires. So, if an artist does not want to do interviews, or share his work online, or promote his album, then the "price of fame" is that fewer people will know about and be able to purchase the art. And, to carry this example to its extreme, yes, Prince had/has the right to destroy Purple Rain either before he released it or after he regained sole ownership of it. Thus, if anyone is cool with whatever consequences that may come, who are you, me, or anybody else to be able to say "We want this, and we're going to disseminate your work whether you desire us to do so or not"? That just sounds too much like Manifest Destiny to me.

Stimpy said:

Record sales (unfortunately) DO MATTER for this metric.

...

And the Batman stuff was impressive.

...

Oh my, aren't you this year's troll.