I don't think he has the right (or, clearly, the ability) to withhold some of the most important music MADE in the last 30 years.

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

It would be like saying that Elizabeth Taylor was a good cook.

He is the best live performer on the planet.

And EVERYTHING he has done live is worth keeping, releasing and making available to those not lucky enough to be there.

Lots of it is terrible quality I know.

But that does not take anything away from the musicianship--it even adds to it in some ways.

He had a weird childhood as we all know and that is evident in much of his work and all of his persona.

But this stuff is HISTORY, and it belongs to the world.

Someday I hope he (or his estate) will make the Vault available.

He puts it great in Avalanche: "You cannot escape from history."

Him 2

I'd take up the argument about Prince not being a studio artist. At least 2 of his biggest hits sound terrible live such is the studio wizardry used in their creation.

With regard to the live recordings. Most are available. Who doesn't own Small Club or hasn't managed to track down a couple of the concerts they've been to? If you care enough you can find them. Whats more most of them are free. So in that sense we've got it pretty good.

Prince is the artist/performer. If he doesn't want to release them officially then it's his prerogative not to. For whatever reason. Maybe he hears them back and he missed a note or fluffed a line maybe a fan looked at him the wrong way during the show and it put him in a bad mood or perhaps it was the night the big breasted latino chick turned him down.

The way I see it personally (not that I don't do my own fair share) If there is one thing worse than a moaning artist, it's moaning fans.

Stimpy said:

I don't think he has the right (or, clearly, the ability) to withhold some of the most important music MADE in the last 30 years.

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

It would be like saying that Elizabeth Taylor was a good cook.

He is the best live performer on the planet.

And EVERYTHING he has done live is worth keeping, releasing and making available to those not lucky enough to be there.

Lots of it is terrible quality I know.

But that does not take anything away from the musicianship--it even adds to it in some ways.

He had a weird childhood as we all know and that is evident in much of his work and all of his persona.

But this stuff is HISTORY, and it belongs to the world.

Someday I hope he (or his estate) will make the Vault available.

He puts it great in Avalanche: "You cannot escape from history."

Him 2

what was his weird childhood

Stimpy said:

I don't think he has the right (or, clearly, the ability) to withhold some of the most important music MADE in the last 30 years.

He has both really - Obviously the right, since it's his work. And all but a trickle has come out post-1996, so he somewhat has the ability too.

I would like it if he made high quality shows available for download, even just one representative show from each tour. Im sure lots of people would like that.

Everything I read about him suggersts he is a control freak; I'm absolutely not surprised he is rabidly anti-bootleg. I don't really agree with that stance, but, he's got a right to manage his affairs as he sees fit.

And it's not like he has managed to kill all the bootlegs either! There's a lot out there if you know where to look. I have about 30 not having even tried that hard or spent much money. Lots in very high quality too.

He's always been the source of his own studio leaks. He used to hand out tapes containing demos all the time back in the day. Frankly I doubt he would have anything like the same following he has even now, if not for all the bootlegs circulating. They've helped (possibly more than anything else other than the fact he's just damn entertaining to watch) cement him as being all about the music.

We've always known he was actually recording 3/4/5 albums a year. He just stopped giving it away and leaving it laying around.

To his credit I think he's never really "cashed in" on his "legacy". Even now he doesn't seem keen to sell whats already been sold. Many artists in his position would be chomping at the bit to put out a re-re-remaster. He never seemed massively interested in Live DVDs or video compilations, and he's urged people not to buy Hits collections.

NouveauDance said:

Stimpy said:

I don't think he has the right (or, clearly, the ability) to withhold some of the most important music MADE in the last 30 years.

He has both really - Obviously the right, since it's his work. And all but a trickle has come out post-1996, so he somewhat has the ability too.

Noodled24 said:

He's always been the source of his own studio leaks. He used to hand out tapes containing demos all the time back in the day. Frankly I doubt he would have anything like the same following he has even now, if not for all the bootlegs circulating. They've helped (possibly more than anything else other than the fact he's just damn entertaining to watch) cement him as being all about the music.

We've always known he was actually recording 3/4/5 albums a year. He just stopped giving it away and leaving it laying around.

To his credit I think he's never really "cashed in" on his "legacy". Even now he doesn't seem keen to sell whats already been sold. Many artists in his position would be chomping at the bit to put out a re-re-remaster. He never seemed massively interested in Live DVDs or video compilations, and he's urged people not to buy Hits collections.

doesnt need the money

NouveauDance said:

Stimpy said:

I don't think he has the right (or, clearly, the ability) to withhold some of the most important music MADE in the last 30 years.

He has both really - Obviously the right, since it's his work.

Yes. But no. Not completely. He is an artist and as Artist, his work, in some way, belongs to mankind. I can buy a Van Gogh painting and I've the right to burn it because I paid for it. But really I've the "right" to do that? I'm not so sure.

GetOfFunk said:

NouveauDance said:

He has both really - Obviously the right, since it's his work.

Yes. But no. Not completely. He is an artist and as Artist, his work, in some way, belongs to mankind. I can buy a Van Gogh painting and I've the right to burn it because I paid for it. But really I've the "right" to do that? I'm not so sure.

Stimpy said:

I don't think he has the right (or, clearly, the ability) to withhold some of the most important music MADE in the last 30 years.

He has the Right to do whatever he wants with it, or nothing at all.

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

It would be like saying that Elizabeth Taylor was a good cook.

I don't get your analogy. He's not a studio artist? His 30+ studio albums beg to differ.

He is the best live performer on the planet.

And EVERYTHING he has done live is worth keeping, releasing and making available to those not lucky enough to be there.

Matter of opinion.

Lots of it is terrible quality I know.

But that does not take anything away from the musicianship--it even adds to it in some ways.

Terrible quality makes the musicianship better? I don't follow your logic at all.

He had a weird childhood as we all know and that is evident in much of his work and all of his persona.

His weird childhood makes him not want to open his vault?

But this stuff is HISTORY, and it belongs to the world.

It belongs to him. Some of it even belongs to WB.

Someday I hope he (or his estate) will make the Vault available.

He puts it great in Avalanche: "You cannot escape from history."

GetOfFunk said:

NouveauDance said:

He has both really - Obviously the right, since it's his work.

Yes. But no. Not completely. He is an artist and as Artist, his work, in some way, belongs to mankind. I can buy a Van Gogh painting and I've the right to burn it because I paid for it. But really I've the "right" to do that? I'm not so sure.

Is everything Van Goghever painted in the public domain? Did he ever paint over any of his creations, or start something, deem it no good and destroy it. What sort of entitled view point is it that believes we have a right to everything an artist creates.

Do I want to hear everything from Prince, yes of course. Do I have a right to hear it, no. His released work belongs to mankind but not the unreleased stuff.

Stimpy said:

I don't think he has the right ....

...there we go - all that's wrong with society today, in 7 words! Too many people with a self-important sense of entitlement. I presume you'll also be wanting contents of said vault for free?

TheEnglishGent said:

Is everything Van Goghever painted in the public domain?

I strongly hope so!!!!

Did he ever paint over any of his creations, or start something, deem it no good and destroy it. What sort of entitled view point is it that believes we have a right to everything an artist creates.

Wait, I haven't said we have a right, never said that. I'm just saying that even the Artist himself, maybe, doesn't have an absolutistic power on his own creation when his work is universally recognized as "extra ordinary", so: out of the ordinary, for mankind. Art, with a big A, imho, has in some way his own life, Art is the fuel for growth of mainkind and, imho, it would be a shame to lose even the smallest piece of what believers could define as "divine spark of God". Kafka didn't want to publish his work, his best friend didn't respect his "right", and now we all can take benefit of Kafka's genious, was this friend wrong?
Artists very often are not able to properly judge how their work counts for other people, how it helps others, how it inspire others; that's why I ask myself if there's a limit even of their own rights on their own work.

Let me ask you something, not about Art: if a medical researcher, so famous that others, thanks to his work, are making important breakthroughs in medicine, finds a cure for a rare desease. You always think he has the absolutistic right to destroy or hide his work? Where's the limit to his right?

Of course he has the right, it is his work. We don't have the right to expect these recordings.

Regarding the vault itself, it wouldn't surprise me if he had instructions in place for everything in the vault to be destroyed once he is gone, a last act giving him complete and eternal control of its contents. Given his stance on unreleased material, both studio and live, I don't think this would surprise anyone.

Also, I disagree with Prince not being a studio artist, he can work more magic in the studio than any other artist I can think of, just because he is the best live performer of all time shouldn't take away from his studio mastery, and yes, he is a master in the studio, there are many interviews where experienced engineers are left in awe watching him work, on a technical, pure musicanship and speed level. There is nobody on the planet that can walk into the studio and do what he does in the time that he does it.

smokeverbs said:

Stimpy said:

Lots of it is terrible quality I know.

But that does not take anything away from the musicianship--it even adds to it in some ways.

Terrible quality makes the musicianship better? I don't follow your logic at all.

Basically even though some of the bootlegs are in bad quality, they add to his versitale musicianship (Others Here With us, Wonderful Day, Extraloveable, Turn It Up), and I would completely agree. I was a big prince fan already, but the bootlegs...in some ways helped me know his output better.

I'm not sure if that is what he would want, but I understood how creative he was. I started to understand he wrote many songs for others I had no idea he was even part of (Sugar Walls, Telepathy, The Sex of It).

His boots still bring me over the top and I would happily pay for more from him if he embraced it. Thank god for Soundboards of the Birthday show, Lovesexy and Parade shows. Musicology as well, one of his best tours.

luv4u said:

NouveauDance said:

He has both really - Obviously the right, since it's his work. And all but a trickle has come out post-1996, so he somewhat has the ability too.

Check out ioffer

luvsexy4all said:

Noodled24 said:

He's always been the source of his own studio leaks. He used to hand out tapes containing demos all the time back in the day. Frankly I doubt he would have anything like the same following he has even now, if not for all the bootlegs circulating. They've helped (possibly more than anything else other than the fact he's just damn entertaining to watch) cement him as being all about the music.

We've always known he was actually recording 3/4/5 albums a year. He just stopped giving it away and leaving it laying around.

To his credit I think he's never really "cashed in" on his "legacy". Even now he doesn't seem keen to sell whats already been sold. Many artists in his position would be chomping at the bit to put out a re-re-remaster. He never seemed massively interested in Live DVDs or video compilations, and he's urged people not to buy Hits collections.

doesnt need the money

Not at the moment, but there are times in the past when he has needed money and still didn't cash in on old albums.

Noodled24 said:

luvsexy4all said:

doesnt need the money

Not at the moment, but there are times in the past when he has needed money and still didn't cash in on old albums.

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

NouveauDance said:

GetOfFunk said:

Yes. But no. Not completely. He is an artist and as Artist, his work, in some way, belongs to mankind. I can buy a Van Gogh painting and I've the right to burn it because I paid for it. But really I've the "right" to do that? I'm not so sure.

I can't put the laughing icon here, but I've laughed anyway.

[Edited 12/3/14 6:41am]

GetOfFunk said:

TheEnglishGent said:

Is everything Van Goghever painted in the public domain?

I strongly hope so!!!!

Did he ever paint over any of his creations, or start something, deem it no good and destroy it. What sort of entitled view point is it that believes we have a right to everything an artist creates.

Wait, I haven't said we have a right, never said that. I'm just saying that even the Artist himself, maybe, doesn't have an absolutistic power on his own creation when his work is universally recognized as "extra ordinary", so: out of the ordinary, for mankind. Art, with a big A, imho, has in some way his own life, Art is the fuel for growth of mainkind and, imho, it would be a shame to lose even the smallest piece of what believers could define as "divine spark of God". Kafka didn't want to publish his work, his best friend didn't respect his "right", and now we all can take benefit of Kafka's genious, was this friend wrong?
Artists very often are not able to properly judge how their work counts for other people, how it helps others, how it inspire others; that's why I ask myself if there's a limit even of their own rights on their own work.

Let me ask you something, not about Art: if a medical researcher, so famous that others, thanks to his work, are making important breakthroughs in medicine, finds a cure for a rare desease. You always think he has the absolutistic right to destroy or hide his work? Where's the limit to his right?

*

One, I don't agree with the big "A" small "a" notion of art. Art is art, and the only thing that separates art are people's tastes.

*

Two, Kafka, whose work I love, had an "effed up" friend. Until an artist decides to share one's work with the public, it is the right of the artist to do with that work what one desires. Additionally, because I'm not of the opinion that there of some people who are just more gifted than others and because I view art as a skill, then I think that some/any artist will eventually discuss a particular topic in an effective/well-crafted manner because all artists are merely responding to the world in which we/they live; thus, there is no need to make an artist share one's work as if that artist is the only person capable of creating well-crafted art on a particular topic, especially if we create an effective public school system that allows all people to reach their critical and creative potential.

*

Three, your last point about "medical breakthroughs" is myopic at best and just down right uninformed at worst. Can you name one scientist who had the independent wealth to fund one's own research? Please, name one scientist who funded the research. So, your premise is just flawed. All "medical breakthroughs" are generally funded by governments or private corporations. As such, it is the government or the private corporation that owns the "medical breakthrough" not the scientist. The scientist, for lack of a better word, is, for the most part, a hired hand. Even if the scientist approaches a government or private corporation with research/findings, the scientist is usually forced to share or sell ownership of that research to obtain funding. So, even though Einstein was angry that the American government lied to him when they told him they would not use his research to create a weapon, all he could do was be angry because he did not own the research as the American government had purchased half or full ownership of the research by funding the research and paying him a salary. And, in truth, there is some question if Einstein even had the "right" to share his work with America since that research was first funded by Germany. So, unless a scientist is able to fund the entirety of the research, the scientist has no "right" to when, where, or how it's used. However, since Prince has now regained the "right" to his work, he has the "right" to determine when, how, and where it's used.

1725topp said:

*

One, I don't agree with the big "A" small "a" notion of art. Art is art, and the only thing that separates art are people's tastes.

*

Is your, very personal, opinion, I respect it but it's not the Truth. There's a lot of crap that people believe is art. For me is just crap. It's my opinion. I'm sure that as I respect your you will respect mine.

I view art as a skill,

Oh, wonderful, if I pay you to develop your painting skills, please would you be so kind to learn to paint like Monet?

*

Three, your last point about "medical breakthroughs" is myopic at best and just down right uninformed at worst.

It was just an exemple, open your mind, don't take everything literally, develop your "imaginative skill"

Can you name one scientist who had the independent wealth to fund one's own research? Please, name one scientist who funded the research. So, your premise is just flawed.

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.

Stimpy said:

I don't think he has the right (or, clearly, the ability) to withhold some of the most important music MADE in the last 30 years.

He doesn't need your permission, even if you think he does.

Just keep collecting what's around.

Thanks.

udo said:

Stimpy said:

I don't think he has the right (or, clearly, the ability) to withhold some of the most important music MADE in the last 30 years.

He doesn't need your permission, even if you think he does.

Just keep collecting what's around.

Thanks.

I never said he needed my permission, and obviously he does not.

The point was not to belabor the obvious--he has the tapes and can have a big fire anytime he wants.

My point is that some things are SO GOOD they transcend the traditional rules and boundaries.

This is a trade-off HE HIMSELF has made.

One one hand his music is SO GOOD it requires "special" treatment by "history."

With that comes a special status that is not reflected in record sale numbers or charts.

WE know this is true (on this board of course) because so many other important artists validate the music one way or the other--and THEY KNOW.

Part of that status "requires" (in spirit--not fact) that he give up some degree of control over his work EVENTUALLY.

That is the trade-off--or should be.

It is, in some waysm the TRUE price of fame.

GetOfFunk said:

1725topp said:

*

One, I don't agree with the big "A" small "a" notion of art. Art is art, and the only thing that separates art are people's tastes.

*

Is your, very personal, opinion, I respect it but it's not the Truth. There's a lot of crap that people believe is art. For me is just crap. It's my opinion. I'm sure that as I respect your you will respect mine.

It was just an exemple, open your mind, don't take everything literally, develop your "imaginative skill"

Can you name one scientist who had the independent wealth to fund one's own research? Please, name one scientist who funded the research. So, your premise is just flawed.

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"

Stimpy said:

The point was not to belabor the obvious--he has the tapes and can have a big fire anytime he wants.

He does not understand us too well, at least not good enough to release that stuff in exchange for some cash.

Stimpy said:

I never said he needed my permission, and obviously he does not.

The point was not to belabor the obvious--he has the tapes and can have a big fire anytime he wants.

My point is that some things are SO GOOD they transcend the traditional rules and boundaries.

This is a trade-off HE HIMSELF has made.

One one hand his music is SO GOOD it requires "special" treatment by "history."

With that comes a special status that is not reflected in record sale numbers or charts.

WE know this is true (on this board of course) because so many other important artists validate the music one way or the other--and THEY KNOW.

Part of that status "requires" (in spirit--not fact) that he give up some degree of control over his work EVENTUALLY.

That is the trade-off--or should be.

It is, in some waysm the TRUE price of fame.

I totally agree with you

FWIW, I would be fine with the idea that the STUDIO work, which can very much be rough and in progress, be unavailable forever.

That he should contol IMO.

But live stuff is different.

It has ALREADY been presented (to a few) as finished work.

The whole point of being on the level he is on musically is that even his mistakes live are important and interesting--especially to other musicians.

I have 5 of the JMI aftershow recordings.

They rank with the finest guitar EVER played.

They are all similar in structure and yet all different.

Study them and (with talent) you can see how a MASTER actually does improvisation.

Where can you get that from studio stuff?

The point is that responsibility is to MUSIC itself, and if he is really "all about that" he should make what is clearly some of the best available for the next Miles or Lennon or Nelson that has something to say.

leadline said:

Noodled24 said:

Not at the moment, but there are times in the past when he has needed money and still didn't cash in on old albums.

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?

He may be our greatest studio artist.