Prince needs to be punched in his cock holster! Hey Prince...I have never seen a slave that is a millionaire! Shut the fuck up!

avasdad said:

avasdad said:

Prince needs to be punched in his cock holster! Hey Prince...I have never seen a slave that is a millionaire! Shut the fuck up!

BATMAN! I'm gonna kill you. I'm not gonna kill you.

Milty2 said:

I admit that I'm also a bit tired of hearing talk abotu this over and over. Sometimes he doesn't talk about it for a while but then whenn he gets on a roll he doesn't let go of it.

Where I do agree with Prince is that he is right and this is not irrelevant. Prince is not talking about this for sake of the general public or maybe even the record buying public. He's talking about this for new or emerging artists. That's why and so in that case, yes what he says is extremely relevant. There are thousands of bands and artists out there looking for that elusive record contract and he's just giving them a head's up.

I mean why wouoldn't he talk about it? He's now an elder statesman in the music business who has been through and seen some stuff. He's experienced enough now that he can pass on whatever information he has.

But yes....it can get tiresome sometimes.

why doesn't he just write a book about all this stuff and give it away free to all new artists? That way,he doesn't have to waste so much time dwelling on this and making his non-musician fans roll their eyes,lol.

BartVanHemelen said:

.

For those of you that say that Prince has got a point, lemme explain this. All Prince cares about is Prince.

You make some valid points.Prince has benefitted greatly from the big record companies,but that's something that he will never admit to these young artists.It's easy to advise new artists to "release your music independently without the middleman",but even he is back with a major company (WB) and released his last two albums with them.He's sending mixed messages.

SoulAlive said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

For those of you that say that Prince has got a point, lemme explain this. All Prince cares about is Prince.

You make some valid points.Prince has benefitted greatly from the big record companies,but that's something that he will never admit to these young artists.It's easy to advise new artists to "release your music independently without the middleman",but even he is back with a major company (WB) and released his last two albums with them.He's sending mixed messages.

We don't know anything about the agreement with WB other than he gained ownership of his masters, which was his longtime goal. For all we know, the agreement could be extremely non-restrictive -- he's not necessarily "signed" to WBR in the traditional way.

Besides you should always be wary of opinions from someone with platitudes like "he only cares about himself", he sounds like Prince's ex-mother-in-law.

Aerogram said:

avasdad said:

Prince needs to be punched in his cock holster! Hey Prince...I have never seen a slave that is a millionaire! Shut the fuck up!

How nice to know you're ready to punch him in the groin over some words not even directed at you. Besides don't worry, he's only "pretend rich".

it's not punching him in the groin... it punching him in the mouth! Let's not forget...HE signed those contracts...no one else... his music starts to take a shit and WB didnt want to foot the bill for the more albums that people werent going to buy! makes sense to me! Would you pay Michael Jordan $100 million dollars to play basketball now?!? Same thing here! He should warn young artists about selecting right accountants and lawyers...because they did him dirty!

if it wasn't for Warner Bros' aggressive,powerful promotional efforts in the 80s,Prince wouldn't be the iconic,well-known superstar that he is today.He'd be back in Minneapolis,still performing in bars and small clubs.I know it's trendy to say that "big record companies are evil" but let's not forget all of the good things that they can do for an artist.Just ask Beyonce or Taylor Swift.

warning2all said:

Prince owes an enormous debt of gratitude to WB, EMI, Columbia, Universal, Arista etc. for distribution, marketing expertise, promotional materials that gave his music exposure that it otherwise wouldn't.

warning2all said:

If "record contracts are like slavery".... What do you call a singer who doesn't promote & gives up on his album right after getting paid, like "Art Official Age"? What kind of dick move is that? What do you call a singer who takes the Record Labels' $$$ and deliberately delivers half-baked "Contractual Obligation" albums? Not only screwing the label, but the record-buying public? Another duck move. --------------------- Prince owes an enormous debt of gratitude to WB, EMI, Columbia, Universal, Arista etc. for distribution, marketing expertise, promotional materials that gave his music exposure that it otherwise wouldn't. --------------------- We saw how "One Nite Alone Live!", "News" &"Rave In2 The Joy Fantastic" did when left to Prince's own promotion----didn't even register in the public consciousness. One last thing: - Princes career and stature would be in a better place if Warner put it's foot down and didn't allow an album every year in the 80's or accept those CONartist releases of the mid 90's

So you'd like him to be docile and subservient and to do as he's told, then be grateful.

Way to prove his point.

avasdad said:

Aerogram said:

avasdad said: How nice to know you're ready to punch him in the groin over some words not even directed at you. Besides don't worry, he's only "pretend rich".

it's not punching him in the groin... it punching him in the mouth! Let's not forget...HE signed those contracts...no one else... his music starts to take a shit and WB didnt want to foot the bill for the more albums that people werent going to buy! makes sense to me! Would you pay Michael Jordan $100 million dollars to play basketball now?!? Same thing here! He should warn young artists about selecting right accountants and lawyers...because they did him dirty!

It's just music -- no one need punch anyone else. What's that raving about Jordan? Did you hear he asked for 100 million dollars?

I think some people on the Org need to think about the way they perceive Prince as a servant, well paid or not. I understand people want what they want, but he's the one creating and recording, his rights come first and we'll get what we'll get.

Aerogram said:

I understand people want what they want, but he's the one creating and recording, his rights come first and we'll get what we'll get.

Absolutely.

But if we compare Prince to someone suffering Alzheimer's (and I think we can...): at what point do you say, they aren't fit to make their own decisions, we need to step in....

Pentacle said:

Aerogram said:

Absolutely.

But if we compare Prince to someone suffering Alzheimer's (and I think we can...): at what point do you say, they aren't fit to make their own decisions, we need to step in....

So now you'd say he's mentally incompetent, has Alzheimer... that's crazy talk.

I really have to wonder where that comes from and why people say BS like that, seems awfully patronizing to me.

Aerogram said:

Pentacle said:

Absolutely.

But if we compare Prince to someone suffering Alzheimer's (and I think we can...): at what point do you say, they aren't fit to make their own decisions, we need to step in....

So now you'd say he's mentally incompetent, has Alzheimer... that's crazy talk.

I really have to wonder where that comes from and why people say BS like that, seems awfully patronizing to me.

What I'm saying is that someone else should be making certain business decisions in his life.

Why can't that dancing negro just shut up and entertain us white folks when we ask him to? He should be grateful. It's not like we make him work in the fields.

Just to make it clear - the statement above is not my personal opinion, but a reaction on the nasty undertone in some of the comments in this thread.

paulludvig said:

Just to make it clear - the statement above is not my personal opinion, but a reaction on the nasty undertone in some of the comments in this thread.

No need to clarify you were being sarcastic, it accurately translates the attitude of some.

PurpleMedley122 said:

mhnl1979 said:

It's ironic that Prince is full of ownership and the fact that musicians have no rights or ownership, while at the same time he uses Tidal, a streaming service to sell his music. But there is no possibility for ownership when streaming. Prince should focus on making music and touring. Thats something he is really good at!

Exactly. He constantly whines about artists not having rights, but look at the way he's treated his own artists at Paisley Park. Here are a few examples:

.

The Time: Fires Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis in the early 80's for simply "spending too much time producing other artists". He them goes on to claim in Rolling Stone that he didn't fire them and that is was Morris's call. He later goes on to refuse to let them use their name for 2011's Condensate, claiming that he "has future use for them". He hasn't used The Time lisense since 1990. Since 2001 in fact. I believe that the "future use" is getting the masters back from WB and remastering the albums. Allowing the band to use the name might open a legal door for them to claim ownership of their past albums.

.

Jill Jones: Delays the shit out of her album until it's eventual dead on arrival release in 1987. It should have come out during the wave of Purple Rain in '84. Later promises her a big role in Graffiti Bridge only to reduce it at the last minute, angering her.

.

The Family: Overworks lead singer Paul Peterson in order to imitate his guide vocals (including one 12-hour session in which Paul had to repeat just three lines to Prince's satisfaction), makes the album unpromotable due to most of the band not being available (Susannah, Miko, Jerome, and Eric were all added to Prince's band), which led to Paul's departure. And just like The Time, refuses to let the use their name for their next four independent albums, once again claiming that lisense he hasn't used since 1985 is in "future use". As far as I know, Paul stated very clearly and numerous times that the only reason behind his departure was a check with lots of zeros from MCA, and the remnents of The Family weren't added to The revolution before Paul left. As for the name use I believe the reason is the same as with The Time: ensuring ownership of the masters (which seem to have gone back to P in 94 alongside most of PP's catalogue, but could also be in the hands of WB given that it was an early release for the label).

.

Ingrid Chavez: Her album started production in December of 1987, but quickly stalled as Prince was working on other projects. Rather that sit around and wait for him to finish, she and engineer Michael Koppelman decided to finish the album themselves in 1991, which led to (according to Koppelman) a "angry confrontation in a Paisley Park control room" between Prince and Ingrid. All because they finished the album and she went to Warner Brothers in a bid to release it without him involved. The version of the story I'm familiar with is that Ingrid wanted to sing and P said no, so she went straight to WB and WB said yes, and P said OK then I'm out of this, and told Koppleman to finish the project.

.

and so on, and so on, and so on.....

.

He just seems like a massive hypocrite when he whines about being a "slave", but if you look at how he's treated his own artists, ask yourself: who were really the "slaves"?

There is a true hypocrisy in the fact that Prince owns the masters for almost every album released on Paisley Park and later NPG Records. However it doesn't seem anyone has claimed any of their albums so far so we don't know what Prince would do if any PP artist would reclaim their masters.

I'm in fact pretty surprised that George Clinton didn't reclaim his 2 albums so far, as those 2 at least have some sales potential. I also suspect that Dale tried to get hers back, as she's pretty much releasing everything from her vault on iTunes in a desperate attempt to make some dough, going as low as titling a compilation album "The Original Lady GaGa". She got away with putting Simon Simon on 2 iTunes compilations but I think the fact that Riot In English stays OOP might be an indicator. Another possible indicator is that Taja had to rerecord Love Is Contagious to be able to rerelease it as a single (but her album is yet another ambiguous case, as it may be in the hands of Reprise Records not Prince).

Concerning P's side projects I totally consider them "his" and understand that he wants to keep them as such, but many other records released on Paisley Park weren't "his" at all, and there are several collaborative efforts such as Chaka's Come 2 My House or Larry's GCS 2000 where ownership could be hard to define in a court of law.

databank said:

PurpleMedley122 said:

Exactly. He constantly whines about artists not having rights, but look at the way he's treated his own artists at Paisley Park. Here are a few examples:

.

The Time: Fires Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis in the early 80's for simply "spending too much time producing other artists". He them goes on to claim in Rolling Stone that he didn't fire them and that is was Morris's call. He later goes on to refuse to let them use their name for 2011's Condensate, claiming that he "has future use for them". He hasn't used The Time lisense since 1990. Since 2001 in fact. I believe that the "future use" is getting the masters back from WB and remastering the albums. Allowing the band to use the name might open a legal door for them to claim ownership of their past albums.

.

Jill Jones: Delays the shit out of her album until it's eventual dead on arrival release in 1987. It should have come out during the wave of Purple Rain in '84. Later promises her a big role in Graffiti Bridge only to reduce it at the last minute, angering her.

.

The Family: Overworks lead singer Paul Peterson in order to imitate his guide vocals (including one 12-hour session in which Paul had to repeat just three lines to Prince's satisfaction), makes the album unpromotable due to most of the band not being available (Susannah, Miko, Jerome, and Eric were all added to Prince's band), which led to Paul's departure. And just like The Time, refuses to let the use their name for their next four independent albums, once again claiming that lisense he hasn't used since 1985 is in "future use". As far as I know, Paul stated very clearly and numerous times that the only reason behind his departure was a check with lots of zeros from MCA, and the remnents of The Family weren't added to The revolution before Paul left. As for the name use I believe the reason is the same as with The Time: ensuring ownership of the masters (which seem to have gone back to P in 94 alongside most of PP's catalogue, but could also be in the hands of WB given that it was an early release for the label).

.

Ingrid Chavez: Her album started production in December of 1987, but quickly stalled as Prince was working on other projects. Rather that sit around and wait for him to finish, she and engineer Michael Koppelman decided to finish the album themselves in 1991, which led to (according to Koppelman) a "angry confrontation in a Paisley Park control room" between Prince and Ingrid. All because they finished the album and she went to Warner Brothers in a bid to release it without him involved. The version of the story I'm familiar with is that Ingrid wanted to sing and P said no, so she went straight to WB and WB said yes, and P said OK then I'm out of this, and told Koppleman to finish the project.

.

and so on, and so on, and so on.....

.

He just seems like a massive hypocrite when he whines about being a "slave", but if you look at how he's treated his own artists, ask yourself: who were really the "slaves"?

There is a true hypocrisy in the fact that Prince owns the masters for almost every album released on Paisley Park and later NPG Records. However it doesn't seem anyone has claimed any of their albums so far so we don't know what Prince would do if any PP artist would reclaim their masters.

I'm in fact pretty surprised that George Clinton didn't reclaim his 2 albums so far, as those 2 at least have some sales potential. I also suspect that Dale tried to get hers back, as she's pretty much releasing everything from her vault on iTunes in a desperate attempt to make some dough, going as low as titling a compilation album "The Original Lady GaGa". She got away with putting Simon Simon on 2 iTunes compilations but I think the fact that Riot In English stays OOP might be an indicator. Another possible indicator is that Taja had to rerecord Love Is Contagious to be able to rerelease it as a single (but her album is yet another ambiguous case, as it may be in the hands of Reprise Records not Prince).

Concerning P's side projects I totally consider them "his" and understand that he wants to keep them as such, but many other records released on Paisley Park weren't "his" at all, and there are several collaborative efforts such as Chaka's Come 2 My House or Larry's GCS 2000 where ownership could be hard to define in a court of law.

Most of that happened decades ago and the Larry/Chaka stuff is unclear, looks like he's still friend with Larry.

Maybe something newer?

Aerogram said:

databank said:

Most of that happened decades ago and the Larry/Chaka stuff is unclear, looks like he's still friend with Larry.

Maybe something newer?

Lots of artists whose recording career is over or stagnant still like to maintain a website and have their old records available, either for whatever little income they can get from it, or to support touring, or for the mere sake of nostalgia. For us most PP records are obscure albums released by obscure acts three decades ago, something totally unimportant. For those artists though it reflects a time of their lives when they were active artists, touring, making music video, having access to the show business and having a contract with a major record company. To many people those years are among the best and the most memorable, cherished memories of their entire lives, even if they're long gone.

Regarding Come 2 My House and GCS 2000 the legal ownership of the records is clearly NPG Records i.e. Prince. What he'd say if they wanted to rerelease them remaines to be seen.

OldFriends4Sale said:

I have a problem with his sincerity 'using' racial symbolism and issues to further his own personal musical problems.

.

the Slave / Emancipation connection

.

Albums, Still Matter...

Like Books,

and Black Lives,

Albums Still Matter

2night And Always

.

this is right after his dual albums:Art Official Age + PlectrumElectrum promotions
it is clear he is pushing 4 albums over the rest

.

then in 2015 when he is ready try to get people sign up with Tidal in order to by his album/music

I don't know why he needs to connect his stuff like this, almost like the way Media/Politicians try to incite trouble by using race

Yours and EroticDreamer's are voices of reason here. And maybe it's just me, but Prince writing "SLAVE" on his face is just a bit insulting to, you know, actual slaves. When a black artist in America can say they're unhappy with their multi-million dollar contract (that they willingly signed), I would say that is a sign of immense progress.

But others here will continue to see racism around every corner; having the same effect as the boy who cried 'wolf.' Aerogram, you need to find a way to profit from your race-baiting -- like Sharpton & Jackson.

paulludvig said:

Why can't that dancing negro just shut up and entertain us white folks when we ask him to? He should be grateful. It's not like we make him work in the fields.

First you have to confirm the 'race' of the people who take issue with this...
Second, Prince can speak up about his valid 'progress 4 independence 4 artists'

Prince is the one in a few too many periods using race baiting to get his point across

it's insincere

When M Jackson's album 'Blood on the Dancefloor?' flopped he cried racism and insinuated anti-Semetism

Just recently when Bill Cosby's accusers increased, he too cried racism, trying to gather the masses of 'all dem colored folk' to his side (even though many of the accusers were of African descent as well)

Prince's cause with artists being educated aware and independant cross all borders of race ethnicity and gender. Race has absolutely nothing to do with it

Musician and artists have always been a priviledged group for the most part

Prince was one of the most priviledged artist during his WB days, his battles with WB in the 90s was his spoiled brattiness. Slave - Emancipation.

Aerogram said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

paulludvig said:

Why can't that dancing negro just shut up and entertain us white folks when we ask him to? He should be grateful. It's not like we make him work in the fields.

First you have to confirm the 'race' of the people who take issue with this...
Second, Prince can speak up about his valid 'progress 4 independence 4 artists'

Prince is the one in a few too many periods using race baiting to get his point across

it's insincere

When M Jackson's album 'Blood on the Dancefloor?' flopped he cried racism and insinuated anti-Semetism

Just recently when Bill Cosby's accusers increased, he too cried racism, trying to gather the masses of 'all dem colored folk' to his side (even though many of the accusers were of African descent as well)

Prince's cause with artists being educated aware and independant cross all borders of race ethnicity and gender. Race has absolutely nothing to do with it

Musician and artists have always been a priviledged group for the most part

Prince was one of the most priviledged artist during his WB days, his battles with WB in the 90s was his spoiled brattiness. Slave - Emancipation.

Sure Prince used to be a brat, unfair, selfish, etc. So was I 30 years ago, even 20 years ago - it's called maturing.

With respect to the relation of race and his musical endeavour with Tidal, this time it's about supporting black ownershp and the idea that economic power can help end persistent racism, so even though the "don't sign" thing is for all musicians, this project signals (with Baltimore) his support to what I view as a worthy cause.

I don't think anyone said that anyone who is not on board or who is angry about Prince's decision is sort of a racist, that would be stupid and reductive. But yeah, some fans have a rather telling attitude. It's more than anger, it's contempt couched a certain way.

Aerogram said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

First you have to confirm the 'race' of the people who take issue with this...
Second, Prince can speak up about his valid 'progress 4 independence 4 artists'

Prince is the one in a few too many periods using race baiting to get his point across

it's insincere

When M Jackson's album 'Blood on the Dancefloor?' flopped he cried racism and insinuated anti-Semetism

Just recently when Bill Cosby's accusers increased, he too cried racism, trying to gather the masses of 'all dem colored folk' to his side (even though many of the accusers were of African descent as well)

Prince's cause with artists being educated aware and independant cross all borders of race ethnicity and gender. Race has absolutely nothing to do with it

Musician and artists have always been a priviledged group for the most part

Prince was one of the most priviledged artist during his WB days, his battles with WB in the 90s was his spoiled brattiness. Slave - Emancipation.

Sure Prince used to be a brat, unfair, selfish, etc. So was I 30 years ago, even 20 years ago - it's called maturing.

With respect to the relation of race and his musical endeavour with Tidal, this time it's about supporting black ownershp and the idea that economic power can help end persistent racism, so even though the "don't sign" thing is for all musicians, this project signals (with Baltimore) his support to what I view as a worthy cause.

I don't think anyone said that anyone who is not on board or who is angry about Prince's decision is sort of a racist, that would be stupid and reductive. But yeah, some fans have a rather telling attitude. It's more than anger, it's contempt couched a certain way.

Prince is a celebrity. Age doesn't mature those things we mentioned. If a person changes they do. Celebrities live in a whole different priviledged world..
.
Prince changes with the tide concerning this. So is he now only speaking for 'black' ownership of music? Sorry, he is just tying his musical concerns with the social political tide of the moment. just like MJ did when things didn't go they way they assume the adoring world will. It is very much a bait that if he connects his musical/financial endevour to what just happened in Ferguson(which did NOT have to happen) that he will find sympathy and people will pay the $$ to join a site to get access to his new music. Prince had and has the same capabilities to control the purchasing of his music. Did he not have many previous websites where people could buy his albums and other merchandise? Did racism stop that from succeeding or bad business? Let's be real. Prince can do whatever he wants. How many times have fans jumped on the bandwagon to support him? How much did it cost the fans? wasn't like $70 or something to join LotusFlow3r.com? what about the 3rdEye site the Love4OneAnother or NPG sites?
*And it is an uneducated response, because there are many black owned business in Ferguson -remember they were destroyed and ransacked by those protest usurpers who swept through Twice last year and again on the anniversary. And everyone isn't going to own their own business. If that was the case then who would do the work to help build the business. And Prince's recent Shout out to his business endevour connected with the riots that happened a few days ago, was about black neighborhoods having their own black police officers. The problem this past week was the cousin of Michael Brown starting some crap and a bunch of thoughtless purposeless people again for the 3rd time in conneciton with the peaceful marchers took advantage of the issue to loot and riot. Having your own black police will not stop black criminals.

.

Pauls sarcastic comment toward anyone here, not agreeing with the usage of these imagery suggests racists.

I think people can have educated thought out opinions on these things without having to be put into a catagory. And I don't back down from taunts. There was no reason for anyone to try to define the intentions of others who disagree with the usage of these historic images.

Wealthy people will always (whether right or wrong) be viewed with some degree of contempt when they complain about having it hard and comparing their priviledged lives with that of poor and marginalized people.

Prince couldn't even be a real Jehovahs Witness because the morning witness trecks were overshadowed by his celebrity. His celebrity within the Halls gave him freedoms other JWs obviously could not have.
I'm just being real about this.
Prince has a legitimate cause 4 ARTISTS 'Artists Lives Matter' there are many in his field that look up to him from around the world and in every ethnic group and genre of music.
His cause is so far removed from what is happening in Ferguson or Baltimore.

And I still never received refund or the songs from that 3rdEye website a few years ago.

I have a hang nail. I'm a slave.

dadeepop said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

I have a problem with his sincerity 'using' racial symbolism and issues to further his own personal musical problems.

.

the Slave / Emancipation connection

.

Albums, Still Matter...

Like Books,

and Black Lives,

Albums Still Matter

2night And Always

.

this is right after his dual albums:Art Official Age + PlectrumElectrum promotions
it is clear he is pushing 4 albums over the rest

.

then in 2015 when he is ready try to get people sign up with Tidal in order to by his album/music

I don't know why he needs to connect his stuff like this, almost like the way Media/Politicians try to incite trouble by using race

Yours and EroticDreamer's are voices of reason here. And maybe it's just me, but Prince writing "SLAVE" on his face is just a bit insulting to, you know, actual slaves. When a black artist in America can say they're unhappy with their multi-million dollar contract (that they willingly signed), I would say that is a sign of immense progress.

But others here will continue to see racism around every corner; having the same effect as the boy who cried 'wolf.' Aerogram, you need to find a way to profit from your race-baiting -- like Sharpton & Jackson.

Prince knows there was no racism whatsoever involved with WB. Prince was opened to a whole playground where he could do almost anything he wanted. Use studios record videos make movie, sign on protege acts or independants artists. Prince was just unhappy because he felt somewhere that America did not accept every album of music he did. He was unhappy after the Revolution years when WB did not let him do whatever he felt with the album/music release. Starting with Crystal Ball being brought down to Sign o the Times. All the money WB poured into him doing the Lovesexy show. in those later mid 90s when they wouldn't let him release more music as he saw fit all of a sudden he is a Slave who needs Emancipation. Race had absolutely nothing to do with it then and nothing now.

OldFriends4Sale said:

Aerogram said:

Sure Prince used to be a brat, unfair, selfish, etc. So was I 30 years ago, even 20 years ago - it's called maturing.

With respect to the relation of race and his musical endeavour with Tidal, this time it's about supporting black ownershp and the idea that economic power can help end persistent racism, so even though the "don't sign" thing is for all musicians, this project signals (with Baltimore) his support to what I view as a worthy cause.

I don't think anyone said that anyone who is not on board or who is angry about Prince's decision is sort of a racist, that would be stupid and reductive. But yeah, some fans have a rather telling attitude. It's more than anger, it's contempt couched a certain way.

Prince is a celebrity. Age doesn't mature those things. Celebrities live in a whole different priviledged world..
.
Prince changes with the tide concerning this. So is he now only speaking for 'black' ownership of music? Sorry, he is just tying his musical concerns with the social political tide of the moment.
And it is an uneducated response, because there are many black owned business in Ferguson -remember they were destroyed and ransacked by those protest usurpers who swept through. And everyone isn't going to own their own business. If that was the case then who would do the work to help build the business. And Prince's recent Shout out to his business endevour connected with the riots that happened a few days ago, was about black neighborhoods having their own black police officers. That isn't the problem. The problem this past week was the cousin of Michael Brown starting some crap and a bunch of thoughtless purposeless people again for the 3rd time in conneciton with the peaceful marchers took advantage of the issue to loot and riot. Having your own black police will not stop black criminals.

.

Pauls sarcastic comment toward anyone here, not agreeing with the usage of these imagery suggests racists.

I think people can have educated thought out opinions on these things without having to be put into a catagory. And I don't back down from taunts and bullyings. There was no reason for anyone to try to define the intentions of others who disagree with the usage of these historic images.

Wealthy people will always (whether right or wrong) be viewed at with some degree of contempt when they complain about having it hard and comparing their priviledged lives with that of poor and marginalized people.

Prince couldn't even be a real Jehovahs Witness because the morning witness trecks were overshadowed by his celebrity. His celebrity within the Halls gave him freedoms other JWs obviously could not have.
I'm just being real about this.
Prince has a legitimate cause 4 ARTISTS 'Artists Lives Matter' there are many in his field that look up to him from around the world and in every ethnic group and genre of music.
His cause is so far removed from what is happening in Ferguson or Baltimore.

And I still never received refund or the songs from that 3rdEye website a few years ago.

Paul's comment wasn't directed at everyone, neither was mine. There's a few comments up there that feel close to what he described and we pointed it out.

Prince is not now only speaking for black ownership, again that is your interpretation. He toured in Canada since he started mentionning that theme in Baltimore, and no the concert venues were not black-owned. Tidal itself isn't 100 % black owned either, though I understand Jay-Z has/had a controlling interest and that may be sufficient for Prince.

It seems to me you paint all celebrities and musicians with the same wide brush, saying for the most part they are privileged. There's all sorts of celebrities, they're people, they fall from grace, they get back up... or not. Just think about Sly Stone, he lived in his van for years before recently winning a judgement. The "slavery" thing is not something you need to take literally, he's simply pointing out (along with a lot of people) that standard recording contracts can end up hurting the artist. If they fail to sell enough, they can be left with huge debts, especially when they have to finance their promotion through their advances, pick up the bills for the videos, etc.

Prince is not alone in saying the practices are exploitative when things don't go as well as expected. Simply put, musicians take on a great deal of financial risk, then they often end up with a huge debt while not even having ownership in what they created. Talk to Teena Marie, it's not all champagne and caviar on a silver plate forever and ever.

Musicians, even very successful recording artists like Taylor Swift, are saying it's time to think of the artists as they have been getting a smaller slice for their work through services that don't compensate them as well as traditional record sales (streaming). Musicians don't have a guild like writers, actors and directors in Hollywood -- they should have one to represent their interests, as right now the system heavily favors the labels.

I'm in favor of musicians having a bigger say because it seems most other artistic professions are better represented and far less likely to end up with massive bills for the "privilege" of working in their chosen profession. Remember that for one hit record, you have two dozens that are not very successful, so it's not all a world of ferraris and castles in the French countryside. No other artistic profession shoulders so much of the risk, that's the problem that is being pointed out, albeit with provocative words, by a guy who may not be the ideal mascot, but that still knows what he's talking about.

Honestly, we're living in days of massive overreaction, we'll probably laugh about all this in three months.

[Edited 8/15/15 12:51pm]

OldFriends4Sale said:

dadeepop said:

Yours and EroticDreamer's are voices of reason here. And maybe it's just me, but Prince writing "SLAVE" on his face is just a bit insulting to, you know, actual slaves. When a black artist in America can say they're unhappy with their multi-million dollar contract (that they willingly signed), I would say that is a sign of immense progress.

But others here will continue to see racism around every corner; having the same effect as the boy who cried 'wolf.' Aerogram, you need to find a way to profit from your race-baiting -- like Sharpton & Jackson.

Prince knows there was no racism whatsoever involved with WB. Prince was opened to a whole playground where he could do almost anything he wanted. Use studios record videos make movie, sign on protege acts or independants artists. Prince was just unhappy because he felt somewhere that America did not accept every album of music he did. He was unhappy after the Revolution years when WB did not let him do whatever he felt with the album/music release. Starting with Crystal Ball being brought down to Sign o the Times. All the money WB poured into him doing the Lovesexy show. in those later mid 90s when they wouldn't let him release more music as he saw fit all of a sudden he is a Slave who needs Emancipation. Race had absolutely nothing to do with it then and nothing now.

I too was disappointed with the whole 'slave' thing.Prince was never a "slave" to Warners.Slaves do not get multi-million dollar contracts and huge advances.Whatever problems that Prince had with Warners,it was never slavery.Nobody held a gun to his head and forced him to sign those contracts and do business with them.He was well paid for all the music that he submitted to them.They even funded his movies.That's not slavery.

...

[Edited 8/15/15 13:28pm]

2freaky4church1 said:

I have a hang nail. I'm a slave.

I have to go to work to pay bills. I'm a slave to the grind.