Germanegro said:

babynoz said:

Not sure what your point is but I hate Sanada.

U've listened to the lyrics? No? I guess you really don't like Sananda. 2 Bad! He's singing your song: It's aaalll about the MONEY!

-

And the amount of money is the principle you attach to it. The 100 page legal joint brief by 400 Artists and organisations, announced by RIAA blog via Prince tweet today and submitted to US Copyright officee yesterday is a eye opener.

-

So that's what happened to Terrence Trent D'arby!

[Edited 4/1/16 7:30am]

^^^

The link to the statement detailing the legal joint brief found on Prince's Twitter, that Bohemian67 announces: http://www.riaa.com/400-a...oken-dmca/.

controversy99 said:

While he's at it, why not try to ban his music from radio and videos from TV? Radio pays much less per listen than Spotify, YouTube, or nearly any other monetized online platform.

.

Please rub this in with the Prince man.

Bohemian67 said:

Germanegro said:

True dat, actually. The WB statement *could* have been a gamble to up the ante for the P-man to deliver the goods after such public exposure. If this is the accurate scenario, it sure didn't work as the P-man stuck to his guns. Ammo for a better deal? Come on, WB can deal better that that!

-

EXACTLY!

-

Honestly never put anything past these Corporates, it's all about the money for them and that's it. Crazy claim maybe, but I think they are the War of the Worlds Machines HG Wells wrote about. Currently sucking artists dry, countries and continents due to their uncontrolled desire to rule the world. Just think of TTIP (Not sure if that's what it is in English) Where Corporates can sue countries. Like Philip Morris suing Australian for their huge anti-smoking campaign on ciggerette packets. Ethics do not come into it. Hungry money grabbing shareholders who draw up policies.

-

We need people who have the power to stand up to them. They won't be popular and they will be ridiculed and given a bad name but nothing in history came without sacrifice.

-

Good for him for sticking to his guns. And he's still out there making music, making people happy and enjoying himself. While the Warner employees i.e. network (I'm sure of it) come here to stir the cauldron.

-

They can but not without the taking action

And the revolution will not be televised

[Edited 3/31/16 12:44pm]

.

Gotta love those famz: it's never Prince's fault. It's always someone else doing the lying and the promising.

.

And of course anyone who points out Prince is at fault is a Warners employee.

Germanegro said:

It's my impression that the notion of "goodies" (alt. takes, live recordings & such) added to a PR remaster was speculation from people on the outside toward what kind of deal WB had in mind for Prince.

.

Or you could simply read the press release and the reporting at the time. But I guess just posting some unsourced BS is easier.

BartVanHemelen said:

Gotta love those famz: it's never Prince's fault. It's always someone else doing the lying and the promising.

.

And of course anyone who points out Prince is at fault is a Warners employee.

.

It is the same as accusing Trump of whatever they can find that day but failing to mention the probe into Hillary's criminal dealings. (unathorized mail server, violation of state screts, destruction of evidence, lying, obstruction of process, foundation as slush fund for tit for tat, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc)

BartVanHemelen said:

jdcxc said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

As has bene explained ad nauseam: Prince is both greedy and a bad business man. He expects to be paid upfront, and expects absurd amounts to be paid.

TheDance is right. If Prince is so greedy and desparate, why has he not gone the easy and extremely lucrative ($100+ Million) route in selling out to advertisers, corporations, movie studios, etc. He could easily make record amounts of cash with a PR reunion tour with all the associated revenue streams. Some fans get frustrated with his stubborn independence, but in the end we love him for it...lol.

GTFOHWTB............. Prince don't want money, he wants Larry Graham to think well of him. If Larry approves then that must mean God approves, so Prince will get into the afterlife and whatnot and be rich af with olive branches and virgins and whatnot.

Besides nobody black is getting a $100 million dollars out of the industry these days.

[Edited 4/2/16 16:20pm]

BartVanHemelen said:

Germanegro said:

.

Or you could simply read the press release and the reporting at the time. But I guess just posting some unsourced BS is easier.

-

Shame Bart. 46 pages of a legitimate Legal brief too much for you to read? Too much against your own opinion that it will crash your false ego?

-

Try the CNBC News link if that's easier for you. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/...utube.html

[Edited 4/2/16 12:18pm]

BartVanHemelen said:

Germanegro said:

It's my impression that the notion of "goodies" (alt. takes, live recordings & such) added to a PR remaster was speculation from people on the outside toward what kind of deal WB had in mind for Prince.

.

Or you could simply read the press release and the reporting at the time. But I guess just posting some unsourced BS [?] is easier.

For your elucidation, I point out the bolded part of my statement that this was my impression of the dealings. I missed WB's statement. Another poster already graciously pointed out that the record company had announced extra content for this project. You are late, BVH, and your criticism is water rolling off the duck's back.

>

Anyway, behind every statement could lurk a potential lie or trumped-up claim. Do you really swallow every corrporate-issued press release hook, line, and sinker, BVH? I don't, even if it is from an innocuous entertaiment conglomerate.

>

Here's another news flash, BVH. These entertainment conglomerates have historically made deals that have exploited the content providers of their product--the people that I actually care about.

i don't think that Prince getting rich off of Youtube is really the issue for him, I think that Youtube getting rich off of Prince(and others) is.

drhodes777 said:

i don't think that Prince getting rich off of Youtube is really the issue for him, I think that Youtube getting rich off of Prince(and others) is.

Exactly! U summed up everything that is trying to accomplish more than anyone else on this WHOLE thread.

These days,Prince tries to monetize everything.If he could,he would charge us everytime we play one of his CDs in the privacy of our own homes

SoulAlive said:

These days,Prince tries to monetize everything.If he could,he would charge us everytime we play one of his CDs in the privacy of our own homes

No--that's actually the model for Youtube. They'll offer the per-play info to their advertising clients, who will pay Youtube accordingly for their exposure.

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

drhodes777 said:

i don't think that Prince getting rich off of Youtube is really the issue for him, I think that Youtube getting rich off of Prince(and others) is.

Exactly! U summed up everything that is trying to accomplish more than anyone else on this WHOLE thread.

That's mainly true, but there's an added compenent to this concern. It's cool for Youtube and streaming services to earn revenue off of their service--they at least pay for licensing, and the artists get broad exposure, but the problem is extended where other entities steal what Youtube presents. Some use the pirated material for pure exploitation. The pirate-site audience takes the music for free, while the pirates collect cash from advertisers on their site. The artists and record companies alike get stiffed for their effort to maintain an Internet prescence. This is the SNAFU of the Internet music market. Record company revenues are lost to pirates and this shrinks the artists' paycheck. The other part comes in where many subscription and distribution services will only pay pennies per thousands of downloads and song-plays to the artists. These people are beholden to that because they feel they have no other choice but to so-impoverish themselves--better pennies than dust.

[Edited 4/2/16 20:30pm]

bonatoc said:

Funkyalien said:

why is prince the villain in all this? Can you watch The Beatles' rooftop concert in full on youtube? Why doesn't anyone talk about that?

Stupid move from the pusblisher as well.

I work in web technologies, I know the business.

Google is moving Youtube towards a premium streaming paid service.
The primary target is content with 1080p as a standard and hi-fi sound quality.

One will be in a better position to negotiate when one's videos already score millions of views,
no matter since how long, when the day comes for Youtube to switch.

I think the best is to publish not as much as you can,
but the right content that makes you want to know the artist's repertoire better.

Then you hook your target with targeted ads at the end of the video.
In no time your Youtube channel gets followers, and then it's viral.

Intertwine this with online contests to win a pair of free concert tickets from time to time, and at least you have some decent online presence, not just tweets (and rants).

bonatoc, I think that this is a good idea and would be nice if circumstances can eventually develop so such a balanced online approach.

BartVanHemelen said:

jdcxc said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

As has bene explained ad nauseam: Prince is both greedy and a bad business man. He expects to be paid upfront, and expects absurd amounts to be paid.

TheDance is right. If Prince is so greedy and desparate, why has he not gone the easy and extremely lucrative ($100+ Million) route in selling out to advertisers, corporations, movie studios, etc. He could easily make record amounts of cash with a PR reunion tour with all the associated revenue streams. Some fans get frustrated with his stubborn independence, but in the end we love him for it...lol.

.

And I repeat: being greedy and being a bad businessman do not exclude each other. Prince simply thinks the deals they offer are too low, as is well known.

Bohemian67 said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

Or you could simply read the press release and the reporting at the time. But I guess just posting some unsourced BS is easier.

-

Shame Bart. 46 pages of a legitimate Legal brief too much for you to read? Too much against your own opinion that it will crash your false ego?

-

Try the CNBC News link if that's easier for you. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/...utube.html

[Edited 4/2/16 12:18pm]

.

Your answer is completely unrelated to my post, and thus I can only conclude you deliberately are muddying the waters to avoid admitting I'm right.

Germanegro said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

Or you could simply read the press release and the reporting at the time. But I guess just posting some unsourced BS [?] is easier.

For your elucidation, I point out the bolded part of my statement that this was my impression of the dealings. I missed WB's statement. Another poster already graciously pointed out that the record company had announced extra content for this project. You are late, BVH, and your criticism is water rolling off the duck's back.

>

Anyway, behind every statement could lurk a potential lie or trumped-up claim. Do you really swallow every corrporate-issued press release hook, line, and sinker, BVH? I don't, even if it is from an innocuous entertaiment conglomerate.

>

Here's another news flash, BVH. These entertainment conglomerates have historically made deals that have exploited the content providers of their product--the people that I actually care about.

.

Oh look, we're now back to generalities. Just an FYI: Prince has a lang history of exploiting people, includign at the time he was babbling about freedom. Just ask Margie Cox.

.

And yes, I believe the WBR press release. But go ahead, pretend that once again Prince was bamboozled. Pretend that a 55+ year old man could not possibly stand up against their might. That he was a feeble old man crushed by their iron fist.

.

Also note that no one held a gun to Prince's head when he signed the $100 million deal in 1992. In fact, his entourage had warned him against it, but Prince wanted the publicity of having the biggest record deal in the world, bigger than Madonna and MJ. Blaming WBR for proposing a deal that would benefit them is just childish. Aim your anger at Prince and his greed.

Bohemian67 said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

Gotta love those famz: it's never Prince's fault. It's always someone else doing the lying and the promising.

.

And of course anyone who points out Prince is at fault is a Warners employee.

Prince tweet of 4/2 this year openly states that WARNER don't pay enough in copyright for vinyl distribution of HitnRun. Of course if Prince has his own opinion that's a lie in BVH's book. Yeah BVH. Us famz are going keep on 'hating' you. But don't worry, Prince is gonna keep doing YOU & WARNER until you cum.... to.... REVELATION.

.

There is no such tweet. Also, I don't believe the BS Prince is peddling. And once again this seems to be a case of Prince regretting signing a contract he didn't read properly.

.

But that's WBR's fault, right?

.

This BS has been going on for 20+ years and last I checked Prince's back catalogue still is locked up at WBR thanks to Prince's own actions. But don't let those facts bother you.

I think Prince explains it perfectly well here. Why should youtube get rich by illegally spreading the work of other people? They are taking advantage of loopholes also. Even though it's forbidden to upload copyrighted material that you don't own, these illegally uploaded videos give youtube more views, leading to more money pr ad viewed. Anything that will bring more viewers to youtube, will make them more money. And they also have more or less a monopoly when it comes to video streaming services that people care about. They're too powerful for a dude like Prince to not care.

BartVanHemelen said:

Bohemian67 said:

BartVanHemelen said: Prince tweet of 4/2 this year openly states that WARNER don't pay enough in copyright for vinyl distribution of HitnRun. Of course if Prince has his own opinion that's a lie in BVH's book. Yeah BVH. Us famz are going keep on 'hating' you. But don't worry, Prince is gonna keep doing YOU & WARNER until you cum.... to.... REVELATION.

.

There is no such tweet. Also, I don't believe the BS Prince is peddling. And once again this seems to be a case of Prince regretting signing a contract he didn't read properly.

.

But that's WBR's fault, right?

.

This BS has been going on for 20+ years and last I checked Prince's back catalogue still is locked up at WBR thanks to Prince's own actions. But don't let those facts bother you.

-

Bolded part alone proves that you are a liar.

Therefore, nothing to trust in anything else you say. Over and out BVH.

Replica said:

I think Prince explains it perfectly well here. Why should youtube get rich by illegally spreading the work of other people? They are taking advantage of loopholes also. Even though it's forbidden to upload copyrighted material that you don't own, these illegally uploaded videos give youtube more views, leading to more money pr ad viewed. Anything that will bring more viewers to youtube, will make them more money. And they also have more or less a monopoly when it comes to video streaming services that people care about. They're too powerful for a dude like Prince to not care.

-

Good point.

BartVanHemelen said:

And yes, I believe the WBR press release. But go ahead, pretend that once again Prince was bamboozled. Pretend that a 55+ year old man could not possibly stand up against their might. That he was a feeble old man crushed by their iron fist.

Well, BVH I guess you just wanted to believe WB's propaganda for a product that did not materialize. I can see where you might have a problem with that. Just don't believe everything you read from WB in that case--especially where it concerns your music champion of this so-named message board. Prince was bamboozled--by his own ego--at the time of 1992. A shame for him. In regard to today, have the dealings been scrapped, then? What do you know about that, BVH. Plenty wanna know! Please dish.

>

RE Prince being the feeble man crushed is obviously your own made-up scenario. Go back to sleep and dream some more!

It seems as though Prince's profile in grappling with the major labels and Internet services of the day has been riddled on this board with the popular accusation that he is too greedy in his dealings, is unintelligent/stubborn/ignorant not to realize good deals when record companies come to the bargaining table, or too blind to see the value of having a greater presence on one particular social media/streaming venue. His not-unprecedented video takedown orders have dealt a personal blow to fans who wish to see their hero broadly online as they themselves see fit, and have his 1980s brilliance broadcast to all. He has dared to deny them this glory, and it has fueled venom. Some Prince-haters, those scorned lovers of the Minneapolis Genius, loiter to rage and torment those who would retain respect for such a man.
>
Well, Prince is not alone in his toil, and media attention today dwells on what is happening to the diminishing landscape of the recording industry. It is challenging to sell your goods in an environment where many are willing and able to take them for free, giving nothing in return to the owners and creators of the goods. Prince is not as far off his rocker as those who berate him would believe. He actually happens to be right on-point.
>
Via content introduced in one of poster controversey99's comments I've discovered a blog site named The Trichodist, authored by another major-label artist and follower of the entertainment industry with freinds involved in the lucrative information tech industry. Prince's latest dealings have led him in the direction of his old major label. The Trichordist explains, in part, how this can become a desired reality in "Artists: Know thy Enemy--Who's Ripping You off and How..."
"Musicians have been getting the short end of the stick for a long time. There are no shortage of stories about the wrong doings of managers, booking agents, etc and of course record labels.
But today we find ourselves in a battle with an enemy few of us understand. If we were to believe the writings and ramblings of the tech blogosphere, than they would have us believe that our enemy is our fans. This is simply not true." https://thetrichordist.co...thy-enemy/
Also see: "If the Internet is Working for Musicians, Why aren't More Musicians Working Professionally?" https://thetrichordist.co...ssionally/

Bohemian67 said:

Germanegro said:

It seems as though Prince's profile in grappling with the major labels and Internet services of the day has been riddled on this board with the popular accusation that he is too greedy in his dealings, is unintelligent/stubborn/ignorant not to realize good deals when record companies come to the bargaining table, or too blind to see the value of having a greater presence on one particular social media/streaming venue.
His not-unprecedented video takedown orders have dealt a personal blow to fans who wish to see their hero broadly online as they themselves see fit, and have his 1980s brilliance broadcast to all. He has dared to deny them this glory, and it has fueled venom.
Some Prince-haters, those scorned lovers of the Minneapolis Genius, loiter to rage and torment those who would retain respect for such a man.

Well, for the most part we're 40 & Over, I think by now we've resolved our adolescence issues with our hero.

There's no such thing as a Prince-hater. There's maybe the occasional sociopath posting, but the lack of quality screams of incompetence, and is left ignored.
I think for the most part, Prince non-apologists have a great respect for music. It's the artistic loss that matters to us when it comes to Prince, we're not into some kind of childish projection.

We're just discussing the irrational business moves of an artist that deserves better exposure given the talent he has, has displayed in the past, and the time left to share it (we ain't getting any younger).

Two centuries from now, Prince is going to be an entry in Wikipedia and no more than that.
How many of us are listening to music from the 20's, the 30's, the 40's?
Who's Bing Crosby, Mum?

Most of the time it's the famz that prove to be childish. KCOOLMUZIQ is certainly someone who knows it subject, but the permanent extatic attitude is suspicious in that sense.

Well, Prince is not alone in his toil, and media attention today dwells on what is happening to the diminishing landscape of the recording industry. It is challenging to sell your goods in an environment where many are willing and able to take them for free, giving nothing in return to the owners and creators of the goods. Prince is not as far off his rocker as those who berate him would believe. He actually happens to be right on-point.

It's like running a country. You don't expect your citizens to behave well by themselves, alas. You build a structure around them. The record companies executives were not old farts anymore, they had big MBAs, still they didn't see the geeks coming, and how technology would overcome the entire western societies and their consumption.

Prince would be "right-on-point" if the musical ecosystem was the same as 30 years ago. But you can't go frontal anymore. You won't change the fact that torrents flow.
You have to be pragmatic about it, and it forces you to be as creative in marketing as you are on record. Strong, inventive visuals are certainly a plus.

Prince needs real artistic directors, not fingering nonchalantly "Martha" while she's taking pictures.
But it's too late anyway, despite all the Photoshop and those on-purpose hollow cheeks.
News alert — Prince is OLD. Or at least old news.

Lots of shit I don't listen to get at least decent, or inventive viral promotion.
You don't reach teenagers nowadays if you don't have it.



Prince is certainly not this leading torch he would like us to believe. The White Knight fighting for the Musicians Fellowship. Otherwise, he would already run a Paisley Park Records ep. II, or a new NPG Music Club, and prove the business how young artists can get their fair share.
But it looks like he's fighting only for his own cause.

It's a but unfair, as he helped out Larry Graham from total public anonimity, but the way it turned out, I would have preferred to leave Dear Ol' Larry to his mall autographs sessions.

When TRC came out, my thought was: "Great! He has nothing to prove anymore, he just gonna play Bars and Clubs, some jazz some blues, and have fun simply jamming until he's 64, not caring about the bucks! Skipper's career is going to have a great third act".
But nah, Narcissus and Uncle Scrooge stroke back.

Prince doesn't get that at some point in your career, you become a back-catalog artist. It happens to everyone. Pop and Rock are for teen-agers. Teen-agers can't relate to someone who's not an identifiable hero.

As a back-catalog artist, you have to deal with specific realities.
You won't sell your art to the kids anymore, it's the hard law of the Show-Business.
If you're smart, you play it "Collector's Editions" (like Columbia does) from now on.

I can understand Prince's strong ethics, he doesn't want to be considered a guy that relies on stuff he has recorded a century ago, but it's time for him to grow up on the subject: he's not that creative anymore. And he's the main culprit: by following the same rich puppy way of living for years now, he has nothing interesting to sing about anymore.

It's more important for Prince's artistic legacy to have the Golden Years material spread over.
If done in a clever way, half give-aways and half official releases, if the final physical product is more interesting that getting it online, then there's nothing that gets in the way of making some money. But don't expect to sell in high figures, it just WON'T happen.
I had a dream, that this extra income would allow for cheaper concert seats.



If only Prince would make peace with who he was, and what he really is to the world (well, just another Pop artist with an expiry date), he'd probably would stop rehashing is own recipes.
We all know them by heart, and today's kids think it's him that copies Bruno Mars, not the other way around.

HnR? It's useless music. It's not bad, but Prince, wake up, the new breed has grown (Outkast, Lamar, too many to mention, and in the White Rock world as well).

They stole all of your recipes and made it their own, just like you did with Cooke, Robinson, Gaye, Wonder, Clinton and Stone. They surpass you in inventivity.
But start a new approach on distribution, and see if you can't gain some mythical status.
See if the kids don't get that you're the real innovator and initiator.
Just like a Metallica fan discovering Led Zep, or any 15 year-old kid that wants to get to more serious music, the age when the Billboard junk starts to sound totally phony.

All the ingredients are there.
Learning all instruments by himself in a broken family environment, that's not only a good movie idea, it's the stuff of legends.

He will never reach a Bob Marley status, Prince ain't that universal, but at least he could get recognized as an indispensable talent/influence by the kids, and his musical material would become one that's preserved, curated, one that generations can pass to one another, like the Stones, Bowie, Led Zep, Stevie Wonder, etc.

Today, only journalists show empathy for Prince (when they're not copy-pasting the press release). To the public (and his fans), he's utterly boring, and becoming more of a grouchy Greta Garbo with each year passing by.

Only the famz seem to live in an alternate universe where Prince gets this recognition.

Oh, of course he's respected, but that does not spell "loved".
They claim making big bucks from touring is proof of such status, but given the rednecks that show up to his concerts shouting "Play When Doves Cry, man!" and ruining the atmosphere in the process, it's fair to assume that you go to a Prince concert in 2016 like you would go to the movies, and not out of a sudden purple fever. We're not far from an Elton John or Tom Jones audience, or whatever has-been-that-still-make-some-bucks audience.
It's not a triumph, it's just mathematical: If you sell close to a hundred millions records, people WILL show up to your concerts. But we're not talking about PR or Musicology Tours figures here. Far from it.

So it's time to letitgo and start writing introspective songs again, throw away the Pro-Tools, or maybe let the real Camille out once more (I hope she didn't turn out to be a gross, grumpy MILF).

Via content introduced in one of poster controversey99's comments I've discovered a blog site named The Trichodist, authored by another major-label artist and follower of the entertainment industry with freinds involved in the lucrative information tech industry. Prince's latest dealings have led him in the direction of his old major label. The Trichordist explains, in part, how this can become a desired reality in "Artists: Know thy Enemy--Who's Ripping You off and How..."
"Musicians have been getting the short end of the stick for a long time. There are no shortage of stories about the wrong doings of managers, booking agents, etc and of course record labels.
But today we find ourselves in a battle with an enemy few of us understand. If we were to believe the writings and ramblings of the tech blogosphere, than they would have us believe that our enemy is our fans. This is simply not true." https://thetrichordist.co...thy-enemy/
Also see: "If the Internet is Working for Musicians, Why aren't More Musicians Working Professionally?" https://thetrichordist.co...ssionally/

Same debates over and over. Unless numbers and figures are laid on the table by the record companies themselves, all is speculation or biased.

An artist will always complain that the record company didn't do its job properly if his record doesn't sell well. I worked for a record company, and I can assure that any artist under contract is considered as a potential success and gets as much budget as possible (given a finite budget), and proper marketing efforts. It's just that, like any other business, it's 20 percent of the products that drive the company, and the other 80 percent become either forgotten in a matter of weeks, or become long trail back-catalog artists.

Is the music business a world where you will find people screwing people?
Well, what business hasn't?

What about Goldman Sachs? Talk about a global sodomy...

[Edited 4/3/16 11:35am]

EmmaMcG said:

Instead of looking at youtube as a means of selling his music, maybe he should see it more as an opportunity for free marketing. It won't cost him anything to upload his music videos but if people who aren't too familiar with his work see them, they might be willing to purchase the songs or albums from iTunes or whatever.

You are one hundred percent right; and Prince needs to hire you to run any of his social media
campaigns as he clearly does not understand today's social media model.