Bohemian67 said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

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.

.

Yeah, that's not how this works.

.

If such a tweet ever existed, it has now been deleted anyway and I won't trust whatever "screenshot" you mock up.

.

[Edited 4/4/16 3:59am]

Germanegro said:

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!

.

Prince could have responded to that press release. He didn't. Instead there's this:

.

"A brand-new studio album is on the way and both Warner Bros Records and Eye (sic) are quite pleased with the results of the negotiations and look forward to a fruitful working relationship," Prince said in a statement

.

According to the famz, Prince "forced" WBR into this deal so he could finally gain control over his back catalogue via the mere threat of a lawsuit. Yet now those same famz are claiming this whole thing was a scam by WBR, inflicted upon poor defenseless Prince.

.

Make up your minds. Don't change the story to fit whatever agenda you're pushing today. I've always told the same thing, it's you lot that keep changing your story to fit whatever nonsense excuse Prince came up with last.

Fans upload entertainers' copyrigted material, and they receive tens of thousands - to million hits for it, and Youtube does not charge them-to pay the entertainer.

Commercials are now appearing on the videos with a good number of views. The Fans are not taking that $ to Prince, or any other entertainer as a "Marketing worker".

Yes. I've posted some and have enjoyed the tracks or other artist who may not care, but I see this as his real problem with Youtube.

Sonn all fan videos of nearly all music acts will be removed, or blocked from Youtube, by Youtube. (My opinion).

It will hurt the new streaming services...That means court-cases over million$..

Plus, its going to freak-out the new listeners when there is only new music being streamed, and no more downloads of mp3s--that can be "shared and copied"--and no more physical, tangible, take-home forms of music in the stores..(CDs, DVDs, Blu Rays).

BartVanHemelen said:

Germanegro said:

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!

.

Prince could have responded to that press release. He didn't. Instead there's this:

.

"A brand-new studio album is on the way and both Warner Bros Records and Eye (sic) are quite pleased with the results of the negotiations and look forward to a fruitful working relationship," Prince said in a statement

.

According to the famz, Prince "forced" WBR into this deal so he could finally gain control over his back catalogue via the mere threat of a lawsuit. Yet now those same famz are claiming this whole thing was a scam by WBR, inflicted upon poor defenseless Prince.

.

Make up your minds. Don't change the story to fit whatever agenda you're pushing today. I've always told the same thing, it's you lot that keep changing your story to fit whatever nonsense excuse Prince came up with last.

Thanks--I appreciate your sharing the Billboard article. Prince-non apologists and apologists alike can nurture each's own narrative toward the dealings of the Purple Funky One. Many non-apologists can view his musical offerings of today as degraded; every business move lacking a sound profitable conclusion and displeasing long-term legacy-admiring fans as a stupid act of career sabotoge; and that he is a megalomanic control freak (with which I might agree). My thought is that it's his show and it's interesting. When it stops being interesting, I shrug. I don't know if that's apologist, non-apologist, or "famz," but it's my view, which is good enough for me! Maybe the scream factor, or misery-sharing-company role keeps the disenchanted around.

It looks like Prince did make a statement at the press time which you've featured. What I gather from the Billboard article is that a deal is present; the full deal is unclear, a work in progress, perhaps:

Billboard: "As part of the deal, Prince's classic 'Purple Rain' album will be re-released in a remastered deluxe version in time for the 30th anniversary of the album and movie. Other planned re-issue projects will follow and Prince will issue a new album too, although it is unclear if that title is a part of the deal."

Again, a press statement a deal does not make, but it does announce a pretty good sounding deal. WB emphasized the part that they mainly wished to promote. Prince emphasized the part of the deal that he was favorable toward, below.

Billboard: "'A brand-new studio album is on the way and both Warner Bros Records and Eye (sic) are quite pleased with the results of the negotiations and look forward to a fruitful working relationship,' Prince said in a statement."

Note that Prince says nothing about Purple Rain rocking the house in 2015 in his bit. In his shoes, I wouldn't, and I don't think that Prince would announce in his press statement that those WB m-f'ers are lying or that he's not quite down with the remaster content . It would kill the spirit of the announcement and whatever deals they did make, and all this press exposure is a PR game--selling the deal to the public.

It looks like the 2 parties will be continuing their dealing moving forward and it'll be interesting to see more press on this. Fellow posters, prepare to share! What is most apparent is that agreements remain incomplete between the two. We might not see any more new Prince music published by WB in the interim of withholding extra material for remasters. If the deal has been broken without any amends forthcoming I think there will be lawyers involved. Objectively we can say that Prince could be screwing with the record company in this go-round, but didn't WB screw with him, too, when they would sell Prince albums fillled with popular music of his earlier era (The Vault, The Black Album, The Very Best of Prince, Ultimate Prince) whenever Prince would publish a new independent album, pitting the old product against his new music and hindering new sales, not-so-subtley sabotaging his independent career trajectory? So this nasty business goes both ways. I'm not saying that one's volatile act is more justified than the other's; just that it's scrappy activity. I think everybody can agree despite whatever differences of opinion toward the scene they may have, both parties want to sell some music and the way they're going about it is a scrappy mess.

I hope to have more to add to the actual thread topic that helps to offer more understanding of the cause-and-effect of Prince's Youtube lockdown situation, which I think is pretty interesting, and plays a part in the WB-deal scenario and other artists' productivity as well.

Linn4days said:

Sonn all fan videos of nearly all music acts will be removed, or blocked from Youtube, by Youtube. (My opinion).

It will hurt the new streaming services...That means court-cases over million$..

Plus, its going to freak-out the new listeners when there is only new music being streamed, and no more downloads of mp3s--that can be "shared and copied"--and no more physical, tangible, take-home forms of music in the stores..(CDs, DVDs, Blu Rays).

This would imply that all of a sudden no one would know shit about viral marketing.

That's nonsense.
Labels need bands (or artists). Bands need fans. Fans feed content. Youtube needs content.

A song can reach high popularity levels in a video, even if said video uses the song in an unexpected way. In the long run, it helps sales, even concert tickets.

Only Prince tries to act like it isn't the case.

Worse, the only Youtube popularity Prince has is the infamous Let's Go Crazy 5 years old kid incident.

[Edited 4/5/16 1:57am]

bonatoc said:

jdcxc said:

Except like most 57 year old pop stars who are still producing new material (very few), most of Prince's income derives from touring. Old and new clips of live performances do not help his concert sales.

.

Yes they bloody well do! Why do you think The Stones et al happily film concerts and license them to be shown on TV and sold on BD and DVD? Because those things increase their visibility.

Germanegro said:

It looks like the 2 parties will be continuing their dealing moving forward and it'll be interesting to see more press on this. Fellow posters, prepare to share! What is most apparent is that agreements remain incomplete between the two. We might not see any more new Prince music published by WB in the interim of withholding extra material for remasters.

.

The deal looks fairly simple to me: Prince gains control of his back catalogue, but in exchange he has to fulfill several obligations, including remasters + bonus tracks etc. Note that WBR remains the sole company allowed to distribute the back catalogue, so effectively they're still locked down and Prince cannot go shop them around.

.

And I bet there are milestones in the contract and penalties if they aren't kept (e.g. no PR = WBR extends their exclusive deal WRT Prince's back catalogue). Including WBR having first right of refusal WRT new albums.

.

If the deal has been broken without any amends forthcoming I think there will be lawyers involved. Objectively we can say that Prince could be screwing with the record company in this go-round, but didn't WB screw with him, too, when they would sell Prince albums fillled with popular music of his earlier era (The Vault, The Black Album, The Very Best of Prince, Ultimate Prince) whenever Prince would publish a new independent album,

.

Nonsense. I suggest you educate yourself WRT those albums instead of repeating juvenile lies invented by Prince or famz.

.

pitting the old product against his new music and hindering new sales, not-so-subtley sabotaging his independent career trajectory?

.

Oh please. Wanna know what happens when Prince tours? His current album doesn't do shit, and his compilations sell because that's the music he plays. The only one sabotaging his career is Princey himself.

.

So this nasty business goes both ways. I'm not saying that one's volatile act is more justified than the other's; just that it's scrappy activity. I think everybody can agree despite whatever differences of opinion toward the scene they may have, both parties want to sell some music and the way they're going about it is a scrappy mess.

.

No, not "they", Prince. Note how Princey couldn't be arsed to get out of bed to announce his new albums on GMA despite this being trailed for days. That was all Prince. WBR did him a favor by also releasing that horrible 3EG record and that's how he repaid them, after spending the previous months bitching about how WBR wasn't acting fast enough and how he couldn't get them on the phone. And that all started mere WEEKS after the deal he signed.

In cutting what appears to be a landmark deal, Prince has chosen to remain with the label that was the subject of his ire back in the 1990's avoiding a risky and costly legal battle and still regains ownership of his catalog.

.

What album does the article mean?

If no album then no ownership.

Or?

BartVanHemelen said:

jdcxc said:

Except like most 57 year old pop stars who are still producing new material (very few), most of Prince's income derives from touring. Old and new clips of live performances do not help his concert sales.

.

Yes they bloody well do! Why do you think The Stones et al happily film concerts and license them to be shown on TV and sold on BD and DVD? Because those things increase their visibility.

Damn, this actually makes sense.

BartVanHemelen said:

Bohemian67 said:

-

Bolded part alone proves that you are a liar.

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

.

Yeah, that's not how this works.

.

If such a tweet ever existed, it has now been deleted anyway and I won't trust whatever "screenshot" you mock up.

.

[Edited 4/4/16 3:59am]

-

Yes it does and why did you change your text from "No such tweet exists" to "If such a tweet existed"? Or do you want to lie about that too?

-

It does exist and you're too lazy to look for it. You then go on to defend your argument by fabricating a predicted action that I would undertake i.e. "mock up a screenshot". You changed your text there too. Bart I won't do your homework for you. Go and find the tweet yourself.

-

But this is how you fight Prince's stance too. You fabricate ideas about his reasoning, presenting it as facts when all it is a twisted opinion to justify your bias as to why he should do what Warner wants and not what he wants. It's not clever or cool Bart, it's just a perfect display of unethical bullying.

-

Anyone with half a synapse will know that whatever Prince decides in this gives you a stake in the outcome. No-one sits on a website year in year out since 2002, in the company of "pathetic famz" unless there's something in it for them.

-

All very remniscent of a world class thinker from a few hundred back:

-

“Doubt is an uncomfortable condition, but certainty is a ridiculous one.” Voltaire

[Edited 4/5/16 10:42am]

I find it really funny that he post Youtube videos on his twitter all the time..kinda hypocritical.

Yeah whatever...if you don't like somethng you shouldn't support it.

To the FANATICS...I am right you are wrong

@BART VAN HEMELEN

-

"Nonsense. I suggest you educate yourself WRT those albums instead of repeating juvenile lies invented by Prince or famz."

-

HILARIOUS BART. Do you really think Prince has or takes his attitude without his own legal advisors? Lmao!! If this PR remasters was meant to come about in 2014 and it's still not there, his lawyers obviously believe he has a chance at getting whatever he wants. As I said earlier "he's gonna keep doing you" and Warner "until you cum to Revelation".

sirweasel said:

I find it really funny that he post Youtube videos on his twitter all the time..kinda hypocritical.

Yeah whatever...if you don't like somethng you shouldn't support it.

To the FANATICS...I am right you are wrong

-

It's also a nice finger saying "I'll use it" but you won't have my stuff. Good for him! He has the power and he's using it which I'm sure annoys the hell of people. Cool stuff

BartVanHemelen said:

Germanegro said:

It looks like the 2 parties will be continuing their dealing moving forward and it'll be interesting to see more press on this. Fellow posters, prepare to share! What is most apparent is that agreements remain incomplete between the two. We might not see any more new Prince music published by WB in the interim of withholding extra material for remasters.

.

The deal looks fairly simple to me: Prince gains control of his back catalogue, but in exchange he has to fulfill several obligations, including remasters + bonus tracks etc. Note that WBR remains the sole company allowed to distribute the back catalogue, so effectively they're still locked down and Prince cannot go shop them around.

.

And I bet there are milestones in the contract and penalties if they aren't kept (e.g. no PR = WBR extends their exclusive deal WRT Prince's back catalogue). Including WBR having first right of refusal WRT new albums. (1)

.

If the deal has been broken without any amends forthcoming I think there will be lawyers involved. Objectively we can say that Prince could be screwing with the record company in this go-round, but didn't WB screw with him, too, when they would sell Prince albums fillled with popular music of his earlier era (The Vault, The Black Album, The Very Best of Prince, Ultimate Prince) whenever Prince would publish a new independent album,

.

Nonsense. I suggest you educate yourself WRT those albums instead of repeating juvenile lies invented by Prince or famz. (2)

.

pitting the old product against his new music and hindering new sales, not-so-subtley sabotaging his independent career trajectory?

.

Oh please. Wanna know what happens when Prince tours? His current album doesn't do shit, and his compilations sell because that's the music he plays. The only one sabotaging his career is Princey himself. (3)

.

So this nasty business goes both ways. I'm not saying that one's volatile act is more justified than the other's; just that it's scrappy activity. I think everybody can agree despite whatever differences of opinion toward the scene they may have, both parties want to sell some music and the way they're going about it is a scrappy mess.

.

No, not "they", Prince. Note how Princey couldn't be arsed to get out of bed to announce his new albums on GMA despite this being trailed for days. That was all Prince. WBR did him a favor by also releasing that horrible 3EG record and that's how he repaid them, after spending the previous months bitching about how WBR wasn't acting fast enough and how he couldn't get them on the phone. And that all started mere WEEKS after the deal he signed. (4)

(1) Okay, that sounds like a good deal for WB to make and explains why Hit 'n Run Volume II CDs have remained out of the stores. As far as the execution of when the product develompent gels, we can say that Prince has stuck a snag in the works. I can't imagine a factor for that angle. Prince being greedy, perhaps? Well, It'd be nice if he could work out a good figure for the licensing, eh.

>

(2) Well, BVH, it's a shame that you can't spare some knowledge on me here, but I guess this isn't the time or place. Barring a gracious Org history lesson, I'm left with those Princely/famz-y borrowed ideas until I can sufficiently check the media reserves. Were these albums tied in with the terms of his former contract release? The coincidence of those releases is suspicious to me, but I could still be off. Maybe Prince was checking the WB release dates and had timed his own release dates to pit one Prince album against the other like he tried to do on ego-blast in the 90s? Or maybe Prince was attempting to ride the coattails of WB's promotional efforts? We see how Prince's own promotional efforts can go, so that could be the ticket! Just an aside, BTW, he did have a really great promo effort with 3121 through Universal, though, didn't he?

>

(3) The non-caring anonymous consumer mass only knows what they've been served up on the radio and social media, the big WB offers the hits in shovelfulls with their compilations, and veteran fans want to relive the good old memories, so this is what the people find enticing, and P. must capitalize on that interest to have his tours attended, so there you go. It's been said that acts can use touring to support a new album, but given the competition he has with his own past, plus the shifting age demographic in the new music market it looks like the new stuff gets lost in the mix. So I wouldn't agree that he's sabotoging things concert-wise--I'd venture that's another negative choice of narrative.

>

(4) Prince himself had already done extensive promo that many discovered by his targeted tours with festival prescence, 3rdEyeGirl site video streaming and singles sales before the WB deal was struck. Videos were broadcast for AOA, so effort was produced. I think we're looking at a market demographics struggle at this point with the interest of older fans waning. "Princey couldn't be arsed" sounds like more "Prince sucks" talk. And maybe you're right and this is the beginning of the end for His Royal Badness in the pop world, to slow things down and dig into another phase of activity. He's doing a solo piano tour now, so we're already looking at different pace. Plus he's going to sit down long enough to produce some kind of biography.

sirweasel said:

For the last time, it is not him running his twitter feed. Someone else runs it. If he were running it, it would make way less sense and almost be as bad as Kanye's twitter feed.

MIRvmn said:

sirweasel said:

I find it really funny that he post Youtube videos on his twitter all the time..kinda hypocritical.

Yeah whatever...if you don't like somethng you shouldn't support it.

To the FANATICS...I am right you are wrong

Yes hes whining about how bad youtube is, but obviously he likes youtube enough when watch other artists videos and post yt videos on Twitter, but won't allow his music to be on youtube. I wanted to point that out on his Twitter but I'm pretty sure he would block me then

MIRvmn, sirweasel, I see where you're coming from here, but no, I think you are wrong. I wouldn't make such a simplistic observation of using that site. Prince is not against Youtube, but against the way it is manipulated by other parties beyond anybody's control (pirates) and along the way he has been protecting his image--image being a significant figure in what he represents as a product. This isnt a child's game, peeps. He uses and supports Youtube as it suits his needs, in the way that it is meant to be used.

>

Prince isn't hating the players of the scene, he hates the game. And you know what they say about that--if you hate the game then you need to change it! Prince's activity today says what? Answer: He's working to change the game. End of story.

BartVanHemelen said:

Now I know why he is a JW. He can duck the Love Of Money Being Root Of All Evil meme. Notice he doesn't show the videos on is own site. What about that dipshit? Showing some old clip wouldn't make him money any way. Most clips on youtube arent monetary. The Young Turks seem to love youtube.

This is why I like the writer Harlan Ellison. He expects to get paid but if you offer him ten bucks he accepts that. lol

Basically...Prince keeps all his unreleased music and famous music videos under lock and key..for over two decades, then whines about...why aren't people buying my music anymore? Oh Prince.....clueless idiot.

Scarfo said:

Basically...Prince keeps all his unreleased music and famous music videos under lock and key..for over two decades, then whines about...why aren't people buying my music anymore? Oh Prince.....clueless idiot.

dont blame him ..he forgets all the music he has

Prince is wrong.... again.

.

Youtube is very profitable from monies generated through advertising and by referal links back to your own products.

.

The truth is that Prince doesn't understand digital channels and how they can be exploited commercially.

.

Here's a 4-year-old blog from The Trichordist that describes the recording industry scene from the perspective of the professional artist. *Read at your own risk*

>

April 15, 2012

Meet The New Boss, Worse Than The Old Boss? -Full Post

By David Lowery

(Copyright in the author, used by permission)

>

What follows is based on my notes and slides from my talk at SF Music Tech Summit. I realize that I’m about to alienate some of my friends that work on the tech side of the music business. These are good well intentioned people who genuinely want to help musicians succeed in the new digital paradigm. But if we are gonna come up with a system to compensate artists fairly in the new digital age we need an honest discussion of what is going on. The tech side of the music business really needs to look at how their actions and policies negatively impact artists, just as they have pointed out the negative effect record company actions have had on artists.

Too often the debate has been pirates vs the RIAA. This is ridiculous because the artists, the 99 percent of the music business are left out of the debate. I’m not advocating going back to the old record label model, to an industry dominated by the big three multi-national labels. This is a bit of hyperbole intended to make us all think about this question: Is the new digital model better for the artist?

https://thetrichordist.co...full-post/

darkroman said:

Prince is wrong.... again.

.

Youtube is very profitable from monies generated through advertising and by referal links back to your own products.

.

The truth is that Prince doesn't understand digital channels and how they can be exploited commercially.

.

From what I have heard and read the rate of advertising money is around $1-2000 per millions views http://www.imponderableth...llion.html.

Obviously as you say you can direct people to your product on your own website but that then does leave the question what do you actually put on your Youtube video. If you simply put the song people will just download that for free. You could put a live version although, again, a lot of people may be happy with that and just have that. Little teasers may the way to go, drawing the customer in.

^^^According to the description in the link provided above the content provider basically must scrap the idea of working for one's art & entertainment to earn dollars and cents, and become like an advertising agent in order to build proper paying contacts to earn something off their video views. That sounds discouraging, and defeating part of the motivation of the artist: you're not just -ing for a record label or distributor-to-order, you've changed your whole focus on the Net from the music world to selling widgets, and depending on the payout value of what you're selling, could be dealing in potentially morally-compromising products (gaming, and what-other-imaginable stuff). But hey, you do have a choice, and it is all yours! Laugh or cry?

Some great terminology in the article.

.

"The medieval Freehadists of hippie capitalism. The Digerati 's who say “embrace the web” equal to great aunt saying “You should sell T-shirts on your tour”.

The lord Technology Industry taketh, and The Lord Technology Industry giveth back. So the Techgiants claim: 'I’ll give up my song copyrights if you give up your software patents." Indeed Tech giants should walk the talk.

.

Didn't realise sound recordings of course rely on highly skilled labor, thus higher costs not to mention equipment, studio and other costs. In a nutshell as the author wrote:

.

"Artists have seen their most important assets collectivized by file-sharing. If this happened to any other civilians there would be mass outrage and civil unrest. Tech giants have funded an army of professional Washington lobbyists to weaken, undo and even eliminate copyright protection for artists on the internet. In their generated propaganda they calculate “number of recorded music transactions” instead of using recorded music revenues for their stats as (tracks not albums are bought)." Further illuminated when "FOMC failed to produce requested data to substantiate their blog as title would then read “Famous indie rocker only makes 34k a year ! Not a headline they wanted to see in relation to the NOT SO independent study."

.

" Tech giants and dissident unsuccessful artists saying “Things have never been better" is like recognizing Lottery winners and forgetting all the losers. ( i.e. Average artists not being paid) Artist websites have become redundant due to the convenience of mass Social Media eliminating traffic. DMCA'S just create an extra link to the free download and so don't work. Google rapes the spirit of the law while keeping to the letter. Tech industry do not value content. They only see THEIR services as valuable. Content magically appears on their blessed networks. They have even created their own God. A Superhuman intelligence. In conclusion: Old Boss: pays the artist too little. New Boss: pays the artist nothing."

.

Finally, the 2010 figures on album sales: "2010 75,000 albums released. +/- 60,000 sold less than 100 copies. +/- 2,000 sold more than 5,000 copies. Slightly less than 1,000 sold more than 10,000 copies. " Add to that the deliberate lack of transparency in Spotify fees and links to UMG one sees how again, as in tax avoidance, Corporates manipulate business models to only their advantage.