Like I said in another thread, Prince is his own worst enemy. He will not have a flourishing legacy that with stand the test of time.

mjscarousal said:

jdcxc said:

mjscarousal said:

Like I said in another thread, Prince is his own worst enemy. He will not have a flourishing legacy that with stand the test of time.

Are you kidding? Most legacy artists have had conflicted relationships with the music biz.

No I am serious. You have to have your music accessible for people to know about you as an artist. None of his legendary achievements is not going to matter if the new generation doesn't know about it and thats just being real. That arrogant attitude that he has about his music is hurting his legacy.

mjscarousal said:

jdcxc said:

mjscarousal said: Are you kidding? Most legacy artists have had conflicted relationships with the music biz.

No I am serious. You have to have your music accessible for people to know about you as an artist. None of his legendary achievements is not going to matter if the new generation doesn't know about it and thats just being real. That arrogant attitude that he has about his music is hurting his legacy.

I feel that in understanding an artist's perpetuation of "legacy," "fame," and "success," it is one's dedication to the craft, and humility toward that end--ironically maybe, in that sense--that does more to influence an artist's longevity, the audience's sense of one's magnitude, and the cultivation of an artist's influence toward the music and entertainment culture, overall. This point can be difficult to see while being overshadowed by the grand looming presence of the Youtube marketing device. Of course these artists need to eat and pay their expenses too, which is hard enough to achieve normally, but evidence is building today that it is becoming more challenging to make ends meet through the Internet. You can read up on this through browsing through pages of the blog The Trichordist.

>

Also, it can be observed that much can be bought and sold through the commerce of one's product that has nothing to do with what an artist is about. That idea may sound apologist toward the act lowering one's profile on a sales chart, but I think it is a significant idea to examine in this conversation, that has plenty to bear on the situation at the end of the day, particularly where the buying and selling does not translate to cash for the artist's credit.

>

The legendary living artist Ernie Isley of Isley Brother's fame and guitarist talent extraordinaire in his own right--this great player and composer of that influential family band spanning decades of influence--has something to say about his career in music and about the music business that is exemplary.

>

Like he says at the end of the interview, he promises to "take care of his baby"--his guitar and his craft. I really think that this is the essential element toward all to come, afterward. If you can maintain that, and doing things like thus, below, you're going to be all right:

[Edited 4/9/16 12:40pm]

Germanegro said:

^^^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?

Really good post. It is such unchartered territory at the moment. Obviously the newest generation on Artists will simply know no other way. Remarkable how much the landscape has changed in just a few years. At the time Record/CD sales looked like they would be strong for a long, long time pre-internet, now, who knows the future of these things.

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

"Since YouTube doesn't pay equitable licensing fees, isn't that a nonsensical question?"

Preach !

[img:$uid]http://i63.tinypic.com/25u66p4.png[/img:$uid]

http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/03/prince-explains-his-anti-youtube-stance-and-why-he-removes-all-concert-footage/

[Edited 3/29/16 9:58am]

Prince videos are always post on facebook in so many Prince fan groups. I don't understand why his videos are taken off of YouTube, What's the difference?

purpleforeverlove said:

TKO said:

I don't understand why people think streaming means less sales for the artist. Its the opposite, when you promote your music on youtube or spotify you are gaining more fans, the fans usually prefer to buy a physical copy or download the album on itunes. Look at the artists who are more succesful on youtube and spotify are the ones still selling millions.

It's true that Spotify and Youtube are good advertising tools. However, some rich artists can afford to own their own music. But they don't feel like they have 100% control over their music when the youtube corp are allowed through loopholes to "steal" your money by collecting money from comercial ads on uploads containing copyrighted music. Copyrighted music aren't always taken down at once. Often they'll stay up there for a while, until it's taken down. In the mean time, youtube has earned alot of money for the views. This is happening with all artists all the time. Not just Prince. He just has the money and balls to go all the way with this.

jayspud said:

purpleforeverlove said:

Prince videos are always post on facebook in so many Prince fan groups. I don't understand why his videos are taken off of YouTube, What's the difference?

You are right that there are a large number of videos on Facebook, some do get taken down by Facebook etc I think a lot are also in Private groups so it isn't publically shared. It's an interesting point because Facebook is hugely popular too and as far as I am aware doesn't pay artists anything.

It's because no one is profiting off of the videos on Facebook like YouTube is.

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

jayspud said:

purpleforeverlove said: You are right that there are a large number of videos on Facebook, some do get taken down by Facebook etc I think a lot are also in Private groups so it isn't publically shared. It's an interesting point because Facebook is hugely popular too and as far as I am aware doesn't pay artists anything.

It's because no one is profiting off of the videos on Facebook like YouTube is.

Good point, I'm enjoying all of Prince videos and concerts on fb.

jayspud said:

purpleforeverlove said:

Prince videos are always post on facebook in so many Prince fan groups. I don't understand why his videos are taken off of YouTube, What's the difference?

You are right that there are a large number of videos on Facebook, some do get taken down by Facebook etc I think a lot are also in Private groups so it isn't publically shared. It's an interesting point because Facebook is hugely popular too and as far as I am aware doesn't pay artists anything.

Even though the videos are in Private groups the public are still able 2 see them!