PeteSilas said:

rogifan said:

If Prince was ever really honest he'd have to admit the whole slave period was ridiculous. He was only able to do all that after considerable success with WB. I mean how many new, unproven artists are able to go to a record label and say I'm producing my own stuff? One could even wonder how the Purple Rain movie ever got greenlighted. I don't think WB treated Prince that poorly at all.

as i've said, all that was only because he was so brilliant, it is a two way street. They didn't just give him all of that because he asked nicely.

thedance said:

LBrent said:

PeteSilas said:

Naw, Prince owning the plantation would be being the ceo of WB. I can see his point, i really, really can. Lots of people have been destroyed in their souls because some corporate entity gave them a good salary or living. I can only speak for myself and my experiences and what I've seen happen to others. It is possible to become brainwashed, prince has referred to it as being hypnotized in the song Slave, "how'd they keep me under for so long?" it's true, it really is but Prince wasn't saying that when he was winning grammys and riding high, you only look at those kinds of things when shit gets fucked up. Prince was young when he was signed, so damned young and so talented so he never got trapped in the kinds of contracts which end musicians career, it used to be, an act was signed to a three record deal, if the first record flopped, the second album would never be financed and they would never get out of the contract, therefore they would be done in the businness, just horrible and dirty. Prince avoided that fate because he was brilliant but the true colors of the business eventually showed itself to him. I look at it the same way as when i was in the pro fight world, i could have gone places but to me, it seemed antithetical to even being a fighter to let weak men dominate you, and that is what you had to do, so, do you do that? what does that do to you as a man and a fighter? It does have an effect and for me it wouldn't have been worth it, they take things you can never get back and even if they give you the whole world, it's not enough.

Being a well loved slave with a kind indulgent master...you're still a slave.

His 1993 deal made him a corporate VP. It was his fault that he used that opportunity to sign T&A acts like Carmen Electra & (more admirably) work with his idols like Mavis Staples & George Clinton, or continue to use the Paisley Park label exclusively as a means to put out his sloppy seconds, rather than allow for new & innovative talent to be discovered through it.

You can see his point because you're too infatuated with the man to see any other.

It's a matter of record that Prince wanted control of his career from the get go & shopped around until he got it. He always wanted more, but never cared to give anything in return. It's called the "music business" for a reason.

[Edited 8/1/16 2:53am]

NorthC said:

Here is what writer and music critic Nelson George (a black man) said in Icon magazine in 1998: "He was less a slave than any black artist I know of! WB really let him have control of his carreer in ways black artists never have. They let him pick the singles. (...) But the freedom they gave him at WB, he became a victim to it. They'd spoiled him for so long and indulged him so long that when they started to rein him in, they couldn't." I think that's exactly what happened.

you make some great points but it had to fuck with the man's mind to know that he didn't own his own songs. I can see both points and I agree, WB was very good to him but it wasn't because they were charitable, they knew a good thing when they had it. At any rate, he came to the conclusion that young artists shouldn't even work with labels and that's great advice for the era we are in. The music industry is pretty much over in terms of being able to make money from record sales anyway so the labels really have nothing to offer a good young artist today. However, people are socialized to believe that they need someone else to do anything.

LBrent said:

PeteSilas said:

Naw, Prince owning the plantation would be being the ceo of WB. I can see his point, i really, really can. Lots of people have been destroyed in their souls because some corporate entity gave them a good salary or living. I can only speak for myself and my experiences and what I've seen happen to others. It is possible to become brainwashed, prince has referred to it as being hypnotized in the song Slave, "how'd they keep me under for so long?" it's true, it really is but Prince wasn't saying that when he was winning grammys and riding high, you only look at those kinds of things when shit gets fucked up. Prince was young when he was signed, so damned young and so talented so he never got trapped in the kinds of contracts which end musicians career, it used to be, an act was signed to a three record deal, if the first record flopped, the second album would never be financed and they would never get out of the contract, therefore they would be done in the businness, just horrible and dirty. Prince avoided that fate because he was brilliant but the true colors of the business eventually showed itself to him. I look at it the same way as when i was in the pro fight world, i could have gone places but to me, it seemed antithetical to even being a fighter to let weak men dominate you, and that is what you had to do, so, do you do that? what does that do to you as a man and a fighter? It does have an effect and for me it wouldn't have been worth it, they take things you can never get back and even if they give you the whole world, it's not enough.

Being a well loved slave with a kind indulgent master...you're still a slave.

Where would Prince have been without WB, or any major label for that matter?

That's a question he'd never been willing to answer, because he refused to face the reality of the necessity of the relationship. As an adult, & with & without the advice of management & lawyers, he entered into multiple contracts willingly & was rewarded significantly for his efforts. Was it to his satisfaction? Maybe not. But it was his choice.

Real slaves? Theirs was a far different story.

LittlePurpleYoda said:

LBrent said:

PeteSilas said: Being a well loved slave with a kind indulgent master...you're still a slave.

His 1993 deal made him a corporate VP. It was his fault that he used that opportunity to sign T&A acts like Carmen Electra & (more admirably) work with his idols like Mavis Staples & George Clinton, or continue to use the Paisley Park label exclusively as a means to put out his sloppy seconds, rather than allow for new & innovative talent to be discovered through it.

You can see his point because you're too infatuated with the man to see any other.

It's a matter of record that Prince wanted control of his career from the get go & shopped around until he got it. He always wanted more, but never cared to give anything in return. It's called the "music business" for a reason.

[Edited 8/1/16 2:53am]

So, what was he upset about anyway? was he only upset because he couldn't release what he wanted to when he wanted? Or was he more upset with how they swindled him with pretty words and big promises and him realizing that he walked into a trap? I mentioned how the business runs, how they screw over artists by locking them into contracts in which they know that the artist will most likely fail. You see, the artist always believes in themselves, that is one of the reasons they get fucked so good. Just like a boxer who believes in himself, a promoter can used that belief to make a lot of money off that boxer and too milk him for everything he 's worth until the inevitable end of his career. The problem is, the promoters, the managers etc.., don't have to get up and do roadwork in the morning, or sweat, or get punched, they still benefit. Prince applied this thinking to the music business when he said "none of these guys can play an instrument". He has a point, so in some ways i'm glad he did it all, in other ways, yes he looked pretty foolish by trying to prove to the average person who actually has to struggle just to make ends meet that he was a "slave" hard case to be sure.

PeteSilas said:

everyone thought he'd lost his mind at the time. I remember a nationally known critic/author who said "he's so far gone he's never coming back" that was the sentiment. The deal warner brothers conned him into, yes conned

.

Oh please. Prince was a grown-up, and acted against the advice of his entourage. Dude wanted "the biggest record deal ever", and he was still obsessing about that shit in the late 2000s.

.

, was unrealistic and they played his ego perfectly. I heard that he had to sell five million of each and every album to make the 100 million dollar deal a reality

.

The terms of the deal are pretty well-known. The 5 million sales point was a carrot for Warners to force Prince to promote his work instead of seemingly abandoning albums soon after release. Hell, Prince himself set up D&P to exactly prove that he was able to "behave" by touring extensively etc.

.

I also read, don't know how true it is, WB was getting the money from his live performances of his catalogue, now that was ridiculous if true.

.

Oh great, more made-up nonsense.

.

I'd never heard that for any artist, as bad as Little Richard and all the rest have been getting fucked since the beginning of rock and roll, live performance was the one sure way they could make a living without the shenanigans of the record company.

.

Utter nonsense. Who do you think funds those major tours?

PeteSilas said:

Prince was young when he was signed, so damned young and so talented so he never got trapped in the kinds of contracts which end musicians career, it used to be, an act was signed to a three record deal, if the first record flopped, the second album would never be financed and they would never get out of the contract, therefore they would be done in the businness, just horrible and dirty. Prince avoided that fate because he was brilliant

.

Utter BS. Prince used the budget for THREE albums on his first, and Warners just let it slide. Yeah, those evil bastards. And then P made a more commercial record for a "normal" budget, and then he got them to release a bunch of demos as a record that would be mostly unplayable on radio. Gosh, such evil slavemasters.

.

Oh, and then there was the time when he wanted to release music through side projects like The Time and Sheila E etc. and WBR happily obliged -- those evil slave masters. And then they financed his movie. And later on they allowed him to shop a concert movie around.

.

WBR treated Prince like royalty.

.

Oh, and WBR administiring Prince's publishing, something Prince bitched about in the 1990s? That was something PRINCE DEMANDED back when he signed his first deal with WBR.

.

but the true colors of the business eventually showed itself to him.

.

Yeah, let's pretend Prince wasn't keeping artists hostage himself back in the early-/mid-1990s. And 25+ years later Prince never managed to come up with a viable alternative, and was selling records through rinky-dink fan operated online record stores because nobody was willing to sign a distribution deal with him.

PurpleTrollster said:

Now, I haven't been put in a situation where he was at. But if I were, I wouldn't call myself a "slave" (although it had good effect to make WBs look bad). I'd call myself "creatively tooken captive".

From what I know, Prince's problem with Warner Bros was that he couldn't release what he wanted, when he wanted; and also that he did not officially own the rights to his music. I mean, I think I'd be pretty pissed off to if it were me. But since it wasn't me, I can only talk about this in my own perspective.

But, with that said, you also have to give Warner Bros major, major props to signing him in the first place, and then giving him a sweet life for the rest of his remaining years.

Think about it; even though they had problems with the ownership of the catalog and on when and how much to release, Prince was getting paid by WB. The poverty wasn't bringing him down for the majority of his life.

So, was he a "slave"? In my opinion, hell no. Was he pissed off? Of course, who wouldn't be?

Plus, at least he got ownership of his music back in 2014. That probably made him happy.

Prince said if you don't own your masters, your masters own you. Which makes you a slave. Also I think he liked the shock value. Being in a meeting with a bunch of white guys I'm sure made a statement and made them squirm.. One more thing.."tooken" is not a word.

PeteSilas said:

PurpleTrollster said:

Now, I haven't been put in a situation where he was at. But if I were, I wouldn't call myself a "slave" (although it had good effect to make WBs look bad). I'd call myself "creatively tooken captive".

From what I know, Prince's problem with Warner Bros was that he couldn't release what he wanted, when he wanted; and also that he did not officially own the rights to his music. I mean, I think I'd be pretty pissed off to if it were me. But since it wasn't me, I can only talk about this in my own perspective.

But, with that said, you also have to give Warner Bros major, major props to signing him in the first place, and then giving him a sweet life for the rest of his remaining years.

Think about it; even though they had problems with the ownership of the catalog and on when and how much to release, Prince was getting paid by WB. The poverty wasn't bringing him down for the majority of his life.

So, was he a "slave"? In my opinion, hell no. Was he pissed off? Of course, who wouldn't be?

Plus, at least he got ownership of his music back in 2014. That probably made him happy.

WB had significant influence and control over Prince with regards to his true love (music). That is slavery. Obviously not the typical slavery we think of, but still slavery, whether he signed up for it, got rich from it, or not.

BartVanHemelen said:

PeteSilas said:

Prince was young when he was signed, so damned young and so talented so he never got trapped in the kinds of contracts which end musicians career, it used to be, an act was signed to a three record deal, if the first record flopped, the second album would never be financed and they would never get out of the contract, therefore they would be done in the businness, just horrible and dirty. Prince avoided that fate because he was brilliant

.

Utter BS. Prince used the budget for THREE albums on his first, and Warners just let it slide. Yeah, those evil bastards. And then P made a more commercial record for a "normal" budget, and then he got them to release a bunch of demos as a record that would be mostly unplayable on radio. Gosh, such evil slavemasters.

.

Oh, and then there was the time when he wanted to release music through side projects like The Time and Sheila E etc. and WBR happily obliged -- those evil slave masters. And then they financed his movie. And later on they allowed him to shop a concert movie around.

.

WBR treated Prince like royalty.

.

Oh, and WBR administiring Prince's publishing, something Prince bitched about in the 1990s? That was something PRINCE DEMANDED back when he signed his first deal with WBR.

.

but the true colors of the business eventually showed itself to him.

.

Yeah, let's pretend Prince wasn't keeping artists hostage himself back in the early-/mid-1990s. And 25+ years later Prince never managed to come up with a viable alternative, and was selling records through rinky-dink fan operated online record stores because nobody was willing to sign a distribution deal with him.

It's hard to take you seriously, Bart, when every response has a negative bent towards Prince. It doesn't matter that you sound like you know what you're talking about because you act like you have some axe to grind.

Comically, you're implying that WB didn't benefit greatly, overall, from trying to keep Prince happy. Like everyone else, and before almost everyone else, they recognized he would be an other-worldly, tour-de-force, cash cow for them. They didn't just let things slide or happily oblige because they were benevolent. They understood, just like everyone else, that no matter the situation, they would make TONS more money off of him than he would make off of them. And to answer the OPs original question, because they had ultimate control over what he was allowed to do, he was a slave to WB.

pdiddy2011 said:

NorthC said:

Here is what writer and music critic Nelson George (a black man) said in Icon magazine in 1998: "He was less a slave than any black artist I know of! WB really let him have control of his carreer in ways black artists never have. They let him pick the singles. (...) But the freedom they gave him at WB, he became a victim to it. They'd spoiled him for so long and indulged him so long that when they started to rein him in, they couldn't." I think that's exactly what happened.

>

In a documentary about Prince someone said that Prince from jump was in a batter position than most artists in that they gave him creative free reign. And they bankrolled all his movies.

Prince was right to a point, but it's telling that he found all this out after resigning with Wb with a massive deal.

I don't know who was in Beck's ear when he first signed his deal but it would've been beneficial to Prince. Beck was able to release his more experimental stuff on a completely different label, while reserving the blockbuster stuff to Geffen. Smart move that.

[Snip - luv4u]

pdiddy2011 said:

It's hard to take you seriously, Bart, when every response has a negative bent towards Prince. It doesn't matter that you sound like you know what you're talking about because you act like you have some axe to grind.

.

Or you could stop making up shit and focus on the issues instead of on the messenger.

.

Comically, you're implying that WB didn't benefit greatly, overall, from trying to keep Prince happy.

.

They invested MILLIONS into Purple Rain. Sure, that worked out great, but that was far from a guarantee, especially when you consider the dreck he later came up with.

.

Like everyone else, and before almost everyone else, they recognized he would be an other-worldly, tour-de-force, cash cow for them. They didn't just let things slide or happily oblige because they were benevolent. They understood, just like everyone else, that no matter the situation, they would make TONS more money off of him than he would make off of them.

.

Oh please, why would WBR think that a kid who just stubbornly spent the budget for THREE ALBUMS on a single one that barely made any impact would be a great investment?

.

Hell, they gave him extremely large leeway even when he wanted to leave without fulfilling his contractual obligations. They destroyed hundreds of thousands of records mere days before they were supposed to be in shops. They kept attempting to make deals to please him. Years after he left them they involved him in the compilatiosn they were putting out. They didn't even make a major stink when he used material they owned on his independent releases.

LBrent said:

Yes, he was young and inexperienced and no doubt excited and flattered to be getting the attention from a record company, but again, he was young and inexperienced.

.

Prince was 34 when he signed the infamous $100 million deal.

.

Don't believe it? Listen to Toni Braxton tell about her bankruptcieS, plural. She got paid lovely but out of her pay she was buying costumes, and lots of stuff required to perform and the record company was saying, "No problem, we got you, girl. Don't worry."

.

I always have to laugh at this. I'm sorry, but somebody's stupidity isn't an excuse. Did she really think the record company was paying for all that shit out of their kindheartedness? It's the music BUSINESS.

.

Oh, and Paisley Park was losing $2.5 million PER MONTH in the early 1990s. Not because of WBR, but because Prince was horrible with money.

Se7en said:

Prince was paid millions to perform music. Not a slave. Did he get a bum deal? Maybe. But he should've finished out his contract with dignity and then left WB on good terms.

.

The reason there's so much music in the vault is that WB wouldn't release it his music more quickly.

The music industry, even now, is set up for "one album a year"....and that album is about two years old by the time it gets released.

What Prince was asking WB to do was release his albums more quickly, so that he could have several out at a time. (Like his own shelf in the wrecka stow with a big selection of difference CDs.)

THEN when WB refused, he wanted to honor his contract while releasing other music on his own.

WB refused because they owned his name.

Obviously, his advisors never explained the legalese in the contract to him.

That's when he devised the idea of changing his identity to a symbol, under which he could release other music. But he still was barred...so then SLAVE.

The problem was, it was never explained to the public -- so it made him a target. But hey, "any publicity is good publicity".

He ended up being FAR ahead of the times, foreseeing a time when music would be released independently and/or directly sold. He wasn't always successful but he led the way for others.

.

laytonian said:

Se7en said:

Prince was paid millions to perform music. Not a slave. Did he get a bum deal? Maybe. But he should've finished out his contract with dignity and then left WB on good terms.

.

The reason there's so much music in the vault is that WB wouldn't release it his music more quickly.

The music industry, even now, is set up for "one album a year"....and that album is about two years old by the time it gets released.

What Prince was asking WB to do was release his albums more quickly, so that he could have several out at a time. (Like his own shelf in the wrecka stow with a big selection of difference CDs.)

THEN when WB refused, he wanted to honor his contract while releasing other music on his own.

WB refused because they owned his name.

Obviously, his advisors never explained the legalese in the contract to him.

That's when he devised the idea of changing his identity to a symbol, under which he could release other music. But he still was barred...so then SLAVE.

The problem was, it was never explained to the public -- so it made him a target. But hey, "any publicity is good publicity".

He ended up being FAR ahead of the times, foreseeing a time when music would be released independently and/or directly sold. He wasn't always successful but he led the way for others.

.

>

But isn't it a given that you can't release music on your own (unless specified, like my Beck example above) if you're signed to a label?

And Prince was FAR from being a neophyte by the time he signed his hundred million dollar deal. Surely he was fighting with Warners about releaseing more material before then.

Sadly Prince just wasn't on his stuff business wise. It's a miracle his estate is worth so much, but it could've been a lot larger ( I ain't sneezin at it I'm just sayin).

He really should've kept it touch with Madonna (not on the masters thing but other business things).

No Prince was never a slave with WB, they treated him good. However, I've said it before I think WB should have let Prince release whatever music he wanted at anytime. Prince made them so much $$ and gave them a very positive reputation. He was a one of kind artist, they should have given him unique liberties. Yes I know the commercial/business arguments about oversaturating the market so please don't bother posting about it...It's my fan viewpoint

TrevorAyer said:

U wanna try freedom? Quit yer job and live off the land .. See how long it takes till u land in jail ... Most of us are slaves .. Just too brainwashed by your idiot boxes to realize it

I think your debate is "slavery" versus "freedom".

If you owned your own land, you could totally live off the land. Still have to pay taxes though. Nobody gets out of those. But no, you can't live free from everything on a spinning blue globe that billions are vying for space.

BartVanHemelen said:

LBrent said:

Don't believe it? Listen to Toni Braxton tell about her bankruptcieS, plural. She got paid lovely but out of her pay she was buying costumes, and lots of stuff required to perform and the record company was saying, "No problem, we got you, girl. Don't worry."

.

I always have to laugh at this. I'm sorry, but somebody's stupidity isn't an excuse. Did she really think the record company was paying for all that shit out of their kindheartedness? It's the music BUSINESS.

.

Oh, and Paisley Park was losing $2.5 million PER MONTH in the early 1990s. Not because of WBR, but because Prince was horrible with money.

Where to begin. Yes, Bart, of course, Prince was 'horrible' with money. So horrible he ended up with between 1/4 & 1/4 $Billion Dollars, yes, just horrible.

I have a new idea. We will just automatically on every single post in the Org that you think Prince is wrong and a bad person. You will never have to post again, I have just saved you thousands of hours. I have just given you your life back. I have freed you.

CynicKill said:

laytonian said:

.

The reason there's so much music in the vault is that WB wouldn't release it his music more quickly.

The music industry, even now, is set up for "one album a year"....and that album is about two years old by the time it gets released.

What Prince was asking WB to do was release his albums more quickly, so that he could have several out at a time. (Like his own shelf in the wrecka stow with a big selection of difference CDs.)

THEN when WB refused, he wanted to honor his contract while releasing other music on his own.

WB refused because they owned his name.

Obviously, his advisors never explained the legalese in the contract to him.

That's when he devised the idea of changing his identity to a symbol, under which he could release other music. But he still was barred...so then SLAVE.

The problem was, it was never explained to the public -- so it made him a target. But hey, "any publicity is good publicity".

He ended up being FAR ahead of the times, foreseeing a time when music would be released independently and/or directly sold. He wasn't always successful but he led the way for others.

.

>

But isn't it a given that you can't release music on your own (unless specified, like my Beck example above) if you're signed to a label?

And Prince was FAR from being a neophyte by the time he signed his hundred million dollar deal. Surely he was fighting with Warners about releaseing more material before then.

Sadly Prince just wasn't on his stuff business wise. It's a miracle his estate is worth so much, but it could've been a lot larger ( I ain't sneezin at it I'm just sayin).

He really should've kept it touch with Madonna (not on the masters thing but other business things).

Laytonian, your post is so pro-Prince that no amount of reasonable debate would change your viewpoint.

Prince entered a legally-binding contract as an exclusive performer for WB. Sorry if he thought he could do stuff on the side, but that's not how it works. Sorry if he recorded too much for the market to handle -- industry experts warned of over-saturation, and probably rightfully so.

Like I said - did it suck to be stuck in that contract? From Prince's point of view - yes. Probably even from WB's point of view . . . they got a sulking artist who resorted to giving them his throwaways. BUT - is that "slavery" - NO. It's immature and naive to call that slavery.

Yes.

Se7en said:

TrevorAyer said:

U wanna try freedom? Quit yer job and live off the land .. See how long it takes till u land in jail ... Most of us are slaves .. Just too brainwashed by your idiot boxes to realize it

I think your debate is "slavery" versus "freedom".

If you owned your own land, you could totally live off the land. Still have to pay taxes though. Nobody gets out of those. But no, you can't live free from everything on a spinning blue globe that billions are vying for space.

naw, there's plenty of space and sparsely populated places, i've seen them. We are habitualized to live together and for some reason, humans seem to need that. I don't understand it myself, we don't really like each other very much, yet we cluster together so closely that it's hard getting through a day without either blowing your top or having someone blow there top at you.