SoulAlive said:

/\\What is the point if the estate can't make a profit? And we can't own it.

laurarichardson said:

He sold the most music last year because he died!

laurarichardson said:

You can own it. Put the music on streaming services doesn't mean people can no longer buy it.

SoulAlive said:

renfield said:

That big money surely isn't going to come from album sales. People don't buy albums anymore, especially not Prince albums. His sales surged following his death but that is never going to happen again. He's not here to tour or appear on TV so there will be no exposing his work to new listeners in the future. If he's not on streaming services younger audiences won't discover him. That's just the reality of 2017. The estate can always sell vault albums to us but his hardcore base isn't big enough to pay the bills either. What they will have to do (and we will all hate this but it's necessary) is license his music to tv, film, and (shudder) commercials. THAT will be where the big money comes from in the future. 10,000 streams of "1999", and the exposure that generates, is probably worth more than the 200 copies 'Dirty Mind' will sell next year.

You make some very good points.In order for Prince's music to live on amd continue to make money,the estate will have to make it more accessible,especially for younger people.Streaming is the way many young people obtain music these days.There's no way around it.

As much as I would rather see the albums sale continue its rise, it will be very hard to change the forceful course that the streaming trend has now taken.

And as you said, the best way around it could simply be to include the music on the streaming sites first. Streaming does not differ much from promotional campaigns after all, and it is a good way to entice people into acquiring an album for good. I for one always like to 'try' before I buy.

Germanegro said:

How much money can the Estate make just selling CDs/DVDs to die hards? Across the board album sales are on the decline. This is a fact. There's nothing the Estate can do to reverse that trend. Prince wasn't selling millions of CDs when he was alive (talking last 20 years or so) so what makes people think he will posthumously? Do you really think casual fans are going to go to paisleypark.com and spend $10-$12 or whatever on a CD? Not happening. Plus what resources does the estate have for marketing and promotion? If it's the same resources behind the official tribute concert we should all be worried.

luvsexy4all said:

Nobody knows but as I've said the Estate can stipulate that no new music is available on streaming sites for a period of time. They could make it purchase the album only for 3-6 months and then drop on streaming sites.

paxandlux said:

Putting his music on streaming sites does not preclude old timers and die hards from purchasing physical copies (or digital copies via iTunes). People that don't want to rent music can still own it.

laurarichardson said:

Putting his music on streaming services does not preclude people from owning it. It's not one or the other

rogifan said:

Unfortunately, licensing for commercials and movies is probably the most profitable route. I hope someone with Prince's musical integrity is involved with all these decisions.

Can you listen to full albums on most streamig cites? If not are you going to subscribe to a streaming site and have to listen to it 24 hours to hear the Prince music you like??

Can you down load to most streaming sites? if not...why would you pay for one?

There should be plenty of money for the estate? please don't get greedy. None of the family will ever go to bed hungry for generations.

Share the music...and fans will happily pay for it

It says Prince is on Pandora "web radio"? I listen on my phone but never hear Prince (though I do hear Sheila and Vanity 6 anf the Time).

Is Prince available on desktop but not phones?

Streaming won't work because it won't pay.

.

Revenue from music downloads were down by 20% in 2016 due to streaming services.

.

So labels should be discouraging deals with streaming services.

.

If labels don't make money due to streaming services we can forget about any releases from the vault as the market will have been destroyed.

.

rogifan said:

Are people going to download and pay a higher price. You realize music down loads are down 20%. Anyway it looks like RocNation is trying to throw a monkey wrench into.

laurarichardson said:

rogifan said:

You still have not provided any evidence that putting Prince music on streaming services is going to be bad financially for the Estate. OK fine, artists don't make a lot of money off of streams but what is the alternative? At least this way his music will be exposed to a wider audience. And maybe some people will be inclined to purchase some of his records.

--) He sold the most music last year so people are inclined to buy his records. Pennies instead of dollars is bad any the information is avalible for you to read about. I hope the estate cuts a good deal.

Because he died. Unless he's gonna come back and die again, he ain't gonna hit like that again.

jdcxc said:

I won't argue that. I'm arguing that putting his music on streaming services will some how cost the Estate. No evidence of that. The people willing to spend money on physical CDs will do so whether Prince is on streaming services or not.

rogifan said:

jdcxc said:

Unfortunately, licensing for commercials and movies is probably the most profitable route. I hope someone with Prince's musical integrity is involved with all these decisions.

I won't argue that. I'm arguing that putting his music on streaming services will some how cost the Estate. No evidence of that. The people willing to spend money on physical CDs will do so whether Prince is on streaming services or not.

They are going to make pennies and as much as I like CDS I doubt we get them as CDs are going out and being replaced by streaming. I hope they estate was able to get big upfront payments like the record companies which is one of the things Prince complained about. It is the reason he went with Tidal to get upfront cash and a higher royalty rate.

Basically this is opportunity lost. You are on more platforms but getting less of a royalty rates.

rogifan said:

laurarichardson said:

---- I hope so and I hope the family ends these streaming deals when they see the small amounts of they receive.

Receiving something is better than receiving nothing.

Do you know what artists get from Spotify and Apple? Pretty much nothing.

This is a bad deal for the estate. The ONLY reason ANY artist goes on streaming services is to expose people to their music SO THOSE PEOPLE WILL GO SEE THEM IN CONCERT. The estate can't do that.

If the estate is all about respecting Prince's wishes, then I don't know why they aren't respecting one of his biggest wishes ever - you want to hear my music, you pay ME.

RodeoSchro said:

rogifan said:

laurarichardson said: Receiving something is better than receiving nothing.

Do you know what artists get from Spotify and Apple? Pretty much nothing.

This is a bad deal for the estate. The ONLY reason ANY artist goes on streaming services is to expose people to their music SO THOSE PEOPLE WILL GO SEE THEM IN CONCERT. The estate can't do that.

If the estate is all about respecting Prince's wishes, then I don't know why they aren't respecting one of his biggest wishes ever - you want to hear my music, you pay ME.

Exactly, their is already controversy about the amount of money the law firms bills for doing next to nothing. This seem like another example of going out and making a bad deal just to bill the estate.

Genesia said:

laurarichardson said:

rogifan said: --) He sold the most music last year so people are inclined to buy his records. Pennies instead of dollars is bad any the information is avalible for you to read about. I hope the estate cuts a good deal.

Because he died. Unless he's gonna come back and die again, he ain't gonna hit like that again.

So the solution to the lost of income from live performances is to give the money away for pennies.

Whoa you got to love the thought process.

laurarichardson said:

Genesia said:

Because he died. Unless he's gonna come back and die again, he ain't gonna hit like that again.

So the solution to the lost of income from live performances is to give the money away for pennies.

Whoa you got to love the thought process.

Are you suggesting I said that? Please don't put words in my mouth.

RodeoSchro said:

Yeah and how well did that work out for him? How many more records might he have sold if he had a proper record deal the last 20 years? The reason artists are on streaming services is because that's where the consumers are. And streaming services wouldn't even be a thing if consumers weren't voting with their wallets to rent music vs. own it.

laurarichardson said:

What is he giving away? You want him to leave things in the vault forever? As I've said several times now the Estate can decide when things come to streaming services. If they release new music from the vault they can tell Apple Music and Spotify you get it in 6 months and during that time it's only available for purchase. Most likely the only people shelling out $$ for CDs will be die hards and they'll do it right away. 6 months after a release there won't be many people buying it. Heck I'd even say 3 months but I'm being generous here.

Anyone know the value fo these streaming deals? What do other artists get paid for streaming? Just curious.

jdcxc said:

Anyone know the value fo these streaming deals? What do other artists get paid for streaming? Just curious.

That's what I am wondering. People are praising the streaming deals but what is the vaule? I don't any about streaming. Sounds like a rip off for artist and people buying the streams.

[Edited 1/10/17 16:56pm]

Rogifan says:

What is he giving away? You want him to leave things in the vault forever? As I've said several times now the Estate can decide when things come to streaming services. If they release new music from the vault they can tell Apple Music and Spotify you get it in 6 months and during that time it's only available for purchase. Most likely the only people shelling out $$ for CDs will be die hards and they'll do it right away. 6 months after a release there won't be many people buying it. Heck I'd even say 3 months but I'm being generous here.

The Trichordist, a site established by "artists for an ethical and sustainable internet" has something to say about this kind of thought, that one should sell out one's creativity--even if it is the cached creativity of a deceased artist--to a service that will exploit it to the hilt and shell out laughable amounts to the providers, placing them in precarious straits, while making money on top of money for themselves.

>

Check out the latest contribution by the renowned guitarist Marc Ribot:

GhostShip: Mourn the Dead: Fight Like Hell For The Living- Guest Post by Marc Ribot

https://thetrichordist.co...arc-ribot/

"The initial horror evoked by Oakland’s GhostShip fire is now turning into self questioning and anger at those who placed the victims in harms way. ...Yes, marginal, new, and unsuccessful artists have long been precarious. But Silicon Valley’s implementation of a business model earning itself hundreds of billions via the ad based exploitation of copyright infringing work has marginalized an increasingly large number of working “content creators”, driving many into substandard housing, work spaces, and multiple jobs; and out of health insurance, safe housing, and sleep."

>

Warning, people, the incident in California that Marc Ribot comments on harkens a potential evenuality that the Minnestota enterprises of Paisley Park Museum and the NPG entities may face, should the estate owners become too reckless with their assignment of distribution rights to streaming companies.

[Edited 1/10/17 19:48pm]

rogifan said:

RodeoSchro said:

Do you know what artists get from Spotify and Apple? Pretty much nothing.

This is a bad deal for the estate. The ONLY reason ANY artist goes on streaming services is to expose people to their music SO THOSE PEOPLE WILL GO SEE THEM IN CONCERT. The estate can't do that.

If the estate is all about respecting Prince's wishes, then I don't know why they aren't respecting one of his biggest wishes ever - you want to hear my music, you pay ME.

Yeah and how well did that work out for him? How many more records might he have sold if he had a proper record deal the last 20 years? The reason artists are on streaming services is because that's where the consumers are. And streaming services wouldn't even be a thing if consumers weren't voting with their wallets to rent music vs. own it.

Okay--here's one answer, addressing the impact that the popular streaming trend has had toward the musician-end of the distribution chain.

>

If the Internet is working for Musicians, Why aren’t more Musicians Working Professionally?

The Trichordist

Artists For An Ethical and Sustainable Internet #StopArtistExploitation

https://thetrichordist.co...ssionally/

>

"[T]he democratization of production and distribution has not democratized talent. The most exploited music, is not surprisingly, the most popular. These are the artists and titles which are also developed and promoted by traditional media outlets."

Purplestar88 said:

I'm not praising anything. I'm dealing with reality. Does anyone really think record labels would support streaming if they could still get people to spend $10-$15 on a CD (where they maybe only liked a couple tracks)? It's pretty clear the public has decided and renting it is. Look at how many people subscribe to Netflix. Is Netflix bad because people are willing to pay $10/mo to watch the programming they offer vs. buying individual seasons of shows? This is the way the market is going. And I see zero evidence that putting his music on streaming services will cost the Estate anything. Those that want to "own" his music can still do so.

rogifan said:

Germanegro said:

It is my feeling that the estate would stand to earn much less in the short term, even overall with whatever public exposure to the catalogue the services may provide, than they would by selling their own product while financing their own promotions.

>

It is simply given that the streaming companies are solely positioned to make the kind of money that can really sustain a business. Industry people and affected artists alike have studied these workings--and your argument is that content providers should take the pennies that they're being offered today, what have they got to lose?

>

I think that the estate could do better business beyond throwing much of their product into streaming.

How much money can the Estate make just selling CDs/DVDs to die hards? Across the board album sales are on the decline. This is a fact. There's nothing the Estate can do to reverse that trend. Prince wasn't selling millions of CDs when he was alive (talking last 20 years or so) so what makes people think he will posthumously? Do you really think casual fans are going to go to paisleypark.com and spend $10-$12 or whatever on a CD? Not happening. Plus what resources does the estate have for marketing and promotion? If it's the same resources behind the official tribute concert we should all be worried.

Well, if that casual fan were economically savvy, he or she would pay up on the one-time contribution at Paisley Park! They'd have their $10 to $12 of a collection of Prince songs and be done with that transaction for the life of the physical product instead of paying $10 + in perpetuity for the same in a stream scenario.

>

For your other point about the orgainzation's management of resources, a perecentage from sales can be placed into a trust/account designated for promotions in general, like any good business; in the same way that cash must be set aside for other costs of business, such as tax expenses. The estate would clearly be making more money from their direct sales than they ever would through the current-day pay scale that streaming services have devised for payouts to the content providers. Would you be able to otherwise present actual figures that show content-providers making real cash from thestreaming services given scheme--beyond parroting the line that streaming is the IT thing of current music consumption--because I'm not seeing that from anywhere that I look. Prince didn't either, and that is why he held the line that he did while sitting in the deal-maker's chair.

rogifan said:

Purplestar88 said:

That's what I am wondering. People are praising the streaming deals but what is the vaule? I don't any about streaming. Sounds like a rip off for artist and people buying the streams.

[Edited 1/10/17 16:56pm]

I'm not praising anything. I'm dealing with reality. Does anyone really think record labels would support streaming if they could still get people to spend $10-$15 on a CD (where they maybe only liked a couple tracks)? It's pretty clear the public has decided and renting it is. Look at how many people subscribe to Netflix. Is Netflix bad because people are willing to pay $10/mo to watch the programming they offer vs. buying individual seasons of shows? This is the way the market is going. And I see zero evidence that putting his music on streaming services will cost the Estate anything. Those that want to "own" his music can still do so.

I can rest at ease that Netflix has contracts in place with those entertainment conglomerates that have created content Netflix streams to their broad audience that allows them a reasonable profit reimbursement. This is the difference that we are talking about here between Netflix and other streaming services. The distributor Netflix has struck deals among the entertainment enterprises that makes sense for the other companies to allow streaming to happen without losing in opportunity costs in the same way that musicians are punishingly absorbing today, under the "wisdom" that pennies collected are better than dollars, and without us you would be having zero in promotion opportunities--is that real for the music product providers?

laurarichardson said:

SoulAlive said:

You make some very good points.In order for Prince's music to live on amd continue to make money,the estate will have to make it more accessible,especially for younger people.Streaming is the way many young people obtain music these days.There's no way around it.

/\\What is the point if the estate can't make a profit? And we can't own it.

There are many other ways for the estate to make money.For example,they can allow Prince's music to appear in movies.That will not only give them a nice paycheck,but it will also keep Prince's music alive and expose it to future generations.Or they could allow 'Purple Rain' to become a Broadway musical.The possibilities are endless.Stop acting as if Prince's music appearing on those streaming services means that the estate will go broke.As I pointed out,there are many,many ways for the estate to make lots of money.