XSX said:

rogifan said:

XSX said:

On the contrary, Prince's career was one big escape from Purple Rain.
What he got from it was an artistic success but that was BEFORE it was released.
When it spiralled into a phenomenon, what he got was a palace, Paisley Park and he chose to go in there and, pretty much, to stay there.
The rest was about the art and, sure, he was no slouch at being a business genius but that was only when he fancied swaggering in that area. When he swaggered, he rocked the financial charts but it was only for a 'refill' before artistic aspects reconsumed him. Hence the apparent inconsistency. The bulk of the time, he was about all and everything to do with music and artistry and his spending shows at every moment that he could care less about money unless he found he couldn't do what he wanted to do without more of it.

Fans seem to think that if he's in the charts, that is success.
But that's where he came from.
Everything he did was success. Even when it looked like failure from a press point of view.
If Prince wanted press as success, he, as he said, could have made Purple Rain Part II.
That he did toy with revisiting himself at times more recently was also the mark of a temporarily-lost way. In these times, he learned to rely upon performance and as that became more lucrative, he paid little attention to the record market, even to packaging.

Again, that's because he was about the music which stands for itself and will be discovered by future kids not because it's on cheap supermarket shelves like 4EVER but hiding in some basements where people are obsessing over it.

He's already ensured future success.

[Edited 1/13/17 16:24pm]

Well I haven't said anything about the charts. But I would like to see more people experience his music even if maybe at times he didn't give a %^&! about that. And the best way for that to happen is for his music to be available on streaming services.

I see that this streaminng distribution mode is a nice idea for you, but my vote is still no to that, as a major enterprise. Some measured exposure, sure, would be okay to allow some newbies to get into the listening mode, but don't go throwing the baby out with the bathwater trying to corner the market on clean. "Clean" being music sales, and "baby" being revenue potential--in a manner of speaking--of course.

Germanegro said:

rogifan said:

Germanegro said:

I see that this streaminng distribution mode is a nice idea for you, but my vote is still no to that, as a major enterprise. Some measured exposure, sure, would be okay to allow some newbies to get into the listening mode, but don't go throwing the baby out with the bathwater trying to corner the market on clean. "Clean" being music sales, and "baby" being revenue potential--in a manner of speaking--of course.

Every other freaking artist is already on streaming services. What's so f'ng special about Prince that his music can't be there too? Not everything he did in his career was brilliant IMO. 20 years of one off deals that make rights distribution and the ability to own his entire body of work difficult is not brilliant. Constantly removing live performances from YT to where after he died the only clip people could share to show his guitar brilliance is WMGGW at the RRHOF isn't brilliant. Prince music will come to streaming services and the world and his legacy will move on unharmed, and along the way he might even pick up some new fans.

All my reasons for supporting a limited exposure of his music to streaming is contributed in pretty much each of my earlier posts, and you may study them as you care. Prince (and other artists, too) has explained his stance as well, while folks have lacked the comprehension toward it, while others have tended to obfuscate his points.

>

AZIFUCARE

XSX said:

jaawwnn said:

Come now, that's not true at all. The dude tried so hard and so many times to have big hits from Diamonds & Pearls onwards whether it be the big push for Musicology or putting "Prince" as the producer on Rave and following the ultra-successful Santana method of guest stars. He didn't want to be a cult artist, he wanted it both ways (uncompromised art and full success) because that's what he got with Purple Rain.

On the contrary, Prince's career was one big escape from Purple Rain.
What he got from it was an artistic success but that was BEFORE it was released.
When it spiralled into a phenomenon, what he got was a palace, Paisley Park and he chose to go in there and, pretty much, to stay there.
The rest was about the art and, sure, he was no slouch at being a business genius but that was only when he fancied swaggering in that area. When he swaggered, he rocked the financial charts but it was only for a 'refill' before artistic aspects reconsumed him. Hence the apparent inconsistency. The bulk of the time, he was about all and everything to do with music and artistry and his spending shows at every moment that he could care less about money unless he found he couldn't do what he wanted to do without more of it.

Fans seem to think that if he's in the charts, that is success.
But that's where he came from.
Everything he did was success. Even when it looked like failure from a press point of view.
If Prince wanted press as success, he, as he said, could have made Purple Rain Part II.
That he did toy with revisiting himself at times more recently was also the mark of a temporarily-lost way. In these times, he learned to rely upon performance and as that became more lucrative, he paid little attention to the record market, even to packaging.

Again, that's because he was about the music which stands for itself and will be discovered by future kids not because it's on cheap supermarket shelves like 4EVER but hiding in some basements where people are obsessing over it.

He's already ensured future success.

[Edited 1/13/17 16:24pm]

Sorry I took so long to get back to you here, but we'll have to agree to disagree cos I sure as hell don't think he was a business genius!

[Edited 1/16/17 20:14pm]

jaawwnn said:

XSX said:

On the contrary, Prince's career was one big escape from Purple Rain.
What he got from it was an artistic success but that was BEFORE it was released.
When it spiralled into a phenomenon, what he got was a palace, Paisley Park and he chose to go in there and, pretty much, to stay there.
The rest was about the art and, sure, he was no slouch at being a business genius but that was only when he fancied swaggering in that area. When he swaggered, he rocked the financial charts but it was only for a 'refill' before artistic aspects reconsumed him. Hence the apparent inconsistency. The bulk of the time, he was about all and everything to do with music and artistry and his spending shows at every moment that he could care less about money unless he found he couldn't do what he wanted to do without more of it.

Fans seem to think that if he's in the charts, that is success.
But that's where he came from.
Everything he did was success. Even when it looked like failure from a press point of view.
If Prince wanted press as success, he, as he said, could have made Purple Rain Part II.
That he did toy with revisiting himself at times more recently was also the mark of a temporarily-lost way. In these times, he learned to rely upon performance and as that became more lucrative, he paid little attention to the record market, even to packaging.

Again, that's because he was about the music which stands for itself and will be discovered by future kids not because it's on cheap supermarket shelves like 4EVER but hiding in some basements where people are obsessing over it.

He's already ensured future success.

[Edited 1/13/17 16:24pm]

Sorry I took to long to get back to you here, but we'll have to agree to disagree cos I sure as hell don't think he was a business genius!

Yeah, and although he dodged the general hook of working to sell the most widgets, he did pursue his own business goals very well. He obviously had his own ideas about success in commerce that many will disagree upon.

ForeverPaisley said:

Noodled24 said:

Instead of going to PaisleyPark.music and giving the estate $10 for a CD that cost $1 to make (in fact I'd be downloading so that $1 CD actually cost $0) Instead of that, I'm going to give Spotify $10 and spotify will give 20 cents to the estate... (is there a Prince school of business I'm not aware of?)

I don't see an upside for the estate in this. Nobody makes millions from streaming - unless you're the company in control of the stream. Not to mention he fact they're undoing what Prince did.

I get that there is a need to give a little so that people rekindle their interest... But you don't hand over the entire catalog. Just put his music videos on Youtube/Vimeo? That covers all the big singles, and let's people get a flavour - then they can fuck off to a shop and buy something.

Maybe not as brash

LOL. For a general advertisement, I'm with you there. But when people come here and brag about never or hardly ever purchasing the music that they aquire, you have to understand the frustration by those of us who choose to try and support the musicians' efforts.

jaawwnn said:

Germanegro said:

rogifan said:

Germanegro said:

LOL. For a general advertisement, I'm with you there. But when people come here and brag about never or hardly ever purchasing the music that they aquire, you have to understand the frustration by those of us who choose to try and support the musicians' efforts.

Um, I own the entire Beatles catalog. Same with Led Zeppelin. I also own most of Prince's WB albums. Being in favor of putting Prince's music on streaming services does not equal being against purchasing peopless works. If the estate did something with Apple like the Beatles did and offered Prince's entire catalog as a boxed set I would buy it. For many people the music they care about the most they will purchase. I like being able to incorporate music I own with music I stream. Remember one reason the ability to purchase singles became popular is because people were sick of paying $15 for an album that only had a couple good songs on it. Streaming is just an evolution of that. Here's the question: is most popular music crap because people stopped paying for it or was it already crap and people just voted with their wallets?

My comment was not specifically aimed at you, since I never knew or assumed to know your purchasing habits, beyond streaming, but cool, I'm glad to know that you're a music purchaser, as this is only fair in the matter of commerce. Convince all of your freinds to do the same and for them to encourage their family and all their friends as well, ad infinitum--the encouragement is needed!

>

The $15 album was a corporate-level ripoff introduced by the record companies in their stupor of profit-raking greed, so they shot themselves in the feet with that move, right before filesharing took off.

>

Did the singles market die off as a result of dwindling sales of digital donwloads? Did people lose the desire to buy music due to a precipitous drop in the music quality at one specific point, or did they simply stop buying and start pirating?

Is more music being made today to produce singles downloads and streaming? Probably not. The figures that I have gleaned say that the amount of music produced has decreased over time. Musicians have also been complaining about the difficulty to generate revenue for their effort and are discouraged from the recording business. Why is that the case?

>

Seek the history of the evolution of the recorded music A&R business, and you may find some answers to your bolded question.

laurarichardson said:

jaawwnn said:

Sorry I took so long to get back to you here, but we'll have to agree to disagree cos I sure as hell don't think he was a business genius!

--You don't have to be a businees genius. I cannot think of anybody else that worked indeoendlindependently as long as he did who owned their masters, continued to put out music, ran a record label, and bundled the cd into the concert ticket. Seems like he had the success that suited his needs.

Agreed, well I can think of a good few but none had his kind of fame, he was out there on his own.

[Edited 1/17/17 12:20pm]