We know his story about artists owning their own master recordings and talked amongest his peers about the importance of it... but how many actually do? I saw an interview with Pink (who i think is an extremely overated artist) and she threw some shade about Prince asking her...

there are many before Prince's WB battle owned their masters

Ray Charles negotiated that deal ages ago. Stevie Wonder owns his stuff. I think MJ did, too. I can't imagine that the Stones don't.

TrivialPursuit said:

Ray Charles negotiated that deal ages ago. Stevie Wonder owns his stuff. I think MJ did, too. I can't imagine that the Stones don't.

Thanks Trivs.... I am curious of artists like Katy Perry, Pink, Ga Ga, etc... what do you think?

I think Ray Charles was the first. And it was not an easy thing to do. A few artists are rumored to have been murdered back in the day trying to own the rights to their music or direct their own careers. Hank Ballard had The Twist stolen from him because he wasn't on Dick Clark's label.

macaylasdad said:

TrivialPursuit said:

Ray Charles negotiated that deal ages ago. Stevie Wonder owns his stuff. I think MJ did, too. I can't imagine that the Stones don't.

Thanks Trivs.... I am curious of artists like Katy Perry, Pink, Ga Ga, etc... what do you think?

Someone like Katy Perry would sign a 360 deal, so even if she owns the masters as part of the deal she'll be agreeing to, for example, hand over a large portion of live show and merch money to the record company. Back in Prince's day the money was in record sales so that's what they mostly cared about.

OldFriends4Sale said:

jaawwnn said:

Many of the pioneers of Rock and roll didn't, but apparently when Michael Jackson bought the ATV/Northern Songs catalogue, he gave Little Richard back his masters and copyrights so he could make money of his classics.

rogifan said:

Found it on another thread:

.

Bono on Prince...

[Edited 10/20/17 18:05pm]

It seems REM owned too:

.

"Speaking of those pitfalls, Stipe mentioned that Prince “always hated” him because R.E.M. owned their own masters and Prince never did"

.

https://consequenceofsoun...ng-listen/

I feel bad for Prince re: his masters, of course, but in a way he didn't really help himself by spending money like it was going out of style, circa 1985-1995. He was the golden boy after Purple Rain, and Warner Bros. felt obligated to indulge his every whim for a while (ergo, Under the Cherry Moon), but by the very-early 90s Prince actually didn't have enough money to do a lot of things. That's because he spent a fortune on a bunch of stuff that didn't have much of a return, and if his management tried to warn him off stuff he just fired them. In 1988, he fired everyone and cleaned house. I feel like those bands like R.E.M. and U2 were smarter about things like that, and treated management better.

Many artists own their own masters.

Don't get caught up in Prince's conspiracies about demonising record companies. How Prince ran his music and his contracts isn't how the world works for everyone.

Pet Shop Boys own their own masters and have done so for decades.

Stereophonics own their own masters and have their own label.

Howard Jones owns his own masters and has been independent for 20+ years.

George Michael has owned his own masters since the Sony court cast in 1994.

There are too many examples to list them all.

jaawwnn said:

macaylasdad said:

Thanks Trivs.... I am curious of artists like Katy Perry, Pink, Ga Ga, etc... what do you think?

Someone like Katy Perry would sign a 360 deal, so even if she owns the masters as part of the deal she'll be agreeing to, for example, hand over a large portion of live show and merch money to the record company. Back in Prince's day the money was in record sales so that's what they mostly cared about.

The revenue earned from live performances (+MU fees) and merchandise is not part of a standard form contract to recoup against recording and marketing costs.

[Edited 10/21/17 13:56pm]

darkroman said:

Many artists own their own masters.

Don't get caught up in Prince's conspiracies about demonising record companies. How Prince ran his music and his contracts isn't how the world works for everyone.

Pet Shop Boys own their own masters and have done so for decades.

Stereophonics own their own masters and have their own label.

Howard Jones owns his own masters and has been independent for 20+ years.

George Michael has owned his own masters since the Sony court cast in 1994.

There are too many examples to list them all.

Yes, and the classic example of a smart way to do it is from the early 1960s -- the Dave Clark Five!

Prince was really young and a very-"solo" artist when he started, so it was always going to be tough. But they were periods there -- like, 1985 comes to mind -- when, if he hadn't decided to waste 10 million or whatever on a ego-trip, pointless film that everyone advised him against, he could have channelled his massive currency and cash into getting control of his masters.

ThePanther said:

darkroman said:

Many artists own their own masters.

Don't get caught up in Prince's conspiracies about demonising record companies. How Prince ran his music and his contracts isn't how the world works for everyone.

Pet Shop Boys own their own masters and have done so for decades.

Stereophonics own their own masters and have their own label.

Howard Jones owns his own masters and has been independent for 20+ years.

George Michael has owned his own masters since the Sony court cast in 1994.

There are too many examples to list them all.

Yes, and the classic example of a smart way to do it is from the early 1960s -- the Dave Clark Five!

Prince was really young and a very-"solo" artist when he started, so it was always going to be tough. But they were periods there -- like, 1985 comes to mind -- when, if he hadn't decided to waste 10 million or whatever on a ego-trip, pointless film that everyone advised him against, he could have channelled his massive currency and cash into getting control of his masters.

I might be wrong, but I don't recall Prince spending a dime on UTCM: it was all WB money.

Not to mention we would not have Under the Cherry Moon. Perish the thought.

What needs to be recognized here in regards to Prince is that he was 17/18 when he signed with Warner Brothers. As he got older and started talking to other artists like Bono he started to realize he had been had.

To say that there are "lots " of artists that have their masters is not true. A good guess would say that 90% of artists in history didn't have their master recordings. I can understand both sides of this story.

NorthC said:

He wasn't 18 when he signed that infamous $ 100 million contract in 1992.

I blame his own ignorance for that. I wouldn't have signed that contract.

However I do know that once Mo Ostin's influence declined at WB Prince was put in the R&B division of Warners it limited his promotion and radio play to a possible 60% of his audience. This hurt the sales of those albums and singles. He had a reason to be angry because they were trying to sabatoge his career.

databank said:

Some big acts had managed to get some or most of theirs before Prince even brought it up (Bowie, Zappa) and some other big acts got theirs back ever since. And those new 360 contracts allow tha artist to keep them, too (but again, usually big acts). I don't think Prince has changed the situation for most artist. It doesn't mean he was wrong bringing it up. Maybe indie labels are cooler with that now, idk . [Edited 10/15/17 12:26pm]

.

360 deals are the new crap for artists. these deals are in no way any type of guaruntee you will own your masters, and even if you do they are probably the least valuable thing in the deal, so again, the label wins.

.

a 360 deal allows the label to get money out of touring, merch, and other areas that would normally go all to the artist. they get a piece of EVERYTHING you do, movies, books, comercials, endorsements, EVERYTHING. since many artists these days make the most of their money off of shows and merch and other things, record companies use the 360 deal to get in on that money since they dont get what they used to out of record sales. the 360 is jst the new way for labels to screw the artists.

NorthC said:

He wasn't 18 when he signed that infamous $ 100 million contract in 1992.

in fact he had been in the biz for 15 years!

darkroman said:

jaawwnn said:

Someone like Katy Perry would sign a 360 deal, so even if she owns the masters as part of the deal she'll be agreeing to, for example, hand over a large portion of live show and merch money to the record company. Back in Prince's day the money was in record sales so that's what they mostly cared about.

The revenue earned from live performances (+MU fees) and merchandise is not part of a standard form contract to recoup against recording and marketing costs.

[Edited 10/21/17 13:56pm]

.

in a 360 deal the label does get money from everything you do, including money earned from live shows and merch.