toejam said:

I'd love someone to make a documentary about this, interview some folk from Warner Bros. and perhaps get a different point of view from the sympathetic 'poor exploited musician' angle that we're so used to hearing from Prince's camp.

.

[Edited 9/5/19 16:04pm]

I don't know if you've seen it, but there's already a documentary called "SLAVE TRADE" that was released in 2014.

Even though they interviewed Alan Leeds, Michael Bland and Sonny Thompson they also talked to executives and a journalist from "Billboard," I think it was?

It's one of the best Prince documentaries ever. Really explains things thoroughly.

Electrostar said:

A record label such as WB is no more than a pimp on creativity. It should be paid for its marketing and management costs, with a sensible profit, but no more. Artists with magic should be treated like royalty and receive the majority earnings from their art. Imagine if you sold your house and the estate agent took most of the money. Huh?

But it is still the record labels putting up their money. So paying them a paycheck isn't how the recordings, photoshoots, videos, tours, equipment, technicians, lighting people etc happen. That comes from WB.

.

Yeah the artists should get paid more. But people forget that all that other $tuff is usually on the record company, not the artist. Prince realized that when he had to start writing checks.

.

Also, on a twist, how much did Prince pay the Time for performances/touring/videos etc?

The female group TLC (whom Prince was a champion for- 'Free TLC!') had the biggest selling album of a female group at the time, sold tons of copies of the single Waterfall and still had to file for bankruptcy because their CONtract gave most of the profits to the record company. It doesn't cost that much to make and distribute a cd. Things are off kilter when the (established) artist only makes 25-30% off the profits of their product and the RC makes more than that. New acts make even less than that.

kingricefan said:

The female group TLC (whom Prince was a champion for- 'Free TLC!') had the biggest selling album of a female group at the time, sold tons of copies of the single Waterfall and still had to file for bankruptcy because their CONtract gave most of the profits to the record company. It doesn't cost that much to make and distribute a cd. Things are off kilter when the (established) artist only makes 25-30% off the profits of their product and the RC makes more than that. New acts make even less than that.

LaFace Records

Babyface LA Reid and Pebbles...

OldFriends4Sale said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

jaypotton said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

But it is still the record labels putting up their money. So paying them a paycheck isn't how the recordings, photoshoots, videos, tours, equipment, technicians, lighting people etc happen. That comes from WB.

.

Yeah the artists should get paid more. But people forget that all that other $tuff is usually on the record company, not the artist. Prince realized that when he had to start writing checks.

.

Also, on a twist, how much did Prince pay the Time for performances/touring/videos etc?

I am sure there are hundreds of variables of contracts but what you said isn't strictly explanation of "normal" record contracts. Many artists are expected to pay for the cost of videos and photo shoots etc out of their own advance OR the record company recoup these costs out of royalties before the artist starts to receive further royalties. Similarly it isn't always the record company funding the cost of a tour - remember Prince lost a small fortune staging the Lovesexy tour in USA.

What I'm talking about isn't general but Prince specific.

Yes I remember Sheila E talking about having to deal with paying during the Romance 1600 yrs

.

But in Prince's case, was it him putting up his money?

.

I thought him loosing a small fortune had more to do with not filling the seats/selling tickets.

.

WB also for the Lovesexy tour, at the beginning at Prince's hopes, wanted an onstage river with a boat, and WB tried to make it happen.

All this "artist X should get (almost) all of the money he generates" talk ignores that only a fraction of artists on a record company's roster break even. All that money the record label makes from the big artists also funds a lot of failures as well as the "pure" artists a label signs to enhance their standing, e.g. "sure, Dylan doesn't sell truckloads of records, but he's on our label".

.

Of course there is a ton of abuse, e.g. artists whose debt to the label never gets resolved. There was an artist who annoyed his major label by demanding a detailed bill each year and when one year his debt increased he really went to town on then and basically discovered that these labels don't even bother to keep detailed accounts of the money being generated by any specific small-time artist until they start bothering them.

.

And in the 1980s and 1990s there were a lot of cocaine fueled parties and journalists were flown all over the world for interviews etc. But this was in an era where there was a lively and extended music press (multiple weekly magazines and lots of monthly magazines in the UK alone) which basically survived on the massive advertising campaigns by labels.

.

Is that abuse? Is that "stealing from artist X"? Sure, to some degree. But at the same time it sustained an ecosystem that helped bring tons of great music. And inevitably there were a few winners and lots of "losers". And now that is gone and the music industry consists of people scrambling to get hold of crumbs. Meanwhile major web companies are spending billions on acquiring the rights to "ancient" TV series.

.

You can't even compare the Warners of the 1980s with the company it was in the early-/mid-1990s, when it became an asset to be acquired in the takeover wars, when it had an astonishing amount of CEOs (The Prince Family had a one-page overview that tried to track the changes at one point), etc.

.

Let's not forget that Prince was able to leave Warners in 1996 because by happenstance one of the execs who signed him back in the 1970s was in a position to allow this: https://musicfans.stackex...a/2171/129 .

BartVanHemelen said:

All this "artist X should get (almost) all of the money he generates" talk ignores that only a fraction of artists on a record company's roster break even. All that money the record label makes from the big artists also funds a lot of failures as well as the "pure" artists a label signs to enhance their standing, e.g. "sure, Dylan doesn't sell truckloads of records, but he's on our label".

.

Of course there is a ton of abuse, e.g. artists whose debt to the label never gets resolved. There was an artist who annoyed his major label by demanding a detailed bill each year and when one year his debt increased he really went to town on then and basically discovered that these labels don't even bother to keep detailed accounts of the money being generated by any specific small-time artist until they start bothering them.

.

And in the 1980s and 1990s there were a lot of cocaine fueled parties and journalists were flown all over the world for interviews etc. But this was in an era where there was a lively and extended music press (multiple weekly magazines and lots of monthly magazines in the UK alone) which basically survived on the massive advertising campaigns by labels.

.

Is that abuse? Is that "stealing from artist X"? Sure, to some degree. But at the same time it sustained an ecosystem that helped bring tons of great music. And inevitably there were a few winners and lots of "losers". And now that is gone and the music industry consists of people scrambling to get hold of crumbs. Meanwhile major web companies are spending billions on acquiring the rights to "ancient" TV series.

.

You can't even compare the Warners of the 1980s with the company it was in the early-/mid-1990s, when it became an asset to be acquired in the takeover wars, when it had an astonishing amount of CEOs (The Prince Family had a one-page overview that tried to track the changes at one point), etc.

.

Let's not forget that Prince was able to leave Warners in 1996 because by happenstance one of the execs who signed him back in the 1970s was in a position to allow this: https://musicfans.stackex...a/2171/129 .

Yep this is the music business. It exists to make money. WB made Prince or at least allowed Prince to become Prince. They were also right about worryingabout Prince oversaturating th emarket because that's exactly what he did. Tons of mediocrity was "freed" up when every Prince song seemed to be special. That met it's demise clearly with Emancipation.

When asked why the album was given to Warner Bros. Records, @Prince3EG replied using the phrase:

"OLIVE BRANCH"

"WARNER BROTHERS "BIG CITY" SHOUT ... C'MON U'ALL, WE CAN WORK THIS OUT!"

Prince(r.i.p.) made more money as an independent artist away from Warner Bro. Than he did as an artist there.

ChocolateBox3121 said:

Prince(r.i.p.) made more money as an independent artist away from Warner Bro. Than he did as an artist there.

quality of output and how much money one makes doesn't always balance out.

Prince became known and prosperous as a live/touring artists vs a recording artist.

It's a wonder that Warner Brothers allowed Prince to move on from Purple Rain so quickly rather than insist that, not only he milk the album for another year with more singles and touring, but to also insist that the follow-up just be Purple Rain Part II.

So in some respects, yeah, Warner Brothers were very generous when it came to allowing Prince to have fluidity with his creativity.

TryWhistlingThis said:

It's a wonder that Warner Brothers allowed Prince to move on from Purple Rain so quickly rather than insist that, not only he milk the album for another year with more singles and touring, but to also insist that the follow-up just be Purple Rain Part II.

So in some respects, yeah, Warner Brothers were very generous when it came to allowing Prince to have fluidity with his creativity.

Remember, Prince was not going to do any videos for ATWIAD. I'm sure WB insisted, and we got Raspberry Beret.

The Paisley Park video doesn't have him in it, and America is a live performance.

Priince(r.i.p.) realized on the Purple Rain tour that those after Purple Rain fans weren't his true loyal following. They only clapped in the same parts on cue. So he vowed to see who was really true to him. As it turned out the same 3 million loyal fans that bought 1999, were the same ones that bought ATWIAD.

Se7en said:

TryWhistlingThis said:

It's a wonder that Warner Brothers allowed Prince to move on from Purple Rain so quickly rather than insist that, not only he milk the album for another year with more singles and touring, but to also insist that the follow-up just be Purple Rain Part II.

So in some respects, yeah, Warner Brothers were very generous when it came to allowing Prince to have fluidity with his creativity.

Remember, Prince was not going to do any videos for ATWIAD. I'm sure WB insisted, and we got Raspberry Beret.

The Paisley Park video doesn't have him in it, and America is a live performance.

I wish that they did insist that because he wasn't going to tour it, that he did more videos and some presentation shows

ChocolateBox3121 said:

Prince(r.i.p.) made more money as an independent artist away from Warner Bro. Than he did as an artist there.

Exactly. His WB contract, the way I always heard it, essentially paid him nothing. This thread is nonsense. There are a lot of bootleggers hanging about the org now, looking for vault connects and I see some of them in this thread.

funksterr said:

ChocolateBox3121 said:

Prince(r.i.p.) made more money as an independent artist away from Warner Bro. Than he did as an artist there.

Exactly. His WB contract, the way I always heard it, essentially paid him nothing. This thread is nonsense. There are a lot of bootleggers hanging about the org now, looking for vault connects and I see some of them in this thread.

But were Prince albums selling post 1996 as they did before. Prince made the most of his money after WB from touring, not album sales.

funksterr said:

funksterr said:

ChocolateBox3121 said:

Prince(r.i.p.) made more money as an independent artist away from Warner Bro. Than he did as an artist there.

Exactly. His WB contract, the way I always heard it, essentially paid him nothing. This thread is nonsense. There are a lot of bootleggers hanging about the org now, looking for vault connects and I see some of them in this thread.

Oh really?

GOOD MORNING AMERICA (1998)

The Artist sat for a short interview with Kevin Newman on ABC-TV's Good Morning America morning news/talk show on July 1 (postponed from June 30) to promote the release of his new album, Newpower Soul.

.

Kevin: One of the reasons you left Warner, and the big reason, was you didn't have that kind of creative control. Now that you have your own artists on your own label, what are you not gonna do?0{+> : Well u know, I have no contract with Larry. We have a joke, u know, he says 2 me, "Contract? Let's see, what would we put on it? The prefix on contract is 'con'. I'm not trying 2 con him, I trust him and he trusts me and if we sign a contract between each other, that becomes the genesis of our relationship. Based upon love and truth . . .

Kevin: So you just have an understand with your people then?

0{+> : . . . that's unecessary.

" 'We want you to do this. We want you to do that' -- I've had people talk to me like that. And loud," he said. " 'Everybody has to answer to someone,' they'd tell me." His sense of insult -- and, again, his voice -- rose. "I'd say, 'I answer to God, fool."'

The Artist Is Back -- But Don't Call It a Comeback

By ANTHONY DE CURTIS

OldFriends4Sale said:

GOOD MORNING AMERICA (1998)

The Artist sat for a short interview with Kevin Newman on ABC-TV's Good Morning America morning news/talk show on July 1 (postponed from June 30) to promote the release of his new album, Newpower Soul.

.

Kevin: One of the reasons you left Warner, and the big reason, was you didn't have that kind of creative control. Now that you have your own artists on your own label, what are you not gonna do?0{+> : Well u know, I have no contract with Larry. We have a joke, u know, he says 2 me, "Contract? Let's see, what would we put on it? The prefix on contract is 'con'. I'm not trying 2 con him, I trust him and he trusts me and if we sign a contract between each other, that becomes the genesis of our relationship. Based upon love and truth . . .

Kevin: So you just have an understand with your people then?

0{+> : . . . that's unecessary.

kevin: so isnt contract from the same derivation as connect?

p: no

OldFriends4Sale said:

" 'We want you to do this. We want you to do that' -- I've had people talk to me like that. And loud," he said. " 'Everybody has to answer to someone,' they'd tell me." His sense of insult -- and, again, his voice -- rose. "I'd say, 'I answer to God, fool."'

SirPussalot said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

GOOD MORNING AMERICA (1998)

The Artist sat for a short interview with Kevin Newman on ABC-TV's Good Morning America morning news/talk show on July 1 (postponed from June 30) to promote the release of his new album, Newpower Soul.

.

Kevin: One of the reasons you left Warner, and the big reason, was you didn't have that kind of creative control. Now that you have your own artists on your own label, what are you not gonna do?0{+> : Well u know, I have no contract with Larry. We have a joke, u know, he says 2 me, "Contract? Let's see, what would we put on it? The prefix on contract is 'con'. I'm not trying 2 con him, I trust him and he trusts me and if we sign a contract between each other, that becomes the genesis of our relationship. Based upon love and truth . . .

Kevin: So you just have an understand with your people then?

0{+> : . . . that's unecessary.

kevin: so isnt contract from the same derivation as connect?

p: no