EmmaMcG said:

My main issue with a potential streaming service is that, let's say you're spending $100 per year on access to The Vault. Then, after 3 or 4 years, the Estate decide that it's not bringing in enough profit or whatever the reason is, and they shut it down. You're left in a situation where you're after spending $300 - $400 and you have NOTHING to show for it. You can't listen to those songs anymore. Now, before someone says "But what about Netflix", it's a completely different thing. Netflix is an alternative to regular television, which, unlike albums on CDs, you don't have repeated access to traditional programming on TV. Also, you're more likely to listen to an album more times than you'd watch a specific TV show or movie. So it's pointless to compare streaming movies or TV shows on Netflix and streaming music. It's an entirely different thing. If it's unfeasible for the Estate to keep releasing vault recordings on CD or vinyl, then I'll happily pay for downloads. I won't be happy about it but physical media is declining rapidly so I understand the need for change. But I'd never pay for a music streaming service just like I'd never pay to listen to the radio.

I am guessing if it was $X per month of downloadable content that would change your mind?

Bighead said:

kingricefan said:

^^^ Illegal downloading of music/video content is stealing if the said merchandise is available legally for purchase. If the artist isn't receiving monetary compensation for it then it's thievery. The artist WORKED on those creations as it was their job/calling to do so. What's the difference between an illegal download and walking into a museum, taking a painting off of the wall and walking out with it tucked under your jacket?

The difference is that downloading the music would still allow every single person on this earth to aquire, listen to and, if they so chose to, buy the music. The painting on the other hand, would be gone, and nobody would be able to see it, admire it, or buy it if they wanted to. Very big difference

[Edited 12/13/19 17:05pm]

Why buy it if you've already illegally aquired it? You don't seem to see the point I'm trying to make here. What average Joe would give money for something that they've already gotten for free? I'm not talking about the numerous streaming services where you can listen to a song, decide that you like it and then purchase it. I'm talking about just downloading the music from some type of 'sharing' website.

I do pay for Apple Music streaming, primarily to discover new things and preview them. Sometimes for workouts in the gym. For me, streaming is a passive way of experiencing the content. The reason that I’m willing to pay >$10/month for streaming is that the virtually unlimited catalog of things to discover, preview and experience. Thousands of artists.

For all of the music that I care about, I buy it. Because I want to both experience and consume the content. Especially Prince music. I have and will continue to purchase everything that is released through official channels. Physical is always my preference (with a digital copy). Followed by digital-only releases.

I want to own/collect all of the music that I care about. The market has generally settled on $1/song to buy a digital copy of a song. For Prince songs, I would be willing to pay whatever the Estate decides is reasonable per song, album or show.

Perhaps the most lucrative approach for the Estate would be:

1. Launch a streaming service @ $10/month. This is where lots of content is available to discover and preview. This content will be available exclusively via streaming for XX days. The content includes audio singles, audio EPs, audio albums, music videos, concert videos and the associated digital artwork.
2. Simultaneously, launch a download service at $1/song, or $15/album, or $15/show. This content is available exclusively for download after the streaming preview of XX days. (See #1 above.) The content includes audio singles, audio EPs, audio albums, music videos, concert videos and the associated digital artwork.
3. Also, offer a pre-paid “Annual Super Deluxe” membership:
   1. Streaming: @ $108/year (10% savings vs. monthly)
   2. Download: ALL download content is auto-billed to a credit card when released (@ 10% off ala carte download prices)

Here’s my guess… the vast majority of the hardcore (including me) will pay for the streaming and will buy EVERYthing available for download. The less hardcore will buy stuff here and there. Some will stream only.

I guess I can't be sure until it's presented to me, but I imagine I wouldn't have a problem paying $50/month if the content was great.

I honestly think that the model should be £X.00 per month for regular, streaming content & then maybe a pay per item fee to download in high quality might work?

How about this as a suggestion - $10.00 per month streaming - which is on a par with Tidal / Spotify etc. Then however much for a permanent download - say $5.00 per album , full concert etc.

Given the state of the estate with Primary Wave right now I/we might just be spittin' in the wind?!!

PURPLEIZED3121 said:

PURPLEIZED3121 said:

No thanks. But, I would pay a monthly fee to live in the vault for a month.

EmmaMcG said:

Zero. I don't pay for Spotify or Tidal so I certainly wouldn't be paying for a music streaming service with just one artist on it. If they do something like that, I'll just illegally download the music I want. However, if they were to make his vault recordings available for sale, then I'd be willing to buy them providing they are reasonably priced.

.

from myself and all other musicians on the planet..... F@#K YOU

EmmaMcG said:

homesquid said:

And you don't feel even a tinge of guilt for your illegal downloading? Are you entitled to that music? You seem to brag about it. It's a shitty thing to do. This behavior has put countless record stores, labels, artists, etc..out of business. I'm not trying to sound righteous here. I've done my share of illegal downloading...but I'm not actually proud of it.

I'm not "proud" of it. Like I said, I'd rather BUY the music at a reasonable price. And if they give me that option, I'll take it. But if streaming is the ONLY option they provide, then it's a choice of paying a monthly fee to listen to music (including paying for songs I may not like), while requiring a constant internet connection to do so, or just downloading the songs I do like and be able to listen to them anytime, internet connection or no internet connection. That's not a tough decision for me.

All major streaming services come with a download option available to all devices from which you looged in.

savagedreams said:

bonatoc said:

PURPLEIZED3121 said:

It really depends on what they are offering. I wouldn't pay for streaming but I would pay for downloads. I prefer CD / vinyl to digital. If I felt they were offering a good value for my dollar I would happily pay up to $100 USD a month.

Personally, I would pay good money for a subscription where I get "x" amount of vinyl or downloadable content per month - similar to Jack White's Third Man Records vault series. I don't know if I would pay for a seperate streaming service though, I want to own my music and not add additional charges per month

CDinwiddie said:

I do pay for Apple Music streaming, primarily to discover new things and preview them. Sometimes for workouts in the gym. For me, streaming is a passive way of experiencing the content. The reason that I’m willing to pay >$10/month for streaming is that the virtually unlimited catalog of things to discover, preview and experience. Thousands of artists.

For all of the music that I care about, I buy it. Because I want to both experience and consume the content. Especially Prince music. I have and will continue to purchase everything that is released through official channels. Physical is always my preference (with a digital copy). Followed by digital-only releases.

I want to own/collect all of the music that I care about. The market has generally settled on $1/song to buy a digital copy of a song. For Prince songs, I would be willing to pay whatever the Estate decides is reasonable per song, album or show.

Perhaps the most lucrative approach for the Estate would be:

1. Launch a streaming service @ $10/month. This is where lots of content is available to discover and preview. This content will be available exclusively via streaming for XX days. The content includes audio singles, audio EPs, audio albums, music videos, concert videos and the associated digital artwork.
2. Simultaneously, launch a download service at $1/song, or $15/album, or $15/show. This content is available exclusively for download after the streaming preview of XX days. (See #1 above.) The content includes audio singles, audio EPs, audio albums, music videos, concert videos and the associated digital artwork.
3. Also, offer a pre-paid “Annual Super Deluxe” membership:
   1. Streaming: @ $108/year (10% savings vs. monthly)
   2. Download: ALL download content is auto-billed to a credit card when released (@ 10% off ala carte download prices)

Here’s my guess… the vast majority of the hardcore (including me) will pay for the streaming and will buy EVERYthing available for download. The less hardcore will buy stuff here and there. Some will stream only.

this is a pretty good model 😊

EmmaMcG said:

PURPLEIZED3121 said:

I honestly think that the model should be £X.00 per month for regular, streaming content & then maybe a pay per item fee to download in high quality might work?

How about this as a suggestion - $10.00 per month streaming - which is on a par with Tidal / Spotify etc. Then however much for a permanent download - say $5.00 per album , full concert etc.

Given the state of the estate with Primary Wave right now I/we might just be spittin' in the wind?!!

Leaving aside my own personal feelings about streaming services, I don't think you can charge the same as Spotify for a Prince-only streaming service. Spotify gives access to thousands of artists and god knows how many songs. How can you realistically charge the same fee for a service that only gives access to one artist? I'm sure there are some hardcore fans who'd go for that but I'd imagine that the number of actual subscribers would be very small. I don't think it would be worth the effort for them. $5 per album sounds like a nice price though. I'd definitely pay that.

Fair points Emma.. You know we hardcore are batshhit crazy though...#temptation & #insatiable !

Lianachan said:

PURPLEIZED3121 said:

Simple enough question. Be it a monthly NPG style where each month content is delivered on a 'get what you're given' basis OR something like Tidal / Spotify where you can take what you want when you want when content is released.

Right now I pay £9.99 per month to Tidal & I love it. To have access to unreleased songs, video content, deluxe packages etc I would HAPPILY pay £50.00 per month minimum. Bearing in mind I just spent £60.00 on the 1999 Deluxe!

Regardless of whether this has been discussed before please reply as I think it would help the estate have a guide on future pricing strategy based on whetted appetities from the 1999 set!.

Let's assume the model gives access to unreleased / unheard off vault tracks, live gigs, aftershows, offical pro-shot gigs from ALL eras etc...i.e. a purple wet dream!

I’ve no interest whatsoever in any streaming services. I’ll buy every cd of vault tracks that’s issued.

all well & good BUT it's physically impossible to release all the amazing vault content...therefore online access has to be the main way forwards to get higher volumes out. I am guessing much cheaper for the estate too?

EmmaMcG said:

bonatoc said:

All major streaming services come with a download option available to all devices from which you looged in.

Cool. Doesn't necessarily mean that a potential Prince-only streaming service would offer the same though. But whether it does or doesn't, that's only one of the issues I have. My other points I've mentioned in this thread still stand.

I think we can safely assume that any Prince streaming service would allow downloading of content to multiple devices.

jasopig said:

Put me in the ZERO category and the "I'm cool with illegal downloading" category. When Prince was alive, I purchased everything he released that I could find. I never sought or obtained bootlegs. He's a content creator and I wanted him to reward him for it. WB and "the estate" are not in the same category and I have no interest in seeing them profit. So yes, I happily illegally obtained the 2 1999 vault tracks and the Detroit and Houston discs. No worries, and no disrespect to those who choose to purchase them thru the normal channels. Let's all get along.

Seems like an excuse. John Logie Baird invented the TV, but he's dead now. Does that make it ok to steal TV's from now on?

There can be another excuse for hardcore fans to come up with.


In the eighties, most of us bought everything, albums, singles, protégés.
I have a Taja Sevelle maxi-single, for crying out loud! And what about live shows?

Because we bought a lot of records, records which money for a good part was going to Prince,
when anywhere-anytime free (pirated) digital music arrived,
we felt entitled to go: "I gave Prince a lot of money.
I gave him all of my allowances. This ain't gonna hurt him that bad.".

When the first bootlegs surfaced, we were to the first to buy them, and they weren't cheap!
You could pay three times, four times the price of a normal record in the beginning.
(It was so stupid not to pay attention to the fanbase. He would have doubled his sales,
had he put out a "Bootleg Series" à la Dylan two decades ago.)

And let's not forget the Sheriff incident. PFunk was fun,
but before that he sure got on our nerves for a while.
So a kind of thought formed there.
"We made Prince's fortune. We can get some of this stuff for free.
Especially when the dumbass doesn't release it for no reason."

Not saying it's the epitomy of honesty. But it is what it is.
When you were a Prince fan, you bought a lot, a LOT of records
compared to any other artist. Being a Prince fan wasn't cheap.
But we would have continued buying if Camille or the Dream Factory got out.
He could take all my money for what I cared.

When I sum it up, I probably paid for a window or some square feet
of carpeting of the Paisley Park complex.

I'm glad I did.
But that was ON TOP of feeding him.

I would gladly pay again, but there's a decent price
the Estate has to come up with.
We fans are gluttons.
We need the food to be cheap because we're going to eat a truckload of it.

[Edited 12/20/19 15:01pm]

Exactly $0.00 and not a penny more.

$7.77

Maybe something like what Third man Records does. $65 every 3 months and those that pay the quarterly subscrition are sent an exclusive record LP, an exclusive 45 and either a DVD or shirt every 3 months. In the past years I have recieved a tasure trove of music from them. The TMR vault is exhaustive and what makes it worth every cent spent on it is the quality and care they put in making these packages.

[Edited 12/26/19 14:29pm]

it wouldnt work....fans can be such bitches...