independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Prince archivist Michael Howe talks through SOTT bonus cuts
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 4 of 6 <123456>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #90 posted 06/30/20 4:19pm

williamb610

I still say Warner Bros. owning all of his vault stuff, for the years he stayed with them is bullshit! How would they know what he recorded when? If he wanted he could just say, that all of his songs were recorded before 1978 or in 1998.

It doesn't make ANY sense that everything you do is property of the music company that you were with. He could have just said that there's no vault material at all. How would they check it? The vault is his personal property not Warner Brothers.

I call bullshit!

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #91 posted 06/30/20 4:43pm

parker

williamb610 said:

I still say Warner Bros. owning all of his vault stuff, for the years he stayed with them is bullshit! How would they know what he recorded when? If he wanted he could just say, that all of his songs were recorded before 1978 or in 1998.

It doesn't make ANY sense that everything you do is property of the music company that you were with. He could have just said that there's no vault material at all. How would they check it? The vault is his personal property not Warner Brothers.

I call bullshit!

Much of those recordings were paid for by WB. I'm imagining it was WB paying for the studio time, and the engineer time, as well as equipment, and tape.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #92 posted 06/30/20 4:46pm

solraccat

williamb610 said:

I still say Warner Bros. owning all of his vault stuff, for the years he stayed with them is bullshit! How would they know what he recorded when? If he wanted he could just say, that all of his songs were recorded before 1978 or in 1998.

It doesn't make ANY sense that everything you do is property of the music company that you were with. He could have just said that there's no vault material at all. How would they check it? The vault is his personal property not Warner Brothers.

I call bullshit!

That's exactly what I was thinking. How can they prove those tapes were recorded for them and at what date? They were even stored in Prince's house/studio, it's assumed they're his possession. And many of those tracks were recorded using his studio, with his time, not paid by WB.

I know there are some artists' contracts (comic book artists, game developers, some singers) that stipulate that anything they create during the contract duration belongs to the studio, but in this case I (we) don't really know.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #93 posted 06/30/20 5:41pm

databank

avatar

williamb610 said:

I still say Warner Bros. owning all of his vault stuff, for the years he stayed with them is bullshit! How would they know what he recorded when? If he wanted he could just say, that all of his songs were recorded before 1978 or in 1998.

It doesn't make ANY sense that everything you do is property of the music company that you were with. He could have just said that there's no vault material at all. How would they check it? The vault is his personal property not Warner Brothers.

I call bullshit!

I honestly don't know any more than I've said.

Maybe that's why Alan Leeds was talking about live recordings specifically, because they're clearly dated. Maybe he was wrong altogether. Or maybe everything was owned by WB.

Now just ask yourself: if WB had gone to court about Crystal Ball, Rave (the song) or all that NPGMC stuff from the WB years, with the recording logs and other existing public documentation the whole fandom already had, copyrighting of songs in some cases, master tapes sent by Prince to WB, and engineers and musicians possibly being called to testify (not to mention P's own admission regarding recording dates, but let's admit he'd have claimed it's new music, which no one would have believed anyway), how long would have it taken for a judge to figure it out and decide P stole from WB? I'd say not very long nod Maybe he could have gotten away with one totally unknown song here and there, but not with a whole vault series no no no!

But IDK, this is mere speculation based mostly on what Alan said. Sooner or later, one way or another, I'm sure this will be clarified.

[Edited 6/30/20 17:42pm]

A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #94 posted 06/30/20 5:50pm

databank

avatar

parker said:

williamb610 said:

I still say Warner Bros. owning all of his vault stuff, for the years he stayed with them is bullshit! How would they know what he recorded when? If he wanted he could just say, that all of his songs were recorded before 1978 or in 1998.

It doesn't make ANY sense that everything you do is property of the music company that you were with. He could have just said that there's no vault material at all. How would they check it? The vault is his personal property not Warner Brothers.

I call bullshit!

Much of those recordings were paid for by WB. I'm imagining it was WB paying for the studio time, and the engineer time, as well as equipment, and tape.

That's the thing and that's why Duane was able to find these recording logs from rented studios: apparently they were sent to WB for billing. Now P had his home studio of course but it could be argued that it was paid by advance money. And of course we know WB put money into Paisley Park Studios and it's likely they contributed to financing the tours as well (since, after all, they were promoting the records). IDK all the intricacies, but when you're basically living off advance money, you often end-up belonging body and soul to whomever is paying it and everything you produce during that time belongs to them. Look what happened to Bowie, Clinton and countless others who got ripped-off by their respective managements at some point.

This doesn't prove anything regarding Prince and WB, as I said all we have is Alan Leeds' statement, but it ads a certain credibility to what he said.

A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #95 posted 06/30/20 6:14pm

solraccat

databank said:

parker said:

Much of those recordings were paid for by WB. I'm imagining it was WB paying for the studio time, and the engineer time, as well as equipment, and tape.

That's the thing and that's why Duane was able to find these recording logs from rented studios: apparently they were sent to WB for billing. Now P had his home studio of course but it could be argued that it was paid by advance money. And of course we know WB put money into Paisley Park Studios and it's likely they contributed to financing the tours as well (since, after all, they were promoting the records). IDK all the intricacies, but when you're basically living off advance money, you often end-up belonging body and soul to whomever is paying it and everything you produce during that time belongs to them. Look what happened to Bowie, Clinton and countless others who got ripped-off by their respective managements at some point.

This doesn't prove anything regarding Prince and WB, as I said all we have is Alan Leeds' statement, but it ads a certain credibility to what he said.

The fact that an artist receives advance money from his label doesn't mean all the stuff he buys with that money is owned by the label, unless, for example, Paisley Park Studios was a company partially owned by WB because they directly financed a part of it. If the label wanted to get some money back they could sue the artist, but I doubt that would happen especially because advance money is a risk investment and they know it (unless there was some breach of contract by the artist).

Regarding the 1978-93 live stuff, maybe there's a clause in the contract explicitly stating that he needed their authorisation.

in the end, we'd need to know the exact nature of WB and Prince's contract. Maybe it was an "all that you record belongs to us" kind of contract, maybe it was a "deliver x number of albums within y years" contract. But the facts are that he was in physical possession of the tapes and he released some stuff from that vault, so that leads me to think he owned those unreleased tapes, but obviously I could be completely wrong.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #96 posted 06/30/20 7:38pm

lavendardrumma
chine

williamb610 said:

It doesn't make ANY sense that everything you do is property of the music company that you were with. He could have just said that there's no vault material at all.


Well the problem is the businss operates by giving advances on earnings.

He went to the bank like every other artist with assets, but then they do get to own your soul. So the equipment, the tape, Big Chick's salary, the land Paisley was built, future publishing royalties on albums he owed them, it all could have been front to him in a quasi loan shark aspect of the business. We don't know his contract, but this is how it works, and sitting in the studio for 20 hours at a time is expensive. I think one reason he did Paisley was to chisel off some of that debt, and put him in a position where he had some non-recoupable budgets.

We do know he turned in a lot of music to WB that never got released, so they knew about more of the Vault than fans did at the time. Whatever he submitted to them, they could have an argument they owned it whether or not they put it out or rejected it.

There are definitely songs they wouldn't have known they owned some of...Extraloveable is one...but he'd already been in the press talking up his archive.

[Edited 6/30/20 19:43pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #97 posted 06/30/20 7:46pm

lavendardrumma
chine

olb99 said:

  • "Camille" has slightly different mixes of the tracks compared to the released versions




I'd been wondering about that...

....also wondering which version of Feel U Up would be on. The B Side version or if there was another.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #98 posted 06/30/20 11:56pm

Kares

avatar

williamb610 said:

I still say Warner Bros. owning all of his vault stuff, for the years he stayed with them is bullshit! How would they know what he recorded when? If he wanted he could just say, that all of his songs were recorded before 1978 or in 1998.

It doesn't make ANY sense that everything you do is property of the music company that you were with. He could have just said that there's no vault material at all. How would they check it? The vault is his personal property not Warner Brothers.

I call bullshit!

.
Record companies owning ALL recordings made during the term (of the agreement) is a standard part of nearly every record deal signed with the majors – regardless of who actually financed the recording session. Major label deals are almost always exclusive, majors view their artists as brands they've built up and all products created during the term are their assets that they have at least 'first refusal' rights for.
.
I'm sure there were many occasions when P pissed Warners off by releasing 1978–1996 period material independently, probably without their knowledge, let alone permission.

.

And rerecording and releasing the song '1999' was another thing that must've pissed them off as most major label contracts prohibit the rerecording of any material made during the term for at least 5 or so years after the termination of the contract.
.

Yes, the vault (and its tapes, HDDs, etc) were Prince's personal property, but that doesn't mean that he owned the RIGHTS to every recording on those tapes.
A lot of people keep forgetting that owning a reel of tape and owning the rights to the recording on that tape are two entirely different things!
.

[Edited 7/1/20 0:01am]

[Edited 7/1/20 1:14am]

Friends don't let friends clap on 1 and 3.

The Paisley Park Vault spreadsheet: https://goo.gl/zzWHrU
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #99 posted 07/01/20 12:47am

love2thenines2
003

Anyway with all these talkings about Prince & the management of his back catalogue.....what we know for sure is : we don't have a single comma what are the details of the agreement & contract signed by Prince with WBR in 2014 , except that Prince has recuperated his Masters & the release of his last album by WBR (AOA).....but from the rliable info i got (sorry i can't give u...his name...phone number...adress & so on) who works in the musical industry/close from WBR management...the info is .....WBR keeps their rights 4ever on the unreleased stuff recorded by Prince when Prince was under contract with WBR = 78-94.

We will C next year if this is pure bullshit or not!

2All...Have a nice day

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #100 posted 07/01/20 1:07am

TrcikyChristop
her

Kares said:

williamb610 said:

I still say Warner Bros. owning all of his vault stuff, for the years he stayed with them is bullshit! How would they know what he recorded when? If he wanted he could just say, that all of his songs were recorded before 1978 or in 1998.

It doesn't make ANY sense that everything you do is property of the music company that you were with. He could have just said that there's no vault material at all. How would they check it? The vault is his personal property not Warner Brothers.

I call bullshit!

.
Record companies owning ALL recordings made during the term (of the agreement) is a standard part of nearly every record deal signed with the majors – regardless of who actually financed the recording session. Major label deals are almost always exclusive, majors view their artists as brands they've built up and all products created during the term are their assets that they have at least 'first refusal' rights for.
.
I'm sure there many occasions when P pissed Warners off by releasing 1978–1996 period material independently, probably without their knowledge, let alone permission.

.

And rerecording and releasing the song '1999' was another thing that must've pissed them off as most major label contracts prohibit the rerecording of any material made during the term for at least 5 or so years after the termination of the contract.
.

Yes, the vault (and its tapes, HDDs, etc) were Prince's personal property, but that doesn't mean that he owned the RIGHTS to every recording on those tapes.
A lot of people keep forgetting that owning a reel of tape and owning the rights to the recording on that tape are two entirely different things!
.

[Edited 7/1/20 0:01am]

This was the main reason why Crystal Ball 2 was never finished. After CB1 and the Rave title track, he was threatened with legal action by WB for releasing music he recorded during those years without their permission. What he did from 96-forward was his. It's also the main reason why he was re-recording his vault tracks, rather than releasing them as is or censored if he deemed needed. He was not allowed to release any pre-1996 material as he did not own the masters. I was told this specifically by someone who was with WB at the time. The reason why there are no real "full vault" projects until 2021 is because Warner still owns distribution rights, even though the estate owns the masters, and even in THAT case, they don't own them all. Warner owns all of the Paisley Park Records side project masters as well. Of note, Prince only reserved master rights for pre 1995 Warner material in the US when he renegotiated. Outside of the US, Warner still owned the distribution rights in 2014. I believe in 2021, all rights to non-PR, non side project, and non-soundtrack albums worldwide would have reverted to Prince. Unless the estate decides to cut a deal.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #101 posted 07/01/20 1:24am

Kares

avatar

TrcikyChristopher said:

Kares said:

.
Record companies owning ALL recordings made during the term (of the agreement) is a standard part of nearly every record deal signed with the majors – regardless of who actually financed the recording session. Major label deals are almost always exclusive, majors view their artists as brands they've built up and all products created during the term are their assets that they have at least 'first refusal' rights for.
.
I'm sure there were many occasions when P pissed Warners off by releasing 1978–1996 period material independently, probably without their knowledge, let alone permission.

.

And rerecording and releasing the song '1999' was another thing that must've pissed them off as most major label contracts prohibit the rerecording of any material made during the term for at least 5 or so years after the termination of the contract.
.

Yes, the vault (and its tapes, HDDs, etc) were Prince's personal property, but that doesn't mean that he owned the RIGHTS to every recording on those tapes.
A lot of people keep forgetting that owning a reel of tape and owning the rights to the recording on that tape are two entirely different things!
.

[Edited 7/1/20 0:01am]

This was the main reason why Crystal Ball 2 was never finished. After CB1 and the Rave title track, he was threatened with legal action by WB for releasing music he recorded during those years without their permission. What he did from 96-forward was his. It's also the main reason why he was re-recording his vault tracks, rather than releasing them as is or censored if he deemed needed. He was not allowed to release any pre-1996 material as he did not own the masters. I was told this specifically by someone who was with WB at the time. The reason why there are no real "full vault" projects until 2021 is because Warner still owns distribution rights, even though the estate owns the masters, and even in THAT case, they don't own them all. Warner owns all of the Paisley Park Records side project masters as well. Of note, Prince only reserved master rights for pre 1995 Warner material in the US when he renegotiated. Outside of the US, Warner still owned the distribution rights in 2014. I believe in 2021, all rights to non-PR, non side project, and non-soundtrack albums worldwide would have reverted to Prince. Unless the estate decides to cut a deal.

.

Of course, the label will own the copyrights in any sound recordings made during the term of the recording contract. And I'm sure his contract had a re-recording restriction (for five or more years after the termination of his contract) so '1999 TNM' must've been violating his contract too.
.

Friends don't let friends clap on 1 and 3.

The Paisley Park Vault spreadsheet: https://goo.gl/zzWHrU
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #102 posted 07/01/20 5:02am

JorisE73

Here's an intersting thread from 15(!) years ago about his recordings:

https://prince.org/msg/7/155730

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #103 posted 07/01/20 5:09am

Kares

avatar

JorisE73 said:

Here's an intersting thread from 15(!) years ago about his recordings:

https://prince.org/msg/7/155730

.

A thread with a lot of mistakes and false information.

Friends don't let friends clap on 1 and 3.

The Paisley Park Vault spreadsheet: https://goo.gl/zzWHrU
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #104 posted 07/01/20 7:22am

databank

avatar

TrcikyChristopher said:

Kares said:

.
Record companies owning ALL recordings made during the term (of the agreement) is a standard part of nearly every record deal signed with the majors – regardless of who actually financed the recording session. Major label deals are almost always exclusive, majors view their artists as brands they've built up and all products created during the term are their assets that they have at least 'first refusal' rights for.
.
I'm sure there many occasions when P pissed Warners off by releasing 1978–1996 period material independently, probably without their knowledge, let alone permission.

.

And rerecording and releasing the song '1999' was another thing that must've pissed them off as most major label contracts prohibit the rerecording of any material made during the term for at least 5 or so years after the termination of the contract.
.

Yes, the vault (and its tapes, HDDs, etc) were Prince's personal property, but that doesn't mean that he owned the RIGHTS to every recording on those tapes.
A lot of people keep forgetting that owning a reel of tape and owning the rights to the recording on that tape are two entirely different things!
.

[Edited 7/1/20 0:01am]

This was the main reason why Crystal Ball 2 was never finished. After CB1 and the Rave title track, he was threatened with legal action by WB for releasing music he recorded during those years without their permission. What he did from 96-forward was his. It's also the main reason why he was re-recording his vault tracks, rather than releasing them as is or censored if he deemed needed. He was not allowed to release any pre-1996 material as he did not own the masters. I was told this specifically by someone who was with WB at the time. The reason why there are no real "full vault" projects until 2021 is because Warner still owns distribution rights, even though the estate owns the masters, and even in THAT case, they don't own them all. Warner owns all of the Paisley Park Records side project masters as well. Of note, Prince only reserved master rights for pre 1995 Warner material in the US when he renegotiated. Outside of the US, Warner still owned the distribution rights in 2014. I believe in 2021, all rights to non-PR, non side project, and non-soundtrack albums worldwide would have reverted to Prince. Unless the estate decides to cut a deal.

Thanks everyone for their insights, particularly Kares whose contributions are always useful. I think here we must all be extremely careful with affirmations because despite what we think we know because of various infos, sources or industry standards, there remains a lot of doubt in this matter.

.

Now TrcikyChristopher regarding the Paisley Park side projects it appears it's a little more complicated. Some 8 or 9 years ago Alan Leeds came here to discuss fDeluxe. He said that he wasn't sure but he believed The Family album's masters still belonged with WB.

I asked him how was it possible that Prince rereleased the 1993 George Clinton and Mavis Staples albums on Edel Europe in 1995? What Alan Leeds explained is that at some point circa 86-87, Prince negociated with WB that, if the label was ever shut down, Prince would get the masters to the PP records would then revert from WB to Prince, and that it's exactly what happened in 1994.

He also explained that this did not apply to Prince, Sheila E. or The Time (Pandemonium) because these acts were never really signed to Paisley Park, they were signed to WB and WB simply allowed the PP label to be put on the records for publicity.

Alan also explained that, because this was renegociated after the label was launched, he believed some of the early acts were signed directly to WB, which most likely means The Family and possibly Mazarati and Taja Sevelle (Taja, in particular, released a second album with WB without PP, so this seems to corroborate this).

Besides the evidence that 2 PP albums were indeed rereleased on Edel in 1995 with a (p) NPG Records indicia, Alan Leeds' story is also corroborated by the testimony of someone who claimed to be a former Edel exec and who once went to a forum to tell the story of Prince and Edel. Among the things this person revealed is that at some point (before Prince dropped the project of turning NPG Records into a real label like Paisley Park was, which clearly was his project by the time of 1-800 New Funk), he had planned to have Edel rerelease several PP albums, of which he gave a list. That's from memory but IIRC this list of rereleases contained both Madhouse records, both Eric Leeds records, Carmen Electra, Ingrid Chavez and the first George and Mavis records (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Another interesting info that appears to corroborate this is that Jill Jones explained many times that when she left P's camp in 1990, she was contractually bound to P until 1993, which prevented her from getting another record deal, and that Prince (not WB) would decline to free her of her obligations. Eric Leeds also explained on Podcast Juice that it was Prince's decision, not WB's, to allow him to release a second record or not, as made possible by his original deal.

Now I'm not sure whether this applies to all PP records released after 1987. Tony LeMans' albumw as released as a joint venture between PP and Reprise (a WB subsidiary). The Kahoru Kohuiruimaki were also released as a joint project between PP and TDK (WB's Japanese branch at the time). It's possible these specific projects were the subject of separate deals. Another interesting thing is what TC Ellis explained to Dye: apprently he negociated and signed his "play or pay" contract with WB not PP, and when WB passed on the second record they, not PP, gave the money to TC.

So I'm not 100% of anything, but between what Alan said and the 2 1995 rereleases, not to mention all the other elements cited above, it appears safe to say that the estate now owns most of the Paisley Park catalogue, minus a couple of releases.

A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #105 posted 07/01/20 7:30am

databank

avatar

Kares said:

TrcikyChristopher said:

This was the main reason why Crystal Ball 2 was never finished. After CB1 and the Rave title track, he was threatened with legal action by WB for releasing music he recorded during those years without their permission. What he did from 96-forward was his. It's also the main reason why he was re-recording his vault tracks, rather than releasing them as is or censored if he deemed needed. He was not allowed to release any pre-1996 material as he did not own the masters. I was told this specifically by someone who was with WB at the time. The reason why there are no real "full vault" projects until 2021 is because Warner still owns distribution rights, even though the estate owns the masters, and even in THAT case, they don't own them all. Warner owns all of the Paisley Park Records side project masters as well. Of note, Prince only reserved master rights for pre 1995 Warner material in the US when he renegotiated. Outside of the US, Warner still owned the distribution rights in 2014. I believe in 2021, all rights to non-PR, non side project, and non-soundtrack albums worldwide would have reverted to Prince. Unless the estate decides to cut a deal.

.

Of course, the label will own the copyrights in any sound recordings made during the term of the recording contract. And I'm sure his contract had a re-recording restriction (for five or more years after the termination of his contract) so '1999 TNM' must've been violating his contract too.
.

Not to mention the fact that 1999 The New Master actually contained some tracks from the original 1982 multitracks.

.

On a sidenote, and I won't go into details as to where and how I've learned this because I'm not allowed to (sorry for all the secrecy but you know how this crazy community works), but it appears that contrarily to what was believed in the past, Prince didn't rerecord much of his back catalogue, if anything at all. I believe this was corroborated with either Buff or Morris (can't remember which is was) who said that they weren't aware of anything beyond 1999 and a drum'n'bass (!) rerecording of Let's Pretend. The Purple Medley would, therefore, not have been made of such rerecordings but simply recorded as a medly for this specific project. Again, this is "floating" information so I'm not claiming to know anything for sure, just trying to use whatever info I have to come-up with the most reasonable educated guess.

A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #106 posted 07/01/20 8:32am

Kares

avatar

databank said:

TrcikyChristopher said:

This was the main reason why Crystal Ball 2 was never finished. After CB1 and the Rave title track, he was threatened with legal action by WB for releasing music he recorded during those years without their permission. What he did from 96-forward was his. It's also the main reason why he was re-recording his vault tracks, rather than releasing them as is or censored if he deemed needed. He was not allowed to release any pre-1996 material as he did not own the masters. I was told this specifically by someone who was with WB at the time. The reason why there are no real "full vault" projects until 2021 is because Warner still owns distribution rights, even though the estate owns the masters, and even in THAT case, they don't own them all. Warner owns all of the Paisley Park Records side project masters as well. Of note, Prince only reserved master rights for pre 1995 Warner material in the US when he renegotiated. Outside of the US, Warner still owned the distribution rights in 2014. I believe in 2021, all rights to non-PR, non side project, and non-soundtrack albums worldwide would have reverted to Prince. Unless the estate decides to cut a deal.

Thanks everyone for their insights, particularly Kares whose contributions are always useful. I think here we must all be extremely careful with affirmations because despite what we think we know because of various infos, sources or industry standards, there remains a lot of doubt in this matter.

.

Now TrcikyChristopher regarding the Paisley Park side projects it appears it's a little more complicated. Some 8 or 9 years ago Alan Leeds came here to discuss fDeluxe. He said that he wasn't sure but he believed The Family album's masters still belonged with WB.

I asked him how was it possible that Prince rereleased the 1993 George Clinton and Mavis Staples albums on Edel Europe in 1995? What Alan Leeds explained is that at some point circa 86-87, Prince negociated with WB that, if the label was ever shut down, Prince would get the masters to the PP records would then revert from WB to Prince, and that it's exactly what happened in 1994.

He also explained that this did not apply to Prince, Sheila E. or The Time (Pandemonium) because these acts were never really signed to Paisley Park, they were signed to WB and WB simply allowed the PP label to be put on the records for publicity.

Alan also explained that, because this was renegociated after the label was launched, he believed some of the early acts were signed directly to WB, which most likely means The Family and possibly Mazarati and Taja Sevelle (Taja, in particular, released a second album with WB without PP, so this seems to corroborate this).

Besides the evidence that 2 PP albums were indeed rereleased on Edel in 1995 with a (p) NPG Records indicia, Alan Leeds' story is also corroborated by the testimony of someone who claimed to be a former Edel exec and who once went to a forum to tell the story of Prince and Edel. Among the things this person revealed is that at some point (before Prince dropped the project of turning NPG Records into a real label like Paisley Park was, which clearly was his project by the time of 1-800 New Funk), he had planned to have Edel rerelease several PP albums, of which he gave a list. That's from memory but IIRC this list of rereleases contained both Madhouse records, both Eric Leeds records, Carmen Electra, Ingrid Chavez and the first George and Mavis records (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Another interesting info that appears to corroborate this is that Jill Jones explained many times that when she left P's camp in 1990, she was contractually bound to P until 1993, which prevented her from getting another record deal, and that Prince (not WB) would decline to free her of her obligations. Eric Leeds also explained on Podcast Juice that it was Prince's decision, not WB's, to allow him to release a second record or not, as made possible by his original deal.

Now I'm not sure whether this applies to all PP records released after 1987. Tony LeMans' albumw as released as a joint venture between PP and Reprise (a WB subsidiary). The Kahoru Kohuiruimaki were also released as a joint project between PP and TDK (WB's Japanese branch at the time). It's possible these specific projects were the subject of separate deals. Another interesting thing is what TC Ellis explained to Dye: apprently he negociated and signed his "play or pay" contract with WB not PP, and when WB passed on the second record they, not PP, gave the money to TC.

So I'm not 100% of anything, but between what Alan said and the 2 1995 rereleases, not to mention all the other elements cited above, it appears safe to say that the estate now owns most of the Paisley Park catalogue, minus a couple of releases.

.
The G.Clinton and M.Staples albums weren't the only two Prince-releases on Edel of course, '1-800-New-Funk', 'Exodus' and its singles were also distributed by them. It's not much info, I know, but I can confirm there was talk of more releases coming to Edel from Prince as I did talk to someone at Edel while working at one of their partners.
I think you're right on all the above, btw, as far as we can see into these things...

Friends don't let friends clap on 1 and 3.

The Paisley Park Vault spreadsheet: https://goo.gl/zzWHrU
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #107 posted 07/01/20 5:17pm

VaultCurator

avatar

lavendardrummachine said:

olb99 said:

  • "Camille" has slightly different mixes of the tracks compared to the released versions




I'd been wondering about that...

....also wondering which version of Feel U Up would be on. The B Side version or if there was another.

Obviously I have no way of knowing, but considering how close Camille and Crystal Ball were configured (5 November 1986 & 30 November 1986) I’m guessing that the differences in the mixes are probably subtle, in a similar vein to the early versions of the Diamonds & Pearls songs. The mixes and the way they are edited may by different, but I’m guessing the recording were all the same. Having said that, you make a good point with ‘Feel U Up’ since we didn’t get to hear it until 1989. I guess Prince would have had ample time to overhaul it if he felt it needed it.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #108 posted 07/01/20 6:40pm

databank

avatar

VaultCurator said:

lavendardrummachine said:



I'd been wondering about that...

....also wondering which version of Feel U Up would be on. The B Side version or if there was another.

Obviously I have no way of knowing, but considering how close Camille and Crystal Ball were configured (5 November 1986 & 30 November 1986) I’m guessing that the differences in the mixes are probably subtle, in a similar vein to the early versions of the Diamonds & Pearls songs. The mixes and the way they are edited may by different, but I’m guessing the recording were all the same. Having said that, you make a good point with ‘Feel U Up’ since we didn’t get to hear it until 1989. I guess Prince would have had ample time to overhaul it if he felt it needed it.

It would be interesting to have a professional engineer, or someone with the ears, to compare each track on CB to its supposedly identical officially released version. There might be subtle mix differences the average listener can't catch.

As for Feel U Up, Princevault mentions a longer version of the Long Stroke existing in the vault, but says the Long Stroke edit is the one from Camille (but there may still be slight mix differences, since Pvault doesn't acknowledge any on Camille anyway).

A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #109 posted 07/01/20 8:04pm

lavendardrumma
chine

databank said:

As for Feel U Up, Princevault mentions a longer version of the Long Stroke existing in the vault, but says the Long Stroke edit is the one from Camille (but there may still be slight mix differences, since Pvault doesn't acknowledge any on Camille anyway).


Right, they list the released version as the "Short stroke" impying it's an edit of the "Long Stoke" version on the Partyman 12" that's double in length.


If I've heard it, I've forgotten, but it was apparently released.

I guess it's unlikely there was another version entirely though.

[Edited 7/1/20 20:06pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #110 posted 07/01/20 8:17pm

databank

avatar

lavendardrummachine said:

databank said:

As for Feel U Up, Princevault mentions a longer version of the Long Stroke existing in the vault, but says the Long Stroke edit is the one from Camille (but there may still be slight mix differences, since Pvault doesn't acknowledge any on Camille anyway).


Right, they list the released version as the "Short stroke" impying it's an edit of the "Long Stoke" version on the Partyman 12" that's double in length.


If I've heard it, I've forgotten, but it was apparently released.

I guess it's unlikely there was another version entirely though.

[Edited 7/1/20 20:06pm]

What I (and Princevault) meant is -> Short Stroke (released on Partyman 7'') -> Long Stroke (released on Partyman 12'') -> Longer Stroke (unreleased).

[Edited 7/1/20 20:17pm]

A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #111 posted 07/02/20 8:30am

JorisE73

Kares said:

JorisE73 said:

Here's an intersting thread from 15(!) years ago about his recordings:

https://prince.org/msg/7/155730

.

A thread with a lot of mistakes and false information.


Could you elaborate? This thread was from 2005, obviously he struck a new deal with WB in 2014, so in hindsight the info is now probably indeed false.
But I'm interested in the posts regarding the rights of the outtakes and alternate versions from Neversin.
He speculates by comparing other (artists?) contracts and Prince's own 'work-for-hire' rant on NPGOnlineLTD back then that WB indeed own all that material.
He also said back then that Prince had the physical tapes (back then everybody thought WB had those) and WB had the rights. He also said that Prince's CD's from the 80's apparently were indeed mastered seperately wehen everybody also thought they were vinyl masters pressed on CD's.
the only useless BS on that thread seems to come from BorisFishpaw who's known as a bullshitter among traders.

Regarding the 'New Masters' or his re-recordings, Prince showcased some of them at Paisley Park at the first Celebration and later at some Paisley Park gatherings.
So he did do a bunch of them, but like in that thread he probbaly used alternate takes and unfinished remixes of those tracks than really rerecord everything.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #112 posted 07/02/20 9:13am

love2thenines2
003

FrankieCoco1 said:

Nice info about Rebirth of the Flesh. Also, there’s meant to be another Michael Howe interview with Matt Everitt, being aired on Shaun Keaveny’s radio show this afternoon on BBC 6 Music. No details (currently) on the website, but a snippet of it was played during Mary Anne Hobbs show on Friday, followed by playing Witness 4 the Prosecution. https://www.bbc.co.uk/pro...s/m000kh2h - this link might allow UK listeners to hear it (not sure about rest of the world) Seems like they held it back for another day. [Edited 6/29/20 8:17am]

Any news since ?

thanx

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #113 posted 07/02/20 9:59am

LoveGalore

JorisE73 said:



Kares said:




JorisE73 said:


Here's an intersting thread from 15(!) years ago about his recordings:

https://prince.org/msg/7/155730



.


A thread with a lot of mistakes and false information.




Could you elaborate? This thread was from 2005, obviously he struck a new deal with WB in 2014, so in hindsight the info is now probably indeed false.
But I'm interested in the posts regarding the rights of the outtakes and alternate versions from Neversin.
He speculates by comparing other (artists?) contracts and Prince's own 'work-for-hire' rant on NPGOnlineLTD back then that WB indeed own all that material.
He also said back then that Prince had the physical tapes (back then everybody thought WB had those) and WB had the rights. He also said that Prince's CD's from the 80's apparently were indeed mastered seperately wehen everybody also thought they were vinyl masters pressed on CD's.
the only useless BS on that thread seems to come from BorisFishpaw who's known as a bullshitter among traders.

Regarding the 'New Masters' or his re-recordings, Prince showcased some of them at Paisley Park at the first Celebration and later at some Paisley Park gatherings.
So he did do a bunch of them, but like in that thread he probbaly used alternate takes and unfinished remixes of those tracks than really rerecord everything.



On the New Masters, I thought it was either Scottie or HM Buff who said he lost interest in that quickly and they really didn't actually complete any work on them past 1999.

But you bring up an interesting point: why would alt takes or remixes slip through a loophole? WRT unreleased recordings, who says what is an alternate take beyond prince and how would that be defined if it wasn't released?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #114 posted 07/02/20 10:26am

Kares

avatar

JorisE73 said:

Kares said:

.

A thread with a lot of mistakes and false information.


Could you elaborate? This thread was from 2005, obviously he struck a new deal with WB in 2014, so in hindsight the info is now probably indeed false.
But I'm interested in the posts regarding the rights of the outtakes and alternate versions from Neversin.
He speculates by comparing other (artists?) contracts and Prince's own 'work-for-hire' rant on NPGOnlineLTD back then that WB indeed own all that material.
He also said back then that Prince had the physical tapes (back then everybody thought WB had those) and WB had the rights. He also said that Prince's CD's from the 80's apparently were indeed mastered seperately wehen everybody also thought they were vinyl masters pressed on CD's.
the only useless BS on that thread seems to come from BorisFishpaw who's known as a bullshitter among traders.

Regarding the 'New Masters' or his re-recordings, Prince showcased some of them at Paisley Park at the first Celebration and later at some Paisley Park gatherings.
So he did do a bunch of them, but like in that thread he probbaly used alternate takes and unfinished remixes of those tracks than really rerecord everything.

.
The info about Prince's unreleased material from 1978 to 1996 being owned by Warners is correct. And yes, P owned the actual tapes but he didn't own the rights to most of them.

.
Regarding mastering: the technically correct term for what most people call 'mastering' is actually 'pre-mastering', because it is followed by 'mastering' that means creating the production master for duplication. Production masters are ALWAYS different for different formats. Vinyl, for example, requires a very different EQ curve (and there are even some specific mixing-considerations when the end product is vinyl) than CD.
.
I haven't read the entired thread but many of the mistakes I noticed were indeed in Boris's posts, but there are many others as well. For example: remastering is not about "improving the vocal tracks, guitar tracks etc separately", that would be remixing.
Also: Prince's contract most probably had a re-recording restriction clause (as it is quite standard), therefore he wouldn't have been able to simply put out different mixes or rerecordings of his Warner-material before the restriction ended and I suspect '1999TNM' was already violating his WB-contract.
.

Friends don't let friends clap on 1 and 3.

The Paisley Park Vault spreadsheet: https://goo.gl/zzWHrU
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #115 posted 07/02/20 10:53am

JorisE73

Kares said:

JorisE73 said:


Could you elaborate? This thread was from 2005, obviously he struck a new deal with WB in 2014, so in hindsight the info is now probably indeed false.
But I'm interested in the posts regarding the rights of the outtakes and alternate versions from Neversin.
He speculates by comparing other (artists?) contracts and Prince's own 'work-for-hire' rant on NPGOnlineLTD back then that WB indeed own all that material.
He also said back then that Prince had the physical tapes (back then everybody thought WB had those) and WB had the rights. He also said that Prince's CD's from the 80's apparently were indeed mastered seperately wehen everybody also thought they were vinyl masters pressed on CD's.
the only useless BS on that thread seems to come from BorisFishpaw who's known as a bullshitter among traders.

Regarding the 'New Masters' or his re-recordings, Prince showcased some of them at Paisley Park at the first Celebration and later at some Paisley Park gatherings.
So he did do a bunch of them, but like in that thread he probbaly used alternate takes and unfinished remixes of those tracks than really rerecord everything.

.
The info about Prince's unreleased material from 1978 to 1996 being owned by Warners is correct. And yes, P owned the actual tapes but he didn't own the rights to most of them.

.
Regarding mastering: the technically correct term for what most people call 'mastering' is actually 'pre-mastering', because it is followed by 'mastering' that means creating the production master for duplication. Production masters are ALWAYS different for different formats. Vinyl, for example, requires a very different EQ curve (and there are even some specific mixing-considerations when the end product is vinyl) than CD.
.
I haven't read the entired thread but many of the mistakes I noticed were indeed in Boris's posts, but there are many others as well. For example: remastering is not about "improving the vocal tracks, guitar tracks etc separately", that would be remixing.
Also: Prince's contract most probably had a re-recording restriction clause (as it is quite standard), therefore he wouldn't have been able to simply put out different mixes or rerecordings of his Warner-material before the restriction ended and I suspect '1999TNM' was already violating his WB-contract.
.


1999 The New Master was probably more Prince's frustration about him just knowing that WB would try to cash in on the track so he'd try to one-up them. The result was garbage tho lol
Do you know what the deal is with live recordings? Because you would think WB would then own the soundtrack to the SOTT movie et al.
I always wondered who had to give permission and benefitted the most with artists covering a song; the record company or the people who wrote the track?
Thanks for your always helpful explanations man!

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #116 posted 07/02/20 10:59am

JorisE73

LoveGalore said:

JorisE73 said:


Could you elaborate? This thread was from 2005, obviously he struck a new deal with WB in 2014, so in hindsight the info is now probably indeed false.
But I'm interested in the posts regarding the rights of the outtakes and alternate versions from Neversin.
He speculates by comparing other (artists?) contracts and Prince's own 'work-for-hire' rant on NPGOnlineLTD back then that WB indeed own all that material.
He also said back then that Prince had the physical tapes (back then everybody thought WB had those) and WB had the rights. He also said that Prince's CD's from the 80's apparently were indeed mastered seperately wehen everybody also thought they were vinyl masters pressed on CD's.
the only useless BS on that thread seems to come from BorisFishpaw who's known as a bullshitter among traders.

Regarding the 'New Masters' or his re-recordings, Prince showcased some of them at Paisley Park at the first Celebration and later at some Paisley Park gatherings.
So he did do a bunch of them, but like in that thread he probbaly used alternate takes and unfinished remixes of those tracks than really rerecord everything.

On the New Masters, I thought it was either Scottie or HM Buff who said he lost interest in that quickly and they really didn't actually complete any work on them past 1999. But you bring up an interesting point: why would alt takes or remixes slip through a loophole? WRT unreleased recordings, who says what is an alternate take beyond prince and how would that be defined if it wasn't released?


I don;t think WB have every recording log Prince did (he probably held some back) so he could easily used an earlier or later take from a track (be it guitar, piano or whatever) and present it as a new recording done "yesterday".
From what i understand is that Prince regularly sent tapes and showcased his work to WB people when recording. They obviously paid for the sudio time (be it his own studio or somewhere else) if Prince sent them the bill than chances are that they wanted to see (hear) the results.

I also read somewhere that Prince held a party celebrating the last recording of a 'New Master' back then and that was Soft and Wet, I think.

[Edited 7/2/20 11:05am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #117 posted 07/02/20 11:23am

Kares

avatar

JorisE73 said:

Kares said:

.
The info about Prince's unreleased material from 1978 to 1996 being owned by Warners is correct. And yes, P owned the actual tapes but he didn't own the rights to most of them.

.
Regarding mastering: the technically correct term for what most people call 'mastering' is actually 'pre-mastering', because it is followed by 'mastering' that means creating the production master for duplication. Production masters are ALWAYS different for different formats. Vinyl, for example, requires a very different EQ curve (and there are even some specific mixing-considerations when the end product is vinyl) than CD.
.
I haven't read the entired thread but many of the mistakes I noticed were indeed in Boris's posts, but there are many others as well. For example: remastering is not about "improving the vocal tracks, guitar tracks etc separately", that would be remixing.
Also: Prince's contract most probably had a re-recording restriction clause (as it is quite standard), therefore he wouldn't have been able to simply put out different mixes or rerecordings of his Warner-material before the restriction ended and I suspect '1999TNM' was already violating his WB-contract.
.


1999 The New Master was probably more Prince's frustration about him just knowing that WB would try to cash in on the track so he'd try to one-up them. The result was garbage tho lol
Do you know what the deal is with live recordings? Because you would think WB would then own the soundtrack to the SOTT movie et al.
I always wondered who had to give permission and benefitted the most with artists covering a song; the record company or the people who wrote the track?
Thanks for your always helpful explanations man!

.
Live recordings made during the term of the agreement are also owned by the record label. (Obviously labels don't want their hit record material being released as a live album by another label.)
As for the SOTT movie: first, Warners had do give Prince permission to use the recordings for a film production by another studio and distributor, and then Prince, as the composer had to agree for his compositions to be used in a film. (Movie and TV usage rights are part of the so-called 'synch rights' and those always require permission by the composers or whoever owns their publishing.) As Warner let the SOTT recordings to be used in the film, they don't own the original sound recordings used in the film anymore.
.
Simply covering a song does not require the permission of the composers – altering a song (eg. changing its lyrics) does. Sometimes though artists do ask permission to cover someone else's song but that is not a legal requirement, only courtesy.
If your song is covered by someone on another label (or performed by someone else live), you, as composer and/or lyricist will receive income as the owner of the copyright IN THE COMPOSITION and LYRICS. Your label, who owns the rights to the recording won't receive a penny as that recording is not being used, only your composition is. (The label of the other artist who puts out the cover is getting money from the sale of that record though, of course.)
.
In general, the label who puts out a record makes the most money from the record sales, and composers/writers make less (but still more than what non-writing band members make). However, if you're a writer/composer, you can make a lot of money if your composition is used in a hit movie or on a big TV show, and these deals don't involve your record label. Radioplay can also bring in quite a bit, and even if your record that's being played on the radio is long out of print, you're still getting paid as the composer, so in the end you can potentially make more than what your label did.
.

[Edited 7/2/20 11:54am]

Friends don't let friends clap on 1 and 3.

The Paisley Park Vault spreadsheet: https://goo.gl/zzWHrU
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #118 posted 07/02/20 12:07pm

lavendardrumma
chine

JorisE73 said:

I always wondered who had to give permission and benefitted the most with artists covering a song; the record company or the people who wrote the track?
Thanks for your always helpful explanations man!


This has essentially been answered, but the artist usually retains publishing rights and that's the only rights holder who would be involved in a cover. Covering a song doesn't require a fee, but if you're Tom Jones or Kelly Clarkson, you're paying a royalty or negotiating a rights clearance fee. If you wanted to sample Kiss you would have to pay both the label and Prince too.


Some labels own some publishing on older songs, and towards the end of Prince's life, big catalog artists were taking what amounts to loans on the value of their catalog and handing over their rights to a company that could then monetize it or just collect all the publishing money that came. So MJ says "I'll sell you my publishing for 2 years if you give me $60M up front so I can live". It's hard to believe but supposedly Prince signed some kind of deal for his publishing around the same time of the WB new deal.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #119 posted 07/02/20 12:36pm

Kares

avatar

lavendardrummachine said:

JorisE73 said:

I always wondered who had to give permission and benefitted the most with artists covering a song; the record company or the people who wrote the track?
Thanks for your always helpful explanations man!


This has essentially been answered, but the artist usually retains publishing rights and that's the only rights holder who would be involved in a cover. Covering a song doesn't require a fee, but if you're Tom Jones or Kelly Clarkson, you're paying a royalty or negotiating a rights clearance fee. If you wanted to sample Kiss you would have to pay both the label and Prince too.


Some labels own some publishing on older songs, and towards the end of Prince's life, big catalog artists were taking what amounts to loans on the value of their catalog and handing over their rights to a company that could then monetize it or just collect all the publishing money that came. So MJ says "I'll sell you my publishing for 2 years if you give me $60M up front so I can live". It's hard to believe but supposedly Prince signed some kind of deal for his publishing around the same time of the WB new deal.

.
Sampling is quite a different subject to covering, hence I didn't want to get into that.
.
Record labels don't own publishing rights, record labels are not in the publishing business. (Every major label has a parent company that also owns a publishing company, but they are separate companies regardless.) Prince always had publishing deals as almost every writer/composers does and that was and still is unrelated to his record deals.
.

Friends don't let friends clap on 1 and 3.

The Paisley Park Vault spreadsheet: https://goo.gl/zzWHrU
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 4 of 6 <123456>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Prince archivist Michael Howe talks through SOTT bonus cuts