TrivialPursuit said:

laytonian said:

Behind Madonna? That's a joke.
Behind Jackson? That's also a joke.

Maybe his records didn't sell as much every year, BUT he had the #1 (money-making) concert tour of 2004. He was constantly honored by his peers and recognized as THE musical genius of his era.

Thriller is the biggest album of all time, Purple Rain wasn't. Could've been, but it wasn't. MJ hit at just the right time.

There's are reasons Thriller sold more than Purple Rain. Jackson's people kept pumping Thriller for more singles over a period of years (SEVEN singles were released). They were into titles, record-setting and wringing every ounce out of a performer who didn't create rapidly (or even by himself).

Prince, on the other hand, quickly moved on to ATWIAD. He didn't take the Purple Rain tour to Japan or Europe, which would have greatly increased album sales. There was also room for more singles from the PR album.

Taylor Swift is a country/pop artist who was always in a position to take advantage of ready-made markets and there's very llittle to compare with Prince, indeed, or with rap's impact on her career, lol. Godspeed to her and her fans though. Who knows in what direction the streaming industry will go, but it certainly is in for a change. I've made my predictions along those lines as well.

>

lastdecember said:

MickyDolenz said:

You mean all of those performers today who sign 360 deals, where the record labels get a part of touring & merchandising income? I think Madonna, Jay-Z, Rolling Stones, & U2 did that. What about Taylor Swift re-recording her stuff? The 360 thing started because Napster happened and many people stopped buying CDs. The labels weren't making as much money from record sales. It was MP3s to streaming today. A certain amount of streams is equal to an album sale. There's also those veteran artists who are selling their publishing and/or recordings for a big amount.

But again the artists you cite, Madonna, JayZ, U2 they all own their work, PRINCE didnt get his ownership till 2014. Prince was not in this position because HE signed bad deals in the long run. BUT also where PRINCE went very wrong was re-signing in 91-92, and it was EGO that led him to that payday, and VP title they gave him, but he failed to realize what was in that deal, you get such and such if you SELL such and such, and if you take out Purple Rain prince never would even have a platum album after or even close, he should have realized what that 120 million dollar deal was really, it was an advance if you do this, not heres your money now do what you want. Second with Taylor Swift, there is no comparison to what PRINCE wanted to do and how wrong he was on re-recording. Prince had that wonderful idea but he possibly did the worst re-do of a song in history, close second was Bon Jovi re-doing Livin on A Prayer in 1994 for a best of set. Prince's re-do of 1999 was awful in every way, so bad that the original was still outselling it when the new one came out, the idea to put lame raps from Doug E Fresh to also alter the song style, this song is cringe worthy. Taylor is in a totally different league with what she can do, what she does and what her fan base will do for her, PRINCE does not have that. Taylor was smart enough to realize people love these songs and my albums, and they are still fresh in their minds, and also her base is younger than Princes at that time, so she in every way won out, to a point where the sale of her old music is a disaster to those who purchased it, and she is just starting, beware of what she has in store for her bigger sellers. And selling your publishing, Prince again never was in this position, his assests are all over the place, he had deals with mutilple labels and he also had eras of time where stuff was not selling at all. And this goes back to loyality in the fan base, not one of Taylors fans doubted her or deviated, I mean just one example would be Prince doing things like "The Rainbow Children" the record sold 140,000 in america overall, now fans complained it was a new sound style his not cursing anymore, do you think Taylors base would deviate from her, this girl technically was labelled a country artist and no one had a issue going pop and now she is almost in singer songwriter mode and rumor is she could be going for a keyboardy 80 synth type record next. As for the streaming world, it may be how its done now, BUT artists not able to make these deals, are going to force streaming companies into more money for their work, which is going to translate to higher subscription fees, but lets be real streaming music has never gone up, compare it to all other outlets of film tv which ALL have raised prices numerous times, I think people are in for a shock with streaming music soon.

lastdecember said:

As for the streaming world, it may be how its done now, BUT artists not able to make these deals, are going to force streaming companies into more money for their work, which is going to translate to higher subscription fees, but lets be real streaming music has never gone up, compare it to all other outlets of film tv which ALL have raised prices numerous times, I think people are in for a shock with streaming music soon.

But Youtube is free unless you pay the fee to not get commercials playing before or during the videos. In a lot of cases Youtube has entire albums posted under the artists "topic" channels. I think the record labels post those. People also upload out of print & obscure albums and 45s. Well those wouldn't be officially online anyway, the rare records are usually not on Spotify or iTunes. Same for people uploading old movies & TV shows that they taped on VHS. Most of that stuff will never be officially released on DVD/Blu Ray, especially those ABC/NBC/CBS movies of the week from the 1970s & 1980s. They're not on the streaming networks like Netflix either. Disney will never do anything with things like Song Of The South or the original version of Fantasia with the Sunflower scenes. Same for Warner Brothers' Censored 11 cartoons & CBS with the Amos n' Andy TV show.

MickyDolenz said:

lastdecember said:

As for the streaming world, it may be how its done now, BUT artists not able to make these deals, are going to force streaming companies into more money for their work, which is going to translate to higher subscription fees, but lets be real streaming music has never gone up, compare it to all other outlets of film tv which ALL have raised prices numerous times, I think people are in for a shock with streaming music soon.

But Youtube is free unless you pay the fee to not get commercials playing before or during the videos. In a lot of cases Youtube has entire albums posted under the artists "topic" channels. I think the record labels post those. People also upload out of print & obscure albums and 45s. Well those wouldn't be officially online anyway, the rare records are usually not on Spotify or iTunes. Same for people uploading old movies & TV shows that they taped on VHS. Most of that stuff will never be officially released on DVD/Blu Ray, especially those ABC/NBC/CBS movies of the week from the 1970s & 1980s. They're not on the streaming networks like Netflix either. Disney will never do anything with things like Song Of The South or the original version of Fantasia with the Sunflower scenes. Same for Warner Brothers' Censored 11 cartoons & CBS with the Amos n' Andy TV show.

there is a huge difference in streaming for tv and film and for music. The people that make movies are paid already, and then they get a percentage depending on what they signed on for and put into a project. There are huge deals made when a movie gets put onto Amazon or Netflix especially first run movies, also some of these movie and tv services not only have you subscribe they also put fees on shows and movies, that's not happening for music and it's artists, but it will, especially now with artists constantly having to cancel shows and some haven't even been able to resume shows, that's all expenses to them, they are catching on they are getting screwed worse than before and they are going to ask for on their streams. I recently heard on a YouTube show by Adam reader he mentioned how Belinda Carlisles "Heaven is a place on earth" in the streaming era since it started has had 320 million on services combined for that song , that equals about 900,000 -1.2 million that she got paid for 320 million people listening or having her song in their possession, that's not even factoring in the musicians who played on it, the producers etc...so 320million and I get about 900,000 of that? That's criminal. Even if you say half of these streams are full subscribers that means the streaming companies which do nothing at all, made about 700 million on subscriptions.

lastdecember said:

there is a huge difference in streaming for tv and film and for music.

Youtube has music, movies, & TV. Both official and non-official, plus lots of people doing cover versions of current hits & oldies, like playing bass while a CD is playing or heavy metal versions of Cardi B songs. There's people reacting to music, video games, movie trailers, TV shows, etc. Which has the thing they're reacting to in the video. There's a lot of homemade remixes & mashups too. Youtube is still free. Some of the official movie uploads, you have to pay a fee or you can watch it for free if you let ads be shown. Even if they get paid, do the music artists get paid only for the official uploads. They probably don't with the reaction videos or people who upload their record collection themselves. With out-of-print records/movies, the Youtube bots often don't detect it. So they are not monetized. There's a lot of bootleg music on Youtube as well like unreleased Beatles songs. There's home videos people filmed of Elvis Presley. And today's concerts shot on cell phones by people in the audience. It's doubtful the performers get paid for the audience videos, only Youtube and maybe the content creators get a small payment if their channel is monetized.

emesem said:

Thanks for posting this. It really brought back the times for me and yes by 1988, Prince was commercially a footnote and already starting (because of the LS tour) to be thought of mostly as that guy you needed to see live (but that his new stuff is not as good). Batman gave him a lay up #1 because it was Batman and that was that.

Hate to say it but if anything hurt Prince's brand commerically it was not "rap" but rather the Under The Cherry Moon movie and to some exent Parade (before you go crazy, its literally my favorite Prince album- timeless and beautiful). But if we're only counting $$$, 1986 was already a bit to "precious" and dare I say "white" (ducks!) for the market those days. The LoveSexy cover and its dayglow aesthetic only buried him deeper.

Lenny Kravitz made his whole career, copping the SOTT hippy look, harder sound and 60s denim. Prince should have stayed there for another minute.

Lenny Kravitz was mostly popular with the mainstream pop audience like Tracy Chapman was. Lenny never had much airplay on R&B radio. R&B stations did continue to play some of Prince's slow jam material if not much of his other stuff. I still hear songs like Adore, Scandelous, Diamonds And Pearls, & Insatiable on the local Adult R&B station today. Especially on the Quiet Storm program.

No. Hip-Hop had nothing to do with Prince's demise. He wasn't a Hip-Hop artist. He was unique peculiarR&B artist mixing all sorts of othr non R&B styles into his music. My guess is his fight with warners was a game changer in his career for sure. He still did keep making very good records in 90s and 00s but he didn't have much marketing support Plus, the music industry was changing which affected a lot of other artists, not just him.

muleFunk said:

If you are in the Hall of Fame your career didn't get destoyed .

.

Exactly!

funkman88 said:

As Prince finished the 80s he was the 3rd biggest artist of the decade behind Michael & Madonna.Then in the 90s he wasn't even a top 20 artist by 2000!Do u think the rise in popularity of rap caused the historic fall?

.

Are you not aware that there were rap artists & hip-hop producers/beat makers that was sampling Prince's music in the 1990's? And lets never forget that Public Enemy, The Geto Boyz [especially Willie D], 2 Live Crew [especially Luke], Ice Cube, & 2pac were Prince-fans.

TonyVanDam said:

Prince wrote commercially; sales are another thing. Trends guide the shit. Music fans get fickle fast. He never really put his rap stuff out as singles.

lastdecember said:

Belinda Carlisles "Heaven is a place on earth" in the streaming era since it started has had 320 million on services combined for that song , that equals about 900,000 -1.2 million that she got paid for 320 million people listening or having her song in their possession, that's not even factoring in the musicians who played on it, the producers etc...so 320million and I get about 900,000 of that? That's criminal. Even if you say half of these streams are full subscribers that means the streaming companies which do nothing at all, made about 700 million on subscriptions.

The streaming companies do nothing at all? Hosting is free? Staff costs are free? Software development is free? $900,000 seems like a decent amount from streaming revenue for one song. It's not like those 320 million people would have all bought the single. That argument is like when movie companies cite number of copies downloaded and equate that to lost revenue. And is that 320 million plays, or unique listeners? If people listen multiple times and that number is pure plays, then the number of 'owners' of the song is massively smaller. In the old days, hundreds of people could have just recorded a song of the radio and the artist got no share of those people listening or now having a copy of the song.

And Belinda obvioulsy isn't that bothered because I just went to her YouTube channel to see how many views the video has there and there isn't even an advert on it. No point getting upset for someone who isn't even bothering to maximise their potential revenues.

I wouldn't be too sure whether Belinda Carlisle has anything to do directly toward the monetization of the streaming sites--subscription or otherwise--that are typically established and licensed by the tech deveopers and invested corporations, and not the artists. The artists--content providers that are the manipulated parties in this setup--have little control over these enterprises, which without having their provided content woud generate much less commercial activity and generate much less revenue.

>

It's a stinky partnership in fact, because the content providers get paid the least from these setups that would serve little purpose otherwise without their supplied creative content. It is a sticky problem that Prince knew about and the rest of the artists are aware of--the general population, not so much, apparently.

>

The commercial draw by other streaming sites like Itunes, Spotify, Pandora and the rest could be impacting Ms. Carlisle's efforts to build her own YouTube site's monetization, you see, and at this point she probably doesn't have the power to make the other streamers cease or to somehow narrow their market share.

TheEnglishGent said:

lastdecember said:

Belinda Carlisles "Heaven is a place on earth" in the streaming era since it started has had 320 million on services combined for that song , that equals about 900,000 -1.2 million that she got paid for 320 million people listening or having her song in their possession, that's not even factoring in the musicians who played on it, the producers etc...so 320million and I get about 900,000 of that? That's criminal. Even if you say half of these streams are full subscribers that means the streaming companies which do nothing at all, made about 700 million on subscriptions.

The streaming companies do nothing at all? Hosting is free? Staff costs are free? Software development is free? $900,000 seems like a decent amount from streaming revenue for one song. It's not like those 320 million people would have all bought the single. That argument is like when movie companies cite number of copies downloaded and equate that to lost revenue. And is that 320 million plays, or unique listeners? If people listen multiple times and that number is pure plays, then the number of 'owners' of the song is massively smaller. In the old days, hundreds of people could have just recorded a song of the radio and the artist got no share of those people listening or now having a copy of the song.

And Belinda obvioulsy isn't that bothered because I just went to her YouTube channel to see how many views the video has there and there isn't even an advert on it. No point getting upset for someone who isn't even bothering to maximise their potential revenues.

Rap didn't destroy Prince's career. It is mainly a Zeitgeist thing in my opinion, and him not being able to keep up / adapt.

Prince made his fame as a new wave funk artist with some rock elements. The synths, the New Romantics look, the LM-1, androgyny, lace, these were all things that were very much in vogue in the first 10 years of his career. Add to that great songwriting, his good looks, the rise of MTV and the Purple Rain movie, plus the sheer excitement that he brought to the table as a live performer, and you have a 'perfect storm' where Prince was able to rise to the absolute top.

By the end of the 80's funk and new wave music (which I believe to be the basis for Prince as an artist) quickly lost popularity and was mainly replaced by ultra commercialized pop (eg. Whitney Houston), rap (in the USA) and house/electronic music (in Europe). Later in the 90's grunge and slick R&B music followed. Although Prince tried his hand in all these genres, he never really got into any of them completely in a serious, heartfelt way like he did back in his funk/new wave days. His rap wasn't 'hot' enough compared to real rap artists, his house/electronic stuff wasn't as 'cutting edge' as the best dance producers, etc. His formula of successfully blending styles wasn't as appealing to the general public anymore as he simply had not been part of the growth of these new genres. He knew he had to do something with these new genres to keep up with the peoples' tastes, but he wasn't riding the Zeitgeist any longer like he did in the 80's.

Plus he didn't really change his outrageous androgynous style, and by the beginning of the 90's he started to stand out in an 'out of touch' way (to me at least). Where other 80's stars (eq. Jon Bon Jovi) succesfully managed to change their looks to more subtle/manly styles in the 90's, Prince stuck to his James Brown style outfits combined with make up and high heels. The 90's were mainly a time of macho/rough/street looking styles and Prince didn't get this cue IMO. Yeah, he started using a gun mic, LOL! I always thought Prince looked really cool up to around 1987/1988, in the 90's I didn't think he looked cool at all.

Add to that all the shenanigans with the name change and the Slave on his face and (in all honesty) slowly but surely even I became a bit embarrassed to be a Prince fan, and stopped playing his new albums when I had visitors over.

Although I like his 80's output better, in all fairness Prince still made a lot of good music in the 90's. And I think he could have extended his succesfull 'hits' period with a few more years just by changing his looks into something more fitting with the times. More toned down, less make up, more manly.

TonyVanDam said:

muleFunk said:

If you are in the Hall of Fame your career didn't get destoyed .

.

Exactly!

Grandmaster flash in the hall of fame so no distinction there....enbarassing

Funny thing IS: Prince was a BETTER Rapper than ANYONE He had rappin' on His Music (except Chuck D.)!!! But I DID like Cat's Rap on "Alphabet Street"

woogiebear said:

Funny thing IS: Prince was a BETTER Rapper than ANYONE He had rappin' on His Music (except Chuck D.)!!! But I DID like Cat's Rap on "Alphabet Street"

He was definitely better at any sort of stylized talking in a song like that. Was he a full on rapper? No, but to your point he was musical inside and out. For him to rap like that was just as easy for him as it was during tongue twisters like "Race" or the break-bridge in "Endorphinmachine."

But every now and then there comes a time you must defend your right to die and live again

I still can't nail that part. I don't even try with "Race" when he's saying things like "Regurgitate."

I think that the posts here comparing Prince’s commercial status with others are missing the point somewhat. Prince always straddled the mainstream and the avant-garde, and his cultural and critical standing was always more significant than the pure sales figures suggested. MJ and Madonna may have been the biggest selling stars of the 80s, but few serious critics would deny that Prince was the most significant artist.

For me, the real death knell in the 90s was not that Prince was no longer selling but the general critical consensus that he was no longer interesting, and his appropriation of hip-hop was part of that for me. From a creative perspective, I think that he would have been better off hunkering down and continuing to experiment in isolation rather than chasing contemporary trends. If he was to draw from emerging sub-genres, it should have been something genuinely fresh like the experimental IDM or Trip-Hop scenes of the 90s which were more in keeping with his backcatalog and influence i.e 1999>The Electrifying Mojo>Detroit Techno>Aphex Twin. I know that he flirted with it on stuff like Loose, but he didn't seem to have his finger on the pulse when it came to the really interesting music that was emerging at that time. There's nothing wrong with responding to trends in itself, Bowie and George Clinton did it successfully over their entire careers and have never really been "uncool", but it needs to be done with sound creative judgement and taste.

His foray into hip-hop, which as a genre was already past it’s initial radical peak, just seemed a bit lame, even to a fan like myself. I quite liked My Name Is Prince and Sexy MF because they still sounded uniquely Prince (I remember the latter even being popular in the playground among my peers , which never happened in the 90s), but by the time we get to Pussy Control and Face Down it just sounded hopelessly lame to me. I was still a teen at the time and had that perception, so that illustrates how far off the mark it was as a strategic move (if that's what it was?).

fen said:

LoveGalore said:

fen said:

I think that the posts here comparing Prince’s commercial status with others are missing the point somewhat. Prince always straddled the mainstream and the avant-garde, and his cultural and critical standing was always more significant than the pure sales figures suggested. MJ and Madonna may have been the biggest selling stars of the 80s, but few serious critics would deny that Prince was the most significant artist.

For me, the real death knell in the 90s was not that Prince was no longer selling but the general critical consensus that he was no longer interesting, and his appropriation of hip-hop was part of that for me. From a creative perspective, I think that he would have been better off hunkering down and continuing to experiment in isolation rather than chasing contemporary trends. If he was to draw from emerging sub-genres, it should have been something genuinely fresh like the experimental IDM or Trip-Hop scenes of the 90s which were more in keeping with his backcatalog and influence i.e 1999>The Electrifying Mojo>Detroit Techno>Aphex Twin. I know that he flirted with it on stuff like Loose, but he didn't seem to have his finger on the pulse when it came to the really interesting music that was emerging at that time. There's nothing wrong with responding to trends in itself, Bowie and George Clinton did it successfully over their entire careers and have never really been "uncool", but it needs to be done with sound creative judgement and taste.

His foray into hip-hop, which as a genre was already past it’s initial radical peak, just seemed a bit lame, even to a fan like myself. I quite liked My Name Is Prince and Sexy MF because they still sounded uniquely Prince (I remember the latter even being popular in the playground among my peers , which never happened in the 90s), but by the time we get to Pussy Control and Face Down it just sounded hopelessly lame to me. I was still a teen at the time and had that perception, so that illustrates how far off the mark it was as a strategic move (if that's what it was?).

Hip hop was not past it's radical peak by 1992.

Yeah, that was a poor choice of words (MF Doom made radical hip-hop in the 2000s, Zebra Katz is making it today etc) - what I mean is that its initial cultural impact as something completely fresh and new had passed, and that initial creative spark is something quite different from a genre becoming established in the mainstream as a major economic force (which is the point at which Prince jumped on board). The "Golden Age" is generally considered to be mid 80s to early/mid 90s if I'm not mistaken.

[Edited 1/7/22 17:57pm]

fen said:

LoveGalore said:

He didn't have any of the upbringing or culture that rappers had.

Like parents divorcing, a father who left, bouncing between homes, etc? Like every other kid in the U.S. has had in their lifetime. As a Gen Xer, I can say we were the first generation who were latchkey kids, en masse. We were the first generation to have the divorce rate shoot up exponentially compared to Boomers or the Greatest Generation. Y'all can't honestly think there wasn't drugs in the suburbs.

He didn't grow up in the ghetto, didn't deal with daily violence on the streets, etc. He was so far removed from that corner of the black experience and was a gazillionaire by the time rap actually became a force to be reckoned with.

Buddy, no.

Just... no.

TrivialPursuit said:

Germanegro said:

WOW--that is so wrong! Rap is just not all about the ghetto or violence. PLEASE try again!
>
I believe that Baybyface, Saadiq et al., don't belong in this equation.

LoveGalore said:


But Prince had been rapping in songs since 1983. So I think this has less to do with rap as part of the zeitgeist and all to do with the fact that Prince really couldn't do it all, and he hated it. Prince was a master of the space he carved out but that space was his alone.

He didn't have any of the upbringing or culture that rappers had. He didn't grow up in the ghetto, didn't deal with daily violence on the streets, etc. He was so far removed from that corner of the black experience and was a gazillionaire by the time rap actually became a force to be reckoned with.

If Babyface or Raphael Sadiiq or any other RnB/Soul artist with a similarly soft background started rapping about hard shit and carrying a microphone gun while wearing roller skates and a onesie thong bathing suit thing, they'd similarly be met with skepticism.

TrivialPursuit said:

onlyforaminute said:

LoveGalore said:

fen said:

Yeah, that was a poor choice of words (MF Doom made radical hip-hop in the 2000s, Zebra Katz is making it today etc) - what I mean is that its initial cultural impact as something completely fresh and new had passed, and that initial creative spark is something quite different from a genre becoming established in the mainstream as a major economic force (which is the point at which Prince jumped on board). The "Golden Age" is generally considered to be mid 80s to early/mid 90s if I'm not mistaken.

[Edited 1/7/22 17:57pm]

But Prince had been rapping in songs since 1983. So I think this has less to do with rap as part of the zeitgeist and all to do with the fact that Prince really couldn't do it all, and he hated it. Prince was a master of the space he carved out but that space was his alone. He didn't have any of the upbringing or culture that rappers had. He didn't grow up in the ghetto, didn't deal with daily violence on the streets, etc. He was so far removed from that corner of the black experience and was a gazillionaire by the time rap actually became a force to be reckoned with. If Babyface or Raphael Sadiiq or any other RnB/Soul artist with a similarly soft background started rapping about hard shit and carrying a microphone gun while wearing roller skates and a onesie thong bathing suit thing, they'd similarly be met with skepticism.

The Last Poets, Gil Scott Heron and P-Funk had used spoken word over music - you could definitely argue that they're precursors to rap, but it isn't the same thing. Prince's use of spoken word on tracks like Irresistible Bitch would fall into that category for me... not exactly rap.

I think that “Gangster Rap” is a completely valid mode and medium of expression from people who previously hadn’t had much of a voice, but as others have said it isn’t the essence of Hip-Hop. Hip-Hop was as much defined by groups like De La Soul and A Tribe Called Quest who had a distinctly gentle vibe. The fact that Gangster Rap became synonymous with the genre in people's minds is due to the hysteria that it provoked in the American establishment, which is a whole other conversation.

[Edited 1/8/22 17:03pm]

The man did a video to capture some street-level energy and so he's wholesale mimicing gansta rap throughout the nineties?

>

I advise you to step back please, or put some glasses on and look at the entire page of the memo before starting to read it aloud, though.

LoveGalore said:

Germanegro said:

WOW--that is so wrong! Rap is just not all about the ghetto or violence. PLEASE try again! > I believe that Baybyface, Saadiq et al., don't belong in this equation.

Maybe you lost the plot given we're talking about a time period where rap very much was about that stuff (gangsta rap specifically, which is specifically what Prince was mimicking in the 90s).