MIRvmn1 said:

Farfunknugin said:

TrivialPursuit said:

Factor1 said:

TrivialPursuit said:

Ask the OP. Me saying something is a lie doesn't make me an asshole. Supporting a lie is an asshole move.

You sound like an a-hole. Who cares whether or not someone assumes something may be released?

What I sound like to you is entirely inconsequential to me. And it ain't none of my damn business.

Good day.

Factor1 said:

LoveGalore said:

Factor1 said:

You sound like an a-hole. Who cares whether or not someone assumes something may be released?

Because that was an integral part of the original post. Can you read?

.

The post was to voice the view that the Estate should release the video that is not even known if it even exists because if it does exist the OP speculated that it would be released by someone else and be beyond their control. There is nothing in this speculation on speculation that deserved the response that was made.

IanRG said:

olb99 said:

.

I'm not saying rights are simple. I'm just saying that what prevented the release while Prince was alive was the unreasonable amount of money he wanted to receive for that release. People were willing to settle the rights, believe me. And if they could do it then, they could do it now. There are hundreds of releases of performances at the Montreux Jazz Festival. The problem is not rights.

[Edited 2/24/22 23:22pm]

.

Every release of every Montreux Jazz Festival performance had to resolve multiple rights issues. Every failed release of every attempted Montreux Jazz Festival performance failed to resolve issues in regard to the mix of rights, payments and whether each rights holder wanted this to be released at that point.

.

What do you think the payment requested by Prince was for other than the rights for this to be released? Prince could not release it without paying the festival promoter for their rights and the festival promoter could not release it without paying Prince for his rights. The problem is always rights - that is what the payment is for. It is not just a donation in exchange for nothing.

.

Why would I believe you when you cannot see that payment for rights and rights are inexorably tied together? It was wrong for anyone to say Prince exclusively owns the rights to his performances at Montreaux and wrong to say payments for rights to release is not a rights issue.

[Edited 2/25/22 19:06pm]

It's not my place to reveal who they are and how they know what they know, but olb99 had inside information, being in a position to answer the OP's question and give accurate details on the topic at hand. I had actually sent them a message to tell them about this thread and ask them if they wanted to give some insight, because what I knew I knew from them, so it was better if it came from the original source.

.

It's no wonder this board has been deserted by pretty much every associated act, person "in-the-know" or anyone seriously involved in research, when all you get for sharing valuable information is being trashed, ridiculed and insulted by "fans". And that'll teach me to ask anyone who can share valid information to come here and do it.

databank said:

IanRG said:

.

Every release of every Montreux Jazz Festival performance had to resolve multiple rights issues. Every failed release of every attempted Montreux Jazz Festival performance failed to resolve issues in regard to the mix of rights, payments and whether each rights holder wanted this to be released at that point.

.

What do you think the payment requested by Prince was for other than the rights for this to be released? Prince could not release it without paying the festival promoter for their rights and the festival promoter could not release it without paying Prince for his rights. The problem is always rights - that is what the payment is for. It is not just a donation in exchange for nothing.

.

Why would I believe you when you cannot see that payment for rights and rights are inexorably tied together? It was wrong for anyone to say Prince exclusively owns the rights to his performances at Montreaux and wrong to say payments for rights to release is not a rights issue.

[Edited 2/25/22 19:06pm]

It's not my place to reveal who they are and how they know what they know, but olb99 had inside information, being in a position to answer the OP's question and give accurate details on the topic at hand. I had actually sent them a message to tell them about this thread and ask them if they wanted to give some insight, because what I knew I knew from them, so it was better if it came from the original source.

.

It's no wonder this board has been deserted by pretty much every associated act, person "in-the-know" or anyone seriously involved in research, when all you get for sharing valuable information is being trashed, ridiculed and insulted by "fans". And that'll teach me to ask anyone who can share valid information to come here and do it.

.

The only person trashed here was the OP for speculating and suggesting that the Estate consider releasing something that may not even exist.

.

You really do not need to be a secret insider with undisclosed secret information that should be taken on trust by people who have no idea who that person is to know that the stumbling block on releases from festivals is always about rights and money. And that if and when the rights are resolved it is by enough money. Prince has a long and known history of both asking for more than others are prepared to pay for rights and of aggressively seeking to control and protect his rights.

.

The key reason this board has been deserted is the way people (including Prince) are treated here. There is no trashing, ridiculing or insulting in pointing out that value Prince placed on his rights to his performance at Monteux being too high compared to what the festival organisers were prepared to pay is a rights issue.

.

The valuable insider information to a researcher and to answer the OP's question would have been whether the 2007 performance was professionally filmed. If it was not then there is no point speculating about whether the Estate and the Festival organisers can come to any agreement on a payment for the rights.

IanRG said:

.

The valuable insider information to a researcher and to answer the OP's question would have been whether the 2007 performance was professionally filmed. If it was not then there is no point speculating about whether the Estate and the Festival organisers can come to any agreement on a payment for the rights.

.

It was not. There was no camera in the hall, not even for the "big screens". The audio (multitrack + stereo) is archived and available to the Estate if they want to release something.

olb99 said:

There was no camera in the hall, not even for the "big screens". The audio (multitrack + stereo) is archived and available to the Estate if they want to release something.

Thank you for your information and stance.

I think that at least a snippet of Prince should be aired:

https://vimeo.com/683698315/8b985db06b

Ramzoo said:

I think that at least a snippet of Prince should be aired:

https://vimeo.com/683698315/8b985db06b

.

Yep!

olb99 said:

IanRG said:

.

The valuable insider information to a researcher and to answer the OP's question would have been whether the 2007 performance was professionally filmed. If it was not then there is no point speculating about whether the Estate and the Festival organisers can come to any agreement on a payment for the rights.

.

It was not. There was no camera in the hall, not even for the "big screens". The audio (multitrack + stereo) is archived and available to the Estate if they want to release something.

Thank you for the reply. Much appreciated!

lion88 said:

olb99 said:

.

It was not. There was no camera in the hall, not even for the "big screens". The audio (multitrack + stereo) is archived and available to the Estate if they want to release something.

Thank you for the reply. Much appreciated!

.

Yes, thanks (except that in the absence of any evidence from anything more than snippets, there appears to be no chance of video release.)

IanRG said:

lion88 said:

Thank you for the reply. Much appreciated!

.

Yes, thanks (except that in the absence of any evidence from anything more than snippets, there appears to be no chance of video release.)

.

Yes, we're talking about a 2-minute snippet in a documentary, here. It's not much, but it's cool that the Estate allowed it. I wouldn't say there's "no chance" of seing something more substantial in the future, though. Something will be released at some point. Certainly not in the near future, but, as I said, we haven't seen much at all in terms of official releases so far, compared to the amount of available content.

olb99 said:

IanRG said:

.

Yes, thanks (except that in the absence of any evidence from anything more than snippets, there appears to be no chance of video release.)

.

Yes, we're talking about a 2-minute snippet in a documentary, here. It's not much, but it's cool that the Estate allowed it. I wouldn't say there's "no chance" of seing something more substantial in the future, though. Something will be released at some point. Certainly not in the near future, but, as I said, we haven't seen much at all in terms of official releases so far, compared to the amount of available content.

.

That is just as well because for us, when it comes to Prince, too much is never enough.

TrivialPursuit said:

jasopig said:

You're assuming the estate owns the rights to these shows, when it's just as likely the Montreux Jazz Festival owns the rights. As others have said, I wouldn't hold your breath. Luckily, excellent boots on DVD and even bluray are readily available. Edit: At least for 09 and 13.

LOL you think someone owns a Prince performance and him playing his own music?! OKAY THEN.

TP, I usually think you're the voice of reason, but you're offbase on this one. Depending on the venue, there are certainly other people who might own the rights to Prince performances. It depends on who was putting on the show -- Prince himself or was he a guest.

For example, the rights to his appearance at the 1985 American Music Awards is owned by the AMA, not Prince. The rights to his Super Bowl halftime show is owned by the NFL, not Prince. The rights to his 2006 appearance on SNL is owned by NBC, not Prince. Etc.

In contrast, if he rented out an arena for a regular tour appearance and filmed it, of course he'd own the rights.

I don't know who owns the rights to the MJF or how difficult those would be to negotiate. I'm making no comment on those specific performances. I'm simply saying you're overstating your case if you believe that Prince automatically owned the rights to any and all live performances of his own music.

[Edited 3/10/22 20:01pm]

wonderboy said:

When I read the original post my first thought was that this may be someone that English was not their first language. Can we not give people the benefit of doubt before we start trash talking?

Folks, I think we can be a lot more hospitable around here.

E X A C T L Y !!!

You can see it anytime, sheesh.,

strawberryletter23 said:

olb99 said:

Only the audio for 2007 was recorded (multitracks/stereo, main show + aftershow). There was no video camera.

it seems someone was able to capture (some of?) teh aftershow because this weekend a certain someone showed video with soundboard footage of Prince walking onto the stage with his umbrella up.

[Edited 3/13/22 8:59am]

JorisE73 said:

olb99 said:

Only the audio for 2007 was recorded (multitracks/stereo, main show + aftershow). There was no video camera.

it seems someone was able to capture (some of?) teh aftershow because this weekend a certain someone showed video with soundboard footage of Prince walking onto the stage with his umbrella up.

[Edited 3/13/22 8:59am]

.

There were many photos taken by an official photographer from the festival. But just for the aftershow, not the main show. So it's entirely possible that some video footage was allowed at the beginning of the aftershow. I don't have any information about that, sorry.

olb99 said:

JorisE73 said:

it seems someone was able to capture (some of?) teh aftershow because this weekend a certain someone showed video with soundboard footage of Prince walking onto the stage with his umbrella up.

[Edited 3/13/22 8:59am]

.

There were many photos taken by an official photographer from the festival. But just for the aftershow, not the main show. So it's entirely possible that some video footage was allowed at the beginning of the aftershow. I don't have any information about that, sorry.

Ah ok. Hopefully all the shot footage will end up somewhere for all of us to also see.

JorisE73 said:

olb99 said:

.

There were many photos taken by an official photographer from the festival. But just for the aftershow, not the main show. So it's entirely possible that some video footage was allowed at the beginning of the aftershow. I don't have any information about that, sorry.

Ah ok. Hopefully all the shot footage will end up somewhere for all of us to also see.

If only there was a website where people could upload videos for others to view at their leisure. Man, someone should create that.

TrivialPursuit said:

TrivialPursuit said:

JorisE73 said:

Ah ok. Hopefully all the shot footage will end up somewhere for all of us to also see.

If only there was a website where people could upload videos for others to view at their leisure. Man, someone should create that.

Would be great if all that uncirculating material would end up on youtube or whereever, but you know better. This will never happen so us simple fans here will have to do with what the Estate gives us or leaks.

TrivialPursuit said:

JorisE73 said:

Ah ok. Hopefully all the shot footage will end up somewhere for all of us to also see.

If only there was a website where people could upload videos for others to view at their leisure. Man, someone should create that.

You are sounding like Bort.