.

https://www.irishpost.com...ary-228528

*******

Not surprised though.

Good for them, she has bad mouthed Prince for ages.

I think this was the proper move. I don't believe any of the crap she said. Did not fit.

That b/witch did not deserve that song. She's told so many versions of her claimed "assault" that who would believe her?

I am proud of the estate for denying the usage. She would be nothing without that song and that documentary will be nothing without it, either.

Thats a very Prince move lol

LoveGalore said:

Yeah fuck her.

-

The poor woman very recently lost her son...

-

I don't care that much for her music, or her person,

but how on earth can you all be so openly rude about her ?

Because she dissed Prince ?

Is that it ? Is that what Prince.org has become ?

How disparaging and banal.

-

[Edited 1/26/22 2:08am]

as I said before: she's made some VERY good music after she had a hit with NC2U so she was never a one hit wonder who'se only claim to fame or talent is covering a prince song.

yes, she said lots of fucked up stuff about prince. still, we were not there so what do we know? she's said some intersting stuff -notably in a song on one of her last albums- that also came to light about him in veiled references from protege acts after 2016.

however, beside being a very credible and accomplished artist in her own right, she also suffers from mental issues which she has been vocal and public about and her day to day struggles with her family, both past and present are nothing if not cause for pause and a bit of compassion.

I haven't read the article linked in the op, but what exactly did the estate deny the use of, a clip of the prince version or the The Family version that they want to use as reference in the documentary?

if so, it's not a huge loss for the documentary as long as they can still use sinead's cover version of the song, which I guess won't be a problem?

ok, decided to read the article


***

"The Prince estate denied use of Sinéad's recording of 'Nothing Compares 2 U' in this film."

***


so that is pretty interesting. that means you can prevent someone from using their own version
of a song. I didn't know that was even possible. how exactly does that work?

I guess nothing changes in her version being on her album and streaming etc, for eternity. the
'problem' lies in 'other uses' of that recording beyond it being on her albums/compilations etc?

does that mean that they could potentially block her from letting some company use her version
of it in a commercial etc as well and can that extend to her performing the song live?

and if she re-recorded her cover version, making it a new version that is not restricted by any of
the old contractual stipulations? or could the estate now block her from covering it anew?

another interesting thing here is that obviously the estate has also got some 'personal' reasons
that sway whatever is released/used instead of purely commercial reasons as some people on
this site have suggested.

Yeah, the vitriol on this thread is a perfect example of the trashcan that prince.org is these days.

This place is a shithole these days.

God forbid anyone should say anything bad about our beloved Prince, right?

Please, people, grow up. I'm not a fan of O'Connor's particularly, but her own struggles with mental health and the recent suicide of her son far outweigh any petty nonsense bullshit you have about protecting your holy beloved purple idol.

I'm a big Prince fan, I don't particularly care for or about Sinead O'Connor, and I do not care AT ALL what Sinead O'Connor has to say about Prince. Neither should you.

You badmouthing her and wishing her ill should be ashamed of yourselves. Seriously.

Grow up. Fucking prince.org.

LILpoundCAKE said:

PJMcGee said:

LILpoundCAKE said:

ok, decided to read the article


***

"The Prince estate denied use of Sinéad's recording of 'Nothing Compares 2 U' in this film."

***


so that is pretty interesting. that means you can prevent someone from using their own version
of a song. I didn't know that was even possible. how exactly does that work?

I guess nothing changes in her version being on her album and streaming etc, for eternity. the
'problem' lies in 'other uses' of that recording beyond it being on her albums/compilations etc?

does that mean that they could potentially block her from letting some company use her version
of it in a commercial etc as well and can that extend to her performing the song live?

and if she re-recorded her cover version, making it a new version that is not restricted by any of
the old contractual stipulations? or could the estate now block her from covering it anew?

another interesting thing here is that obviously the estate has also got some 'personal' reasons
that sway whatever is released/used instead of purely commercial reasons as some people on
this site have suggested.

The version of the song doesn't matter. If someone sang NC2U in a karaoke bar in a movie, they'd need permission from the writer of the song/the estate. And the estate probably thought that the documentary could hurt the Prince brand, tho the publicity around their denial might do the same.

Yeah, IDK exactly cos I'm no lawyer, but I would assume that while you need no permission to cover a song on stage or on a record, you need both the permission of the masters' owners and the publishing owners to use a recording in a film/TV show.

cantstop said:

Rimshottbob said:

There's some missing the point going on here.

Claiming that Prince was 'grooming' young women/proteges is reaching. Never heard any claims to that effect. In fact, I don't remember hearing of anyone badmouthing Prince after he died... except for Sinead O'Connor.

Could he be an ass sometimes while alive? Sure, can't we all.... So what. His benevolence seems to have far outweighed his assholery.... all that 'don't be gay' stuff to Wendy & Lisa. I'm betting they were able to shoulder that off pretty easily. Prince was into religion at the time. All religion is total bullshit top to bottom, and will do that to people. It brings out the worst in them when it should bring out the best.

Anyway....

I don't believe a single word Sinead O'Connor has to say about Prince. I think it's all absolute untruths. But I can hold that viewpoint and still not need to stoop to insulting her or calling her names, or making light of the struggles she's had throughout her life.

Rimshottbob said:

Rimshottbob said:

There's some missing the point going on here.

Claiming that Prince was 'grooming' young women/proteges is reaching. Never heard any claims to that effect. In fact, I don't remember hearing of anyone badmouthing Prince after he died... except for Sinead O'Connor.

Prince started a sexual relationship with at least two women (Anna Fantastic and Mayte) as soon as they turned 18, both of whom he was 10+ years older than at the time, and both of whom he knew and talked to when they were still minors. Even if he never took things in a sexual direction until they were of legal age, that pre-established connection makes it clear what his intentions were and it's ridiculously creepy behavior. It says a lot about Prince that he could have had any mature women within his age range, and he chose to chase after impressionable teenage girls on the cusp of legal adulthood because of the control he could have over them.

straight from wikipedia: "In 1990, 16-year-old Garcia met Prince backstage in Barcelona after he saw a tape of her dancing. After she graduated high school in Germany at the age of 17, Prince became her legal guardian".

What part of that doesn't sound like grooming? The fact that Mayte and Anna seem to have mostly positive things to say about their experiences doesn't negate that it was unacceptably creepy behavior on Prince's part.

[Edited 1/26/22 11:53am]

Vannormal said:

LoveGalore said:

Yeah fuck her.

-

The poor woman very recently lost her son...

-

I don't care that much for her music, or her person,

but how on earth can you all be so openly rude about her ?

Because she dissed Prince ?

Is that it ? Is that what Prince.org has become ?

How disparaging and banal.

-

[Edited 1/26/22 2:08am]

Agreed 100%.

bozojones said:

Rimshottbob said:

There's some missing the point going on here.

Claiming that Prince was 'grooming' young women/proteges is reaching. Never heard any claims to that effect. In fact, I don't remember hearing of anyone badmouthing Prince after he died... except for Sinead O'Connor.

Prince started a sexual relationship with at least two women (Anna Fantastic and Mayte) as soon as they turned 18, both of whom he was 10+ years older than at the time, and both of whom he knew and talked to when they were still minors. Even if he never took things in a sexual direction until they were of legal age, that pre-established connection makes it clear what his intentions were and it's ridiculously creepy behavior. It says a lot about Prince that he could have had any mature women within his age range, and he chose to chase after impressionable teenage girls on the cusp of legal adulthood because of the control he could have over them.

straight from wikipedia: "In 1990, 16-year-old Garcia met Prince backstage in Barcelona after he saw a tape of her dancing. After she graduated high school in Germany at the age of 17, Prince became her legal guardian".

What part of that doesn't sound like grooming? The fact that Mayte and Anna seem to have mostly positive things to say about their experiences doesn't negate that it was unacceptably creepy behavior on Prince's part.

[Edited 1/26/22 11:53am]

Anna's wiki page tries to make it sound like she was 18 when anything happened, like how he wrote "Pink Cashmere" for her "18th birthday", even though it was when she was 14. Same with "Vicki Waiting", which would have been when she was 15. She was born in December 1973.

billymeade said:

bozojones said:

Prince started a sexual relationship with at least two women (Anna Fantastic and Mayte) as soon as they turned 18, both of whom he was 10+ years older than at the time, and both of whom he knew and talked to when they were still minors. Even if he never took things in a sexual direction until they were of legal age, that pre-established connection makes it clear what his intentions were and it's ridiculously creepy behavior. It says a lot about Prince that he could have had any mature women within his age range, and he chose to chase after impressionable teenage girls on the cusp of legal adulthood because of the control he could have over them.

straight from wikipedia: "In 1990, 16-year-old Garcia met Prince backstage in Barcelona after he saw a tape of her dancing. After she graduated high school in Germany at the age of 17, Prince became her legal guardian".

What part of that doesn't sound like grooming? The fact that Mayte and Anna seem to have mostly positive things to say about their experiences doesn't negate that it was unacceptably creepy behavior on Prince's part.

[Edited 1/26/22 11:53am]

Anna's wiki page tries to make it sound like she was 18 when anything happened, like how he wrote "Pink Cashmere" for her "18th birthday", even though it was when she was 14. Same with "Vicki Waiting", which would have been when she was 15. She was born in December 1973.

Ugh, I sincerely hope that birth date on her page is a mistake, because if not...

antonb said:

About bloody time! A guy I know who used to run a prince magazine back in the day recons that would have not happened! Prince would have not been on his own with her for a start!

Apparently, there WAS a witness. The truth is that she attacked him first and he struck back (the physical argument). None of her other crap is true except in her poor, sad, mentally-ill head. He didn't live in Malibu, he didn't put a brick in a pillowcase, he didn't injure her or chase her down in his car. His eyes didn't turn into burning pits (or whatever she said).
He was a bad driver but still, if he was chasing her in a car, he'd have run her over.

IF she could tell a cohesive version and quit embroidering it over a period of years, no one would have denied her use of the song. But she's had him as a target for years.

[Edited 1/26/22 18:37pm]

It's entirely reasonable that the estate would do this, regardless of the veracity of what she's said.