https://www.showbiz411.com/2022/09/22/exclusive-clive-davis-confirms-prince-didnt-like-having-no-control-over-cover-versions-of-his-songs

That is such an ill-formed headline. It's a double negative, which technically says Prince liked that he had no control over people covering his music.

I would think most covers were something he abhorred. Party O The Times, and other sets are just trash.

He talked to Mel B. about this saying everyone has their fingers in the pie. But if someone is doing something from the heart out of respect, he doesn't have much of a problem with it. He was likely truthful in that. That's around the time Alicia Keys did "How Come U Don't Call Me Anymore," and he was good with her.

We were all aghast at the Mariah cover of "The Beautiful Ones." It was a slow-motion shit show. I can't imagine why she slowed it down so much, then just decided, "oh hey, if I coo on this like a pigeon in heat, that'll be a hit!" I can only chalk it up to her eventual mental breakdown. Cuz she wasn't thinking clearly on that one. I mean, she's sorta fucked up every other cover she's done.

I've long said most Prince covers are garbage and things like "Purple Rain" should not be allowed to be covered. It's like covering "Stairway to Heaven" or "Let It Be." Just - no. No one is ever going to do it justice. And frankly as much as I respect LeAnn Rimes, she sucked the soul right out of that song. I think it was out around the same time as Mariah's heap of trash.

At least D'angelo had the sense to pick a slightly deeper cut and do something with it that drew people in.

TrivialPursuit said:

That is such an ill-formed headline. It's a double negative, which technically says Prince liked that he had no control over people covering his music.

You got that wrong. With a double negative, both negative works cancel out. So in this headline you'd remove both "didn't" and "no". Thus, "Prince Didn’t Like Having No Control Over Cover Versions of His Songs" becomes:

"Prince Like[d] Having Control Over Cover Versions of His Songs". Which is true.

Double negatives are considered wrong because 99% of the time the person is unintentionally saying the opposite of what they mean.

For example, someone may say "I ain't got no money" with the intention of conveying the idea that their wallet is empty. However, if you remove both negatives -- "ain't" and "no" -- the sentence reads: "I got money". Which means the exact opposite of the intent.

But there are cases, such as this headline, where a double negative is fine because it conveys the intended idea. Prince did not like having an abscence (i.e. no) control over covers.

lurker316 said:

TrivialPursuit said:

That is such an ill-formed headline. It's a double negative, which technically says Prince liked that he had no control over people covering his music.

You got that wrong. With a double negative, both negative works cancel out. So in this headline you'd remove both "didn't" and "no". Thus, "Prince Didn’t Like Having No Control Over Cover Versions of His Songs" becomes:

"Prince Like[d] Having Control Over Cover Versions of His Songs". Which is true.

Double negatives are considered wrong because 99% of the time the person is unintentionally saying the opposite of what they mean.

For example, someone may say "I ain't got no money" with the intention of conveying the idea that their wallet is empty. However, if you remove both negatives -- "ain't" and "no" -- the sentence reads: "I got money". Which means the exact opposite of the intent.

But there are cases, such as this headline, where a double negative is fine because it conveys the intended idea. Prince did not like having an abscence (i.e. no) control over covers.

Yup.

I'm not sure why this is "news" since we've known since Sinead "stole" Nc2U that he didn't like other people recording his music without permission.
But he did soften that by saying that he'd made enough money from that song that he bought a house (in LA).

He and Clive didn't get along at all. There's a report where Prince sprung up on Clive's desk, aroos on ir and berated him for not publicizing the release sufficiently, based on what Clive's cut was.
That's a scene I'd love to have seen.

doesnt really matter if covers of a song are trash or not, there are so many bad beatles covers out there, but do any of them ruin the original? nope.

prince wanted to have control over everything. but its not possible to always do that. if he had his way, he would not only wield power over who got to record covers, hed prob wanna be in the studio telling them how to do it or not lol

once a song is out there, its out there.

better to just sit back and count the royalties.

theres also the issue that even though i dont like them much, covers like those by mariah and genuwine being his music to a younger generation. thats what covers do for older artists. he was silly to try and stop that process.

funkbabyandthebabysitters said:

doesnt really matter if covers of a song are trash or not, there are so many bad beatles covers out there, but do any of them ruin the original? nope.(...)

.

- Agree. And one of the reasons younger generations are getting in touch with Beatles catalog is because there are so many covers out there. I understand Prince must have had a hard time thinking ´oh, he/she/they ruined my song´ but covering makes legacy alive.

laytonian said:

(...)
He and Clive didn't get along at all. There's a report where Prince sprung up on Clive's desk, aroos on ir and berated him for not publicizing the release sufficiently, based on what Clive's cut was.
That's a scene I'd love to have seen.

.

- Me too, although Prince himself didn´t like to promote things much and Rave probably didn´t have potential to be Prince´s Supernatural.

So many ways that article can be read it's mind boggling.

TrivialPursuit said:

That is such an ill-formed headline. It's a double negative, which technically says Prince liked that he had no control over people covering his music.

I would think most covers were something he abhorred. Party O The Times, and other sets are just trash.

He talked to Mel B. about this saying everyone has their fingers in the pie. But if someone is doing something from the heart out of respect, he doesn't have much of a problem with it. He was likely truthful in that. That's around the time Alicia Keys did "How Come U Don't Call Me Anymore," and he was good with her.

We were all aghast at the Mariah cover of "The Beautiful Ones." It was a slow-motion shit show. I can't imagine why she slowed it down so much, then just decided, "oh hey, if I coo on this like a pigeon in heat, that'll be a hit!" I can only chalk it up to her eventual mental breakdown. Cuz she wasn't thinking clearly on that one. I mean, she's sorta fucked up every other cover she's done.

I've long said most Prince covers are garbage and things like "Purple Rain" should not be allowed to be covered. It's like covering "Stairway to Heaven" or "Let It Be." Just - no. No one is ever going to do it justice. And frankly as much as I respect LeAnn Rimes, she sucked the soul right out of that song. I think it was out around the same time as Mariah's heap of trash.

At least D'angelo had the sense to pick a slightly deeper cut and do something with it that drew people in.

L'ange bleu, moderator:

Off topic comment deleted