Just a few thoughts about something that's been puzzling me for a while regarding C-Note and The War now being credited to "Prince".

.

When The War came out in 1998, it was unambiguously credited to "The New Power Generation".

.

C-Note's credits history is a little more complicated.

.

When the original, individual songs files came out in 2002/2003, they were credited to "Prince And The New Power Generation"

.

Later in 2003, both The War and C-Note (now compiled as an album) were supposed to be added to a "Prince" boxset titled The Chocolate Invasion, that was ultimately shelved.

.

In 2004, both albums were made available on Prince's NPG Music Club website instead. Since the original files were copy-protected, I lost them long ago, but I seem to recall no official artist credit was given to those 2004 NPGMC files, something Princevault also states (so i guess my memories are correct?). Artwork was posted for C-Note's CD, but it was so small that one could barely read it. The CD art, however, credited "The New Power Generation" only.

.

In 2015, both records reappeared on Tidal. The cover art for C-Note (made in 2003 alongside the CD art on NPGMC) was finally revealed. Again, the only artist credit was "The New Power Generation".

.

Very oddly, though, both The War and C-Note were credited to "Prince" on the Tidal platform itself.

So, OK, marketing, right? Regardless of credits, those are technically Prince records, so they'll be easier to find if they're attributed to "Prince", right? Yet, Exodus and Newpower Soul, two albums by Prince originally released under the "New Power Generation" moniker, were also rereleased on Tidal, but those were credited to "The New Power Generation" on the platform. Similarly, Kamasutra, a Prince album originally credited to "The NPG Orchestra", was rereleased as a "NPG Orchestra" record.

.

Then, in 2018, through their new deal with Sony Legacy, the Prince Estate finally released C-Note on every other streaming platform (but, awkwardly, not The War, Newpower Soul, Exodus nor Kamasutra: those records, as well as Gold Nigga, didn't seem to be included in the Sony Legacy deal). As on Tidal, C-Note was credited on every platform as a "Prince" album, despite the cover art still saying "The New Power Generation". Given the lack of care on display so far, I suspect this is because the Estate didn't know better nor did they think twice about it, but who knows, maybe they did it on purpose.

.

The question that remains is: what happened in 2015, when The War, originally released under the NPG moniker, and C-Note, clearly intended as a NPG release when originally compiled in 2003, suddenly became "Prince" releases on Tidal?

I see two possibility: 1/ Prince changed his mind, decided he wanted those records to be "Prince", but kept seeing Newpower Soul and Exodus as "NPG" albums, and he instructed Tidal to release them under his own name; or 2/ Tidal didn't pay attention and just assumed those two records were "Prince" releases, and either Prince never realized or didn't bother asking them to change it.

.

Not very important in the end, everyone knows Prince and The New Power Generation are one and the same, but IDK, if Prince decided to release certain things under certain monikers, I think it'd be nice to keep those credits on streaming platforms (at least unless it's established he himself claimed C-Note and The War back in 2015).

.

Opinions?

.

[Edited 3/20/25 18:12pm]

databank said:

.

Opinions?

.

[Edited 3/20/25 18:12pm]

.

I think the difference is that Exodus and Newpowersoul were physically released on two record labels. So there was some kind of copyright agreement that didn't include Prince as the author. For C-Note and the other works you mention, I imagine the rights management was much more vague and capable of changing depending on Prince's wishes.

themanfromneptune said:

databank said:

.

Opinions?

.

[Edited 3/20/25 18:12pm]

.

I think the difference is that Exodus and Newpowersoul were physically released on two record labels. So there was some kind of copyright agreement that didn't include Prince as the author. For C-Note and the other works you mention, I imagine the rights management was much more vague and capable of changing depending on Prince's wishes.

This could actually make sense.

.

I think it was Michael B on the Prince Podcast (?) who said the band got paid specifically for Exodus, though I'm not sure if he meant an advance on sales as the credited artist, or just the songwriting royalties (since Prince shared the writing credit with the whole band for the whole album).

.

Not sure what sort of deal there could have been for Newpower Soul (Prince didn't give away writing credits this time), but following this logic, it could still be the whole band was contracted as the performing act.

.

I'm pretty sure the masters for both records wholly belong to the Estate nevertheless (I don't see Prince sharing those, though he claimed he gave Chaka and Larry theirs —which I'm skeptical of, though, since neither ever rereleased those records—, and Tamar said he gave her her album's as well, but that was years later with Tamar, and those were all solo acts), but it's indeed possible that any rerelease would involve money being shared with all bandmembers as co-credited artists (similarly, I guess, to those Paisley Park associated artists records currently owned by the Estate).

.

This doesn't explain the NPG Orchestra credit on Tidal, though (funilly enough, the one Kamasutra track on Prelude 2 Gold is also credited to "The NPG Orchestra" on every streaming services), as there were literally no band members but Prince himself.

.

This also doesn't mean the Estate couldn't credit The War and C-Note to the NPG without having to pay anyone, since Prince owned that band name anyway.

.

[Edited 3/20/25 20:18pm]

Sadly I don't have answers to your questions, Databank, but I find this to be a more important issue than what perhaps most would think so.
.
The fact that Prince issued records under several different artist credits is one of the main reason behind the common misconception that his catalog consists of only 36 or so albums, something that has always bothered me greatly. It is why most casual Prince fans aren't even aware of Madhouse, The War, Exodus etc, etc., even though they are clearly Prince records.

.
I still cannot get my head around the fact that even Discogs continues to make such a stupid distinction between "Prince" releases and "Prince & The Revolution" releases that they find it OK to not even show the later under Prince's name. So let's say a journalist wants to see a Prince discography and goes to discogs.com, looks up 'Prince', and they won't even see 'Purple Rain' on there (nor Parade and ATWIAD), which is ridiculous.
What's even more stupid is that while Discogs treats 'Prince & The Revolution' as one band with Prince as its frontman, they see 'The New Power Generation' as a band on its own right, with whom Prince only collaborated with. Mind boggling.

.
And of course the Estate goes along with all this insanity, instead of following the great example of the Zappa family who created and published an official (and numbered) catalog of Zappa releases, including everything made by Frank Zappa regardless of what artist credit they came out under originally.
After all, one would think that in order to keep someone's legacy alive the very first step you should take is making sure that whomever is interested in collecting all the music, they are at least informed of what they should be saving up their money for.

[Edited 3/21/25 12:59pm]

Kares: I can understand listing "Prince" albums, and "Madhouse" or "New Power Generation" albums separately, but I agree listing "Prince" albums and "Prince & X" albums separately doesn't make much sense. And I also agree that they're all Prince projects at the end of the day, so should be listed as such (but with the correct credit!).

Databank: your first hypothesis makes slightly more sense to me than the second one. Could it be that he just "forgot" about the Prince vs New Power Generation distinction after all those years, because he was just less into that kind of things later in his career? I mean "Gold Nigga" and "Exodus" clearly feel like NPG albums, with Tony M. and Sonny T. on lead vocals. He invented that Tora Tora character. On "Newpower Soul", he didn't even bother hiding that it was a Prince project. There's only him on the cover. Not even the band! Maybe he just grew tired of the concept?

[Edited 3/21/25 16:04pm]

olb99 said:

Kares: I can understand listing "Prince" albums, and "Madhouse" or "New Power Generation" albums separately, but I agree listing "Prince" albums and "Prince & X" albums separately doesn't make much sense. And I also agree that they're all Prince projects at the end of the day, so should be listed as such (but with the correct credit!).

.

I didn't mean to imply that original credits (such as Madhouse or NPG or whatever) should be forgotten or erased. I'm just saying there should be an official Prince catalog that includes all albums made by Prince, regardless of original artist credit and regardless of lead vocalists (so yes, I mean the first three Time albums, A6, V6, Sheila E, Family, JJones, Mayte etc albums too).
.
Just as the official Frank Zappa catalog includes everything originally credited to 'The Mothers Of Invention', 'The Abnuceals Emuuka Electric Symphony Orchestra & Chorus', 'The Mothers', 'Zappa & The Mothers', 'Francesco Zappa' or the 'Ensemble Intercontemporain & The Barking Pumpkin Digital Gratification Consort' – or in fact to Ensemble Modern or the London Symphony Orchestra.

NPGMC was horribly inconsistent on crediting a track. It sometimes was different between the UI and the name of the file or its metadata, etc. Or tracks that were previously credited as Prince were a track (or vice versa). Post-Warners things sometimes got sloppy.

.

[Edited 3/21/25 22:02pm]

Kares said:

I still cannot get my head around the fact that even Discogs continues to make such a stupid distinction between "Prince" releases and "Prince & The Revolution" releases that they find it OK to not even show the later under Prince's name. So let's say a journalist wants to see a Prince discography and goes to discogs.com, looks up 'Prince', and they won't even see 'Purple Rain' on there (nor Parade and ATWIAD), which is ridiculous.
What's even more stupid is that while Discogs treats 'Prince & The Revolution' as one band with Prince as its frontman, they see 'The New Power Generation' as a band on its own right, with whom Prince only collaborated with. Mind boggling.

.

Prince himself was often sloppy as well. The center of the Nude Tour tourbook had a list of compositions for others and that list had plenty of errors. The CB liner notes had errors. IIRC NPS was first announced as a Prince album, and then it suddenly was an NPG album.

Kares said:

The fact that Prince issued records under several different artist credits is one of the main reason behind the common misconception that his catalog consists of only 36 or so albums,

I would really like to see your list of all the albums you consider a proper "Prince album"

I am totally with you on the "..way more than 36" idea

Ndorphinmachina said:

Kares makes an excellent point about the silly way things are differentiated "P & The Revolution"/"Prince"/"Prince and The NPG"/"The NPG" listed as different artists when they were all effectively Prince. Even if the few occasions where Prince did the co-frontman thing, he was the reason people were looking.

.

The thing is: Prince was never a frontman of a band in the sense Mick Jagger or Eddie Vedder are frontmen. Prince was always a solo artist who called every shot, and while he did have bands, it was always about his artistic vision and he fired and replaced band members anytime he wanted. Sure, his musicians did inspire him and they even made important contributions, but none of them would ever deny that Prince remained 100% in control and if he didn't like a note, that note did not end up on the album. There was never anything remotely democratic about Prince's bands. He employed musicians whenever he needed them and at times he even employed dancers as "band members". It was all just marketing.
.

Just as there never was a band called 'Family Stone' without Sly, 'The Revolution' or 'The NPG' or 'Madhouse' or 'The Family' did not exist unless Prince wanted them to exist and they ceased to exist at his whim. That's exactly why he was so vehemently opposed to The Time or The Family trying to use these names later on, when he wouldn't have been in control anymore. Prince owned these artist names, rightfully, as they were simply marketing labels to him. It was his music, his vision. Now of course most of the members of his bands are very fine musicians, and since P's passing, they are free to operate as legitimate bands, they are still only Prince tribute bands (until they come up with original material – which would still be Prince-inspired, I'm sure, as that's what their audience would want).
.

So whenever someone asks me to show them Prince records, I never differentiate between the records based on official artist credits because I'm thinking: "would my friend miss out on important Prince-works if I would only show them material released under the Prince name?" And the answer to that question is yes, of course. The music released under the 'Madhouse' or 'The NPG' monikers are in no way less the creations of Prince Rogers Nelson as anything he put out under the artist name 'Prince'. It doesn't matter when the lead singer is someone else or when the lead is played by a saxophone. It's still Prince's work and it should all be included in his catalog. In fact I include all albums where at least 50% of material is his work.

[Edited 3/22/25 9:47am]

nayroo2002 said:

Kares said:

The fact that Prince issued records under several different artist credits is one of the main reason behind the common misconception that his catalog consists of only 36 or so albums,

I would really like to see your list of all the albums you consider a proper "Prince album"

I am totally with you on the "..way more than 36" idea

Back in 2017-18, when I decided to listen to all his "albums" (and order them from most to least favorite for fun), I came up with a list of 76 albums:

https://bruchez.blogspot....ts-it.html

The criteria was: projects with at least half of the tracks being "Prince tracks", excluding projects such as "Martika's Kitchen" or "Like A Prayer". The projects were supposed to be officially released, but I included "Milk & Honey" anyway (a mistake) and "The Undertaker" (officially released as video).

bizzie said:

Kares said:

I still cannot get my head around the fact that even Discogs continues to make such a stupid distinction between "Prince" releases and "Prince & The Revolution" releases that they find it OK to not even show the later under Prince's name. So let's say a journalist wants to see a Prince discography and goes to discogs.com, looks up 'Prince', and they won't even see 'Purple Rain' on there (nor Parade and ATWIAD), which is ridiculous.
What's even more stupid is that while Discogs treats 'Prince & The Revolution' as one band with Prince as its frontman, they see 'The New Power Generation' as a band on its own right, with whom Prince only collaborated with. Mind boggling.

.

Prince himself was often sloppy as well. The center of the Nude Tour tourbook had a list of compositions for others and that list had plenty of errors. The CB liner notes had errors. IIRC NPS was first announced as a Prince album, and then it suddenly was an NPG album.

.

I don't think he cared too much about artist credits, when in his mind (rightfully) it was all his own work, regardless of what marketing label (aka 'artist credit') they came out with originally.

.
Would any record buyer ever be happy with a 'Best of Prince' compilation that omits hits that were originally credited to 'Prince And The Revolution', for example? It would be a ridiculous release, wouldn't it? So why do these different labels ('The NPG', 'Vanity 6', 'The Family' etc) matter to us that much? It's all Prince's work primarily, with a few exceptions.

olb99 said:

nayroo2002 said:

I would really like to see your list of all the albums you consider a proper "Prince album"

I am totally with you on the "..way more than 36" idea

Back in 2017-18, when I decided to listen to all his "albums" (and order them from most to least favorite for fun), I came up with a list of 76 albums:

https://bruchez.blogspot....ts-it.html

The criteria was: projects with at least half of the tracks being "Prince tracks", excluding projects such as "Martika's Kitchen" or "Like A Prayer". The projects were supposed to be officially released, but I included "Milk & Honey" anyway (a mistake) and "The Undertaker" (officially released as video).

.

I'm with you. I too include everything that is at least 50% P. I even include albums that were at least slated for release, such as 'Milk & Honey' and 'Oui Can Luv'. But of course there are valid pros and cons about including stuff like 'The Undertaker' – I do include it too, but then again, if we do so, then we might as well include 'Lovesexy Live' or the 'SOTT' movie soundtrack too. There's a lot of grey area and we're never going to all agree on a final, official list. But I like to include as many as possible – anything that is known to exist as a 'finished product' (even if it ended up not released, such as 'Camille'), anything that adds to his legacy.