New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
Why is there a sector of the Prince fan-base who insist on calling Warner Bros. the bad guys? There is no bad/good guy situation - it's all spin made up by Prince.
WB were *very* accomodating to Prince throughout his contract with them. It has been documented that WB were one of the most artist friendly major record labels around. Now regardless of the "rules" that govern the record industry as a whole, WB were very good to Prince. What I mean is, arguing that WB got the "lions share" of record sales, or they wouldn't release a triple album every 12 days whenever Prince farted one out, all that stuff is irrelevant, if you gripe with that, your gripe is with the record industry as a whole, not WB. In my opinion, Prince is his worst enemy where business is concerned, he doesn't have proper management, and hasn't had for years - there is a very good arguement to say that his decline in sales/popularity/artistic quality was in direct proportion to his management problems. Bottom line - Prince signed legal contracts, several times in his career, not just when he was an impressionable 17 year old, so any argument regarding profits and such is null and void, since those are contractual, and were agreed by both parties. WB were not the bad guys, there were no bad guys - and Prince trashed his OWN career with the silly and humiliating games he played in order to prematurely terminate his contract with WB. [This message was edited Mon Nov 17 11:45:06 PST 2003 by Romance1600] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm a sucker for a major chord | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
You know you're right.. WB aren't the bad guys and my problem IS with the industry as a whole. I'm sick of them feeding us garbage. I guess it's just easy to take it out on WB here. I read that they even once gave P his own office so they were more than accomodating. [This message was edited Mon Nov 17 11:53:25 PST 2003 by marcdeondotcom] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I have always wanted to know the details surrounding Prince and the WB thing. If Prince signed his life away on the dotted line, full knowing what the consequences were, then that's his fault. If there were some underhanded things going on in the background, then it's as simple as suing WB. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
right on. wb spoiled that cat to death, he can't say too much.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
WB was more than good to Prince. they bent over backwards to accomodate him. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I bet in the next year or so, we're going to hear less and less about Prince's beefs against WB, and in about two or three years from now, it'll be all revisionist history about how it was merely a "silly misunderstanding".
Hey, if our music collections benefit as a result, I don't mind... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
More importantly why are there people who still care either way? It's easy to see from both sides of the spectrum. Warner Bros. was one of the few labels to actually support artistic development. With carrots dangled in front of Prince like executive positions and joint-venture labels it's easy to see why he signed another contract with them. However, it's also easy to see the position Warner was put in when Prince wasn't delivering the best material possible to them anymore. It just turned into a situation that didn't work anymore for either of them. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Prince himself said that it wasn't the bitter battle people thought it was. Remember, the media always plays their part in things too. P said that his main problem was the issue of ownership. I was just at lunch and stopped at Waldenbooks. Peeped out a little bit of Chaka Khan's biography. She made an excellent point about the music industry. She stated that when authors like Stephen King write a book, they basically lend it to the publisher in order to promote and market, etc. After that, the author still retains ownership of their art, whereas record companies hold onto that ownership forever. I don't hate WB, but I do believe that the rules in the game need to be changed. And lest anyone think that this only happens to minorities. Look at guys like David Allen Coe. I see commercials for this guy's shows all the time. He's probably been to my town 10 times in the past couple of years. A lot of these older dudes are living on tour in order to make a living because they don't have ownership of their music. What I do get sick of hearing is the music industry crying the blues over all the downloading taking place on Kazaa and other sites. The music industry spent the entire 20th century getting over on artists.
It was bound to come back on them somehow. But, a guy named David Fricke made a good point as well. He said "anyone who enters a deal blindly in this day and age gets what they deserve." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OdysseyMiles said: Prince himself said that it wasn't the bitter battle people thought it was. Remember, the media always plays their part in things too. P said that his main problem was the issue of ownership. I was just at lunch and stopped at Waldenbooks. Peeped out a little bit of Chaka Khan's biography. She made an excellent point about the music industry. She stated that when authors like Stephen King write a book, they basically lend it to the publisher in order to promote and market, etc. After that, the author still retains ownership of their art, whereas record companies hold onto that ownership forever. I don't hate WB, but I do believe that the rules in the game need to be changed. And lest anyone think that this only happens to minorities. Look at guys like David Allen Coe. I see commercials for this guy's shows all the time. He's probably been to my town 10 times in the past couple of years. A lot of these older dudes are living on tour in order to make a living because they don't have ownership of their music. What I do get sick of hearing is the music industry crying the blues over all the downloading taking place on Kazaa and other sites. The music industry spent the entire 20th century getting over on artists.
What part did the media play in this battle? They didn't ask Prince to walk around for years with "Slave" on his face.It was bound to come back on them somehow. But, a guy named David Fricke made a good point as well. He said "anyone who enters a deal blindly in this day and age gets what they deserve." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
papabeat said: OdysseyMiles said: Prince himself said that it wasn't the bitter battle people thought it was. Remember, the media always plays their part in things too. P said that his main problem was the issue of ownership. I was just at lunch and stopped at Waldenbooks. Peeped out a little bit of Chaka Khan's biography. She made an excellent point about the music industry. She stated that when authors like Stephen King write a book, they basically lend it to the publisher in order to promote and market, etc. After that, the author still retains ownership of their art, whereas record companies hold onto that ownership forever. I don't hate WB, but I do believe that the rules in the game need to be changed. And lest anyone think that this only happens to minorities. Look at guys like David Allen Coe. I see commercials for this guy's shows all the time. He's probably been to my town 10 times in the past couple of years. A lot of these older dudes are living on tour in order to make a living because they don't have ownership of their music. What I do get sick of hearing is the music industry crying the blues over all the downloading taking place on Kazaa and other sites. The music industry spent the entire 20th century getting over on artists.
What part did the media play in this battle? They didn't ask Prince to walk around for years with "Slave" on his face.It was bound to come back on them somehow. But, a guy named David Fricke made a good point as well. He said "anyone who enters a deal blindly in this day and age gets what they deserve." There's also an inequity about arrangements like this with corporations and artist. Like Hollywood for instance. You create something. They buy it from you for $20,000 and turn around and make $200,000,000. The monies earned need to be more equitable. As far as music goes, why should some executive's children get an inheritance, when artist's kids don't get a share. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OdysseyMiles said: Prince himself said that it wasn't the bitter battle people thought it was. Remember, the media always plays their part in things too. P said that his main problem was the issue of ownership. I was just at lunch and stopped at Waldenbooks. Peeped out a little bit of Chaka Khan's biography. She made an excellent point about the music industry. She stated that when authors like Stephen King write a book, they basically lend it to the publisher in order to promote and market, etc. After that, the author still retains ownership of their art, whereas record companies hold onto that ownership forever. I don't hate WB, but I do believe that the rules in the game need to be changed. And lest anyone think that this only happens to minorities. Look at guys like David Allen Coe. I see commercials for this guy's shows all the time. He's probably been to my town 10 times in the past couple of years. A lot of these older dudes are living on tour in order to make a living because they don't have ownership of their music. What I do get sick of hearing is the music industry crying the blues over all the downloading taking place on Kazaa and other sites. The music industry spent the entire 20th century getting over on artists.
It was bound to come back on them somehow. But, a guy named David Fricke made a good point as well. He said "anyone who enters a deal blindly in this day and age gets what they deserve." This is a big big difference. Usually a writer is the "SOLE PRODUCER" of the work and can bear most expenses on his own. Most recording artists, especially at the onset of their careers, do not have the resources to get state-of-the-art recording studios and mastering facilities and pressing plants. A writer owns the words on the page. That's what he created. A musician may have written the song and played the instruments but he does not necessarily own the final audio recording master. test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
wyld1 said: As far as music goes, why should some executive's children get an inheritance, when artist's kids don't get a share.   
Sounds like an artist who didn't do any "Estate Planning". test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LITTLE RICHARD + CHUCK BERRY
both genius ! both touring themselves in2 the ground , both will die SKINT !,probably from touring in their 70's etc ! BECAUSE SOME OTHER F**KER OWNS THE MASTERS OF THE MUSIC THEY CREATED. go in2 ant wrecka stow in the world !,u will find cd's by lr + cb, CRIMINAL ...i say ! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
This is a big big difference. Usually a writer is the "SOLE PRODUCER" of the work and can bear most expenses on his own. Most recording artists, especially at the onset of their careers, do not have the resources to get state-of-the-art recording studios and mastering facilities and pressing plants. A writer owns the words on the page. That's what he created. A musician may have written the song and played the instruments but he does not necessarily own the final audio recording master.
THAT'S MY POINT. An artist SHOULD own the master. They created it, regardless of who owns the equipment or paid for the studio time. When a couple goes to the hospital and their child is born, a lot of people play their part in making sure the birth is succesful. But who goes home with the baby?? The parents!! They conceived him or her, so it's theirs. I'm just saying that the record business the way we know it should be changed to make things fair for all artists whether they're new or not. [This message was edited Mon Nov 17 14:09:53 PST 2003 by OdysseyMiles] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
danielboon said: LITTLE RICHARD + CHUCK BERRY
both genius ! both touring themselves in2 the ground , both will die SKINT !,probably from touring in their 70's etc ! BECAUSE SOME OTHER F**KER OWNS THE MASTERS OF THE MUSIC THEY CREATED. go in2 ant wrecka stow in the world !,u will find cd's by lr + cb, CRIMINAL ...i say ! I agree, but that's no reason to hate WB. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm a sucker for a major chord | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Prince signed contracts with Warner's on many, many occasions. He wasn't locked into a deal from his very first record to his "Emancipation" with one signature.
He doesn't live in a (multi)mansions, and have his own film/recording studio from revenue created post-Warners. If prince.org were to be made idiot proof, someone would just invent a better idiot. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OdysseyMiles said: This is a big big difference. Usually a writer is the "SOLE PRODUCER" of the work and can bear most expenses on his own. Most recording artists, especially at the onset of their careers, do not have the resources to get state-of-the-art recording studios and mastering facilities and pressing plants. A writer owns the words on the page. That's what he created. A musician may have written the song and played the instruments but he does not necessarily own the final audio recording master.
THAT'S MY POINT. An artist SHOULD own the master. They created it, regardless of who owns the equipment or paid for the studio time. When a couple goes to the hospital and their child is born, a lot of people play their part in making sure the birth is succesful. But who goes home with the baby?? The parents!! They conceived him or her, so it's theirs. I'm just saying that the record business the way we know it should be changed to make things fair for all artists whether they're new or not. [This message was edited Mon Nov 17 14:09:53 PST 2003 by OdysseyMiles] That's NOT my point. Musicians can own their masters if they own the capital assets involved. They should either provide them up front by delivering a completed master to the label or buy back the masters at an mutually beneficial price. Your chidbirth analogy is not viable because we no longer create children as a source of capital or labor. Who knows? Maybe slavery will make a comeback! 
Yeah there are gross inequities in the record business, but ownership is 90% of eveything. test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Romance1600 said: danielboon said: LITTLE RICHARD + CHUCK BERRY
both genius ! both touring themselves in2 the ground , both will die SKINT !,probably from touring in their 70's etc ! BECAUSE SOME OTHER F**KER OWNS THE MASTERS OF THE MUSIC THEY CREATED. go in2 ant wrecka stow in the world !,u will find cd's by lr + cb, CRIMINAL ...i say ! I agree, but that's no reason to hate WB. i dont hate warners ive said b4 i prefered p wen he had a boss ie; (W/B) boss's dont put up with peoples shit !, i was jus pointing out a couple o injustices , hell they r many others !!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PFunkjazz said: OdysseyMiles said: This is a big big difference. Usually a writer is the "SOLE PRODUCER" of the work and can bear most expenses on his own. Most recording artists, especially at the onset of their careers, do not have the resources to get state-of-the-art recording studios and mastering facilities and pressing plants. A writer owns the words on the page. That's what he created. A musician may have written the song and played the instruments but he does not necessarily own the final audio recording master.
THAT'S MY POINT. An artist SHOULD own the master. They created it, regardless of who owns the equipment or paid for the studio time. When a couple goes to the hospital and their child is born, a lot of people play their part in making sure the birth is succesful. But who goes home with the baby?? The parents!! They conceived him or her, so it's theirs. I'm just saying that the record business the way we know it should be changed to make things fair for all artists whether they're new or not. [This message was edited Mon Nov 17 14:09:53 PST 2003 by OdysseyMiles] That's NOT my point. Musicians can own their masters if they own the capital assets involved. They should either provide them up front by delivering a completed master to the label or buy back the masters at an mutually beneficial price. Your chidbirth analogy is not viable because we no longer create children as a source of capital or labor. Who knows? Maybe slavery will make a comeback!
Yeah there are gross inequities in the record business, but ownership is 90% of eveything. Dude, there's no viable reason why a record company has to retain ownership of an artist's work forever. It's never really made sense. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OdysseyMiles said: PFunkjazz said: OdysseyMiles said: This is a big big difference. Usually a writer is the "SOLE PRODUCER" of the work and can bear most expenses on his own. Most recording artists, especially at the onset of their careers, do not have the resources to get state-of-the-art recording studios and mastering facilities and pressing plants. A writer owns the words on the page. That's what he created. A musician may have written the song and played the instruments but he does not necessarily own the final audio recording master.
THAT'S MY POINT. An artist SHOULD own the master. They created it, regardless of who owns the equipment or paid for the studio time. When a couple goes to the hospital and their child is born, a lot of people play their part in making sure the birth is succesful. But who goes home with the baby?? The parents!! They conceived him or her, so it's theirs. I'm just saying that the record business the way we know it should be changed to make things fair for all artists whether they're new or not. [This message was edited Mon Nov 17 14:09:53 PST 2003 by OdysseyMiles] That's NOT my point. Musicians can own their masters if they own the capital assets involved. They should either provide them up front by delivering a completed master to the label or buy back the masters at an mutually beneficial price. Your chidbirth analogy is not viable because we no longer create children as a source of capital or labor. Who knows? Maybe slavery will make a comeback!
Yeah there are gross inequities in the record business, but ownership is 90% of eveything. Dude, there's no viable reason why a record company has to retain ownership of an artist's work forever. It's never really made sense. Brush up some business law and maybe it will. test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PFunkjazz said: OdysseyMiles said: PFunkjazz said: OdysseyMiles said: This is a big big difference. Usually a writer is the "SOLE PRODUCER" of the work and can bear most expenses on his own. Most recording artists, especially at the onset of their careers, do not have the resources to get state-of-the-art recording studios and mastering facilities and pressing plants. A writer owns the words on the page. That's what he created. A musician may have written the song and played the instruments but he does not necessarily own the final audio recording master.
THAT'S MY POINT. An artist SHOULD own the master. They created it, regardless of who owns the equipment or paid for the studio time. When a couple goes to the hospital and their child is born, a lot of people play their part in making sure the birth is succesful. But who goes home with the baby?? The parents!! They conceived him or her, so it's theirs. I'm just saying that the record business the way we know it should be changed to make things fair for all artists whether they're new or not. [This message was edited Mon Nov 17 14:09:53 PST 2003 by OdysseyMiles] That's NOT my point. Musicians can own their masters if they own the capital assets involved. They should either provide them up front by delivering a completed master to the label or buy back the masters at an mutually beneficial price. Your chidbirth analogy is not viable because we no longer create children as a source of capital or labor. Who knows? Maybe slavery will make a comeback!
Yeah there are gross inequities in the record business, but ownership is 90% of eveything. Dude, there's no viable reason why a record company has to retain ownership of an artist's work forever. It's never really made sense. Brush up some business law and maybe it will. Dude, a record company has every right to recoup all that they've spent on an artist. Whether or not they retain ownership forever is totally negotiable in the beginning. It hardly ever happens, but it's negotiable nonetheless. Ya don't have to be an expert in business law to know that. I also realize that these companies insist on owning the master because that's how it's always been done. That doesn't make it right, bro. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
'cos we're fuckin' sycophants, that's why. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OdysseyMiles said: PFunkjazz said: OdysseyMiles said: PFunkjazz said: OdysseyMiles said: This is a big big difference. Usually a writer is the "SOLE PRODUCER" of the work and can bear most expenses on his own. Most recording artists, especially at the onset of their careers, do not have the resources to get state-of-the-art recording studios and mastering facilities and pressing plants. A writer owns the words on the page. That's what he created. A musician may have written the song and played the instruments but he does not necessarily own the final audio recording master.
THAT'S MY POINT. An artist SHOULD own the master. They created it, regardless of who owns the equipment or paid for the studio time. When a couple goes to the hospital and their child is born, a lot of people play their part in making sure the birth is succesful. But who goes home with the baby?? The parents!! They conceived him or her, so it's theirs. I'm just saying that the record business the way we know it should be changed to make things fair for all artists whether they're new or not. [This message was edited Mon Nov 17 14:09:53 PST 2003 by OdysseyMiles] That's NOT my point. Musicians can own their masters if they own the capital assets involved. They should either provide them up front by delivering a completed master to the label or buy back the masters at an mutually beneficial price. Your chidbirth analogy is not viable because we no longer create children as a source of capital or labor. Who knows? Maybe slavery will make a comeback!
Yeah there are gross inequities in the record business, but ownership is 90% of eveything. Dude, there's no viable reason why a record company has to retain ownership of an artist's work forever. It's never really made sense. Brush up some business law and maybe it will. Dude, a record company has every right to recoup all that they've spent on an artist. Whether or not they retain ownership forever is totally negotiable in the beginning. It hardly ever happens, but it's negotiable nonetheless. Ya don't have to be an expert in business law to know that. I also realize that these companies insist on owning the master because that's how it's always been done. That doesn't make it right, bro. If someone owns an asset you want then you have to negotiate to acquire it. Thing is, you have to offer them something that they will agree is of value. Maybe Warners was offer something of value; maybe not. It's pretty obvious it was not in their best interest to negotiate and you can't negotiate if parties don't agree there's a need. Nothing's personal or even racial. It's just business. Later... I see you think there is a limit to how much profits a business owner can get from a particular asset. This is something I fundamentally disagree with. A business has every right to exceed what it has spent on its assets as long as they were legally obtained in extension. This, then, becomes the province of lawsuits (and counter-suits, most likely). [This message was edited Tue Nov 18 10:14:27 PST 2003 by PFunkjazz] test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PFunkjazz said: OdysseyMiles said: PFunkjazz said: OdysseyMiles said: PFunkjazz said: OdysseyMiles said: This is a big big difference. Usually a writer is the "SOLE PRODUCER" of the work and can bear most expenses on his own. Most recording artists, especially at the onset of their careers, do not have the resources to get state-of-the-art recording studios and mastering facilities and pressing plants. A writer owns the words on the page. That's what he created. A musician may have written the song and played the instruments but he does not necessarily own the final audio recording master.
THAT'S MY POINT. An artist SHOULD own the master. They created it, regardless of who owns the equipment or paid for the studio time. When a couple goes to the hospital and their child is born, a lot of people play their part in making sure the birth is succesful. But who goes home with the baby?? The parents!! They conceived him or her, so it's theirs. I'm just saying that the record business the way we know it should be changed to make things fair for all artists whether they're new or not. [This message was edited Mon Nov 17 14:09:53 PST 2003 by OdysseyMiles] That's NOT my point. Musicians can own their masters if they own the capital assets involved. They should either provide them up front by delivering a completed master to the label or buy back the masters at an mutually beneficial price. Your chidbirth analogy is not viable because we no longer create children as a source of capital or labor. Who knows? Maybe slavery will make a comeback!
Yeah there are gross inequities in the record business, but ownership is 90% of eveything. Dude, there's no viable reason why a record company has to retain ownership of an artist's work forever. It's never really made sense. Brush up some business law and maybe it will. Dude, a record company has every right to recoup all that they've spent on an artist. Whether or not they retain ownership forever is totally negotiable in the beginning. It hardly ever happens, but it's negotiable nonetheless. Ya don't have to be an expert in business law to know that. I also realize that these companies insist on owning the master because that's how it's always been done. That doesn't make it right, bro. If someone owns an asset you want then you have to negotiate to acquire it. Thing is, you have to offer them something that they will agree is of value. Maybe Warners was offer something of value; maybe not. It's pretty obvious it was not in their best interest to negotiate and you can't negotiate if parties don't agree there's a need. Nothing's personal or even racial. It's just business. I'm goin' to Congress, Pfunk!! How ya like them apples?? Somebody needs to start the revolution...  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i was actually embarrassed by the 'slave' years.
imo prince benefited greatly from his time with WB | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Because people choose sides, it's in their nature.
There's a sector that thinks WB was the "bad guy". There's a sector that thinks Prince was the "bad guy" There's a sector that thinks the truth is somewhere in the middle. And there's a sector that thinks this is old news and doesn't care anymore. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
XxAxX said: i was actually embarrassed by the 'slave' years.
imo prince benefited greatly from his time with WB True. But remember that the "slave" years were part of his WB years. There's no guarantee that things would've improved if he'd stayed with them. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |