independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > What artists actually own their masters?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 3 of 3 <123
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #60 posted 10/10/06 12:01pm

ehuffnsd

avatar

Madge owns everything from at least Erotica on.

If I'm not mistaken masters are given to the artist 35 years after the album comes out.
You CANNOT use the name of God, or religion, to justify acts of violence, to hurt, to hate, to discriminate- Madonna
authentic power is service- Pope Francis
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #61 posted 10/10/06 12:19pm

BlaqueKnight

avatar

mikek1 said:

Meloh9 said:




well he is friends with Prince


no he's not!

Like elton john said apart from maybe eminem or 2pac most rappers catalogues aren't worth anthing!




And Elton John is an expert on rap catalogues and their value? rolleyes Queen of the relics needs to shut up about matters of such. Its really hard to say who's catalogue is worth what before they either die or the generation they are popular in becomes of compilation-buying age. Dude knows jack shit about hip-hop or hip-hop fans.
Pretty soon, owning your masters won't mean shit. I used to preach that sermon to everybody I knew and everybody's "people" back in the day but it seemed like no one was listening (including Prince). Now that mp3s are what they are and filesharing is dominant, owning your masters will mean less to artists because collecting royalties will be less significant. The younger artists need to get their touring skills up and hit the road more or they'll be broke and not be able to fend for themselves after they get dropped. Most of the majors are doing distribution deals and leaving it up to the artists to build their own followings. They push you out there and throw a video behind you to eat up the royalties from your first record then its on you. They lose nothing. You lose if you can't hang.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #62 posted 10/10/06 12:30pm

Handclapsfinga
snapz

CinisterCee said:

Meloh9 said:




well he is friends with Prince


"Bought a house next to Prince, so now I can kick it" lol

nod i was gonna mention that line...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #63 posted 10/10/06 12:32pm

BlaqueKnight

avatar

I've never seen any evidence that Ice Cube and Prince are "friends". There's probably respect on both ends for each other but "friends" seems to be stretching it.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #64 posted 10/10/06 12:35pm

Harlepolis

BlaqueKnight said:

I've never seen any evidence that Ice Cube and Prince are "friends". There's probably respect on both ends for each other but "friends" seems to be stretching it.


Prince and friendship is like the word "gangsta rapper". The 2 words don't go 2ghether lol

Geminis are the MOST fickle when it comes to friendship disbelief

But I'm bluffing cool
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #65 posted 10/10/06 12:50pm

Tessa

avatar

Metallica, R.E.M., U2, Bowie.... they all did it the logical and old-fasioned way: they either bought them back, or took smaller heaps of cash in their contracts to be able to own the work and make more money in the long term.


Why wasn't Prince that smart? They all did it while he was bitching and moaning about it.
"I don't need your forgiveness, cos I've been saved by Jesus, so fuck you."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #66 posted 10/10/06 1:04pm

Mong

Tessa said:

Metallica, R.E.M., U2, Bowie.... they all did it the logical and old-fasioned way: they either bought them back, or took smaller heaps of cash in their contracts to be able to own the work and make more money in the long term.


Why wasn't Prince that smart? They all did it while he was bitching and moaning about it.


U2 actually took it even further - they own 11% of Island. Around the time of "The Joshua Tree", they were owed a considerable amount in royalties from Island. Chris Blackwell offered them a stake in the company instead, which they accepted; bearing in mind the subsequent buying of the label by Polygram not too long after, this proved to be the shrewdest business move they ever made.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #67 posted 10/10/06 1:05pm

mikek1

Harlepolis said:

BlaqueKnight said:

I've never seen any evidence that Ice Cube and Prince are "friends". There's probably respect on both ends for each other but "friends" seems to be stretching it.


Prince and friendship is like the word "gangsta rapper". The 2 words don't go 2ghether lol

Geminis are the MOST fickle when it comes to friendship disbelief

But I'm bluffing cool


Star signs don't mean anthing and have been changed through history; do some research.

I'm a gemini. I am not fickle.

Prince is one of lucifer's workman; here on earth in physical form to ruin others and cause hell.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #68 posted 10/10/06 1:16pm

Harlepolis

mikek1 said:

Harlepolis said:



Prince and friendship is like the word "gangsta rapper". The 2 words don't go 2ghether lol

Geminis are the MOST fickle when it comes to friendship disbelief

But I'm bluffing cool


Star signs don't mean anthing and have been changed through history; do some research.

I'm a gemini. I am not fickle.

Prince is one of lucifer's workman; here on earth in physical form to ruin others and cause hell.


Read the balded highlight razz I wasn't serious.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #69 posted 10/10/06 1:20pm

sosgemini

avatar

mikek1 said:

Harlepolis said:



Prince and friendship is like the word "gangsta rapper". The 2 words don't go 2ghether lol

Geminis are the MOST fickle when it comes to friendship disbelief

But I'm bluffing cool


Star signs don't mean anthing and have been changed through history; do some research.

I'm a gemini. I am not fickle.

Prince is one of lucifer's workman; here on earth in physical form to ruin others and cause hell.



falloff
Space for sale...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #70 posted 10/10/06 11:37pm

lastdecember

avatar

Mong said:

lastdecember said:



Well its not harsh, the rules of the game have changed now. If you are signing now with a label and you are writing and playing your own music and not asking for ownership than you are dumb, im sorry. In this day and age you have to think long term, this is not the 70' or 80's anymore, there are other alternatives to getting your music out there, if you are serious about a career. If you wanna be the next Ciara or Cassie than sign with a label and hope you 50 cents a cd if youre lucky. So its not a put down to artists back then because thats how the game was set up and there werent other alternatives really. But now if you are someone who plays/writes and knows how to record, you are fool to sign over your work.


You're wrong. If you sign with a label and ask for a clause in the contract stating that you own your masters, you are not going to get it! For Christ's sake, it's harder now than ever before to get a deal and getting a decent advance is extremely rare.

Yout best bit is to set up your own label or to go for a licensing deal.

Trust me, I know about how the business works.


Exactly, but if read my post it says that if you are an artist and you write your stuff, record your stuff, and are looking to do music as a career, your are dumb to sign with a label at this point. because u arent going to get what you want. There are so many ways to distribute your stuff, and different medias that a label at this point is useless if you are looking for something long term. But if you are looking to be the next Ciara or Cassie then SIGN with a label, you wont own your masters, because you cant own samples, and if you arent writing or playing its not your stuff anyway, be happy if you can get 50 cents a cd. I was dealing with business for 18 years, and have seen how labels play the game and fake the soundscan numbers and dump product in stores/cut discounts just to debut at number 1, but what they dont tell you is that 50% of what they ship to stores doesnt sell, but of course soundscan tracks it as a sale.

"We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #71 posted 10/10/06 11:44pm

sms130

And for the record, Prince does not own the master recordings of his work while on Warner Bros. Records from 1978-1996 (including 'Purple Rain', 'Sign O' The Times', '1999', 'Diamonds and Pearls', 'Dirty Mind', etc.). Prince does own the master recordings of his work from 1996-current (including 'Musicology', '3121', 'Crystal Ball', 'Emancipation', 'Rave In2 The Joy Fantastic', etc.). He also owns all of his previous unreleased material from 1978-current. That does include music that he recorded but never did released while on Warner Bros. Records.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #72 posted 10/11/06 12:01am

lastdecember

avatar

BlaqueKnight said:

mikek1 said:



no he's not!

Like elton john said apart from maybe eminem or 2pac most rappers catalogues aren't worth anthing!




And Elton John is an expert on rap catalogues and their value? rolleyes Queen of the relics needs to shut up about matters of such. Its really hard to say who's catalogue is worth what before they either die or the generation they are popular in becomes of compilation-buying age. Dude knows jack shit about hip-hop or hip-hop fans.
Pretty soon, owning your masters won't mean shit. I used to preach that sermon to everybody I knew and everybody's "people" back in the day but it seemed like no one was listening (including Prince). Now that mp3s are what they are and filesharing is dominant, owning your masters will mean less to artists because collecting royalties will be less significant. The younger artists need to get their touring skills up and hit the road more or they'll be broke and not be able to fend for themselves after they get dropped. Most of the majors are doing distribution deals and leaving it up to the artists to build their own followings. They push you out there and throw a video behind you to eat up the royalties from your first record then its on you. They lose nothing. You lose if you can't hang.


First of all the younger acts are never going to get their touring skills up to par, mainly because there is no money in them touring. If you look at the top grossing in touring its artists like U2,Jovi,Springsteen,Madonna,Elton etc.
One of the funniest things was a year or so ago when Beyonce went on that tour with Alicia Keys, the tour came to NYC and Madison square Garden, and 70% of the tickets sold, now these are the tops of the younger performers, the point is that the younger audience doesnt really care about a show, they can see you on magzines, videos, movies, whatever, they dont need to put down 50 bucks to see you play for an hour, when they dont wanna pay 10 bucks for a cd. This years quickly thrown together tour for Mariah carey made some money but overall lost money and made no sense because it wasnt pushing a record, who tours a year after their album comes out? Rumour is that Mariah is going to cut a Live CD/DVD and leave Def Jam on that note since her contract calls for one more release and she is nearing 40 years old. As far as Prince is concerned, i dont know what to really say, at this point getting his masters back would mean to renegotiate his WB deal. Many artists have done that when it came time to do reissues and things of that nature, as i spoke of Bon Jovi, their contract was running out back in the middle 90's and they renegotiated, gained control of their masters, allowed Universal to reissue their cds during that time giving the label a certain %, and Jovi fired all his management,PR people whoever, he runs everything now. This is really the only way to do it folks, masters may not seem like much in this media age, but since alot of music now is based on sampling and loops and shit like that, you cant own what someone else owns already, you cant own the sample with JB's horns on it. But i do think that in fear of labels losing their hold, they are going to embrace all media forms, YouTube is now owned, get ready to pay folks, next up MySpace, get ready to pay folks, iTunes say goodbye to 99 cent songs folks, the next year or so will see many changes. Also just a side note, Universal is cutting 75-100 artists at the end of the year, not sure who, but thats what i heard.

"We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #73 posted 10/11/06 12:48am

MikeMatronik

lastdecember said:

BlaqueKnight said:





And Elton John is an expert on rap catalogues and their value? rolleyes Queen of the relics needs to shut up about matters of such. Its really hard to say who's catalogue is worth what before they either die or the generation they are popular in becomes of compilation-buying age. Dude knows jack shit about hip-hop or hip-hop fans.
Pretty soon, owning your masters won't mean shit. I used to preach that sermon to everybody I knew and everybody's "people" back in the day but it seemed like no one was listening (including Prince). Now that mp3s are what they are and filesharing is dominant, owning your masters will mean less to artists because collecting royalties will be less significant. The younger artists need to get their touring skills up and hit the road more or they'll be broke and not be able to fend for themselves after they get dropped. Most of the majors are doing distribution deals and leaving it up to the artists to build their own followings. They push you out there and throw a video behind you to eat up the royalties from your first record then its on you. They lose nothing. You lose if you can't hang.


First of all the younger acts are never going to get their touring skills up to par, mainly because there is no money in them touring. If you look at the top grossing in touring its artists like U2,Jovi,Springsteen,Madonna,Elton etc.
One of the funniest things was a year or so ago when Beyonce went on that tour with Alicia Keys, the tour came to NYC and Madison square Garden, and 70% of the tickets sold, now these are the tops of the younger performers, the point is that the younger audience doesnt really care about a show, they can see you on magzines, videos, movies, whatever, they dont need to put down 50 bucks to see you play for an hour, when they dont wanna pay 10 bucks for a cd. This years quickly thrown together tour for Mariah carey made some money but overall lost money and made no sense because it wasnt pushing a record, who tours a year after their album comes out? Rumour is that Mariah is going to cut a Live CD/DVD and leave Def Jam on that note since her contract calls for one more release and she is nearing 40 years old. As far as Prince is concerned, i dont know what to really say, at this point getting his masters back would mean to renegotiate his WB deal. Many artists have done that when it came time to do reissues and things of that nature, as i spoke of Bon Jovi, their contract was running out back in the middle 90's and they renegotiated, gained control of their masters, allowed Universal to reissue their cds during that time giving the label a certain %, and Jovi fired all his management,PR people whoever, he runs everything now. This is really the only way to do it folks, masters may not seem like much in this media age, but since alot of music now is based on sampling and loops and shit like that, you cant own what someone else owns already, you cant own the sample with JB's horns on it. But i do think that in fear of labels losing their hold, they are going to embrace all media forms, YouTube is now owned, get ready to pay folks, next up MySpace, get ready to pay folks, iTunes say goodbye to 99 cent songs folks, the next year or so will see many changes. Also just a side note, Universal is cutting 75-100 artists at the end of the year, not sure who, but thats what i heard.



That's why they released that massive boxset with unreleased songs and demo...Shame other artists that love 4 the fans.

Also we can see that the new so-called artists don't know shit in terms of doing tours...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #74 posted 10/11/06 12:56am

Tosh

funkpill said:

George Clinton own the 4 Warner Bros. Funkadelic masters.


But why does only George is the new owner. Bootsy, Eddie, Bernie, Glenn Goins and them wrote a lot of the songs?



biggrin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #75 posted 10/11/06 6:54am

mikek1

Tosh said:

funkpill said:

George Clinton own the 4 Warner Bros. Funkadelic masters.


But why does only George is the new owner. Bootsy, Eddie, Bernie, Glenn Goins and them wrote a lot of the songs?



biggrin


I know; it's like rick rubin owning the chili peppers songs.

George must have paid them to play on his records and therefore he owns the recording? I'm not sure how it works.

for e.g robert plant wo wrote 'kashmir' and 'stairway' doesn't own any of those records!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #76 posted 10/11/06 6:59am

SoulAlive

PFunkjazz said:

Who in Chicago owns what? And since when?
It's a fairly large group that has had lots of lineup changes. It'd be interesting to see who owns masters on their first 8 hit albums.



Chicago obtained ownership of their master recordings sometime in the late 90s.I don't know exactly how they did it.I think ownership is shared equally by the original members from their 70s lineup.They have allowed Rhino Records to remaster all of their albums,with exclusive bonus tracks and liner notes.It was all done with their cooperation and input.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #77 posted 10/13/06 1:19pm

Shapeshifter

avatar

SoulAlive said:

funkpill said:





Rappers owning masters of material that's been sampled??? hmmm



lol btw,Ice Cube owns the master to his most recent CD 'Laugh Now,Cry Later'.He's officially an independent artist now and said that he will never allow a record company to own his music.



He can keep it. It's crap. lol The record conmpanies have got the best stuff he'll ever do anyway.
There are three sides to every story. My side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #78 posted 10/13/06 1:24pm

Shapeshifter

avatar

lastdecember said:

I believe the Stones own their masters too. And i think that Billy Joel did finally get them also.

Its funny but most of these artists that own their recordings also seem to be the biggest concert draws too.

Jovi,Elton,U2,Stones,Springsteen,Joel etc...

Also just a side/personal note, Rick Springfield has his masters, he recently worked a deal with BMG to get them. u may joke but everytime a jukebox/Radio or some bar plays Jessies Girl, ring the cash register.
[Edited 10/9/06 12:08pm]


Yes and no. The Stones don't own their sixties masters. Those are in Allen Klein/Abkco's hands. That and an almost total forfeiture of royalties from those recordings was the price of their freedom from him in 1970.

The Stones DO own the masters of their recordings from 1970 onwards. They licence said recordings to whatever record company they're signed to. So far Atlantic, CBS, EMI and now Virgin had/have the rights to their recordings. Still doesn't explain the lack of a huge box set covering the last thirty or so years, but that's a separate thread.
There are three sides to every story. My side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #79 posted 10/13/06 3:08pm

Tessa

avatar

Shapeshifter said:

lastdecember said:

I believe the Stones own their masters too. And i think that Billy Joel did finally get them also.

Its funny but most of these artists that own their recordings also seem to be the biggest concert draws too.

Jovi,Elton,U2,Stones,Springsteen,Joel etc...

Also just a side/personal note, Rick Springfield has his masters, he recently worked a deal with BMG to get them. u may joke but everytime a jukebox/Radio or some bar plays Jessies Girl, ring the cash register.
[Edited 10/9/06 12:08pm]


Yes and no. The Stones don't own their sixties masters. Those are in Allen Klein/Abkco's hands. That and an almost total forfeiture of royalties from those recordings was the price of their freedom from him in 1970.

The Stones DO own the masters of their recordings from 1970 onwards. They licence said recordings to whatever record company they're signed to. So far Atlantic, CBS, EMI and now Virgin had/have the rights to their recordings. Still doesn't explain the lack of a huge box set covering the last thirty or so years, but that's a separate thread.


even a companion to the first singles box set would be decent. instead, they just keep issuing "best ofs" and more and more good, but smaller hits keep getting pushed off from that era.
"I don't need your forgiveness, cos I've been saved by Jesus, so fuck you."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #80 posted 10/13/06 4:30pm

PFunkjazz

avatar

SoulAlive said:

PFunkjazz said:

Who in Chicago owns what? And since when?
It's a fairly large group that has had lots of lineup changes. It'd be interesting to see who owns masters on their first 8 hit albums.



Chicago obtained ownership of their master recordings sometime in the late 90s.I don't know exactly how they did it.I think ownership is shared equally by the original members from their 70s lineup.They have allowed Rhino Records to remaster all of their albums,with exclusive bonus tracks and liner notes.It was all done with their cooperation and input.


By comparison, there can't much of a revenue stream owning the masters to their 80s & 90s recordings.
test
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 3 of 3 <123
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > What artists actually own their masters?