I find it atonishing artists today still sign contracts which means the labels own their music.

Does anyone know about these artists?

Funkadelic/Parliament
Led Zeppelin
Stevie wonder
Bowie
Iron maiden
Guns and roses
ac/dc

R.E.M.
Metallica
U2

all of these artists were smart enough to negotiate it into later contracts (sometimes for a lower royalty rate on new material) or outright buying it back, instead of throwing a tantrum about it and writing "slave" on their face.


"put up or shut up" i say.

Ray Charles got his back too, I think, but I'm not sure on that one.

Raze said:

yeah and steve hoffman remastered his catalogue so i the albums must sound amazing

michael jackson owns his work (except for some of the early stuff eg motown)

the Stones own all of their music from Sticky Fingers on.

b3xy said:

Really?

wow no wonder he got so rich

Imagine he didn;t suck jordy chandler's dick; his catalogue would be worth zillions

James Brown did, I believe.

David Bowie
Madonna
George Michael

ehuffnsd said:

I don't think Madonna or George Michael do. George maybe from Older on, but not the stuff before that.

Raze said:

I think Madge owns everything from Erotica on

Raze said:

So did Roberta Flack.

Raze said:

I wonder if he owns the material from ABC Records on or does he own all that he did with Atlantic Records too?

ehuffnsd said:

I don't think she does. In fact, weird as it sounds, even though all of her albums said "Maverick" on them, and she owned Maverick records, she wasn't actually signed to Maverick. She was strictly a Warner Bros. artist. It's the same with Prince and Paisley Park. Those labels were created by contracts signed by the artist with the record company, but Prince actually wasn't a Paisley Park Records recording artist, nor was Madonna a Maverick recording artist. Those names appeared on the record sleeves to promote the labels, but they weren't actually signed to them.

Raze said:

For real? I always thought Prince and Madonna recorded albums under their own labels via distribution with the major label?

Timmy84 said:

no, that's why WB owns the masters to Prince's music even after Paisley Park Records was created. he was actually signed to WB and that contract created Paisley Park. it wasn't just a distribution deal. he was a Warner Bros. artist and Paisley Park was merely an imprint for Prince music recorded by others. now, Paisley Park records was involved in most aspects of of the promotion and distribution of Prince's albums, but that's only because when you get down to it Paisley Park Records is Prince.

Raze said:

Oh OK, I gotcha. I don't know why was I under the assumption that Prince handled control of all his music prior to 1993. Then again, nobody else recorded for Paisley Park except for Prince, did they? LOL
[Edited 7/4/07 14:57pm]

Raze said:

WB can keep his work for all I care. Once he gets his hands on it I feel there's still gonna be some revisionist shit going on.

Cloudbuster said:

I agree. Best case scenario for all involved is for Prince and WB to work out an agreement for WB to handle it with some Prince involvement. Prince is going to want to revise things. And WB needs him to give permission and get him to donate some bonus material to make everyone happy.

Raze said:

Aye. He needs to acknowledge that the work represents who he was at the time.
Any overhauling of lyrics and I won't be touching the remasters no matter how good the sound.

Raze said:

Yes Madge is a WB artist, has been since True Blue her orignal contract was with Sire. She does have better business sense than Prince and I believe she was able to get the Masters to all recording after her 60mil contract in 1991, though we may not know for sure because she keeps all her assets tight to her vest.
[Edited 7/4/07 16:11pm]

ehuffnsd said:

Sire was a Warner Bros. subsidiary by then. Sire has a weird history, actually, if you look into it.