How can he make more money if he's flopping really hard? and how much of his songs does he own anyway? Janet owns her songs.

sleepyq said:

-----
Please read what one of the other orgers posted below because the only delusional person on this topic is you. A controversial artist like Prince is never going to pull numbers like Mike Jackson but he has sold over 40 million cds and he is an artist who is an "icon" not for selling 100million cds but for being an artist that other artist would kill to be like. Usher can sill 500 million CDs and he will never be at P's level as in artist.

-----
Here are 2 of the many flaws with your arguments

1) Every artist mentioned on this thread would not hesitate to name Prince as a major influence and reason for their existence in the music industry. Janet for example made her name by ripping off the Minneapolis sound. A sound that Prince helped create. While she was doing that, Prince had already purposefully moved away from the sound. A sound that back then assured you a hit . Everybody in 85' 86' including Janet was copping Princes sound. If Prince cared primarily about 'hits' he would have dropped Purple Rain II . Instead, he left that work to the likes of Janet and other mid to late 80's hacks . Point: A guy who cares about being number one on the charts does not make Around the World in a Day. When the guy needed money to pay the bills, he dropped a hit. Otherwise, he's a musician first. Something of the kind that punks like Usher could only hope to come back as in the next life.

2) He's essentially been irrelivant since 1993. He's not on the level people here like to pretend he's on.

Then why is it that every time a list off most influential artists of the past 20 or so years is compiled, Prince is always at the top. No matter what the magazine, organization, etc. Why is it that Prince has been on the cover of Guitar, Keyboard, Drum, Bass, and Synth magazines while your 'artists' have never appeared on any . If he is so irrelevant , why was he asked to play the Super Bowl, inducted into the R &R Hall of Fame, and consistently at the top of yearly concert revenue lists whenever he decides to tour . . . no matter how long the gap?

midiscover said:

-----
If you are talking about Usher I doubt he write much so he may have sold a lot of CDs for the record label with his bank account lacking.

laurarichardson said:

I'm talking about Prince. Doesn't Warner Bros. own his songs?

sleepyq said:

-----
"Musicology was hailed as this huge comeback, when if fact, 10% of it was based on real sales, the rest was hype and media ass-kissing.

Where are you getting this from? Musicology sold 2 million copies. Half being from the give away and half being in the stores. With the proper promotion P can do about a million without about 300,000 to 500,000 we have seen all of this happen a few times and discussed it on this board at length.

The charts are not relevant since so much payola, double scanning and other nosense has gone on over the years. I honestly think record companies have always cooked the books on record sales and now the internet is just showing how few CDs are really purchased.

You need to do a little reserch on how the music industry worked back in the day before you come here with your "charts matter" At the end of the day for the artist what matters is who is still out putting asses in concert seats and being relevant to the music listening and concert going audience after 30 plus years. I can tell you it will not be Usher.

midiscover said:

--
P gets royalties from his publishing and I believe some portion of this is split with WB. He does not own the master tapes but I believe under some copyright law he gets the rights back after 35 or 40 years. I am sure some legal eagle on the org can explain it better but he definitly owns his publishing.

The Billboard charts have actually become so secondary these days. I mean seriously most of the people who chart on there nowadays, are we gonna see them ten years from now? Even something this successful is often because payola runs deep in a monopolized system. Plus when you promote yourself on "American Un-Idol", it's guaranteed you'll get at least a top ten hit if you're a young artist or a number-one album (or even an album that sells well enough to hit the 40) if you're a much older artist.

So most of what anyone achieves nowadays, it's either payola or being on a TV show that will generate revenue just so they can keep on the premise of trying to be a legit talent contest.

Timmy84 said:

-----
Co-Sign

Timmy84 said:

Payola has RULED the days 4 years.
Really soured me on the business.

Graycap23 said:

And it gets worse every year too.

midiscover said:

I think he makes money from live concerts, shows .....etc.

It's sad that prince doesn't own his songs.....

Timmy84 said:

I know.

laurarichardson said:

I didn't drag Prince into this thread . Just defending him .

NO ARTIST WILL SELL TENS OF MILLIONS OF CDS IN THIS DAY AND AGE!!!

the numbers that are put up today are good for this day and age but crap for the 80's and early 90's. Eminem used to drop 1.1 million in a week now if an artist sells twice that amount it's considered a success. The era of mega sales is over and we all need to stop expecting an artist(any artist) to top some legendary record.