Chakaholics have been DYING to have some of her vault material finally released. There were a lot of songs that ended up in the can during her tenure at Warner Brothers. She is still battling the label to gain access to some of the material, including her scrapped duet with Robert Palmer on "Addicted To Love". I don't know how effective it would be but I think a petition campaign is a great idea! Here is an excerpt from a recent interview where she discusses the subject:

"And getting the music out to the people is something that is very important to Khan. Coming from the days of the “big labels,” she knows the importance of an artist owning their music and having control over its distribution. But she, like many artists who came up with her, has been in an ongoing battle with her former record label, Warner Bros., to retrieve some of her old recordings. One that specifically stands out is Robert Palmer’s smash single, Addicted To Love.

“I arranged the vocals and sang on it. But this shows how trifling Warner Bros. was at the time. How could they say no to that? That was a win-win situation. I think it was some racist (expletive) going on with that. We met each other, went in the studio that night, and put it down that night. And they went nuts but they had him take all my vocals off,” Khan said. “But the kind and wonderful man that (Palmer) was, he did give me credit for vocal arrangement because that was all he could do. They have the original somewhere but I am going to try to get my hands on it if I can.”

Her determination to get her music back is a journey that she is prepared to take with her fans. “They (Warner Bros.) have stuff that we recorded...that I forgot, I’m sure because we had to pick how many songs would go on a record out of 20-30 songs,” she said. “They are just holding onto the rest. But I will get it. I might start a campaign with my fans to get it! I need to have them help me with this fight cause it's going to be a fight. But we did this music for the people.” "

http://www.chicagodefende...home_.html

I might start a campaign with my fans to get it!

I hope she stops "mighting" and just DO IT already. Its a shame how Warner Bros keeping fuckin' with their black artists, they're not even milking the catalogs and release a "Legacy"-like series like Columbia does, they leave it there to collect dust.

God bless her, I really hope she wins this battle, she has been on & off with them since 1984. If there's any petition for us to sign(or whateva), I hope it surfaces.

It would help if she wasn't so trifflin' herself and stop talking shit about the label that has her material. Not smart

SoulAlive said:

I'll sign the petition Her unreleased 1995 album 'Dare You To Love Me' needs to be set free!

I have a good deal of those songs. They're so awesome. It's a crime that WB has forgotten about that album. However, a good bunch of those songs ended up compilations and soundtracks. Dig around, the unreleased and released stuff is out there.

Let`s close our eyes and PRAY!

[Edited 5/31/10 9:40am]

Its a crying shame she cant get her hand on those recordings.

I doubt Warners will ever get on the case so we can only live & hope

Caramelpfe said:

Its a crying shame she cant get her hand on those recordings.

I doubt Warners will ever get on the case so we can only live & hope

Their treatment of Prince's catalog who brought it massive revenue is a worth a damn, you could imagine how they'll treat Chaka's modest catalog.

They're lazy and they don't give a shit,,,,,certainly not about any of their previous black artists, by a FAR mile.

ernestsewell said:

SoulAlive said:

I'll sign the petition Her unreleased 1995 album 'Dare You To Love Me' needs to be set free!

I have a good deal of those songs. They're so awesome. It's a crime that WB has forgotten about that album. However, a good bunch of those songs ended up compilations and soundtracks. Dig around, the unreleased and released stuff is out there.

Yep. Those songs (all of them) can be found, checkout Itunes.

Ms. Khan should cuss out Warner at every chance. Hell, the were screwing her when she wasn't saying nada.

Warner is about to fall anyway, and this isnt anything new, no one from that time period has "access" to their work unless they signed a different kind of contract, with the exception of maybe REM who have some control on their catalog, no one does, Madonna has none either and she is their flagship artist. She pretty much has the same deal that Prince has, publishing control, not much else

Black people's sojourn in America has been equivalent to the devil trying to silence the drum

Well the art world has always been a form of slavery for whatever race of artist. It went on then and continues now, its just now we really dont care for the artists for the most part, or the term 360deal doesnt really register with the public, because basically you are handed everything, but in the end you dont get much of what you have brought in.

Just the thought of someone owning what someone else made should seem obscene, but there is a double standard that exits. MJ and his estate own a major part of the Beatles Catalog, now most people on this org say, tough shit Paul got outbidded, would we say the same thing if say, Bruce Willis owned all chaka khans and Sly Stones music and masters? and outbidded them for it? i think not, in fact i KNOW not.

[Edited 5/31/10 11:28am]

Harlepolis said:

Intersting take. Thing is, the exploitation of black artists and their hardwork has not been really an exception, it has and still continues to be a rule, you can't really trivialize it with the "whatever race of artist" theory because history has shown proof after proof how the ones who always seem to reach the end of the barrel despite their successes, happen to be black artists, and that wasn't an accident either. But as easy it is to say that record labels are to blame, many of those black artists are not off the hook either, because they too share the a big part of the blame for being careless about their OWN end of the business. Now MJ's situation, thats totally an exception. And I for one didn't care for that episode even though I love him.

[Edited 5/31/10 11:28am]

Well i agree on that, and its not to trivialize it, but its also fact that is how the business is set up, it does clearly take advantage, and a majority of artists are not free, in fact most arent. Anyway u look at it, its mindblowing how its setup, how someone owns your stuff for most of time, but again, it is how its set up, and no one is forced to sign, even today after all that is KNOWN, how many times do we the complaints of labels coming from artists mouths.

As for the MJ thing with the Beatles, his approach to it was as something to buy, show off, look i have this, so years later when he paraded around with a picture of Tommy Mottola as the devil because of "contracts" i had no sympathy at all.KARMA

lastdecember said:

Well the art world has always been a form of slavery for whatever race of artist. It went on then and continues now, its just now we really dont care for the artists for the most part, or the term 360deal doesnt really register with the public, because basically you are handed everything, but in the end you dont get much of what you have brought in.

Just the thought of someone owning what someone else made should seem obscene, but there is a double standard that exits. MJ and his estate own a major part of the Beatles Catalog, now most people on this org say, tough shit Paul got outbidded, would we say the same thing if say, Bruce Willis owned all chaka khans and Sly Stones music and masters? and outbidded them for it? i think not, in fact i KNOW not.

Your analogy doesn't have merit. (IMHO)

This notion or commonly held belief that ripping off artist is par for the course has always sounded like moral relativism to me. Musicians/singer/songwriters should own the rights to their music outright - master tapes, publishing rights/copyright the whole kit and caboodle - it's called intellectual property. Prince, Chaka, Paul McCartney/John Lennon, are whomever should be able bequeath, control, market, re-release, and sale their music / intellectual property as they see fit. If any of these artist had own the rights to their music outright MJ or anyone else would have never had the opportunity to purchase anyones music unless, that particular artist choose to sale their music for a profit, that's the big difference. Paul McCartney had an opportunity to buy back the Beatles cataloge ( it's my understanding the Beatles - McCartney/Lennon do have ownership of some of their music, MJ purchase didn't include everything) but he decided the price was too high, oh well. Mr. McCartney said, he called Mr. Lennon's widow and asked/begged her to come on half and she refused: their lose because they would profited (gotten their money back) 10 fold if the price for the Beatles music had even cost a 100 milliion.

I would think some artist would purchase thier catalogues if they could afford too (if they came up for sale) but many can't. So, these artist are at the mercy of the Record Conglomerates. You have artist (or would be heirs) right now living hand to mouth because the powers that be won't release/rerelease their music; their financial prospect would be different I'm sure if they owned their intellectual property . I don't think it's impossible at present to find outprint music for "free" online. Still, music label's are whining that record sales are down, they can't have it both ways. Or better yet, people are stealing music, carma is a bitch.

TD3 said:

lastdecember said:

Well the art world has always been a form of slavery for whatever race of artist. It went on then and continues now, its just now we really dont care for the artists for the most part, or the term 360deal doesnt really register with the public, because basically you are handed everything, but in the end you dont get much of what you have brought in.

Just the thought of someone owning what someone else made should seem obscene, but there is a double standard that exits. MJ and his estate own a major part of the Beatles Catalog, now most people on this org say, tough shit Paul got outbidded, would we say the same thing if say, Bruce Willis owned all chaka khans and Sly Stones music and masters? and outbidded them for it? i think not, in fact i KNOW not.

Your analogy doesn't have merit. (IMHO)

This notion or commonly held belief that ripping off artist is par for the course has always sounded like moral relativism to me. Musicians/singer/songwriters should own the rights to their music outright - master tapes, publishing rights/copyright the whole kit and caboodle - it's called intellectual property. Prince, Chaka, Paul McCartney/John Lennon, are whomever should be able bequeath, control, market, re-release, and sale their music / intellectual property as they see fit. If any of these artist had own the rights to their music outright MJ or anyone else would have never had the opportunity to purchase anyones music unless, that particular artist choose to sale their music for a profit, that's the big difference. Paul McCartney had an opportunity to buy back the Beatles cataloge ( it's my understanding the Beatles - McCartney/Lennon do have ownership of some of their music, MJ purchase didn't include everything) but he decided the price was too high, oh well. Mr. McCartney said, he called Mr. Lennon's widow and asked/begged her to come on half and she refused: their lose because they would profited (gotten their money back) 10 fold if the price for the Beatles music had even cost a 100 milliion.

I would think some artist would purchase thier catalogues if they could afford too (if they came up for sale) but many can't. So, these artist are at the mercy of the Record Conglomerates. You have artist (or would be heirs) right now living hand to mouth because the powers that be won't release/rerelease their music; their financial prospect would be different I'm sure if they owned their intellectual property . I don't think it's impossible at present to find outprint music for "free" online. Still, music label's are whining that record sales are down, they can't have it both ways. Or better yet, people are stealing music, carma is a bitch.

Well whatever way u wanna cut it, shake it or look at it, the bottom line is, if you dont like the contract or business dont sign with it. If you dont like that the mafia kills people, dont join it. When i do theatre work and write the scripts when i had it over to the theatre and have to sign my right of it away, for a certain period of time that is how the system is, if i didnt want to have to deal with it, then i shouldnt sign the deal. Does it suck that artists get ripped off, of course the whole way its set up is criminal but its the system and you either join it and play by it or do your own thing, no one is forcing people to join up and sign the dotted line.

I think if every artist had the chance they would buy their music, shit Bon Jovi did that very recently but had to fight labels, old managers and people who claimed ownership despite never being a part of a record, same goes for John Mellencamp and Elton John had a huge fight decades ago with Dick James over this. Some now have certain things from the on-set, Norah Jones is one that comes to mind, she has a very interesting deal mainly because of her "indie" status day one, though signed to Blue Note, they purchased her demos and demo cd, and left her with certain rights over it. Now these days the new "deal" is the 360 deal, now everyone jumps for it, because everything is done for you, PR,merchandising,writing etc....so u arent having to struggle those early days in a piss ridden bar like all the 80's groups did like Inxs,u2,rem,jovi etc...U are now a hit, and if not u are gone, but dont think the millions that you make on your download is yours, not happening, you get about 2cents per single download, and most of these artists rarely get to have full lenght albums, so whos losing here, the label is winning even bigger than before because it gets a mindless artist, sells it to a mindless public, and then keeps about 98% of what is made, though it does promote it.

As for the beatles catalog MJ's estate owns certain Lennon/McCartney stuff through certain years, to my knowledge it doesnt include things that are on Apple Records, when they formed that label they took over and that stuff, which is the stronger material (not commercially) but still remains in McCartneys/Lennon's column. But at the end of the day, the analogy of MJ outbidding McCartney is the same deal that happend with Elton John when Dick James put all his 70's work up for grabs and Elton sold his shit to buy his music, luckily he won on the catalog and that remains one of the most lucrative catalogs in existence, just on Your Song alone, but if someone else would have "won that bid" it still wouldnt be right, especially for another artist who complained about labels to own.

lastdecember said:

TD3 said:

lastdecember said:

Well the art world has always been a form of slavery for whatever race of artist. It went on then and continues now, its just now we really dont care for the artists for the most part, or the term 360deal doesnt really register with the public, because basically you are handed everything, but in the end you dont get much of what you have brought in.

Just the thought of someone owning what someone else made should seem obscene, but there is a double standard that exits. MJ and his estate own a major part of the Beatles Catalog, now most people on this org say, tough shit Paul got outbidded, would we say the same thing if say, Bruce Willis owned all chaka khans and Sly Stones music and masters? and outbidded them for it? i think not, in fact i KNOW not.

Your analogy doesn't have merit. (IMHO)

This notion or commonly held belief that ripping off artist is par for the course has always sounded like moral relativism to me. Musicians/singer/songwriters should own the rights to their music outright - master tapes, publishing rights/copyright the whole kit and caboodle - it's called intellectual property. Prince, Chaka, Paul McCartney/John Lennon, are whomever should be able bequeath, control, market, re-release, and sale their music / intellectual property as they see fit. If any of these artist had own the rights to their music outright MJ or anyone else would have never had the opportunity to purchase anyones music unless, that particular artist choose to sale their music for a profit, that's the big difference. Paul McCartney had an opportunity to buy back the Beatles cataloge ( it's my understanding the Beatles - McCartney/Lennon do have ownership of some of their music, MJ purchase didn't include everything) but he decided the price was too high, oh well. Mr. McCartney said, he called Mr. Lennon's widow and asked/begged her to come on half and she refused: their lose because they would profited (gotten their money back) 10 fold if the price for the Beatles music had even cost a 100 milliion.

I would think some artist would purchase thier catalogues if they could afford too (if they came up for sale) but many can't. So, these artist are at the mercy of the Record Conglomerates. You have artist (or would be heirs) right now living hand to mouth because the powers that be won't release/rerelease their music; their financial prospect would be different I'm sure if they owned their intellectual property . I don't think it's impossible at present to find outprint music for "free" online. Still, music label's are whining that record sales are down, they can't have it both ways. Or better yet, people are stealing music, carma is a bitch.

Well whatever way u wanna cut it, shake it or look at it, the bottom line is, if you dont like the contract or business dont sign with it. If you dont like that the mafia kills people, dont join it. When i do theatre work and write the scripts when i had it over to the theatre and have to sign my right of it away, for a certain period of time that is how the system is, if i didnt want to have to deal with it, then i shouldnt sign the deal. Does it suck that artists get ripped off, of course the whole way its set up is criminal but its the system and you either join it and play by it or do your own thing, no one is forcing people to join up and sign the dotted line.

I think if every artist had the chance they would buy their music, shit Bon Jovi did that very recently but had to fight labels, old managers and people who claimed ownership despite never being a part of a record, same goes for John Mellencamp and Elton John had a huge fight decades ago with Dick James over this. Some now have certain things from the on-set, Norah Jones is one that comes to mind, she has a very interesting deal mainly because of her "indie" status day one, though signed to Blue Note, they purchased her demos and demo cd, and left her with certain rights over it. Now these days the new "deal" is the 360 deal, now everyone jumps for it, because everything is done for you, PR,merchandising,writing etc....so u arent having to struggle those early days in a piss ridden bar like all the 80's groups did like Inxs,u2,rem,jovi etc...U are now a hit, and if not u are gone, but dont think the millions that you make on your download is yours, not happening, you get about 2cents per single download, and most of these artists rarely get to have full lenght albums, so whos losing here, the label is winning even bigger than before because it gets a mindless artist, sells it to a mindless public, and then keeps about 98% of what is made, though it does promote it.

As for the beatles catalog MJ's estate owns certain Lennon/McCartney stuff through certain years, to my knowledge it doesnt include things that are on Apple Records, when they formed that label they took over and that stuff, which is the stronger material (not commercially) but still remains in McCartneys/Lennon's column. But at the end of the day, the analogy of MJ outbidding McCartney is the same deal that happend with Elton John when Dick James put all his 70's work up for grabs and Elton sold his shit to buy his music, luckily he won on the catalog and that remains one of the most lucrative catalogs in existence, just on Your Song alone, but if someone else would have "won that bid" it still wouldnt be right, especially for another artist who complained about labels to own.

I don't take issue with free market principle if your music up for sale and if someone is willing to pay a higher price for it, oh well. My issue is why for complex reason music is held to a different standard when we speak of intellectual property. That an artist would have to go through such bullshit still. I don't buy the if you dance with the devil you must accept the terms, this instance. That prinicpal could be applied to anything or anyone and has.... to give people a license to steal and abuse others. Even so I've argued artist/musicians are going to have to become more educated in how they conduct their business with record label's and manager's. Though I think changed has come and if the musicians aren't at the for front of getting 80/90% of what they earn, they'll be screwed once again.

If they are profiting it's in short term and those margin are getting narrower as I said on many occasions here on the org record company's are the only companies I know who've been about marketing their product to a small %. This ain't the 50's, 60's, 70's with "Father" coming on at 2:00 am on TV for "Reflections", kiddies and everyone else have other things to spend money on for entertainment. Somone will burn or email a copy of whatever............

TD3 said:

lastdecember said:

TD3 said:

lastdecember said:

Well the art world has always been a form of slavery for whatever race of artist. It went on then and continues now, its just now we really dont care for the artists for the most part, or the term 360deal doesnt really register with the public, because basically you are handed everything, but in the end you dont get much of what you have brought in.

Just the thought of someone owning what someone else made should seem obscene, but there is a double standard that exits. MJ and his estate own a major part of the Beatles Catalog, now most people on this org say, tough shit Paul got outbidded, would we say the same thing if say, Bruce Willis owned all chaka khans and Sly Stones music and masters? and outbidded them for it? i think not, in fact i KNOW not.

Your analogy doesn't have merit. (IMHO)

This notion or commonly held belief that ripping off artist is par for the course has always sounded like moral relativism to me. Musicians/singer/songwriters should own the rights to their music outright - master tapes, publishing rights/copyright the whole kit and caboodle - it's called intellectual property. Prince, Chaka, Paul McCartney/John Lennon, are whomever should be able bequeath, control, market, re-release, and sale their music / intellectual property as they see fit. If any of these artist had own the rights to their music outright MJ or anyone else would have never had the opportunity to purchase anyones music unless, that particular artist choose to sale their music for a profit, that's the big difference. Paul McCartney had an opportunity to buy back the Beatles cataloge ( it's my understanding the Beatles - McCartney/Lennon do have ownership of some of their music, MJ purchase didn't include everything) but he decided the price was too high, oh well. Mr. McCartney said, he called Mr. Lennon's widow and asked/begged her to come on half and she refused: their lose because they would profited (gotten their money back) 10 fold if the price for the Beatles music had even cost a 100 milliion.

I would think some artist would purchase thier catalogues if they could afford too (if they came up for sale) but many can't. So, these artist are at the mercy of the Record Conglomerates. You have artist (or would be heirs) right now living hand to mouth because the powers that be won't release/rerelease their music; their financial prospect would be different I'm sure if they owned their intellectual property . I don't think it's impossible at present to find outprint music for "free" online. Still, music label's are whining that record sales are down, they can't have it both ways. Or better yet, people are stealing music, carma is a bitch.

Well whatever way u wanna cut it, shake it or look at it, the bottom line is, if you dont like the contract or business dont sign with it. If you dont like that the mafia kills people, dont join it. When i do theatre work and write the scripts when i had it over to the theatre and have to sign my right of it away, for a certain period of time that is how the system is, if i didnt want to have to deal with it, then i shouldnt sign the deal. Does it suck that artists get ripped off, of course the whole way its set up is criminal but its the system and you either join it and play by it or do your own thing, no one is forcing people to join up and sign the dotted line.

I think if every artist had the chance they would buy their music, shit Bon Jovi did that very recently but had to fight labels, old managers and people who claimed ownership despite never being a part of a record, same goes for John Mellencamp and Elton John had a huge fight decades ago with Dick James over this. Some now have certain things from the on-set, Norah Jones is one that comes to mind, she has a very interesting deal mainly because of her "indie" status day one, though signed to Blue Note, they purchased her demos and demo cd, and left her with certain rights over it. Now these days the new "deal" is the 360 deal, now everyone jumps for it, because everything is done for you, PR,merchandising,writing etc....so u arent having to struggle those early days in a piss ridden bar like all the 80's groups did like Inxs,u2,rem,jovi etc...U are now a hit, and if not u are gone, but dont think the millions that you make on your download is yours, not happening, you get about 2cents per single download, and most of these artists rarely get to have full lenght albums, so whos losing here, the label is winning even bigger than before because it gets a mindless artist, sells it to a mindless public, and then keeps about 98% of what is made, though it does promote it.

As for the beatles catalog MJ's estate owns certain Lennon/McCartney stuff through certain years, to my knowledge it doesnt include things that are on Apple Records, when they formed that label they took over and that stuff, which is the stronger material (not commercially) but still remains in McCartneys/Lennon's column. But at the end of the day, the analogy of MJ outbidding McCartney is the same deal that happend with Elton John when Dick James put all his 70's work up for grabs and Elton sold his shit to buy his music, luckily he won on the catalog and that remains one of the most lucrative catalogs in existence, just on Your Song alone, but if someone else would have "won that bid" it still wouldnt be right, especially for another artist who complained about labels to own.

I don't take issue with free market principle if your music up for sale and if someone is willing to pay a higher price for it, oh well. My issue is why for complex reason music is held to a different standard when we speak of intellectual property. That an artist would have to go through such bullshit still. I don't buy the if you dance with the devil you must accept the terms, this instance. That prinicpal could be applied to anything or anyone and has.... to give people a license to steal and abuse others. Even so I've argued artist/musicians are going to have to become more educated in how they conduct their business with record label's and manager's. Though I think changed has come and if the musicians aren't at the for front of getting 80/90% of what they earn, they'll be screwed once again.

If they are profiting it's in short term and those margin are getting narrower as I said on many occasions here on the org record company's are the only companies I know who've been about marketing their product to a small %. This ain't the 50's, 60's, 70's with "Father" coming on at 2:00 am on TV for "Reflections", kiddies and everyone else have other things to spend money on for entertainment. Somone will burn or email a copy of whatever............

Well its alot of things in play for these issues: there are so many arguments, One would be that a label shouldnt own an artists creations, especially if they are producing writing etc... very valid point, but then a label can argue, Well we are putting your shit out there for you and without us no one would know U.

Now this is a perfect point, but again where is the line between a label owning an artists work, and then a person downloading an artists work without paying for it? that argument is fought off with the excuse "well the artist isnt getting paid, so tough shit", so now the comeback is if the artist was the "sole" person collecting would no one "download" for free? again i think not, so that argument,excuse holds no water for the public, they can get it for free, they will regardless of who isnt getting paid.

Whatever way the artists lose, whether they are doing their own thing from scratch at a label or if they are in a 360 deal, at the end of the day, they are the hired hand and they signed up for the gig. its not right but its the way its set up, i mean the electoral college in Voting is the biggest bullshit ever, but its never even fought over, to think if someone gets more votes they still can lose.

[Edited 5/31/10 20:37pm]

My attitude is.....release all the songs! What's the point in keeping all these songs locked inside some vault,collecting dust somewhere? Real fans would cherish this stuff. Record companies should give all these recordings back to the artists and allow them to set these songs free.It's important to remember that we're all getting older.Let's face it...20 or 30 years from now,most of Chaka's hardcore fans will be too old to enjoy this music.We'll be too busy dealing with Social Security and retirement,lol.Release it now!

This applies to all Old School artists.

SoulAlive said:

My attitude is.....release all the songs! What's the point in keeping all these songs locked inside some vault,collecting dust somewhere? Real fans would cherish this stuff. Record companies should give all these recordings back to the artists and allow them to set these songs free.It's important to remember that we're all getting older.Let's face it...20 or 30 years from now,most of Chaka's hardcore fans will be too old to enjoy this music.We'll be too busy dealing with Social Security and retirement,lol.Release it now!

This applies to all Old School artists.

Speak for yourself... future grandpa. I'll be on my walker

you have kids don't ya Soul?

TD3 said:

SoulAlive said:

My attitude is.....release all the songs! What's the point in keeping all these songs locked inside some vault,collecting dust somewhere? Real fans would cherish this stuff. Record companies should give all these recordings back to the artists and allow them to set these songs free.It's important to remember that we're all getting older.Let's face it...20 or 30 years from now,most of Chaka's hardcore fans will be too old to enjoy this music.We'll be too busy dealing with Social Security and retirement,lol.Release it now!

This applies to all Old School artists.

Speak for yourself... future grandpa. I'll be on my walker

you have kids don't ya Soul?

I have a son

SoulAlive said:

My attitude is.....release all the songs! What's the point in keeping all these songs locked inside some vault,collecting dust somewhere? Real fans would cherish this stuff. Record companies should give all these recordings back to the artists and allow them to set these songs free.It's important to remember that we're all getting older.Let's face it...20 or 30 years from now,most of Chaka's hardcore fans will be too old to enjoy this music.We'll be too busy dealing with Social Security and retirement,lol.Release it now!

This applies to all Old School artists.

If she had been on Motown, all them songs would've been out by now

SoulAlive said:

Let's face it...20 or 30 years from now,most of Chaka's hardcore fans will be too old to enjoy this music.We'll be too busy dealing with Social Security and retirement,lol.

Or sufferring from dementia and won't even remember who Chaka Khan is.

kitbradley said:

SoulAlive said:

Let's face it...20 or 30 years from now,most of Chaka's hardcore fans will be too old to enjoy this music.We'll be too busy dealing with Social Security and retirement,lol.

Or sufferring from dementia and won't even remember who Chaka Khan is.