The Soul music icon says she is legally entitled to her master recordings, referencing Prince in her tweets On the eve of Grammy Sunday, Anita Baker has asked fans not to buy or stream her music.


https://news.yahoo.com/an...00806.html

SoulAlive said:

Most of her music isn’t even on Spotify.

Only The Songstress is on Amazon Music.

The Best Of (2002), Rapture, Lately is on Amazon Music Unlimited.

She is entitled to her masters after 30 years. Everything from 1991 and before she's entitled to ownership under the law. She should negotiate to get them all back, and allow her soon-to-be-former record company as sole distributor (which is what Prince did). She'd own the masters and sell a license to distribute only to whoever was her record company. It's a fair deal and she'd have the final say-so over any future re-releases, remasters, compilations, etc. She'd be signing (and cashing) the checks.

She hasn't done anything in years, being retired and all, as far as a new album, so why not just give them to her? Let her control her legacy. I would imagine there are some little gems in a vault somewehre that could be used to expand on existing records, give them the remaster retreatment, press some vinyl and do it up. Hire those Bowie or George Michael folks to align a re-release campaign over the next few short years.

[Edited 3/15/21 12:12pm]

Aww, she's not only referencing Prince. She's also referencing Michael.

In a way, I'm sympathetic to them on the pitiful cents they get per streaming. But in another way, they recorded the songs, they sold the albums and now they would want a shitload of money, whenever someone listens to a song of them? Where's the fairness in that? What are they doing to justify getting money whenever someone listens to their song? I also can't tell my boss, "Hey, I did the work 10 years ago, I want you to continue to pay me for work done years ago.".

PatrickS77 said:

RJOrion said:

PatrickS77 said:

Aww, she's not only referencing Prince. She's also referencing Michael.

In a way, I'm sympathetic to them on the pitiful cents they get per streaming. But in another way, they recorded the songs, they sold the albums and now they would want a shitload of money, whenever someone listens to a song of them? Where's the fairness in that? What are they doing to justify getting money whenever someone listens to their song? I also can't tell my boss, "Hey, I did the work 10 years ago, I want you to continue to pay me for work done years ago.".

thats a dumb analogy...no one is streaming or sampling or buying your work for financial gain... there is no public supply and demand for your work... your "work" has no value to anyone but your supervisor...where are your hit records??...who is making money directly off of your work?...stop it [Edited 3/18/21 8:27am]

I don't care. Work is work. And that whining for money is ridiculous. I rip all my CDs and listen to them. They don't get any money off that either. Why should they, when I'm too lazy to rip them and stream instead? And when I (potentially) pay 7 € for a month of streaming, what do they expect they should get?? Why the emphasis on burned out musicians expecting to be able to rest on their laurels and work rendered decades ago?? And at last, you have no clue what my work is and who makes money off it, so stfu. But yeah, put these musicians on a pedestal and pamper them, they are something better.

PatrickS77 said:

RJOrion said:

PatrickS77 said:

I don't care. Work is work. And that whining for money is ridiculous. I rip all my CDs and listen to them. They don't get any money off that either. Why should they, when I'm too lazy to rip them and stream instead? And when I (potentially) pay 7 € for a month of streaming, what do they expect they should get?? Why the emphasis on burned out musicians expecting to be able to rest on their laurels and work rendered decades ago?? And at last, you have no clue what my work is and who makes money off it, so stfu. But yeah, put these musicians on a pedestal and pamper them, they are something better.

just like i thought.. your work has no residual or commercial value to anyone...you are not an entertainer, and entertainers are not compensated (per contracts) like a working civilian who is not an entertainer... just like sales people (commissions) and laborers (hourly wages) are compensated differently...im amazed that this has to be explained to an adult, who claims to have worked before...but im not surprised that a person who openly admits to stealing their music, cant grasp the concept of artists receiving residual payments...

Again. A) this isn't about me, it's about everyone who is actually working and continues to be working and B) if it were about me, you do not know what I do. My work does have residual and commercial value and makes my company money for decades to come. It's just not a field where one would ever dream of saying, continue to pay me. And C) where the hell did I say, that I steal any music?? I said I rip my CDs and listen to those and thus no musician is making any additional money from me, so why should they if I decide to stream (which I don't)? As for those CDs, if haven't stolen them. So stop jumping to false conclusions.

I'm equally amazed at adults putting fucking entertainers on a pedestal, thinking they should be so much above anyone else, just because their work is music or films.

PatrickS77 said:

Good luck with that. Since Don Henley, who is a much bigger act than Anita, can't get his. Universal didn't even inform their artists that their masters had burned up in a warehouse fire in 2008. So they no longer exist. It was just reported in an article around 2 years ago.

MickyDolenz said:

Good luck with that. Since Don Henley, who is a much bigger act than Anita, can't get his. Universal didn't even inform their artists that their masters had burned up in a warehouse fire in 2008. So they no longer exist. It was just reported in an article around 2 years ago.

It's a really good reason to take a year and rerecord those solo records (like with Henley whose masters don't exist anymore) so he'd own the new masters anyway.

I'm surprised there aren't copies of those masters somewhere. There's always a slave tape or whatever as a backup. Not a perfect copy, but near perfect.

That fire - that's another whole show. It's painful to think about.

RJOrion said:

TrivialPursuit said:

It's a really good reason to take a year and rerecord those solo records (like with Henley whose masters don't exist anymore) so he'd own the new masters anyway.

I'm surprised there aren't copies of those masters somewhere. There's always a slave tape or whatever as a backup. Not a perfect copy, but near perfect.

That fire - that's another whole show. It's painful to think about.

I figure Disney might try to extend copyright in some kind of way, since Steamboat Willie is going to be public domain in a few years. That may have an effect on the record labels owning masters too. Disney has record labels. I know in some cases, labels sent copies of masters to other countries like Japan. But not all USA albums had an international release.

I 'm not sure the general public are interested in re-recordings. They want the versions they remember. I remember some oldies artists would re-record their hits and sell them on TV commercials (no C.O.D.s, 4 to 8 weeks for delivery ) or the albums would be sold cheap in stores & gas stations. In the case of Don Henley, I don't think he can hit the notes anymore of a song like Boys Of Summer. So it wouldn't be the same thing.

PatrickS77 said:

RJOrion said:

YOU made it about you, when you cried about not getting residual payments for your "work"...and comparing that to an artists situation...your lack of basic intelligence is glaring

It was an example. Too bad you're too stupid to grasp that.

Girls, stop it. You're both pretty, now move on.

I'm afraid that what Anita will accomplish is that her music just disappears.

MickyDolenz said:

TrivialPursuit said:

It's a really good reason to take a year and rerecord those solo records (like with Henley whose masters don't exist anymore) so he'd own the new masters anyway.

I'm surprised there aren't copies of those masters somewhere. There's always a slave tape or whatever as a backup. Not a perfect copy, but near perfect.

That fire - that's another whole show. It's painful to think about.

I figure Disney might try to extend copyright in some kind of way, since Steamboat Willie is going to be public domain in a few years. That may have an effect on the record labels owning masters too. Disney has record labels. I know in some cases, labels sent copies of masters to other countries like Japan. But not all USA albums had an international release.

I 'm not sure the general public are interested in re-recordings. They want the versions they remember. I remember some oldies artists would re-record their hits and sell them on TV commercials (no C.O.D.s, 4 to 8 weeks for delivery ) or the albums would be sold cheap in stores & gas stations. In the case of Don Henley, I don't think he can hit the notes anymore of a song like Boys Of Summer. So it wouldn't be the same thing.

I agree witb tbis point. Even Taylor Swift with her mass of fans ready to buy everything she releases and tons of publicity only got a couple of days of commercial attention when she just re-recorded one of her hit albums.

Prime example of why not to re-record something...