could get me a link of that ? i've read some interviews where he tells that the troubles with his record company Warner Brothers (same as sony ?) began when he had the publishing rights but wanted the copyrights/masters of his 19 released albums too ...
http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:tlje759VvHkC:www.octopusmediaink.com/Th eArtist.html+music+prince+slave+masters+rights&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 the fact that he had 1000+ tracks in his volt and could not release them may be a reason too .. but i haven't found anything about that being the reason for putting slave on his cheak Mad'r ----- Original Message ----- From: "jurren baars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <313@hyperreal.org> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 1:52 PM Subject: Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging > Mad'r wrote: > >it has an analogy with Prince who signed a contract in which he gives the > >rights of his masters to the record company ... and later portraits himself > >as a slave .. while he was knowning what he signed at the time > > the fact prince portraied himself as a slave was not so much because he > didn't have control over the masters, but because his recordcompany didn't > find it in prince's [read: sony's] best interest to release the amount of > music prince wanted to release. prince wanted to release 1 or 2 records a > year, sony didn't think that was in their best interest [because 1 record > every 2 or 3 years would sell more, and cost less then 2 records a year] > thereby limiting prince in his 'right' to exploit his artistic talents. > perhaps a bit short sighted in prince's initial trust in his record company, > but not an action you would expect from the recordcompany at first, you > would expect them to be happy with the amount of material the artist was > giving them to sell. > > jurren > > _________________________________________________________________ > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > >
