Conference mr1pst::music

I pretty much agree with your opinion of Prince.  He was innovative 
and prolific for a time.  I almost credit him for persuading Warner
to release his debut album with sexual lyrics intact, but realize 
that Warner enjoyed much free publicity by releasing a controversial 
album by a young, androgynous performer.  Unfortunately, Prince's 
repertoire now consists of a few pat musical formulas and one major 
lyrical theme.  For each album, Prince pulls out the vocoder, does
a song or two with distorted vocals over synths, lays down some whoops 
and hollers over a few other synth tracks, and calls it a product.
My understanding is that Prince signed a 10 album deal.  Ten million
dollars a piece to produce 10 albums that will almost certainly sound 
very much alike does seem like a lot of money.  All I can surmize is
that projected international sales warranted the largesse.  As was the 
case with Springsteen, I wonder how Prince will incorporate the aging 
process into his musical career.  Can you imagine Prince at 40+ producing 
and performing the same material that he produces and performs today?  
Perish the thought, but assuming that his 10 album deal covers about 10 
years, it's going to happen!!!
 
Shawn

    I was under the impression that Prince's career was sliding, so why
    would anyone anty up $100 million for him. I barely see his videos
    played anymore and never hear any of his songs anymore on the stations
    that I listen to (I suppose someone will tell me that they play him at
    least once on hour on WXKS - frankly, I'll never know).
    
    I too doubt that there's 10 * $10 million albums left in Prince. But we
    all get to pay more for CDs and albums over-all to support the money
    that Prince is not likely to make.
    
    Brian

	Well if Prince or anyone else can get a tenth of a billion bucks for
entertainment and related stuff, maybe that's fine.  But on the other hand,
maybe it isn't.

	The big $$$ that certain artists have been getting lately enables more
and more POPULAR artists to also demand higher contracts.  This has a snoballing
effect on artist compensation, similar to that seen in professional sports. 
So?  Well nothing happens in a vacuum.  To pay for their top artists, record 
companies are forced to take less risk (spend less money) producing and promoting
inovative and/or obscure artists that may not have guaranteed financial return.
Also, in addition to squelching innovation, originality, etc., this can cause 
established but not madly popular acts to get dropped from their labels and to
have trouble finding a new one.

	Also, the record companies, as business entities, must demand that their
existing artists create more commercially oriented material (ie: adhere to 
certain formulas, use certain producers, etc.).  This stipulation is being 
insisted upon more and more by record companies when they enter artist
negotiations, especially with unknown, less-known or less-popular artists.

	When these things happen, as music consumers we are all hurt.  There is
less choice, musical status quo is preserved, homogenized, and beat to death,
and we may see a favorite artist get dropped from their label.  So, before we 
say "If So-and-so can get 100M from his record company, more power to him", we 
should consider the broader consequences of this.

/ml

    
    Re .3
    
    Very good points (and one's easily overlooked). This will certainly
    promote more commercialism verses artistry. In other words, more
    business people packaging, financing and promoting 'groups' for
    shear profitability verses artistry (ala News Kids on the Block).
    More synthetic 'superstars'....just what we need.
    
       -Joe  

    
    	So how long before the entire music industry "bottlenecks" and
    	consists of 1000 bands all playing the same [commercial] music?
    
    	Or are we almost there already?
    
    							GTI

    -1: Good point. They could break a lot of new acts with $100M. I used to
    like Prince's music, too, but this is uh...stupid. Glad I don't own
    Time/Warner stock. (Well, I think I'm glad anyway.)

    --Ron

	I wonder what Vanilla Ice is getting these days? I often wonder
	what possesses corporations to make deals like the recent rounds
	(Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, Madonna, Prince, etc...). There 
	are musical acts that have only a few months worth of stardom in
	them, many develop followings (The Greatful Dead don't have 100
	foot wide TV monitors at thier shows, they just play music),
	and don't seem to care about the B.S.

	To show the Recording companies what they are missing, I'll show
	them that I care more about the music than the money & only demand
	a 10 millon dollar contract....

							Jens

I'm gonna stay out of the money aspect of this whole arguement, but I do
have one comment....

re: .0

> I like Prince and everything, I have found him to be one of the most 
> innovative artist of the 80's, but my honest opinion is that Prince is a 
> now a desperate has-been of an artist bent on keeping his name up in 
> front of the public... 

I'd just like to say that I feel that Prince is hardly a "has-been". I think 
that 'Diamonds and Pearls' is his best album since 'Purple Rain'. Not only
that, but he is a talented songwriter and producer (think of all the hits
people have had with his songs, including a HUGE smash just last year for
Sinead O'Connor with "Nothing Compares 2 U").

I'm not even a huge Prince fan. But I'd hardly say he's washed-up.....

alan

    
    Warner Bros. dropped Todd Rundgren a few months ago.  A man with over 20
    years of experience as a performer, producer and engineer.  Why?  No
    money it it for Warner.   I don't think Rundgren cost Warner anything. 
    The issue was how big a return were they getting off of what was a very
    small investment.
    
    Seems like good music is suffering the same fate as the "orphan drugs"
    none of the pharmaceutical companies were willing to produce.
    
    -Ed
    
    

    What's really stupid is that large record companies make most of their
    money from unknowns who have big hits, like Meatloaf, Boston,
    Christopher Cross, Tracy Chapman, etc.  Big money deals like the
    Stones, McCartney, Michael Jackson, Prince, etc. get hardly ever pan
    out well for the company.  A lot of those deals are made for prestige,
    not profit. If WB gives Prince $100 million that means they lose the
    first $100 million they would have otherwise made off of him.  That
    means they have to make an *extra* $100 million over the life of the
    contract just to *break even*, which probably requires selling
    something like 50 million more albums.
    
    Seems to me that although the major labels have the big $$ they waste a
    lot of it whereas the indies get a better return on their smaller
    investments.
    
    						Brian

    It was funny to hear WBUR playing "Money Don't Matter Tonight" from
    Prince's Diamonds and Pearls album this weekend.  The substitute DJ for
    James Isaacs didn't indicate if he got the joke though.
    
    I have mixed feelings about the deal.  I think the best performers in a
    given field should be compensated appropriately.  Prince has made
    Warner a lot of money over the years, including the D&P album which has
    had several hits which are of course generally not played on white
    commercial radio in Boston.  Why shouldn't Prince be rewarded both for
    his long track record for Warner's and for his anticipated future
    performance?  On the other hand, when the difference in compensation
    between the top and bottom paid people gets too big it tends to be bad
    news in any industry, and I do agree with a lot of the points in the
    previous notes.  I would just encourage people to look at both sides of
    the issue, even if you don't like Prince as a performer.

I agree Prince was one of the most innovative artists of the 
80's and that more money does'nt neccessarily mean a better 
record.
I 2 thought that Prince's career was sliding until I witnessed
him live a few months ago ...I don't think there is anyone
other performer capable of displaying the range of talent that 
he did.
That aside,it seems that an important question is whether or not 
this deal will make Prince's music more commercial less 
innovative.
i.e will Warner call the shots .Ultimately only time will tell 
but if U look back 2 1978 when Prince signed his first deal with 
Warner we may get an idea of what will happen.When Prince was 19 
he was almost totally unknown yet he secured a 1 million deal 
with Warner,it was totally unheard of at the time time 2 sign an 
unknown 4 such an amount,moreover Prince wanted total control of 
the albums from the word go ,again it was very unusual to let an 
unknown produce his own album Warner wanted 2 have their own 
producers do the job.They would be happy 2 C Prince turn out 
Stevie Wonderesque material 4 years, garaunteeing big sales 
figures.Prince got his own way though and he produced,composed 
arranged,and played everything.His 1980 album Dirty Mind was 
quite a landmark album in his career ,quite original and of
course it contained the renowned explicit lyrics.

Hardly a commercial album despite the fact that he had a 'big'
record contract.
The point is Prince was'nt dictated to by Warner he called the 
shots.........hopefully it will be the same this time round.

If Warner want 2 pay 100 million 2 get him on their label ,fine.
I'm sure he will continue to release the type of music he wants 
to release..umm  and at least he does'nt do coke or pepsi adds!

Mark.

P.S As regards the ageing process....look at 'Sonic Youths' Kym 
    Gordon she's 38 and their new album is Kickin.James B is 
    playing a concert here in Ireland on the 26th ..he's 64!!!!
    (Wonder if he will sing the Beatles song).Not in his prime I 
    no but why let age stop U from doing what U want 2 do!
P.P.S Prince gives huge sums of money 2 charity without milking
      the fact 4 exposure unlike some of the 'We Are The World'
      artists. 

Sorry if I have rambled on at all.
     
Though if U want 2 hear more of my rambling's read 34.96.

    I'm going to enter a fairly nebulous reply here, only because I don't
    recall all the details of what I read... but recently I read an article
    in *some* magazine or newspaper about Michael Jackson's latest
    kazillion dollar contract...seems the dollar amount was released by his
    agent and the record company stated that the actual amount was no where
    near what his agent had said. When the magazine people asked the agent
    about the record company's statement, they simply said "no comment". So
    I think it's possible that the artist's agents may be exaggerating and
    no one questions it unless the record company is asked directly...
    
    maybe...
    
    Suegene

    Suegene,
    
    From what I've been hearing, you're right. None of these deals are
    up-front, "we (the record company) give you (the artist) hundreds of
    millions of dollars". What the record companies are doing is giving
    artists ("big" artists anyway) a much larger piece of the pie (not just
    record sales, but proceeds from other merchandising, etc.). They're
    also giving some artists money that they are not directly responsible
    for making. In other words, in some cases, the artists are
    participating in what you might term "corporate profit sharing" (see
    footnote below). The artists "potential" (and in my view, very optimistic)
    income projections are taken as "gospel". 
    
    The more I think and read about this, the *less* convinced I am that
    this is going to have any profound effect on the music business as a
    whole.
    
    However, there is one interesting aspect to all of this that I think is
    worth noting. The entertainment industry, as a whole, is getting bigger
    and bigger and bigger. Money now in the hundreds of billions of dollars
    per anum is being made, while other industries (I won't mention any, but I
    think you get the idea) are continuing to shrink and are gasping for
    bucks.
    
    As someone who works in "multimedia", I know first-hand the way some
    companies view the mix of technology and entertainment - frivolous.
    I'm on the street in two weeks because a certain company I know
    couldn't come to grips with the fact that the world is changing, and
    that it's no longer a sin for people to enjoy themselves *while* they
    work.
    
    Brian
    
    Footnote:
    	This is the second attempt at entering this note. My first attempt
    	referred to "corporate prophet sharing", which sounded like some
    	strange sort of religous sexual practice! :-) Even a spelling
    	corrector can't help with that one!!!!

    	Oh well, chalk it up to the very strange circumstances of life
    	these days!

    
    I believe the Michael Jackson $$$ incident Suegene was referring to
    was the deal struck with HBO to have exclusive first broadcast
    rights to his concert in Romania (?).  His agent claimed they paid
    20 million for the rights.  HBO scoffed at the figure and called it 
    ridiculous.  Speculation places the real figure at around 5 mil.
    
    Lv

    Yep, that's the one I read about...just makes me wonder how many of the
    mega-deals are real.
    
    Suegene

    When Michael signed with Sony, rumors abounded that he had signed
    a $1 billion deal.  Lately, in publicity relating to Prince's 
    contract, a more realistic $50 million is quoted.
    
    Shawn

    In fairness to Prince from what I heard this weekend, the $100M deal was
    between Warner and his Paisley Park company. It's a sortof joint venture
    arrangement. A production contract I guess. In other words, it's not
    compensation. So I take back some of what I said. Just wish he'd cut out
    some of the crap in his performances and get back to music-music-music.
    Cuz he is one talented muthu.

    --Ron

    I saw a show on A&E this weekend which focused on Prince.  The way they
    phrase his new deal was that it represented "$100 Million" dollars in
    funding.  that doesn't seem to indicate to me that any of the money is
    going directly to Prince.  Seems more like a line of credit.
    
    later,
    
    douglas

    
    I saw a show about Prince the other night (forgot the channel), but
    at the end was a little blurb about his $100M deal.  It sounded like
    he was practically being made a vice president in WB and would 
    advise WB on their various acts....just hope he isn't as heavy-
    handed in producing acts as he has been in the past.
    
    guy

    RE: 294.20
    
    Hi Guy, 
    
    >>just hope he isn't as heavyhanded in producing acts as he has been
      in the past.
    
    	Could you expand on this?  What R U referring 2?
    
    Thanks,                                          
    Candi

    
    re: .21
    
    Sorry for not explaining myself more...
    
    From the show I saw (don't know what it was called since I caught
    in the middle) it looked like the acts Prince produced took on a
    character very much like Prince's own musical character.  There
    are certain elements of the music that you can tell that he in-
    fluenced (mostly in the production of it).  But also the artists
    videos all had that same "sexual" character to them (for lack of
    a better word).  It was like his own personal stamp on the artists
    work.
    
    I respect his obviously amazing talent, but too much of a good thing
    is....er, not good....
    
    
    guy