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
