Prince declares "the internet's completely over."

SnappingSnapping 994 Posts
edited July 2010 in Strut Central
"The internet's completely over. I don't see why I should give my new music to iTunes or anyone else. They won't pay me an advance for it and then they get angry when they can't get it. The internet's like MTV. At one time MTV was hip and suddenly it became outdated. Anyway, all these computers and digital gadgets are no good. They just fill your head with numbers and that can't be good for you."

Prince says it and hes a genius so it must be true

Is prince going unabomber crazy? Or is he just pissed because he feels he is losing sales because of the internet?
«1345

  Comments


  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,790 Posts
    He might be a musical genius. But dude is a touch out there...

    Dude has hundreds, if not thousands of songs locked up in a vault somewhere and when he dies, you can bet they will be exploited by who has control. And I'm guessing that's gonna be the Jehovah church he belongs too.

  • The_NonThe_Non 5,688 Posts
    He's angry cuz of losing sales on the internet. There is a huge segment of the population who feels they shouldn't have to pay for someone's music. It's no accident the music industry is in a tailspin. Part of it is their own greed and stupidity, the other part is this attitude of music should be free.

  • SnappingSnapping 994 Posts
    The_Non said:
    He's angry cuz of losing sales on the internet. There is a huge segment of the population who feels they shouldn't have to pay for someone's music. It's no accident the music industry is in a tailspin. Part of it is their own greed and stupidity, the other part is this attitude of music should be free.

    You are probably right. But I really hope he goes full on anti-technology. Only uses acoustic instruments. All his concerts lit only by candlelight. His new songs only released as sheet music and player piano reels.....

  • HorseleechHorseleech 3,830 Posts
    "The internet declares Prince is completely over."

  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,790 Posts
    The_Non said:
    the other part is this attitude of music should be free.

    I don't think it's a giant leap of a concept...

  • The_NonThe_Non 5,688 Posts
    Well, the problem with that is, if you want it for free, just like with journalism, it ruins journalism and makes the product much crappier.

  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,790 Posts
    I don't believe that at all... That makes very little sense.

    In any case, people will still always make money.

  • The_NonThe_Non 5,688 Posts
    If you want a product to be free (that was previously not free) the quality will suffer. I research archival documents all the time. The quality of an "average" newspaper article about whatever then vs. now, there is no competition. The paper was better then, particularly in the newspaper's heyday from 1950-1990, before USA Today than now by leaps and bounds. When you value getting a product out fastest vs putting out a quality product, the product suffers. When you don't have editors and proofreaders, the product suffers. When there's pressure to get the product out NOW instead of giving it thought, the product suffers.
    Take the same approach to music.
    It is no longer "if you're really good or really lucky you'll make it." It's primarily a huge push to squeeze every last drop out of a commercial hit. If you think that commercial music output hasn't suffered because of the demand for music by consumers to be free, I feel that that's a delusional opinion. I'm not shaking my fist saying all music now sucks, but music production quality, album quality, and single quality have all suffered.

  • dwyhajlodwyhajlo 420 Posts
    The quality of a lot of clothing has gone way, way down, too (i.e. due to the lower quality of production in China, or wherever else they're churning things out). You can still get really high quality stuff, but it often costs more than many people want to pay for it.

    Back on topic: Prince is nuts, movie at 6.

  • The_NonThe_Non 5,688 Posts
    I want Prince player piano reels right now.

  • Jonny_PaycheckJonny_Paycheck 17,825 Posts
    DOR said:
    I don't believe that at all... That makes very little sense.


    Sure it does. In industries mentioned here from music to clothing to journalism, money has shifted from the production end to the distribution and retail ends. Fact.

    So what you have is a lot of companies investing in vehicles to *deliver* product, to market product, to sell it... and almost no money into actually making, you know, quality product. News agencies are not investing in journalists because the story is no longer important. In the era of the 24/7 squawk box all you really need is a pretty face and a sufficient degree of gravitas to sound dead serious in the midst of tragic or shocking events. The music industry isn't investing in the development of artists, in the talent on the sidelines that made these amazing records of the past, because there is no money in the raw artistry. Artistry is hard to quantify and put a price on, and big big media companies are not going to sink much time or money into trying to find the next person to put lightning in a bottle.

    Boutique companies are making high quality product in all of these areas. But the math just doesn't add up for these megaliths. Unfortunately it's going to take a long time to re-balance the scales in all of these industries, and there's active opposition to such a thing.

    O/T but anyways...

  • DocMcCoyDocMcCoy "Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,920 Posts
    Snapping said:
    The_Non said:
    He's angry cuz of losing sales on the internet. There is a huge segment of the population who feels they shouldn't have to pay for someone's music. It's no accident the music industry is in a tailspin. Part of it is their own greed and stupidity, the other part is this attitude of music should be free.

    You are probably right. But I really hope he goes full on anti-technology. Only uses acoustic instruments. All his concerts lit only by candlelight. His new songs only released as sheet music and player piano reels.....

    Hold up - Prince objects (perfectly legitimately, imho) to one specific aspect of modern technology that has a direct impact upon the way he makes his living, and this makes him a luddite? I suspect you're being flippant here, but still...

    What The Non says is exactly right - the debate in a nutshell, in fact - but the thing I find objectionable is that whenever a performer of Prince's status makes a point like this is, "hasn't he got enough money already?" Suddenly, the general principle of a musician being able to gain some kind of remuneration from his or her craft no longer matters when you've accumulated enough cash and that, once you reach a certain point you're expected work for nothing, regardless of whether or not there's a network of other individuals or ancillary services relying upon you for a living.

    Oh, and anyone saying Prince is over ought to go see him.

  • shooteralishooterali 1,591 Posts
    Horseleech said:
    "The internet declares Prince is completely over."

    LOL.. I was going to say this also but when dude does a tour he sales out arenas like crazy. His catalog of music is long with all his new stuff not getting much exposure or radioplay.

  • ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
    He's partially right:
    'The Grid' Could Soon Make the Internet Obsolete

    The Internet could soon be made obsolete. The scientists who pioneered it have now built a lightning-fast replacement capable of downloading Prince's entire catalog within seconds.

  • DocMcCoyDocMcCoy "Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,920 Posts
    The comments on that Prince story make me despair - idiots declaring they intend to torrent the album "on principle" in the hope Prince "learns from the mistake", along with gems like this;

    What I'm still waiting for to be over is our paying attention to celebrities' opinions on matters that they don't know crap about.

    Yeah, why can't these musicians who've worked their entire lives within a music industry that's very often bled them dry just shut the fuck up and let the public bleed them dry instead?

    I truly, truly despise these fuckers. Their massive sense of entitlement alone ought to warrant a custodial sentence. This is Revenge Of The Nerds writ large, right here.

  • dwyhajlodwyhajlo 420 Posts
    DocMcCoy said:
    Hold up - Prince objects (perfectly legitimately, imho) to one specific aspect of modern technology that has a direct impact upon the way he makes his living, and this makes him a luddite? I suspect you're being flippant here, but still...

    I think that technically would make him a Luddite, since they were generally only opposed to technology when it harmed the livelihood of people/workers.

    Oh, and anyone saying Prince is over ought to go see him.

    Agreed. He is still really, really great.

  • SnappingSnapping 994 Posts
    I suspect you're being flippant here, but still...


    Your suspicions are correct sir. My next thread will be "Prince declares Bob Dylan is a "Judas" for going electric"

  • skelskel You can't cheat karma 5,028 Posts
    Fear not, everyone, Simon Cowell is saving the recording industry as we speak.

    ;-)

  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,790 Posts
    Jonny,

    Does how much money you put into music or make from music tells you the quality of the music? How many quality songs were made over the last 500 years where money was the deciding factor of if the music was good or not?

    My problem is people stating that artist will no longer feel the need to create if there is no money in making music. And I think that's bullshit... I'm sure a portion of people will not bother, but this idea that artist will stop making quality music is ludicrous. People with talent will create regardless of money. Even more so, since the tools to produce music has come down to extremely low levels...

    There are plenty of reasons why music has lost value to consumers. Free IMO doesn't have most to do with it. You were always able to get free music off the radio. If you were a DJ, a good portion were always able to get free music from servicing (You didn't even need to be a big name DJ to get it). The list could go on...

    I have no problem to say that sure, downloading is part of the issue. But there are other factors. The idea that more music was probably released in the last year than probably all of the 60's combined. The fact that consumers have so many things to spend their discretionary income on... The fact that labels still to this day don't do much to change their business models. I mean, I can still go into an HMV and find CD's selling for $25 bucks... Or that on itunes, plenty of times the non-tangible album sells for just as much as buying the CD. Which makes very little to no sense to me.

    I was just reading the other day. Remember that youtube video about the kid who went to the dentist and was all messed up? Well, the father told people how he made over $100,000 from that single video alone off youtube (With 3 million views) alone off that video and more off other ways...

    The point is this... Times are a changing. Business models should be as well. Get whatever it is you're making seen (or heard) by as many people in the world as possible. The money will follow...

    Who also should be worried in all of this, is the consumer. Since you will begin to see the attempts to many consumer rights disappear when it comes to buying music in the near future.

  • DOR said:
    Jonny,

    Does how much money you put into music or make from music tells you the quality of the music? How many quality songs were made over the last 500 years where money was the deciding factor of if the music was good or not?

    My problem is people stating that artist will no longer feel the need to create if there is no money in making music. And I think that's bullshit... I'm sure a portion of people will not bother, but this idea that artist will stop making quality music is ludicrous. People with talent will create regardless of money. Even more so, since the tools to produce music has come down to extremely low levels...

    There are plenty of reasons why music has lost value to consumers. Free IMO doesn't have most to do with it. You were always able to get free music off the radio. If you were a DJ, a good portion were always able to get free music from servicing (You didn't even need to be a big name DJ to get it). The list could go on...

    I have no problem to say that sure, downloading is part of the issue. But there are other factors. The idea that more music was probably released in the last year than probably all of the 60's combined. The fact that consumers have so many things to spend their discretionary income on... The fact that labels still to this day don't do much to change their business models. I mean, I can still go into an HMV and find CD's selling for $25 bucks... Or that on itunes, plenty of times the non-tangible album sells for just as much as buying the CD. Which makes very little to no sense to me.

    I was just reading the other day. Remember that youtube video about the kid who went to the dentist and was all messed up? Well, the father told people how he made over $100,000 from that single video alone off youtube (With 3 million views) alone off that video and more off other ways...

    The point is this... Times are a changing. Business models should be as well. Get whatever it is you're making seen (or heard) by as many people in the world as possible. The money will follow...

    Who also should be worried in all of this, is the consumer. Since you will begin to see the attempts to many consumer rights disappear when it comes to buying music in the near future.


  • Jonny_PaycheckJonny_Paycheck 17,825 Posts
    It absolutely does matter - think recording quality. tour support. promotions budget. Do you think "getting your music out there" is free? None of it is. It's pie in the sky to any artist to imagine that they'll just "get their music out there" and if it's good, hey! Success! I mean come on. You're admittedly aware of how glutted the music scene is currently, how hard it is to get your music heard at all. Pay to play still exists on almost every level, too.

    What we'd be left with, if you had your way, if we take the world of old records as a parallel, would be the kind of low-budget private press affairs that leave you wondering what might've been if the artist had a real budget and some better production. Out of which perhaps 1 in 100 really live up to the price.

    I agree that the models have to change, but think on this: I own my own business, right? And times are tough. There are times I long for the stability of a job for a bigger company. And what you're basically saying is: No, all of you people who want to work better go out there and start your own businesses, because there's not going to be jobs for you in the new world order. Is that the truth? There are elements of truth to that, sure. But a lot of people - rightly - would be scared, and many wouldn't be able to hack it or even get off the ground. That's what you're saying to artists in your post, that they'd better just go it alone and hope it works out.

    That may be the current reality, but the attitude is nonetheless troubling because it basically puts the onus on the artist to just "get on with it". Sounds very "realist" but also bitter and resigned. And artists aren't the ones at fault, here...

  • ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
    When good music totally stops being recorded and released, and when all artists fold their arms in front of their chests, then I might pay. As long as I can get a 30 to 50-play album out of the majors every couple months then I'm willing to wait them out. Things aren't bad enough yet. People don't need as much music as was being offered at the industry price. I can make due with 6 good albums a year from the entire industry. They're done.

  • DocMcCoyDocMcCoy "Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,920 Posts
    Sorry, but I find all this vague talk about the money "following" to be hopelessly naive. Exactly how will the money follow? Through revenue from touring? Does that apply on a pay-to-play circuit as well? Where are the safeguards against things like unscrupulous promoters who decide to skip out on paying you? I suppose there's always merchandising. After all, there's certainly plenty of evidence that people will spend ??25 on a t-shirt before they'll spend it on a CD, such is the attraction of appearing to have the knowledge over actually having it. But where does the money to manufacture all those t-shirts come from? And how much gear do you leave out of the van in order to make room for the all-important merch? After all, if music is now just something you do in order to sell shirts, that really ought to take priority over instruments, backline, etc.

    Whenever someone makes the implicit suggestion that people should be happy to create for the love of it, and should treat things such as financial rewards and success as privileges, instead of benefits you gain through being good at what you do or popular because of it, I have to ask them - do you work for nothing? No, you don't. But I bet you sink a lot of your own time, money and energy into your hobbies, whatever they may be. If you don't mind the so-called "creative classes" becoming little more than hobbyists and spending as much time working on their e-business game as they do actually making music (which is the only thing musicians are really interested in), then that's fine. But scratch the surface of any gifted, enthusiastic amateur in any field of creative endeavour, and underneath you'll find someone who's working towards becoming a paid professional. Without the infrastructure to help them thrive - and that infrastructure is disappearing, whether it be film, music, TV, journalism, literature, whatever - they remain hobbyists, and that ideal of reaching as many people in the world as possible remains as far away as ever.

    Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the price of an album on iTunes has never been the same as that of a physical CD at full retail in a bricks-and-mortar record store.

  • Jonny_PaycheckJonny_Paycheck 17,825 Posts
    DocMcCoy said:
    Sorry, but I find all this vague talk about the money "following" to be hopelessly naive. Exactly how will the money follow?



    Without the infrastructure to help them thrive - and that infrastructure is disappearing, whether it be film, music, TV, journalism, literature, whatever - they remain hobbyists, and that ideal of reaching as many people in the world as possible remains as far away as ever.


    THIS x a millie.

  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts
    DocMcCoy said:
    the thing I find objectionable is that whenever a performer of Prince's status makes a point like this is, "hasn't he got enough money already?" Suddenly, the general principle of a musician being able to gain some kind of remuneration from his or her craft no longer matters when you've accumulated enough cash and that, once you reach a certain point you're expected work for nothing, regardless of whether or not there's a network of other individuals or ancillary services relying upon you for a living.

    See also: Lars Ulrich vs. Napster

  • ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
    Paying for music is like paying for sex.

    Labels are the pimps; artists are the hoes.

    The concert venue is the strip club.

    Don't be a trick.

  • Jonny_PaycheckJonny_Paycheck 17,825 Posts
    Reynaldo said:
    Paying for music is like paying for sex.

    Labels are the pimps; artists are the hoes.

    The concert venue is the strip club.

    I think this is a fair comparison.

    So, when you take the music without asking, you are raping the musician. Nice.

  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,790 Posts
    But this goes both ways.

    You being a store owner probably know that for quite a while now, labels have been trying to make it illegal for you to buy and resell used music. We are now getting to that point with them getting that. In the digital age, consumers will lose many of their rights with music and what they can do with it.

    For all this complaining about free music, people need to understand that consumers are not stupid. With technology they understand that manufacturing and distribution of music has come down greatly. They understand that a bit of money goes into production, while the major portion goes into marketing & promotion... And the labels are a big part to blame for where we are right now.

    I'm willing to bet, it's easier today if I'm an artist, to get seen. Way easier than say 20+ years ago when I needed someone to back me with money. You just need your break. Much like you needed your break back in the day. The difference is, you can be direct with your audience.

    Case in point. This kid is what 11 or some shit? Dude posts a video on youtube () and gets close to 30 million views. If youtube paid that father of the dentist video $100,000 for a video with 3 million views, how much did that kid just make? Plus, he got a recording contract in under a month of posting. When in the history of recording could an artist have that happen? And the thing is... He isn't the only one. The thing that will change most now is an artist will have to become more than just dudes that make music.

    I've stated this before... So it's probably a broken record by now. But my family was in the music biz for over 30 years. Retail, wholesale, etc... When all is said and done, if you really feel like there is no money to be made in the biz, you should get out. In early 2000, we saw it... We didn't blame consumers for getting free music. Or our DJ's customers who bought from us most of their life, because they were now able to get free music or cheap music from an online store. We recognized the biz was changing.

    IMO, Money doesn't stop being made because your music is free... And the quality of music never matters on how much money you put into it.

    It's like, remember back in the day when everyone wanted to be a DJ? You had those dudes who had money and dropped large amounts of cash on the best equipment, the best records? Didn't make them an awesome DJ. Didn't really help them make a shit load of dough. 99% of them sold off their gear and got out of it.

    Today it's photography... Everyone wants to be a photographer. You can spend 5-10 G's and get all the best gear, but it doesn't make you any better than the dude with a $400 camera.

    Once again, I'm not trying to say free music for everyone. Just stating that, the idea of 1. The quality of music will suffer is wrong IMO and 2. You can still make money off your music, even if people are downloading it for free.

    Maybe I'm completely wrong... I'm just glad that throughout history money was never a monster factor in many great works from artist. Could you imagine if money was that important how many artist who have never created amazing works? The list would be pretty long...

  • Jonny_PaycheckJonny_Paycheck 17,825 Posts
    I don't think you're wrong, I just tend to think that a) you're fighting a strawman - the idea that anyone here is blaming consumers for downloading free music, and b) you're blaming the artist for wanting the situation to be different.

    Yes, artists we're talking about here. Not youtube sensations. If you want the would-be youtube sensations of the pre-digital era I can point you in the direction of a nice landfill. It's got "How Much Is That Doggie In The Window" and "Disco Duck" for days. Who will make the next Forever Changes? Who will be the next Prince?

    I know that your family has been in the music industry for decades and this is why you feel the way you feel. I sense a feeling of resignation in your posts still, from that experience. But the fact that things have changed, to me, is no excuse for quitting, for not wanting things to be better, for not lobbying for changes within the industry.

  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,790 Posts
    But this is the main point I'm trying to make here. Business or artist for that matter don't control markets or how things should play out. Consumers do. Your creation doesn't hold value unless you have someone willing to pay that or consume it. That's the way the world works. The recording industry still fails to do anything about that. They believe they control everything.

    Hey, in all honesty I'd probably have a totally different opinion on this if the music industry played fair. We are now at a time when you no longer buy or own a tangible product where you can do what you want with it. We are at a point where you are gaining a license and that's where your rights end. Where government is used to sustain a non working out of date business model. Where artist are force to sue or take away consumers internet use on just the accusation of infringement.

    It is a mess. I don't disagree. And I do want artist to make money. I just think the industry needs to go in a different direction on how that will happen.

    I just don't equate with the idea that artist will stop producing quality music. Too many amazing examples out there of masterpieces of people who created them never making a cent out there. It's been over 10 years now since Napster. Shouldn't the music industry be dead by now? Shouldn't no one be making music any more? What are people waiting for? For mp3's not to exist any longer? Why in 2010 are people like David Letterman and Ellen starting up record labels? How is apple selling over 10 billion songs? Don't people know music is free?

    Back to Prince... Hey Doc, didn't he release one of his last albums for free over there in conjunction with a newspaper? How did that play out? I guess not well...
Sign In or Register to comment.