I wish the media would tell the real story about Prince…and if they won’t then I would like to
November 11, 2007
Along with the celebrity tabloid nonsense that continues to plague our lives with trash for the mind and spirit, like Heather Mills I’m just sick of the media distorting facts, provoking violence and generally acting like complete moroffs, that it just annoys the bloody heck out of me!
Yeah, I know I’m not supposed to have an opinion. But I do, and this is the Free Articulator where providing you follow civilized, and submission, guidelines that actually mean something, you can pretty much say what you please.
Yesterday I looked at the latest misreporting of Yahoo and Reuters and read this about Prince:
He performed with the word “SLAVE” scrawled across his cheek in protest against his then record label and changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol.
The petulant Prince
The way the above paragraph is worded completely ignores why Prince was doing this and makes him sound like a petulant Prince. He was actually being extremely clever in sending signals that the press were either too dumb or too well paid not to pick up on.
My vote for the latter.
The record label had trademarked Prince’s name, and the only way he had to indicate this (probably) because of legal restraints was to hint at what was happening. That the media have colluded or otherwise submerged the story is yet another shameful indicator of the failure of the Fourth Estate to serve the public good, while serving the corporate interests of their owners and major advertisers.
Prince would have been unable to say anything because of music industry clout with the media and pending legal settlement with his former record label. Prince had to wait years before he could reclaim his name (Contracts in music business typically run out after 7 years, which amounts to ‘restraint of trade’ and pretty much ‘kills’ careers).
We didn’t see a fanfare on that day, but I bet Prince rejoiced when his contract expired.
One has to realize that the media and the labels are bedmates, more than this they are often incestuous bedmates.
Yahoo/Reuters went on to report:
Prince also gave his “Planet Earth” album away free with a British Sunday newspaper earlier this year, infuriating music retailers but winning plaudits from fans for innovation.
Somebody always pays
No, Prince did not “give it away for free.” He licensed the album and was paid an appropriate amount for the use of his intellectual property. It was a win-win deal for the paper, the fans, Prince, and his label.
It proves that artists are not bound within the structure of the monopolistic and monolithic music industry. So creators and public: do not believe these lies and distortions, and stop supporting the sort of scumbag press that insists on serving its masters rather than its constituents.
The idea that Prince gave his work away for free is another means of distorting the way the industry works, and if too many swallow this line of tripe then artists will continue to be victimized by the industry that is struggling to maintain its monopoly.
Yellow journalism - off-yellow, too
I found the Yahoo source, which quotes Reuters from Profy’s article, which starts out with a misleading (yellow) headline and then makes the following similarly uninformed, slanted and biased statements:
Yes, an individual (more than) occasionally confused with that crazy plastic man at Neverland…
The full story of Michael Jackson is not known. The media hounded him and if you carefully analyze the story, it looks like it was all a serious concerted attempt to disenfranchise Jackson of his intellectual property assets. The trouble all started when Jackson first criticized his record company, but you do not read much about that, in fact it’s another buried label-story. Why? Why else, other than it makes the record companies and labels look like the pirates they are. So, linking the King of Pop with the Prince of Pop in order to create a misperception about both in the public eye is another mark that supports the idea of a black propaganda campaign.
…followed by:
this hasn’t been the first time Prince has lashed out erratically - whether it be against his representatives or the loyal base that buys the records. He’s certainly thrown such fits before, and sometimes such moments of bizarre behavior are but attempts to cause trouble and stir some noise just for kicks. He’s known relatively well for his bad, “do-what-I-want” attitude, and this conflict could very well be something he’s just decided to stir up on a whim.
“…lashed out erratically”, “thrown such fits before”, “moments of bizarre behavior”, “noise just for kicks”, and the weasel words: “this conflict could very well be something he’s just decided to stir up on a whim.”
Well, for a start none of these comments are substantiated by any link to information that supports such claims. Secondly, they are based on supposition and are riddled with highly critical disparaging tones and remarks that smack of an agenda or vendetta. I don’t think it’s the latter.
So what’s the purpose of this sort of yellow journalism when it comes to artists who create the works which support so much of industry, civilization and culture? I’d hazard that it’s the same purpose as always: manipulate the public and make money.
Planting the seeds of cultural conditioning
But underlying this is something uglier, far more base and certainly loathsome with respect of what it says about Human Nature: the manipulation of public opinion in order to carry out the agenda of large corporations affected by the rise of independent artists.
That rise is happening, it is happening with increasing regularity, and it is what I would term an excellent use of celebrity, that is inspiring and encouraging to artists who do not wish to be bound by the usual vampirism that characterizes the industry.
As headline acts desert the collapsing traditional industry, demonstrating a fantastic lack of confidence, it looks as if the last four decades of a music industry run by heartless corporates is finally coming home to roost as I already stated in Traditional Music Industry Shows Increasing Signs of Collapse.
It would seem completely reasonable for the industry to engage in misinformation and black propaganda campaigns. When you start to see the same stories popping up all over the place like this, that’s generally what you’re looking at; it’s classic misinformation techniques designed to create a storm of propaganda and “public opinion” against some targeted individual or group, and the more it is unsubstantiated or slanted, well, the more likely it is that it’s hatchet work.
Prince and other artists have beat insufferable odds to make life more meaningful for all of us. They set an example of freedom and speak out for the mass of humanity that is not served by corporate media or interests.
When the media create a situation that demands artists demean themselves in order to generate headlines just to get noticed–remember how Red Hot Chilli Peppers got noticed?–well, then they are “the darlings”stooping as low as the bullshit media do.
It’s a pretty degraded mainstream media (MSM) that has to have sensationalism thrust down its throat and into its bowel before it will notice and recognize talent purely on its merits. I bet the MSM has never stopped to consider the fact that it sets the standards as low as they are, thereby encouraging such behavior that they then use as weapons of sensationalism (when they want to make…) or moral compromise (when they want to break…the reputation of those they want us all to think they have created) in order to get eyeballs to look at pages full of advertising and precious little valuable and useful reportage.
Moving to independence
Recording Artists like Prince, Radiohead and that spunky-smart Madonna have done incredible things to herald the changes we’ve been hanging out for. By tangibly moving away from the industry they demonstrate that it is dead; rotted from the inside out, and now the stench of their corpse is lying there in the gutter with no heart left, and those corporate talent-bleeding vampires are claiming the artists are crazy?
Yeah, crazy to do deals with companies that have the morality of the mafia in its worst days, but smart enough to get out now they no longer need the industry that bleeds talent dry until it “just can’t do it any more.”
The destruction of talent is one of the risks of the business, and in death “the killing” doesn’t stop, the profits of icons simply rise tremendously and lots of people cash in. It gets to a point where it seems as if everybody wants to see us die.
Prince and Madonna have done a lot to help other songwriters and talents record and become known. That’s exactly the sort of industry we need, where one helps and is helped in return to ascend the heights to recognition based on the merit of one’s work, from peers.
Helped by those you have admired to reach the public who should be hearing and seeing and reading what you have to offer the world. Prince has realized painful lessons at the hands of the industry about the value of his name and the necessity to protect it, because it is his trademark. He is bound by the law to protect it under international treaties and conventions and domestic trademark law that demands he do so or he will lose the mark that enables him to conduct his trade.
When uninformed, ignorant, or enslaved journalists pretend to be telling the whole story instead of an informed one that paints a real picture, I take exception to it.
Prince, Madonna and others are now forced to become savvy intellectual property guardians and stewards or they will lose their ability to trade under the very names they have established through their hard work.
Any media hack who ignores these truths is not serving the public interest at all; rather they are serving their corporate masters and endeavoring to paint the artists who left them as disturbed upstarts, instead of the savvy business people they have had to become in order to keep what the real pirates of the industry want to steal, the livelihood the artists created for themselves.
New models of collective business collaboration
Apparently Ronnie Barooah agrees with me on this model and certainly this is really the only one that makes real sense for the long term:
I can imagine something…emerging within the music industry - perhaps some established artists will mentor and (financially) support talented newbies, with the responsibility for distribution staying with the artists. Obviously musicians can do ‘consulting’ in the form of live performance and session play as another way to pay the bills incrementally.
I think this could bode well for the ultimate quality of available music because of the potential for mentoring relationships between actual artists rather than newbies being groomed by marketing execs. - Source: TechCrunch Comments
Not just music, all art forms will go towards this model as nobody these days wants to be owned by the corpse–ah, corporations. They want to be the corporation and control their own destiny and that’s how it’s going to be.
The last 40 years pretty much destroyed the industry with a bottom-line philosophy that doesn’t work in the field of the arts which is at its heart about humanity. It was only a matter of time before the integrity of artists and the effect they want their work to create became an issue.
In the future you will see collaborative partnerships between creative individuals, who are in it for a win-win situation with each other, who share a common integrity and set of values with other Creative Artists across a multitude of creative disciplines, and this will serve the public and the industry far better than the suits have.
It’s already happening, and has been since the advent of the internet opened the door.
The back catalogs will keep the majors going for (quite) a while as they are tremendous revenue sources, but new music, books, artworks, and the new connected generations who are far better informed than we are, already move intelligently to embrace the medium and serve communities and social networks they will construct themselves, around the merits of their work.
A new era for art
The monopoly on the distribution of the arts; the dependency of the arts on the rich, powerful and wealthy is broken, and we should thank those who founded the internet and fought hard to give it the sort of civilizing values we see cropping up in its enlightened corners, even as the old model’s legacy sends civilization hurtling towards the cliff of extinction.
There will be a few who still wish to hang on to the old models. They think their money will buy them control and give them some sort of dictatorial authority over creativity they are not themselves capable of.
But they will find out that it is not going to work. They will find that their tricks and machinations are known and that creative character is impervious to them.
How to prepare for the future
As the full import of the last decade begins to reveal itself, we should remember well all the ills greed creates, and learn how best to share and manage the wealth, power and influence we can manifest.
We must use it to develop a far gentler but inherently stronger society and civilization than has characterized the last hundred bloody years. A society that really respects those who have the talent and ability to create something from nothing, to pull together and conquer the odds against our survival for the benefit of all.
Imaginations are what we need to resolve the innumerable ills besetting humanity and only those who truly have humanity’s welfare at heart, who have proven their incorruptible nature are who we should now be looking to. The unlikely ones, the ones who we pooh-poohed, who we thought less of, yet who simply, quietly against insufferable odds, and without wishing more than a fair hearing for their ideas pushed ahead anyway and got the job done.
Principled leadership with humanity at heart. That’s what we need now. Imagination always leads the way; fantasy is where the dreams of Man begin.
Email this article to a friend - or a nemesis, it doesn't bother us.
Subscribe now to receive notification of new Free Articulator articles like this one.
I edited this article after it was posted, as I’m in the habit of reviewing any material once the format has changed. I did that because I wanted to enhance the original a little and expand upon some things that I felt should be. My apologies to those who read the original in their email box.
Additionally, I wanted to define the term moroff. I dislike the term moron applied to people who are born with their faculties intact and who should know better than to earn a perjorative that refers to a human being who did not have a similar benefit. The person who has their faculties intact, should know better. They are not therefore “more on” they are “more off.” Hence moroff. Nothing to do with being PC. Everything to do with avoiding discrimination or cruelty to those who do not deserve it and who are far smarter than the moroff who elected to turn their mind off.