Seeing as half of London seem to have seen Prince this year. I was interested to see that the New York Times commented on the Mail on Sunday distributing his album and the rationale behind his 3121 - oh no sorry, I mean 21 - gigs in London this summer.
It's certainly a clever move on his behalf, I'm not sure anyone I know who would have bought 3121, but I don't seem to know anyone who hasn't seen him live. If, as New York Times assume, he made as much from selling distribution rights to his album as he would have from selling it, then he really is as shrewd a businessman as he is mega-talented musician.
He also renamed a Las Vegas club 3121, playing there twice a week, as well as performing at the Super Bowl, high profile shows in the USA for $3,121 per couple, he's made a song from Planet Earth a free download to certain US mobile networks and introduced the 3121 perfume by playing at his local Macy’s.
It is without cynicism or surprise that New York Times comment:
"This is how most pop stars operate now: as brand-name corporations taking in revenue streams from publishing, touring, merchandising, advertising, ringtones, fashion, satellite radio gigs or whatever else their advisers can come up with."
But then is it wrong to make money off your music in whatever way you can in the current climate? Is Prince cynical, or just a good businessman?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment