When egotistical rockstars cry

It's been widely known that Prince has been extremely careful about his image. From his fashion and his music videos and movies, to his staunch anti-YouTube stance and his days as an unpronounceable symbol, image is a serious concern for the 80s icon. But now, with his recent lawsuits against three of his fan sites, not only has he managed to alienate a majority of his fan base, but has proven that ego has consumed his brain, and that, in his mind, there's no difference between homage and infringement.

For those who aren't aware, this past week, Prince's lawyers have recently sent cease-and-desist letters to several Prince fan sites, demanding that they remove all photos, artwork and fan-submitted, Prince-related pictures. Not even photos of fan tattoos or license plates are safe from the Prince's image conscious wrath. In response, three of these sites - housequake.com, prince.org and princefams.com - have united to create PrinceFansUnited.com in response to the lawsuits. They claim that Prince and his legal team are trying "to stifle all critical commentary about Prince," and if they have to continue to have their images removed from the site, that they will "defend their position in the proper court of law, as well as fully prosecute any claims to which they are justly entitled."

In response to the PFU, Prince's promoter AEG released a statement saying "Prince is not suing his fans, is not looking to penalize fans and nor is he looking to or inhibiting freedom of speech in any way. In fact, he is simply looking to provide Prince fans with exclusive music and images entirely free of charge, and bypassing unofficial and unauthorized phony fan sites that exploit both consumers and artists." Oh really? Last time I checked, fan sites are used to pay tribute to artists, not to exploit their fans. I don't see any fan sites forcing people to pay for access to their site, or trying to take advantage of their visitors in any way. And how can this be seen as screwing over the fans when labels continue to charge $18 or more for new CDs only to release "deluxe editions" mere months later, as well as charging $50 minimum per ticket to see an artist such as Prince in person? I'd also like for the Prince camp to tell us the difference between a real fan site and a phony" one. In my mind, anyone who has the time available to set up and maintain a website, and is willing to fork over the money to pay for a domain name each month, is a true fan of an artist; otherwise they wouldn't waste their time. The statement goes on to say that "The action taken earlier this week was not to shut down fan sites, or control comment in any way. The issue was simply to do with in regards to copyright and trademark of images and only images, and no lawsuits have been filed." If you're not trying to control comment in any way, then why are you forcing these sites to take down all images, including tattoos and license plates? Unless Prince owns the rights to all of these tattoos and license plates, then he has no right to tell these sites to shut them down.

Also, AEG claims that "the three sites in question have falsely positioned themselves as representatives of millions of Prince fans. In fact, many have come out in support of Prince at his official site and even on the message boards of the unofficial sites in question." Now I'm not a PR expert, but I don't think insulting the intelligence of the Prince community is the way to go to appease your fan base. After all, I'm sure Prince fans have their own minds and can think for themselves, and can grasp the fact that any review of a Prince album is that of the writer of the review, and not the entire fan community. In other words, I highly doubt fans take any reviews or content that's posted on these sites as fact, unless it's news from Prince's camp. And I'd also like to meet the people who are supporting Prince right now. These have to be the twenty-something uber-Prince fans out there, who blindly agree with everything their idol says and sleep with their original vinyl copy of "Sign 'O' the Times" under their arms.

But apparently frivolous lawsuits aren't enough for Prince, as he's even unleashed a diss track at Princefansunited.com entitled PFUnk. In it, Prince sings "The only reason you say my name is to get your fifteen seconds of fame, nobody's even sure what you do" (um, I'm pretty sure we know why these sites exist; they wanted to pay tribute to your music), "I love all y'all, don't you ever mess with me no more" (um, I don't think they were, Prince) and that he wants digital music to "disappear" (I think there's a better chance of Britney Spears being secluded in her mansion, never to step out of the real world, then for this to happen). So what do fans have to say about this seven minute guitar jam? According to one poster, "It really is head and shoulders above anything on [Planet Earth] or 3121," while another thought they discovered an unearthed B-side from 1987, if not for the topical lyrics. So much for fighting fire with fire.

Still, it's not exactly clear why Prince has such a beef with these websites, as well as why he wants all Pricne-related images to be removed from them. But the PFU claims that the reasons is because these sites operate message boards whose posters are sometimes critical of the star of the star and his last album, Planet Earth. If this is the case, then instead of trying to alienate the very people who buy his music, or brainwashing them into thinking everything he touches is gold, the only thing Prince can do to fight criticism is to devote himself to making music that is worthy of standing on the same pedestal as Purple Rain and 1999. But even then, no matter how critically or fan-acclaimed an album is, it will always have detractors, so it's hard for any album to be critic-proof and universally admired. But if he spent as much time making new, innovative music as he does insulting his fans and suing websites created by the very people who cherish him, he may be closer to getting there.

— Jason Shoff

Only a pawn in their game

For fans of the compact disc, like me, these truly are dark times. CD sales continue to plummet, indie record stores and regional chains like Tower Records, a long gone heaven for us music geeks (where else could I get such imports as Babyshambles' Down in Albion and the 2 disc Deluxe Edition of Pulp's Different Class), shutter their doors, and sites like PirateBay and Demonoid tempt us like internet serpents, spoiling any hopes of the pleasure of waiting for a new album to hit shelves (especially for me; every time an anticipated new album leaks early, I cave faster than you can say "oink"). Now to add salt to the wound, big box chains like Wal-Mart and Best Buy are in the process of slowly wiping albums off of their floor space in favor of more profitable merchandise like video games and DVDs.

Whether we like it or not, these stores make up for at least 65% of music sales (including online and physical recordings), up from 20% a decade ago. These stores, more than any magazine, TV station, or website, help shape the music landscape, as their choices dictate which albums are widely available on store shelves across America. And now Wal-Mart and other chains have told labels to expect as much as twenty percent in cut-backs in shelving space over the next year. Which means that one will be much more likely to find the latest Britney Spears album Blackout in stock than the amazing Aretha Franklin rarities collection Rare & Unreleased Recordings from the Golden Reign of the Queen of Soul, released a week earlier (seriously, download her version of "Fool on the Hill" or "My Way" to hear some real pop music).

Now I don't blame these stores for reducing floor space in music. CD sales at big box chains have plummeted seventeen percent this year (more than the average fall of 14%), the worst sales week of the Soundscan era occurred this fall, and a holiday season that started off so promising with the Kanye/50 match-up has thus far been relatively anti-climatic. Meanwhile, the gaming industry continues to skyrocket, Apple continues to release such mouth-watering gadgets as the iPod Touch, and the movie industry is on the upswing with the advent of the Blu-ray and HD DVDs. So if they want to sell as many HD TVs and computers as possible, it makes sense for them to fill their floor space with products that will lure prospective buyers in, not with an entertainment medium that is in a perpetual free-fall.

But what saddens me is that, as much as I'd hate to admit it, these big box chains helped shaped what I listened to today. Meijer (the Midwest's version of Wal-Mart) is where I purchased my very first albums for my 10th birthday (all Beatles albums, coincidentally); in middle school, when I first started to expand my musical horizons, I would often stop at a Target to pick up an album by The Rolling Stones, Nirvana, and Everclear (yes, I was definitely a child of the 90s); and until I went to ASU, nearly all of my CDs were purchased at a big box chain, especially at Wal-Mart (since there is a huge Supercenter wear where I use to work). Now these same shelves and filled with the likes of Hannah Montana and High School Musical, and the fact that chains like Wal-Mart now refuse to carry albums that have a parental advisory sticker means that they'll never see any Rage Against the Machine albums amongst the hundreds of copies of Carnival Ride. On top of this, the music industry's faith in these chains, along with their general ineptness, forced many stores that catered to the business to close; yet these chains have now either left them for dead or have essentially held them hostage, threatening to cut back shelf space even more if they don't give them more exclusive content or lower prices even further.

To give you an idea of the sad state of music retail these days, I walked into a Wal-Mart a few weeks ago, the same one I frequented in high school, hoping to get a copy of Neil Young's Chrome Dreams II. "They have to have this album," I thought, "he's one of the most influential artists in music history." But I scanned over the new releases section, and it wasn't there. I scanned under the "Y" artists and then the entire music section, but still no dice. Finally I asked an employee if they had it in stock, and she couldn't find it. Then she looked at Wal-Mart's release schedule, and it wasn't even there. The new Bo Bice album was there; the new Seether album was there; of course Carrie Underwood's album was listed; even the new Robert Plant/Alison Krauss album was, surprisingly, there. But no Neil Young. Needless to say, I walked out of there with a bitter taste in my mouth.

However, there is a silver lining to be found in this dark, ominous cloud; I did end up finding it at Target.

— Jason Shoff