Prince Quotes

It's a small percentile of people who see one dime out of the music business.

The income streams of musicians have all been upstreamed into the pockets of computer corporations. Sound recordings are little more than free crackerjacks inside every computer or cellphone that you buy.

I would never put my songs in a commercial.

Napster has pointed the way for a new direction for music distribution, and we believe it will form the basis of important and exciting new business models for the future of the music industry.

I'm the last person that wants to give away music for free.

I'm delighted about the track's success in the sports world, but the frustrating thing is, I don't think I got rich on it. The labels and publishers did very cheap deals on our songs.

Everyone has learned how to monetize music except the music industry.

A song is essentially an 'asset' after its creation and release because it can be traded, sold or rented. This makes it the backbone of earnings in the 'music ecosystem.'

When Pandora doesn't pay, and bars don't pay, and weddings don't pay, and nobody buys CDs or shirts or concert tickets or lessons, then the musician can't make a living making music.

There's this thing called compulsory licensing law that allows artists through the record companies to take your music at will without your permission.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't think music should be free.

I think another thing is that we don't really want exclusivity. We accept that it is in the artist's interest to be on sale in every place where they sell music.

In whichever way my music can get out there, I'm just like, 'Sure.' It's also through the TV synch licenses that I've been surviving. I don't really make money through record sales. I used to be really picky: 'No, I don't want it to be the song of a commercial,' but nowadays it's what you need to do to get the song out as much as you can.

I have always abhorred the business end of music.

A protracted legislative fight will not move us closer to where the music industry wants to be - delivering music to fans through a variety of different, innovative Web sites.

There are musicians who want to make a living making music. There are listeners who want to listen to music. Complicating this relationship is a whole bunch of history: some of the music I want to listen to was made a while ago in a different economy. Some of the models of making a living making music are no longer valid but persist.

With the new ways of getting music out, you don't need a label if you're a legacy artist.

Creativity is much better when it's free. Someone can take it and sell it if that's what it needs, and from that standpoint, you have to have a label. If you could make your music and just give it away and somehow make a living - that would be the best scenario.

I certainly wouldn't want a song that I'd already written to be used on a commercial. That seems strange.

You sign your life away, basically, when you sign a record deal, and if you have a platinum album, then you go back in and renegotiate.

Artists and the traditional record company model are at odds. The music business has notoriously taken from the artist. That shouldn't be the narrative.

Spotify wants to make consuming music simpler and at the same time pay the rights owners.

Sometimes you are at the mercy of record companies or publishing companies.

Selling music doesn't make that much money.

I think overall, and this isn't specific to Spotify or any streaming service or any label... when you consider the overall value chain of the music industry and how important the songwriter is to the business - I think there needs to be another look at the value chain.