lydiaravenswood said:

i couldn't get into sign o the times either honestly, it's one of my least favorites in general, very boring....i'll admit i've dozed off listening to the title song on a few occasions, and i love prince's music. i love graffiti bridge and batman far more.

Its true what they say - there surely is no accounting for taste, eh?

swdee said:

misiu said:

Most of the songs sounds so dry....so lifeless!

I agree and this is my least favourite Prince record.

You gotta love the org!

[Edited 8/25/10 12:03pm]

misiu said:

ernestsewell said:

Prince also didn't use much of a band on any album up to that point, sans a few random songs here and there. A lot of his stuff up to that point IS all him, and non-band oriented.

The Linn drum machine is what helped define Prince's sound from 1981 onward. "Kiss" is sparse. So is "Annie Christian", "Sometimes It Snows In April", "When Doves Cry", "Paisley Park" and a ton of others. And with Prince using the Linn on tours, the Linn certainly was an extended member of the band.

You obviously haven't read enough of the history of the songs. Stuff like "The Ballad of Dorothy Parker" and "Forever In My Life" are happy mistakes, as there were major glitches in the recording of both of those songs, yet it's the ony way we know them, and it's how Prince would still perform them live later on.

If you prefer the rehearsals, make your own album from that then.

I read enough about the history. And i know that they made some mistakes. But i still think that a lot of song would benefit from a band. He is often very unimaginativ and very spare. I sometimes think that he dont want to record songs with a full band because then he had to share the credits and pay for their ideas.

I mean, he is recording everyday, like he said it back in the day, but the results are more quantity than quality.

Anyway i love his music!

I don't understand how you can say you love his music, but find him unimaginativ and spare... come one now, thats one of the trademarks of Prince. The song "sign of the times" works so well because of the minimalistic arrangement. Same cause for "Kiss", "When doves cry" or the haunting "IT".

By the way, you say you were into the Dangerous hype, sweetie, there were hardly any real instruments on that album, and you say "Sign of the times"is cold???

Call7779311 said:

IMHO, with Prince the recorded material is more about the music and the concept. When you get to the live shows it's all about the experience of being there.

By the time the songs on SOTT were played live many of them were a number of years old and Prince the musician had moved on and his sound had changed in that time.

The best approach is to listen to the recorded material and enjoy it. Then you can go to the shows and take in the experience of the sound that is Prince at that time.

I think the recorded material sounds very much like the live versions, just more alive and raw.

robertlove said:

misiu said:

I read enough about the history. And i know that they made some mistakes. But i still think that a lot of song would benefit from a band. He is often very unimaginativ and very spare. I sometimes think that he dont want to record songs with a full band because then he had to share the credits and pay for their ideas.

I mean, he is recording everyday, like he said it back in the day, but the results are more quantity than quality.

Anyway i love his music!

I don't understand how you can say you love his music, but find him unimaginativ and spare... come one now, thats one of the trademarks of Prince. The song "sign of the times" works so well because of the minimalistic arrangement. Same cause for "Kiss", "When doves cry" or the haunting "IT". --> yes U are right, but songs like if i was or hot thing or ...sound way better with a band, still using a the linn beat...

By the way, you say you were into the Dangerous hype, sweetie, there were hardly any real instruments on that album, and you say "Sign of the times"is cold???

U are right! Dangerous has not many real instruments,but has a rich sound! Something that none of Prince Cds has! Take mjs Thriller and it beats soundwise every prince cd! Thriller sounds still so fresh, so full of live soundwise... Prince cds sounds shit! u have to have a special set up to make them sound good!

Thats really sad!

misiu said:

robertlove said:

I don't understand how you can say you love his music, but find him unimaginativ and spare... come one now, thats one of the trademarks of Prince. The song "sign of the times" works so well because of the minimalistic arrangement. Same cause for "Kiss", "When doves cry" or the haunting "IT". --> yes U are right, but songs like if i was or hot thing or ...sound way better with a band, still using a the linn beat...

By the way, you say you were into the Dangerous hype, sweetie, there were hardly any real instruments on that album, and you say "Sign of the times"is cold???

U are right! Dangerous has not many real instruments,but has a rich sound! Something that none of Prince Cds has! Take mjs Thriller and it beats soundwise every prince cd! Thriller sounds still so fresh, so full of live soundwise... Prince cds sounds shit! u have to have a special set up to make them sound good!

Thats really sad!

But than it has nothing to do if it was recorded with a band or not (as you stated in your first post), but in the way it was recorded.

Anyway, i remember when Dangerous came out, i read a few reviews saying Michael was using Prince his hard beats...compare "in the closet" to "it" for example...

misiu said:

robertlove said:

I don't understand how you can say you love his music, but find him unimaginativ and spare... come one now, thats one of the trademarks of Prince. The song "sign of the times" works so well because of the minimalistic arrangement. Same cause for "Kiss", "When doves cry" or the haunting "IT". --> yes U are right, but songs like if i was or hot thing or ...sound way better with a band, still using a the linn beat...

By the way, you say you were into the Dangerous hype, sweetie, there were hardly any real instruments on that album, and you say "Sign of the times"is cold???

U are right! Dangerous has not many real instruments,but has a rich sound! Something that none of Prince Cds has! Take mjs Thriller and it beats soundwise every prince cd! Thriller sounds still so fresh, so full of live soundwise... Prince cds sounds shit! u have to have a special set up to make them sound good!

Thats really sad!

Gosh, you are so confused!

By the way, a shit cd sounds REALLY shit on a good system! The better and more transparent the system, the more "warts and all" it is - it will deliver all the harshness of the recording in bucketloads.

Most of his 80s output could do with a re-master, but everything from the 90s onwards sounds great on cd and on a decent system.

robertlove said:

misiu said:

U are right! Dangerous has not many real instruments,but has a rich sound! Something that none of Prince Cds has! Take mjs Thriller and it beats soundwise every prince cd! Thriller sounds still so fresh, so full of live soundwise... Prince cds sounds shit! u have to have a special set up to make them sound good!

Thats really sad!

But than it has nothing to do if it was recorded with a band or not (as you stated in your first post), but in the way it was recorded.

Anyway, i remember when Dangerous came out, i read a few reviews saying Michael was using Prince his hard beats...compare "in the closet" to "it" for example...

Well, both, the way it was recorded and with whom it was recorded has to do with the result!

It cant be true that Mj used the beat from the song "it". Both beats are completely different! And MJ would never use something from Prince! And if he did, he would never talk about it! Thats a fact!!! The beats came from teddy reiley, as far as i know....

misiu said:

robertlove said:

But than it has nothing to do if it was recorded with a band or not (as you stated in your first post), but in the way it was recorded.

Anyway, i remember when Dangerous came out, i read a few reviews saying Michael was using Prince his hard beats...compare "in the closet" to "it" for example...

Well, both, the way it was recorded and with whom it was recorded has to do with the result!

It cant be true that Mj used the beat from the song "it". Both beats are completely different! And MJ would never use something from Prince! And if he did, he would never talk about it! Thats a fact!!! The beats came from teddy reiley, as far as i know....

He's NOT saying that - he used "In the Closet" as an example of MJ using harder, more "Prince-like" beats - he didn't say he "sampled" it

Sorry, you gotta face it.

Great topic! I believe that the "lifeless" sound of specifically the rock tracks on Sign O' The Times is what caused Prince to lose to U2 for Album of the Year at the Grammiys that year. Industry folks including engineers and producers make up a percentage of the voting for that award and no doubt they weren't impressed. Again, I think the rock numbers like "Play In The Sunshine", "I Could Never Take The Place Of Your Man", and especially "The Cross" suffer from the dry drum tracks. Even though "The Cross" drum track is a real drummer (P of course) and not a machine, the sound is very bland. I think this is what kept me from waiting so long to get SOTT on CD. I always preferred the movie audio which I recorded from my VCR direct to my boombox back in 88 when the VHS came out!!!

misiu said:

robertlove said:

But than it has nothing to do if it was recorded with a band or not (as you stated in your first post), but in the way it was recorded.

Anyway, i remember when Dangerous came out, i read a few reviews saying Michael was using Prince his hard beats...compare "in the closet" to "it" for example...

Well, both, the way it was recorded and with whom it was recorded has to do with the result!

It cant be true that Mj used the beat from the song "it". Both beats are completely different! And MJ would never use something from Prince! And if he did, he would never talk about it! Thats a fact!!! The beats came from teddy reiley, as far as i know....

LOL! read before you answer, i never said it's excatly the same beat.

But if you look at the pattern of the rhythm, i don't think they are that much different, the arrangement is very spare, so i'm suprised you call the Sign of the times album dry, and Dangerous not....

Maybe Michael paid 20 million for a studio and prince didn't?

bigben07 said:

Great topic! I believe that the "lifeless" sound of specifically the rock tracks on Sign O' The Times is what caused Prince to lose to U2 for Album of the Year at the Grammiys that year. Industry folks including engineers and producers make up a percentage of the voting for that award and no doubt they weren't impressed. Again, I think the rock numbers like "Play In The Sunshine", "I Could Never Take The Place Of Your Man", and especially "The Cross" suffer from the dry drum tracks. Even though "The Cross" drum track is a real drummer (P of course) and not a machine, the sound is very bland. I think this is what kept me from waiting so long to get SOTT on CD. I always preferred the movie audio which I recorded from my VCR direct to my boombox back in 88 when the VHS came out!!!

The reason was better marketing. Much much better marketing.

Both are great albums, with time proving how much more unique and special SOTT was, but it was just a mater of professional well executed marketing compared to whatever it is we call Prince's promotional efforts. Alack of American tour didn't help matters any. I still have my Joshua Tree concert tee (nice!) and remember how much of an impact that concert had.

misiu said:

Hi orgers!

i have a question! Do u think that sign o the times could haven been a better and more succesful record, if prince had played the songs with his band in the studio, not all alone! Most of the songs sounds so dry....so lifeless!

I love sott, it was my first prince record in 1991 after watching sott movie. Before that i didnt really knew prince! He first cought my attention with Diamonds and Pearls and cream. At that time I was a in the mj dangerous hype...

anyway, after listening to the rehearsals for Sott tour with songs like dorothy, strange relationship i realised that sott could be so big, if the songs were recorded with his band! The songs sound so rich, so much better..----------------what do u think?

He did and here they are

I don't know how much Jerome Greg Wally Mico contributed

but the Revolution + Susannah Sheila E. Eric Leeds Atlanta Bliss and possibly Jill Jones

robinhood said:

it is what it is, i either like it or i dont, i dont recall ever listening to any of prince's work and wondering what it could or should have been, those thoughts never cross my mind.

something about appreciating artistry, the automatic response to accept it and not paste my limited version of style and/or taste over the work of a genius.

more i sit back and fully absorb the scope and proflic nature of prince's work, the more it stuns me when anyone thinks they have better ideas than him, not that i motion to suppress freedom of speech or creative thinking, but as a line of thinking i guess i just dont get it.

sign o the times is a masterpiece unto itself, set in its own era, perfect as is, raw, natural, even pure. i hear a lot of life in every track, a lot of real genuine energy and passion oozing through every machine, maybe thats mainly due to my own perception, and the knowledge that machines are musical too, if you feed em right.

fast forward to 20ten, i can offer a view based on my own tastes and perspective of what i'm hearing, i can say it doesnt sparkle for me, i can say the lyrics dont thrill me, i can say i dont believe him anymore, but it never crosses my mind to consider any alternatives he could have should have used in his approach.

i still respect his work whether i like it or not, or whether i like him or not, i guess part of that respect is accepting my position as a listener, not an after-thought co-producer engaging in the futile act of if's but's and maybe's.

sign o the times is what it is and thats the way it could/should be, imo.

I do like 20Ten-but I think your sentiments and the way you said it are great. I don't get this thread at all. There seems to be enough band sound on SOTT to me. I understand criticisms about tracks like slow love but I feel this album is just so weighty. It's ironic that even tho it isn't consistent or has one theme -it just is its own beast in the fact that everything belongs together.

Robinhood- I think you have a broader point and I like it-either put up or shut up. Prince regardless of our tastes seems to do what he thinks is good and in terms of artistry I suppose you either run with it or not-you can't detail how it could have been improved as a listener-it is a redundant exercise

Also

I've had a glass of wine now and think this is surely a wind up. Particularly by the posters responses. Sorry mate I feel embarrassed for you.

bigben07 said:

Great topic! I believe that the "lifeless" sound of specifically the rock tracks on Sign O' The Times is what caused Prince to lose to U2 for Album of the Year at the Grammiys that year. Industry folks including engineers and producers make up a percentage of the voting for that award and no doubt they weren't impressed. Again, I think the rock numbers like "Play In The Sunshine", "I Could Never Take The Place Of Your Man", and especially "The Cross" suffer from the dry drum tracks. Even though "The Cross" drum track is a real drummer (P of course) and not a machine, the sound is very bland. I think this is what kept me from waiting so long to get SOTT on CD. I always preferred the movie audio which I recorded from my VCR direct to my boombox back in 88 when the VHS came out!!!

This is all very true... but now listening to it, that sound is what is kind of cool and futuristic about the album. It is a very unique attitude and very non-conventional. And the live renditions are completely conventional in the sense of the purpose of the arrangement to breath life and energy into the song.

An example of this later on is "Days of Wild"

I love the studio version of this, it's like he's too cool for school...the laid back vibe of it mixed with a kind of level energy that's almost held down.

most people like the live versions, of which I like the original Beautiful Experience premiere of the song live. But it's a completely different vibe.

Compare Play in the Sunshine studio vs Live.... or Strange Relationship....

ufoclub said:

bigben07 said:

Great topic! I believe that the "lifeless" sound of specifically the rock tracks on Sign O' The Times is what caused Prince to lose to U2 for Album of the Year at the Grammiys that year. Industry folks including engineers and producers make up a percentage of the voting for that award and no doubt they weren't impressed. Again, I think the rock numbers like "Play In The Sunshine", "I Could Never Take The Place Of Your Man", and especially "The Cross" suffer from the dry drum tracks. Even though "The Cross" drum track is a real drummer (P of course) and not a machine, the sound is very bland. I think this is what kept me from waiting so long to get SOTT on CD. I always preferred the movie audio which I recorded from my VCR direct to my boombox back in 88 when the VHS came out!!!

This is all very true... but now listening to it, that sound is what is kind of cool and futuristic about the album. It is a very unique attitude and very non-conventional. And the live renditions are completely conventional in the sense of the purpose of the arrangement to breath life and energy into the song.

An example of this later on is "Days of Wild"

I love the studio version of this, it's like he's too cool for school...the laid back vibe of it mixed with a kind of level energy that's almost held down.

most people like the live versions, of which I like the original Beautiful Experience premiere of the song live. But it's a completely different vibe.

Compare Play in the Sunshine studio vs Live.... or Strange Relationship....

I hear you

I think it depends on the actual performance

I think the SOTT DVD version of Play In the Sunshine is killer, but I've heard other renditions of it that I prefer the album version

I like some renditions of Ballad of Dorothy Parker from ONA shows that I love, but once he goes into the jazzy part it looses me. I still prefer the album cut to any other.

Strange Relationship I love all of it, DF cut SOTT cut 1st Avenue 1987 live, ONA live

I just love that song all together

OldFriends4Sale said:

ufoclub said:

This is all very true... but now listening to it, that sound is what is kind of cool and futuristic about the album. It is a very unique attitude and very non-conventional. And the live renditions are completely conventional in the sense of the purpose of the arrangement to breath life and energy into the song.

An example of this later on is "Days of Wild"

I love the studio version of this, it's like he's too cool for school...the laid back vibe of it mixed with a kind of level energy that's almost held down.

most people like the live versions, of which I like the original Beautiful Experience premiere of the song live. But it's a completely different vibe.

Compare Play in the Sunshine studio vs Live.... or Strange Relationship....

I hear you

I think it depends on the actual performance

I think the SOTT DVD version of Play In the Sunshine is killer, but I've heard other renditions of it that I prefer the album version

I like some renditions of Ballad of Dorothy Parker from ONA shows that I love, but once he goes into the jazzy part it looses me. I still prefer the album cut to any other.

Strange Relationship I love all of it, DF cut SOTT cut 1st Avenue 1987 live, ONA live

I just love that song all together

If you haven't already, you need to hear the SOTT reheasals from Paisley Park. The one where it's pretty much a run through of the entire album.

motherfunka said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

I hear you

I think it depends on the actual performance

I think the SOTT DVD version of Play In the Sunshine is killer, but I've heard other renditions of it that I prefer the album version

I like some renditions of Ballad of Dorothy Parker from ONA shows that I love, but once he goes into the jazzy part it looses me. I still prefer the album cut to any other.

Strange Relationship I love all of it, DF cut SOTT cut 1st Avenue 1987 live, ONA live

I just love that song all together

If you haven't already, you need to hear the SOTT reheasals from Paisley Park. The one where it's pretty much a run through of the entire album.

Yes, thats what should be heard! The Sott rehearsals from 1987, where he plays dorothy, starfish and coffee, Adore and most of the Sott songs..! Go and hear them and than compare them to the Sott album. maybe that u will realise what i talking about...

OldFriends4Sale said:

misiu said:

Hi orgers!

i have a question! Do u think that sign o the times could haven been a better and more succesful record, if prince had played the songs with his band in the studio, not all alone! Most of the songs sounds so dry....so lifeless!

I love sott, it was my first prince record in 1991 after watching sott movie. Before that i didnt really knew prince! He first cought my attention with Diamonds and Pearls and cream. At that time I was a in the mj dangerous hype...

anyway, after listening to the rehearsals for Sott tour with songs like dorothy, strange relationship i realised that sott could be so big, if the songs were recorded with his band! The songs sound so rich, so much better..----------------what do u think?

He did and here they are

I don't know how much Jerome Greg Wally Mico contributed

but the Revolution + Susannah Sheila E. Eric Leeds Atlanta Bliss and possibly Jill Jones

The question is how much they contributed to all the tracks! Was it a single note or.....

When u hear Sott it is clear that the contibution was very limited and minimal! So not a classic Band recording!

bigben07 said:

Great topic! I believe that the "lifeless" sound of specifically the rock tracks on Sign O' The Times is what caused Prince to lose to U2 for Album of the Year at the Grammiys that year. Industry folks including engineers and producers make up a percentage of the voting for that award and no doubt they weren't impressed. Again, I think the rock numbers like "Play In The Sunshine", "I Could Never Take The Place Of Your Man", and especially "The Cross" suffer from the dry drum tracks. Even though "The Cross" drum track is a real drummer (P of course) and not a machine, the sound is very bland. I think this is what kept me from waiting so long to get SOTT on CD. I always preferred the movie audio which I recorded from my VCR direct to my boombox back in 88 when the VHS came out!!!

"Play in the Sunshine" and "The Cross" have dry drum tracks? lol...

misiu said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

He did and here they are

I don't know how much Jerome Greg Wally Mico contributed

but the Revolution + Susannah Sheila E. Eric Leeds Atlanta Bliss and possibly Jill Jones

The question is how much they contributed to all the tracks! Was it a single note or.....

When u hear Sott it is clear that the contibution was very limited and minimal! So not a classic Band recording!

I don't know, from a lot of different people there the collaboration on Dream Factory with the band was even bigger. I'm not saying every song was full band. Outtakes like In A Large Room With No Light was a full band(not all Revolution) contribution

Power Fantastic (Lisa Coleman) was full Revolution

Ballad of Dorothy Park was a Prince song, a version had Eric with sax but I'm glad that didn't make it.

if course Visions was Lisa Coleman on piano, Interlude Wendy Melvoin on guitar

misiu said:

motherfunka said:

If you haven't already, you need to hear the SOTT reheasals from Paisley Park. The one where it's pretty much a run through of the entire album.

Yes, thats what should be heard! The Sott rehearsals from 1987, where he plays dorothy, starfish and coffee, Adore and most of the Sott songs..! Go and hear them and than compare them to the Sott album. maybe that u will realise what i talking about...

I've heard, and I said I hear u

Everyone like what they like, and why, most songs I love to hear it live,

But like I said, some shows I heard songs live and it didn't sound as lively and then another the same song was hot.

SOTT rehearsals that's a rehearsal and the renditions are going to be different.

I love the album version of SOTT and I love the live version with the rock guitar(which tends to tip the scale for me)

I think I prefere U Got the Look album cut over live versions. It -the same.

Didn't like most renditions of Adore live on the Lovesexy tour. Love Star Fish & Coffee no matter what album full band or piano medley

SOTT is universally considered one of the greatest albums ever made in the history of popular music.

The outtakes, b-sides, live performances, period bootlegs, Madhouse and other side projects; all make this an unforgettable era. Someday there will be an amazing remastered collection on DVD/CD.

jdcxc said:

SOTT is universally considered one of the greatest albums ever made in the history of popular music.

The outtakes, b-sides, live performances, period bootlegs, Madhouse and other side projects; all make this an unforgettable era. Someday there will be an amazing remastered collection on DVD/CD.

I agree with on that one

I love it, probably more than the Lovesexy era

SOTT era had an almost underground feel 2 it

I still would love on the DVD/CD collection the Hard Knock Life video

One thing though SOTT didn't really produce a lot of 'outtakes' I think most of what general fans perceive as outtakes of SOTT are outtakes of Dream Factory/Camille project era even a lot of the Black album was recorded in that era

I love the era it was definately too short

misiu said:

The question is how much they contributed to all the tracks! Was it a single note or.....

When u hear Sott it is clear that the contibution was very limited and minimal! So not a classic Band recording!

None of Prince's releases, as a whole, were classic band recordings prior to Diamonds and Pearls. Maybe Wendy and Lisa were able to play around with some tracks 1985-1986, but after the "skeleton" of the song was already complete. Matt Fink has said they had very little input on what ended up on vinyl, ever more so towards the end of the Revolution time. Prince didn't need a full band to record an album, he could do it better himself. The last statement being my opinion, ofcourse.

lydiaravenswood said:

i couldn't get into sign o the times either honestly, it's one of my least favorites in general, very boring....i'll admit i've dozed off listening to the title song on a few occasions, and i love prince's music. i love graffiti bridge and batman far more.

Get serious! lmao!