I always took that lyric literally. I think he just appreciates driving more now that he's been chauffeured around in his limos. That he has "been there and done it" and enjoys the simpler things in life.... such as driving yourself.

Never even thought of it as a sex lyric.

actually, I take that lyric one of two ways which might be somewhat connected, especially in context of that particular song, but neither of which has been mentioned here. mind you, I haven't much attention to that line in several years, so I'm doing this off the top of my head:

a) it's better when when you're in control of your own career and calling the shots and treated like a superstar after years of toiling away at your craft and struggling to make it

or

b) it's a reference to Rosa Parks and blacks being forced to sit in the back of public buses. he's saying it's that much sweeter to have equality and even-footing when you've known prejudice/segregation.

errant said:

actually, I take that lyric one of two ways which might be somewhat connected, especially in context of that particular song, but neither of which has been mentioned here. mind you, I haven't much attention to that line in several years, so I'm doing this off the top of my head:

a) it's better when when you're in control of your own career and calling the shots and treated like a superstar after years of toiling away at your craft and struggling to make it

or

b) it's a reference to Rosa Parks and blacks being forced to sit in the back of public buses. he's saying it's that much sweeter to have equality and even-footing when you've known prejudice/segregation.

agreed... good points!

errant said:

actually, I take that lyric one of two ways which might be somewhat connected, especially in context of that particular song, but neither of which has been mentioned here. mind you, I haven't much attention to that line in several years, so I'm doing this off the top of my head:

a) it's better when when you're in control of your own career and calling the shots and treated like a superstar after years of toiling away at your craft and struggling to make it

or

b) it's a reference to Rosa Parks and blacks being forced to sit in the back of public buses. he's saying it's that much sweeter to have equality and even-footing when you've known prejudice/segregation.

or c) both of them simultaneously, considering his tendency to misguidedly conflate politics with his own personal economic and contractual issues, especially beginning around that time.

errant said:

errant said:

actually, I take that lyric one of two ways which might be somewhat connected, especially in context of that particular song, but neither of which has been mentioned here. mind you, I haven't much attention to that line in several years, so I'm doing this off the top of my head:

a) it's better when when you're in control of your own career and calling the shots and treated like a superstar after years of toiling away at your craft and struggling to make it

or

b) it's a reference to Rosa Parks and blacks being forced to sit in the back of public buses. he's saying it's that much sweeter to have equality and even-footing when you've known prejudice/segregation.

or c) both of them simultaneously, considering his tendency to misguidedly conflate politics with his own personal economic and contractual issues, especially beginning around that time.

I agree with all three of your points as plausible answers as that is how I have interpreted them, but I would only disagree that his connecting of his personal issues to more communal socio-political issues is misguided. Self-centered, maybe, but his analogies in this manner or realm are usually correct even if he sometimes reaches a bit.

1725topp said:

errant said:

or c) both of them simultaneously, considering his tendency to misguidedly conflate politics with his own personal economic and contractual issues, especially beginning around that time.

I agree with all three of your points as plausible answers as that is how I have interpreted them, but I would only disagree that his connecting of his personal issues to more communal socio-political issues is misguided. Self-centered, maybe, but his analogies in this manner or realm are usually correct even if he sometimes reaches a bit.

eh. not really. hard to justify writing "slave" on one's face when making the bank that he was at the time. in fact, it's downright offensive in some respects.

errant said:

actually, I take that lyric one of two ways which might be somewhat connected, especially in context of that particular song, but neither of which has been mentioned here. mind you, I haven't much attention to that line in several years, so I'm doing this off the top of my head:

a) it's better when when you're in control of your own career and calling the shots and treated like a superstar after years of toiling away at your craft and struggling to make it

or

b) it's a reference to Rosa Parks and blacks being forced to sit in the back of public buses. he's saying it's that much sweeter to have equality and even-footing when you've known prejudice/segregation.

that i what I always assumed

opps

[Edited 7/21/12 16:38pm]

pureTsexy said:

can anyone name any references to anal sex?

Girl (Extended Vers)

"Come here, come here
Your ass is so tight
Shhhh....pop!!!"

errant said:

1725topp said:

I agree with all three of your points as plausible answers as that is how I have interpreted them, but I would only disagree that his connecting of his personal issues to more communal socio-political issues is misguided. Self-centered, maybe, but his analogies in this manner or realm are usually correct even if he sometimes reaches a bit.

eh. not really. hard to justify writing "slave" on one's face when making the bank that he was at the time. in fact, it's downright offensive in some respects.

While I can image that some African Americans were offended, none that I know personally, I wasn't offended at all. And most African Americans that I know were not so much offended as they thought he was being a hypocrite because he had no problem with their practices until it affected him in a negative manner. And when you assert that the amount of money or "bank" that he was making at the time damages his argument of being a slave, remember one man's "bank" is another man's "scraps" and vice versa. Keep in mind that most slave owners felt that feeding the slaves daily, giving them new clothes once a year, and giving them two or three extra pieces of fruit during Christmas was "bank" and more than enough payment for their work. So, when we compare what Warner Bros. earned and continues to earn from Prince in comparison to what he earned, some, myself included, would say that he wasn't earning "bank." And, comparing what Prince was making to what the average person was making doesn't hold water with me because we all develop certain skills, and there is a market for our skills. It isn't Prince's fault that his skill set allows him to earn more "bank" than someone else. Regardless of how much he makes, he, and anyone else, has a right to negotiate and agitate for what he sees as fair value. Additionally, I always understood "slave" to be metaphoric in that he was saying that record companies have a history of controlling people, and I want to call them on it. And yes, he signed a contract, but when one becomes more knowledgeable one has the right to say this is foul, especially if the company has the right to change its practices, policies, and even staff during the period of the contract and the artist has no right to do the same or react to the aforementioned changes. And finally, historically, the aristocrat class from slave owners to Jim Crow era mercantilist to today's fat cats who desire to destroy unions have, since the end of slavery, attempted to create an owner-worker system and relationship that is as close to slavery as possible. And while I do think that it is the responsibility of each person to gain the proper education to protect oneself from evil people and from engaging in unfair relationships, the power that record and literature publishing companies have over artists is as close to slavery without being slavery as it can be. Now where I fault Prince is that he could have done more to create collaborations with others so that more artists could seize more control somewhat like the model for United Artists when it was first created by artists as a reaction and alternative to the Hollywood studio owners and executives who were then signing artists to ten and twenty-year long contracts that were commonly called “slave” contracts. (These “slave” contracts also existed in professional baseball, which is what led to members of the Chicago White Socks taking a bribe to lose the World Series.) So, again, even after slavery, the American mercantilist and aristocrats have done all that they can to reinstitute slavery by any other name, and I applaud anyone, even a pampered diva like Prince, for making noise about it. Yes, he had selfish reasons, but most people engage or embrace an issue not because it is right to do so but because that issue affects them in some way. Less than half of the African American population was active in the Civil Rights Movement, and most of them were only active because they had endured a personal injustice.

1725topp said:

errant said:

eh. not really. hard to justify writing "slave" on one's face when making the bank that he was at the time. in fact, it's downright offensive in some respects.

While I can image that some African Americans were offended, none that I know personally, I wasn't offended at all. And most African Americans that I know were not so much offended as they thought he was being a hypocrite because he had no problem with their practices until it affected him in a negative manner. And when you assert that the amount of money or "bank" that he was making at the time damages his argument of being a slave, remember one man's "bank" is another man's "scraps" and vice versa. Keep in mind that most slave owners felt that feeding the slaves daily, giving them new clothes once a year, and giving them two or three extra pieces of fruit during Christmas was "bank" and more than enough payment for their work. So, when we compare what Warner Bros. earned and continues to earn from Prince in comparison to what he earned, some, myself included, would say that he wasn't earning "bank." And, comparing what Prince was making to what the average person was making doesn't hold water with me because we all develop certain skills, and there is a market for our skills. It isn't Prince's fault that his skill set allows him to earn more "bank" than someone else. Regardless of how much he makes, he, and anyone else, has a right to negotiate and agitate for what he sees as fair value. Additionally, I always understood "slave" to be metaphoric in that he was saying that record companies have a history of controlling people, and I want to call them on it. And yes, he signed a contract, but when one becomes more knowledgeable one has the right to say this is foul, especially if the company has the right to change its practices, policies, and even staff during the period of the contract and the artist has no right to do the same or react to the aforementioned changes. And finally, historically, the aristocrat class from slave owners to Jim Crow era mercantilist to today's fat cats who desire to destroy unions have, since the end of slavery, attempted to create an owner-worker system and relationship that is as close to slavery as possible. And while I do think that it is the responsibility of each person to gain the proper education to protect oneself from evil people and from engaging in unfair relationships, the power that record and literature publishing companies have over artists is as close to slavery without being slavery as it can be. Now where I fault Prince is that he could have done more to create collaborations with others so that more artists could seize more control somewhat like the model for United Artists when it was first created by artists as a reaction and alternative to the Hollywood studio owners and executives who were then signing artists to ten and twenty-year long contracts that were commonly called “slave” contracts. (These “slave” contracts also existed in professional baseball, which is what led to members of the Chicago White Socks taking a bribe to lose the World Series.) So, again, even after slavery, the American mercantilist and aristocrats have done all that they can to reinstitute slavery by any other name, and I applaud anyone, even a pampered diva like Prince, for making noise about it. Yes, he had selfish reasons, but most people engage or embrace an issue not because it is right to do so but because that issue affects them in some way. Less than half of the African American population was active in the Civil Rights Movement, and most of them were only active because they had endured a personal injustice.

oh boy.

I think you're all reading too much into that lyric...it just means what it means, that you appreciate the good only when you've had the bad.

You only appreciate the benefit of the ride up front when you've suffered in the back seat. This analogy can be applied to almost anything.

But as with P many of his lyrics have a double meaning!

The most obvious reference is in Turn Me Loose and Girl extended (although 'tight' also means good, like 'the band is tight' so it may just be referring to its appearance, i don't know lol)

[Edited 7/22/12 4:47am]

errant said:

1725topp said:

While I can image that some African Americans were offended, none that I know personally, I wasn't offended at all. And most African Americans that I know were not so much offended as they thought he was being a hypocrite because he had no problem with their practices until it affected him in a negative manner. And when you assert that the amount of money or "bank" that he was making at the time damages his argument of being a slave, remember one man's "bank" is another man's "scraps" and vice versa. Keep in mind that most slave owners felt that feeding the slaves daily, giving them new clothes once a year, and giving them two or three extra pieces of fruit during Christmas was "bank" and more than enough payment for their work. So, when we compare what Warner Bros. earned and continues to earn from Prince in comparison to what he earned, some, myself included, would say that he wasn't earning "bank." And, comparing what Prince was making to what the average person was making doesn't hold water with me because we all develop certain skills, and there is a market for our skills. It isn't Prince's fault that his skill set allows him to earn more "bank" than someone else. Regardless of how much he makes, he, and anyone else, has a right to negotiate and agitate for what he sees as fair value. Additionally, I always understood "slave" to be metaphoric in that he was saying that record companies have a history of controlling people, and I want to call them on it. And yes, he signed a contract, but when one becomes more knowledgeable one has the right to say this is foul, especially if the company has the right to change its practices, policies, and even staff during the period of the contract and the artist has no right to do the same or react to the aforementioned changes. And finally, historically, the aristocrat class from slave owners to Jim Crow era mercantilist to today's fat cats who desire to destroy unions have, since the end of slavery, attempted to create an owner-worker system and relationship that is as close to slavery as possible. And while I do think that it is the responsibility of each person to gain the proper education to protect oneself from evil people and from engaging in unfair relationships, the power that record and literature publishing companies have over artists is as close to slavery without being slavery as it can be. Now where I fault Prince is that he could have done more to create collaborations with others so that more artists could seize more control somewhat like the model for United Artists when it was first created by artists as a reaction and alternative to the Hollywood studio owners and executives who were then signing artists to ten and twenty-year long contracts that were commonly called “slave” contracts. (These “slave” contracts also existed in professional baseball, which is what led to members of the Chicago White Socks taking a bribe to lose the World Series.) So, again, even after slavery, the American mercantilist and aristocrats have done all that they can to reinstitute slavery by any other name, and I applaud anyone, even a pampered diva like Prince, for making noise about it. Yes, he had selfish reasons, but most people engage or embrace an issue not because it is right to do so but because that issue affects them in some way. Less than half of the African American population was active in the Civil Rights Movement, and most of them were only active because they had endured a personal injustice.

oh boy.

Since I don't understand what most of those little round faces mean, I don't understand your reply.

1725topp said:

errant said:

oh boy.

Since I don't understand what most of those little round faces mean, I don't understand your reply.

It's ok, I didn't understand how to read your post without any paragraphs.

1725topp said:

errant said:

1725topp said:

Since I don't understand what most of those little round faces mean, I don't understand your reply.

I can't believe you didn't fall asleep typing all of that rather uninteresting and irrelevent tangent. "Now" is not about anal sex. We already established that.

Every thing I wrote speaks directly to Prince's writing of "slave" on his face. It is only uninteresting and irrelevent to you because you don't agree with it or it doesn't fit into your seemingly limited or narrow understanding of what it means to be black in America, which is cool because I'm not interested in black or white people who desire for Prince or any another African American to be limited in scope or perception because of the limited expectations they have for them based on the limited understandings that they have.

1725topp said:

errant said:

1725topp said:

Every thing I wrote speaks directly to Prince's writing of "slave" on his face. It is only uninteresting and irrelevent to you because you don't agree with it or it doesn't fit into your seemingly limited or narrow understanding of what it means to be black in America, which is cool because I'm not interested in black or white people who desire for Prince or any another African American to be limited in scope or perception because of the limited expectations they have for them based on the limited understandings that they have.

No. It's just a lot of ponderous diarrhea of the keyboard.

Or, is it that people who can only play two chords get lost when someone tries to show them the entire range of the instrument?

1725topp said:

errant said:

pureTsexy said:

Hmm.. well this really got off the subject, lol.

You thought the lyric was about butt-sex...

That's funny!

djThunderfunk said:

errant said:

1725topp said:

Or, is it that people who can only play two chords get lost when someone tries to show them the entire range of the instrument?

No, it's that people don't want to have the shit bored out of them with a lengthy dissertation that's only tangentially related to the conversation every time they open a thread. Especially when it's in the form of a visually impentrable block of text. You like to type so much, learn where the enter key is. [Edited 7/22/12 19:00pm]

Who's on a tangent now?

1725topp said:

errant said:

1725topp said: No, it's that people don't want to have the shit bored out of them with a lengthy dissertation that's only tangentially related to the conversation every time they open a thread. Especially when it's in the form of a visually impentrable block of text. You like to type so much, learn where the enter key is. [Edited 7/22/12 19:00pm]

Who's on a tangent now?

took you awhile, but I'll give you credit for brevity. how's that?

1725topp said:

errant said:

eh. not really. hard to justify writing "slave" on one's face when making the bank that he was at the time. in fact, it's downright offensive in some respects.

While I can image that some African Americans were offended, none that I know personally, I wasn't offended at all. And most African Americans that I know were not so much offended as they thought he was being a hypocrite because he had no problem with their practices until it affected him in a negative manner. And when you assert that the amount of money or "bank" that he was making at the time damages his argument of being a slave, remember one man's "bank" is another man's "scraps" and vice versa. Keep in mind that most slave owners felt that feeding the slaves daily, giving them new clothes once a year, and giving them two or three extra pieces of fruit during Christmas was "bank" and more than enough payment for their work. So, when we compare what Warner Bros. earned and continues to earn from Prince in comparison to what he earned, some, myself included, would say that he wasn't earning "bank." And, comparing what Prince was making to what the average person was making doesn't hold water with me because we all develop certain skills, and there is a market for our skills. It isn't Prince's fault that his skill set allows him to earn more "bank" than someone else. Regardless of how much he makes, he, and anyone else, has a right to negotiate and agitate for what he sees as fair value. Additionally, I always understood "slave" to be metaphoric in that he was saying that record companies have a history of controlling people, and I want to call them on it. And yes, he signed a contract, but when one becomes more knowledgeable one has the right to say this is foul, especially if the company has the right to change its practices, policies, and even staff during the period of the contract and the artist has no right to do the same or react to the aforementioned changes. And finally, historically, the aristocrat class from slave owners to Jim Crow era mercantilist to today's fat cats who desire to destroy unions have, since the end of slavery, attempted to create an owner-worker system and relationship that is as close to slavery as possible. And while I do think that it is the responsibility of each person to gain the proper education to protect oneself from evil people and from engaging in unfair relationships, the power that record and literature publishing companies have over artists is as close to slavery without being slavery as it can be. Now where I fault Prince is that he could have done more to create collaborations with others so that more artists could seize more control somewhat like the model for United Artists when it was first created by artists as a reaction and alternative to the Hollywood studio owners and executives who were then signing artists to ten and twenty-year long contracts that were commonly called “slave” contracts. (These “slave” contracts also existed in professional baseball, which is what led to members of the Chicago White Socks taking a bribe to lose the World Series.) So, again, even after slavery, the American mercantilist and aristocrats have done all that they can to reinstitute slavery by any other name, and I applaud anyone, even a pampered diva like Prince, for making noise about it. Yes, he had selfish reasons, but most people engage or embrace an issue not because it is right to do so but because that issue affects them in some way. Less than half of the African American population was active in the Civil Rights Movement, and most of them were only active because they had endured a personal injustice.

If you're going to type that much shit and want people to actually read it, you should break it up into different paragraphs. It just looks like one big jumbled mess when it's like that. Just an FYI.