rdhull said:

MoBetterBliss said:

you left one out

i didn't because i'm not giving money to prince because of my principles... so i'll just steal them instead

.

[Edited 2/20/13 12:53pm]

he def aint no christian!

i predict wailing and gnashing of teeth

thedance said:

RodeoSchro said:

this thread is sooo...

Just listened to Girl Thang... Bought it a while back... A lovely yearning song... Gotta add my to the mix...

Giovanni777 said:

SuperSoulFighter said:

MarquessMarq said: And little old me! In fact, the last new official Prince record I bought was Lotusflower. So far I haven't heared new stuff that's on the same level.

The Lotusflow3r album is so good, it probably scared Prince out of releasing another album.

20ten was essentially an abandoned album project... I think Prince originally had a bigger plan for that album, then gave up and released an edited version of the album for "free" in a cardboard sleeve within some European newspapers.

I'm not sure what the cause was... likely a distribution deal gone bad. Of course, he likely got paid from the publications that carried it.

Anyone who thinks that was simply to promote his tour is fooling themselves.

Sorry Gio, you're talking a little crazy here!

The 20Ten newspaper was to promote his tour, he never toured the UK for 20Ten. As for the cardboard packaging, what type of packaging did the mighty Lotus come in? I'm not knocking Lotus, it's in my top 3 Prince albums, but you talk about 20Ten in a cardboard sleeve like that made it worthless, when Lotus was also packed in cardboard.

I'll tel you the reason that the newspaper giveaways were done, at least in the UK. Money and exposure. Look at 3121, a better album than Planet Earth and 20Ten, yet it only sold about 80,000 in the UK. Planet Earth was given away with the Mail newspaper and they sold nearly 3,000,000 that day. How much would he have made from 80,000 sales of 3121? More than the reported £300,000 he got paid for PE?

I think the success of the Planet Earth deal lead to him extending the idea for the European release of 20Ten. I don't know why it wasn't released in the USA for the same reason I don't know why Lotus was only released in the USA.

I wonder how many Lotus sold to the UK, it was never released here. Why was it only sold in one store in the USA? A distribution deal gone bad?

Anyway, I have bought all the new tracks and will continue to buy everything else that appears. This morning I already bought a bacon roll and a can of Red Bull, which have been consumed and are now gone forever. They came to £3.40, or as I look at it 6 Prince songs. I honestly can't believe the people saying they are waiting for these on an album. Might be a long wait!

MoBetterBliss said:

Doesn't seem to matter what fan site you go to these days--they're all bursting with negativity and not much interesting constructive criticism about the music itself...

purplethunder3121 said:

SuperSoulFighter said:

MoBetterBliss said:

you're not a true fan

So what? Check the home page of this site. Does it say "for true fans only"? Check my profile. I labelled myself "enthousiast". So what's the big deal?

It says on the front page, and in fact at the top of each forum. "prince,org online fan community. Independent and unofficial Prince fan community site"

Seeing as how fan is short for fanatic, it pretty much does say prince.org is for true fans.

SuperSoulFighter said:

MoBetterBliss said:

you're not a true fan

So what? Check the home page of this site. Does it say "for true fans only"? Check my profile. I labelled myself "enthousiast". So what's the big deal?

^^^ Not a christian...^^^not a true fan

I haven't because they're downloads. I'll take a free download but I've never paid for a download from any artist and never will because a download is no more than if a friend made you a cassette copy back in the day or CD-R copy in present times. It's not an actual original physical product where you feel like you have the original rather than just a homemade copy.

And yes, I realize it's only 88 cents also but I'm not putting any of my personal credit card information on the internet to possibly experience identity theft. There's too many ways to get ripped off through the internet once somebody gets your personal numbers. Either release a physical album and sell it either in stores or through Amazon, or I'm not buying it.

vainandy said:

And yes, I realize it's only 88 cents also but I'm not putting any of my personal credit card information on the internet to possibly experience identity theft. There's too many ways to get ripped off through the internet once somebody gets your personal numbers. Either release a physical album and sell it either in stores or through Amazon, or I'm not buying it.

You do realize you have to put personal credit card information on the internet to buy through Amazon don't you?!?

rdhull said:

djThunderfunk said:

vainandy said:

And yes, I realize it's only 88 cents also but I'm not putting any of my personal credit card information on the internet to possibly experience identity theft. There's too many ways to get ripped off through the internet once somebody gets your personal numbers. Either release a physical album and sell it either in stores or through Amazon, or I'm not buying it.

You do realize you have to put personal credit card information on the internet to buy through Amazon don't you?!?

Yes, and I've never had any problem with Amazon. They are the only source I use when I rarely buy things online. People have had problems with Prince though. I don't trust his ass as far as I can throw him.

SuperSoulFighter said:

rdhull said:

^^^ Not a christian...^^^not a true fan

It doesn't say "only for christians" either. I could believe in Buddhism, Shamanism, something-ism, nothing-ism.... Still no big deal.

See what I mean?

[Edited 3/2/13 7:45am]

vainandy said:

I haven't because they're downloads. I'll take a free download but I've never paid for a download from any artist and never will because a download is no more than if a friend made you a cassette copy back in the day or CD-R copy in present times. It's not an actual original physical product where you feel like you have the original rather than just a homemade copy.

This is so wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start! You're basically saying that Prince's time and effort in creating something is worth $0.00. This is actually making my head hurt trying to comprehend it.

yeksievol said:

vainandy said:

Yes, and I've never had any problem with Amazon. They are the only source I use when I rarely buy things online. People have had problems with Prince though. I don't trust his ass as far as I can throw him.

you don't have to give up your identity, use a pre-paid Visa gift card.

I'm not paying for a download and if I'm going to go to the trouble of driving somewhere, it's going to be to a store to buy an actual CD.

TheEnglishGent said:

vainandy said:

I haven't because they're downloads. I'll take a free download but I've never paid for a download from any artist and never will because a download is no more than if a friend made you a cassette copy back in the day or CD-R copy in present times. It's not an actual original physical product where you feel like you have the original rather than just a homemade copy.

This is so wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start! You're basically saying that Prince's time and effort in creating something is worth $0.00. This is actually making my head hurt trying to comprehend it.

If it's worth something, he'll release it on a CD and sell it in a store. I'm not paying for anything that has to be downloaded and then placed onto a homemade CD. Hell, that's no different than recording a song off the radio and being satisfied with it rather than having the actual album in your collection. Would you have been satisfied borrowing a friend's "Sign O The Times" album back in the day and recording it onto a cassette and only having that homemade recording in your collection rather than the original vinyl album?

In other words, I'm not paying for anything "homemade". I want an original product, not a copy. Original products are made to be bought, copies aren't. Copies are for sharing for free. Same as the old days of recording the vinyl onto cassette. You were simply making a copy to play in a portable player, or to play in the car, or to give to a friend but you weren't satisfied with just having a copy, you also wanted the original for your big home stereo.

.

.

.

[Edited 2/21/13 9:23am]

vainandy said:

TheEnglishGent said:

This is so wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start! You're basically saying that Prince's time and effort in creating something is worth $0.00. This is actually making my head hurt trying to comprehend it.

If it's worth something, he'll release it on a CD and sell it in a store. I'm not paying for anything that has to be downloaded and then placed onto a homemade CD. Hell, that's no different than recording a song off the radio and being satisfied with it rather than having the actual album in your collection. Would you have been satisfied borrowing a friend's "Sign O The Times" album back in the day and recording it onto a cassette and only having that homemade recording in your collection rather than the original vinyl album?

In other words, I'm not paying for anything "homemade". I want an original product, not a copy. Original products are made to be bought, copies aren't. Copies are for sharing for free. Same as the old days of recording the vinyl onto cassette. You were simply making a copy to play in a portable player, or to play in the car, or to give to a friend but you weren't satisfied with just having a copy, you also wanted the original for your big home stereo.

.

.

.

[Edited 2/21/13 9:23am]

A ccd in a shop is a copy of something. You only get original if you get the studio tapes from Prince.

TheEnglishGent said:

vainandy said:

If it's worth something, he'll release it on a CD and sell it in a store. I'm not paying for anything that has to be downloaded and then placed onto a homemade CD. Hell, that's no different than recording a song off the radio and being satisfied with it rather than having the actual album in your collection. Would you have been satisfied borrowing a friend's "Sign O The Times" album back in the day and recording it onto a cassette and only having that homemade recording in your collection rather than the original vinyl album?

In other words, I'm not paying for anything "homemade". I want an original product, not a copy. Original products are made to be bought, copies aren't. Copies are for sharing for free. Same as the old days of recording the vinyl onto cassette. You were simply making a copy to play in a portable player, or to play in the car, or to give to a friend but you weren't satisfied with just having a copy, you also wanted the original for your big home stereo.

.

.

.

[Edited 2/21/13 9:23am]

A ccd in a shop is a copy of something. You only get original if you get the studio tapes from Prince.

Even when CDs first came out, I never felt that CDs were a good replacement for vinyl because of just a feeling I got with them being so small and the type of plastic cases they were in, it almost reminded me of cassettes and I've always considered cassettes, even the pre-recorded ones from the labels, to have a homemade feel to them since people had the capability to record tapes themselves. And when CD recorders and CD burners were invented, then the feeling of having a "homemade" product really increased in me. But even with that feeling, I still had an actual CD from the actual artist, label, or whatever, with all the logos, artwork, packaging, etc. so it didn't feel AS homemade as if I recorded a CD myself. But going the download route and then having to burn them onto homemade CDs, that's 100% homemade, looks and all.

I know exactly what Andy's on about and so do you Gent.

I'd rather have stuff on vinyl myself. CD if it has to be. Having a downloaded wav in a folder with no art, liner notes or anything that goes with it isn't the same as having something tangible in your hand. O course, if the only thing on offer is a wav I'll take it, if and when I like the tracks.

vainandy said:

TheEnglishGent said:

This is so wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start! You're basically saying that Prince's time and effort in creating something is worth $0.00. This is actually making my head hurt trying to comprehend it.

If it's worth something, he'll release it on a CD and sell it in a store. I'm not paying for anything that has to be downloaded and then placed onto a homemade CD. Hell, that's no different than recording a song off the radio and being satisfied with it rather than having the actual album in your collection. Would you have been satisfied borrowing a friend's "Sign O The Times" album back in the day and recording it onto a cassette and only having that homemade recording in your collection rather than the original vinyl album?

In other words, I'm not paying for anything "homemade". I want an original product, not a copy. Original products are made to be bought, copies aren't. Copies are for sharing for free. Same as the old days of recording the vinyl onto cassette. You were simply making a copy to play in a portable player, or to play in the car, or to give to a friend but you weren't satisfied with just having a copy, you also wanted the original for your big home stereo.

.

.

.

[Edited 2/21/13 9:23am]

Bravo, Andy! This is exactly as I feel, and perhaps I should have broke it down that way in this thread (where you are welcome, of course):

http://prince.org/msg/7/393835?&pg=1

vainandy said:

TheEnglishGent said:

This is so wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start! You're basically saying that Prince's time and effort in creating something is worth $0.00. This is actually making my head hurt trying to comprehend it.

If it's worth something, he'll release it on a CD and sell it in a store. I'm not paying for anything that has to be downloaded and then placed onto a homemade CD. Hell, that's no different than recording a song off the radio and being satisfied with it rather than having the actual album in your collection. Would you have been satisfied borrowing a friend's "Sign O The Times" album back in the day and recording it onto a cassette and only having that homemade recording in your collection rather than the original vinyl album?

In other words, I'm not paying for anything "homemade". I want an original product, not a copy. Original products are made to be bought, copies aren't. Copies are for sharing for free. Same as the old days of recording the vinyl onto cassette. You were simply making a copy to play in a portable player, or to play in the car, or to give to a friend but you weren't satisfied with just having a copy, you also wanted the original for your big home stereo.

.

.

.

[Edited 2/21/13 9:23am]

You sound like my grandpa who raged against cd's when they came out.

You'r not old enough (yet) to be a grumpy old man, and exclude yourself from society, because you'r anxcious about new technology.

Just do your research and set up your audio for digital music.

You can learn it and when you've done it, there will be so much more music that you can purchase and download.

Your grumpy old man time will come, don't worry. But you have to wait for another 2 decades from now. Till then, you gotta stay involved.

purplethunder3121 said:

Doesn't seem to matter what fan site you go to these days--they're all bursting with negativity and not much interesting constructive criticism about the music itself...

Thing is, I don't know much about music.

So, I can't say anything about production, music layers etcetera.

I like it or not. That is how far my feedback goes.

And just like any other form of art, there is no golden standard, is there?

The artist makes it, can adjust it as he/she likes and that's it.

What the piece evokes among the audiance is a reflection of the zeitgeist, the audiance, random variables and the quality of the piece.

I think a discussion is interesting. The interesting part is what kind of factors are discussed, how do different people respond and why? And yes, of course also the content of the piece itself.

However, the quality or value any artwork has, for the creator, is independant from the attributed value by others.

For example,

If a little, furry kitten sits in the middle of a room, but gets no attention or food.

and at the same time

the identical twin little, furry kitten is placed in a different room, where it gets cuddled, cared for and praised.

Does that mean the first kitten is not as good as the second kitten?

No, the both have their own independant value. However, one does gets validated and the other not. It's a consequence of many factors, but not the worth of the kitten itself.

Same as art. It's intrinsical worth is what it means to the artist.

The value that is attributed by the others, is just that. Other people their projections.

Fonkyman said:

I know exactly what Andy's on about and so do you Gent.

I'd rather have stuff on vinyl myself. CD if it has to be. Having a downloaded wav in a folder with no art, liner notes or anything that goes with it isn't the same as having something tangible in your hand. O course, if the only thing on offer is a wav I'll take it, if and when I like the tracks.

I really don't know what he's on about. You're saying that you prefer physical and I get that, but you're also saying you'll have a wav if that's the only way.

Andy is saying he'll not pay for digital at all, which I really don't get. Why would I deny myself the music because I can't hold it in my hand. The time spent to create it was the same. It's only an issue for me if the quality of the format offered is low. The last couple of 3rd eye releases have been wav's, so I really don't see the problem.

I have no problem whatsoever with digital and I'd actually prefer by a huge amount to pay $0.88 for a wav download than to pay however much it is for a CD single these days. Even when I have a physical product now it's just ripped and chucked into a box in the loft. But then again I've always embraced new technology.

TheEnglishGent said:

I really don't know what he's on about. You're saying that you prefer physical and I get that, but you're also saying you'll have a wav if that's the only way.

Andy is saying he'll not pay for digital at all, which I really don't get. Why would I deny myself the music because I can't hold it in my hand. The time spent to create it was the same. It's only an issue for me if the quality of the format offered is low. The last couple of 3rd eye releases have been wav's, so I really don't see the problem.

I have no problem whatsoever with digital and I'd actually prefer by a huge amount to pay $0.88 for a wav download than to pay however much it is for a CD single these days. Even when I have a physical product now it's just ripped and chucked into a box in the loft. But then again I've always embraced new technology.

Fair enough. I don't get that either really. I mean, if I wanted the track I wouldn't go without it on account of it being digital only. Still nice to have the old bits, vinyl etc. Even if a lot of it does get boxed up and chucked in the loft.

dJJ said:

(I accidentally erased dJJ's description of a scenario with a mistreated, unfed, and unloved kitten locked in dark room, and a second well-treated, well-fed, and well-loved kitten in a different room)

Does that mean the first kitten is not as good as the second kitten?

No, the both have their own independant value. However, one does gets validated and the other not. It's a consequence of many factors, but not the worth of the kitten itself.

Same as art. It's intrinsical worth is what it means to the artist.

The value that is attributed by the others, is just that. Other people their projections.

Yes. Yes, it does. Because the first kitten has died, and thus has lost its worth as a kitten, and will never grow to be a fully-developed wonderful cat. We can cry for it, but it is no more--just like the old tapes rotting in that mildewed garage we euphemistically call Prince's vault.

I'm sorry, I have no idea why I said that. It seems cruel to kittens. And I know it's not a garage.

However, I don't agree with you that the worth of art is only, or even primarily, in the artist's valuation. Art kept to the artist does die--I'm not sure if it can ultimately be considered art if it remains private. It might just be a kind of diary, or some sort of symptom of neurosis--I think art doesn't become art without an audience. I'll accept that there might be artists who create their work for a divine audience (as with James Hampton and his "Throne of the Third Heaven of the Nations' Millenium General Assembly--if you don't know what it is, find out) or even for an audience that consists of some now dead loved one (Kurt Vonnegut claimed he wrote for an audience consisting of his sister, even decades after her death). But art communicates. And the audience is part of that communication--and certainly part of determining value.

Those things Prince has kept in the vault are dead, or will be if they don't get out (leaked items are not dead--they might not be as healthy as we might wish, but they've found an audience and have had some impact on the future of art as well--the fact that other artists have covered some unreleased items shows that they have an influence and are alive). Much of what's in there is unfinished and to be considered only as workshop materials (interesting for what they suggest about the artistic process), but if there is stuff there that Prince considers complete, if he values it, he should take it out of that room, feed it, and let it get some love.

EddieC said:

EddieC said:

dJJ said:

(I accidentally erased dJJ's description of a scenario with a mistreated, unfed, and unloved kitten locked in dark room, and a second well-treated, well-fed, and well-loved kitten in a different room)

Does that mean the first kitten is not as good as the second kitten?

No, the both have their own independant value. However, one does gets validated and the other not. It's a consequence of many factors, but not the worth of the kitten itself.

Same as art. It's intrinsical worth is what it means to the artist.

The value that is attributed by the others, is just that. Other people their projections.

Yes. Yes, it does. Because the first kitten has died, and thus has lost its worth as a kitten, and will never grow to be a fully-developed wonderful cat. We can cry for it, but it is no more--just like the old tapes rotting in that mildewed garage we euphemistically call Prince's vault.

I'm sorry, I have no idea why I said that. It seems cruel to kittens. And I know it's not a garage.

However, I don't agree with you that the worth of art is only, or even primarily, in the artist's valuation. Art kept to the artist does die--I'm not sure if it can ultimately be considered art if it remains private. It might just be a kind of diary, or some sort of symptom of neurosis--I think art doesn't become art without an audience. I'll accept that there might be artists who create their work for a divine audience (as with James Hampton and his "Throne of the Third Heaven of the Nations' Millenium General Assembly--if you don't know what it is, find out) or even for an audience that consists of some now dead loved one (Kurt Vonnegut claimed he wrote for an audience consisting of his sister, even decades after her death). But art communicates. And the audience is part of that communication--and certainly part of determining value.

Those things Prince has kept in the vault are dead, or will be if they don't get out (leaked items are not dead--they might not be as healthy as we might wish, but they've found an audience and have had some impact on the future of art as well--the fact that other artists have covered some unreleased items shows that they have an influence and are alive). Much of what's in there is unfinished and to be considered only as workshop materials (interesting for what they suggest about the artistic process), but if there is stuff there that Prince considers complete, if he values it, he should take it out of that room, feed it, and let it get some love.

Now, that's something new and different. An orger who disagrees!

Only certainty in the Kitten scenario is that both will dy. One more apreciated and later on, but the 4th generation after these lovely kittens, really has no single tought about either one of them.

So, any validations is merely a reflection of zeitgeist and very temporary.

Judgement is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm not sure if it can ultimately be considered art if it remains private. It might just be a kind of diary, or some sort of symptom of neurosis--I think art doesn't become art without an audience.

Does that really matter?

When something is defined as art by a few leading specialists, is it then suddenly more valuable than a random diary or symtom?

I don't think so.

A private diary can be very valuable.

Sometimes just only for the author, sometimes for a whole generation.

Anne Frank didn't write her diary with the purpose of turning it into an historically

important reflection of the zeitgeis nor did she intend it as a best seller.

And all the other diaries written during harsh times are just as valuable. Just not best sellers.

Now I'm off, googling James Hampton and his "Throne of the Third Heaven of the Nations' Millenium General Assembly

one question;

if a piece had impact and changed something in the future; does that make it different than unknown work?

What's the number of audiance needed, before you would label it as art?

Isn't the upheaval and discussions about the supposedly unreleased material in the vault, an audiance? So, even without knowing the content, the content of the vault already is discussed and had an impact. Does that make it art?

rdhull said:

SuperSoulFighter said:

rdhull said: It doesn't say "only for christians" either. I could believe in Buddhism, Shamanism, something-ism, nothing-ism.... Still no big deal.

See what I mean?

You are seriously creating bullshit,