Vannormal said:

So 'Endorphinmachine' has more than 2 versions (known to me) ?
This so called third version you're talking about must've slipped my ears.
---

(correction of above post: with WNPG I meant NPGMC)

There exist at least 5 studio versions:

- Original unreleased (but circulating) Glam Slam ulysses version.

- Interactive CD-rom version.

- The Gold Experience version.

- The NPGMC remix version mentioned above, uncirculating in its entirety.

- The instrumental rehearsal version recently aired on 3rdEye TV (not a proper studio version but not live either so it kinda counts now that it's been officially released).

I am not a Beatles fan.

But hell, if Prince covered any of their songs it would probably make the songs way better.

Like when Michael Jackson covered "Come Together", it was vastly superior to the original song. MJ's is the definitive version, just like when Hendrix did "All Along The Watchtower".

And there's also an MJ cover of "Strawberry Fields Forever" in his vault, I would bet a lot of money that his cover of that smashes the original to pieces as well.

why in the world do you want Prince to do a Beatles album?

Does Prince not have enough great songs of his own? He has so many outstanding songs, he does not need to do an entire album full of any bands covers.

We're talking about a guy who wrote WDC, The Beaituful Ones, Purple Rain, When eye lay my hands on u, Anna Stesia, I could never take the place of your man etc. All classics in my opinion (and many more i did not mention)

And while i respect the Beatles and they were obviously a good band and an influential band, they have some of the most obnoxious fans of any artist i have ever seen. Prince will get alot of hatred even if he covers one of their songs on his record.

Its hard to think of any band with as many crazy fans as the fab four, and besides a guy who has as many good tunes of his own does not need to record an entire album of any bands songs.

Militant said:

And there's also an MJ cover of "Strawberry Fields Forever" in his vault,

I remember reading an article in the mid-1980's that Mike was going to release an album of Beatles covers. But he wound up releasing Bad instead. I'd like to hear that radio interview that Mike and George Harrison did together in the late 1970's.

G3000 said:

No one can cover the Beatles

No.

Militant said:

When Michael Jackson covered "Come Together", it was vastly superior to the original song. MJ's is the definitive version, just like when Hendrix did "All Along The Watchtower".

SoulAlive said:

Militant said:

When Michael Jackson covered "Come Together", it was vastly superior to the original song. MJ's is the definitive version, just like when Hendrix did "All Along The Watchtower".

You took the words/expressions right out of my mouth. I also have to add WTF to that. No way was MJ's version better.

Militant said:

BobGeorge909 said:

Militant said:

I am not a Beatles fan.

Like when Michael Jackson covered "Come Together", it was vastly superior to the original song. MJ's is the definitive version, just like when Hendrix did "All Along The Watchtower".

And there's also an MJ cover of "Strawberry Fields Forever" in his vault, I would bet a lot of money that his cover of that smashes the original to pieces as well.

That is simply ... [img:$uid]http://stupidDOPE.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/tumblr_m1rj8m7Skw1qeii60_1333220135_cover.jpg[/img:$uid] [Edited 7/5/13 19:19pm]

LOL MJ's Come Together is awful. The Beatles' version is one of the best rock songs ever.

Militant said:

Militant said:

I am not a Beatles fan.

But hell, if Prince covered any of their songs it would probably make the songs way better.

Like when Michael Jackson covered "Come Together", it was vastly superior to the original song. MJ's is the definitive version, just like when Hendrix did "All Along The Watchtower".

And there's also an MJ cover of "Strawberry Fields Forever" in his vault, I would bet a lot of money that his cover of that smashes the original to pieces as well.

Militant said:

I am not a Beatles fan.

But hell, if Prince covered any of their songs it would probably make the songs way better.

Like when Michael Jackson covered "Come Together", it was vastly superior to the original song. MJ's is the definitive version, just like when Hendrix did "All Along The Watchtower".

And there's also an MJ cover of "Strawberry Fields Forever" in his vault, I would bet a lot of money that his cover of that smashes the original to pieces as well.

I actually agree with this.

Graycap23 said:

Militant said:

I am not a Beatles fan.

But hell, if Prince covered any of their songs it would probably make the songs way better.

Like when Michael Jackson covered "Come Together", it was vastly superior to the original song. MJ's is the definitive version, just like when Hendrix did "All Along The Watchtower".

And there's also an MJ cover of "Strawberry Fields Forever" in his vault, I would bet a lot of money that his cover of that smashes the original to pieces as well.

I actually agree with this.

That's cos you know what's up my brother

Ain't no soul, no passion in that original song. MJ tore it up and defined it.

I've never met anyone in real life that prefers the original song to MJ's cover.

^ * ignorring Militant's silly post about The Beatles...

SuperSoulFighter said:

I don't need a Prince album of Beatles covers any more than I need a Brian Ferry album of Dylan covers...

LOL that is a weird but somehow very apt comparison

Militant said:

BobGeorge909 said:

first VERY simple fact is Paul and John wrote it...NOT Michael

Most likely John Lennon wrote it. Many of the Lennon/McCartney songs were written separately, generally by whoever is singing the lead. They just made a pact to credit songs together early on, whether or not they actually collaborated. John (not Paul) was sued for copying a line or 2 from Chuck Berry's You Can't Catch Me on Come Together.

MickyDolenz said:

Militant said:

Graycap23 said:

I actually agree with this.

That's cos you know what's up my brother

Ain't no soul, no passion in that original song. MJ tore it up and defined it.

I've never met anyone in real life that prefers the original song to MJ's cover.

You're assuming there's supposed to be. And I've never met anyone who would even listen all the way through MJ's.

But I am a Beatles fan. But I still gotta throw this up

OK. I just listened to it. Militant is obviously pulling our leg, having a bit of fun. MJ's version of that song is a joke.

BobGeorge909 said:

Militant said:

That's cos you know what's up my brother

Ain't no soul, no passion in that original song. MJ tore it up and defined it.

I've never met anyone in real life that prefers the original song to MJ's cover.

I bet even the almighty "MJ" would beg to differ with y'all. Most any musician can tell u the miles of differences between the two...and they dont favor MJ...first VERY simple fact is Paul and John wrote it...NOT Michael...TWO...he followed theiir layout and added nothing significant...only repeated ideas in a subpar manner....and visually, he wants to ad plastic pants and glowsticks.....how funny u are.

I'm a musician. I have released three albums on major labels (Sony/BMG and Virgin/EMI).

Who wrote it is not significant. That has no relevance. Bob Dylan wrote "Watchtower", yet Hendrix version is largely considered definitive. Trent Reznor wrote "Hurt", and even as a huge Nine Inch Nails fans I would say there's a case to be made for Johnny Cash's version being definitive, and Trent has said as much himself.

Visually, what? The fuck has a music video got to do with anything? We're talking about the song here.

So the only point you've made is that "he followed their layout", which, I'm not even sure what you mean. What exactly does this mean? That the arrangement is the same?

The instrumentation is completely different and funkier, with more soul and passion in the playing, the musical performances are tighter and most importantly, it has more GROOVE. The vocals are superior, obviously, because Michael even on his worst day blows out any of The Beatles as singers on their best day. (Here comes the "it's not about the vocals" argument, funny, because Dylan fans say the same thing about "Watchtower").

So the music is better and the vocals are better. Therefore this version song is better. There's absolutely no way that the original song is better, so you have no argument. It's a cover version - obviously it will have some resemblance to the original song, so saying it "repeated ideas" is meritless - that tends to be how covers work.

I'll say it again - Michael's cover of "Come Together" will go down in history as the definitive version. A lot of young people only know his version and don't know it's a cover.

It's a great written song and I give props to The Beatles for that. But in terms of pure musical performance and vocal performance, MJ's version rules supreme.

You can prefer whatever version you want. That's your prerogative. But for everyone (yes, including myself) that comes down to your personal taste. But I can, and have, make an objective argument as to why MJ's version is superior. If you take someone who's never heard either version, they will take MJ's version every damn time.

It must have hurt Paul, George and Ringo to have their song made better by the biggest star on the planet, and even more so when all the royalties went to him as well because he owned the rights to the song But maybe they didn't care because it was John's song and he was already dead.

[Edited 7/7/13 16:21pm]

Militant said:

BobGeorge909 said:

Militant said: I bet even the almighty "MJ" would beg to differ with y'all. Most any musician can tell u the miles of differences between the two...and they dont favor MJ...first VERY simple fact is Paul and John wrote it...NOT Michael...TWO...he followed theiir layout and added nothing significant...only repeated ideas in a subpar manner....and visually, he wants to ad plastic pants and glowsticks.....how funny u are.

I'm a musician. I have released three albums on major labels (Sony/BMG and Virgin/EMI).

Who wrote it is not significant. That has no relevance. Bob Dylan wrote "Watchtower", yet Hendrix version is largely considered definitive. Trent Reznor wrote "Hurt", and even as a huge Nine Inch Nails fans I would say there's a case to be made for Johnny Cash's version being definitive, and Trent has said as much himself.

Visually, what? The fuck has a music video got to do with anything? We're talking about the song here.

So the only point you've made is that "he followed their layout", which, I'm not even sure what you mean. What exactly does this mean? That the arrangement is the same?

The instrumentation is completely different and funkier, with more soul and passion in the playing, the musical performances are tighter and most importantly, it has more GROOVE. The vocals are superior, obviously, because Michael even on his worst day blows out any of The Beatles as singers on their best day. (Here comes the "it's not about the vocals" argument, funny, because Dylan fans say the same thing about "Watchtower").

So the music is better and the vocals are better. Therefore this version song is better. There's absolutely no way that the original song is better, so you have no argument. It's a cover version - obviously it will have some resemblance to the original song, so saying it "repeated ideas" is meritless - that tends to be how covers work.

I'll say it again - Michael's cover of "Come Together" will go down in history as the definitive version. A lot of young people only know his version and don't know it's a cover.

It's a great written song and I give props to The Beatles for that. But in terms of pure musical performance and vocal performance, MJ's version rules supreme.

You can prefer whatever version you want. That's your prerogative. But for everyone (yes, including myself) that comes down to your personal taste. But I can, and have, make an objective argument as to why MJ's version is superior. If you take someone who's never heard either version, they will take MJ's version every damn time.

It must have hurt Paul, George and Ringo to have their song made better by the biggest star on the planet, and even more so when all the royalties went to him as well because he owned the rights to the song But maybe they didn't care because it was John's song and he was already dead.

[Edited 7/7/13 16:21pm]

I agree with you about two things--actually, three. I figure there's a good chance that for any cover of a song originally recorded by the Beatles, you can find a majority of young people who don't know they're listening to a cover. And that does include people who have at least some interest in music. And certainly you can say that the musical performances on MJ's version are tighter--he routinely got great performances from the musicians on his tracks. I think it doesn't fit the song as well, and I don't see how your claim for objectivity makes any sense. "Funkier" is not an objective measure, nor are "soul" and "passion." I wouldn't argue any of those three qualities are higher in the Beatles' version, but I also think they're inappropriate to the song. It's not a song about passion--it's a song about being almost dead, where the greatest profundity he can manage is "one and one and one is three" and having "feet down below his knee" is worth noting. You're coming together over nothing at all--there's a reason why it was never used as a campaign song for Timothy Leary. It went in a completely different direction. Prince didn't get it. Jackson didn't get it. Aerosmith didn't get it (although for some people that's the definitive version).

So One: young people don't know the Beatles. They don't know a heck of a lot of older music, though.

Two: Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower" is the definitive version. Yep. He brought out something in the song that Dylan's original version did not. He changed it (as did Jackson in his "Come Together"), but it built on what was already there in the song. And it's a radical change. But the core emotion of the song is intensified, not ignored, by Hendrix. And Dylan's own performances became more like Hendrix's over time.

Three: Cash's "Hurt" is definitive. Again, he burrowed deeper into the song than Reznor had, and came out with something more resonant for many. Like Dylan with "All Along the Watchtower," the change was recognized by the song's writer, as I've seen Reznor saying that Cash's version pretty much defines the song now.

Obviously, people might prefer Jackson's to the Beatles. My wife, as a matter of fact, just said (since I was listening to it to recheck what I thought), that maybe, if she encountered that one first, as a "child of the 80's" she might like it better, because it's more "familiar-sounding." Of course, as she also said, if she'd never heard the other one, she would not be the sort of person who's a Beatles fan." I don't hate Jackson's version. I feel about it like I do about almost all of Jackson's music--greatness mixed with an assortment of stylistic tics that often robbed his performances of a great deal of potential force. I rarely hear "soul" or "passion" in him. The things he does don't trigger that response for me. Lennon does (but not on this song--where I'm not looking for either quality).

EddieC said:

Look, Prince has only covered a handful of songs in worthwhile ways. He rarely brings anything useful to them, either blanding them out somehow into just a dull nothing

[Edited 7/3/13 12:24pm]

Agree with some of your points, but the Superbowl cover versions of Watchtower/Best of You are anything but dull - in fact, the guitar solo performance of Best of You is pretty much the complete opposite. It's silly good!

axax said:

axax said:

EddieC said:

Look, Prince has only covered a handful of songs in worthwhile ways. He rarely brings anything useful to them, either blanding them out somehow into just a dull nothing

[Edited 7/3/13 12:24pm]

Agree with some of your points, but the Superbowl cover versions of Watchtower/Best of You are anything but dull - in fact, the guitar solo performance of Best of You is pretty much the complete opposite. It's silly good!

I like the Super Bowl performances--unfortunately, they're only partial versions, and I don't know what he would have done in the studio (or did do, I think they're might be studio versions--they played something on Howard Stern before the game).

Militant said:

I am not a Beatles fan.

But hell, if Prince covered any of their songs it would probably make the songs way better.

Like when Michael Jackson covered "Come Together", it was vastly superior to the original song. MJ's is the definitive version, just like when Hendrix did "All Along The Watchtower".

And there's also an MJ cover of "Strawberry Fields Forever" in his vault, I would bet a lot of money that his cover of that smashes the original to pieces as well.

Dear Militant.
With all respect, but, are you out of your mind ?!
No, honestly, You may like MJ's version of 'Come Together', but that really isn't a 'vastly superior' better version of it. Honestly, not.

...

First of all, 'Come Together' is the most IMPOSSIBLE song to cover !
And since you're not a Beatles fan I understand what you trying to say. Again, no hard feelings. (Although it surprises me that you state things like this as a musician. I think honestly you're a bigger MJ fan than a musician, but I might be wrong though since I don't know you. )

...
MJ's cover fits well into his trademark typical rhythm songs we all know. And his vocal percussion is something Michael probably thought of might work well. And that I leave open to everyone's taste, but I for one certainly never liked it.
He absolutely made an unimportant version of it which can be cool to his fans but the rest of the world didn't care much for. And certainly not the critics back in the day (as I remember well) and not even up to this day.

...

The reasons why Jackson so desperately wanted to do a Beatles cover version is that he so much wanted to be the best in everything that was bigger than him. (Don't foget, he remained a kid throughout all his life.)
Second, he just got the rights to the Beatles catalogue, had some serious major problems with Paul McCartney. And that said, he kind of made that one big mistake by covering the Beatles one and only impossible song to cover ! Did he wanted to prove something to Paul ? He certainly didn't care much for the respect of John IMHO by so much wanting to cover this into a dance song ...
And, again, I love MJ's work, and respect him a lot as a songwriter performer.

He should've 'tried' to cover 'Michelle', or 'Helter Skelter' with Slash on guitar. No, I'm just joking really.

...

ANother thing, it's uncomparable with the Jimi Hendrix cover of the Dylan song. Of course that cover was a splendid version! Not to compare as 'better' but totally different original and superb in many ways. See it like this, the same chords, lyrics, were blended by the superior touch of Hendrix, of which Michael absolutely wasn't capable of doing with his cover of the Beatles track in the first place.
And, I like MJ's music a lot too.

in fact, it's like saying that MJ did a cover of an Iron Maiden song, and try to make it funky or danceable with his typical polyester dry production.

[Edited 7/8/13 23:04pm]