NouveauDance said:

databank said:

While the 50 minutes length for each disc appears somewhat arbitrary, it's pretty obvious that behind the apparent randomness Prince thought hard to make the album flow well and to make it a cohesive ensemble - in other words, a proper album and not just a random collection (in a way a chronological collection spanning 1978-1996 would have been much more random).

I can't say I really agree - I don't think they flow like albums at all. IMO, they flow like what they are - a hodge-podge of odds n sods thrown together and of course heavily weighted in more recent offerings rather than the material he knew people actually wanted and expected from a set with such a title. A similar thing happened again with the NPGMC, where the first preview was what, Splash, and then we got what, a load of 2000-era pap.

.

In terms of flow, he set out to (and I think he actually used this phrase at the time) "beat the bootleggers" [at their own game] - which accounts for the random mix of eras, bad editing and inclusion of random live tracks, as some sort of meta-commentary on bootlegging. Ironically, by this time labels like Moonraker were already releasing 3 CD sets of their own with better artwork, credible liner notes and more thought put in to their contents. The only thing Prince trumped them on, of course, is sound quality - which might be debately given how loudly the album is mastered.

.

Again, none of this has anything to do with the individual songs quality, which is definately more good (often great) than bad, but I'm never going to listen to Good Love followed by Strays Of The World, or Last Heart sandwiched inbetween a badly edited live track and Poo(m) Poo(m). Thank god for playlists.

To each his own. I respect that, however the sequencing works incredibly well for me, and i could explain why on nearly a track by track transition basis. For that reason, I remain convinced that Prince put more thought into it than we'd think.

But you are correct in reminding us the "bootleg" messy aspect of it. It may just be less random and messy than it looks.

I'd like to be able to sit with Prince and discuss what he had in mind exactly when he made those decisions (the editing of Good Love and Crucial for example were very disappointing, but did he do it because he felt the songs worked better like this, just to fit with the 50 minutes/10 songs system, or to make it sound more like a bootleg with savage editing?

It's a real pity sessionography research is so much focused on the 80's. I hope one day someone takes on the task of interviewing the people involved in later projects!

databank said:

It's a real pity sessionography research is so much focused on the 80's. I hope one day someone takes on the task of interviewing the people involved in later projects!

.

I bet that's because those involved in later eras are under stricter contracts. It can't be a coincidence that so few of them talk about their experiences, especially on record. Note how the Chronic Freeze Q&A on the Org was deleted shortly afterwards as per his request.

BartVanHemelen said:

databank said:

It's a real pity sessionography research is so much focused on the 80's. I hope one day someone takes on the task of interviewing the people involved in later projects!

.

I bet that's because those involved in later eras are under stricter contracts. It can't be a coincidence that so few of them talk about their experiences, especially on record. Note how the Chronic Freeze Q&A on the Org was deleted shortly afterwards as per his request.

You are correct in that regard, confidentiality agreements were quite strict after at least 1996, if not earlier. Revelations can be made off the record, though, but sadly this is an obstacle. Another issue is that contrarily to earlier employees, many post-1996 bandmembers are re-hired occasionally and won't jeopardize their opportunity to work with Prince again. However I suspect there's also a lack of interest from the part of many biographers/researchers.

databank said:

To each his own. I respect that, however the sequencing works incredibly well for me, and i could explain why on nearly a track by track transition basis. For that reason, I remain convinced that Prince put more thought into it than we'd think.

But you are correct in reminding us the "bootleg" messy aspect of it. It may just be less random and messy than it looks.

I'd like to be able to sit with Prince and discuss what he had in mind exactly when he made those decisions (the editing of Good Love and Crucial for example were very disappointing, but did he do it because he felt the songs worked better like this, just to fit with the 50 minutes/10 songs system, or to make it sound more like a bootleg with savage editing?

It's a real pity sessionography research is so much focused on the 80's. I hope one day someone takes on the task of interviewing the people involved in later projects!

Yeah, even for me (with my issues of mixing the 80s and 90s due to differences in sound quality), I rather enjoy the sequencing. I can listen to it start to finish and come away feeling like it was more of a cohesive experience than it should have been. I agree that Prince put a lot of thought into the sequencing.

Crucial is the best track ever. It's in my top 3 favorite Prince songs.

Only got around to the first two discs so far. I have too much shit to listen to as it is. Thought they were pretty damn good on a first listen.