Mindflux said:

citrus said:

I'm enjoying this debate, so I hope you are too.

There's some different perception going on here, so it may be difficult to keep it relevant to each other, but I'm going to try.

Ok - it may be true to you. But just having an opinion about something doesn't make it a rule, its only true to yourself.

There are no absolutes in recording. But there are limits in what is perceivable. I could record a drum machine in a number of ways - lets look at 3.

I rig up a drum machine and program a simple 4-bar beat with just kick, snare and hat in to its internal sequencer. I press play on the machine and record the audio signal.

Or, I write the drum part in a DAW using midi and trigger the drum machine with the midi notes to play the same pattern.

Or, I take a sample of each hit from the drum machine and then program the beat in the DAW using each individual sample and bypassing the drum machines internal clock.

Now, if I blind tested you on those, I guarantee you would not be able to tell the difference between the 3 - its a bold claim you make but, erm, sure as "hot balls", I don't believe it. Guess, we'll never know tho, eh?

Now then - you're on a different page with the sound manipulation points and you've taken quite a leap - we weren't talking about quality of the music, we were talking about sound. You can't suddenly jump ship on that. Yes, technology has brought better recording quality available to everyone (and, yes, even people of average talent - but what the hell is wrong with that?! That's not a "problem" - its extremely arrogant of you to suggest that someone shouldn't make music just because they're not a major talent!! ANYONE who wants to make music should be able to do so and with the best tools available to them - I really can't believe that you would be so elitist.....but then, you also have a prejudice against drugs, so perhaps its not so surprising?!)

Production can "polish a turd" - but a turd is still a turd, shiny or not. Great production will never mask poor performance or poor writing and I don't know why you've connected "wrap it in glitter" with manipulating soundwaves - its like you don't really understand what that is! You know when you go that glorious old school route of plugging in your instrument and lighting up the soundboard - well, when you put that guitar or whatever through an effect, you are "manipulating soundwaves"! This is not black magic you know. You know when you apply EQ to that lovely analogue recording you just put to tape? That's "manipulating soundwaves"!.

Its not a "problem" because you just don't buy or listen to the stuff that doesn't light your fire! Do you think it bothers me that some music I don't enjoy is more commercially successful than my own? Of course not! Lots of people make music and some people enjoy what they do - that's the long and short of it. I make the music I like to make and I'm fortunate that there are people out there who enjoy it and buy the records and come to the shows.

I enjoy good music that is recorded badly (SOTT!) as well as good music that is well recorded. I have a preference for music that is well recorded. I never said that great fidelity equates with great music. I mentioned fidelity because we were originally talking about sound quality and you're apparent ability to be able to hear the difference between a midi-triggered event and a recorded sample. So, trying to introduce the point about poorly recorded music can still rock better than today's slick production is not necessary, because I didn't suggest otherwise. However, I'd still prefer to hear a lot of that classic music in much better quality and so do many others (hence, why a lot of albums get remastered).

And, finally, I don't "choke the life out of a signal" - how did you come to that conclusion? I record it as accurately as possible and then use it as I see fit. You seem to have this assumption that utilising modern techniques or using a computer results in shit sound - it doesn't if you care about it and know what you are doing. Sure, Abbey Road studio's analogue beauties will sound better than anything I record, but I don't have hundreds of thousands to spend on recording! However, I am recording at a quality level in my studio today for a fraction of the price and getting results that, a few years ago, would have cost me thousands in hiring a professional studio - there is no contest.

Anyway, again, I ask you - are you a music producer? You're certainly at least a musician, but I'd like to know what it is you do.
[Edited 2/23/10 6:54am]

Mindflux said:[quote]

citrus said:

What's an example of a badly recorded element of SOTT? Just curious.

ufoclub said:[quote]

Mindflux said:

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say it was poorly mastered for CD - not necessarily that it was badly recorded.

However, they did have a new desk in the house and some of the distortion on the vocals on some tracks was not intentional (as evidenced in interviews with Susan Rogers), but Prince still liked the results - so, I guess you could say that they were badly recorded. When that stuff happens to me in the studio (an unintentional gem or a mistake that turned out to be good), I like to call it a "happy accident"

Perhaps the most obvious for me is Prince's Camille voice - it could have been (and had been on other tracks) more cleanly recorded and still maintain the Camille qualities - but there is some nasty distortion in places (in particular, the second "If I was your man" (at its peak on the word "your") just before the line "If I was your best friend, would you let me, Take care of you.....". But, it works with the track and is not much of a distraction.

Mindflux said:

yes, i am enjoying our discussion, because it is giving me the opportunity to verbally express what i intuitively know.

i hear you loud n clear, but let's back track for a moment: "would it be better if prince used his linn drum" > this question tells me that the OP is searching for the 'special something' that made records like SOTT (as you mentioned) so great.

it was never about his linn machine, it's about a whole nother thing which is too complicated in its simplicity to go into here, which is why i made the point about the difference between today's use of computers 'playing' the music, and midi-triggering.

i'm not so sure you understand what i mean when i talk about 'electricity' and how it flows through onto tape or whatever else you use to record onto.

please be aware: consciousness itself responds and communicates with every 'live' plug, jack, mic, desk... in a studio. it is transmitted to tape or whatever, via the lines you have running into your recording device.

when those lines are effed with, or cut off, by internalising everything into a computer, the ALIVENESS you played with/sung with/midi-triggered with... is also effed with.

what you want is a clear, clean channel, for everything you record, so you have maximum flow of maximum consciousness, of maximum electricity running through everything.

it's so much better that way and no you don't need abbey road to achieve that either.

computers have their place in recording, but not in the original source recording. for real, the last place you want to be looking when recording music, is at a computer screen watching soundwaves roll in. music is listened to, not looked at. and worst point is, how many times a producer will look at a wave and say 'ew that doesnt 'look' right. wtf? what if it sounds great?

we could talk about this for ages and still not be totally clear with each other, because ultimately we'd need to be in a studio where i could show you exactly what i mean and brother by the end of our session, you too will hear and feel the difference.

interesting side issue: what happens when you go into the red on a computer mixer? versus what happens when you go into the red through a real desk?

dude sorry if this is all a little long-winded, but my main point is, if you wanna capture fully real live raw alive conscious music... leave your computer for mastering only

peace brother

i believe in the live circuit ...

i think a song like the cross or crystal ball is alive and a song like 'it' is dead and most likely has to do with how boring a drum machine makes things .. i will admit i love if i was ur girlfriend but that song has so much live action over the drum beat that its irresistable and the distortion vocals is part of that live experience ... i record on a computer now .. its convenient but i dont use any sequencing or looping features .. even so i started on a casssette 4 track moved my way up to quarter inch reel 2 reel 8 track and went digital from there .. listening back there is a DEFINITE warmth to the old analog that u cant get from a computer ... its more alive and softer sounding even with such low end analog .. the computer does suck some life out of music and the preprogrammed looping and drum machines just do not compare to the live feel .. sure the live feel can be sloppy sometimes .. sometimes thats the magic sometimes it ruins a song .. the difference between a drummer playing to a click track even is enourmas .. suddenly they are trying to hit to a program and the music looses life .. without the click there is just so much more coming out of a drummer .. less safe tame boring more alive creative in the moment .. the live wire is connected between musicians .. computer causes a disconnect and musician is then trying to sound more dead like the computer rythm .. no heartbeat no connect to the rythm of the the universe.
as much as i dig prince linn use in the past .. if there is one element of those great classic songs that feels dead its the drum machines ... after a few listens it becomes very predictable and does not contain the life that the live instruments and singing convey .. as in the "i hear something new every time i listen" factor ... u dont get that with drum machines .. its good that prince overdub with so much live creativity to keep listeners interested ... latter albums more and more computerized thats why they stale quicker .. the computer sucks the life out of the songs ... turns them into factory packaged macaroni and cheese with lots of fake flavors added to pretend its real cheese

Mindflux said:

That particular distortion was the incident of one of her noted happy mistakes! So in theory they would have retook the vocal using conventional proper settings.

I do think the beef with Prince for the most part (there is distortion in "Little Red Corvette") is usually in the mastering. I also think with MPLSsound it's the mastering that makes it sound more slick.

citrus said:

Its all good bro and I do understand where you are coming from. One of the reasons I make electronica but with layers of real instruments also is to give it the "liveness" or injection of consciousness.

There are many approaches to laying down your tracks and, at the end of the day, its what sounds good that counts.

And, I say again, just because something is programmed doesn't render it lifeless and without soul - if you are skilled and know what you are doing, you can overcome the challenges of programming sounding too clinical (although sometimes, especially in electronica, that clinical and accurate rhythm is precisely what you are aiming for!)

Peace, my friend

TrevorAyer said:

I can play you a tonne of music that would blow your "computers make it dead" theory right out of the water. Clearly, you just haven't heard anyone making music like that which is any good! Or, it could be that certain genres of music are not to your taste. Even so, even if you didn't like the style, you wouldn't be able to deny the "life" of the music I could point you to

joyinrepetition said:

Hummmmm.....why don't u ask Sheila where she got that beat.

ufoclub said:

Indeed! In fact, I have heard some unwelcome distortion even on later albums - there's some on TRC and even Lotusflow3r - however, some of it is used to give the track a certain sound but, just sometimes, it seems unintentional. In that, I think if you are going to use it as an effect, there shouldn't be a moment where it becomes obtrusive....it really should be unnoticable.

I also think that MPLSound was that much more slick because, we have been led to believe, it was created entirely in a Protools environment which, whilst previous albums may have been mastered using Protools, Prince had never actually recorded using Protools.

chopingard said:

I don't remember it being Prince who said it - I can't remember who did, but someone said they had been nagging Prince for ages to use Protools and the virtues of doing so and that this was the first time that Prince had tried it.

Now, I'm also aware that Prince's albums have been mastered using Protools in the past, so I just took it to mean that this was the first time that Prince
RECORDED (ie, sat at a Protools desk and workstation and recorded, arranged and created everything in Protools) and then did the usual and had it mastered in Protools. If that is the scenario, then it wouldn't be a case of Prince "lying as usual" as Ernest put it.
[Edited 2/23/10 9:58am]

3121 said:

OMG!!!!! That is pretty shocking! Thank you for posting that link!

That CD in and of itself is interesting.... how did you discover that? I've only ever seen Linn samples for sale (i.e. each drum sound).

I have LinnDrumm (LM2) which I'm thnking of customizing to get it more like the original LM1.

Anyway, I am surprised Sheila just used that sample; I pictured her making it on the Linn like she did in Krush Groove in that scene in her bedroom! LOL.

I guess I'm just too naive

Thanks again for the link.

skywalker said:

... my sentiments exactly, SkyWalker (on your last statement).

Mindflux I checked out your music yesterday. Great stuff man!

SPYZFAN1 said:

Thanks - I appreciate you taking the time to listen And, even more, I'm pleased that you like it. Of course, they're only lo-fi mp3s online - the cd sounds much better

GaryMF said:

Well, perhaps you shouldn't be too surprised that she just took a sample cd groove. I mean, she wasn't looking to be artistic with this - its just a joke after all. So, rather than spend a load of time programming, why not just use a throwaway groove?

She would NEVER do that with a proper musical creation of hers for an actual commercial release.

Mindflux said:

cheers and hi there

thanks for leaving your ear open to what i'm saying, but maybe it's my fault for not being clear. i'm not used to explaining this stuff and sometimes i forget how to talk.

here's the thing: all my music is electronica. i'm not talking about digital versus analog. i'm talking about HOW we record whether we use either.

the difference, to my soul-ears, between a midi-triggered event and a straight up copy of the primary loop we program, is massive.

it contributes to the whole effect of the song, sometimes you won't notice the difference til you get the end of the song where all the energy resolves.

see what i mean? i can't explain this because it's not something explainable it's something you 'feel' at a much different level than what your ears can hear.

simply put i like green lights and red lights, things plugged in, hot signals, i dont record on my computer, i use a digital multi-track, even though i prefer tape. i program using an external sequencer and mix the music inside my sound modules then flip it over to my multitrack for the vocals.

just because it's programmed (and here we agree) doesn't mean it's dead. it only becomes dead when we use a computer to do the playing ie: copying samples. as long as the midi is running and each and every hit is getting pushed through in the moment, the original energy we used to PLAY IN the beat, remains intact. it's only once you copy and paste soundwaves inside a computer that it becomes stifled.

whether any of this relates to how prince records or how he used to record, i have no idea, but i still maintain that an artist's state of mind directly affects the over-all impact of his music.

every channel needs to be open and directly interactive with every other channel so all the music and vocals are in communication with each other, electrically bonded, resonant, flowing, live open circuits so your SPIRIT can transfer evenly across all 'dimensions' of the track.

like i said at the start - a song is a living thing. it has to be able to breathe and work in harmony with the equipment we use, and that equipment has to be capable of leaving circuits open. internalising sampled loops in a computer cuts of those tracks from the rest of the tracks it's like the loops are over there doing there thing regardless of what everything else is doing. they are non-communicative but when you midi-trigger externally and let every hit run through - the 'unseen' level of the song is OPEN and allowing clean flow of energy, uninterrupted and connected to everything else.

it might seem like i'm picking on a very small thing, but it's not. it totally effects the over-all effect of a song like i said earlier and if you listen to today's commercial pop, my theory rings true. nearly every song these days is cut copied pasted sectioned boxed-off tracks then they lay all those tracks on top of one another and call it music. it's not music because it doesn't breathe.

look what they do with vocals nowadays - the actually COPY samples of background vocals and PASTE them through the song! WTF? i dont want to hear what they already sang 2 seconds ago. dont sell me a con and make me think it's real lol.

they even get singers to sing 'part' of the song then patch it together with other takes they've done and you end up with a mish mash of edits from different takes and they call that a song??? do singers not know how to sing a song from start to finish anymore? or is it because the technology that has enticed these so-called 'producers' to do it 'easier'?

"oh wow see now you dont have to sing the whole song right, we can just take stuff from each take you do and edit it all together" - WTF??

man, the modern music world has totally lost the plot from what i can tell, and they totally missed the point when it comes to modern technology and how to use it. it was meant to 'assist' us into the digital age, not rape the soul out of music because of all the fancy tricks it can do.

anyway, live circuits, all open, everything communicates, whole music, living music, conscious music, digital or analog it doesn't matter, just keep everything open and if ur programming anything, use midi all through the song, don't copy and paste the soundwaves in your computer. don't mix on a computer. do everything with your music externally then throw it into your computer to master it. that's the true place of computers in music. mastering. not anything else.

well said cirtrus .. for some reason i have always been a fan of live music .. i'd rather listen to tape his on an audience recording than the actual cd in most cases .. there is just something about capturing a live moment over listening to blips and sequences that are supposed to sound like drums and rhythm .. and thru that we are to believe that the computer tech is somehow better ... another product sold under the ad that its an improvement when it is not ... convenience over a willingness to master the art .. in that i agree music has become very very lazy and uninpired ... dead .. or close to it ..

mindflux i agree there is some beauty in electronic music .. obviously i am a fan of prince and he's been messing with drum machines for a long time as well as digital technology .. i also really dig bjork, tricky, portishead, dangermouse, nin, ministry, skinny puppy, i even used to listen to aphex twin but even so with all that bubbling life over the top i still find myself wishing for an organic live drum track ... same ideas just less computer involvement .. yes thats personal taste for sure .. one good thing about the computer music is that it gives people who do not have access to instruments and musicians an opportunity to be creative , which is great cuz there is some real talent out there and its nice to hear some fresh ideas .. i just always crave to hear it beyond those computer sounds because for me the computer sounds dead .. its like watching that cgi shit in every movie .. i find it hard to believe that people actually think it looks life like and i wonder if my eye is just trained to see the computer effects or if its just that obvious but it seems that other people dont notice how bad cgi looks ... to me its like someone drew a cartoon over a live human film shot .. it just looks wierd and if its supposed to make us think its real it just does not work for me. when the entire environment in the movie is supposed to look fake it works but its where its supposed to blend with real footage that its glaringly bad .. its just the oversaturation of computerized music that causes this backlash .. no longer are there dynamics in music ... its all processed and compressed to the maximum loudness to the point where it drives me batty listening to that same frequency constantly without dynamic .. its all the same sounds as everone else .. same program .. same bpm .. too much .. i am craving the balance to swing back to live recordings instead of "perfect" recordings.

TrevorAyer said:

I do hear what you are saying, believe me and I'm in agreement. I just feel you're tarring everyone with the same brush. Not everyone who makes music with the aid of a computer does it because it is a short cut or because it replaces their capability to play an instrument. For some, its just another tool and you will hear the difference in what they create. A computer does not turn someone with average talent in to Mozart, or Prince for that matter! You will hear the "limits" of their talent in the music they produce.

I am proficient on drums (both kits and various percussion), keyboards, guitar and bass. I can record myself as a full band if I want to. However, the style of music I make does not call for that full-band sound - its a whole other world. So, my use of the computer is just as a creative tool, nothing more. I don't use loops, I create my own sounds and textures, I play a majority of it in live, but use sequencers when necessary - its all just tools to get the sound I want. But, the quality of the creation and the journey of the music tell you all you need to know about the person making it - e.g. you can easily tell the difference between a track made on Fruity Loops (which is software for those with no musical ability and you basically just arrange a series of loops in to a "musical" order and a track like mine which is recorded using real instruments playing composed parts and then blended with other programmed (not looped) beats, sounds and effects.

If you have time - take a listen at www.myspace.com/mindflux2012

The track "The Powers That Beep" is probably the best example of that electronic and live instrument synergy - there's loads of live electric guitar, flutes, ethnic stringed instruments (tambura), live percussion etc etc plus there's that whole electronic thing going on. The dynamics are there, the track tells a story and paints a sonic landscape - not of it was produced in a way as to cover up limitations.....it came from the heart and made it on to a digital recorder!

Mindflux said:

http://latimesblogs.latim...-with.html

One night with Prince
January 8, 2009 | 1:25 pm

Rockin' the limo, boudoir ballads, Prop. 8, Barry White, sex, faith, Pro Tools. Was it a dream?

It was 11 p.m. on the night before New Year's Eve, and I was doing something I hadn't expected would crown my 2008: sitting in Prince's limousine as the legend lounged beside me, playing unreleased tracks on the stereo. "This is my car for Minneapolis," he said before excusing himself to let me judge a few songs in private. "It's great for listening to music." He laughed. "I don't do drugs or I'd give you a joint. That's what this record is."

That morning I'd received an e-mail inviting me to preview new music at Prince's mansion in the celebrity-infested estate community of Beverly Park, where he's currently keeping his shoe rack. The summons wasn't entirely unexpected. Prince, who's less reclusive than his reputation would indicate, has spent a year and a half consulting with culture industry leaders and occasionally entertaining media types, with an eye toward taking complete control of his own musical output.

His new mantra is "The gatekeepers must change," and he's refashioned his career to become one of them.

Since beginning his gradual relocation from the Midwest to the Left Coast, Prince has headlined the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival and 2007's Super Bowl halftime show. He sold out a 21-night run at London's O2 Arena and released an album, a high-end photo book and a perfume. Most recently, he's whetted fans' appetites with sneaks of songs from three upcoming releases, first on the popular "Jonesy's Jukebox" radio program on Indie 103 and then on two websites, the now-dark MPLSound.com and the still-evolving Lotusflow3r.com.

This flurry of activity has been characterized by what might be called methodical spontaneity. Everything happens quickly, whether it's a show that takes place only a few days after its announcement or an evening interview arranged that morning. But Prince's personality seems to be governed by two oppositional impulses: the hunger to create and an equally powerful craving for control. Intense productivity battles with meticulousness within his working process. Others might not anticipate his next move, but it is all part of the chess game for him.

That's why I was there, on the eve of a holiday eve, as the mainstream music industry was enjoying a break from its ongoing plunge toward insolvency. The turn of the year is a slow time for pop, not the moment blockbuster artists usually release material. But Prince has been hinting for a while that his upcoming recordings might not be tied to a conventional label. Abandoning that machine, including its publicity arm, requires other ways of getting the word out.

Prince began experimenting with new methods of distributing music more than a decade ago, and his early efforts with the now-defunct NPG Music Club paved the way for later bold moves by Radiohead and others. Most recently he's partnered with major labels to get copies into stores. Columbia handled the release of 2006's "Planet Earth," except in Britain, where copies were distributed free via a London newspaper, the Mail on Sunday.

Now Prince is about to unleash not one but three albums without major label affiliation, and talking to well-vetted writers is one part of the rollout. How well vetted? "You're blond," he said when we met. "I thought you were a redhead." (He'd done his research; I'd changed my hair color only the year before.)

When I entered the house, which has the vaguely European opulence of an upscale spa, I found Prince with designers Anthony Malzone and Scott Addison Clay, examining mock-ups for a "highly interactive" website. "It's a universe," said Malzone, showing how a mouse click could make the whole screen rotate. "There's a lyric in one of the new songs about an 'entirely new galaxy.' We took that cue, and from there on, we thought that everything would emanate from Prince."

The website, still under construction, revealed the recognizable logo of a major big-box retailer with whom Prince is finalizing negotiations to distribute the albums. The three will hit the Web and that retailer, the artist said, "as soon as the holidays are over."

I'd be hearing music from each of them.

"Let's go to my car," Prince said. "We'll listen to the first album there."

Religious perspective

Entering his garage, he ushered me into a low-slung black sports car that he's apparently named after his late friend Miles Davis. I strapped on my seat belt, but we didn't venture outside. Instead, Prince turned serious as he brought up a recent New Yorker article that had spun beyond his famously controlling grip.

"I want to talk about that interview," he said, gazing seriously over the steering wheel before turning on the music. He'd felt the writer had taken certain remarks he'd made -- particularly one about gay marriage that implied he was against it -- out of context. (The New Yorker stands by the story.)

"They try to take my faith. . . ." he said, his voice trailing off. "I'm a Jehovah's Witness. I'm trying to learn the Bible. It's a history book, a science book, a guidebook. It's all the same."

Prince's understanding of religion requires him to avoid political stands, including those that concern morality. "I have friends that are gay, and we study the Bible together," he said. He did not vote for Proposition 8, the referendum to make gay marriage illegal. "I don't vote," he said. "I didn't vote for Barack [Obama], either; I've never voted. Jehovah's Witnesses haven't voted for their whole inception."

Prince, who became a Jehovah's Witness in 2001 under the guidance of veteran bassist and songwriter Larry Graham, views everything through the lens of his religion. No topic -- sexuality, civil rights, his disdain for corporate pop -- comes up in which it doesn't play a role. Recounting a recent meeting with Earth, Wind and Fire singer Philip Bailey, for example, he commented that that group's penchant for Afrocentric garb revealed a lost history similar to the one uncovered in the Jehovah's Witnesses' version of the Bible.

Prince's statements can sound extreme to a secular listener. Some have accused him of trying to conceal his views to avoid alienating nonbelieving (and, particularly, gay) fans. But his desire to be tolerant seems sincere. His favorite television show, for example, is "Real Time With Bill Maher." Asked if the comedian's confrontational atheism bothers him, he harrumphed. "That's cool," said Prince. "He can be what he wants. I like arguments. Somebody saying I'm a terrible guitar player feeds me."

Prince's faith fulfills a yearning that his songs expressed long before he became devout: a need for some kind of ruling theory to explain the sorrow and violence that intertwines with life's joy. Songs as early as 1981's "Controversy" focus on a quest for God, and his catalog overflows with complex number and color systems, prophetic statements and disquiet about the fallen state of humanity. In his religion, he's found a code as inexhaustible as the one he was previously generating himself.

Which leads back to "MPLSound," the album Prince recorded by himself at Paisley Park studios mostly last year. "People ask me, 'Why don't you sound like you used to?' " he said by way of introduction. "But that music doesn't have any wave energy to it. It'll move a party, but that's not what I'm doing here."

These tracks did sound new in some ways: electronica-based, futuristic and subtly mind-altering. They also harked back to early Prince, including touchstones like "When Doves Cry" and "The Black Album." Some, like one about a "funky congregation," could become live show pieces. Others, like the playful "Hey Valentina," inspired by his friend Salma Hayek's baby, and the Space Age ballad "Better With Time" -- dedicated to another actress pal, Kristin Scott Thomas, who costarred in Prince's 1986 film, "Under the Cherry Moon" -- contained sounds that didn't seem possible to replicate anywhere but in Prince's imagination.

The key to this particular aural universe, it turns out, is the ubiquitous computer platform Pro Tools. Prince avoided the system for years. One thing he's truly moralistic about is the use of artificial vocal enhancement by subpar artists, which in his view has reduced mainstream pop to a "weak diet" of sugary junk. Yet he's unlocked new elements within the very control surfaces Pro Tools employs. Using both analog equipment and digital technology, Prince has come closer to the body-altering music he wishes to make.

"I'm interested in the inner workings of music, the effect on the body," he explained. "I'm trying to understand why we respond to beats differently." His former associate, the producer Terry Lewis, helped him realize Pro Tools might help. "Terry talked me into it. He said, 'Don't think of it as a digital machine,' " said Prince. " 'Don't play by its rules.' I just took it and started flipping things."

As the music played, Prince singled out a few lyrics. "The songs we sing lift us up to heaven," he said as a song espousing "old-school ways" played. "This one's about Babylonian tricks." Then the music ended, and we moved on to the next offering -- one that took us into Prince's bedroom.

Celebrating pleasure

Before the New Yorker piece, the biggest question about Prince's spiritual conversion concerned its effect on his own sexual expressiveness. No one in pop has written more powerfully about the transformative power of sex. His sometimes perverse, often humorous fairy tales opened up worlds of pleasure and possibility to listeners. After finding Jehovah, however, fans worried that he would denounce his most fruitful subject matter.

But a really powerful code can unlock anything. "I've studied Solomon and David now," Prince said, referring to two famous Old Testament lovemen. "[In biblical times] sex was always beautiful. You come to understand that, and then you try to find a woman who can experience that with you."

Songs on all three of Prince's new projects celebrate carnal pleasures, but the album he played in his white-carpeted bedroom explores the topic from top to bottom. It's "Elixir," the debut of Bria Valente, Prince's latest protégée. Valente grew up in Minneapolis and attended parties at Paisley Park as a teen, but she registered on Prince's radar in Los Angeles. A tall brunet with a smooth, delicate voice -- "she knows how to use her breath like I do on my falsetto, to make it glide over the track," he said -- she is Prince's collaborator, along with keyboardist Morris Hayes, in reviving the quiet storm sound.

"This might be my favorite," he said, playing a steamy ballad. "Remember those old Barry White records? A whole lot of people are gonna get pregnant off of this! I gotta call her." With that, he left me to contemplate Valente's "chill" songs, the heart-shaped mirror over his round bed and the large Bible on the nightstand.

It never became clear whether Valente is Prince's partner in more than an artistic way. Since meeting him, she has become a Jehovah's Witness. She lives just down the hill from Beverly Park, and later in the evening, she joined us at a nearby nightclub -- she's a friendly young woman who held her own in conversation with the superstar directing her career.

At the club, Prince carefully sat me between himself and Valente, only touching her once, when he gestured for her to accompany him to the front of the club to check out the noisy blues band rocking the crowd. Later, she laughed when he sneaked away to play a quick keyboard solo with the band. "He's like Velcro," she said. "Stuck to the stage."

Beautiful women always have been important in Prince's life, both as musical collaborators and as prominently displayed companions. He has been married twice, separating from his second wife, Manuela Testolini, in 2006. Now he carries himself with the exacting self-sufficiency of a middle-aged bachelor. Often citing famous beauties as close friends, he never mentioned a sexual conquest.

Whether or not he needs a day-to-day companion right now, Prince does seem to require a muse. Valente's project has allowed him to make more openly sensual music than anything else he's re- cently produced. He even took the high-fashion-style photographs that will adorn the CD booklet.

As her album played, he spoke of other female musicians he currently admires. "Have you heard Janelle Monae?" he asked. "She is so smart. How about Sia, do you like her?" The jazz bassist Esperanza Spalding was due to spend a few days with him later in the week. The names of previous collaborators peppered his conversation: the singers Tamar Davis and Shelby J., his old companions Wendy Melvoin and Lisa Coleman.

For now, Valente is the conduit for Prince's female energy. Her music sounds contemporary but also connects to earlier Prince protégés like the Family and Taja Sevelle. Though he was quick to praise her songwriting abilities (and to point out that he helped her cement a good publishing deal), he spoke about her songs as they played, almost as if they were his own.

"The art of making records, I give it so much respect," he said as the album's final track, a New Age-flavored set piece about Valente's baptism, concluded. "But it gets trampled on for the sake of commerciality."

He led me back into the hallway. "Let's get in the limo to listen to the last one," he said.

An album's range

"Lotus Flow3r" will likely be greeted by Prince fans and the general public as the central product of his latest creative spurt. It's a full band album with a sound that ranges from cocktail jazz to heavy rock. The first track included the lyric his Web designer had mentioned about the expanding universe, while subsequent ones referred to traveling to other dimensions and transcending race.

Directing his driver to take us for a spin after leaving to change from black loungewear into a red suit, Prince explained that "Lotus Flow3r" began to emerge during the sessions for his 2006 album, "3121." Prince selected the best of his massive output for this release, delaying its finish until he was sure every element hung together.

"The thing that unites these songs is the guitar," he said. He'd fallen back in love with the instrument after playing in Davis' backup band during a 2006 tour. He singled out a vampy solo in the samba-influenced "Love Like Jazz." "When we do this live, that's going to go on forever," he said with a grin.

Positioning "Lotus Flow3r" as a rock record is a canny marketing move, given urban radio's current focus on hip-hop-defined samples and beats. This music sounds more organic, meant to be played live, and Prince is trying out players for a new band, ones who'll be able to grasp the tricky changes in the new songs. He makes decisions, he said, by "listening to the universe. If a name is mentioned to me three times, I know I need to check it out."

Whatever band he assembles will have to be able to leap from the light-stepping funk of the song simply titled "$," about "the most popular girl in the whole wide world," to the soul jazz of "77 Beverly Place," to the heavy-metal thunder of the album's title track. That song references both Carlos Santana and Jimi Hendrix, but asked about the influence of the latter rock god, Prince demurred. "I try to play guitar like singers I like," he said, later adding, "Don't you think journalists can be lazy, I mean, when they make comparisons?"

He delivered this criticism in a kind tone. Talk turned to the Internet and the need for musicians to claim a niche. "My audience is really big, though," he said. "And they're really easy to reach online. Everything has gone viral."

He continues to be firm on copyright issues -- "I made it," is his simple response to those who call him a hypocrite for restricting his material online even as he uses the Web for his own purposes -- but seems fairly open to trying new ways to promote his avalanche of music. "You can put in that I'd like to play the Troubadour," he said, though he hasn't made any arrangements for local club dates.

As the night wore to an end, the conversation turned free form, touching on topics ranging from Edie Sedgwick (he saw "Factory Girl") to Ani DiFranco (he loves her) to his favorite guitar (the blue and white Stratocaster he played during the Super Bowl, named "Sonny" after an early mentor). And then the limo pulled into the driveway.

He hugged me goodnight, and I got into my mud-stained Mazda Protege. Hugging the road down Mulholland Drive, I asked myself, "Did that really happen?" So many moments would seem fantastic in the retelling.

But then, as Beverly Hills became the Valley, I realized how carefully executed this visit had been. Each listening environment had been ideal: the close confinement of the sports car for the intense "MPLSound," the boudoir for "Elixir" and the classic rock star ride for the far-reaching "Lotus Flow3r." And though Prince had been open about many things, he's also an expert at wielding the phrase "off the record."

What I'd experienced was like a dream -- a dream Prince had designed just for me. Which is what he's been doing for his fans for 30 years.

ann.powers@latimes.com

3121 said:

aaaaargh!!! mp3 sample library!!! wot a waste!

ufoclub said:[quote]

Mindflux said:

the vocal clipping on If I Was Your Girlfriend

mrsquirrel said:

They left that on purpose! If it's intentional (like guitar distortion when it was first used) then it's not really a flaw.

aye true - there is a lot to be said for tape saturation. well, not that much really. it is what it is.

minneapolisFunq said:

squirrelgrease said:

Cool - thanks!

Well, whatever he's got giving "1999" power, he needs to use the same thing on "MPLShit" because it just barely taps. But of course, he had to weaken it hoping today's listeners would like it which is why I won't be buying the next Prince album until I hear it first.

eh, I think MPLSound is a lot like old Prince, sound-wise.

Mind you it's the older/newer...uh, current Prince writing, performing, and arranging this stuff, but the actual sound is the closest he's come to Sign o the Times since...well...Sign o the Times.

3121 had a few moments, but I felt the production was pretty unpleasant at times. I feel like MPLSound has a quieter feel like older 80's production, with none of the painful guitar & synth spikes of 3121.

You can argue about the quality of the songs, or that there are no "mistakes" sound-wise, but as he says in Old School Company, it's the "new Minneapolis sound" meaning it's not exactly the old thing, but it's close.

"The key to this particular aural universe, it turns out, is the ubiquitous computer platform Pro Tools. Prince avoided the system for years. One thing he's truly moralistic about is the use of artificial vocal enhancement by subpar artists, which in his view has reduced mainstream pop to a "weak diet" of sugary junk. Yet he's unlocked new elements within the very control surfaces Pro Tools employs. Using both analog equipment and digital technology, Prince has come closer to the body-altering music he wishes to make.

"I'm interested in the inner workings of music, the effect on the body," he explained. "I'm trying to understand why we respond to beats differently." His former associate, the producer Terry Lewis, helped him realize Pro Tools might help. "Terry talked me into it. He said, 'Don't think of it as a digital machine,' " said Prince. " 'Don't play by its rules.' I just took it and started flipping things."
"

what could he be talking about? Sound like James Cameron type publicity hype to me... dramatic "article speak".