BobGeorge909 said:

Spinlight said:

Maybe not. I guess if you told some old school funk heads that Prince was the next big funk thing back in 1979, they woulda looked at you weird, too.

Whatever argument y'all got goin' on...I don't know....why I DO know, is that video is intolerably HOT...my friggin HTC EVO is NOT doing it justice. I'm bookmarking this thread.... The song, no matter who's singing it, is not some piece of artful masterpiece. Either way, its fun and shakable. I've played it in my household and have seen some nice girls(IRL), and titties(again...URL, not refrencing video) bouncing to it(other than my own man boobs). Some songs aren't there to redefine the music world....some are there just to get you to shake ya ass. This works....in all three versions I've heard, the original, the new, and this "cover". The lyrics r funny and toung.in cheek(even tounge in cheek sounds tongue in cheek here, lol) the groove is swift, and filled with flowing fills...fun stuff.

copy, print, and save

rdhull said:

The guy is kinda dorky but the spirit and energy of the song is spot on.

!!!

BobGeorge909 said:

rdhull said:

copy, print, and save

Is this a.good or.bad thing?

Its my trademark saying for something thats good that I want saved in a file for posterity..because I really really liked it

V10LETBLUES said:

rdhull said:

V10LETBLUES said:

The guy is kinda dorky but the spirit and energy of the song is spot on.

!!!

hahahahahaaahahaahahahahaahahah...but they are working it...sad thang is that the audience probably aint know what the fuck this song is save for them announcing its a prince cover

I maybe one of the few people who hates cover bands. It makes my ears bleed to the point that I have to plug in the real Prince to get the noise out of my hed.

V10LETBLUES said:

The guy is kinda dorky but the spirit and energy of the song is spot on.

!!!

nice!

This video makes them look a little more amateurish than they really are. Looks like they are in a really small place.

But the band sounds tight.

NDRU said:

V10LETBLUES said:

The guy is kinda dorky but the spirit and energy of the song is spot on.

!!!

nice!

This video makes them look a little more amateurish than they really are. Looks like they are in a really small place.

But the band sounds tight.

I go back to the youth factor, maybe Prince couldn't perform songs like extraloveable with that kind of energy anymore. He is 53 after all. As good as he is live now, he is a great musician no doubt, but he doesn't go all out anymore with the energy and passion like he used to. It's more about looking pretty while he plays now.

His new version sounds like it would be cool between breaks of playing shuffleboard with grandmama. But not too loud.

[Edited 4/2/12 21:56pm]

1725topp said:

fantasticjoy said:

1725topp said:

Maybe it's all the years of listening to music on 10, but I can't hear anything new, different, or better that this Yes! Yes! cover adds to "Extraloveable." It is essentially the same Prince song, which, then, puzzles me that so many people think it's somehow better than Prince's new version. Of course, it seems that to say that the Yes! Yes! version is better than Prince's newer version is really just fuel for the fire for people who are looking to use anything to say that Prince has lost it or his new music is crap. I don't know this Yes! Yes! band, but their version is more of a snore fest to me simply because it is basically the same as the Prince original. While on the other hand, Prince's newer version provides some funk flavor to a punk-rock classic, which gives me two songs to which to groove. Thus, I like all three Prince versions because Yes! Yes!’s version is nothing more than an uncreative clone of the original version.

I'm one who truly don't think Prince has lost it and I still think he's the best out there, but I too feel Yes, Yes version is better than his remake. It just has the same energy as the original. Prince's remake on the other hand just sound to calm to me. Kind of like turning a upbeat disco song into a slow ballad.

fantasticjoy said:

I'm one who truly don't think Prince has lost it and I still think he's the best out there, but I too feel Yes, Yes version is better than his remake. It just has the same energy as the original. Prince's remake on the other hand just sound to calm to me. Kind of like turning a upbeat disco song into a slow ballad.

I get you on the Yes! Yes! version having the same energy, but to my ears it's because it's a clone of the original with nothing new added. It's like stealing the Pepsi formula, putting another name on it, and calling it great. When I drink it, all I can think is, “Yes, and it was great when it was Pepsi.” Also, I don't see anything inherently wrong with slowing a tempo or increasing a tempo. There are several covers that decrease or increase the tempo that I love. For instance I like the Beatles' "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," but I also like Lakeside's cover of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand." I know that may be blasphemous, but I can appreciate the difference in genres, not saying that you cannot, and that is what I want from a cover. I like covers--if we just must have them (I don't even like when Prince covers other people)--that give me a different way of hearing or understanding the song, making me see lyrical or musical possibilities that I was not able to see. Yes! Yes!'s version is just someone mimicking a song whereas Prince's new version deconstructs it to its essence, putting its index finger on a spot and says, "here's where the song is funky," something one may not have heard in the original like when Ray Charles covered country classics to show, "here is where the blues runs through country music,” allowing a new fan base to hear something in country that they may not have heard previously, which, again, is what Prince’s new version does for me.

1725topp said:

fantasticjoy said:

I'm one who truly don't think Prince has lost it and I still think he's the best out there, but I too feel Yes, Yes version is better than his remake. It just has the same energy as the original. Prince's remake on the other hand just sound to calm to me. Kind of like turning a upbeat disco song into a slow ballad.

I get you on the Yes! Yes! version having the same energy, but to my ears it's because it's a clone of the original with nothing new added. It's like stealing the Pepsi formula, putting another name on it, and calling it great. When I drink it, all I can think is, “Yes, and it was great when it was Pepsi.” Also, I don't see anything inherently wrong with slowing a tempo or increasing a tempo. There are several covers that decrease or increase the tempo that I love. For instance I like the Beatles' "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," but I also like Lakeside's cover of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand." I know that may be blasphemous, but I can appreciate the difference in genres, not saying that you cannot, and that is what I want from a cover. I like covers--if we just must have them (I don't even like when Prince covers other people)--that give me a different way of hearing or understanding the song, making me see lyrical or musical possibilities that I was not able to see. Yes! Yes!'s version is just someone mimicking a song whereas Prince's new version deconstructs it to its essence, putting its index finger on a spot and says, "here's where the song is funky," something one may not have heard in the original like when Ray Charles covered country classics to show, "here is where the blues runs through country music,” allowing a new fan base to hear something in country that they may not have heard previously, which, again, is what Prince’s new version does for me.

Like Neil Sedaka's Breaking Up Is Hard To Do?

These guys don't get talked about nearly enough here.

The singer is not great, exactly, but the music is great and the singer has a great attitude.

I couldn't even make it through the Yes! Yes! version on the first try (I forced myself the second. Nothing much different or interpretively interesting to me; same for the Chk, Chk version (too much out of tune singing and guitars, and no, I couldn't stomach a second try of that. Maybe their studio version sounds better).

And I thought Prince's cover of his own song was hot! Very.

Very cool to give us a different, funkier take on the song. And it works very well to me. The cungas are what help make it hot and different to me.

One thing that sticks with me is that it does remind of me of New Edition's Candy Girl a lil. Anyway,

Cool to see folks doing covers of his stuff, especially lesser known stuff like this. But Yes! Yes! version lost energy with that video game keyboard sound. Too cheesy for me.

And, yeah, that video is def. soft porn. The lady is naked from waist up and she ain't just doing dishes or tanning on the beach er something. lol Chick is literally touching herself and gyrating sexually, etc. Ain't that the definitiion of porn, soft-core at least, in any country? lol

All love

[Edited 4/2/12 17:25pm]

NeonCraxx said:

I love when people try to explain and assume why he covered the song yet they know NOTHING!

Kind of the point of a fan forum, don't you think?

These guys totally nailed it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5LnM2Pj5Wk

2funkE said:

These guys totally nailed it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5LnM2Pj5Wk

I agree.

If anything would, this would excite me enough to make me consider going back into the studio and having some more fun with this song. Nice beat, hot guitar playing, good vocals.

Is that a recorded version playing except for the guitar, or is that all played live?

Thanks for posting.

All love

V10LETBLUES said:

The guy is kinda dorky but the spirit and energy of the song is spot on.

!!!

yall call this spot on?!?!? damnnn. as prince fams yall should know funk is about timing, this sucks.

just listen to the guitar, thats not spot on. first it sounds out of tune and second its not in time.

the Dominik version is allright though.

[Edited 4/2/12 23:06pm]

rdhull said:

1725topp said:

I get you on the Yes! Yes! version having the same energy, but to my ears it's because it's a clone of the original with nothing new added. It's like stealing the Pepsi formula, putting another name on it, and calling it great. When I drink it, all I can think is, “Yes, and it was great when it was Pepsi.” Also, I don't see anything inherently wrong with slowing a tempo or increasing a tempo. There are several covers that decrease or increase the tempo that I love. For instance I like the Beatles' "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," but I also like Lakeside's cover of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand." I know that may be blasphemous, but I can appreciate the difference in genres, not saying that you cannot, and that is what I want from a cover. I like covers--if we just must have them (I don't even like when Prince covers other people)--that give me a different way of hearing or understanding the song, making me see lyrical or musical possibilities that I was not able to see. Yes! Yes!'s version is just someone mimicking a song whereas Prince's new version deconstructs it to its essence, putting its index finger on a spot and says, "here's where the song is funky," something one may not have heard in the original like when Ray Charles covered country classics to show, "here is where the blues runs through country music,” allowing a new fan base to hear something in country that they may not have heard previously, which, again, is what Prince’s new version does for me.

Like Neil Sedaka's Breaking Up Is Hard To Do?

Exactly! Of course I need to add that there are some Gawd awful covers of this song by almost everybody. I think even my mama has a cover version of this song floating around the internet that joins the legions of terrible covers of "Breaking Up Is Hard to Do." However, yes, Sedaka's slower version remake of his original up-tempo version reveals a lyrical and musical depth that many seemed to miss with the original version, which is why, as you know, his remake was also a top ten hit. I'm not saying that Prince's new version of "Extralovable" is a top ten hit, especially in this age, but I do like it a great deal for what it contrasts about the original. In fact it's just funky enough that Andy's rap doesn't bother me nearly as much as it should.

"Extra Lovable" was inspired by Andy

[Edited 4/5/12 6:55am]

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Prince choose "Extra Lovable" because Andy inspired him 2 do it......

No he did not. He did it because the cover version was getting attention and praise (not that there's anything wrong with that). Siddown and be quiet.

.

[Edited 4/4/12 13:58pm]

WAITASEC!!!

Does it mean that if u want Prince to release or rerecord an unreleased song u have to cover it and post it on YT???

That's fucking cool! Musicians on this forum please cover all the outtakes!!!

databank said:

WAITASEC!!!

Does it mean that if u want Prince to release or rerecord an unreleased song u have to cover it and post it on YT???

That's fucking cool! Musicians on this forum please cover all the outtakes!!!

I'm sayin

Time to rock "Wonderful Ass" lol

Militant said:

databank said:

WAITASEC!!!

Does it mean that if u want Prince to release or rerecord an unreleased song u have to cover it and post it on YT???

That's fucking cool! Musicians on this forum please cover all the outtakes!!!

I'm sayin

Time to rock "Wonderful Ass" lol

That is my JAM!!!!

databank said:

I've just noticed that the band !!! regularly covered Extraloveable on stage last year (check Youtube for various live renditions). Strangely enough, Prince released his own cut a few months later, as if to claim the song.

Coincidence?

I think his 'Love' or deep infacuation with Andy Allo is what 'inspired' him to re-record this song ...

PurpleLove7 said:

databank said:

I've just noticed that the band !!! regularly covered Extraloveable on stage last year (check Youtube for various live renditions). Strangely enough, Prince released his own cut a few months later, as if to claim the song.

Coincidence?

I think his 'Love' or deep infacuation with Andy Allo is what 'inspired' him to re-record this song ...