OldFriends4Sale said:

rdhull said:

See what I mean?

You are seriously creating bullshit,

I'm a strong supporter of freedom of speech.

How could we otherwise entertain ourselves, watching people making a fool of themselves, whilst thinking they are intelligent?

Better than a sitcom on tv.

Define "good."

purplethunder3121 said:

Define "good."

Just purchased boyfriend and girlthang.

Waiting for email from 3rd eye girl.

vainandy said:

djThunderfunk said:

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.

I realise you have other reasons for not purchasing the downloads, but for what it's worth, the payment for these tracks happens via the Paypal payment gateway (whether you use Paypal or CC to pay), so the cc details never touch the 3EG server.

You can choose not to sign up for an account, which means you don't have to give any info beyond an email address, and the CC transaction is handled 100% by an external, trusted payment system.

Yes, it does still rely on 3EG to deliver the download and yes, some people have had some issues with that which most have resolved by emailing them, but the point is that the risk doesn't extend beyond the purchase amount, because the CC details are safe with a company that is trusted across the internet at least as much as Amazon, if not more.

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?

I can't work out how to smoothly incorporate material from dJJ's post--I'm trying to go point by point at least initially. Apologies for length, though skipping this entirely is certainly justified. Now to respond:

Yes, both kittens will die--eventually. But since the world we live in has some kittens/artworks that have lived for millenia, whether it's in a dark room or in the light does make a difference. Now, since a "lost work" can be discovered at any point and suddenly be brought to the light (after centuries or millenia) and find its audience, unless the work is destroyed, it's probably not fair to say it's dead. But it's not exactly alive, either.

Certainly private material--literal diaries or, for lack of a better term at hand, "private art" can have value to its creator. That personal value exists whether its ever public at all. But it is so private that you and I or anyone else can't really talk about it, because we don't know it at all.

Art's value as art is created in the public world, however, as the once private work becomes part of the ongoing conversation of artists and audiences and artworks through history. If Anne Frank's diary had died with her, or even if it had stayed in her father's hands and was never read by anyone else, then we wouldn't be discussing it at all. That she didn't intend a bestseller has nothing to do with it. That she produced one doesn't either, honestly. But someone had to become aware of it. That's where its status as art/literature and history began.

An audience of one can be enough for a work art--because then it becomes part of the conversation, even if that portion of the conversation is only heard by that one person. The creator can't serve as that audience, however. I'm not interested in the size of the audience, just that there is one. Popularity isn't the issue. But the potential for influence is. Can this work in any way affect how art is made or thought about?--and even what might be considered mediocre or poor work might do that. And an audience of one can, through conversation or new work, lead to a work's influence contributing to the conversation.

A piece that has impact in the future is different than a piece that hasn't--that impact becomes part of what there is to talk about and what there is to create from. The impact includes how it affects the audiencel, not just what obvious influence the piece may have had on the work of subsequent artists. But more important to what I'm thinking about is that a piece that is truly private (and remains so) cannot have any direct effect except on the creator. If that creator has other work that is public, then that private work might serve as a way of working out ideas or techniques that go into the public work. Thus, it might be valuable to the creator as a creator, and, if it became available publicly might have an impact as art on art (or on art's appreciation, which is part of the process of creating more art).

But if work really remains private (which only definitely happens if the work and all evidence of it are destroyed)--no matter how talented, dedicated, skilled, and creative the creator is--that work itself can't be interacted with by an audience, it can't interact with the world of art. It's kind of like a fetus that dies before birth--maybe everything was there for a person and a glorious life. But it didn't happen. Art is born when it leaves the artist. Some people create for the effect it has on them, how it helps them work through their own life and have no intention for their creations to go public. As long as these creations remain private, we can't talk about them at all, really, and artists can't react to them, and, for me, that removes them from discussion about art. Their intended function, and their actual function, is more a type of therapy or maybe a game or relaxation technique for their creator. Maybe extremely valuable for their creator, and maybe extremely valuable indirectly for the world because of their effect on their creator (whoever he or she might be), but not valuable as "art." If the work does become public--even if not intended to do so by the creator or even if the creator wasn't intending it to be thought of as "art," really--it might suddenly become part of the art discussion.

This is not a matter of value judgment--something is not good or bad because it's art. It's just part of the body of other stuff that is art and can affect the way other creators approach their work and the way audiences approach art in general. And thus, it can "mean" in a different way than something that's not art. It has a different place in the world and in our understanding of human activity.

The vault material that's gotten out--it's art. It has had an audience, and so has affected the way people think about music and how musicians make it. The nature of those effects is a different issue. But it has become part of the conversation of art.

The stuff that hasn't gotten out (and by hasn't gotten out I mean no one has heard it except those actually involved in its creation)--interesting question. The idea that Prince is sitting on a bunch of surplus masterpieces certainly affects the way he is talked about as an artist and the way his released material is discussed. But that idea itself is what has the impact, not the actual recordings, which upon becoming public are subject to the same evaluation as anything he's released (except that they either strengthen or weaken people views of the vault). The idea of "The Vault" is something Prince has worked at creating in interviews and other public statements (with help from associates and fans), and might be considered a work of art in itself, just as many artists (Prince included) create public personas as part of their art. But when we talk about "The Vault," we're really mostly talking about what we imagine might be there and what we hope or fear he produced. Now, there might be cases when something truly "in the vault" has had a publicly unknown influence on the art of one of Prince's associates--someone might have been affected by a lyric or musical phrase--that would be the sort of "audience of one" or extremely limited audience thing I talked about earlier. Unlike a poet or painter, little of Prince's work is truly private, since there's nearly always at least an engineer around when he's recording, and others often hear it as well--besides the fact that much of it's collaborative.

Okay, I'm shutting up now. I hope that made some sense. I no longer remember what any of this had to do with the new tracks. Thanks for making me think more. It's fun.

dJJ said:

EddieC said:

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:

jeffreymiller said:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I really enjoy reading your post and agree with you.

And I love the idea that the concept of Prince's Vault is an artform itself.

I don't think there's a reasoning method valid enough to be decisive on this subject.

Therefore a discussion about this subject would continue to challenge and feed our artistic views.

Allthough I agree with every word you wrote.

I still think that without an audiance a piece can be art. Because if the creator witnessed it, he/she already is an audiance of 1. And when the creator decides the piece is ready, it has changed something for it's creator. Thereby have an impact on at least 1 person.

Hence, I'm still attached to the idea that the value of a piece is in it's creation, not it's validation of people witnessing it.

EddieC said:

I can't work out how to smoothly incorporate material from dJJ's post--I'm trying to go point by point at least initially. Apologies for length, though skipping this entirely is certainly justified. Now to respond:

Yes, both kittens will die--eventually. But since the world we live in has some kittens/artworks that have lived for millenia, whether it's in a dark room or in the light does make a difference. Now, since a "lost work" can be discovered at any point and suddenly be brought to the light (after centuries or millenia) and find its audience, unless the work is destroyed, it's probably not fair to say it's dead. But it's not exactly alive, either.

Certainly private material--literal diaries or, for lack of a better term at hand, "private art" can have value to its creator. That personal value exists whether its ever public at all. But it is so private that you and I or anyone else can't really talk about it, because we don't know it at all.

Art's value as art is created in the public world, however, as the once private work becomes part of the ongoing conversation of artists and audiences and artworks through history. If Anne Frank's diary had died with her, or even if it had stayed in her father's hands and was never read by anyone else, then we wouldn't be discussing it at all. That she didn't intend a bestseller has nothing to do with it. That she produced one doesn't either, honestly. But someone had to become aware of it. That's where its status as art/literature and history began.

An audience of one can be enough for a work art--because then it becomes part of the conversation, even if that portion of the conversation is only heard by that one person. The creator can't serve as that audience, however. I'm not interested in the size of the audience, just that there is one. Popularity isn't the issue. But the potential for influence is. Can this work in any way affect how art is made or thought about?--and even what might be considered mediocre or poor work might do that. And an audience of one can, through conversation or new work, lead to a work's influence contributing to the conversation.

A piece that has impact in the future is different than a piece that hasn't--that impact becomes part of what there is to talk about and what there is to create from. The impact includes how it affects the audiencel, not just what obvious influence the piece may have had on the work of subsequent artists. But more important to what I'm thinking about is that a piece that is truly private (and remains so) cannot have any direct effect except on the creator. If that creator has other work that is public, then that private work might serve as a way of working out ideas or techniques that go into the public work. Thus, it might be valuable to the creator as a creator, and, if it became available publicly might have an impact as art on art (or on art's appreciation, which is part of the process of creating more art).

But if work really remains private (which only definitely happens if the work and all evidence of it are destroyed)--no matter how talented, dedicated, skilled, and creative the creator is--that work itself can't be interacted with by an audience, it can't interact with the world of art. It's kind of like a fetus that dies before birth--maybe everything was there for a person and a glorious life. But it didn't happen. Art is born when it leaves the artist. Some people create for the effect it has on them, how it helps them work through their own life and have no intention for their creations to go public. As long as these creations remain private, we can't talk about them at all, really, and artists can't react to them, and, for me, that removes them from discussion about art. Their intended function, and their actual function, is more a type of therapy or maybe a game or relaxation technique for their creator. Maybe extremely valuable for their creator, and maybe extremely valuable indirectly for the world because of their effect on their creator (whoever he or she might be), but not valuable as "art." If the work does become public--even if not intended to do so by the creator or even if the creator wasn't intending it to be thought of as "art," really--it might suddenly become part of the art discussion.

This is not a matter of value judgment--something is not good or bad because it's art. It's just part of the body of other stuff that is art and can affect the way other creators approach their work and the way audiences approach art in general. And thus, it can "mean" in a different way than something that's not art. It has a different place in the world and in our understanding of human activity.

The vault material that's gotten out--it's art. It has had an audience, and so has affected the way people think about music and how musicians make it. The nature of those effects is a different issue. But it has become part of the conversation of art.

The stuff that hasn't gotten out (and by hasn't gotten out I mean no one has heard it except those actually involved in its creation)--interesting question. The idea that Prince is sitting on a bunch of surplus masterpieces certainly affects the way he is talked about as an artist and the way his released material is discussed. But that idea itself is what has the impact, not the actual recordings, which upon becoming public are subject to the same evaluation as anything he's released (except that they either strengthen or weaken people views of the vault). The idea of "The Vault" is something Prince has worked at creating in interviews and other public statements (with help from associates and fans), and might be considered a work of art in itself, just as many artists (Prince included) create public personas as part of their art. But when we talk about "The Vault," we're really mostly talking about what we imagine might be there and what we hope or fear he produced. Now, there might be cases when something truly "in the vault" has had a publicly unknown influence on the art of one of Prince's associates--someone might have been affected by a lyric or musical phrase--that would be the sort of "audience of one" or extremely limited audience thing I talked about earlier. Unlike a poet or painter, little of Prince's work is truly private, since there's nearly always at least an engineer around when he's recording, and others often hear it as well--besides the fact that much of it's collaborative.

Okay, I'm shutting up now. I hope that made some sense. I no longer remember what any of this had to do with the new tracks. Thanks for making me think more. It's fun.

dJJ said:

dJJ said:

I still think that without an audiance a piece can be art. Because if the creator witnessed it, he/she already is an audiance of 1. And when the creator decides the piece is ready, it has changed something for it's creator. Thereby have an impact on at least 1 person.

Hence, I'm still attached to the idea that the value of a piece is in it's creation, not it's validation of people witnessing it.

Cool. I'm kind of stuck with thinking that something major happens in the moment that the piece becomes public. The type of value that it can have changes, and I'm using the term "art" to define that change.

Anyway--back to the new tracks. As far as Live Out Loud, I downloaded the .wav and the 3rdeyegirl YouTube .mp4--I'll buy it if they get around to selling it.

[Edited 2/22/13 7:30am]

bought 'em. threw away my receipts though.

jeffreymiller said:

rdhull said:

Do yall want a cookie?

OK, just went and got all the songs. I'm officially a true fan now. So where's my cookie?

orgnote me your nfo and il buy your next few dl's

EddieC said:

dJJ said:

I still think that without an audiance a piece can be art. Because if the creator witnessed it, he/she already is an audiance of 1. And when the creator decides the piece is ready, it has changed something for it's creator. Thereby have an impact on at least 1 person.

Hence, I'm still attached to the idea that the value of a piece is in it's creation, not it's validation of people witnessing it.

Cool. I'm kind of stuck with thinking that something major happens in the moment that the piece becomes public. The type of value that it can have changes, and I'm using the term "art" to define that change.

Anyway--back to the new tracks. As far as Live Out Loud, I downloaded the .wav and the 3rdeyegirl YouTube .mp4--I'll buy it if they get around to selling it.

[Edited 2/22/13 7:30am]

Seems we'r on the same page.

If only the writer gets to read that one page, to me it has value.

When more people read the page, it can lead up to change. For you that's art.

I like Live Out Loud.

And am waiting for 3rd Eye Girl e-mail. Seems they didn't get my payment in.

EddieC said:

dJJ said:

I still think that without an audiance a piece can be art. Because if the creator witnessed it, he/she already is an audiance of 1. And when the creator decides the piece is ready, it has changed something for it's creator. Thereby have an impact on at least 1 person.

Hence, I'm still attached to the idea that the value of a piece is in it's creation, not it's validation of people witnessing it.

Cool. I'm kind of stuck with thinking that something major happens in the moment that the piece becomes public. The type of value that it can have changes, and I'm using the term "art" to define that change.

Anyway--back to the new tracks. As far as Live Out Loud, I downloaded the .wav and the 3rdeyegirl YouTube .mp4--I'll buy it if they get around to selling it.

[Edited 2/22/13 7:30am]

I missed something... Where is there a WAV file of Live Out Loud?

EDIT: Never mind, found the sticky...

[Edited 2/22/13 9:21am]

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.

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.

I was talking about digital audio with a friend and he adviced me to save up some money and buy a cd-player where you can attach a usb-stick to. So, you can easily transfer and listen to the files.

Just a tip:

SKYTEC STX90 - SINGLE TOP CD-/USB-/MP3-player

dJJ 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.

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.

I was talking about digital audio with a friend and he adviced me to save up some money and buy a cd-player where you can attach a usb-stick to. So, you can easily transfer and listen to the files.

Just a tip:

SKYTEC STX90 - SINGLE TOP CD-/USB-/MP3-player

And just found this one.

h

[Edited 2/22/13 9:51am]

Not that I can afford it now, but it's high up on my wish list.

kiasheri said:

i'm waitin' till they get the sight together

Same here.

here is a link to the new song Live Out Loud, free download:

[Edited 2/27/13 4:32am]

XxAxX said:

here is a link to the new song Live Out Loud, free download:

http://tilthedawn.org/for...msearch__1

Thank you.

Are there a orgers on the tilthedawn?

dJJ said:

XxAxX said:

here is a link to the new song Live Out Loud, free download:

http://tilthedawn.org/for...msearch__1

Thank you.

Are there a orgers on the tilthedawn?

Yes. There are!

Also, Live Out Loud is now available to BUY at 3rdeyegirl.com for $0.88. Guess the free links will have to stop?

djThunderfunk said:

dJJ said:

Thank you.

Are there a orgers on the tilthedawn?

Yes. There are!

Also, Live Out Loud is now available to BUY at 3rdeyegirl.com for $0.88. Guess the free links will have to stop?

Somehow I can't sign up for the site.

Doesn't respond when I send the mail for validating my subscription.

dJJ said:

djThunderfunk said:

Yes. There are!

Also, Live Out Loud is now available to BUY at 3rdeyegirl.com for $0.88. Guess the free links will have to stop?

Somehow I can't sign up for the site.

Doesn't respond when I send the mail for validating my subscription.

orgnote Chiquetet, she'll help.

http://prince.org/profile/Chiquetet

Well won't be buying the newest track (Live Out Loud). And no, not because I have downloaded it already, but because it........sucks. I respect that people like it (I don't know how because it sounds like Kelly Clarkson material) but IMHO it's absolute garbage. I hope Prince ditches the girls. And sure, his new releases have been great but its not because of third eye blind I mean girl b/c as far as i can hear/tell they have only been part of 1 song=Screwdriver. all the other songs are Prince by himself (from what I can hear/tell). And frankly Same page diff book, Breakfast can wait, Boyfriend, RNR remix and original>>>>>>>>>>>Screwdriver and LOL. Screwdriver is only better than "That Girl thang" but That Girl Thang is waaay better than LOL. If you're going to listen to LOL Why not just purchase an album full of those songs. It's called "Stronger" and it came out in 2011.

[Edited 2/22/13 11:51am]

[Edited 2/22/13 14:46pm]

djThunderfunk said:

dJJ said:

Somehow I can't sign up for the site.

Doesn't respond when I send the mail for validating my subscription.

orgnote Chiquetet, she'll help.

http://prince.org/profile/Chiquetet

Got it.

dJJ 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.

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.

I was talking about digital audio with a friend and he adviced me to save up some money and buy a cd-player where you can attach a usb-stick to. So, you can easily transfer and listen to the files.

Just a tip:

SKYTEC STX90 - SINGLE TOP CD-/USB-/MP3-player

I don't need it. I've got my computer plugged into my stereo so I can shake the walls with the songs I have in it. I'm still not buying no download though. I'll take a free download, but I'm not buying one because it's not a physical product. Sure, if it were a physical product, I'd just rip it in my computer and put the CD in the closet with the rest of them but at least I'd have a physical product in the closet. Plus, I find it pointless to pay for anything that ends up on a homemade CD because if you want to make a homemade CD, you can sure find the songs for free eventually. A physical CD from a label, manufacturer, or whatever is never for free unless somebody just gives it to you.

MoBetterBliss said:

mzspongebob said:

i was two seconds away from buying boyfriend..got to the paypal page and then saw the songs were uploaded some where and i clicked cancel

[Edited 2/19/13 22:49pm]

about as far away from being a true fan as is humanly possible

and?

[Edited 2/22/13 15:23pm]

Are you being serious?????!! Get out your flea-bitten wallets and show your support for this venture!!

I've come across some tight povvo skanks in my time but I don't know anyone stupid enough not to stick up a few pence/cents to get some diamonds in return.

It's simple.. Show the Love! Show the Artist that you love & value his work!