Pentacle said:

Noodled24 said:

Although you have just illustrated you're complaining about something that you're not even paying for, and, which you led me to believe you were paying for. Which is kindof trollolol.

I am curious though. What's your cut-off point? You keep hoping he's going to do something... we're now 20 years on... he hasn't...

I'm waiting for the vault to open, which seemed to be finally happening with PR deluxe and now Tidal.
(Although I'd like to actually own the tracks, not just 'have' them on the internet.)

That's never really been on the cards. Not to any meaningful degree. The PR Remaster seemed like a possibility because a WB exec mentioned it. Prince never seemed keen. At all.

I wonder, if a company advertises in the newspaper: 'buy 1, get 1 free' and I show up in the shop only to find out that 'get 1 free' has been dropped... Could I sue them.

What you appear to have done here, is fabricated a completely unreleated situation in order to extract a certain response from me. Which I won't.

Maybe not in my own country of Holland, but in the US you can sue everyone for everything, right.

If I had money, I might actually consider hiring a US lawyer.
I'm still hoping that WB will do that for us/for me, with regards to PR. But maybe they had some intern check the wording/grammar of the contract...

I think you'd struggle to sue someone you've ripped off for the past 20 years. But by all means give it a shot.

[Edited 10/13/15 14:32pm]

Noodled24 said:

TheEnglishGent said:

Atually, I omitted and more from the vault, which it clearly isn't.

You seem very keen to defend the purple picks. Are you Prince or Josh?

I can confirm, neither Hannah Welton nor Lianne La Havas (speculation) have touched my penis.

Josh then.

TheEnglishGent said:

I didn't believe the pick would be a new song every week because I remember an older website doing the whole "Pick of the week" thing and one pick was Part 2 and 3 of "I wish u heaven". Not even the whole remix! It's ok since I've had the remix in full since it came out in 1988. I got out of TIDAL right after my free trial. "Free urself" was a nice surprise. I have heard it and own it even though I am no longer on TIDAL.

Noodled24 said:

Pentacle said:

What you appear to have done here, is fabricated a completely unreleated situation in order to extract a certain response from me. Which I won't.

I think you'd struggle to sue someone you've ripped off for the past 20 years. But by all means give it a shot.

[Edited 10/13/15 14:32pm]

The situation is pretty much similar for those people who saw the blurb, signed up with Tidal, only to see the blurb change.

--

Except that they could never prove I ripped Prince off.


Anyway, who cares, this is all just as hypothetical as discussions about 'if Prince played in my backyard, what would the setlist be...'
Nothing will change, unless he's burnt too many bridges. So yes, let's see what happens with Tidal.

TheEnglishGent said:

Noodled24 said:

I can confirm, neither Hannah Welton nor Lianne La Havas (speculation) have touched my penis.

Josh then.

Touché Sir.

Pentacle said:

Noodled24 said:

The situation is pretty much similar for those people who saw the blurb, signed up with Tidal, only to see the blurb change.

I don't think it has changed... not on tidal. Just Rolling Stone decided to throw in a lot of hyperbole.

OKPlayer were more accurate in their report.

--

Except that they could never prove I ripped Prince off.

I'm not sure that's the moral high ground you're searching for.

Noodled24 said:

I don't think it has changed... not on tidal. Just Rolling Stone decided to throw in a lot of hyperbole.

OKPlayer were more accurate in their report.

Tidal originally had the whole blurb which said and more from the vault.

TheEnglishGent said:

Noodled24 said:

I don't think it has changed... not on tidal. Just Rolling Stone decided to throw in a lot of hyperbole.

OKPlayer were more accurate in their report.

Tidal originally had the whole blurb which said and more from the vault.

Exactly. It has nothing to do with 2nd hand reporting and rumour mongering. It came directly from the source.

Noodled24 said:

Pentacle said:

I'm not sure that's the moral high ground you're searching for.

Actually, if a company advertises something at X amount and you see it actually priced at Y amount, you have every right to demand that you only pay X amount. There are advertising standards (which is why adverts now carry so much small print and caveats to cover their asses). Same thing if you purchase a concert ticket to see Rebeljuice and then when you arrive at the gig you see that Rebeljuice isnt playing and Noodled24 is playing instead, you have every right to ask for your money back. And your right for the money back is a legal right. So if someone signed up for Tidal on the back of their statement saying Prince will pick an exclusive or rare track from the vault, they have every right to feel entitled to that. When Tidal changed the blurb to what it says now, technically anyone who signed up prior to that change is entitled to get their money back. Its false advertising. Simple. It just isnt legal to entice someone to give you money with something only to change the promise after you have received the cash.

TheEnglishGent said:

Noodled24 said:

I don't think it has changed... not on tidal. Just Rolling Stone decided to throw in a lot of hyperbole.

OKPlayer were more accurate in their report.

Tidal originally had the whole blurb which said and more from the vault.

Then how come OKPlayer reported in the way they did?

It's always been clear these were going to be songs picked by Prince. THAT was the point. It's always been clear.

Yes, it's possible to read the blurb and think "Wow! every week a new old rare exclusive song from the vaults" - but not by anyone with even a modicum of common sense.

Rebeljuice said:

Noodled24 said:

I'm not sure that's the moral high ground you're searching for.

Actually, if a company advertises something at X amount and you see it actually priced at Y amount, you have every right to demand that you only pay X amount.

So you signed up to Tidal, then Tidal upped the price on you...? (rhetorical. They didn't)

There are advertising standards (which is why adverts now carry so much small print and caveats to cover their asses). Same thing if you purchase a concert ticket to see Rebeljuice and then when you arrive at the gig you see that Rebeljuice isnt playing and Noodled24 is playing instead, you have every right to ask for your money back. And your right for the money back is a legal right.

This is another situation where a customer has basis for complaint... Both however bear no relation to the TPPOTW.

So if someone signed up for Tidal on the back of their statement saying Prince will pick an exclusive or rare track from the vault, they have every right to feel entitled to that.

No they don't. The Purple Pick of the Week is a promotional tool. It's offered as a bonus. It's not related to the core service Tidal provides. The T&C's you clicked "I AGREE" to when you signed up for Tidal don't mention the PPOTW.

When Tidal changed the blurb to what it says now, technically anyone who signed up prior to that change is entitled to get their money back. Its false advertising. Simple. It just isnt legal to entice someone to give you money with something only to change the promise after you have received the cash.

Technically, anyone who signed up to Tidal for the PPOTW did so at their own risk. It's added value content provided at the discretion of Tidal. It's not a service unto itself.

For the record. I was never under the impression this was anything other than "Tracks curated by Prince".

Noodled24 said:

No they don't. The Purple Pick of the Week is a promotional tool. It's offered as a bonus. It's not related to the core service Tidal provides. The T&C's you clicked "I AGREE" to when you signed up for Tidal don't mention the PPOTW.

Rebeljuice said:

When Tidal changed the blurb to what it says now, technically anyone who signed up prior to that change is entitled to get their money back. Its false advertising. Simple. It just isnt legal to entice someone to give you money with something only to change the promise after you have received the cash.

Technically, anyone who signed up to Tidal for the PPOTW did so at their own risk. It's added value content provided at the discretion of Tidal. It's not a service unto itself.

For the record. I was never under the impression this was anything other than "Tracks curated by Prince".

No, you are wrong. It doesnt matter if it is added value. It doesnt matter if your impression was different to anyone elses. Everything you have said doesnt matter. There are facts here that make your impression irrelevant.

Imagine this: The org has a subscription fee of $10 per month. For that you get to read and post in the forums and have access to the entire site. That is what you are paying for. But, as added value, on the home page the site says that signed up members get 30% discount on Prince tickets to his live shows. Now, lets say the org gains an extra 200 signed up members based on the ticket offer. They pay their initial $10 and everything is wonderful. Then the org changes the offer on the home page stating that signed up members get a Tshirt. Do you think those 200 people who signed up based on the original value added offer have a right to their money back? Do they have a right to feel ripped off? Is it fair to say they were enticed to sign up on a false pretense?

Its the same with Tidal. Fans may well have signed up based on the statement that Prince would release rare gems from the vault every week. What fan WOULDNT be enticed by that? Sure, we know Prince well enough not believe in these kinds of statements. But does every fan out there know this? The way the original statement was worded made it seem that Prince was indeed going to release unreleased and rare gems from the vault. Very different wording from what it is now. And I have little doubt that some fans, somewhere, got excited by that statement and signed up.

Tell me, do you think all those fans that bought tickets to the Tidal concert because Prince's name was on the bill do not deserve to get their money back now that he is off the bill? Was Prince's name on the bill just added value and the ticket is for the whole concert, irrelevant of who is playing? If you think that they deserve their money back, then you have to think that those who signed up to Tidal on the basis of weekly vault tracks also deserve their money back. If you dont think they deserve their money back, then you actually have no grasp of the situation and I am wasting my time here.

It's an interesting discussion, and I don't want to piss on anyones chips, but the so-called 'Vault' surely covers everything that has been released as well as the stuff that hasn't.

TheSkinMechanic said:

It's an interesting discussion, and I don't want to piss on anyones chips, but the so-called 'Vault' surely covers everything that has been released as well as the stuff that hasn't.

The term has certainly never been used in that sense.

Pentacle said:

Pentacle said:

TheSkinMechanic said:

It's an interesting discussion, and I don't want to piss on anyones chips, but the so-called 'Vault' surely covers everything that has been released as well as the stuff that hasn't.

The term has certainly never been used in that sense.

The definition of 'Vault' in all kinds of dictionaries is "A room for the safekeeping of valuables" and that is how I define the word 'Vault'.

If this 'Vault' actually exists, and is a temperature controlled room for the storage of music media, I can't imagine that the masters or the original recordings for his released albums are kept anywhere other than in the same room as the out-takes that didn't make the grade.

A room in Paisley Park that exclusively homes unreleased Prince songs is, in my view, a fan fantasy that has been repeated so many times it has become a fact for some.

Unless there is real proof that either Prince discards the masters/recordings of released songs or stores them elsewhere in a second 'Vault' at a different location, then it would be illogical to assume seperate facilities.

[Edited 10/17/15 3:36am]

[Edited 10/17/15 3:38am]

TheSkinMechanic said:

Pentacle said:

The term has certainly never been used in that sense.

The definition of 'Vault' in all kinds of dictionaries is "A room for the safekeeping of valuables" and that is how I define the word 'Vault'.

If this 'Vault' actually exists, and is a temperature controlled room for the storage of music media, I can't imagine that the masters or the original recordings for his released albums are kept anywhere other than in the same room as the out-takes that didn't make the grade.

A room in Paisley Park that exclusively homes unreleased Prince songs is, in my view, a fan fantasy that has been repeated so many times it has become a fact for some.

Unless there is real proof that either Prince discards the masters/recordings of released songs or stores them elsewhere in a second 'Vault' at a different location, then it would be illogical to assume seperate facilities.

[Edited 10/17/15 3:36am]

[Edited 10/17/15 3:38am]

As multiple engineers have stated that vault tracks were disintegrating in there, I sure hope he keeps his masters somewhere else.
And perhaps WB had them physically until the recent deal.

Rebeljuice said:

Noodled24 said:

No they don't. The Purple Pick of the Week is a promotional tool. It's offered as a bonus. It's not related to the core service Tidal provides. The T&C's you clicked "I AGREE" to when you signed up for Tidal don't mention the PPOTW.

Technically, anyone who signed up to Tidal for the PPOTW did so at their own risk. It's added value content provided at the discretion of Tidal. It's not a service unto itself.

For the record. I was never under the impression this was anything other than "Tracks curated by Prince".

No, you are wrong. It doesnt matter if it is added value. It doesnt matter if your impression was different to anyone elses. Everything you have said doesnt matter. There are facts here that make your impression irrelevant.

No I'm not. It's a promo tool

Imagine this: The org has a subscription fee of $10 per month. For that you get to read and post in the forums and have access to the entire site. That is what you are paying for. But, as added value, on the home page the site says that signed up members get 30% discount on Prince tickets to his live shows. Now, lets say the org gains an extra 200 signed up members based on the ticket offer. They pay their initial $10 and everything is wonderful. Then the org changes the offer on the home page stating that signed up members get a Tshirt. Do you think those 200 people who signed up based on the original value added offer have a right to their money back? Do they have a right to feel ripped off? Is it fair to say they were enticed to sign up on a false pretense?

Why do we have to imagine anything? Why not just stick to what's happened?

Why have you created an imaginary situation where Tidal offers T-shirts?

Its the same with Tidal. Fans may well have signed up based on the statement that Prince would release rare gems from the vault every week. What fan WOULDNT be enticed by that? Sure, we know Prince well enough not believe in these kinds of statements. But does every fan out there know this? The way the original statement was worded made it seem that Prince was indeed going to release unreleased and rare gems from the vault. Very different wording from what it is now. And I have little doubt that some fans, somewhere, got excited by that statement and signed up.

It's offered as a bonus at the discression on Tidal. If Fans signed up PURELY for the PPOTW - they did so at their own risk. It could be cancelled at any point. You have no contract with Tidal for TPPOTW.

Tell me, do you think all those fans that bought tickets to the Tidal concert because Prince's name was on the bill do not deserve to get their money back now that he is off the bill? Was Prince's name on the bill just added value and the ticket is for the whole concert, irrelevant of who is playing? If you think that they deserve their money back, then you have to think that those who signed up to Tidal on the basis of weekly vault tracks also deserve their money back. If you dont think they deserve their money back, then you actually have no grasp of the situation and I am wasting my time here.

Oh so now we're not talking about the PPOTW?

If you bought tickets to the concert - Contact customer services and ask for a refund then. Simples.

Although as we both know, you've actually just written 4 paragraphs to complain about a concert you haven't bought tickets to.

[Edited 10/17/15 7:13am]

Pentacle said:

TheSkinMechanic said:

The definition of 'Vault' in all kinds of dictionaries is "A room for the safekeeping of valuables" and that is how I define the word 'Vault'.

If this 'Vault' actually exists, and is a temperature controlled room for the storage of music media, I can't imagine that the masters or the original recordings for his released albums are kept anywhere other than in the same room as the out-takes that didn't make the grade.

A room in Paisley Park that exclusively homes unreleased Prince songs is, in my view, a fan fantasy that has been repeated so many times it has become a fact for some.

Unless there is real proof that either Prince discards the masters/recordings of released songs or stores them elsewhere in a second 'Vault' at a different location, then it would be illogical to assume seperate facilities.

[Edited 10/17/15 3:36am]

[Edited 10/17/15 3:38am]

As multiple engineers have stated that vault tracks were disintegrating in there, I sure hope he keeps his masters somewhere else.
And perhaps WB had them physically until the recent deal.

Source? No? Of course not.

It's been speculated.

Noodled24 said:

Pentacle said:

As multiple engineers have stated that vault tracks were disintegrating in there, I sure hope he keeps his masters somewhere else.
And perhaps WB had them physically until the recent deal.

Source? No? Of course not.

It's been speculated.

If you had read up over the years, you wouldn't ask me for a source.

Also, you're starting to sound like a Scientologist ranting against those who escaped from the sect.

KingSausage said:

NorthC said:

KingSausage said:

The very likely degradation of his vault recordings is common Prince knowledge.

"Very likely" and "knowledge" in the same sentence

NorthC said:

KingSausage said:

Pentacle said:

Noodled24 said:

Source? No? Of course not.

It's been speculated.

If you had read up over the years, you wouldn't ask me for a source.

Also, you're starting to sound like a Scientologist ranting against those who escaped from the sect.

I haven't mentioned that cult once. Still haven't.

Yes, one engineer said "Tapes can degrade if not stored correctly" - That's a statement about chemistry. Not evidence that anything has happened to Princes tapes. What we do know, is that most of his tapes are in a vault. If the tapes have been stored in a vault for 20 years. They could be in any kind of condition. Possibly "excellent".

The producer was HM Buff? He mentioned something about a flood, he found a box of tapes in some old storage room? What strikes me is how non-specific this is.

By the time the NPGMC launched Prince went all-in on digital. It's infinitely possible the vault went digital at any point in the past 20 years. Either in-house or via some company and a non-disclosure agreement.

Pretzelbodylogic Reloaded is nice!