When all is said and done if asked what P's strongest album ever is I would say Parade and honestly, I've been happy with how my cassette then CD then mp3 sounded for the last 25 years since I first heard it. I don't feel that I need a remaster. I may enjoy it but I don't need it.

databank said:

I wore out 2 Parade cassettes and didn't hesitate, and was in fact still thrilled, to buy and uwrap the third.

databank said:

When all is said and done if asked what P's strongest album ever is I would say Parade and honestly, I've been happy with how my cassette then CD then mp3 sounded for the last 25 years since I first heard it. I don't feel that I need a remaster. I may enjoy it but I don't need it.

I do not find the greatness of this album

I absolutely LOVE Parade There's so much going on in this CD, I can listen to it forever and never grow tired of it.

The fact that Venus Di Milo is on this record and not Alexa De Paris is a big turnoff for me. Along with Under the Cherry Moon, Do U Lie and his weakest ballad of his peak years, Sometime It Snows In April. Boy, would this album surpassed maybe PR, had he only replaced those tracks.

I think there is a foefur remaster out there. probably sounds amazing as usual

Wolfie87 said:

The fact that Venus Di Milo is on this record and not Alexa De Paris is a big turnoff for me. Along with Under the Cherry Moon, Do U Lie and his weakest ballad of his peak years, Sometime It Snows In April. Boy, would this album surpassed maybe PR, had he only replaced those tracks.

Put down the crack pipe, Wolfie.

Krid said:

Why o why is every run-of-the-mill artist having his oeuvre remastered (some better than others), but for Prince soundwise you still need to put on the vinyls for his 70s/80s stuff...

You must be new to this party, Krid!

In fact, this discussion will probably end up in the 'wacko sticky'.

Yeah I agree. Parade doesn't quite scream for a remaster like SOTT and the Black Album do, but I think that a bit of polish would definitely help in giving the intricacy of the arrangements a more fuller sound and bringing it to life more. However I'm not particularly hopeful at this stage given the failure of the Purple Rain remaster to materialise, which frankly imo doesn't really need a remaster as badly as some other works from Prince's catalogue, but it bodes ill for anything else seeing the light of day, especially less "blockbuster" albums

and I want a BJ from Meghan Fox and Elizabeth Hurley and am just as likely as getting one as a remastered Prade lol

I would rather have more new music than an old album remastered. The old sounds fine to me. Lets have another new album or live dvd or something

trax said:

PopcornFetus said:

The HDTracks version sounds pretty spectacular.

I dowonloaded this version in mp3 format andit sounds not that good, it sounds a little too loud and distorted.

PopcornFetus said:

The HDTracks version sounds pretty spectacular.

Yep. It does.

214 said:

PopcornFetus said:

The HDTracks version sounds pretty spectacular.

I dowonloaded this version in mp3 format andit sounds not that good, it sounds a little too loud and distorted.

Get it in a better format.

214 said:

I do not find the greatness of this album

A great part of it is structural: how it works as an ensemble vs. a mere collection of songs, it's quite perfectly balanced/paced in that regard.

Then there is a certain delicacy to the overall sound and arrangements that goes beyond Clare Fischer's contributions (even though they play a great part): certain tracks sound like each sound is a light brush stroke on a canvas. It's also in a constant hesitation between fragile minimalism and overcrowded mix, with songs displaying a very sparse sond while others are quite noisy. Similarly, the balance between very short and much longer tracks contributes to giving this feeling that we're listening to a suite.

Conceptually, it goes way beyond the usual limits of pop music: most songs are following their own musical logic with little or no submission to the classic backbone of pop song structure. It's nearly an experimental record.

It's at the same time extremely sophisticated and just as spontaneous as anything Prince was recording back then. It finds a perfect balance between joy and enthusiasm and a feeling of loneliness and nostalgia.

And on top of it all it hardly sounds dated at all after 30 years. Other Prince albums from the 80's are still as strong a work of art now as ever, but they are much more clearly (definitely for some) rooted in the 80's. Parade is totally out of time, virtually nothing else sounded like that in 1986 when everything was loaded with synths and/or electric guitars.

Is it my favorite Prince album? I don't know: there are too many that I love deeply and find mind blowing. I also am not too keen on listening to the old albums anymore because I know them by heart and find it hard to pay attention to what I'm listening anymore. But if I had to try and objectively say which is his greatest artistic achievement, I'd probably say Parade. It was a very ambitious project, very daring and very intimate altogether, and at the same time the fact that it's a short album makes it all the more impressive: no need for a double album, all is said in 40 minutes and still so much has been said!

databank said:

214 said:

I do not find the greatness of this album

A great part of it is structural: how it works as an ensemble vs. a mere collection of songs, it's quite perfectly balanced/paced in that regard.

Then there is a certain delicacy to the overall sound and arrangements that goes beyond Clare Fischer's contributions (even though they play a great part): certain tracks sound like each sound is a light brush stroke on a canvas. It's also in a constant hesitation between fragile minimalism and overcrowded mix, with songs displaying a very sparse sond while others are quite noisy. Similarly, the balance between very short and much longer tracks contributes to giving this feeling that we're listening to a suite.

Conceptually, it goes way beyond the usual limits of pop music: most songs are following their own musical logic with little or no submission to the classic backbone of pop song structure. It's nearly an experimental record.

It's at the same time extremely sophisticated and just as spontaneous as anything Prince was recording back then. It finds a perfect balance between joy and enthusiasm and a feeling of loneliness and nostalgia.

And on top of it all it hardly sounds dated at all after 30 years. Other Prince albums from the 80's are still as strong a work of art now as ever, but they are much more clearly (definitely for some) rooted in the 80's. Parade is totally out of time, virtually nothing else sounded like that in 1986 when everything was loaded with synths and/or electric guitars.

Is it my favorite Prince album? I don't know: there are too many that I love deeply and find mind blowing. I also am not too keen on listening to the old albums anymore because I know them by heart and find it hard to pay attention to what I'm listening anymore. But if I had to try and objectively say which is his greatest artistic achievement, I'd probably say Parade. It was a very ambitious project, very daring and very intimate altogether, and at the same time the fact that it's a short album makes it all the more impressive: no need for a double album, all is said in 40 minutes and still so much has been said!

Well said. I agree with all of this.

Wolfie87 said:

The fact that Venus Di Milo is on this record and not Alexa De Paris 4 The Tears In Your Eyes is a big turnoff for me.

fixed...

I was so surprised this track (4 the tears) was kind of overlooked for the Parade album...

Ok it was given away to the Jackson project, what a pity, the song deserved better....

About the other song (Alexa..), it's a great b-side, to me it's nothing more than that..... Love Or Money - Is better actually imo.. amazing song..

Parade is a true funk masterpiece, deep love to the whole album..

The original vinyl sounds great.

Has nobody figured out yet that remastering actually amounts to a dude of varying ability takin' a CD and messing with the EQ while recording the output.
I'm happy The P is keepin their sticky fingers offa it, least officially.

Otherwise it'll end up soundin' like a mammy nun and twice as expensive

XSX said:

Has nobody figured out yet that remastering actually amounts to a dude of varying ability takin' a CD and messing with the EQ while recording the output.
I'm happy The P is keepin their sticky fingers offa it, least officially.

Otherwise it'll end up soundin' like a mammy nun and twice as expensive

The P? Offa? Mammy nun?

Anyway, I think you should do some more research...

XSX said:

Has nobody figured out yet that remastering actually amounts to a dude of varying ability takin' a CD and messing with the EQ while recording the output.
I'm happy The P is keepin their sticky fingers offa it, least officially.

Otherwise it'll end up soundin' like a mammy nun and twice as expensive

Not a true Remaster, no. A remaster is actually going back to the tapes, in some cases baking them, and then literally going through the process of tweaking the sound levels on each instrument and track. The reason so many records sound better than early CDs is that, in the old days, they struck different masters for different formats. In the case of vinyl, it naturally had an increase in the bottom end, so the masters for the records were mixed with the bass and drum sounds in the back, while the treble was mixed louder. When CDs first hit the scene, the technology had far more applications than anyone was used to at the time, and most record companies simply used the vinyl masters when creating them. This resulted in many discs having a "tinny", weak sound that has aggravated many an audiophile over the years.

Most of the DJ "remasters" you hear, such as the series done by Foefur, are exactly what you're describing, but those aren't true remasters. It is to Foefur's credit that he's managed to mix incredible sounding collections from the material he has available to him. I've long ago resigned myself to the fact that those are going to be the best sounding versions of the albums we are likely to ever receive.

thedance said:

Wolfie87 said:

The fact that Venus Di Milo is on this record and not Alexa De Paris 4 The Tears In Your Eyes is a big turnoff for me.

fixed...

I was so surprised this track (4 the tears) was kind of overlooked for the Parade album...

Ok it was given away to the Jackson project, what a pity, the song deserved better....

About the other song (Alexa..), it's a great b-side, to me it's nothing more than that..... Love Or Money - Is better actually imo.. amazing song..

Parade is a true funk masterpiece, deep love to the whole album..

Wow--yeah, I agree with this (I reserve "funk masterpiece" status for P-Funk, 'tho), and I'd agree on such a reconfiguration of Parade. I like either version of "4 the Tears in Your Eyes" bewteen the We Are the World single and the stripped-down rendering. I'd substitute one of those for "Sometimes it Snows in April." "Venus Di Milo" is a beau ty, and a decent placement on the album, I think, but at times a bit too placid. I might better like "Love or Money" in its place. I may need to try this on an MP3 mix!

JediMaster said:

XSX said:

Has nobody figured out yet that remastering actually amounts to a dude of varying ability takin' a CD and messing with the EQ while recording the output.
I'm happy The P is keepin their sticky fingers offa it, least officially.

Otherwise it'll end up soundin' like a mammy nun and twice as expensive

Not a true Remaster, no. A remaster is actually going back to the tapes, in some cases baking them, and then literally going through the process of tweaking the sound levels on each instrument and track. The reason so many records sound better than early CDs is that, in the old days, they struck different masters for different formats. In the case of vinyl, it naturally had an increase in the bottom end, so the masters for the records were mixed with the bass and drum sounds in the back, while the treble was mixed louder. When CDs first hit the scene, the technology had far more applications than anyone was used to at the time, and most record companies simply used the vinyl masters when creating them. This resulted in many discs having a "tinny", weak sound that has aggravated many an audiophile over the years.

Most of the DJ "remasters" you hear, such as the series done by Foefur, are exactly what you're describing, but those aren't true remasters. It is to Foefur's credit that he's managed to mix incredible sounding collections from the material he has available to him. I've long ago resigned myself to the fact that those are going to be the best sounding versions of the albums we are likely to ever receive.

Thanks, JediMaster, for your careful description of the remastering process (without the snark)

I have the Sly and The Family Stone collection in mp3 the remastered versions, but anyone knows why they sound so low, the volume is so low, it seems they weren't remastered at all.