djThunderfunk said:

lust said:

djThunderfunk said:

Fair enough, but I have to point out that this is the problem with text communication. Tone can be very difficult to discern. The tone you percieve and the tone I intend may not be the same.

That's very true. Probably along with anonymity a key contributor to why online discourse can descend so quickly compared to two strangers sharing ideas over a beer.

Agreed!

No. Put the label "Explicit Content" on the package and truck on.

contropurple said:

Sorry, im one of those idiots. It is rascist.

.

Is soot racist?

.

Is the story known?

.

Is the fate of the Piet' known before they met Sinterklaas?

.

And the rascist backlash to the Zwarte Piet issue is horrific and proves it.

.

Bullshit.

The noise they make does not prove anything.

It's people without knowledge and understanding following their feelings but not acting rationally.

.

So go stuff your pc argument.

.

Please read again.

.

And read up again on the history dude. You missed a spot. Prince would not want any of that stuff put out imo btw.

.

He is dead and not releasing the music is a waste.

Until I am 69 I want all vault music released.

That is 25 years. You do the math to find out how many CD's we need per month.

roxy831 said:

No. Put the label "Explicit Content" on the package and truck on.

Just don't like the idea of his music being messed with. Leave everything as it was.

Genesia said:

It's only censorship if the government does it. Otherwise, it's an editorial decision.

lust said:

Seems most here are fine for these songs to be given a full public release by the estate in the name of art. Would the same apply if there was a song in the vault that with equal passionate conviction in spoken lyrics talked of taking a 5 year old child and fucking his or mouth? Should the estate censor that by leaving it where it is? An extreme example, yes, but by the arguments given should also be put out.

We've already had this exact same conversation not so long ago but I'm going to reply for those who missed it back in the days. Yes, I think such a song should and could be released as much as anything else in the vault (provided that the decision to do or not to do it is motivated by an relevant editorial choice in a context that makes sense).

As I have already said last time, I did in fact publish a piece of fiction about the unapologetic murder of a baby last year, and I'm unapologetic about publishing it

luv4u said:

roxy831 said:

No. Put the label "Explicit Content" on the package and truck on.

Just don't like the idea of his music being messed with. Leave everything as it was.

Well editing elements out of the tracks would be the worst thing ever. Not releasing the tracks at all is one thing, trashing the songs then releasing them is another matter entirely.

Needs to be realeased in its full unedited format - as Prince intended and recorded the damn thing! Its an historical account of his work - no freakin editing.

jstar69 said:

Needs to be realeased in its full unedited format - as Prince intended and recorded the damn thing! Its an historical account of his work - no freakin editing.

lust said:

Seems most here are fine for these songs to be given a full public release by the estate in the name of art. Would the same apply if there was a song in the vault that with equal passionate conviction in spoken lyrics talked of taking a 5 year old child and fucking his or mouth? Should the estate censor that by leaving it where it is? An extreme example, yes, but by the arguments given should also be put out.

That one's in Michael Jackson's vault.

RicoN said:

lust said:

Seems most here are fine for these songs to be given a full public release by the estate in the name of art. Would the same apply if there was a song in the vault that with equal passionate conviction in spoken lyrics talked of taking a 5 year old child and fucking his or mouth? Should the estate censor that by leaving it where it is? An extreme example, yes, but by the arguments given should also be put out.

That one's in Michael Jackson's vault.

RicoN said:

We may not have known a whole lot about Prince but one thing we know FOR SURE is that he would have never released any music these days with cursing or questionable lyrics. Those wishes should be acknowledged. Either edit it or don't release it at all.

lynx said:

We may not have known a whole lot about Prince but one thing we know FOR SURE is that he would have never released any music these days with cursing or questionable lyrics. Those wishes should be acknowledged. Either edit it or don't release it at all.

He may have in the context of an archive/vault series. He did not censor anything on his past albums when he got the masters back and he put them on Tidal. He did censor some things on NPGMC though, but it seems he was a little more relaxed with this at the end of his life (the fact that he'd play Dirty Mind on the piano, or even the instrumental hints at Darling Nikki during the sampler set, or the explicit new lyrics of When She Comes suggests so).

I'm pretty sure he'd have avoided any rape lyrics though, but mainly to avoid a feminist shitstorm falling on him that for moral reasons (I think Prince wasn't much fond of unnecessary controversies at this stage of his career).

But if presented as a piece from his past, with liner notes clearly stating it was from the days he did things such as Sugar Walls, Nikki, Sister or Head, and with maybe some reminder of how Prince was, for the most part, a militant feminist in his lyrics, I don't think it would be disrespectful to him to release that stuff (or for that matter other gross things such as Work That Fat or the original Jerk Out).

.

Thing is also that we already have those songs, and with decent sound quality, so it's easy to play puritan and say "no, don't release them". Ha ha little nasty fellows: you already have them. Now imagine you're told there's another song with a rape reference in the vault. Only you've never heard it. I'm not so sure so many people would want it to stay there all of a sudden. Just sayin'

It could also be argued that Sister depicts a woman abusing her 16 year old brother. 16 isn't childhood but it's not the legal age either, and what is described in the song is pretty much mental abuse (both the boy and the sister are pretty messed up, but the boy has the excuse of being a kid, while the woman is clearly using a psychological influence she has on him). In any case the whole thing is totally disgusting and could be intepreted as an incitation to raping teenage boys (the boy is, after all, totally charmed and he wants more, so the abuse isn't punished or condemned in any way).

.

Only it's been out for 36 years, it's a classic, the victim is a man not a woman, it's told from the victim's POV and fact is everone is capable of using their common sense and see it as a story, told for its shock value and not for a single second reflecting a real call for women to rape teenagers, let alone teenagers from their own family. And let's be honest, we also all think that song is super cool because it was a damn daring thing to release in 1980.

.

It's very likely that if it hadn't been released but leaked, we'd be having Sister in this list of "should we...?" songs.

But no one thinks of it.

Because. It's. Only. A. Story.

marshmullow said:

Easier to Not release than to edit. We are talking about a couple of songs when the vault is reported to have many more.

I want to hear them all, unedited, uncensored...period.

roxy831 said:

marshmullow said:

Easier to Not release than to edit. We are talking about a couple of songs when the vault is reported to have many more.

I want to hear them all, unedited, uncensored...period.

Don't know how this happened, marshmullow, but I was actually replying to lynx. Sorry for any inconvenience.

roxy831 said:

No. Put the label "Explicit Content" on the package and truck on.

I agree.

databank said:

It could also be argued that Sister depicts a woman abusing her 16 year old brother. 16 isn't childhood but it's not the legal age either, and what is described in the song is pretty much mental abuse (both the boy and the sister are pretty messed up, but the boy has the excuse of being a kid, while the woman is clearly using a psychological influence she has on him). In any case the whole thing is totally disgusting and could be intepreted as an incitation to raping teenage boys (the boy is, after all, totally charmed and he wants more, so the abuse isn't punished or condemned in any way).

.

Only it's been out for 36 years, it's a classic, the victim is a man not a woman, it's told from the victim's POV and fact is everone is capable of using their common sense and see it as a story, told for its shock value and not for a single second reflecting a real call for women to rape teenagers, let alone teenagers from their own family. And let's be honest, we also all think that song is super cool because it was a damn daring thing to release in 1980.

.

It's very likely that if it hadn't been released but leaked, we'd be having Sister in this list of "should we...?" songs.

But no one thinks of it.

Because. It's. Only. A. Story.

But it was released - unlike the multiple songs with rape lyrics. Even in his 20's that was a step he chose not to take.

(I thought 16 was the age of consent in Minni - not that incest would be legal at any age)

P not only spent many of his adult years 'psychologically influencing' teenage girls, he published songs about it on a regular basis. It was his choice. Legally, the two people in Sister were on a par similar to P's teenage girlfriends when they met him.

OK then. I wouldn't mind hearing the originals either...BUT

Anything from the vault that has the word F*** clearly heard will not make me feel comfortable about it. Prince clearly did not want that anymore, and it wouldn't sit right with me if the estate released it...

I'm incredibly pro-political correctness and, sorry guys, I see some point in trigger warnings, and I still say no censorship for these songs.

Presented as outtakes they should be released as they are. If people feel that Prince must condemned as a result of what essentialy boils down to him exploring his own thoughts in private then let them. They don't deserve his music.

I'd say that those lines are rubbish, childish lyrics he knew it, he didn't release them as they were for a reason but that doesn't mean there isn't value to them as outtakes (not to mention that the songs themselves rule). To try and whitewash his legacy and make out like he never recorded these things would be a considerably worse route.

[Edited 11/7/16 14:29pm]

RicoN said:

lust said:

Seems most here are fine for these songs to be given a full public release by the estate in the name of art. Would the same apply if there was a song in the vault that with equal passionate conviction in spoken lyrics talked of taking a 5 year old child and fucking his or mouth? Should the estate censor that by leaving it where it is? An extreme example, yes, but by the arguments given should also be put out.

That one's in Michael Jackson's vault.

It is impossible to censor things in the digital age

When it's out there...it's out there

As for releasing it generally - unless on a greatest hits compilation...your average unadventurous listener will never come across it

Legacy - well if the Daily Mail picks up on it and calls Prince a whatever they want... nothing anyone can do about it

But who cares really?

Prince was divisive ever since I got teased at school in 83 - "you must be a poof etc..."

So these lyrics are just in keeping with the "controversy" of Prince

Can't re-write...and nor should we re-write history.

But...the rapey lyrics is not my cup of tea... as is his yellow mankini video...

Censorship is for people who think they know better than you

Political Correctness - well for the most part it's just good manners and awareness of fellow human sensitivities...

I understand there maybe content in the vault that may be 'too much' for the general public, but we, his fams can handle it. Sell it at a convention or on the PP Store website. Creativity, people!

I don't think there's much chance of "U" being released - it was given to Paula Abdul and Prince's version doesn't fall into the golden period that is likely to get the most focus.

I wouldn't bet on the original version of "Extralovable" either - I suspect the new version (which Prince liked so much he released it 3 times) takes that off the table.

As for "Lust U Always", (and this goes for most of the bootlegged tracks we have), I wouldn't be surprised if it is released in different form than we expect. Given the amount of tinkering Prince is known to have done to his material, we don't have anyway to know if the versions we have were considered "final" - it's always possible that Prince created an edit of "Lust U Always" that removed the line about rape.

[Edited 11/8/16 8:14am]

databank said:

The argument regarding Prince not choosing to release the tracks in his lifetime is absurdly irrelevant. Following this logic then nothing from the vault, studio or live, should ever be released.

[Edited 11/6/16 5:39am]

.

Correct.

databank said:

Censorship is an abomination, particularly when it comes to works of art.

.

Let us not forget... as unfortunate as I believe it was...

.

Prince voiced his own support for censorship in the world of arts and entertainment.

CAL3 said:

databank said:

Censorship is an abomination, particularly when it comes to works of art.

.

Let us not forget... as unfortunate as I believe it was...

.

Prince voiced his own support for censorship in the world of arts and entertainment.

And that says what? Just cause Prince said it doesn't make it right. ANYONE who supports censorship is wrong.