databank said:

As someone said above, prince is gone and if there's an afterlife, it's highly unlikely that he'd be pissed about what happens to his works now. He had the freedom, in his lifetime, to erase any song he didn't wanted to see released after he passed, and according to an engineer he actually did it. What he left behind belongs to human heritage (well technically it belongs to his siblings, but you see my point).

Question--since we started with three specific songs (and who knows, he might have 50 others with the similar rape references that we've never heard), what if he did have those wiped? If the estate were able to find (from collectors or former associates) early generation high quality tapes of such songs, would they be justified in releasing them if they chose to, even though Prince made a conscious choice to have his own copies destroyed? I know it's speculation that such an event happened--but it's quite reasonable to assume that there are many versions of songs (or maybe even some songs in any form) that got out to collectors in forms that do not exist in the vault. So, if Prince indicated, either through neglecting to preserve a recording, or through his willful destruction of it, that a work is meant to be "lost"--does that fit into what he "left behind"--or should the people in charge of his official legacy ignore it?

EddieC said:

databank said:

As someone said above, prince is gone and if there's an afterlife, it's highly unlikely that he'd be pissed about what happens to his works now. He had the freedom, in his lifetime, to erase any song he didn't wanted to see released after he passed, and according to an engineer he actually did it. What he left behind belongs to human heritage (well technically it belongs to his siblings, but you see my point).

Question--since we started with three specific songs (and who knows, he might have 50 others with the similar rape references that we've never heard), what if he did have those wiped? If the estate were able to find (from collectors or former associates) early generation high quality tapes of such songs, would they be justified in releasing them if they chose to, even though Prince made a conscious choice to have his own copies destroyed? I know it's speculation that such an event happened--but it's quite reasonable to assume that there are many versions of songs (or maybe even some songs in any form) that got out to collectors in forms that do not exist in the vault. So, if Prince indicated, either through neglecting to preserve a recording, or through his willful destruction of it, that a work is meant to be "lost"--does that fit into what he "left behind"--or should the people in charge of his official legacy ignore it?

in all fairness he was probably talking about raping the inside of his drum machine and having its resistors orgasm over a bunch of iron oxide particles contained inside a ream of plastic - you know, that thing hipsters like to use to record conversations that cannot be altered by Adobe research into digital alterations of sound through spectral statistical analysis and resynthesis

In connection with my earlier post (and as an example of the sort of recording the estate might want to release that Prince certainly didn't leave behind as stuff to be released if someone wanted to)--in the Prince and Chris Moon thread currently active is the following from an interview with Moon:

Having safely ushered your loved ones out of the house as it is burning down to the ground, you ignore all standard safety advice and dash back inside to grab just one recording – what is it?

The recording I would grab would be Prince’s first demo tape that I made with him singing 3 of my own songs and the demo tape responsible for getting him signed to Warner Brothers, I still have it and its probably the only one left in the world.

Valid release for the estate if they can get it (in my opinion)--but not part of what Prince left in his collections as his legacy (at least as far as Moon knows). Instead just something he didn't keep--we've all (well, anyone with one of the omnibus outtake collections) got some things that Prince probably didn't keep, some of which should be part of any worthwhile approach to hidden Prince work, if it can be found in releasable quality.

EddieC said:

databank said:

As someone said above, prince is gone and if there's an afterlife, it's highly unlikely that he'd be pissed about what happens to his works now. He had the freedom, in his lifetime, to erase any song he didn't wanted to see released after he passed, and according to an engineer he actually did it. What he left behind belongs to human heritage (well technically it belongs to his siblings, but you see my point).

Question--since we started with three specific songs (and who knows, he might have 50 others with the similar rape references that we've never heard), what if he did have those wiped? If the estate were able to find (from collectors or former associates) early generation high quality tapes of such songs, would they be justified in releasing them if they chose to, even though Prince made a conscious choice to have his own copies destroyed? I know it's speculation that such an event happened--but it's quite reasonable to assume that there are many versions of songs (or maybe even some songs in any form) that got out to collectors in forms that do not exist in the vault. So, if Prince indicated, either through neglecting to preserve a recording, or through his willful destruction of it, that a work is meant to be "lost"--does that fit into what he "left behind"--or should the people in charge of his official legacy ignore it?

In all fairness I've wondeed the same. And well, like I said life belongs to the living, so if they wanna do that I wouldn't condemn it. Prince, after all, gave away those tapes in the first place.

Again in all fairness we've all:

- Purchased and/or downloaded bootlegs (studio and live) of things Prince didn't want us to hear

- Purchased at least one of the 1293 releases of 94 East, even though Prince never approved of Willie releasing that stuff.

We did that to him when he was alive, I don't think doing it to him when he's gone is gonna hurt him any more.

databank said:

EddieC said:

Question--since we started with three specific songs (and who knows, he might have 50 others with the similar rape references that we've never heard), what if he did have those wiped? If the estate were able to find (from collectors or former associates) early generation high quality tapes of such songs, would they be justified in releasing them if they chose to, even though Prince made a conscious choice to have his own copies destroyed? I know it's speculation that such an event happened--but it's quite reasonable to assume that there are many versions of songs (or maybe even some songs in any form) that got out to collectors in forms that do not exist in the vault. So, if Prince indicated, either through neglecting to preserve a recording, or through his willful destruction of it, that a work is meant to be "lost"--does that fit into what he "left behind"--or should the people in charge of his official legacy ignore it?

In all fairness I've wondeed the same. And well, like I said life belongs to the living, so if they wanna do that I wouldn't condemn it. Prince, after all, gave away those tapes in the first place.

Again in all fairness we've all:

- Purchased and/or downloaded bootlegs (studio and live) of things Prince didn't want us to hear

- Purchased at least one of the 1293 releases of 94 East, even though Prince never approved of Willie releasing that stuff.

We did that to him when he was alive, I don't think doing it to him when he's gone is gonna hurt him any more.

Oh, I've got no problem with me getting my hands on absolutely anything. I'm all for that. And, I guess, since Prince didn't actually give anyone the responsibility of managing his work in accordance with his own wishes, the estate has no clear guidelines either. I'm willing to admit that Prince's own wishes seem to me to be superseded in this by the interests of history. I'm not sure, strangely enough, that I would feel the same about a lesser artist. The quality of his work almost negates his rights over it (especially now that he is in fact gone).

EddieC said:

databank said:

In all fairness I've wondeed the same. And well, like I said life belongs to the living, so if they wanna do that I wouldn't condemn it. Prince, after all, gave away those tapes in the first place.

Again in all fairness we've all:

- Purchased and/or downloaded bootlegs (studio and live) of things Prince didn't want us to hear

- Purchased at least one of the 1293 releases of 94 East, even though Prince never approved of Willie releasing that stuff.

We did that to him when he was alive, I don't think doing it to him when he's gone is gonna hurt him any more.

Oh, I've got no problem with me getting my hands on absolutely anything. I'm all for that. And, I guess, since Prince didn't actually give anyone the responsibility of managing his work in accordance with his own wishes, the estate has no clear guidelines either. I'm willing to admit that Prince's own wishes seem to me to be superseded in this by the interests of history. I'm not sure, strangely enough, that I would feel the same about a lesser artist. The quality of his work almost negates his rights over it (especially now that he is in fact gone).

God I would so hate to know people are going to publish my vault after I die. But I ain't no Prince, what I've left in there I did for a good reason: for 99% of it, it sucks

So I'm safe, and I ain't famous anyway: that stuff will disappear with the harddrives they're on

sunset3121 said:

Rape is NOT WANTED

.

That is not the issue.

The issue is whether we need censorship.

And then the issue is where the censorship will stop.

There is much more unwanted stuff to be found in P's lyrics and elsewhere.

So where do you stop censoring?

.

My personal take on this:

Only overly sensitive millennials and the like get ideas like that.

They do not see the context of art, of fiction, and solely react on the naked word.

That is so wrong.

That is the same as when they say 'you offended me'.

As if that is not their problem.

Because you cannot talk such a stupid idea out of their heads.

databank said:

EddieC said:

Oh, I've got no problem with me getting my hands on absolutely anything. I'm all for that. And, I guess, since Prince didn't actually give anyone the responsibility of managing his work in accordance with his own wishes, the estate has no clear guidelines either. I'm willing to admit that Prince's own wishes seem to me to be superseded in this by the interests of history. I'm not sure, strangely enough, that I would feel the same about a lesser artist. The quality of his work almost negates his rights over it (especially now that he is in fact gone).

God I would so hate to know people are going to publish my vault after I die. But I ain't no Prince, what I've left in there I did for a good reason: for 99% of it, it sucks

So I'm safe, and I ain't famous anyway: that stuff will disappear with the harddrives they're on

I almost asked what you'd think of people going through your trash can.

None. No censorship. Let it come out as it was recorded.

udo said:

sunset3121 said:

Rape is NOT WANTED

.

That is not the issue.

The issue is whether we need censorship.

And then the issue is where the censorship will stop.

There is much more unwanted stuff to be found in P's lyrics and elsewhere.

So where do you stop censoring?

.

My personal take on this:

Only overly sensitive millennials and the like get ideas like that.

They do not see the context of art, of fiction, and solely react on the naked word.

That is so wrong.

That is the same as when they say 'you offended me'.

As if that is not their problem.

Because you cannot talk such a stupid idea out of their heads.

What is it with this forum's members and millennials????

As I have told you before, I am not one so why would you keep bringing them up? What on earth have they done to you?

.

And why pick out 4 words that were used in response to this:

Rape the way Prince sings about it, is like this; if for instance my boyfriend and I are in the mood, and I or he feels like, we can have a nice one, like a good wild raunchy pleasing fuck, (a bit) abusive even. Loved by both parties.

There ya go.

... and completely ignore what I said about censorship? I have always said I support free speech 100% and believe the decision to publish or not was his to make.

I agree. It was his choice to include or not to include. It is not an easy choice to include pro-rape lyrics in a song for pubic release. He chose not to. I am just against his hand being forced differently now that he is dead. Can people not respect the choice that he made?

I just don't think your opinion about the release of his recordings counts more than his. I wouldn't expect you to resist downloading what is out there but why would his estate management ride roughshod over his decisions?

.

It is not censorship to respect the creators decision to publish or not.

[Edited 11/11/16 10:29am]

I wouldn't censor it, but I wouldn't play it on the radio and the tracks should always be accompanied with explanation.

Revolution81 said:

There ain't nothing wrong with a bit of rape, as long as both parties are consenting

Oxford definition of "rape": The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will

Merriam-Webster: Unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent

.

I fail to understand which part of "forcing", "against their will" and "forcibly" escape the understanding skills of those men who claim rape rape can be consented.

.

It's a bit like saying "dying is OK as long as you survive it".

Revolution81 said:

There ain't nothing wrong with a bit of rape, as long as both parties are consenting

Let's not confuse BDSM foreplays and a life lasting traumatic horrendous episode.

"Rape you if I must" is nothing but a joke, not a funny one,
but again the context matters: "Rape" is always accompanied by "you".
The girl is driving him nuts, he wants to show her his bone so hard, that's all.
This reply may need censorship.

udo said:

bluegangsta said:

I will rape you, if I must. - Lust U Always

I guess I'll have to rape you. - Extralovable

You drive a man to rape, you know you do. - U

Should lyrics like this be censored in future releases?

.

The fact that you even think about this stuff means you suffer from political correctness.

Can't we see stuff in context anymore?

Is it a millennial thing?

It is the same as the hoopla with Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands, every year.

The fake-black Zwarte Piet is perceived as derogatory, discriminatory, etc by some idiots.

Yet in the historic context nothing is wrong with these figures.

I know. It's horrible.

If you don't like it, don't listen to it instead of trying to censor things.

"Don't say that! You'll offend/'trigger' someone!" - This mentality is becoming the bane of my existence. People just search for something to be offended about.

u cant make any excuses for his use of "rape"...

bluegangsta said:

I will rape you, if I must. - Lust U Always

I guess I'll have to rape you. - Extralovable

You drive a man to rape, you know you do. - U

Should lyrics like this be censored in future releases?

.

Not unless we're gonna start banning TV show like Orange is the New Black, and start banning great literature like Lolita, and brilliant audio books like YOU by Caroline Kepnes, and ban Robert Mapplethorpe's photography.

.

The song Lust U Always is brilliant and Extralovable is even better.

.

I haven't heard the song U before.

.

Where is it?

.

[Edited 11/13/16 11:32am]

QueenofCardboard said:

bluegangsta said:

I will rape you, if I must. - Lust U Always

I guess I'll have to rape you. - Extralovable

You drive a man to rape, you know you do. - U

Should lyrics like this be censored in future releases?

.

Not unless we're gonna start banning TV show like Orange is the New Black, and start banning great literature like Lolita, and brilliant audio books like YOU by Caroline Kepnes, and ban Robert Mapplethorpe's photography.

.

The song Lust U Always is brilliant and Extralovable is even better.

.

I haven't heard the song U before.

.

Where is it?

.

[Edited 11/13/16 11:32am]

Released on Paula Abdul's Spellbound in 1991. The original from 1979, recorded for the Rebels project, is quite different though.

Can we have moritorium on blaming "millenials"? It's an overly vague and practically quaint response at this point.

jaawwnn said:

Can we have moritorium on blaming "millenials"? It's an overly vague and practically quaint response at this point.

Hey, I have to blame millenials. At least, I have to blame them for everything I don't blame on baby boomers. Otherwise, I might have to take some blame myself, and I have no desire to do that.

EddieC said:

jaawwnn said:

Can we have moritorium on blaming "millenials"? It's an overly vague and practically quaint response at this point.

Hey, I have to blame millenials. At least, I have to blame them for everything I don't blame on baby boomers. Otherwise, I might have to take some blame myself, and I have no desire to do that.

EddieC said:

jaawwnn said:

Can we have moritorium on blaming "millenials"? It's an overly vague and practically quaint response at this point.

Hey, I have to blame millenials. At least, I have to blame them for everything I don't blame on baby boomers. Otherwise, I might have to take some blame myself, and I have no desire to do that.

There is absolutely no doubt about the fact that late Xers and early Yers are the best generation in the whole human history, anyway We rock

jaawwnn said:

Can we have moritorium on blaming "millenials"? It's an overly vague and practically quaint response at this point.

.

I did not blame them.

AI wrote 'millennials and the like', so there's more.

But to give you idea about what I mean, please read this.

.

To get back on the subject of censorship: we agree we do not want it?

bonatoc said:

databank said:

Revolution81 said:

databank said:

Oxford definition of "rape": The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will

Merriam-Webster: Unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent

.

I fail to understand which part of "forcing", "against their will" and "forcibly" escape the understanding skills of those men who claim rape rape can be consented.

.

It's a bit like saying "dying is OK as long as you survive it".

You are right, I survive dying everyday

udo said:

jaawwnn said:

Can we have moritorium on blaming "millenials"? It's an overly vague and practically quaint response at this point.

.

I did not blame them.

AI wrote 'millennials and the like', so there's more.

But to give you idea about what I mean, please read this.

Well that's it from the Trump camp, here's how Hilary's camp see it.

.

To get back on the subject of censorship: we agree we do not want it?

yep yep

[Edited 11/14/16 19:28pm]

bluegangsta said:

I will rape you, if I must. - Lust U Always

I guess I'll have to rape you. - Extralovable

You drive a man to rape, you know you do. - U

Should lyrics like this be censored in future releases?

Of course not.

-

And, let's just agree to disagree in all politeness, sencerity, and peace.

has the estate /family mentioned their views on this subject?????

luvsexy4all said:

has the estate /family mentioned their views on this subject?????

.

Who decides these views?