databank said:

Guitarhero said:

Thats my point the snobbery i joined the Prince fam in 1980. Did not know you had to join in 2001 to have an opinion on all things Prince Every person who did not join the org at the beginning are looked down on like something under their shoe. Am out i will leave all you self appointed experts to it.

[Edited 12/3/16 5:10am]

Oh God... It's not a pissing contest, sorry I brought up the date it was wrong, OK? My point was more what have u done for this community? I did my share. U did ur homework though to know I've joined in 2001, I'm baffled.

False humility is a talent I don't master, I humbly leave it to the experts. When I'm wrong I gladly admit that I'm wrong but when I know my shit I know my shit, I'm not gonna apologize for knowing my shit and neither will I praise amateurs for ruining what I've always wanted to be a community of honest researchers.

There r many people here who know more than I do on many aspects of P's career. You have never seen nor will you ever see me dissing them.

But when people come-up with nonsense I call nonsense nonsense, and I'm not gonna apologize for that.

And when I know my shit I know my shit, I'm not gonna deny that either.

Sorry again for the pissing contest, though, that was wrong and I admit it.

The discussion on the fake tracks on the posthumous releases in the MJ community is not comparable to anything we've had to deal with here.

Several people that worked on the "Michael" record tried to not to get the record released, and even MJ's children stated the tracks were fake, so it's not just some sort of a "conspiracy theory" that the fans have come up with.

I find your description of relativism in the previous comments rather odd. First you state that the orger commenting on the "Michael" tracks thinks he "magically knows the truth" of the origins of the tracks, and then you refer to it as something that's caused by the relativist mindset of today. However, one central aspect of relativism is that people who have relativist beliefs think that there are no absolute truths and that everything is subjective in the end.

Relativism can neither be directly blamed for the populist parties of today having gotten so popular. In fact, their agendas even mention relativist and postmodernist ideologies as something that they want to fight against (I know that's the case here in Finland and in Sweden, at least). These are the parties that claim "to know the truth" on matters such as the differences between races, despite the scientific evidence offered on such issues.

If anything, the problem with populist parties is that they're telling people that it's okay to be ignorant and that people shouldn't believe the views of experts.

For an "evidence-based" approach on issues such as determining if something is a fake track or not using your ears should be the first step. Not citing a Wikipedia article.

databank said:

RODSERLING said:

The 3 fakes on MICHAEL are factual...Just listen to the songs ! This has already be proven massively by the fans. Even Teddy Riley who produced this crap finally told on his twitter years ago that he was sorry and that one day the truth will be revealed...You don't think that Sony will tell the world "yes we produced 3 fakes on the album" ?

And on the cover of the album SOny wrote "songs inspired by Michael JAckson" in order to protect them from eventual lawsuits.

Things don't have to be officialised to be factuals. Don't expect some truth from the entertainment industry.

.

http://www.damienshields.com/teddy-riley-apologises-for-michael-album/

[Edited 12/3/16 3:24am]

.

As for THRILLER 25, the unreleased track was written during the Thriller sessions, but MJ never recorded it before the DANGEROUS SESSIONS. That means in the 80's , Jackson never sang that song, and there is no recording from the Thriller sessions. But, anyway.

[Edited 12/3/16 3:29am]

Er... do u realize what u're doing here? I've read ur article. It's an article about an ongoing controversy. Some say it's white, some say it's black. There is no definitive proof that either party is right or wrong. There wasn't any legal decision in that regard either. This is the factual truth, which is the only truth. After reading it, all I can honestly say is, those songs may be MJ, or not. I may have an opinion, I may take a stand, but the bottom line is I do not know.

.

Now, based on this, you are saying that there is no controversy because you believe one party to be correct and your sole argument, at the end of the day, is that because you believe party A to be correct, then it is, and party B is wrong, period.

.

And to justify this, you add a conspiracy-system argument, i.e. "you will never know the truth because, as everyone knows the all-powerful [illuminati/jews/freemason/politicians/corporateindustries/younameit] are and will be covering the facts."

.

This means that your reasoning is based on three beliefs:

- You magically know the truth when no one else does, since no one has been able to prove that truth to be factual.

- There is a superior class of humans who can and will forever manipulate facts and hide truths from us mere mortals, so since because of them we cannot ever know anything, we can assume anything and/or everything to be true. This is called relativism: i.e. nothing is anything so anything can be anything (as opposed to everything is something even though I cannot necessarily be sure what it is)

- This has been proved by the fans, i.e. public rumor, i.e. if a majority of people believe something to be true, then it is necessarily true and no further proof is needed.

.

I do not know whether you realise how, based on the laws of logic and 2000 years of philosophy, your reasoning and approach of reality is biased, but please by all means study Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and any further zetetic approach and you will realise how delusional your thinking is.

.

I am terrified at the very notion that you may apply similar reasoning to politics and the education of your children if you have any.

.

Maybe you will rethink it and acknowlege how biased your reasoning is, or maybe you will demonstrate that I misunderstood your reasoning (I may have and if so, I do and will apologize, it's late and I may have misread or misunderstood your post or the article you've posted)? But if you won't do either, this kind of reasoning, as far as I'm concerned, makes you an enemy of the human race as a whole, and someone who needs to be shut down as soon as possible, and by this I of course don't mean destroyed, but deprived of an internet connection at the very least.

.

Peace, and be wild.

[Edited 12/3/16 10:11am]

That's BS, because you just had to listen to the songs to know it's not MJ. You want to stand on this ridiculous position, so stand on it. To this point for you It doesn't really matter who's wrong or who's right to paraphrase MJ.

.

The point was to make that sometimes, even often, major recording music are making no commercial sense at all, and are making serious mistakes. I could tell you a lot about it, I chosed MJ because his first posthumous album was expected by a whole lot of consumers worldwide.

.

To stay with the Prince subject, MOONBEAM LEVELS is surely sourced from a bootleg...Of course they will never tell you that, and of course it will never be officialized. But if you're making some sense, you know about it.

[Edited 12/5/16 2:00am]

novabrkr said:

databank said:

Oh God... It's not a pissing contest, sorry I brought up the date it was wrong, OK? My point was more what have u done for this community? I did my share. U did ur homework though to know I've joined in 2001, I'm baffled.

False humility is a talent I don't master, I humbly leave it to the experts. When I'm wrong I gladly admit that I'm wrong but when I know my shit I know my shit, I'm not gonna apologize for knowing my shit and neither will I praise amateurs for ruining what I've always wanted to be a community of honest researchers.

There r many people here who know more than I do on many aspects of P's career. You have never seen nor will you ever see me dissing them.

But when people come-up with nonsense I call nonsense nonsense, and I'm not gonna apologize for that.

And when I know my shit I know my shit, I'm not gonna deny that either.

Sorry again for the pissing contest, though, that was wrong and I admit it.

For an "evidence-based" approach on issues such as determining if something is a fake track or not using your ears should be the first step. Not citing a Wikipedia article.

Exactly, thank you.

.

I know he wrote he was drunk, but listening to a song is not so hard and would have made a final point to this discussion.

novabrkr said:

databank said:

Oh God... It's not a pissing contest, sorry I brought up the date it was wrong, OK? My point was more what have u done for this community? I did my share. U did ur homework though to know I've joined in 2001, I'm baffled.

False humility is a talent I don't master, I humbly leave it to the experts. When I'm wrong I gladly admit that I'm wrong but when I know my shit I know my shit, I'm not gonna apologize for knowing my shit and neither will I praise amateurs for ruining what I've always wanted to be a community of honest researchers.

There r many people here who know more than I do on many aspects of P's career. You have never seen nor will you ever see me dissing them.

But when people come-up with nonsense I call nonsense nonsense, and I'm not gonna apologize for that.

And when I know my shit I know my shit, I'm not gonna deny that either.

Sorry again for the pissing contest, though, that was wrong and I admit it.

First, thank you for takinbg the time to provide an articulated reply. I appreciate this.

The discussion on the fake tracks on the posthumous releases in the MJ community is not comparable to anything we've had to deal with here.

Several people that worked on the "Michael" record tried to not to get the record released, and even MJ's children stated the tracks were fake, so it's not just some sort of a "conspiracy theory" that the fans have come up with.

Still, no fact has been established with certainty as far as I could find. I'm still waiting for a definitive proof. You can't possibly deny that an open debate is open just because you favor one side. Please note thyat I don't know, care or have an opinion about those songs, I'm just saying I want proof either way.

I find your description of relativism in the previous comments rather odd. First you state that the orger commenting on the "Michael" tracks thinks he "magically knows the truth" of the origins of the tracks, and then you refer to it as something that's caused by the relativist mindset of today. However, one central aspect of relativism is that people who have relativist beliefs think that there are no absolute truths and that everything is subjective in the end.

There is an apparant contradiction indeed but it's a contradiction I've observed: my point was that nowadays people tend to say that since nothing can be proved, what the believe to be true has to be true without the need for any factual, or even logival proof of any sort. It's as if the absence of any factual truth in any matter whatsoever justified their right to turn beliefs into facts. I've observed it a lot in politics, on social networks.

Relativism can neither be directly blamed for the populist parties of today having gotten so popular. In fact, their agendas even mention relativist and postmodernist ideologies as something that they want to fight against (I know that's the case here in Finland and in Sweden, at least). These are the parties that claim "to know the truth" on matters such as the differences between races, despite the scientific evidence offered on such issues.

Again there is a contradition indeed but it isn't mine. Those same parties and people who claim to detain certain truths, and denounce relativism as a communist/socialist/postmodern value, do themselves buld their reasoning without need for proof or reason. Either "the Boble says so" or "the Freemasons/Jews/media/scientists/etc." are distorting facts and science so nothing can be proven. By opposing a non-existing authority or a non-existing conspiacy to their opinions, they -maybe not on purpose- end demonstrating that, according to their views, nothing can be proven and that faith/opinion = fact.

If anything, the problem with populist parties is that they're telling people that it's okay to be ignorant and that people shouldn't believe the views of experts.

That, too. I totally agree.

For an "evidence-based" approach on issues such as determining if something is a fake track or not using your ears should be the first step. Not citing a Wikipedia article.

Well given that I've read orgers along the years swearing that Prince was singing in X song or had produced X song whe, in fact, Prince wasn't even remotely related to either the song or the artist singing it or both, the last thing I will believe is people's ears. You can't possibly expect me to take the word of people who are not experts in sound processing/vocal recording and whose opinion on the matter is possibly biaised (and reading you guys I beliebe it is) as a proof for anything. Or then why shouldn't I also believe that guy who once claimed that Prince had produced a Robin Think/Pharrell song? I haven't listened to those songs carefully and I wasn't really aware of that controversy (I'd only vaguely heard of it once I think), I think I will now out of curiosity, but I do have that MJ album and it never crossed my mind while listening to it that MJ wasn't singing those tracks. I am baffled, given how solid your reasoning seems to be, that you can for an instant use the "fans hearing it is proof" argument.

RODSERLING said:

databank said:

Er... do u realize what u're doing here? I've read ur article. It's an article about an ongoing controversy. Some say it's white, some say it's black. There is no definitive proof that either party is right or wrong. There wasn't any legal decision in that regard either. This is the factual truth, which is the only truth. After reading it, all I can honestly say is, those songs may be MJ, or not. I may have an opinion, I may take a stand, but the bottom line is I do not know.

.

Now, based on this, you are saying that there is no controversy because you believe one party to be correct and your sole argument, at the end of the day, is that because you believe party A to be correct, then it is, and party B is wrong, period.

.

And to justify this, you add a conspiracy-system argument, i.e. "you will never know the truth because, as everyone knows the all-powerful [illuminati/jews/freemason/politicians/corporateindustries/younameit] are and will be covering the facts."

.

This means that your reasoning is based on three beliefs:

- You magically know the truth when no one else does, since no one has been able to prove that truth to be factual.

- There is a superior class of humans who can and will forever manipulate facts and hide truths from us mere mortals, so since because of them we cannot ever know anything, we can assume anything and/or everything to be true. This is called relativism: i.e. nothing is anything so anything can be anything (as opposed to everything is something even though I cannot necessarily be sure what it is)

- This has been proved by the fans, i.e. public rumor, i.e. if a majority of people believe something to be true, then it is necessarily true and no further proof is needed.

.

I do not know whether you realise how, based on the laws of logic and 2000 years of philosophy, your reasoning and approach of reality is biased, but please by all means study Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and any further zetetic approach and you will realise how delusional your thinking is.

.

I am terrified at the very notion that you may apply similar reasoning to politics and the education of your children if you have any.

.

Maybe you will rethink it and acknowlege how biased your reasoning is, or maybe you will demonstrate that I misunderstood your reasoning (I may have and if so, I do and will apologize, it's late and I may have misread or misunderstood your post or the article you've posted)? But if you won't do either, this kind of reasoning, as far as I'm concerned, makes you an enemy of the human race as a whole, and someone who needs to be shut down as soon as possible, and by this I of course don't mean destroyed, but deprived of an internet connection at the very least.

.

Peace, and be wild.

[Edited 12/3/16 10:11am]

That's BS, because you just had to listen to the songs to know it's not MJ. You want to stand on this ridiculous position, so stand on it. To this point for you It doesn't really matter who's wrong or who's right to paraphrase MJ.

.

The point was to make that sometimes, even often, major recording music are making no commercial sense at all, and are making serious mistakes. I could tell you a lot about it, I chosed MJ because his first posthumous album was expected by a whole lot of consumers worldwide.

.

To stay with the Prince subject, MOONBEAM LEVELS is surely sourced from a bootleg...Of course they will never tell you that, and of course it will never be officialized. But if you're making some sense, you know about it.

[Edited 12/5/16 2:00am]

See my reply to Novabrkr regarding "just hearing to know". I'll let you know whether I "hear" it though, since I have the songs. Now I fail to see how my position of prudence is ridiculous, when it consists of not taking a hasty side on a debate that is new to me and that is not closed just because 2 people I'm chatting with on a message board tell me it is. What sort of fool would I be? Am I also to believe the 2 of you if you tell me that George Bush was responsible for 9/11 or that the CIA killed Marilyn and JFK? Just bring me proof. But as long as you won't, please do not accuse me of being ridiculous for not taking your word for something. I'm not saying the songs are real. They may totally be fake. But I do not know.

.

Regardless, of course many labels have done shit before, and WB may totally do so, I'm just saying I somewhat have faith in them because WB has a better rep than the other 2 majors. But I may be wrong. It seems the ML matter is more or less closed if we are to believe the statement attributed to Susan Rogers, who doesn't reveal the source for the recording but admits that it doesn't come from the vault. And just because WB won't issue an official statement doesn't mean we can't know the truth, precisely because people involved or people like Susan can speak. Which shows that the conspiracy argument isn't, and never is, a valid argument to say that "since we can't know you'd better my word for it".

databank said:

novabrkr said:

First, thank you for takinbg the time to provide an articulated reply. I appreciate this.

The discussion on the fake tracks on the posthumous releases in the MJ community is not comparable to anything we've had to deal with here.

Several people that worked on the "Michael" record tried to not to get the record released, and even MJ's children stated the tracks were fake, so it's not just some sort of a "conspiracy theory" that the fans have come up with.

Still, no fact has been established with certainty as far as I could find. I'm still waiting for a definitive proof. You can't possibly deny that an open debate is open just because you favor one side. Please note thyat I don't know, care or have an opinion about those songs, I'm just saying I want proof either way.

I find your description of relativism in the previous comments rather odd. First you state that the orger commenting on the "Michael" tracks thinks he "magically knows the truth" of the origins of the tracks, and then you refer to it as something that's caused by the relativist mindset of today. However, one central aspect of relativism is that people who have relativist beliefs think that there are no absolute truths and that everything is subjective in the end.

There is an apparant contradiction indeed but it's a contradiction I've observed: my point was that nowadays people tend to say that since nothing can be proved, what the believe to be true has to be true without the need for any factual, or even logival proof of any sort. It's as if the absence of any factual truth in any matter whatsoever justified their right to turn beliefs into facts. I've observed it a lot in politics, on social networks.

Relativism can neither be directly blamed for the populist parties of today having gotten so popular. In fact, their agendas even mention relativist and postmodernist ideologies as something that they want to fight against (I know that's the case here in Finland and in Sweden, at least). These are the parties that claim "to know the truth" on matters such as the differences between races, despite the scientific evidence offered on such issues.

Again there is a contradition indeed but it isn't mine. Those same parties and people who claim to detain certain truths, and denounce relativism as a communist/socialist/postmodern value, do themselves buld their reasoning without need for proof or reason. Either "the Boble says so" or "the Freemasons/Jews/media/scientists/etc." are distorting facts and science so nothing can be proven. By opposing a non-existing authority or a non-existing conspiacy to their opinions, they -maybe not on purpose- end demonstrating that, according to their views, nothing can be proven and that faith/opinion = fact.

If anything, the problem with populist parties is that they're telling people that it's okay to be ignorant and that people shouldn't believe the views of experts.

That, too. I totally agree.

For an "evidence-based" approach on issues such as determining if something is a fake track or not using your ears should be the first step. Not citing a Wikipedia article.

Well given that I've read orgers along the years swearing that Prince was singing in X song or had produced X song whe, in fact, Prince wasn't even remotely related to either the song or the artist singing it or both, the last thing I will believe is people's ears. You can't possibly expect me to take the word of people who are not experts in sound processing/vocal recording and whose opinion on the matter is possibly biaised (and reading you guys I beliebe it is) as a proof for anything. Or then why shouldn't I also believe that guy who once claimed that Prince had produced a Robin Think/Pharrell song? I haven't listened to those songs carefully and I wasn't really aware of that controversy (I'd only vaguely heard of it once I think), I think I will now out of curiosity, but I do have that MJ album and it never crossed my mind while listening to it that MJ wasn't singing those tracks. I am baffled, given how solid your reasoning seems to be, that you can for an instant use the "fans hearing it is proof" argument.

I'll just reply to the last part.

"Evidence" isn't the same thing as "proof". Proof is conclusive, evidence isn't. However, when we have large amounts of evidence available we're usually able to conclude that something most likely is the case. Regardless, when there are "too many coincidences" involved we should start strongly doubting that something is fishy.

It was the case with the "Michael" album with not only countless people stating the three tracks coming from the Cascio family didn't sound like MJ, but so many aspects of how the family described the supposed recording sessions taking place in their own house were just ridiculous, not to mention how the record company tried to silence the people that had worked on the record from speaking their minds about what had been going on. Unless it was a deliberate attempt at a fraud by the record company, some people high up on the hierarchy there must have had tin ears themselves when acquiring those tracks from the Cascios. It was not surprising that no Cascio tracks appeared on the next posthumous release.

I really think judging things for yourself should be the first step in any case. Yes, by "using your ears".

What I found ridiculous about the thread you started on ML was that people were posting their "it can't be possibly sourced from a bootleg" comments even without getting the Blast From The Past version and listening to it themselves. They seemed to want to believe in the simple idea that if a major record company puts something out it must be the real deal. You know, as if it would be completely new to them that big multinational companies like WB would operate with questionable standards.

Surely you should also understand yourself that there's a difference with one single person posting silly, naive stuff here and thousands and thousands of people sharing the same impression on the same tracks? I wouldn't rush into comparing these things to the 9/11 conspiracy theories either.

[Edited 12/7/16 2:03am]

eyewishuheaven said:

OperatingThetan said:

Just to add, Prince may have wanted to include something 'new' with the old reissue.

Really good point there. Disc 2 could be a bunch of songs from 2013/14. Prince wanting to rope the nostalgia crowd into his current output.

No,I want the Purple Rain era outtakes! Any album of "new" music should be released seperately.

madhouseman said:

What I hope is on it, and what I "think" will be on it are completely different.

I think it will be all of the music that's in the movie -- a "true" soundtrack.

I am hoping for extended versions -- especially of Computer Blue -- and B-sides.

I don't care too much about including Electric Intercourse, but anything above and beyond is appreciated!

novabrkr said:

databank said:

I'll just reply to the last part.

"Evidence" isn't the same thing as "proof". Proof is conclusive, evidence isn't. However, when we have large amounts of evidence available we're usually able to conclude that something most likely is the case. Regardless, when there are "too many coincidences" involved we should start strongly doubting that something is fishy.

It was the case with the "Michael" album with not only countless people stating the three tracks coming from the Cascio family didn't sound like MJ, but so many aspects of how the family described the supposed recording sessions taking place in their own house were just ridiculous, not to mention how the record company tried to silence the people that had worked on the record from speaking their minds about what had been going on. Unless it was a deliberate attempt at a fraud by the record company, some people high up on the hierarchy there must have had tin ears themselves when acquiring those tracks from the Cascios. It was not surprising that no Cascio tracks appeared on the next posthumous release.

I really think judging things for yourself should be the first step in any case. Yes, by "using your ears".

What I found ridiculous about the thread you started on ML was that people were posting their "it can't be possibly sourced from a bootleg" comments even without getting the Blast From The Past version and listening to it themselves. They seemed to want to believe in the simple idea that if a major record company puts something out it must be the real deal. You know, as if it would be completely new to them that big multinational companies like WB would operate with questionable standards.

Surely you should also understand yourself that there's a difference with one single person posting silly, naive stuff here and thousands and thousands of people sharing the same impression on the same tracks? I wouldn't rush into comparing these things to the 9/11 conspiracy theories either.

[Edited 12/7/16 2:03am]

I believe your arguments overall are valid and therefore, I won't argue any further.

However, if ever asked, I would say that "the consensus is that those MJ tracks are fake", not just "those MJ tracks are fake".

I have quickly listened to those songs (with a lame computer speaker I must say) and I do not believe my ears can be trusted because I can't hear anything suspiscious, at all.

Se7en said:

What I hope is on it, and what I "think" will be on it are completely different.

I think it will be all of the music that's in the movie -- a "true" soundtrack.

I am hoping for extended versions -- especially of Computer Blue -- and B-sides.

I don't care too much about including Electric Intercourse, but anything above and beyond is appreciated!

I do not understand why people have this notion that it should be a soundtrack and that the associated artists songs will be on it comes from. It makes absolutely no sense to me particularly if one considers the complexity of the rights involved (we have NPG Records songs, WB songs and an Dez song involved). I'm willing to make a selfie of myself with 2 carrots and one leek in my mouth and post it on the org if it ever happens.

[Edited 12/8/16 5:00am]

tomds said:

madhouseman said:

It does exist. I detail the recording of it in the upcoming book. Sorry it is taking so long to get this book out there, but publishing a book is completely different than writing one! lol

Should have information about it being published very soon. Looking forward to sharing this project with all of you.

It sure exists. I have it in my collection

So maybe you would be kind enough to leak it?

LOVE to hear it!

1) let's go crazy - kayne's crazy westside mix

2) take me with u - feat. taylor swift

3) the beautiful ones - weeknd saturday remix

4) computer blue - daft punk's windows vista remake

5) when doves cry - david guetta remix feat. sia

6) darling nikki - flaming lips and miley cyrus psychodelic mix

7) i would die 4 u - will.i.am.4.u.remix

8) baby i'm a star - neptunes vs jay z showdown mix

9) purple rain - shep pettibone remix

databank said:

Se7en said:

What I hope is on it, and what I "think" will be on it are completely different.

I think it will be all of the music that's in the movie -- a "true" soundtrack.

I am hoping for extended versions -- especially of Computer Blue -- and B-sides.

I don't care too much about including Electric Intercourse, but anything above and beyond is appreciated!

I do not understand why people have this notion that it should be a soundtrack and that the associated artists songs will be on it comes from. It makes absolutely no sense to me particularly if one considers the complexity of the rights involved (we have NPG Records songs, WB songs and an Dez song involved). I'm willing to make a selfie of myself with 2 carrots and one leek in my mouth and post it on the org if it ever happens.

[Edited 12/8/16 5:00am]

I think what a lot of people here fail to recognize is that this needs to have a broad appeal beyond those of us that already have just about everything purple. Purple Rain was a juggernaut. The album AND the movie. Prince had a lot of casual fans who may never have realized that the music was all him and this could hip them to that.

If it is going to be a multi-disc set, Disc 1 should be the expanded soundtrack. Don't forget that Prince wrote those other tunes, too. Yes, there are those of us in the Fam that have a boot like this already - but that is a very very small subsection of the population of those that adored Prince's music. Disc 2 is where the extras should come in, alternate mixes and outtakes.

The rights are not insurmountable to figure out, "Modernaire" is the only one that might take some more complicated doing. And in the end, even though Dez released it - Prince wrote it. It just depends on who the official copyright holder is and who registered it. Universal now holds the legal distribution rights so it will depend on what they and WB work out as far as the deluxe edition goes or if it will even stay in the form that it was supposed to have come out in a few years ago.

But as someone else said, this is all fantasy. Nobody here has a say in what actually happens, so why be a jerk about it?

unique said:

1) let's go crazy - kayne's crazy westside mix

2) take me with u - feat. taylor swift

3) the beautiful ones - weeknd saturday remix

4) computer blue - daft punk's windows vista remake

5) when doves cry - david guetta remix feat. sia

6) darling nikki - flaming lips and miley cyrus psychodelic mix

7) i would die 4 u - will.i.am.4.u.remix

8) baby i'm a star - neptunes vs jay z showdown mix

9) purple rain - shep pettibone remix

Lolz! Noooooooo!

databank said:

has anyone ever heard the song "Wednesday"? It was supposed to be sung by Jill Jones in the movie,but I wonder if there's a demo studio version with Prince on vocals.

tomds said:

databank said:

So maybe you would be kind enough to leak it?

somebody else leaked it and i found it. No problem to share this with everybody who is interested. It's a 13 min version.

R u sure it's genuine? It's not widely circulating I can assure u.

InwardJim said:

databank said:

I do not understand why people have this notion that it should be a soundtrack and that the associated artists songs will be on it comes from. It makes absolutely no sense to me particularly if one considers the complexity of the rights involved (we have NPG Records songs, WB songs and an Dez song involved). I'm willing to make a selfie of myself with 2 carrots and one leek in my mouth and post it on the org if it ever happens.

[Edited 12/8/16 5:00am]

I think what a lot of people here fail to recognize is that this needs to have a broad appeal beyond those of us that already have just about everything purple. Purple Rain was a juggernaut. The album AND the movie. Prince had a lot of casual fans who may never have realized that the music was all him and this could hip them to that.

If it is going to be a multi-disc set, Disc 1 should be the expanded soundtrack. Don't forget that Prince wrote those other tunes, too. Yes, there are those of us in the Fam that have a boot like this already - but that is a very very small subsection of the population of those that adored Prince's music. Disc 2 is where the extras should come in, alternate mixes and outtakes.

The rights are not insurmountable to figure out, "Modernaire" is the only one that might take some more complicated doing. And in the end, even though Dez released it - Prince wrote it. It just depends on who the official copyright holder is and who registered it. Universal now holds the legal distribution rights so it will depend on what they and WB work out as far as the deluxe edition goes or if it will even stay in the form that it was supposed to have come out in a few years ago.

But as someone else said, this is all fantasy. Nobody here has a say in what actually happens, so why be a jerk about it?

Well I've been a jerk about this because while it can be reasonable to assume WB may make that decision a lot of people have wished them to make it, and that pisses me off. PR is an album. ICC is an album. A6 is an album. Those 3 related but nevertheless separate works deserve respect and should be reissued separately, as the 3 related but distinct works of art that they are. Prince made a decision in 1984 to separate the songs from the movie on 3 projects, unlike GB, and this should be respected (not as a mark of respect 2 Prince himself but as a mark of respect 2 Prince's works).

.

I'm totally baffled to learn that Prince actually wrote Modernaire. I've checked Princevault and indeed it says so. Borisfishpaw's list of Pince songs from HQ.com clearly says P only produced it and when I doubled checked Pvault about it years ago for the discog entry (which I'll have to modify) it said P had only played on and produced it. When and how did this info surface?

[Edited 12/8/16 9:25am]

I'll add that if the Time, A6 and DD songs are on it, I won't purchase it: I'll download it illegally.

They say a cd of bootlegs.

databank said:

as long as "electric intercourse" has not been rearranged and rerecorded by prince,
to be more like the live bits of it he did a while ago "electric.... electric... electric" it
will be interesting to see what the original studio version sounds like since we only
have rehearsal take/live takes of it, haven't we?

tomds said:

databank said:

R u sure it's genuine? It's not widely circulating I can assure u.

well you can tell me after you heard it

I don't post that much here (even if I'm a long time member of the org) but I'm sure am very popular these days

for all the orgers who send me a PM: I'll send you a downloadlink via wetransfer

please tell me after you've heard it what you think and if it's genuine like databank is suggesting it might be not.

thanks

tomds said:

tomds said:

databank said: well you can tell me after you heard it

I don't post that much here (even if I'm a long time member of the org) but I'm sure am very popular these days

for all the orgers who send me a PM: I'll send you a downloadlink via wetransfer

please tell me after you've heard it what you think and if it's genuine like databank is suggesting it might be not.

thanks

I've listened to it again and now I have my doubts. seem to have pieces of orgasm in it :/

help me out here friends

i've sent the link to all of you

tomds said:

tomds said:

I don't post that much here (even if I'm a long time member of the org) but I'm sure am very popular these days

for all the orgers who send me a PM: I'll send you a downloadlink via wetransfer

please tell me after you've heard it what you think and if it's genuine like databank is suggesting it might be not.

thanks

I've listened to it again and now I have my doubts. seem to have pieces of orgasm in it :/

help me out here friends

i've sent the link to all of you

thanks for the link, it's cool of you to share. but no way is that the legit long version of 17 Days

IstenSzek said:

tomds said:

I've listened to it again and now I have my doubts. seem to have pieces of orgasm in it :/

help me out here friends

i've sent the link to all of you

thanks for the link, it's cool of you to share. but no way is that the legit long version of 17 Days

It sounds rather cool, though!

SomeSoldier said: