What is behind the selection of artwork for this "release", as what should have been the artwork at the time is (I'm assuming) the one from the 1-800-New-Funk complation, no? Does anyone know if this ever connected or is it just a scrape-together?

connorhawke said:

What is behind the selection of artwork for this "release", as what should have been the artwork at the time is (I'm assuming) the one from the 1-800-New-Funk complation, no? Does anyone know if this ever connected or is it just a scrape-together?

2 offical covers are known to exist (the one from 1-800 New-Funk and a very different one for the 1995 configuration). I don't think we've ever seen this cover before, at least I haven't (but I have to admit I only saw the 1995 one for the first time some weeks ago).

I would therefore assume it's been fanmade by the bootleggers (who did a pretty good job at it). Even if it had been a real cover concept from Paisley Park, the "Jaimie Starr" part would have to have been added by the bootleggers, of course. There's no way in the world Prince would have wanted this on the cover in 1994 or 1995.

[Edited 10/21/17 23:50pm]

Thanks databank. Yup the Jamie Starr thing is odd.

databank said:

OperatingThetan said:

laurarichardson said:

I think WB sold these masters. See info about Spectrum. https://www.discogs.com/l...um-Music-2 [Edited 10/21/17 6:36am]

This seems very significant because Madhouse 24 was never officially released until now. I thought this would've been intended as an NPG records album back in 94/95, unless Warners obtained the masters to some unreleased side-project albums when Prince renegotiated with Warners in 2014?

There's no way that these Madhouse albums are legit.

laurarichardson said:

databank said:

I believe I have proved it, or at least made a demonstration that leaves very little room for doubt. Basically your reasoning would mean that the estate (not WB), in its current chaotic condition, has decided to licence an obscure unreleased side project to a third party, most likely using a bootleg as a source, and chosen not to communicate about it at all whatsoever even though it would constitute the first previously unreleased full length album made available by the estate. And on the other hand, to make matters simpler, the first 2 Madhosue albums would have been licenced to yet another third party ("All Music"). While not entirely impossible, this whole scenario is so unlikely that believing it constitutes a leap of faith that defies all rationality.

.

Now if you will choose to base your convictions on faith rather than available information, logic and common sense, you're entitled to it. I have never been able to convinced anyone who believed the Earth was flat that it wasn't.

. — We do not know what was in the WB agreement? The estate can at this time can make deals to monitize the estate so if they wanted to do something they can. Also do not make the assumption that All Music is not a real label. Remember according to Alan Leeds these side projects are WB property that can do as they please UMG uses Spectrum to unload old catalogue material no reason that WB cannot do the same. I think you know where you can Your “flat earth” bullshit.

You are incredible. Why is it that you can never, ever, no matter what the topic is, come-up with a "OK, I was wrong, I stand corrected" statement, instead of keeping pushing your original statements to the limit of the absurd, at all cost, including becoming rude and agressive? It's impossible to have a normal conversation with someone under such circumstances! Even I, despite my well known stubborness, have backed off on numerous occasions when proven wrong. It's not a sin. It's OK to be wrong sometimes.

.

For one thing, we know precisely the opposite of what you say regarding who owns those projects, thanks to at least 2 different statements by Alan Leeds, who clearly explained that the masters for nearly every post-1986 Paisley Park album reverted to Prince. His first statement was made on this very board, in a fDeluxe thread, in reply to me asking who owned The Family's masters and asking how it was possible that Prince had rereleased The Voice and hey Man... Smell My Finger on Edel in 1995, with the (p) notice stating the masters were now owned by NPG Records instead of WB. His second statement was made in a post-Prince death interview, that was shared on the Org not so long ago (I've just read it recently). A former exec from Edel had also explained, many years ago on a fan board (later quoted here with links to the original), that Edel was at some point to rerelease many Paisley Park records. Finally, it is well known that Prince planned to release Madhouse 24 with Edel in both its original version in 1994, then in a revised version in 1995. So I don't know, you can say what you want, call me a liar, make Alan Leeds say Prince was a drag queen if you want to. All those sources are available on the internet for anyone to check. There is nothing you can say or do that can change anything about that.

.

The rest of your statement isn't made of things I can factually prove as being wrong. But it's a matter of common sense.

- Regarding the 2014 WB contract involving some sort of masters trade between the classic Prince albums against some obscure unreleased side-projects, it is so far fetched it takes a lot of imagination to even think about it.

- The notion that the Madhouse masters could be licenced to real labels of dubious existence named All Music and Spectrum, without of course a single "(p) NPG Records under exclusive licence to..." (as WB/NPG releases all bear on those sites), is sheer speculation, based on very unclear elements and unconfirmed speculation.

- The notion that the masters could have been sold away is even more fantastic! Vault material, sold away for a few thousand dollars! Just like that. Without any announcement. Incredible!

- As for monetizing unreleased records by throwing them away on streamin sites and online platforms without the smallest amount of publicity (you know, as in "The estate proudly announces the release of the first full length album ever to come out of Prince's mythic vault, y'all go and get it!"), it would just be such an insanely counter-productive comemercial move, such a waste of valuable material, that it would take the most incompetent label exec to come-up with such an idea.

.

At some point, you know, a basic rule in life is that in lack of further elements of proof, between a pretty likely explaination and a pretty unlikely explaination, the pretty likely one is usually the right one. The sum of justifications and explainations you have to come-up with to justify your theory require such a crazy amount of mind-stretching (not to mention the "Alan Leeds statement" lie) that it defies reason to choose it over the simple "someone uploaded it without permission" explaination.

.

You know what, if only I had 100 bucks to throw away, I would upload the 1988 configuration of 24 on an agregator myself, and label it as a Databank Records release, just for the fun of seeing you explaining how and why it's a genuine release.

.

Come-up with an official statement, a document proving something, anything, prove me wrong, and I'll stand corrected as I've always done. But don't come and throw your "my fantastic and far fetched explaination is just as good as your simple explaination" argument to my face, let alone if you're gonna add insults for good measure. And I apologize to you if my words sound harsh or like some sort of personal attack. They are not meant to hurt but at some point, enough is enough!

As with the Vanity 6 and Family albums, I'm 100% sure that it is not official.

The Family album was uploaded through Tunecore. There is NO way that that's legit.

Madhouse 24 listing on princevault (UNRELEASED)

http://www.princevault.co..._24_(1994)

Madhouse 24 listing on discogs (UNRELEASED)

https://www.discogs.com/M...se/5807012

Discussions of Prince bootlegs available at "legit" retailers post April, 2016
http://prince.org/msg/7/428610
http://prince.org/msg/7/435788

Amazon has even had bootlegs BEFORE Prince died, they've had this one over a decade

https://www.amazon.com/Si...+times+dvd

Amazon even still lists the bootleg Purple Rain Complete Soundtrack from 4 years ago
https://www.amazon.com/Pu...soundtrack

I myself proved that one was a bootleg, way back then

http://prince.org/msg/7/401901

This "release" of Madhouse 24 is a BOOTLEG. Don't believe it? Contact the estate and WB and get proof. Otherwise, GTHOOHWTCBS! Just sayin'...

Even more interesting is the fact that Madhouse 8 and 16 are streaming.

databank said:

You are incredible. Why is it that you can never, ever, no matter what the topic is, come-up with a "OK, I was wrong, I stand corrected" statement, instead of keeping pushing your original statements to the limit of the absurd, at all cost, including becoming rude and agressive? It's impossible to have a normal conversation with someone under such circumstances! Even I, despite my well known stubborness, have backed off on numerous occasions when proven wrong. It's not a sin. It's OK to be wrong sometimes.

.

For one thing, we know precisely the opposite of what you say regarding who owns those projects, thanks to at least 2 different statements by Alan Leeds, who clearly explained that the masters for nearly every post-1986 Paisley Park album reverted to Prince. His first statement was made on this very board, in a fDeluxe thread, in reply to me asking who owned The Family's masters and asking how it was possible that Prince had rereleased The Voice and hey Man... Smell My Finger on Edel in 1995, with the (p) notice stating the masters were now owned by NPG Records instead of WB. His second statement was made in a post-Prince death interview, that was shared on the Org not so long ago (I've just read it recently). A former exec from Edel had also explained, many years ago on a fan board (later quoted here with links to the original), that Edel was at some point to rerelease many Paisley Park records. Finally, it is well known that Prince planned to release Madhouse 24 with Edel in both its original version in 1994, then in a revised version in 1995. So I don't know, you can say what you want, call me a liar, make Alan Leeds say Prince was a drag queen if you want to. All those sources are available on the internet for anyone to check. There is nothing you can say or do that can change anything about that.

.

The rest of your statement isn't made of things I can factually prove as being wrong. But it's a matter of common sense.

- Regarding the 2014 WB contract involving some sort of masters trade between the classic Prince albums against some obscure unreleased side-projects, it is so far fetched it takes a lot of imagination to even think about it.

- The notion that the Madhouse masters could be licenced to real labels of dubious existence named All Music and Spectrum, without of course a single "(p) NPG Records under exclusive licence to..." (as WB/NPG releases all bear on those sites), is sheer speculation, based on very unclear elements and unconfirmed speculation.

- The notion that the masters could have been sold away is even more fantastic! Vault material, sold away for a few thousand dollars! Just like that. Without any announcement. Incredible!

- As for monetizing unreleased records by throwing them away on streamin sites and online platforms without the smallest amount of publicity (you know, as in "The estate proudly announces the release of the first full length album ever to come out of Prince's mythic vault, y'all go and get it!"), it would just be such an insanely counter-productive comemercial move, such a waste of valuable material, that it would take the most incompetent label exec to come-up with such an idea.

.

At some point, you know, a basic rule in life is that in lack of further elements of proof, between a pretty likely explaination and a pretty unlikely explaination, the pretty likely one is usually the right one. The sum of justifications and explainations you have to come-up with to justify your theory require such a crazy amount of mind-stretching (not to mention the "Alan Leeds statement" lie) that it defies reason to choose it over the simple "someone uploaded it without permission" explaination.

.

You know what, if only I had 100 bucks to throw away, I would upload the 1988 configuration of 24 on an agregator myself, and label it as a Databank Records release, just for the fun of seeing you explaining how and why it's a genuine release.

.

Come-up with an official statement, a document proving something, anything, prove me wrong, and I'll stand corrected as I've always done. But don't come and throw your "my fantastic and far fetched explaination is just as good as your simple explaination" argument to my face, let alone if you're gonna add insults for good measure. And I apologize to you if my words sound harsh or like some sort of personal attack. They are not meant to hurt but at some point, enough is enough!

A fricken men.

databank said:

laurarichardson said:

databank said: . — We do not know what was in the WB agreement? The estate can at this time can make deals to monitize the estate so if they wanted to do something they can. Also do not make the assumption that All Music is not a real label. Remember according to Alan Leeds these side projects are WB property that can do as they please UMG uses Spectrum to unload old catalogue material no reason that WB cannot do the same. I think you know where you can Your “flat earth” bullshit.

You are incredible. Why is it that you can never, ever, no matter what the topic is, come-up with a "OK, I was wrong, I stand corrected" statement, instead of keeping pushing your original statements to the limit of the absurd, at all cost, including becoming rude and agressive? It's impossible to have a normal conversation with someone under such circumstances! Even I, despite my well known stubborness, have backed off on numerous occasions when proven wrong. It's not a sin. It's OK to be wrong sometimes.

.

For one thing, we know precisely the opposite of what you say regarding who owns those projects, thanks to at least 2 different statements by Alan Leeds, who clearly explained that the masters for nearly every post-1986 Paisley Park album reverted to Prince. His first statement was made on this very board, in a fDeluxe thread, in reply to me asking who owned The Family's masters and asking how it was possible that Prince had rereleased The Voice and hey Man... Smell My Finger on Edel in 1995, with the (p) notice stating the masters were now owned by NPG Records instead of WB. His second statement was made in a post-Prince death interview, that was shared on the Org not so long ago (I've just read it recently). A former exec from Edel had also explained, many years ago on a fan board (later quoted here with links to the original), that Edel was at some point to rerelease many Paisley Park records. Finally, it is well known that Prince planned to release Madhouse 24 with Edel in both its original version in 1994, then in a revised version in 1995. So I don't know, you can say what you want, call me a liar, make Alan Leeds say Prince was a drag queen if you want to. All those sources are available on the internet for anyone to check. There is nothing you can say or do that can change anything about that.

.

The rest of your statement isn't made of things I can factually prove as being wrong. But it's a matter of common sense.

- Regarding the 2014 WB contract involving some sort of masters trade between the classic Prince albums against some obscure unreleased side-projects, it is so far fetched it takes a lot of imagination to even think about it.

- The notion that the Madhouse masters could be licenced to real labels of dubious existence named All Music and Spectrum, without of course a single "(p) NPG Records under exclusive licence to..." (as WB/NPG releases all bear on those sites), is sheer speculation, based on very unclear elements and unconfirmed speculation.

- The notion that the masters could have been sold away is even more fantastic! Vault material, sold away for a few thousand dollars! Just like that. Without any announcement. Incredible!

- As for monetizing unreleased records by throwing them away on streamin sites and online platforms without the smallest amount of publicity (you know, as in "The estate proudly announces the release of the first full length album ever to come out of Prince's mythic vault, y'all go and get it!"), it would just be such an insanely counter-productive comemercial move, such a waste of valuable material, that it would take the most incompetent label exec to come-up with such an idea.

.

At some point, you know, a basic rule in life is that in lack of further elements of proof, between a pretty likely explaination and a pretty unlikely explaination, the pretty likely one is usually the right one. The sum of justifications and explainations you have to come-up with to justify your theory require such a crazy amount of mind-stretching (not to mention the "Alan Leeds statement" lie) that it defies reason to choose it over the simple "someone uploaded it without permission" explaination.

.

You know what, if only I had 100 bucks to throw away, I would upload the 1988 configuration of 24 on an agregator myself, and label it as a Databank Records release, just for the fun of seeing you explaining how and why it's a genuine release.

.

Come-up with an official statement, a document proving something, anything, prove me wrong, and I'll stand corrected as I've always done. But don't come and throw your "my fantastic and far fetched explaination is just as good as your simple explaination" argument to my face, let alone if you're gonna add insults for good measure. And I apologize to you if my words sound harsh or like some sort of personal attack. They are not meant to hurt but at some point, enough is enough!

I think that's called Occam's Razor. But something tells me she's going to have a problem agreeing with that principle

Here we go with the talk radio phrase of the week ... Occam's Razor.

laurarichardson said:

AnnaSantana said:

laurarichardson said:

Unless you can prove that these releases are from a bootlegger you have no idea. Funny coincidence that Spectrum is s real label that reissues older material. Got to the belief in coincidence on this board.

All collectors know for a fact that Madhouse 24 is a bootleg. Just take your L and keep it moving.

I have this boot and this is not even the confirguration I have. I will also give a heads up to Comerica and that will clear up the whole issue.

[Edited 10/22/17 15:45pm]

fortuneandserendipity said:

databank said:

You are incredible. Why is it that you can never, ever, no matter what the topic is, come-up with a "OK, I was wrong, I stand corrected" statement, instead of keeping pushing your original statements to the limit of the absurd, at all cost, including becoming rude and agressive? It's impossible to have a normal conversation with someone under such circumstances! Even I, despite my well known stubborness, have backed off on numerous occasions when proven wrong. It's not a sin. It's OK to be wrong sometimes.

.

For one thing, we know precisely the opposite of what you say regarding who owns those projects, thanks to at least 2 different statements by Alan Leeds, who clearly explained that the masters for nearly every post-1986 Paisley Park album reverted to Prince. His first statement was made on this very board, in a fDeluxe thread, in reply to me asking who owned The Family's masters and asking how it was possible that Prince had rereleased The Voice and hey Man... Smell My Finger on Edel in 1995, with the (p) notice stating the masters were now owned by NPG Records instead of WB. His second statement was made in a post-Prince death interview, that was shared on the Org not so long ago (I've just read it recently). A former exec from Edel had also explained, many years ago on a fan board (later quoted here with links to the original), that Edel was at some point to rerelease many Paisley Park records. Finally, it is well known that Prince planned to release Madhouse 24 with Edel in both its original version in 1994, then in a revised version in 1995. So I don't know, you can say what you want, call me a liar, make Alan Leeds say Prince was a drag queen if you want to. All those sources are available on the internet for anyone to check. There is nothing you can say or do that can change anything about that.

.

The rest of your statement isn't made of things I can factually prove as being wrong. But it's a matter of common sense.

- Regarding the 2014 WB contract involving some sort of masters trade between the classic Prince albums against some obscure unreleased side-projects, it is so far fetched it takes a lot of imagination to even think about it.

- The notion that the Madhouse masters could be licenced to real labels of dubious existence named All Music and Spectrum, without of course a single "(p) NPG Records under exclusive licence to..." (as WB/NPG releases all bear on those sites), is sheer speculation, based on very unclear elements and unconfirmed speculation.

- The notion that the masters could have been sold away is even more fantastic! Vault material, sold away for a few thousand dollars! Just like that. Without any announcement. Incredible!

- As for monetizing unreleased records by throwing them away on streamin sites and online platforms without the smallest amount of publicity (you know, as in "The estate proudly announces the release of the first full length album ever to come out of Prince's mythic vault, y'all go and get it!"), it would just be such an insanely counter-productive comemercial move, such a waste of valuable material, that it would take the most incompetent label exec to come-up with such an idea.

.

At some point, you know, a basic rule in life is that in lack of further elements of proof, between a pretty likely explaination and a pretty unlikely explaination, the pretty likely one is usually the right one. The sum of justifications and explainations you have to come-up with to justify your theory require such a crazy amount of mind-stretching (not to mention the "Alan Leeds statement" lie) that it defies reason to choose it over the simple "someone uploaded it without permission" explaination.

.

You know what, if only I had 100 bucks to throw away, I would upload the 1988 configuration of 24 on an agregator myself, and label it as a Databank Records release, just for the fun of seeing you explaining how and why it's a genuine release.

.

Come-up with an official statement, a document proving something, anything, prove me wrong, and I'll stand corrected as I've always done. But don't come and throw your "my fantastic and far fetched explaination is just as good as your simple explaination" argument to my face, let alone if you're gonna add insults for good measure. And I apologize to you if my words sound harsh or like some sort of personal attack. They are not meant to hurt but at some point, enough is enough!

I think that's called Occam's Razor.

Yes, good catch! Thx. https://en.wikipedia.org/...%27s_razor

"Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected".

Still commonly used in modern science.

I may be wrong but I think Conan Doyle had Sherlock use it as well in his novels?

laurarichardson said:

AnnaSantana said:

laurarichardson said: All collectors know for a fact that Madhouse 24 is a bootleg. Just take your L and keep it moving.

I have this boot and this is not even the confirguration I have. I will also give a heads up to Comerica and that will clear up the whole issue.

[Edited 10/22/17 15:45pm]

Hopefully something will come up of it, thanks for contacting them: those uploads have to be taken off the sites and if, by any miracle, they were legal, Comerica would need to make a proper announcement (and face Sharon Nelson's wrath )

.

There are only 3 known configurations of the album (see Princevault), the 1993 one being the one circulating on boots (presumably from a test pressing sent to Edel in 1994, later acquired and leaked by T., but I'm not 100% sure) and the two from 1995 that might be circulating among "elite" collectors, but not widely.

.

The version on all those sites is the 1993 version as such, i.e. the one we've had since 1997 (except that the title for "(Got 2) Give It Up" has become "Give It Up", yet another element in favor of the bootleg theory). I'd be curious to know what the tracklist is on your bootleg.

[Edited 10/22/17 22:04pm]

databank said:

laurarichardson said:

databank said:

Hopefully something will come up of it, thanks for contacting them: those uploads have to be taken off the sites and if, by any miracle, they were legal, Comerica would need to make a proper announcement (and face Sharon Nelson's wrath )

.

There are only 3 known configurations of the album (see Princevault), the 1993 one being the one circulating on boots (presumably from a test pressing sent to Edel in 1994, later acquired and leaked by T., but I'm not 100% sure) and the two from 1995 that might be circulating among "elite" collectors, but not widely.

.

The version on all those sites is the 1993 version as such, i.e. the one we've had since 1997 (except that the title for "(Got 2) Give It Up" has become "Give It Up", yet another element in favor of the bootleg theory). I'd be curious to know what the tracklist is on your bootleg.

[Edited 10/22/17 22:04pm]

I will dig it out and give it a listen. I could have sworn their was a song called “Jail Bait” but who knows someone could have slapped any title on an instrumental.

Jailbait (aka 19) is from the 1988 album (which I didn't list above, as it was an entirely different record despite also being titled Madhouse 24). It's been bootlegged for even longer than the 1993 version, so that's what you have.

NICE!! First time I've ever heard someone accurately reference "Occam's Razor" other then my know-it-all boss!! Congrats!!

muleFunk said: other then my know-it-a;ll

Here we go with the talk radio phrase of the week ... Occam's Razor.

jjam said:

As with the Vanity 6 and Family albums, I'm 100% sure that it is not official.

The Family album was uploaded through Tunecore. There is NO way that that's legit.

True indeed but the Family joint was well worth the $8 paid to iTunes in terms of sound quality and having the cover art in my device.

kingricefan said:

And sharing bootleg copies gives money to whom? The artists sure don't see any money when bootlegs are 'shared', do they?

databank said:

You've paid for it but who gets the money?

The whole point of paying is to support artists and labels.

Well, since it's unreleased, Prince's estate isn't losing any money at all. I'd go into a long speil on piracy, but you can google that yourself. Basically, if it's not on a shelf at a Target or Best Buy, it's not official, so sharing it for FREE is the only option. If you've got money to burn, I ain't mad at'cha.

can the estate get involved in this??????

TheBigBang said:

luvsexy4all said:

but what does jay-z have to say??

luvsexy4all said:

And no one gets money when the stuff is 'shared' either.

laurarichardson said:

TheBigBang said:

Well, since it's unreleased, Prince's estate isn't losing any money at all. I'd go into a long speil on piracy, but you can google that yourself. Basically, if it's not on a shelf at a Target or Best Buy, it's not official, so sharing it for FREE is the only option. If you've got money to burn, I ain't mad at'cha.

Lord someone is getting money and it is not songwriters on the project.

kingricefan said:

laurarichardson said:

luvsexy4all said:

but what does jay-z have to say??

I got a response they will be looking into it. Not so sure Jay-z is at the controls and this stuff is on other sites as well.

You guys do realize that Jay-Z himself is not going at the Tidal office everyday from 9 to 5, to personally read customer complaints emails and manually upload and delete tracks, don't you?

CoolMF said:

jjam said:

As with the Vanity 6 and Family albums, I'm 100% sure that it is not official.

The Family album was uploaded through Tunecore. There is NO way that that's legit.

True indeed but the Family joint was well worth the $8 paid to iTunes in terms of sound quality and having the cover art in my device.

.

Meanwhile the rest of us have been listening to it in CD quality for nearly 20 years for free. Oh, and the artwork is fake. And you've given money to a lazy bootlegger.