JorisE73 said:

imprimis said:

.

I believe it is from that same tape (that the long-circulating rehearsals come from). Perhaps I am underestimating the quality of the original source.

.

The quality of those rehearsals is far removed from the quality of the broadcast.
But if the source is the same than those rehearsals hopefully come out in that kind of quality. The quality of those rehearsals on the bootlegs isn't too bad but nowhere near the quality of that radio special.

.

I'm starting to think that this radio leak, its source that is, was used to piece together that recent BFTP 'Purple Rain #3', but I haven't listened to either in a long while.

.

[Edited 5/9/18 7:09am]

databank said:

TrivialPursuit said:

That won't happen. There is no market for it. The fanbase isn't going to make the manufacturing and distribution worth it. There are at least top-40 listeners that might buy Purple Rain Deluxe.

I really fail to see where this "there is no market for it" fantasy that's been running on the Org for years comes from, it stands alongside with Bart's "no record label in the world would agree to release Plectrumelectrum" fantasy.

.

No record label did. Prince had to force Warners into releasing it. 3EG even had a deal with Kobalt, and they didn't release that album.

.

If there is a market for physical reissues of the most obscure releases such as Apollonia's 1988 solo album, André Cymone's original LP's or Wendy & Lisa's Fruit At The Bottom (not to mention dozens of totally forgotten funk and new wave records by totally forgotten acts that I have, that were released on CD for the first time after 30 years in limbo), there is basically a market for anything involving Prince, one of the 100 or so best selling artists of all time.

.

Except those specialty releases aren't a risk to "the big plan". And no, I'm not saying there is such a thing WRT Prince's posthumous releases, but there's little point into spending a lot of time and money into something that isn't going to be a significant release.

.

The lack of an ongoing "expanded / remastered" archive release program while Prince was alive is a massive obstacle right now. Bowie had an ongoing one, and after his death there were already releases planned. And his estate can build on what's already there. With Prince, these are uncharted waters. PR Deluxe was a first attempt, and yet at the same time it wasn't representative at all, because it involved an all-time classic. The next album is going to be the first true test, especially if it is a collection of previously unreleased music. Wasting that on "Prince's version of The Family" (which should be part of a Parade box set) would be underwhelming.

.

Don't forget that the estate is still looking for a company to spend mucho dinero on a license to exploit The Vault. If they can't point to relatively successful archive releases and instead have only a couple of duds, then such an investment will likely involve less money upfront. That the Universal deal fell through is already a massive disadvantage. That Warners might have exclusive rights to the pre-1996 recordings is yet another significant issue.

Strive said:

Like look at the promo that took place with Brian Wilson's Smile. He did the Pet Sounds revival which was pushed as one of the greatest albums ever released. Then they started laying the groundwork for Smile. It's an album that had even more potential than Pet Sounds, a project that ended up crushing Brian Wilson, a lost gem that became the most bootlegged/speculated album in history...and now he's completing it. Here's a documentary explaining how important it is. Here's all these critics fawning over the potential of it. Here's Good Vibrations, The Beach Boys' hit that everybody knows and loves with the original lyrics.

.

And that is what's missing right now.

JorisE73 said:

imprimis said:

.

That's true, although it's more of an alternate take drawing from the same initial tracking materials. That particular instance may have more to do with laziness in rushing PR Deluxe out the door and resorting to using WB Archive materials, and/or what were perceived to be needless legal/financial complications with A.C..

.

If the complete track was released as opposed to the stripped down version what would the legal complications be with A.C.? He only redid Prince's vocals and that's it so wouldn't there be legal complications anyhow with the PR Deluxe release?

[Edited 5/9/18 5:32am]

Yeah any version wouldn't make any difference as long as it's still the same basic recordings. I'm pretty sure Sony could have sued and won, but I'm also pretty sure they didn't bother because it's not like TDE was a significant hit in their catalogue anyway. Or maybe WB asked them upfront. Or maybe there's some sort of legal loophole because this is the original unreleased version as opposed to something sampling the masters own by Sony. Honestly IDK, but I was surprised they could do it.

BartVanHemelen said:

No record label did. Prince had to force Warners into releasing it. 3EG even had a deal with Kobalt, and they didn't release that album.

You're having a point about the "big plan" but your Kobalt theory is bullshit, that is unless you have information that I'm not aware of and if so please enlighten us.

.

So far what we know is: Kobalt was supposed to release the album. Kobalt didn't release the album. WB released the album. Period

.

We do NOT know what happened, WHY Kobalt didn't release the album and WHO made the call.

.

Way I see it, Prince stalled because his album was in progress, when the album got ready Prince sold AOA to WB, WB said we don't release AOA if u have competition releasing Plec at the same time, Prince said then you release both records, WB said OK

But that's just another theory and it may be as much BS as yours, which is why I don't try to shop it around the way you're shopping yours around.

For all we know Prince fucked a girl the A&R guy at Kobalt was dating and that dude broke the deal because he was mad, or maybe Prince suddely told Kobalt he wanted an advance after telling them he didn't, or maybe there was a change of management at Kobalt between the time Plec was signed and the time it was delivered, or maybe Prince just decided Kobalt sucked at marketing after testing them with a single and seeing it wasn't going anywhere, or maybe the Vladimir Putin ordered Kobalt not to release it...

.

Your theory is a possibility among many. And it's as valid as any other. What pisses me is the way you're trying to sell it as fact.

.

There's one word for this: it's a lie.

.

I appreciate the fact that you usually contribute this community by providing reliable infos, but on that one you're just doing the exact opposite and I can't let you get away with it.

.

Find Proof. Provide proof. Or cut the crap.

TrivialPursuit said:

You should ready Duane Tudahl's book. That's in there. The book is really a timeilne of 1983 and 1984 and the sessions (mostly at Sunset Sound) that eventually turned into the Purple Rain album. You also read about The Family project, how even before the PR Tour started he had the groundwork for ATWIAD (Pop Life, title track, Paisley Park, Raspberry Beret, She's Always in My Hair), Sheila's album, and more.

Here's a snip about "River Run Dry":

“When it came to filling in The Family album, he spoke to his drummer, Bobby Z, about a song he had recorded in late 1983 called “River Run Dry.” His original demo had a Gary Numan flavor, which continued into the new version slightly tempered by Prince. Bobby Z played drums, Fink played keyboards, and Prince played the remaining instruments in this early mix. The song continues the bass/keyboard leads from Bobby Z’s demo. No saxophone would be recorded for this version of the track.”

“Status: Bobby Z’s demo of “River Run Dry” remains unreleased. Eventually, Paul Peterson and Susannah Melvoin added their vocals to the version (5:08) that was worked on during this session, but most of it would also be shelved once Prince decided to rerecord the music later in the fall. The updated version of the track was placed on the Family’s only album.”

________

It sounds unlikely that Prince recorded a vocal, although the book doesn't say one way or the other. He coached them on it of course, but if you listen to Bobby's released version and The Family, you can conclude that if Z's demo was anywhere close to his released version, then The Family had a good vocal to work from anyway.

I don't think I got to that part in the book. It is a lot to soak up but I really enjoy reading it.

Cinny said:

I don't think I got to that part in the book. It is a lot to soak up but I really enjoy reading it.

I just finished it the other day.

St. Paul responded to my message this evening. I asked him if he remembered Prince recording a vocal guide for the song since Bobby already had a demo. His response was that he does not recall Prince ever doing one.

It's what I tended to believe because Prince was in a time of getting influences from other people, turning stuff over to W&L to work on, and even working with new sounds and instruments. Remember, this was in 1984 before almost anything from Purple Rain was out, or had just been released. He was still recording music at Sunset Sound, and putting together The Family, Apollonia 6, and what would become Around The World In A Day. If he felt Bobby had a song worthy of one of his projects, then his openness to other's input could dictate that he just had them follow Bobby's vocal guide.

So with Paul being there and singing it, and other theories noted above, I'd say the answer is a solid no. Prince did not record a guide vocal for "River Run Dry". (And in another thread, we note that Prince probably didn't record demos at all after 1980 or 1981.) Duane Tudahl's Purple Rain Sessions book specifically mentions how EQing etc was done while tracking the song and doing overdubs. Susan Rogers and Peggy Mac basically mixed as they recorded.

TrivialPursuit said:

St. Paul responded to my message this evening. I asked him if he remembered Prince recording a vocal guide for the song since Bobby already had a demo. His response was that he does not recall Prince ever doing one.

It's what I tended to believe because Prince was in a time of getting influences from other people, turning stuff over to W&L to work on, and even working with new sounds and instruments. Remember, this was in 1984 before almost anything from Purple Rain was out, or had just been released. He was still recording music at Sunset Sound, and putting together The Family, Apollonia 6, and what would become Around The World In A Day. If he felt Bobby had a song worthy of one of his projects, then his openness to other's input could dictate that he just had them follow Bobby's vocal guide.

So with Paul being there and singing it, and other theories noted above, I'd say the answer is a solid no. Prince did not record a guide vocal for "River Run Dry". (And in another thread, we note that Prince probably didn't record demos at all after 1980 or 1981.) Duane Tudahl's Purple Rain Sessions book specifically mentions how EQing etc was done while tracking the song and doing overdubs. Susan Rogers and Peggy Mac basically mixed as they recorded.

Thank you for clarifying this once and for all, great job!

And thanks Paul for taking the time to answer those kind of questions

TrivialPursuit said:

St. Paul responded to my message this evening. I asked him if he remembered Prince recording a vocal guide for the song since Bobby already had a demo. His response was that he does not recall Prince ever doing one.

So with Paul being there and singing it, and other theories noted above, I'd say the answer is a solid no. Prince did not record a guide vocal for "River Run Dry". (And in another thread, we note that Prince probably didn't record demos at all after 1980 or 1981.) Duane Tudahl's Purple Rain Sessions book specifically mentions how EQing etc was done while tracking the song and doing overdubs. Susan Rogers and Peggy Mac basically mixed as they recorded.

.

So did Paul mean that he doesn't recall Prince ever doing a vocal guide for anything, or that he doesn't recall him ever doing one for River Run Dry?

.

Also, the fact that Prince worked fast and a lot of stuff was mixed on the fly doesn't mean that he never recorded draft versions (or demos, if you will) of some songs that he ended up rerecording later.
.

Kares said:

Also, the fact that Prince worked fast and a lot of stuff was mixed on the fly doesn't mean that he never recorded draft versions (or demos, if you will) of some songs that he ended up rerecording later.
.

.

Didn't Susan Rogers mention that he occasionally brought in tapes with him playing raw piano/guitar versions of songs they then worked on in the studio? She also talked about him endlessly working on creating one song on his piano while she was installing the soundboard in his house, and I somehow doubt he wasn't recording that. If he taped entire rehearsals (and then played them back afterwards), I cannot imagine him not having a tape rolling while he was working out ideas on his piano.

BartVanHemelen said:

Kares said:

Also, the fact that Prince worked fast and a lot of stuff was mixed on the fly doesn't mean that he never recorded draft versions (or demos, if you will) of some songs that he ended up rerecording later.
.

.

Didn't Susan Rogers mention that he occasionally brought in tapes with him playing raw piano/guitar versions of songs they then worked on in the studio? She also talked about him endlessly working on creating one song on his piano while she was installing the soundboard in his house, and I somehow doubt he wasn't recording that. If he taped entire rehearsals (and then played them back afterwards), I cannot imagine him not having a tape rolling while he was working out ideas on his piano.

.

Yes, I agree he must've been taping during the composition phase, especially as quite often, technically speaking he wasn't composing by the time he played a song first, as the composition could've happened in his head and was finished before he sat down at the piano or with the guitar to play it. But I'm not sure if we can classify these tapes as demos, they are more like memos, their primary purpose being protecting the idea from being forgotten. A demo recording is a more accomplished, arranged demonstration of how the finished product would sound like – it is made for someone else. A memo is for the composer only.
.

databank said:

You're having a point about the "big plan" but your Kobalt theory is bullshit, that is unless you have information that I'm not aware of and if so please enlighten us.

.

So far what we know is: Kobalt was supposed to release the album. Kobalt didn't release the album. WB released the album. Period

.

We do NOT know what happened, WHY Kobalt didn't release the album and WHO made the call.

.

Way I see it, Prince stalled because his album was in progress, when the album got ready Prince sold AOA to WB, WB said we don't release AOA if u have competition releasing Plec at the same time, Prince said then you release both records, WB said OK

.

Except in the real world things don't work like that. Kobalt would have required a buy-out if there was a valid contract in place, and I just can't see Warners bothering with that. Warners would have never allowed there to be a competing record contract out there, as we have seen with the post-September 2014 releases all of which had to pass by Warners before Prince could make alternative deals.

.

PlecElec had been announced for months. The early 2014 UK tour was obviously Prince fishing for a record deal, yet supposedly by then the Kobalt deal was in place (announced late 2013). To me that suggests that deal had fallen through by then.

.

Then there's the surprise WBR deal in May 2014, and nothing about 3EG is mentioned. Until months later, when Prince starts whining about Warners dragging their heels and he also talks about wanting the 3EG record out there.

.

Warners releasing two new Prince albums at the same time makes zero sense, unless you look at it as them a) wanting Prince to stop whining (hence the rush release) and b) getting more concessions from him.

.

Your theory is a possibility among many. And it's as valid as any other. What pisses me is the way you're trying to sell it as fact.

.

There's one word for this: it's a lie.

.

I'm not saying it is a fact. I'm simply pointing out that Prince peddled that record endlessly, and nobody bothered to take him up on the offer.

databank said:

databank said:

BartVanHemelen said:

databank said:

.

I'm not saying it is a fact. I'm simply pointing out that Prince peddled that record endlessly, and nobody bothered to take him up on the offer.

It's really annoying this new online fashion of making a statement then when proven wrong saying I never made this statement then making it again... More and more people do it and it becomes impossible to hace conversations...

If you have any sourced fact about what happened between the time Plec was first announced and the moment it was released, please share and quote. If not, let us wait until someone talks, which is going to happen sooner or later, and let us stop theorizing in a vacuum. As far as I know, no information whatsoever is available as of today.

Strive said:

databank said:

Fair enuff. I'd forgotten that recent records charted pretty well all things considered. I'm not sure who bought those records though, because I don't know too many people even my age who still buy their music, let alone younger people. It's very possible the majority of AOA purchasers were over 45 (with a much greater amount of people who enjoyed the music, but either downloaded it for free or streamed it on Spotify or Deezer). I'm 41, and I don't know anyone who buys digital music or CD's anymore. Some buy vinyls because it helps them getting laid. That's about it.

.

As for the Bruno Mars wall I c your point but I fear times have changed. In my days (the early 90's), teenagers my age who were seriously into music were many to be fans of 70's or early 80's acts. There was of course a strong interest for contemporary music as well, but many kids were into 70's music, there was a sort of idealization of the late 60's to very early 80's era. It had to do with sociological factors, a certain fascination for both the hippie and punk movements, the ideals of the first, the disapopointment of the second, this dichotomy forged our identity for the most part. Music also symbolized a rebellion against our parents' and grandparents' generations, and people such as Hendrix, Marley, Morrison, The Clash, The Sex Pistols, Bowie, Pink Floyd and so on were an incarnation of this, they symbolized this first generation of forefathers of rebellion. Prince and Madonna cashed a lot on this, actually, because they were sort of the next wave. And finally grunge, brit pop, hip-hop, trip-hop, techno and other electronic music were the last. A decade later electroclash, for all its rebellion and provocation, was in fact a celebration of the final victory of the sexual revolution established as a dominbant system, and a last slap to the face of conservatives, not an act of rebellion searching any further social progress. I've often read that Kurt Cobain was the last prophet and things in that tone.

.

IDK how people under 30 perceive older acts today. My impression from those I've met is that music isn't so much a symbol of rebellion to them because anyway, there remains very little to rebel against 50 years after the Summer of Love: the work's been done, kids don't need to define themselves in reaction to a perceived archaic and oppressive immediate past (and all the better for it). IDK, maybe I'm wrong but they don't seem so angry nor so idealistic, those kids, they're more ground to earth than we ever were. So to come back to the original topic my perception is that the wall that separates them from being Prince fans is that either they like the music or not, but Prince may not be a strong incarnation of an idea for a great number of them, the way those earlier icons were for us. And maybe Prince's golden age is already a little too old anyway: Dirty Mind was released 38 years ago, Lovesexy was released 30 years ago. Back in '93 we didn't care much about music from 1955 to 1963. Elvis and Little Richard were Egyptian mummies to us. Hell, even the Beatles were already a little too old by that point.

.

So I ain't saying there's no audience, far from it. A lots of kids today who release their first records are incredibly influenced by early 80's music, I'm actually surprised to see that the 80's have been back in fashion for a good 15 years, while the 70's didn't enjoy such a long revival in the 90's. Surprised but delighted. So obviously there will be people who simply like the music. But those people may not be as many as they used to be, because I don't think Prince (or his contemporaries) symbolize anything important to them in terms of a generation and a sociological aspect. There will be an audience: people who are curious about music history and good music, mostly educated and sophisticated people from metropolitran areas.

.

Now maybe I'm completely wrong. I do not claim that my analysis is totally accurate, and it lacks sufficient data to claim any such thing. Just a feeling. But I think it doesn't really matter what they do as long as Prince remains hype, and Prince will remain hype no matter what, same as Bowie, and sophisticated people as well as nostalgic ones will listen to their shit for at least another few decades. But those Bruno Mars kids? IDK. I don't think so. They don't even know who Nile Rogers or James Brown were, most of them.

I'm not too much further behind you but I bought the cds for AOE/PE because the cds came with a digital copy and were only like a dollar more. The divide between generations of music is so much smaller than when we were kids. When we were coming up, you were basically stuck with the genre of your demographic and any older albums that came into your view were sourced from friends with older siblings or parents. And it was so difficult to get your hands on new music. You had to rely on the radio or trade cds or buy from the store. When I was a teen, the internet was just starting to transform music. Piracy, mesageboards, Top 100 lists. Kids today have everything at their fingertips. They can put on a funk or rock playlist and get exposed to 40+ years of music. There's negatives since they don't have to appreciate or live with an album like we did when we were paying $15 a disc but there's no limits on how deep they can go. Any genre. Any artist. It's all possible. With my nephews, it seems like they gravitate towards music that's catchy or acts as an escape. Which makes sense. Rebelling isn't cool anymore and the world is bleak for them. DMSR may not talk to them but they can still dance to it.

.

Don't u encourage them to butcher Prince's work!

I'm upset enough as it is with the fanmade OD/RG on PR Deluxe and the NC2U fanmade edit they've released

If One In A Million was dropped from the upcoming Guns N Roses reissue because of corporate cowardice, there zero chance they'll release the full version of Extraloveable as a single. Fades are no big deal as long as the full version is on the actual release. [Edited 5/10/18 6:49am]

.

Interesting insights about kids today, thank you. I wish I knew more of them, which I don't.

.

About Xtraloveable you may be right about corporate cowardice, but it doesn't mean we, as the main target audience, can't take a firm stand. I vote against any alteration made to the original material, under any circumstances and for any reason. And if mixing is required, I suggest whomever was an engineer at the time the track was recorded is hired to do the mixing to stay as close to P's original vision as possible.

databank said:

I vote against any alteration made to the original material, under any circumstances and for any reason. And if mixing is required, I suggest whomever was an engineer at the time the track was recorded is hired to do the mixing to stay as close to P's original vision as possible.

.

Wholeheartedly agree.
In cases where one would might think "these lyrics should be edited out" I say just leave it in, release everything in full but add liner notes explaining the background of the song – and even condemning parts of the lyrics where appropriate (in case of rape-references, for example.)
.

One of the crucial aspect of Prince's incredible creativity was his child-like, fearless nature of being able to create freely and quickly. That means making mistakes and sometimes writing silly things too (either in music or lyrics). That's OK because there's a bigger picture and his legacy is so unbelievably vast and incredible that it's important to be able to see all of it, including the mistakes.
.

Kares said:

databank said:

I vote against any alteration made to the original material, under any circumstances and for any reason. And if mixing is required, I suggest whomever was an engineer at the time the track was recorded is hired to do the mixing to stay as close to P's original vision as possible.

.

Wholeheartedly agree.
In cases where one would might think "these lyrics should be edited out" I say just leave it in, release everything in full but add liner notes explaining the background of the song – and even condemning parts of the lyrics where appropriate (in case of rape-references, for example.)
.

One of the crucial aspect of Prince's incredible creativity was his child-like, fearless nature of being able to create freely and quickly. That means making mistakes and sometimes writing silly things too (either in music or lyrics). That's OK because there's a bigger picture and his legacy is so unbelievably vast and incredible that it's important to be able to see all of it, including the mistakes.
.

I'll go even further: I wouldn't call it either a mistake or a silly thing.

.

Songs are works of fiction. Each and every song Prince wrote doesn't have to adhere to, or represent his own moral values/standards. Are we going to put a disclaimer and liner notes on Bob George, too ("Prince didn't really mean one should shoot their wife"), or Superfunkycalifragisexy ("Prince did not really advocate sexual rituals involving drinking human blood"), or Sugar Walls ('Prince composed this for a woman and didn't really mean the person he's speaking to should stick his organ into Prince's sugary ass").

.

Are we going to ask liner notes and disclaimers to be printed on each Blu-Ray copy of Bad Lieutenant, The Blackout, Scarface or The Godfather trilogy because the heroes are immoral, brutal, in many ways disgusting characters? What about the occasional comic book starring Doctor Doom? Are we going to demand that Marvel explains that children are not to think the comic encourages them to become dictators? Are we going to put a disclaimer before every episode of Dexter because one should not become a serial killer nor endorse being one? What about those many novels whose lead characters are immoral people?

.

If you ask that the "rape" line is in any way censored OR justified OR condemned by some sort of disclaimer condemning the lyrics, you are opening a door towards censorship that some will want to apply to literature, films and series as well, then paintings, photography, dance and all arts. I believe those "explicit lyrics" stickers are already more than enough (there is no such system of self-regulation in most European countries) and that we do not need anything else. Prince records are not primarily targeted at children. And there is no way in the world a song can be accused of encouraging teenagers to perform a criminal act, because it would take waaaay more than a song to make a criminal of a balanced individual.

.

Now, after saying all this, and maybe that's simply how you meant it, if it is established the song was written for Vanity, then explaining it puts a complete new light on the rape line, and if there are liner notes for the whole record (and not just a disclaimer for that specific song), we may want to remind the listener that Prince has always been a strong advocate of women rights and respect towards women, not so much for the sake of condemning rape than to honor Prince's memory and avoid certain evil-minded people using this to tarnish his legacy.

.

Don't get me wrong, I have been the victim of sexual abuse and I condemn it as strongly as I can condemn anything else, if not more. But I'm also a strong advocate of leaving arts and artists alone.

databank said:

Kares said:

.

Wholeheartedly agree.
In cases where one would might think "these lyrics should be edited out" I say just leave it in, release everything in full but add liner notes explaining the background of the song – and even condemning parts of the lyrics where appropriate (in case of rape-references, for example.)
.

One of the crucial aspect of Prince's incredible creativity was his child-like, fearless nature of being able to create freely and quickly. That means making mistakes and sometimes writing silly things too (either in music or lyrics). That's OK because there's a bigger picture and his legacy is so unbelievably vast and incredible that it's important to be able to see all of it, including the mistakes.
.

.
I'll go even further: I wouldn't call it either a mistake or a silly thing.

.

Songs are works of fiction. Each and every song Prince wrote doesn't have to adhere to, or represent his own moral values/standards. Are we going to put a disclaimer and liner notes on Bob George, too ("Prince didn't really mean one should shoot their wife"), or Superfunkycalifragisexy ("Prince did not really advocate sexual rituals involving drinking human blood"), or Sugar Walls ('Prince composed this for a woman and didn't really mean the person he's speaking to should stick his organ into Prince's sugary ass").

.

Are we going to ask liner notes and disclaimers to be printed on each Blu-Ray copy of Bad Lieutenant, The Blackout, Scarface or The Godfather trilogy because the heroes are immoral, brutal, in many ways disgusting characters? What about the occasional comic book starring Doctor Doom? Are we going to demand that Marvel explains that children are not to think the comic encourages them to become dictators? Are we going to put a disclaimer before every episode of Dexter because one should not become a serial killer nor endorse being one? What about those many novels whose lead characters are immoral people?

.

If you ask that the "rape" line is in any way censored OR justified OR condemned by some sort of disclaimer condemning the lyrics, you are opening a door towards censorship that some will want to apply to literature, films and series as well, then paintings, photography, dance and all arts. I believe those "explicit lyrics" stickers are already more than enough (there is no such system of self-regulation in most European countries) and that we do not need anything else. Prince records are not primarily targeted at children. And there is no way in the world a song can be accused of encouraging teenagers to perform a criminal act, because it would take waaaay more than a song to make a criminal of a balanced individual.

.

Now, after saying all this, and maybe that's simply how you meant it, if it is established the song was written for Vanity, then explaining it puts a complete new light on the rape line, and if there are liner notes for the whole record (and not just a disclaimer for that specific song), we may want to remind the listener that Prince has always been a strong advocate of women rights and respect towards women, not so much for the sake of condemning rape than to honor Prince's memory and avoid certain evil-minded people using this to tarnish his legacy.

.

Don't get me wrong, I have been the victim of sexual abuse and I condemn it as strongly as I can condemn anything else, if not more. But I'm also a strong advocate of leaving arts and artists alone.

.
I agree! And yes, I only meant that there should be liner notes for all album releases, with a bit of background info on every song – not that the cover should bear any sort of scarlet letter. (I find the use of those "parental advisory – explicit lyrics" stickers ridiculous and I think the industry should stop using it if it hasn't already.)
.

As for 'mistakes' and 'silly things': well I think there are parts of Prince's music and lyrics that go nowhere, that were the results of his spontaneous and rapid working style (that I very much appreciate). Had he been the type of artist who spends months or years on creating an album, he would've edited out a lot more. But then again, he would've edited out some of the ingenious, spontaneous stuff too. So don't get me wrong, I absolutely LOVE that he was able to be so fearless to allow for almost anything to happen, including the mistakes and silly and sometimes downright childish things.
.

Kares said:

TrivialPursuit said:

St. Paul responded to my message this evening. I asked him if he remembered Prince recording a vocal guide for the song since Bobby already had a demo. His response was that he does not recall Prince ever doing one.

So with Paul being there and singing it, and other theories noted above, I'd say the answer is a solid no. Prince did not record a guide vocal for "River Run Dry". (And in another thread, we note that Prince probably didn't record demos at all after 1980 or 1981.) Duane Tudahl's Purple Rain Sessions book specifically mentions how EQing etc was done while tracking the song and doing overdubs. Susan Rogers and Peggy Mac basically mixed as they recorded.

.

So did Paul mean that he doesn't recall Prince ever doing a vocal guide for anything, or that he doesn't recall him ever doing one for River Run Dry?

.

Also, the fact that Prince worked fast and a lot of stuff was mixed on the fly doesn't mean that he never recorded draft versions (or demos, if you will) of some songs that he ended up rerecording later.
.

i don't think so, i believe Paul said that many of the songs he copied everything, and it sounds true, he seems to be trying to do a morris type voice on the record, to embarrassing effect. Also, in listening to prince's version of nothing compares to u, it sounds like paul copied just about every lick of the melody. I'd have to dig out the book he said that in because I can't remember exactly what his words were, but.., he probably addresses it in the youtube interviews too.