The more I think about this release, the more mystified I am by it. This is the estate's public introduction to The Vault? 35 minutes of Prince doodling at the piano, sourced from a cassette that isn't even in great condition (judging by the clear defects in Mary)??

According to Susan Rogers, there is a very strong team of advisors working on this, including a long time fan/collector (who must certainly have a copy of Eavesdropped in his collection), and this is the one that made all of them say, "Yep. This is what we need to put out to let the public know what were sitting on?"

NorthC said:

SchlomoThaHomo said:

SchlomoThaHomo said:

SchlomoThaHomo said:

The more I think about this release, the more mystified I am by it. This is the estate's public introduction to The Vault? 35 minutes of Prince doodling at the piano, sourced from a cassette that isn't even in great condition (judging by the clear defects in Mary)??

According to Susan Rogers, there is a very strong team of advisors working on this, including a long time fan/collector (who must certainly have a copy of Eavesdropped in his collection), and this is the one that made all of them say, "Yep. This is what we need to put out to let the public know what were sitting on?"

I think we'll see if their bet was a good one when we read the reviews in the music press.

.

Most critics probably won't know (or mention) that we're talking of a classic bootleg, and most people in the general public won't ever know either. So that won't be much cause for debate outside of the Org.

.

Again, remember how PR Deluxe was received: praise, praise and more praise. There wasn't a single reviewer (that I know of) to talk about any of the issues on it, not even the glitch on EC (which would have been the most visible issue for non fans).

.

It may sound puzzling to us because we have hard drives full of soundboard live shows, mindblowing outtakes and incredible rehearsals, many of them in pretty good if not excellent sound quality.

.

But objectively, for this majority of people who are not spoiledlike us, including reviewers, this is gonna be a cool little record showcasing a rare, intimate side of Prince playing relatively accessible music. I'm pretty sure my GF will love it. I'm pretty sure anyone who likes Prince a little and cares for an R&B singer and a piano will like it. It's just like a whole record in the vein of HCUDCMA, and who doesn't like HCUDCMA?

.

So yeah, it's a puzzling decision at first but when you think of it, it's not crazy like, say, if they released "Prince's original vocal versions of the Carmen Electra album". And another factor, I suspect, is that it's a cheap, quick and easy option: there isn't much to restore, no tracklist to think about, no mixing to do, no baking tapes or whatever: just take the cassette, clean it a little, master it and here you go: we have a 35mn long new album, ready to go!

.

Like I said, let's wait for the professional reviews: I may be wrong but I bet it's gonna be praise, praise and more praise.

[Edited 6/11/18 10:03am]

databank said:

I think we'll see if their bet was a good one when we read the reviews in the music press.

.

Like I said, let's wait for the professional reviews: I may be wrong but I bet it's gonna be praise, praise and more praise.

[Edited 6/11/18 10:03am]

Why should that be the main metric for deciding on the success of this (or any other) release? I can understand looking at sales, because there's a incontestable commercial logic to that. And I can understand going by fans' and ordinary listeners' feedback, because that's ultimately the point of a music release. But why on earth should what paid reviewers think matter more than either of those?

There are many reviews these days that say little contentious and regurgitate the press release. The 'quality' music press is more discerning, and I often enjoy reading reviews. But still, what does it matter?? After all, it'd be peculiar for anyone to say: "Well, I don't think much of it myself, and it tanked on charts, but Rolling Stone gave it five stars!"

databank said:

And another factor, I suspect, is that it's a cheap, quick and easy option: there isn't much to restore, no tracklist to think about, no mixing to do, no baking tapes or whatever: just take the cassette, clean it a little, master it and here you go: we have a 35mn long new album, ready to go!

to me it feels like, and i hope i'm right on this, as if they are going through the vault,
cataogueing things, possibly already mastering certain things, figuring out what song
would go with what album reissue in regards to time recorded, personell invovled etc.

and then things like this rehearsal pop up amongst those tracks and they feel special
and intimate and quite magical i suppose to someone who hears them for the very first
time.

and because it doesn't cost much and because it can be cleaned, matered and put on
a cd relatively quickly, they chose to put it out there for everyone to hear and enjoy.

so in that respect i fully understand what they're doing now. IF it's just a way to put a
release out there whilst they are working on the bigger picture behind the scenes.

that way it's actually a bonus release, in my eyes. something to keep his music in the
public eye and keep some momentum moving forward to what will be the ultimate
prize; reissues stacked with bonus material and later actual full albums that prince'd
compiled and filed away.

so i'm not that pissed off anymore. i guess it's just a waiting game. let's see if they're
going to start trickling out information about reissues toward the very end of the year.

i'm guessing they will.

IstenSzek said:

databank said:

And another factor, I suspect, is that it's a cheap, quick and easy option: there isn't much to restore, no tracklist to think about, no mixing to do, no baking tapes or whatever: just take the cassette, clean it a little, master it and here you go: we have a 35mn long new album, ready to go!

to me it feels like, and i hope i'm right on this, as if they are going through the vault,
cataogueing things, possibly already mastering certain things, figuring out what song
would go with what album reissue in regards to time recorded, personell invovled etc.

and then things like this rehearsal pop up amongst those tracks and they feel special
and intimate and quite magical i suppose to someone who hears them for the very first
time.

and because it doesn't cost much and because it can be cleaned, matered and put on
a cd relatively quickly, they chose to put it out there for everyone to hear and enjoy.

so in that respect i fully understand what they're doing now. IF it's just a way to put a
release out there whilst they are working on the bigger picture behind the scenes.

that way it's actually a bonus release, in my eyes. something to keep his music in the
public eye and keep some momentum moving forward to what will be the ultimate
prize; reissues stacked with bonus material and later actual full albums that prince'd
compiled and filed away.

so i'm not that pissed off anymore. i guess it's just a waiting game. let's see if they're
going to start trickling out information about reissues toward the very end of the year.

i'm guessing they will.

deebee said:

databank said:

I think we'll see if their bet was a good one when we read the reviews in the music press.

.

Like I said, let's wait for the professional reviews: I may be wrong but I bet it's gonna be praise, praise and more praise.

[Edited 6/11/18 10:03am]

Why should that be the main metric for deciding on the success of this (or any other) release? I can understand looking at sales, because there's a incontestable commercial logic to that. And I can understand going by fans' and ordinary listeners' feedback, because that's ultimately the point of a music release. But why on earth should what paid reviewers think matter more than either of those?

There are many reviews these days that say little contentious and regurgitate the press release. The 'quality' music press is more discerning, and I often enjoy reading reviews. But still, what does it matter?? After all, it'd be peculiar for anyone to say: "Well, I don't think much of it myself, and it tanked on charts, but Rolling Stone gave it five stars!"

Well, usually the 2 metrics for the success of any work of art is usually sales and critical response.

Fans and ordinary listeners' feedback are more difficult to measure.

For movies now Rotten Tomatoes allow regular folks' reception to be measured (to some extent, because not everyone votes and the vocal majority might in fact be a minority), and I guess there must be sites allowing audience ratings for music as well, but IDK if any is popular enough to weight in.

[Edited 6/11/18 10:38am]

SchlomoThaHomo said:

The more I think about this release, the more mystified I am by it. This is the estate's public introduction to The Vault? 35 minutes of Prince doodling at the piano, sourced from a cassette that isn't even in great condition (judging by the clear defects in Mary)??

According to Susan Rogers, there is a very strong team of advisors working on this, including a long time fan/collector (who must certainly have a copy of Eavesdropped in his collection), and this is the one that made all of them say, "Yep. This is what we need to put out to let the public know what were sitting on?"

Right

I mean Wonderful Ass, We Can Fu** and Possessed are in much higher quality than this...I can see this being a bonus release with a 1999 Remaster but...mmm..

deebee said:

paisleypark4 said:

databank said:

deebee said:

Why should that be the main metric for deciding on the success of this (or any other) release? I can understand looking at sales, because there's a incontestable commercial logic to that. And I can understand going by fans' and ordinary listeners' feedback, because that's ultimately the point of a music release. But why on earth should what paid reviewers think matter more than either of those?

There are many reviews these days that say little contentious and regurgitate the press release. The 'quality' music press is more discerning, and I often enjoy reading reviews. But still, what does it matter?? After all, it'd be peculiar for anyone to say: "Well, I don't think much of it myself, and it tanked on charts, but Rolling Stone gave it five stars!"

Well, usually the 2 metrics for the success of any work of art is usually sales and critical response.

Fans and ordinary listeners' feedback are more difficult to measure.

For movies now Rotten Tomatoes allow regular folks' reception to be measured (to some extent, because not everyone votes and the vocal majority might in fact be a minority), and I guess there must be sites allowing audience ratings for music as well, but IDK if any is popular enough to weight in.

[Edited 6/11/18 10:38am]

I like that response, though I'm not sure it's quite what's conveyed by enjoining us to "wait for the professional reviews." That sounds a way of privileging 'expert' opinion over that of all these ungrateful, whinging laymen (aka fans). But, for me, ordinary people's enjoyment of the product is the only really important metric of success in all of this. Sales and good reviews are important insofar as they enable and help promote that, but they're just a means to an end. The end is the enjoyment we unwashed amateurs derive from it, whether the journos concur or not.

NorthC said:

deebee said:

Why should that be the main metric for deciding on the success of this (or any other) release? I can understand looking at sales, because there's a incontestable commercial logic to that. And I can understand going by fans' and ordinary listeners' feedback, because that's ultimately the point of a music release. But why on earth should what paid reviewers think matter more than either of those?

There are many reviews these days that say little contentious and regurgitate the press release. The 'quality' music press is more discerning, and I often enjoy reading reviews. But still, what does it matter?? After all, it'd be peculiar for anyone to say: "Well, I don't think much of it myself, and it tanked on charts, but Rolling Stone gave it five stars!"

That's sorta what happened to Prince in the early 80s: he didn't have big hits, but be was praised by the music press and that surely helped to build his reputation. And I agree with data that this release will probably get good reviews and there might even be a few journos who know that it was an old bootleg. Plenty to write about. But of course, like record sales, the influence of the music press isn't what it used to be.

Yes, I agree it's important as a means to an end. I just mean it's not an end in itself - or a trump card.

for those whove been around since the early 80's ...remember how u got hooked????? is WB following THAT pattern???

deebee said:

IstenSzek said:

databank said:

And another factor, I suspect, is that it's a cheap, quick and easy option: there isn't much to restore, no tracklist to think about, no mixing to do, no baking tapes or whatever: just take the cassette, clean it a little, master it and here you go: we have a 35mn long new album, ready to go!

to me it feels like, and i hope i'm right on this, as if they are going through the vault,
cataogueing things, possibly already mastering certain things, figuring out what song
would go with what album reissue in regards to time recorded, personell invovled etc.

and then things like this rehearsal pop up amongst those tracks and they feel special
and intimate and quite magical i suppose to someone who hears them for the very first
time.

and because it doesn't cost much and because it can be cleaned, matered and put on
a cd relatively quickly, they chose to put it out there for everyone to hear and enjoy.

so in that respect i fully understand what they're doing now. IF it's just a way to put a
release out there whilst they are working on the bigger picture behind the scenes.

that way it's actually a bonus release, in my eyes. something to keep his music in the
public eye and keep some momentum moving forward to what will be the ultimate
prize; reissues stacked with bonus material and later actual full albums that prince'd
compiled and filed away.

so i'm not that pissed off anymore. i guess it's just a waiting game. let's see if they're
going to start trickling out information about reissues toward the very end of the year.

i'm guessing they will.

I like the way you think. Hopefully this is the case.

databank said:

deebee said:

I like that response, though I'm not sure it's quite what's conveyed by enjoining us to "wait for the professional reviews." That sounds a way of privileging 'expert' opinion over that of all these ungrateful, whinging laymen (aka fans). But, for me, ordinary people's enjoyment of the product is the only really important metric of success in all of this. Sales and good reviews are important insofar as they enable and help promote that, but they're just a means to an end. The end is the enjoyment we unwashed amateurs derive from it, whether the journos concur or not.

I guess it's complicated: many professional reviews are lazy pieces of writing written by hacks but they can also be the true measure of an artist's importance (David Lynch's moderate commercial success vs critical acclaim is an obvious example, Bill Laswell is another). The opinion of critics, peers, scholars, hardcore fans, hipsters and ordinary folks all matter but not all are equally measured. Sales (or streams nowadays) are a weak indicator at most because popularity is at the mercy of marketing and the vast majority of people don't necessarily have developped acquired tastes. On the other hand when you're very familiar with an artist it can sometimes be shocking to see how professional critics know nothing of an artist, but their words are those that music historians will quote. My point, I guess, is that critical acclaim and commercial success are the 2 things that history books and Wikipedia are likely to remember, so like it or not, they matter. How this record (of all records) sells won't tell us much because it's not made to be a smash hit, at least I don't believe it is. So in the end we're left with the reviews, for better or worse.

That seems a remarkably elitist view of music - that the opinion of ordinary listeners counts for less than that of these 'professional' critics with their "developed acquired tastes." I'd say that at the heart of our discussion is the question of what the 'use' of music - and perhaps all art - is. For me, it is that it contributes something to ordinary people's lives - be it entertainment, spiritual enrichment, whatever you get from it. That's undoubtedly what this particular artist made music for (not the acclaim of professional critics), and, when you strip everything else away, that's all that matters.

I don't deny, of course, that both sales and published reviews matter. The first serves to bankroll music production and distribution; the latter helps offer a handy public estimation of its value; and both can serve as useful measures of how well a project's doing, at least in the public arena. But, as suggested, they're merely means to an end; and it seems rather tragic if "commercial success vs critical acclaim" become the only gauges of worth we can perceive, since they're both removed from whatever the music in question actually does for our own lives.

So, yes, to wrap this up: it'll certainly be interesting to read the reviews, but whatever they say, good or bad, won't serve to 'trump' the opinions of ordinary listeners and fans - at least, as I see it.

NorthC said:

Graycap23 said:

Intimate Moments Revisted boot was fairly clean. I need to pull it out and compare it to video that was posted. I thought that boot was pretty clean if i remember correctly.

I was listening to that last night

IstenSzek said:

databank said:

And another factor, I suspect, is that it's a cheap, quick and easy option: there isn't much to restore, no tracklist to think about, no mixing to do, no baking tapes or whatever: just take the cassette, clean it a little, master it and here you go: we have a 35mn long new album, ready to go!

to me it feels like, and i hope i'm right on this, as if they are going through the vault,
cataogueing things, possibly already mastering certain things, figuring out what song
would go with what album reissue in regards to time recorded, personell invovled etc.

and then things like this rehearsal pop up amongst those tracks and they feel special
and intimate and quite magical i suppose to someone who hears them for the very first
time.

and because it doesn't cost much and because it can be cleaned, matered and put on
a cd relatively quickly, they chose to put it out there for everyone to hear and enjoy.

so in that respect i fully understand what they're doing now. IF it's just a way to put a
release out there whilst they are working on the bigger picture behind the scenes.

that way it's actually a bonus release, in my eyes. something to keep his music in the
public eye and keep some momentum moving forward to what will be the ultimate
prize; reissues stacked with bonus material and later actual full albums that prince'd
compiled and filed away.

so i'm not that pissed off anymore. i guess it's just a waiting game. let's see if they're
going to start trickling out information about reissues toward the very end of the year.

i'm guessing they will.

Someone's had their plus sign today.

Let's hope so but hard to be optimistic. As Schlomo says you have to wonder if this team of advisors had bothered to research this rehearsal to find out most P fans would have had this years ago..

[Edited 6/12/18 0:37am]

[Edited 6/12/18 0:37am]

deebee said:

databank said:

deebee said: I guess it's complicated: many professional reviews are lazy pieces of writing written by hacks but they can also be the true measure of an artist's importance (David Lynch's moderate commercial success vs critical acclaim is an obvious example, Bill Laswell is another). The opinion of critics, peers, scholars, hardcore fans, hipsters and ordinary folks all matter but not all are equally measured. Sales (or streams nowadays) are a weak indicator at most because popularity is at the mercy of marketing and the vast majority of people don't necessarily have developped acquired tastes. On the other hand when you're very familiar with an artist it can sometimes be shocking to see how professional critics know nothing of an artist, but their words are those that music historians will quote. My point, I guess, is that critical acclaim and commercial success are the 2 things that history books and Wikipedia are likely to remember, so like it or not, they matter. How this record (of all records) sells won't tell us much because it's not made to be a smash hit, at least I don't believe it is. So in the end we're left with the reviews, for better or worse.

That seems a remarkably elitist view of music - that the opinion of ordinary listeners counts for less than that of these 'professional' critics with their "developed acquired tastes." I'd say that at the heart of our discussion is the question of what the 'use' of music - and perhaps all art - is. For me, it is that it contributes something to ordinary people's lives - be it entertainment, spiritual enrichment, whatever you get from it. That's undoubtedly what this particular artist made music for (not the acclaim of professional critics), and, when you strip everything else away, that's all that matters.

I don't deny, of course, that both sales and published reviews matter. The first serves to bankroll music production and distribution; the latter helps offer a handy public estimation of its value; and both can serve as useful measures of how well a project's doing, at least in the public arena. But, as suggested, they're merely means to an end; and it seems rather tragic if "commercial success vs critical acclaim" become the only gauges of worth we can perceive, since they're both removed from whatever the music in question actually does for our own lives.

So, yes, to wrap this up: it'll certainly be interesting to read the reviews, but whatever they say, good or bad, won't serve to 'trump' the opinions of ordinary listeners and fans - at least, as I see it.

In my opinion reviews only matter for sales. I don't think it important what others think of something I do or do not like and it doesn't change my opinon on something or how the music makes me feel. If I like it than why should I care what some Pro reviewer or my neighbor think of it? Reviews and reviewers are just marketing tools.

deebee said:

databank said:

deebee said: I guess it's complicated: many professional reviews are lazy pieces of writing written by hacks but they can also be the true measure of an artist's importance (David Lynch's moderate commercial success vs critical acclaim is an obvious example, Bill Laswell is another). The opinion of critics, peers, scholars, hardcore fans, hipsters and ordinary folks all matter but not all are equally measured. Sales (or streams nowadays) are a weak indicator at most because popularity is at the mercy of marketing and the vast majority of people don't necessarily have developped acquired tastes. On the other hand when you're very familiar with an artist it can sometimes be shocking to see how professional critics know nothing of an artist, but their words are those that music historians will quote. My point, I guess, is that critical acclaim and commercial success are the 2 things that history books and Wikipedia are likely to remember, so like it or not, they matter. How this record (of all records) sells won't tell us much because it's not made to be a smash hit, at least I don't believe it is. So in the end we're left with the reviews, for better or worse.

That seems a remarkably elitist view of music - that the opinion of ordinary listeners counts for less than that of these 'professional' critics with their "developed acquired tastes." I'd say that at the heart of our discussion is the question of what the 'use' of music - and perhaps all art - is. For me, it is that it contributes something to ordinary people's lives - be it entertainment, spiritual enrichment, whatever you get from it. That's undoubtedly what this particular artist made music for (not the acclaim of professional critics), and, when you strip everything else away, that's all that matters.

I don't deny, of course, that both sales and published reviews matter. The first serves to bankroll music production and distribution; the latter helps offer a handy public estimation of its value; and both can serve as useful measures of how well a project's doing, at least in the public arena. But, as suggested, they're merely means to an end; and it seems rather tragic if "commercial success vs critical acclaim" become the only gauges of worth we can perceive, since they're both removed from whatever the music in question actually does for our own lives.

So, yes, to wrap this up: it'll certainly be interesting to read the reviews, but whatever they say, good or bad, won't serve to 'trump' the opinions of ordinary listeners and fans - at least, as I see it.

I certainly am an elitist and no, I do not think that everyone's opinion on any given topic has the same value. I take full responsibility for that.

.

However you certainly have a point, but the problem remains that we have no real mean to objectively gauge the public perception of any given piece of work. The internet certainly helps but not everyone takes the time to express their perception of any given work, like I said earlier a minority of extremely vocal people can give the impression they speak for the bulk of us, when they don't. So IDK. I have no solution to offer.

.

But in the end I also believe (right or wrong) that most "ordinary" listeners and fans are going to enjoy this release, as long as a blues piano and vocals record fits their musical tastes (obviously, there are people who'd never listen to a piano and vocals R&B album no matter who records it). Our perception of whether this is or not the "right" release is very much biased by the fact that 1. we have been familiar with this particular recording for 25 years and 2. we have an unusual knowledge of what type of other recordings are there in the vault, that could have been released instead. It's a bit like Crystal Ball (1998), one orger once wrote that it was judged [by hardcore fans who knew bootlegs] for what it wasn't much more than for what it was. I agree with this statement (again, right or wrong).

IstenSzek said:

and then things like this rehearsal pop up amongst those tracks and they feel special
and intimate and quite magical i suppose to someone who hears them for the very first
time.

and because it doesn't cost much and because it can be cleaned, matered and put on
a cd relatively quickly, they chose to put it out there for everyone to hear and enjoy.

so in that respect i fully understand what they're doing now. IF it's just a way to put a
release out there whilst they are working on the bigger picture behind the scenes.

.

If this was one of four releases this year: sure. As the first "independent" (= not an expanded version of a classic album) release, 2.5 years after Prince's death? Ridiculous.

.

that way it's actually a bonus release, in my eyes. something to keep his music in the
public eye and keep some momentum moving forward to what will be the ultimate
prize; reissues stacked with bonus material and later actual full albums that prince'd
compiled and filed away.

.

There comes a certain point at which you need to feed the donkey instead of waving a carrot in front of him. PR Deluxe was already somewhat of a disappointment, and this upcoming release feels overhyped.

IstenSzek said:

to me it feels like, and i hope i'm right on this, as if they are going through the vault,
cataogueing things, possibly already mastering certain things, figuring out what song
would go with what album reissue in regards to time recorded, personell invovled etc.

.

`They are avoiding both the hassle and work for now and put out this quickie`?

.

and then things like this rehearsal pop up amongst those tracks and they feel special
and intimate and quite magical i suppose to someone who hears them for the very first
time.

.

That someone that does not knwo this side of Prince and thus was not looking for it anyways. Tehy want hits. Are there any hits on this release?

.

and because it doesn't cost much and because it can be cleaned, matered and put on
a cd relatively quickly, they chose to put it out there for everyone to hear and enjoy.

.

The pricing most certainly does not reflect the ease and lightness of this process as you describe it.

The pricing is more fit for a sub-300 boutique release qith certain specific qualities.

.

so in that respect i fully understand what they're doing now. IF it's just a way to put a

release out there whilst they are working on the bigger picture behind the scenes.

.

Would it be so hard to find the P&M 2016 recordings?

Would these be so hard to clean up, master, track, etc?

Would these not be seen as the most epic perfromances P did in his whole career?

If only they would do the final performance isntead of the whole 'tour' (because the market cannot bear all that), how much more work would it be than this 35 minute thingie?

.

that way it's actually a bonus release,

.

A bonus release would be not that expen$ive.

.

in my eyes. something to keep his music in the
public eye

.

Looking at the price, again, they could have a big promotional budget so time will tell if your assumption is right.

so i'm not that pissed off anymore. i guess it's just a waiting game. let's see if they're
going to start trickling out information about reissues toward the very end of the year.

i'm guessing they will.

.

Sure, take a look again at how early they release info about this 35 minute thingie.

It is not about communicating as they lied about the PR remastered release.

It is about the actual goods and the pace we are able to buy them, first.