Now this could be interesting!

[Edited 4/28/19 9:00am]

KingSausage said:

It’s not the “PC game.” It’s acknowledging that those lyrics will have a different impact in 2019 than they might have had in 1982; in this case, they’d likely be very controversial. There’s nothing “PC” about this.

This. Also, some of you people here are getting bent out of shape over people suggesting that one line gets cut out of a song. One line, from a single song. We have Databank going on a tirade about how white supremacists holding their violent beliefs is somehow the same as people thinking that rape is a touchy subject that needs to be handled with care in the public eye. The world isn't always going to cater to your 'anything goes, fuck your feelings' attitude. Learn to live with it or get out of the way.

Kares said:

databank said:

ANother thing is "oh but rape is offensive for some people but we are on the side of good".

OK.

Well, Darling Nikki, Sister, Head, Sugar Walls are offensive to some ultra-christian people. Do you believe they would like to censor them because they are evil? No, their understanding of the world and their beliefs make them believe such lyrics are harmful to society as a whole. They want to do good. They're bigots but they wanna do good.

Oh, and what about those ultra muslims who say anyone who draws the Prophet should be killed because it's a great sin? They are not evil. They believe there is only one God and His rules are clear and transgression will lead to suffering for the world and that not fighting transgression is a sin almost as great as transgression itself. But they wanna do good, you know, it's just that our views of "good" are different.

Oh, and what a bout those White Supremacists? Because I think all those soul and funk songs about Black civil rights are really offensive to them. But you know what? They're not evil. They sincerely believe, in their own limited, twisted ways, that the USA would be a much better country for people to live if all Blacks would leave. They wanna do good.

Oh, and what about China, where you cannot criticize the government, the communis party or the president? You know, those Chinese rulers they believe what they do is good, that it's OK to put all under surveillance, forbid criticism, censor works of art and throw subversive elements in labor camps because in the end the Chinese people will be richer and happier. They want to do good.

.

So one of the things that make me angry is that basically the thought process that leads someone to say "oh but rape is evil so let's censor the Prince songs" are tacitally justifying the following equation: "if you believe that X is evil because it offends your system of values, then you are entitled to censor any mention of X, because you're doing it for a greater good".

.

Well. No. I can't, won't ever agree with something that leads to religious and political persecutions and threatens freedom of speech or artistic liberties. You don't wanna hear the rape line. Don't listen to it. You believe the rape line is wrong, then let the Estate release it and write articles to say that you believe the song sends the wrong message. Fight the ideas, but do not dare ask anyone to censor the works of dead artists. As for rewriting said work (here by removing a line) as some people (who obviously have not been doing a lot of thinking lately) suggest, it's disgusting, it's basically rewriting history for the sake of ideology, it's the sort of things they do in totalitarian countries and it's also damaging our collective heritage, which is the great works great artists have left behind themselves. Burn the bad books, destroy the bad statues, remove the bad paintings from museums, rewrite the classics to make them politically acceptable. It makes me sick. I'm sorry to be upset like this but I do read books, I know History, and I live in a totalitarian country at the moment, so when I see my own fellow Westerners, people who, like me, have had the privilege of growing in a society where ideas and works of arts are allowed to flourish and explore concepts without fear of being repressed, start and suggest we destroy a piece of art by one of the most important composer of the late 20ths century because it does not fit their views, I feel like our schools have failed somewhere in teaching y'all critical thinking as well as historical perspective, and I believe you people are dangerous, and it makes me wanna cry.

.

.
I believe there's a difference between making a violent film and someone singing in first person about wanting to commit any sort of violence. Frankly, I'm not a fan of either, but I don't support censorship (with a few exceptions).
.
So I don't disagree with you, but let's just remember we're talking about Prince who went through significant changes – and I'm probably the minority here with this but I actually applauded him for having stopped cussing (which I hate too) and it didn't bother me that he changed some of his lyrics. .
I wouldn't censor his songs either, I'd put them out as they are, but at least I'd mention in the liner notes that it is something he most probably wouldn't release today.
.
"Very few of mankind’s creations r designed 2 make u feel good, unless u get pleasure from seeing the human body desecrated by guns, explosions, fights, and any other things these so-called “artists” create. In the name of freedom, many have used art as a means 2 destroy the human mind. As an excuse 2 continue we hear “Art reflects society”. How many times has this lie been repeated: “creations r not real”, they say and yet any one of these people can call 2 mind images and complete scenes of horror in graphic detail. They will carry these so-called “unreal” creations around with them 4 the rest of their lives. These images r now a part of their being. In the name of RECREATION these people in fact r re-creating themselves in their own images. SOCIETY THEN REFLECTS ART."

Certainly it didn't reflect Prince's philosophy at the later stages of his life, but we also know he certainly wouldn't ever have endorsed rape even in 1982. It's funny you'd bring up that text from him, I remember that I totally disagreed at the time, not that I don't find it interesting, but it sort of says works of art should be "moral" and I don't believe they should be anything, just whatever they want. I have to say that Prince himself because sort of a bigot the last 20 or so years of his life. Unlike some, I didn't mind it when it showed in his works because it didn't take anything off their poetic or musical value and I can love an artist's work without embracing each and every one of the ideas it conveys.

Regarding the part I put in bold I have to disagree: first person narrative does not mean the author is the narrator. Many novels or films are told first person, yet the author is not the character. Here of course the narrator is not named, he could be anyone including Prince, but it could just as well not be Prince. And even when the narrator claims to be the author (which isn't the case there), it's often more confusing than one would think, hence the whole "autofiction" genre that blurs the boundaries between autobiography and fiction.

You know, as a prose, poetry and occasional songs writer myself I find this confusion very embarassing, because sometimes I wanna tell the story from a character's perspective, without having to say black on white "hello my name is XXX and I'm really just a character" because doing such a thing would ruin the narrative, and I'm really annoyed when people assume each and every word or situation is me or something I've thought or experienced. Sometimes it is. Hell, sometimes it is even if it's a fiction character in a fiction story who is explicitely not me, but sometimes it's not me at all even if the character's identity isn't clearly established.

mbdtyler said:

KingSausage said:

It’s not the “PC game.” It’s acknowledging that those lyrics will have a different impact in 2019 than they might have had in 1982; in this case, they’d likely be very controversial. There’s nothing “PC” about this.

This. Also, some of you people here are getting bent out of shape over people suggesting that one line gets cut out of a song. One line, from a single song. We have Databank going on a tirade about how white supremacists holding their violent beliefs is somehow the same as people thinking that rape is a touchy subject that needs to be handled with care in the public eye. The world isn't always going to cater to your 'anything goes, fuck your feelings' attitude. Learn to live with it or get out of the way.

You haven't understood me at all.

I never said white supremacists are the same as people thinking rape is a touchy subject. I have been sexually abused, have you?

What I said is that works of arts, particularly once they become historic heritage, are not and should not be subject to any sort of modifications because someone, or even consensus for that matter, disagree with content. Non negociable. Because you start to negociate with that and you open a Pandora's box that leads to all sorts of abuse and disasters. One line from one song? Yeah. It's important. Not to you obviously but to historians and artists and people who fancy freedom of thoughts. It's important to me as someone who value Prince's work and believe it's important to preserve it. It's important to me as a creative person who would tell you to go fuck and die if you talked about messing with my works because you don't like what it says.

.

So now I'm gonna tell you one thing: I'm not gonna learn to live with it and I'm not gonna get out of the way. I'm gonna fight you bigots every time I run into your bullshit, and I'm gonna have it my way because bad news for you: as of now I do have it my way, because works by deceased artists are not being edited, butchered and made PC by bigots, and that's because the vast majority of arts historians, arts critics, arts lovers, educated people and politicians in developped/democratic countries agree with me and aren't gonna let bigots desacrate our artistic heritage by removing words or sentences or pictures deemed offensive, or allow moralistic propaganda to say artists what they can or cannot do.

.

So it appears that you are going to learn to live with it or get out of the way, because so far no one is following your hollier than thou philosophy.

.

[Edited 4/28/19 9:42am]

databank said:

Kares said:

.
I believe there's a difference between making a violent film and someone singing in first person about wanting to commit any sort of violence. Frankly, I'm not a fan of either, but I don't support censorship (with a few exceptions).
.

.

Regarding the part I put in bold I have to disagree: first person narrative does not mean the author is the narrator. .

.
I know that. What I meant is that when someone is one of the biggest stars on Earth with hundreds of thousands idolising him and millions more listening to him, singing something like that in first person will inevitably be taken by many fans as if Prince is talking about himself – especially when he is known to be more open about himself in songs than he is in interviews.
.

KingSausage said:

It’s not the “PC game.” It’s acknowledging that those lyrics will have a different impact in 2019 than they might have had in 1982; in this case, they’d likely be very controversial. There’s nothing “PC” about this.

IDK, the way some people are terrified by it looks very PC to me. I think it could be released as such and it would probably go unnoticed save a few outraged articles here and there. It's not like the whole song was built around endorsing rape, or a whole album of rape songs. It's just a few lines in a song that obviously does not reflect the author's personal views, a poor taste joke at best.

But OK, I agree, if the Estate feels it might put them into trouble or tarnish P's legacy they could have a renowned feminist writer write an essay about Prince and women and how this song fits in. It's OK by me. I think we agree on the fact that the song should be released and that little bigots with big scissors are not to start butchering the tapes in the vault, and that's really the most important thing for me.

Kares said:

databank said:

.

Regarding the part I put in bold I have to disagree: first person narrative does not mean the author is the narrator. .

.
I know that. What I meant is that when someone is one of the biggest stars on Earth with hundreds of thousands idolising him and millions more listening to him, singing something like that in first person will inevitably be taken by many fans as if Prince is talking about himself – especially when he is known to be more open about himself in songs than he is in interviews.
.

I knew that you knew

Ooooooooooookaaaay, you have a point, let's educate the masses and put liner notes, it's OK with me

databank said:

KingSausage said:

databank said:

IDK, the way some people are terrified by it looks very PC to me. I think it could be released as such and it would probably go unnoticed save a few outraged articles here and there. It's not like the whole song was built around endorsing rape, or a whole album of rape songs. It's just a few lines in a song that obviously does not reflect the author's personal views, a poor taste joke at best.

But OK, I agree, if the Estate feels it might put them into trouble or tarnish P's legacy they could have a renowned feminist writer write an essay about Prince and women and how this song fits in. It's OK by me. I think we agree on the fact that the song should be released and that little bigots with big scissors are not to start butchering the tapes in the vault, and that's really the most important thing for me.

Yes, release the song. Absolutely. But try to set the context so shit doesn’t get out of hand. And be ready for reviewers to point out those lines because they will. Don’t censor the line. In my opinion. Prince wrote it. Prince recorded it. Put it out there.

Anyway if it was in the context of the 1999 rerelease, given that someone here recently said they believed Lady Cab endorses rape as well (when it doesn't), and given the relative sexual/emotional brutality of songs like LRC, Let's Pretend, Automatic or Something In The Water, an essay to put things in context and give a broader perspective on the early 80's as an age of transgression and Prince's relationship to women in general may not be such a bad idea.

databank said:

KingSausage said:

databank said: Yes, release the song. Absolutely. But try to set the context so shit doesn’t get out of hand. And be ready for reviewers to point out those lines because they will. Don’t censor the line. In my opinion. Prince wrote it. Prince recorded it. Put it out there.

Anyway if it was in the context of the 1999 rerelease, given that someone here recently said they believed Lady Cab endorses rape as well (when it doesn't), and given the relative sexual/emotional brutality of songs like LRC, Let's Pretend, Automatic or Something In The Water, an essay to put things in context and give a broader perspective on the early 80's as an age of transgression and Prince's relationship to women in general may not be such a bad idea.

.
In my opinion, such an essay should also mention the BDSM-references in some of Prince's lyrics and that him mentioning rape could also be viewed as a reference to plays of 'consensual non-consent', so yeah, good liner notes are needed. But then again, we might debate such subjects here for years totally in vain as unfortunately it is possible that the majority of the stuff won't ever be released, or at least not in our lifetime.

Ain't nothing cool about a rape line. I never understood the fascination with that line anyway. There are much better songs in Prince's discography than Extralovable.

williamb610 said:

Ain't nothing cool about a rape line. I never understood the fascination with that line anyway. There are much better songs in Prince's discography than Extralovable.

.

"Cool"? Who said it's cool? And "fascination with that line"? What are you talking about? The entire conversation about that line has been along the lines that it's NOT cool.

[Edited 4/29/19 5:15am]

Why dress it up with liner notes or anything? Just put the song on the compilation and be done with it. The line will probably give the release some much needed media exposure.

I agree.If it creates some controversy,then so be it.

sulls said:

I think the song should be released intact.

JonnyBoyRebel said:

Why dress it up with liner notes or anything? Just put the song on the compilation and be done with it. The line will probably give the release some much needed media exposure.

THIS^^

Until I found out the song was for Vanity, and the offensive lyrics were to be sung from a woman's perspective, I was 100% freaked out by the lyrics, and understood why it was unreleased. Now, nearly 30 years or so removed from hearing it for the first time, I am still not happy with the lyrics, but it would not bother me either way:

1. Song released with disclaimer on album cover

2. Song editing out the offensive part

The song is so good, to hear it in better quality on any level would be a treat.

The original is so much better than the remake! But I still enjoyed the remake, is it was reworked to sound like 20Ten/AOA era Prince, and the version without Andy Shallow was the best.

stillwaiting said:

Until I found out the song was for Vanity, and the offensive lyrics were to be sung from a woman's perspective, I was 100% freaked out by the lyrics, and understood why it was unreleased. Now, nearly 30 years or so removed from hearing it for the first time, I am still not happy with the lyrics, but it would not bother me either way:

1. Song released with disclaimer on album cover

2. Song editing out the offensive part

The song is so good, to hear it in better quality on any level would be a treat.

The original is so much better than the remake! But I still enjoyed the remake, is it was reworked to sound like 20Ten/AOA era Prince, and the version without Andy Shallow was the best.

Haven't you read a single word I wrote? Or have you and do you care to elaborate?

stillwaiting said:

Until I found out the song was for Vanity, and the offensive lyrics were to be sung from a woman's perspective, I was 100% freaked out by the lyrics, and understood why it was unreleased. Now, nearly 30 years or so removed from hearing it for the first time, I am still not happy with the lyrics, but it would not bother me either way:

1. Song released with disclaimer on album cover

2. Song editing out the offensive part

The song is so good, to hear it in better quality on any level would be a treat.

The original is so much better than the remake! But I still enjoyed the remake, is it was reworked to sound like 20Ten/AOA era Prince, and the version without Andy Shallow was the best.

Another debate entirely but as someone who fell in love with Prince's 80's works in the first place and knew and loved the bootleg Extraloveable for 20 years before P finally released the remake, I can't for the life of me understand how anyone could like the original better than the remake or why, but this is really taking the thread to another level, it's already morphed from 1999 Deluxe to Extra Loveable Censorship, so maybe we should take the old vs. new Xtraloveable debate to another thread

databank said:

stillwaiting said:

Until I found out the song was for Vanity, and the offensive lyrics were to be sung from a woman's perspective, I was 100% freaked out by the lyrics, and understood why it was unreleased. Now, nearly 30 years or so removed from hearing it for the first time, I am still not happy with the lyrics, but it would not bother me either way:

1. Song released with disclaimer on album cover

2. Song editing out the offensive part

The song is so good, to hear it in better quality on any level would be a treat.

The original is so much better than the remake! But I still enjoyed the remake, is it was reworked to sound like 20Ten/AOA era Prince, and the version without Andy Shallow was the best.

Haven't you read a single word I wrote? Or have you and do you care to elaborate?

No, I did not read what you wrote. This has been my opinion of the song when I was hoping it would be on the original Crystal Ball. I thought the lyrics were so tasteless that if it was released, it would need more than just a warning label, but an elaborate explanation or apology from Prince.

databank said:

stillwaiting said:

Until I found out the song was for Vanity, and the offensive lyrics were to be sung from a woman's perspective, I was 100% freaked out by the lyrics, and understood why it was unreleased. Now, nearly 30 years or so removed from hearing it for the first time, I am still not happy with the lyrics, but it would not bother me either way:

1. Song released with disclaimer on album cover

2. Song editing out the offensive part

The song is so good, to hear it in better quality on any level would be a treat.

The original is so much better than the remake! But I still enjoyed the remake, is it was reworked to sound like 20Ten/AOA era Prince, and the version without Andy Shallow was the best.

Another debate entirely but as someone who fell in love with Prince's 80's works in the first place and knew and loved the bootleg Extraloveable for 20 years before P finally released the remake, I can't for the life of me understand how anyone could like the original better than the remake or why, but this is really taking the thread to another level, it's already morphed from 1999 Deluxe to Extra Loveable Censorship, so maybe we should take the old vs. new Xtraloveable debate to another thread

Not a big fan of Prince's guitar playing? That puts it on its own level in and of itself.

sulls said:

stillwaiting said:

databank said:

Haven't you read a single word I wrote? Or have you and do you care to elaborate?

No, I did not read what you wrote. This has been my opinion of the song when I was hoping it would be on the original Crystal Ball. I thought the lyrics were so tasteless that if it was released, it would need more than just a warning label, but an elaborate explanation or apology from Prince.

OK, I understand.

Yeah had Prince done it himself in his lifetime it would have been another matter entirely.

TrcikyChristopher said:

sulls said:

Whaddawe want? WE WANT THE SHIIIIT!

You want the SHIT???

SleezyG said:

databank said:

Another debate entirely but as someone who fell in love with Prince's 80's works in the first place and knew and loved the bootleg Extraloveable for 20 years before P finally released the remake, I can't for the life of me understand how anyone could like the original better than the remake or why, but this is really taking the thread to another level, it's already morphed from 1999 Deluxe to Extra Loveable Censorship, so maybe we should take the old vs. new Xtraloveable debate to another thread

Not a big fan of Prince's guitar playing? That puts it on its own level in and of itself.

Where did someone say they were not a fan of Prince's guitar playing? We can argue all day about which version of a song we like better, sometimes a sax solo fits better than guitar and vice versa, but nobody said they don't like Prince on guitar aarond here.

stillwaiting said:

SleezyG said:

Not a big fan of Prince's guitar playing? That puts it on its own level in and of itself.

Where did someone say they were not a fan of Prince's guitar playing? We can argue all day about which version of a song we like better, sometimes a sax solo fits better than guitar and vice versa, but nobody said they don't like Prince on guitar aarond here.

Yeah no sure of course I dig P's guitar, it's really not at all about that and I still fancy lots of things in the original, but overall the remake makes much more sense to me, and sort of ruined the original for me at the same time

databank said:

stillwaiting said:

Where did someone say they were not a fan of Prince's guitar playing? We can argue all day about which version of a song we like better, sometimes a sax solo fits better than guitar and vice versa, but nobody said they don't like Prince on guitar aarond here.

Yeah no sure of course I dig P's guitar, it's really not at all about that and I still fancy lots of things in the original, but overall the remake makes much more sense to me, and sort of ruined the original for me at the same time

I can't remember coming across anyone that liked the remake better, but I took much of the last 3 years off of this site, and my memory is not what it once was...Prince's death took a lot out of me. But I always promised to be honest with my opinions. I do like the remake though, and can't understand anyone that doesn't at least like both to a point, but hay, some like Jughead.