feeluupp said:

Knowing the estate, they probably gonna add the b-sides we already have, some 7" and radio edits, and probably 4-5 outtakes never released, that's it.

Lets be realistic.

soladeo1 said:

For the extra songs for a 1999 Deluxe release, I'd LOVE to see:

Purple Music
Extralovable

How Come U Don't Call Me Anymore?
Lust U Always
Horny Toad
You're All I Want
Turn It Up
U Should Be Mine
Yah, U Know
If It'll Make U Happy
Don't Let Him Fool Ya
Fox Trap
No Call U
Moonbean Levels

7" edits are the worst! What a waste of space on an album.

WE NEED EXTRALOVEABLE.

I don't know that we'll ever get to hear an unedited version, if they even choose to release it at all. You can argue about artistic expression, context, things being 'different' back then, whatever - it's just not a good look in 2019 to put out a track where an artist straight up sang about raping someone. The song absolutely rules otherwise, but idk what Prince was thinking by including those lyrics. Omitting them was one thing he got right with the rerecording.

Extralovable has questionable (arguably goofy) lyrics but it's also Prince asking a woman to come over and saying that he loves it when they tease him into the red.

.

"I'm on the verge of rape. I don't think you heard me. I'm on the verge of [music breakdown] I guess I'll just have to rape you. Now are you going to get into the tub or do I have to drag you? Don't make me drag you. I can be very cruel.

.

Hippy don't stop the groove. Extralovable beat tells your body what to do."

.

So is that singing about actually raping somebody or is that saying something absurd to get somebody's attention? The latter is something he's played around with alot in his career, especially around the 1999 era.

.

People were happy that they removed One In A Million from a recent Guns N Roses release because Axl used some slurs but they missed the point of that song.

.

By boiling a piece of work down to the questionable parts, completely disconnected from history or context, you're doing a disservce to the art.

[Edited 4/26/19 13:07pm]

Strive said:

By boiling a piece of work down to the questionable parts, completely disconnected from history or context, you're doing a disservce to the art.

[Edited 4/26/19 13:07pm]

welcome 2 the 3rd millennium

jaypotton said:

Based in that article (with a few too many unknown dates sadly) it does appear that the estate etc may finally be ready to start gearing up. I really hope so. My personal preference would be deluxe versions of ALL released albums (on CD) with B-Sides, alternate versions and vault tracks that are relevant to the album (recorded at a similar time/same sessions would make sense for most artists but we know Prince raided the vault regularly)... AND And also actual Vault albums for unreleased projects and other tracks that wouldn't logically fit on a deluxe package... AND A definitive live DVD/Blue Ray box set with a concert from each tour Prince ever undertook... AND A DVD/Blue Ray box set of the best after shows throughout his career. Hey a guy can dream right?

Warners and the Estate have not heard of the invention of Blu Ray yet. So we probably will get DVD or VHS.

LenguaDePlata said:

Dandroppedadime said:

I’d be quite happy for ExTralovable to have the “i’m going to have to rape you now” line be removed from the vocal mix (but retain the music), or remove the whole section with that grating synth. Then at least I can play it in front of people!

Whatever they do people are going to complain. Personally I’d blank the word out but I understand that a lot of people are not going to be happy if they do that. If they release it uncensored it might cause a very small fuss for a very short time. If they leave the song out... they better don’t leave the song out!

Honestly, I think Prince fans can live with one questionable line being omitted from a single song. If it's really that much of a dealbreaker for them, you gotta question why they're so eager to hear Prince sing about rape instead of just being grateful to have the rest of the track in high quality. I'm all for protecting the integrity of his work and not adding anything that wasn't there already, but I also think it'd be stupid to include something that could turn off potential younger fans by creating controversy (and it would happen, trust me)

sulls said:

WE NEED EXTRALOVEABLE.

jn2 said:

sulls said:

WE NEED EXTRALOVEABLE.

But we need too & more than ever ....Studio Stuff fully unreleased & unknown by fans !!!

AnnaSantana said:

mbdtyler said:

Honestly, I think Prince fans can live with one questionable line being omitted from a single song. If it's really that much of a dealbreaker for them, you gotta question why they're so eager to hear Prince sing about rape instead of just being grateful to have the rest of the track in high quality. I'm all for protecting the integrity of his work and not adding anything that wasn't there already, but I also think it'd be stupid to include something that could turn off potential younger fans by creating controversy (and it would happen, trust me)

Did you feel that way when Prince eliminated cursing and was thinking of censoring the master tapes of his past work?

Younger fans who are still under strict parential guidance shouldn't be listening to 1999 and the people that seek out content to be offended by will always be around. There's no pleasing them.

Extralovable is already on bootlegs and YouTube. The estate can't put the genie back in the bottle. And look at the comments on those videos, there's very little pearl clutching.

To be gifted with the original 1999 album was a early Xmas present for me. It remains my ALL TIME favorite Prince(r.i.p) album before the after PR fans came along. Now to be gifted with this extravagant re-mastered Deluxe edition the same way is a dream come true for me.

[Edited 4/29/19 9:23am]

Strive said:

mbdtyler said:

Honestly, I think Prince fans can live with one questionable line being omitted from a single song. If it's really that much of a dealbreaker for them, you gotta question why they're so eager to hear Prince sing about rape instead of just being grateful to have the rest of the track in high quality. I'm all for protecting the integrity of his work and not adding anything that wasn't there already, but I also think it'd be stupid to include something that could turn off potential younger fans by creating controversy (and it would happen, trust me)

Did you feel that way when Prince eliminated cursing and was thinking of censoring the master tapes of his past work?

Younger fans who are still under strict parential guidance shouldn't be listening to 1999 and the people that seek out content to be offended by will always be around. There's no pleasing them.

Extralovable is already on bootlegs and YouTube. The estate can't put the genie back in the bottle. And look at the comments on those videos, there's very little pearl clutching.

Well, I don't think the issue is with people being under 'strict parental guidance', it's with people being put off by Prince's casual insertion of rape in an otherwise playful song. Most people don't take the subject as lightly nowadays, rightfully so, because it's a real fucked up thing that has hurt a lot of people. I'm not saying Prince was a monster for this one lyrical misstep, and I don't even think most people would see him as such, but I do think it would be a letdown for many listeners. As for Prince's self-censorship, I wasn't around for that whole thing (didn't become a fan until after he passed away, unfortunately) but no, I don't agree with it. Prince taking issue with his own language and healthy expression of sexuality is kind of silly. However, I fully believe he got it right when he omitted those lines himself in his own rerecording of the track. The estate has a chance to do right by Prince by releasing a version of the original without the tasteless rape lyrics that don't benefit the song in any way. Everything else about the track screams 'bonafide classic'.

Gee, what else don't we like that we should ask the estate to change?

Oh, I don't like horns, they hurt my ears - can they please remove the horns from housequake?

Oh, I don't like screams, I find them too scary.. can they please remove the screams from darling nikki and something in the water?

Oh, I don't like electronic drums, only real music by real musicians... can they change the drum sounds on when doves cry?

Give me a break... having the estate censor prince's music arbitrarily is outrageous!!!!.. one person will be offended by this, one person will be offended by that.... since when is his art supposed to be altered just to please people? or not to shock them? .. if you dont like it, dont listen to it or cover your ears if you dont wanna hear it.. but dont deny me the right to hear it the way it was intended

Total garbage - keep it pure, do not touch what that man created and if you can't handle it the way it was created - then dont listen to it..

why should we be punished because you can't handle curse words?

its bad enough we couldn't have dirty prince for the last 20 years bc of LG and that nonsense.. at least let me have this!

Dandroppedadime said:

I’d be quite happy for ExTralovable to have the “i’m going to have to rape you now” line be removed from the vocal mix (but retain the music), or remove the whole section with that grating synth. Then at least I can play it in front of people!

Oh... So you don't play them Bob George either because you don't want your friends to believe you support men shooting their wifes? And I guess you won't go watch Joker with them because, oh, wait, it's a movie about a psycopathic serial killer and you don't want to be associated with this?

Honestly all this fuss about the rape line is ridiculous. It's like the controversy recently provoked by Dire Straight's Money For Nothing, a song that features a total dummy talking nonsense in a first person narrative, and some people wanna censor the word "faggot" because in this day and age even dumb characters are now not allowed to be portrayed and speak the sort of trash they speak in real life.

Are we now gonna go back and delete anything that's not politically correct from works of art? Maybe we should start by editing all those Greek philosophers books because, hey, some of them believed slavery was a normal thing to do! And all the nazi/racist/antisemitic lines from Nazi characters in WWII movies? IDK, we don't approve of slavery, genocide, racism and all those things, so those things should never be mentioned again should they?

I really feel sad to see that after centuries of struggle by artists and intellectual for their creative and intellectual freedom, after we finallly got more or less free from religious and political oppression and censorship, we see the core of Prince fans -of all people! those same fans who cried where was their dirty Prince when he turned into a conservative JW, those same fans who made fun of the "filthy fifteen" songs list and calls for censorship in the 80's!- asking for the Estate posthumously censoring a line because it doesn't fit their views and they can't make the difference between statements and fiction anymore.

You people have no shame. You're breaking my heart

[Edited 4/28/19 2:51am]

databank said:

McD said:

databank said:

Actually, you have it backwards. Technically it was already censored. By Prince. Twice. Once by not releasing it, and once by releasing a version minus the line in question. The estate are effectively uncensoring it, by releasing it, if in fact they do. And if the edgiest performer of his time didn’t have the balls to do it (oh, I know, there could be a million other reasons he didn’t use it), it’s a bit much to expect his Estate to leap to it almost 40 years later in a much more hostile environment.

You said it yourself (in bold).

But then following your reasoning Prince has censored everything he's not released and we should lock the vault and leave it at that, because if he chose not to release something then he didn't wish us tyo hear it for any reason.

Prince is gone. The Estate are free not to release it if they don't think it's worth being released as such, there's lot they won't release anytime soon anyway, but releasing a censored version as some suggest would be dumb and outrageous.

databank said:

itsjustaroundthecorner said:

Gee, what else don't we like that we should ask the estate to change?

Oh, I don't like horns, they hurt my ears - can they please remove the horns from housequake?

Oh, I don't like screams, I find them too scary.. can they please remove the screams from darling nikki and something in the water?

Oh, I don't like electronic drums, only real music by real musicians... can they change the drum sounds on when doves cry?

Give me a break... having the estate censor prince's music arbitrarily is outrageous!!!!.. one person will be offended by this, one person will be offended by that.... since when is his art supposed to be altered just to please people? or not to shock them? .. if you dont like it, dont listen to it or cover your ears if you dont wanna hear it.. but dont deny me the right to hear it the way it was intended

Total garbage - keep it pure, do not touch what that man created and if you can't handle it the way it was created - then dont listen to it..

why should we be punished because you can't handle curse words?

its bad enough we couldn't have dirty prince for the last 20 years bc of LG and that nonsense.. at least let me have this!

Thank you.

itsjustaroundthecorner said:

Gee, what else don't we like that we should ask the estate to change?

Oh, I don't like horns, they hurt my ears - can they please remove the horns from housequake?

Oh, I don't like screams, I find them too scary.. can they please remove the screams from darling nikki and something in the water?

Oh, I don't like electronic drums, only real music by real musicians... can they change the drum sounds on when doves cry?

Give me a break... having the estate censor prince's music arbitrarily is outrageous!!!!.. one person will be offended by this, one person will be offended by that.... since when is his art supposed to be altered just to please people? or not to shock them? .. if you dont like it, dont listen to it or cover your ears if you dont wanna hear it.. but dont deny me the right to hear it the way it was intended

Total garbage - keep it pure, do not touch what that man created and if you can't handle it the way it was created - then dont listen to it..

why should we be punished because you can't handle curse words?

its bad enough we couldn't have dirty prince for the last 20 years bc of LG and that nonsense.. at least let me have this!

same goes for anythig... I was harping on this when some want to remove a statue or a cross or anything from a public place. My issue was even if we agree...there will come a time when we do not... and something we/you think is okay will be next.

Now in this case it is not so much that the fans and consumers of his music will freak out... it is peopel that do not like it and do not listen to it that will want it dealt with. .

These are hard to get right... I want the album... then a CD of alternative takes, B-sides, Long versiosn... then a CD of 81/82 outtakes... I would HOPE they have a few unheard but if not and even if it is all songs we have collected, we are oblgated to buy it.

mbdtyler said:

Strive said:

Did you feel that way when Prince eliminated cursing and was thinking of censoring the master tapes of his past work?

Younger fans who are still under strict parential guidance shouldn't be listening to 1999 and the people that seek out content to be offended by will always be around. There's no pleasing them.

Extralovable is already on bootlegs and YouTube. The estate can't put the genie back in the bottle. And look at the comments on those videos, there's very little pearl clutching.

Well, I don't think the issue is with people being under 'strict parental guidance', it's with people being put off by Prince's casual insertion of rape in an otherwise playful song. Most people don't take the subject as lightly nowadays, rightfully so, because it's a real fucked up thing that has hurt a lot of people. I'm not saying Prince was a monster for this one lyrical misstep, and I don't even think most people would see him as such, but I do think it would be a letdown for many listeners. As for Prince's self-censorship, I wasn't around for that whole thing (didn't become a fan until after he passed away, unfortunately) but no, I don't agree with it. Prince taking issue with his own language and healthy expression of sexuality is kind of silly. However, I fully believe he got it right when he omitted those lines himself in his own rerecording of the track. The estate has a chance to do right by Prince by releasing a version of the original without the tasteless rape lyrics that don't benefit the song in any way. Everything else about the track screams 'bonafide classic'.

Prince did not censor himself in 2011. He entirely reworked the song musically and lyrically to give it a different meaning and atmosphere overall, and those rape lyrics of course didn't fit in, + what sort of dignity would have had a 55 years old man singing this (or playing Head on stage with the whole simulation for that matter). That wasn't in line with the character Prince portrayed at this point of his life, his whole asthetics (not to mention values). The whole original song, most of that 1999 era stuff was based on a somewhat depressed, transgressive, sometimes agressive depiction of sexuality and seduction. The 2011-2013 versions display a playful, sexy and lighthearted vision of sexuality and flirt. It's not just the omission of one line that changed the whole song, what you suggest is absurd and shows no understanding of what Prince was doing at all.

.

And when you suggest cutting the line, your suggestion is an abomination, no less. Let's go in the vault and trash the song to remove the offensive line. Yeah! Let's take our big scissors and cut everything we dislike off works of arts! No. No. No. Who do you or anyone suggesting this think you are to go trash other people's work? Release it, or don't release it, but if you release it release it as is. It's all over the internet in bootleg form anyway.

.

Oh, and regarding people taking the subject lightly and so on, I have been sexually abused when I was a teenager, and several people close to me have been raped, so yeah it's real fucked-up and I know the taste of it first hand, but I don't like it when people who have no personal experience of rape (maybe you have, IDK, but I mean in general) start talking censorship because their sensitive PC ears are shocked by something they don't have a clue of. Sorry for the harsh tone, I don't mean to be rude, but you people make so damn angry!

itsjustaroundthecorner said:

jstar69 said:

databank said:

You said it yourself (in bold).

But then following your reasoning Prince has censored everything he's not released and we should lock the vault and leave it at that, because if he chose not to release something then he didn't wish us tyo hear it for any reason.

Prince is gone. The Estate are free not to release it if they don't think it's worth being released as such, there's lot they won't release anytime soon anyway, but releasing a censored version as some suggest would be dumb and outrageous.

Its an artist expression and it represents a time that was decades ago. It should see the light of day in its full glory! This who don’t like it don’t listen 2 it. The same goes for those who don’t like listening to a song representing incest

Precisely. Some people would feel awful watching Texas Chainsaw Massacre, well, I love that film, I sure wouldn't force anyone to watch it but I sure would be pissed as hell if I was forced to watch a children-friendly version it because some bigots re-edited the film with their scissors in the name of PC.

GODDAMMIT!!!

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.

.

KingSausage said:

I don’t like the rape lines in Extraloveable. Never have. They were stupid even for 1982 or whenever. If the Estate releases that song in full — which I believe and hope they do — I think they need to accompany the music with liner notes that properly frame the history. The overwhelming majority of Prince fans don’t have bootlegs. They haven’t heard those lines before. When/if they hear them for the first time in 2019 or 2020, they might be shocked. And Prince will get some serious, serious shit for those lines. I don’t think he deserves the criticism. The lines have to be looked at in the context of 1982. If the Estate releases the original track without proactively framing the discussion, it will be a major fuck up.

Yes, liner notes are always good even though in this case, it's not like Prince wrote a whole song endorsing and praising rape, but OK, let's play the PC game.

IDK how it can really be justified though because rape wasn't acceptable in 82 any more than today but the following could be said to put things in perspective:

- Songs are works of fiction, not each and every Prince song reflects his personal thoughts, experiences or beliefs. As we'll see below, this line goes against everything Prince personally believed in.

- There was less awareness and more denial about rape in those days.

- Prince was a young horny man who liked to explore various sexual fantasies in lyrics, and challenge listeners by being transgressive.

- Transgression in all forms was very popular among artists and their audiences in those days.

- Prince was kind of a feminist and many of his lyrics and statements call for more respect towards woman, throughout his career.

- Prince was never accused of rape or any such abuse by any of his (countless) sexual partners.

- This needs to be confirmed, but the song may have been meant for Vanity 6, which of course would have twisted and turned the rape line into a sort of feminist statement.

- Prince chose to not release the song at the time, and while we don't know whether it had anything to do with those lines (it probably did not, because he could have edited them out even back then), he cannot be held responsible for how people react to it now that he's gone.

- Prince is one of the most important artists of our times and his works deserve to be shown to the public, including the most controversial ones. The public can and shall have their own appreciation of it, but Prince is too important an artist for his works to be buried.

OK, here's the framework of your liner notes.

[Edited 4/28/19 8:14am]

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."

[Edited 4/28/19 8:44am]