mbdtyler said:

PurpleSullivan said:

us: the rape lines in extraloveable are kinda tasteless and don’t really add anything to the song (in fact they might detract from it)

some of y’all:

databank said:

Don't forget the whole rant about people being 'bigots' for wanting to censor a line about rape purely out of respect and empathy for Prince fans who might not want to hear about rape in a fucking dance-pop song phew, some of these old-school fans certainly show the climate they grew up in.

Sorry for the name calling but I don't have any respect or empathy for what you propose here. If it's released you can edit it yourself on Audacity to spare your ears this horrible rape word. I don't see why music historians and the majority of fans who want the song as such should bend to your whims. A fucking dance-pop song... no darling, it's called art and it does not only exist to entertain you. .

no one has the right to change the questionable lyrics to any songs ...but the songwriter.

jfenster said:

no one has the right to change the questionable lyrics to any songs ...but the songwriter.

i disagree 100% ...whoever owns it can change it and if no one owns it (If it is public domain) anyone can...

databank said:

mbdtyler said:

Don't forget the whole rant about people being 'bigots' for wanting to censor a line about rape purely out of respect and empathy for Prince fans who might not want to hear about rape in a fucking dance-pop song phew, some of these old-school fans certainly show the climate they grew up in.

Sorry for the name calling but I don't have any respect or empathy for what you propose here. If it's released you can edit it yourself on Audacity to spare your ears this horrible rape word. I don't see why music historians and the majority of fans who want the song as such should bend to your whims. A fucking dance-pop song... no darling, it's called art and it does not only exist to entertain you. .

Trust me, I already edited the bootleg and I'll do it again if the estate is brave enough to release the unedited version. Let's not pretend this track is some kind of grand artistic statement; it was a tossed-off dance-pop song in the 80's (albeit an excellent one), and the rerecorded version is the kind of laid back jam that people have fun dancing to at a summer cookout. Prince was an artist, but he also excelled at making pop songs to entertain folks. I also like to think that he'd respect peoples' sensibilities enough to not release a track with rape references in 2019 or beyond, because art doesn't always have to be provocative for the sake of being provocative.

Have we ever confirmed 19999 Deluxe will be released at the end of the year? Wasn't there some thought the article reference in the original post might have simple been based on fan rumors, not confirmation from WB?

lurker316 said:

rusty1 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

jfenster said:

no one has the right to change the questionable lyrics to any songs ...but the songwriter.

i disagree 100% ...whoever owns it can change it and if no one owns it (If it is public domain) anyone can...

Legally the owners can do whatever they want, the Estate would even be legally entitled to have any vault release "modernized" by young producers or even to destroy the whole vault tomorrow if they so wished. Just because one can doesn't mean one should. Just imagine a billionaire purchasing the Estate for more money that they could hope to make by releasing the catalogue, and burning all the tapes to ashes because he hates Prince. It's a crazy scenario but technically possible. He could do this, but should he? Wouldn't the world be right to feel outraged?

.

One of the most famous French writers has dozens of unreleased novels and she said she took legal dispositions so that they'll be destroyed when she dies. I fear no one will be able to oppose this but I know it's gonna upset a lot of people, but it's her prerogative as a living artist to include such a thing in her will. Thanks God Kafka trusted his friend Max Brod to destroy his unpublished manuscripts and did not legally enforce this, or Brod would have been unable to publish them and we would have lost one of the most important and influential pieces of literature in modern history :/

.

As for public domain works it is true that anyone can alter them in any way, but theorically the original will have been reproduced over and over and will be widely available, and such originals or copies of originals will be preserved carefully, whether by a museum, national archives, publishers/labels, or some private collectors. Unless they're Talibans or that sort of insane people, you won't see people promoting the permanent alteration or destruction of the original work. They belong to all and as such all is free to alter them, but as long as civilization exists there will be people to make sure the originals are being preserved. Typically, no matter how many people may rewrite Illiad and Odyssey, the original texts are being preserved and are available to all. No matter how many people may edit or rewrite Mozart, the original music sheets are being preserved and are widely available. Many films were destroyed up until the 1960's or so, and we have lost countless films, which for most are not of much interest to modern audiences, but this loss breaks the heart of film historians and now all movies are being archived and preserved, no matter how good or bad, while institutions such as the Library of Congress are making sure important works are being preserved even more carefully. As a civilization, we have realized the importance of preserving the works of artists because they're part of our heritage, and we have collectively agreed on the fact that no one is entitled to definitely alter or destroy the originals because it hurts their personal ideology. In that case, intelligence has won over bigotry and that is something we can be collectively proud of.

.

Of course I realize that no one here has (yet) suggested to destroy the original Xtra Loveable, but either to lock it up forever in a vault that no one can access, or to mutilate it for release and lock the original forever. But it's likely that eventually after a century or so, the vault will become public domain and its surviving content will be archived and made publicly available. Anyone who suggests detroying or hiding Xtraloveable then will be treated with the contempt they deserve. So what difference does it make if it's now or in 150 years?

.

For now the Estate's only motive appear to be commercial anyway, so whether they choose that this song is good or harmful to their business is up to them, maybe they will not release it and I don't care as long as they don't release a mutilated version. But eventually, long after we're gone, Extraloveable will have to be made public as such. There's no way around this.

[Edited 5/5/19 2:45am]

Strive said:

Imagine being so offended by an artist's work that you take the time to edit it instead of not partaking. Or listening to the four other versions that don't include the questionable content. Totally not like the religious right btw

It's beyond me, just as people being so upset by Tony M that they edit him out. IDK, they clearly have a completely different relation to music than I do, but as long as people do this privately and for their own enjoyment, it's their prerogative.

databank said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

i disagree 100% ...whoever owns it can change it and if no one owns it (If it is public domain) anyone can...

Legally the owners can do whatever they want, the Estate would even be legally entitled to have any vault release "modernized" by young producers or even to destroy the whole vault tomorrow if they so wished. Just because one can doesn't mean one should. Just imagine a billionaire purchasing the Estate for more money that they could hope to make by releasing the catalogue, and burning all the tapes to ashes because he hates Prince. It's a crazy scenario but technically possible. He could do this, but should he? Wouldn't the world be right to feel outraged?

.

One of the most famous French writers has dozens of unreleased novels and she said she took legal dispositions so that they'll be destroyed when she dies. I fear no one will be able to oppose this but I know it's gonna upset a lot of people, but it's her prerogative as a living artist to include such a thing in her will. Thanks God Kafka trusted his friend Max Brod to destroy his unpublished manuscripts and did not legally enforce this, or Brod would have been unable to publish them and we would have lost one of the most important and influential pieces of literature in modern history :/

.

As for public domain works it is true that anyone can alter them in any way, but theorically the original will have been reproduced over and over and will be widely available, and such originals or copies of originals will be preserved carefully, whether by a museum, national archives, publishers/labels, or some private collectors. Unless they're Talibans or that sort of insane people, you won't see people promoting the permanent alteration or destruction of the original work. They belong to all and as such all is free to alter them, but as long as civilization exists there will be people to make sure the originals are being preserved. Typically, no matter how many people may rewrite Illiad and Odyssey, the original texts are being preserved and are available to all. No matter how many people may edit or rewrite Mozart, the original music sheets are being preserved and are widely available. Many films were destroyed up until the 1960's or so, and we have lost countless films, which for most are not of much interest to modern audiences, but this loss breaks the heart of film historians and now all movies are being archived and preserved, no matter how good or bad, while institutions such as the Library of Congress are making sure important works are being preserved even more carefully. As a civilization, we have realized the importance of preserving the works of artists because they're part of our heritage, and we have collectively agreed on the fact that no one is entitled to definitely alter or destroy the originals because it hurts their personal ideology. In that case, intelligence has won over bigotry and that is something we can be collectively proud of.

.

Of course I realize that no one here has (yet) suggested to destroy the original Xtra Loveable, but either to lock it up forever in a vault that no one can access, or to mutilate it for release and lock the original forever. But it's likely that eventually after a century or so, the vault will become public domain and its surviving content will be archived and made publicly available. Anyone who suggests detroying or hiding Xtraloveable then will be treated with the contempt they deserve. So what difference does it make if it's now or in 150 years?

.

For now the Estate's only motive appear to be commercial anyway, so whether they choose that this song is good or harmful to their business is up to them, maybe they will not release it and I don't care as long as they don't release a mutilated version. But eventually, long after we're gone, Extraloveable will have to be made public as such. There's no way around this.

[Edited 5/5/19 2:45am]

.
I agree with it all, except that "the vault will become public domain".
.

– The copyright in compositions will enter the public domain after 50-75 years (depending on territory), unless they are renewed.
.
– The copyright in the actual sound recordings will theoretically enter public domain after 120 years under the current US legislation, but that does NOT mean that whoever owns the vault at that time will be forced by law to turn the tapes/hard drives in to the government or to any organisation and they will be released.
.
There's a distinction between ownership of an actual master tape reel (or hard drive or whatever format) and ownership of the sound recording on that tape. The sound recording may enter the public domain 120 years after it was made, but it can only do so if copies of it already exist outside of the ownership of the person who owns the original. In other words: if our grandchildren will still have bootleg copies of Prince tracks that are still unreleased officially 120 years after Prince made the recordings, those bootlegs will become legal and anyone will be free to sell copies of them.
.
As for the recordings in the Prince Vault that have not been leaked by the time they turn 120 years old: they can only enter the public domain theoretically, as no-one will have copies of them apart from the person who owns the actual tapes (or hard drives) that contain the recordings. The owner of those physical items cannot be forced to give up their posession, they will still be free to keep, or to destroy, or to sell those tapes and hard drives. Or they can choose to release the recordings on those tapes and hard drives: in that case the moment that such a 120+ years old recording is released, it enters the public domain, so the sound recording on that release can immediately be copied freely by anyone – but only the recording that was made more than 120 years ago, not the cover artwork or any other element of that release. And if the owner of the vault did wait that long before deciding to release a certain recording, I'm sure that they will find a way to avoid immediately loosing that recording to the public – so perhaps they will make a remix with newly recorded material just to avoid the original recording entering the public domain.
.

rusty1 said:

lurker316 said:

Have we ever confirmed 19999 Deluxe will be released at the end of the year? Wasn't there some thought the article reference in the original post might have simple been based on fan rumors, not confirmation from WB?

the article was from John Bream

His name is Jon Bream......

Kares said:

databank said:

Legally the owners can do whatever they want, the Estate would even be legally entitled to have any vault release "modernized" by young producers or even to destroy the whole vault tomorrow if they so wished. Just because one can doesn't mean one should. Just imagine a billionaire purchasing the Estate for more money that they could hope to make by releasing the catalogue, and burning all the tapes to ashes because he hates Prince. It's a crazy scenario but technically possible. He could do this, but should he? Wouldn't the world be right to feel outraged?

.

One of the most famous French writers has dozens of unreleased novels and she said she took legal dispositions so that they'll be destroyed when she dies. I fear no one will be able to oppose this but I know it's gonna upset a lot of people, but it's her prerogative as a living artist to include such a thing in her will. Thanks God Kafka trusted his friend Max Brod to destroy his unpublished manuscripts and did not legally enforce this, or Brod would have been unable to publish them and we would have lost one of the most important and influential pieces of literature in modern history :/

.

As for public domain works it is true that anyone can alter them in any way, but theorically the original will have been reproduced over and over and will be widely available, and such originals or copies of originals will be preserved carefully, whether by a museum, national archives, publishers/labels, or some private collectors. Unless they're Talibans or that sort of insane people, you won't see people promoting the permanent alteration or destruction of the original work. They belong to all and as such all is free to alter them, but as long as civilization exists there will be people to make sure the originals are being preserved. Typically, no matter how many people may rewrite Illiad and Odyssey, the original texts are being preserved and are available to all. No matter how many people may edit or rewrite Mozart, the original music sheets are being preserved and are widely available. Many films were destroyed up until the 1960's or so, and we have lost countless films, which for most are not of much interest to modern audiences, but this loss breaks the heart of film historians and now all movies are being archived and preserved, no matter how good or bad, while institutions such as the Library of Congress are making sure important works are being preserved even more carefully. As a civilization, we have realized the importance of preserving the works of artists because they're part of our heritage, and we have collectively agreed on the fact that no one is entitled to definitely alter or destroy the originals because it hurts their personal ideology. In that case, intelligence has won over bigotry and that is something we can be collectively proud of.

.

Of course I realize that no one here has (yet) suggested to destroy the original Xtra Loveable, but either to lock it up forever in a vault that no one can access, or to mutilate it for release and lock the original forever. But it's likely that eventually after a century or so, the vault will become public domain and its surviving content will be archived and made publicly available. Anyone who suggests detroying or hiding Xtraloveable then will be treated with the contempt they deserve. So what difference does it make if it's now or in 150 years?

.

For now the Estate's only motive appear to be commercial anyway, so whether they choose that this song is good or harmful to their business is up to them, maybe they will not release it and I don't care as long as they don't release a mutilated version. But eventually, long after we're gone, Extraloveable will have to be made public as such. There's no way around this.

[Edited 5/5/19 2:45am]

.
I agree with it all, except that "the vault will become public domain".
.

– The copyright in compositions will enter the public domain after 50-75 years (depending on territory), unless they are renewed.
.
– The copyright in the actual sound recordings will theoretically enter public domain after 120 years under the current US legislation, but that does NOT mean that whoever owns the vault at that time will be forced by law to turn the tapes/hard drives in to the government or to any organisation and they will be released.
.
There's a distinction between ownership of an actual master tape reel (or hard drive or whatever format) and ownership of the sound recording on that tape. The sound recording may enter the public domain 120 years after it was made, but it can only do so if copies of it already exist outside of the ownership of the person who owns the original. In other words: if our grandchildren will still have bootleg copies of Prince tracks that are still unreleased officially 120 years after Prince made the recordings, those bootlegs will become legal and anyone will be free to sell copies of them.
.
As for the recordings in the Prince Vault that have not been leaked by the time they turn 120 years old: they can only enter the public domain theoretically, as no-one will have copies of them apart from the person who owns the actual tapes (or hard drives) that contain the recordings. The owner of those physical items cannot be forced to give up their posession, they will still be free to keep, or to destroy, or to sell those tapes and hard drives. Or they can choose to release the recordings on those tapes and hard drives: in that case the moment that such a 120+ years old recording is released, it enters the public domain, so the sound recording on that release can immediately be copied freely by anyone – but only the recording that was made more than 120 years ago, not the cover artwork or any other element of that release. And if the owner of the vault did wait that long before deciding to release a certain recording, I'm sure that they will find a way to avoid immediately loosing that recording to the public – so perhaps they will make a remix with newly recorded material just to avoid the original recording entering the public domain.
.

Ha! Interesting corrections, thanks. What will be the commercial value of Prince's catalogue in 120 years? If civilization hasn't collapsed by then human life, society, economy and income will have morphed so drastically that it's impossible to know whether music is still being sold and how.

.

There is virtually no precedent when it comes to unreleased audio recordings, and you were right to correct me regarding the fact that the posssession of unreleased material causes a precedent and owning the works is different from owning a tape. Those tapes will literally become family property as opposed to intellectual property. I think there may be a precedent when it comes to unreleased works by 19th century authors and composers whose decendents are known, as well as original paintings: their letters, early drafts, unpublished works are public domain, but I'm not aware of any family choosing to withdraw such documents from the public eye, regardless of any money they could make from them for example by dealing with a publisher to publish it first. When it comes to paintings it is possible to own the physical painting but not the intellectual property or reproduction of the painting, and then again I've never heard of any collector choosing to deprive the world of the image of a painting they possess. There may be cases I'm not aware of, though. As for early silent movies, again I don't believe the studios that used to own them chose to hide the surviving physical copies in their vault and, in the case no other copy may have survived, deny the world access to, and reproduction of these works.

.

At some point it becomes a matter of common sense and whether you want to antagonize scholars and arts lovers. It's unlikely Prince's great great nephews and nieces, if they still own the catalogue, will feel comfortable denying access to, and the reproduction of, it unless their best interest is to release whetever is left to release themselves, and whatever remains in 120 years that hasn't yet been released will probably be of very little commercial value (soundchecks and live shows that do not distinguis themselves, very unfinished demos, things that will only be of interest to scholars). I doubt anyone would be interested in purchasing a remix of a Prince soundcheck in 120 years.

.

Mickey Mouse (its first incarnation from 1928, in black and white) will enter public domain in a few years, the original incarnation of SUperman will, too, in about 15 years. Strong opponants to public domain such as the Walt Disney Company or the Gershwin families had managed to have copyright extented up to know but failed to push it forward again. As more and more films and audio recordings of the modern pop era fall into public domain, we will see what record companies and estates choose to do with the unreleased material they may own.

.

And when it comes to Extraloveable, even if Prince had destroyed any copy he had, the bootleg is out there, may even exist in better quality than what is circulating, and as you said this will definitely be preserved and fall into public somain, rape line included.

databank said:

Kares said:

.
I agree with it all, except that "the vault will become public domain".
.

– The copyright in compositions will enter the public domain after 50-75 years (depending on territory), unless they are renewed.
.
– The copyright in the actual sound recordings will theoretically enter public domain after 120 years under the current US legislation, but that does NOT mean that whoever owns the vault at that time will be forced by law to turn the tapes/hard drives in to the government or to any organisation and they will be released.
.
There's a distinction between ownership of an actual master tape reel (or hard drive or whatever format) and ownership of the sound recording on that tape. The sound recording may enter the public domain 120 years after it was made, but it can only do so if copies of it already exist outside of the ownership of the person who owns the original. In other words: if our grandchildren will still have bootleg copies of Prince tracks that are still unreleased officially 120 years after Prince made the recordings, those bootlegs will become legal and anyone will be free to sell copies of them.
.
As for the recordings in the Prince Vault that have not been leaked by the time they turn 120 years old: they can only enter the public domain theoretically, as no-one will have copies of them apart from the person who owns the actual tapes (or hard drives) that contain the recordings. The owner of those physical items cannot be forced to give up their posession, they will still be free to keep, or to destroy, or to sell those tapes and hard drives. Or they can choose to release the recordings on those tapes and hard drives: in that case the moment that such a 120+ years old recording is released, it enters the public domain, so the sound recording on that release can immediately be copied freely by anyone – but only the recording that was made more than 120 years ago, not the cover artwork or any other element of that release. And if the owner of the vault did wait that long before deciding to release a certain recording, I'm sure that they will find a way to avoid immediately loosing that recording to the public – so perhaps they will make a remix with newly recorded material just to avoid the original recording entering the public domain.
.

Ha! Interesting corrections, thanks. What will be the commercial value of Prince's catalogue in 120 years? If civilization hasn't collapsed by then human life, society, economy and income will have morphed so drastically that it's impossible to know whether music is still being sold and how.

.

There is virtually no precedent when it comes to unreleased audio recordings, and you were right to correct me regarding the fact that the posssession of unreleased material causes a precedent and owning the works is different from owning a tape. Those tapes will literally become family property as opposed to intellectual property. I think there may be a precedent when it comes to unreleased works by 19th century authors and composers whose decendents are known, as well as original paintings: their letters, early drafts, unpublished works are public domain, but I'm not aware of any family choosing to withdraw such documents from the public eye, regardless of any money they could make from them for example by dealing with a publisher to publish it first. When it comes to paintings it is possible to own the physical painting but not the intellectual property or reproduction of the painting, and then again I've never heard of any collector choosing to deprive the world of the image of a painting they possess. There may be cases I'm not aware of, though. As for early silent movies, again I don't believe the studios that used to own them chose to hide the surviving physical copies in their vault and, in the case no other copy may have survived, deny the world access to, and reproduction of these works.

.

At some point it becomes a matter of common sense and whether you want to antagonize scholars and arts lovers. It's unlikely Prince's great great nephews and nieces, if they still own the catalogue, will feel comfortable denying access to, and the reproduction of, it unless their best interest is to release whetever is left to release themselves, and whatever remains in 120 years that hasn't yet been released will probably be of very little commercial value (soundchecks and live shows that do not distinguis themselves, very unfinished demos, things that will only be of interest to scholars). I doubt anyone would be interested in purchasing a remix of a Prince soundcheck in 120 years.

.

Mickey Mouse (its first incarnation from 1928, in black and white) will enter public domain in a few years, the original incarnation of SUperman will, too, in about 15 years. Strong opponants to public domain such as the Walt Disney Company or the Gershwin families had managed to have copyright extented up to know but failed to push it forward again. As more and more films and audio recordings of the modern pop era fall into public domain, we will see what record companies and estates choose to do with the unreleased material they may own.

.

And when it comes to Extraloveable, even if Prince had destroyed any copy he had, the bootleg is out there, may even exist in better quality than what is circulating, and as you said this will definitely be preserved and fall into public somain, rape line included.

.

Oh the art world is full of stories of totally unkown paintings or drawings by famous artists coming out of the closet, just because some collector or descendant of a thief or a past lover etc decided to sell something they or their families have been sitting on in secret for sometimes centuries. It's not uncommon at all that people sit on works of art for very long times without the public or even scholars knowing about the existence of said works. And until something isn't even known to exist or no-one even has a copy of it, it cannot enter the public domain.

[Edited 5/5/19 4:52am]

Kares said:

databank said:

Ha! Interesting corrections, thanks. What will be the commercial value of Prince's catalogue in 120 years? If civilization hasn't collapsed by then human life, society, economy and income will have morphed so drastically that it's impossible to know whether music is still being sold and how.

.

There is virtually no precedent when it comes to unreleased audio recordings, and you were right to correct me regarding the fact that the posssession of unreleased material causes a precedent and owning the works is different from owning a tape. Those tapes will literally become family property as opposed to intellectual property. I think there may be a precedent when it comes to unreleased works by 19th century authors and composers whose decendents are known, as well as original paintings: their letters, early drafts, unpublished works are public domain, but I'm not aware of any family choosing to withdraw such documents from the public eye, regardless of any money they could make from them for example by dealing with a publisher to publish it first. When it comes to paintings it is possible to own the physical painting but not the intellectual property or reproduction of the painting, and then again I've never heard of any collector choosing to deprive the world of the image of a painting they possess. There may be cases I'm not aware of, though. As for early silent movies, again I don't believe the studios that used to own them chose to hide the surviving physical copies in their vault and, in the case no other copy may have survived, deny the world access to, and reproduction of these works.

.

At some point it becomes a matter of common sense and whether you want to antagonize scholars and arts lovers. It's unlikely Prince's great great nephews and nieces, if they still own the catalogue, will feel comfortable denying access to, and the reproduction of, it unless their best interest is to release whetever is left to release themselves, and whatever remains in 120 years that hasn't yet been released will probably be of very little commercial value (soundchecks and live shows that do not distinguis themselves, very unfinished demos, things that will only be of interest to scholars). I doubt anyone would be interested in purchasing a remix of a Prince soundcheck in 120 years.

.

Mickey Mouse (its first incarnation from 1928, in black and white) will enter public domain in a few years, the original incarnation of SUperman will, too, in about 15 years. Strong opponants to public domain such as the Walt Disney Company or the Gershwin families had managed to have copyright extented up to know but failed to push it forward again. As more and more films and audio recordings of the modern pop era fall into public domain, we will see what record companies and estates choose to do with the unreleased material they may own.

.

And when it comes to Extraloveable, even if Prince had destroyed any copy he had, the bootleg is out there, may even exist in better quality than what is circulating, and as you said this will definitely be preserved and fall into public somain, rape line included.

.

Oh the art world is full of stories of totally unkown paintings or drawings by famous artists coming out of the closet, just because some collector or descendant of a thief or a past lover etc decided to sell something they or their families have been sitting on in secret for sometimes centuries. It's not uncommon at all that people sit on works of art for very long times without the public or even scholars knowing about the existence of said works. And until something isn't even known to exist or no-one even has a copy of it, it cannot enter the public domain.

[Edited 5/5/19 4:52am]

True, discovberies, yes, what I meant was things that were known to exist and to be in a particular someone's possession who would refuse to make it available to researchers and the public once it becomes history. It may have happened but I'm not aware of any such event.

databank said:

Strive said:

Imagine being so offended by an artist's work that you take the time to edit it instead of not partaking. Or listening to the four other versions that don't include the questionable content. Totally not like the religious right btw

It's beyond me, just as people being so upset by Tony M that they edit him out. IDK, they clearly have a completely different relation to music than I do, but as long as people do this privately and for their own enjoyment, it's their prerogative.

.

The enjoyment of the art is a two way street to me. Sure, it's nice to have an artist's vision (although, in Prince's case, it was a shared vision by Prince and Warner Brothers, if it was just Prince we'd have seen much more music and in a different form. Does that make WB bad? I think it's a double edged sword.

.

As to "butchering art", I have a few edits of Prince music that I enjoy more than the originals. One is a version of P&M83 without the hiss. I've shared this with friends who preferred it too. But I've also edited the start of High Fashion to Prince's version, as that part was, in my mind, butchered. And I've never forgiven Prince for butchering the start of Joy In Repetition. I've been trying to restore the start with good audio quality, but have not succeeded yet.

.

And then there's the thing you'd object to most, I suppose. And edit of America, that's the same length as the regular 12", but with "God shed his grace on thee, keep the children free" taken away, as well as the last lines from each verse. I did it because I don't like those parts, combined with Prince having the speed of the song and the chord structure in such a way that if you skip the needle on the record player, you stay in the song and just lose a line of singing. I noticed this one time when my needle was adjusted too light, because it would skip and I didn't hear the skip, the song just didn't make sense anymore. Anyway, Prince was always having fun with music, editing, changing, whatever... so why can't I?

.

As to releasing.. I don't have the rights and am not sure I should, but maybe it helps you understand why people change "art" so it becomes more enjoyable for them.

it would be easy to remove the lines in qustion... as to editing a song? Prince would likey edit it if he wanted to release it. And if I was not so lazy I would edit a few songs...(like that hallway speech from "Computer Blue" it just breaks the song for me...) and maybe some of the spoken stuff from "We Can Fuck"

rusty1 said:

lurker316 said:

Have we ever confirmed 19999 Deluxe will be released at the end of the year? Wasn't there some thought the article reference in the original post might have simple been based on fan rumors, not confirmation from WB?

the article was from John Bream

.

The man's been writing about Prince for 35+ years and yet you lot still can't get his name right. Also, he's one of two writers of this article (and in the past Riemenschneider has made plenty of booboos).

.

Also, I'm 100% convinced that they've mistaken a rumor as an official announcement. Journalists make mistakes.

BartVanHemelen said:

rusty1 said:

lurker316 said: the article was from John Bream

.

The man's been writing about Prince for 35+ years and yet you lot still can't get his name right. Also, he's one of two writers of this article (and in the past Riemenschneider has made plenty of booboos).

.

Also, I'm 100% convinced that they've mistaken a rumor as an official announcement. Journalists make mistakes.

yeah it seems unlikely that they would release something in June and then something 6 months or less later. I would love it...but I am not sure they have their act together.

And even the 2 documentaries may or may not be finished this year...

OnlyNDaUsa said:

it would be easy to remove the lines in qustion... as to editing a song? Prince would likey edit it if he wanted to release it. And if I was not so lazy I would edit a few songs...(like that hallway speech from "Computer Blue" it just breaks the song for me...) and maybe some of the spoken stuff from "We Can Fuck"

You're not the Estate, what you do in the privacy of your computer does not harm Prince's legacy nor does it affect other listeners.

mediumdry said:

Thanks for taking the time of this lengthy reply

.

The enjoyment of the art is a two way street to me. Sure, it's nice to have an artist's vision (although, in Prince's case, it was a shared vision by Prince and Warner Brothers, if it was just Prince we'd have seen much more music and in a different form. Does that make WB bad? I think it's a double edged sword.

.

As an artist myself, and like many other artists that I know, I believe label/studio/publisher/gallerist interference to only be acceptable when the artist considers it good advice and fully consents to do the change (i.e. is not contractually obliged to), same as if a fellow artist or anyone else gives them an opinion on the work and they're free to listen or not. Sometimes you need a second opinion and of course professionals may give you great pieces of advice, many authors have thanked their publishers for pointing out inconsistancies or making significant suggestions, but at the end of the day the artist should be the one who makes the call. Of course economic realities make it so that artists do not always have that choice, but it does not mean it's right. Just because I believe this does not mean you have to agree with me, by the way

.

As to "butchering art", I have a few edits of Prince music that I enjoy more than the originals. One is a version of P&M83 without the hiss. I've shared this with friends who preferred it too. But I've also edited the start of High Fashion to Prince's version, as that part was, in my mind, butchered. And I've never forgiven Prince for butchering the start of Joy In Repetition. I've been trying to restore the start with good audio quality, but have not succeeded yet.

.

And then there's the thing you'd object to most, I suppose. And edit of America, that's the same length as the regular 12", but with "God shed his grace on thee, keep the children free" taken away, as well as the last lines from each verse. I did it because I don't like those parts, combined with Prince having the speed of the song and the chord structure in such a way that if you skip the needle on the record player, you stay in the song and just lose a line of singing. I noticed this one time when my needle was adjusted too light, because it would skip and I didn't hear the skip, the song just didn't make sense anymore. Anyway, Prince was always having fun with music, editing, changing, whatever... so why can't I?

.

As to releasing.. I don't have the rights and am not sure I should, but maybe it helps you understand why people change "art" so it becomes more enjoyable for them.

.

There are two things that I find extremely wrong in your statement but first let me make it clear that I do not reject everything you say at all: as I just wrote in my previous post and like you say yourself: you are not the Estate. What you do in the privacy of your home and what you share with a few friends in a private manner is your prerogative and does not affect Prince's legacy nor does it affect other listeners, critics and scholars who would like to hear the work as it is. I won't fight you or anyone about this. The fact that you like your own edits better than the originals is irrelevant to other listeners and arts historians, but what you do at home is not affecting them either.

.

As for removing the hiss on P&AM83 it is not an artistic choice as much as the job WB should have done in the first place if it could be made without altering the music: Prince did not intend the hiss to be part of the recording, it was not an artistic statement, so WB could and should have cleaned it if it was possible.

.

Now to the 2 things I strongly disagree with:

.

1/Prince did not "butcher" JIR, he made an artistic choice that was his to make. IDK about you and I'm not saying it concerns you because we haven't discussed the matter thoroughly, but many people who are not artists themselves do not understand the creative process at all, I've realized this my whole life when discussing my own work or my friends' work with non-artists who were genuinely curious but had no idea what artists were doing, how they were doing it and why. They just see the final product and have no clear notion of what happens between the moment the artist begins to conceive the work and the moment it is delivered to the audience. There are lots of preconceptions and prejudice regarding the whole process, many of which come from ignorance. What I can say is that most artists are genuinely trying to do their best, they have an idea in mind, an intent, they're trying to achieve something and of course they hope people will like it, but the choices they make are made for a reason. I think I understand what Prince was trying to achieve narratively speaking with this WCF/JIR crossfade and while I personally think it works perfectly, my judgement is no better than yours in terms of whether Prince succeeded, whether he achieved his goal and whether his narrative choice was the best possible choice, but simply because I'm trying to figure out why he chose to begin JIR this way instead of the way it was when originally recorded results in the following: what you call butchering, I call work. There are changes Prince made to earlier recordings/sequencings that I do not consider the wisest, that I think could have been achieved better, but I certainly would not call any of them butchering. And it certainly would never cross my mind to have to forgive an artist for doing their work. It's sort of insane to think such a thing IMHO: Prince did not owe any of us anything, he certainly did not harm any of us by making artistic choices, and I would never get angry at an artist for making an artistic decision, no matter how lame or boring I believe it is. Dude, seriously, the folks don't even know that I exist

.

2/ "Prince was always having fun with music, editing, changing, whatever... so why can't I?": because it's not your music to play with. Prince worked hard to come-up with that stuff and he did not work his ass his whole life thinking "how nice would it be if some dude I've never met, who isn't even a musician, would fuck-up my songs on Audacity!". As a creative person, I play with, edit and change my own shit, I don't mess with other people's works unless they've agreed for me to do some remixin' or something. People can rewrite my stories and remix my songs at home if they want to, but it does not mean that what they do is what I'd like them to read or hear, and I would be infuriated if someone messed with my shit without my permission and published it online (which, fortunately, you are not doing with P's works). What you are entitled to do is to buy yourself a home studio, learn to produce or play music, or to draw or paint or write or dance or shoot movies or whatever and play with your own stuff. The creative process is an endless source of joy and you won't know a glimpse of this sheer joy and satisfaction by editing Prince songs on Audacity, not - a - glimpse, I guarantee you. You're hardly creating anything at all by doing that, you're just, well, cutting and pasting... Now if you wanna do it at home for you and a few friends, it's cool, just know that it's likely Prince, that most other artists would probably cringe at the idea of you listening to those self-made edits instead of the shit they worked hard to come-up with, but they don't need to know and you're totally free to have fun at home, I'm down with that

.

So in the end we seem to agree on the fact that what you do at home does not harm anything or anyone, which is why I think the wise thing is not to start putting those things online. I mean anyway: the ego required by someone like you or me, who aren't universally acclaimed musical geniuses, to think we can improve the work of someone the stature of Prince and that the world needs to hear our improved versions... IDK, God knows I can be arrogant and self-confident at times, but I'd really consider it a new low for me if I contemplated doing any such thing Maybe some deep reconstruction or remixing, like reworking the tracks to such extent that it involves a lot of creative process, from a truly skilled musician, to the point that they're so unrecognizable that it become your work, a new artistic statement altogether, maybe, but edits? For chrissakes, NO!!

.

So do I understand why people change art so it becomes more enjoyable for them? Yeah, I understand, I'm not dumb, intellectually I can understand a lot of things, I've talked with neo-nazis, radical muslims, radical christians, people who believe trees have a soul, people who believe the earth is flat, people who have children, people who are fine working 40 hours a week their whole life at a job they despise because they're happy to have the income, people who believe totalitarism is the best political system, people who believe children are endebted to their parents for life, people who are patriotic, people who believe it's cool to eat animals, people from all sorts of countries, cultures and beliefs, etc. I can sit and listen without arguing and understand their perspective and the logic behind it, entirely, yeah, even the neo-nazis and the islamists. I don't even have to think that they're wrong, sometimes I'm not sure who's right or wrong if either of us at all. When I said it was beyond me I meant it in the sense that in some cases, when it came to some beliefs or actions, no matter how deeply I can understand their perspective and the logic behind it intellectually, I cannot find any set of circumstances or reasoning that could bring me where they are no matter how hard I tried, because their logic and motives are so totally alien to mine. This is how I feel about editing tracks for my own enjoyment, but it does not mean that I think it's wrong as long as it's a private hobbie, it's just something I couldn't bring myself to do or wish to do.

.

And I know that there is going to be some idiot (not you, but someone, sadly there is always someone) to say "How can you compare being a neo-nazi or an islamist to having children or editing Prince songs on Audacity?!". Well, I wouldn't know, because I did not.

.

Peace

[Edited 5/9/19 9:40am]

If they'd left out/changed just 1 word, I'd never ever buy it. How it was made is how it was supposed to be heard. No discussion.

ReddishBrownOne said:

In the current climate, my advice to the estate would be to leave the 'rape' lyrics from Extra loveable and Lust U Always off any vault release. If they released the songs with those lyrics, the publicity surrounding the offending words would overshadow the rest of the release, and very probably tarnish Prince's legacy. Guns N Roses recently put out a boxset covering Appetite for Destruction and GnR Lies. They left out the controversial song One In A Million, which contains the N word and other offensive lyrics. They knew that song would cause more trouble than it was worth of they put it out again. Unlike One In A Million, Extra loveable and Lust U Always aren't well known yet, so no need to draw attention to them. NOT all publicity is good publicity.

IDK about that song but my guess is GNR just don't want to get undeserved shit by people who won't understand their bad joke or whatever it was supposed to be in the first place. Thanks God Quantin Tarentino doesn't think that way and won't let Spike Lee tell him whether he can write the N word in his dialogues or not. But it's each artist's prerogative to release or alter or not release their own work. That GNR song is still out there for anyone to find anyway since it was once released, though, but OK.

.

Now if the Estate don't wanna get shit at this early stage it's OK, just leave it in the vault, it can be released in 50 years when no one gives a shit anymore

.

All I'm saying is the work can be released now or much later, but isn't to be altered if released.

has anybody contacted jon bream for verification???

TheFman said:

If they'd left out/changed just 1 word, I'd never ever buy it. How it was made is how it was supposed to be heard. No discussion.

This is the way I feel.They need to release the song as is.

I honestly don't think that the "rape" reference is gonna be all that controversial.We're talking about an unreleased song that was recorded in 1982 by an artist who is no longer with us.We won't see people walking in the streets with signs that say "Ban Prince music...he supports rape!".

SoulAlive said:

TheFman said:

If they'd left out/changed just 1 word, I'd never ever buy it. How it was made is how it was supposed to be heard. No discussion.

This is the way I feel.They need to release the song as is.

I honestly don't think that the "rape" reference is gonna be all that controversial.We're talking about an unreleased song that was recorded in 1982 by an artist who is no longer with us.We won't see people walking in the streets with signs that say "Ban Prince music...he supports rape!".

Agreed. There is no point in releasing it with the edit. If they are so concerned about the reaction or of betraying Prince in some way (which I doubt that they are sensitive about this given WCF on the PR Deluxe), I rather them not release it than with the edit.

databank said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

it would be easy to remove the lines in qustion... as to editing a song? Prince would likey edit it if he wanted to release it. And if I was not so lazy I would edit a few songs...(like that hallway speech from "Computer Blue" it just breaks the song for me...) and maybe some of the spoken stuff from "We Can Fuck"

You're not the Estate, what you do in the privacy of your computer does not harm Prince's legacy nor does it affect other listeners.

I do agree my self edits have nothing to do with what the estate chooses to do... but I do think that they are free to do whatever they want and I SEE that is would be BEST to consider an edit. And I sumbit it would be pretty easy to do so. I think that if he would have released it (and I think he said he would) that we would have removed it...

Taking that out of the song for release will have a negable impact on his legacy... leaving it in could have a neagative impact...

TheFman said:

If they'd left out/changed just 1 word, I'd never ever buy it. How it was made is how it was supposed to be heard. No discussion.

that is an odd standard as you have no idea if that was even his final version or if he decided to do another version without it....

Really?!
I guess all these people who want the rape lyrics in Extra Loveable removed weren't around when Prince's whole carreer was based on 'Shock and awe' tactics and 'light version dark' thoughts.
And all these no brain and weak people who get all whiny and offended by everything nowadays should just go away.
What's next ? Removing Sexy MF from becuase it might offend millenial mothers??