Just checked it out today and is it me or is it totally wrong?? Albums missed out and in the wrong order, some mpg and not others??

What’s that all about?!

They're all there. What is missing?

Rave in2 and the order is out.

I thought mplsound but found that within lotusflower, even though they’ve listed elixir seperately.
[Edited 4/30/19 19:09pm]

There are numerous problems in this online discography: the problems above with Lotusflow3r and Newpower Soul but also some important side projects are missing, it's a mess, it's hard to navigate, musicians' credits have been copied and pasted from Princevault without giving them credit...

.

This is one typical example of why it can be a bad idea to hire non-fans to do the job when they could have seeked advice from me and/or the Princevault team, all of us fans who have dedicated thousands of hours establishing and curating online Prince discographies for over a decade.

.

Estate, it's not too late! We're here, we wanna help!

databank said:

There are numerous problems in this online discography: the problems above with Lotusflow3r and Newpower Soul but also some important side projects are missing, it's a mess, it's hard to navigate, musicians' credits have been copied and pasted from Princevault without giving them credit...

.

This is one typical example of why it can be a bad idea to hire non-fans to do the job when they could have seeked advice from me and/or the Princevault team, all of us fans who have dedicated thousands of hours establishing and curating online Prince discographies for over a decade.

.

Estate, it's not too late! We're here, we wanna help!

.

They don't even care to make sure the cover art they put out for 'Parade' is actully the front of the cover, not the back...

Kares said:

databank said:

There are numerous problems in this online discography: the problems above with Lotusflow3r and Newpower Soul but also some important side projects are missing, it's a mess, it's hard to navigate, musicians' credits have been copied and pasted from Princevault without giving them credit...

.

This is one typical example of why it can be a bad idea to hire non-fans to do the job when they could have seeked advice from me and/or the Princevault team, all of us fans who have dedicated thousands of hours establishing and curating online Prince discographies for over a decade.

.

Estate, it's not too late! We're here, we wanna help!

.

They don't even care to make sure the cover art they put out for 'Parade' is actully the front of the cover, not the back...

.
Seriously, I'm putting far more energy into making sure my iTunes library has all the correct artwork (making sure it's the original vinyl artwork in high quality, not just a scan of the CD version, making sure it's not cropped, making sure the colours are right – as opposed to the recent rerelease of the 'Prince' vinyl album, for example...) than the effort and care they've put into Prince's official website and into the exhibitions worldwide.
.
The more I think about all this the sadder and angrier I get. This is absolutely NOT what the legacy of this man would deserve.
.

It’s not perfect, but I’m sure it’s an ongoing thing. At a glance, yeah, the Parade cover and the lack of separate entries for MPLSound and The Truth need fixing.

But full marks for including Newpower Soul. It’s a full blown Prince album. He sings lead, he is pictured on the cover as prominently as could be, and he is named on the cover. Thrice.

See here:

http://prince.org/msg/7/425215

McD said:

It’s not perfect, but I’m sure it’s an ongoing thing. At a glance, yeah, the Parade cover and the lack of separate entries for MPLSound and The Truth need fixing. But full marks for including Newpower Soul. It’s a full blown Prince album. He sings lead, he is pictured on the cover as prominently as could be, and he is named on the cover. Thrice. See here: http://prince.org/msg/7/425215

CB/The Truth are also together but also with Kamasutra (credited to "The NPG Orchestra") while Elixer is separate, no logic there.

NPS is no more or less a Prince album than Gold Nigga and Exodus. This debate is absurd. Who sings and who is on the cover doesn't change anything to the fact that Prince was the lead creative force behind all three records equally.

Same could be said about most of the side projects.

He chose to market NPS as an NPG album so it is a side-project, there is nothing that can be said or done to undo that. No debate here except people pretending that A is B when A is A.

NPS is a NPG album, NPG albums are side projects, side projects are also Prince albums only more collaborative and/or released under another moniker. It goes full circle and there's no way around this so either we put all the side projects in the main discography or we separate Prince albums from side-projects and then we have to live with the fact that Prince decided to credit NPS to NPG not himself.

This is not a debate. You cannot debate about whether A is A or B or whether a square is a square or a circle: things are what they are, no matter how hard you try to turn them into something else, so end of discussion

databank said:

princevault is my go to site.

Well, you can debate it can't you? There's a matter of intent - this album is a bit different in that it's ostensibly a New Power Generation album, but he more or less promoted it and presented it as a Prince album by sticking himself alone on the cover with his then name as a pretend tattoo kinda thing.

I'm not sure there's an easy answer to this one unless you want to flatten everything into a contextless, exists in a vacuum "written by Prince" mess, which would be a pretty dull way of looking at things.

[Edited 5/1/19 6:37am]

xemplify08 said:

Rave in2 and the order is out.

.

That's bunch of remixes. I don't consider it a standalone album.

.

databank said:

McD said:

It’s not perfect, but I’m sure it’s an ongoing thing. At a glance, yeah, the Parade cover and the lack of separate entries for MPLSound and The Truth need fixing. But full marks for including Newpower Soul. It’s a full blown Prince album. He sings lead, he is pictured on the cover as prominently as could be, and he is named on the cover. Thrice. See here: http://prince.org/msg/7/425215

CB/The Truth are also together but also with Kamasutra (credited to "The NPG Orchestra") while Elixer is separate, no logic there.

NPS is no more or less a Prince album than Gold Nigga and Exodus. This debate is absurd. Who sings and who is on the cover doesn't change anything to the fact that Prince was the lead creative force behind all three records equally.

Same could be said about most of the side projects.

He chose to market NPS as an NPG album so it is a side-project, there is nothing that can be said or done to undo that. No debate here except people pretending that A is B when A is A.

NPS is a NPG album, NPG albums are side projects, side projects are also Prince albums only more collaborative and/or released under another moniker. It goes full circle and there's no way around this so either we put all the side projects in the main discography or we separate Prince albums from side-projects and then we have to live with the fact that Prince decided to credit NPS to NPG not himself.

This is not a debate. You cannot debate about whether A is A or B or whether a square is a square or a circle: things are what they are, no matter how hard you try to turn them into something else, so end of discussion

.
Yes. Official artist credits of releases are often just marketing labels. The SAME recordings are sometimes released under different artist credit, just because either the artist or the label decided so, usually because the marketing value of certain names change over the course of the artist's career.
.
The vast majority of Prince's studio albums have some other people collaborating with him, contributing ideas, solos, inspiration, whatever. Therefore crediting the 'Purple Rain' album to 'Prince & The Revolution' while crediting 'Sign O' The Times' to just 'Prince' is basically meaningless to me. They are equally Prince solo albums in my eyes and they both contain some collaboration with other band members too.
It's all just marketing.
Hence I find it absolutely ridiculous that sites like discogs totally separate most of the 'Prince & The Revolution' releases from Prince's catalog, as if that would be a different band.
.
I love The Revolution so I don't mean any disrespect, but let's be honest, they weren't a band on their own right. They were Prince's hired musicians, and at one point Prince decided to give them a name. The Revolution didn't exist independently from Prince, they hardly even took a breath without Prince's approval, let alone playing a note that didn't come from or wasn't approved by Prince. So don't tell me 'Prince & The Revolution' is a separate group that Prince was only a member of (this is how discogs sees it!).
.
Some people insist that '1999' was a 'Prince & The Revolution' release too just because the graphics of the album artwork includes this name. Yet the spine of the cover only says 'Prince' and almost everywhere it's officially recorded as a 'Prince' solo album. So these labels mean nothing in my eyes.
.
To me, the two Madhouse albums are pure 'Prince' albums too and I wouldn't ever file them separately. Madhouse weren't a real band on their own right. On record, '8' was mostly Prince playing everything. Live, it was a group of Prince's hired musicians who played Prince's music and who were marketed under the 'Madhouse' name simply because Prince decided so. So Madhouse is NOT an 'associated artist'. It is Prince.

.

And the same goes for the early Time albums (Morris singing lead, yes, so? He's singing as instructed by Prince so let's not overestimate Morris's artistic freedom on the first two albums...) The same goes for The Family, Vanity 6, Apollonia 6, The NPG Orchestra (lol, does anyone believe that was a real band/orchestra independent from Prince?) and The NPG. These are all Prince albums, period.
.

[Edited 5/1/19 6:41am]

jaawwnn said:

Well, you can debate it can't you? There's a matter of intent - this album is a bit different in that it's ostensibly a New Power Generation album, but he more or less promoted it and presented it as a Prince album by sticking himself alone on the cover with his then name as a pretend tattoo kinda thing.

I'm not sure there's an easy answer to this one unless you want to flatten everything into a contextless, exists in a vacuum "written by Prince" mess, which would be a pretty dull way of looking at things.

[Edited 5/1/19 6:37am]

I'm not debating because there is no right or wrong here, there is just what is and cannot be challenged, I'm just trying to put this reality in context because I'm nice.

When it comes to the "all inclusive" vs "divided" discography there is no clear answer indeed. On my site there's an albums page which tries to be all inclusive but it's complicated because there are records where Prince did all songs but one or 2, others where he did half, others where he relegated the final decision power to a third party, others where he acted as a sideman, etc., and where do you draw the line? That's why the separated discography is simpler in a way, you could even have three levels: Prince albums, side-projects that involved him nearly entirely, albums with one or more songs by Prince. But then again there's no clear line between 2 and 3. The only factual, absolute line in the end is the name of the cover. It is what it is.

Kares said:

databank said:

CB/The Truth are also together but also with Kamasutra (credited to "The NPG Orchestra") while Elixer is separate, no logic there.

NPS is no more or less a Prince album than Gold Nigga and Exodus. This debate is absurd. Who sings and who is on the cover doesn't change anything to the fact that Prince was the lead creative force behind all three records equally.

Same could be said about most of the side projects.

He chose to market NPS as an NPG album so it is a side-project, there is nothing that can be said or done to undo that. No debate here except people pretending that A is B when A is A.

NPS is a NPG album, NPG albums are side projects, side projects are also Prince albums only more collaborative and/or released under another moniker. It goes full circle and there's no way around this so either we put all the side projects in the main discography or we separate Prince albums from side-projects and then we have to live with the fact that Prince decided to credit NPS to NPG not himself.

This is not a debate. You cannot debate about whether A is A or B or whether a square is a square or a circle: things are what they are, no matter how hard you try to turn them into something else, so end of discussion

.
Yes. Official artist credits of releases are often just marketing labels. The SAME recordings are sometimes released under different artist credit, just because either the artist or the label decided so, usually because the marketing value of certain names change over the course of the artist's career.
.
The vast majority of Prince's studio albums have some other people collaborating with him, contributing ideas, solos, inspiration, whatever. Therefore crediting the 'Purple Rain' album to 'Prince & The Revolution' while crediting 'Sign O' The Times' to just 'Prince' is basically meaningless to me. They are equally Prince solo albums in my eyes and they both contain some collaboration with other band members too.
It's all just marketing.
Hence I find it absolutely ridiculous that sites like discogs totally separate most of the 'Prince & The Revolution' releases from Prince's catalog, as if that would be a different band.
.
I love The Revolution so I don't mean any disrespect, but let's be honest, they weren't a band on their own right. They were Prince's hired musicians, and at one point Prince decided to give them a name. The Revolution didn't exist independently from Prince, they hardly even took a breath without Prince's approval, let alone playing a note that didn't come from or wasn't approved by Prince. So don't tell me 'Prince & The Revolution' is a separate group that Prince was only a member of (this is how discogs sees it!).
.
Some people insist that '1999' was a 'Prince & The Revolution' release too just because the graphics of the album artwork includes this name. Yet the spine of the cover only says 'Prince' and almost everywhere it's officially recorded as a 'Prince' solo album. So these labels mean nothing in my eyes.
.
To me, the two Madhouse albums are pure 'Prince' albums too and I wouldn't ever file them separately. Madhouse weren't a real band on their own right. On record, '8' was mostly Prince playing everything. Live, it was a group of Prince's hired musicians who played Prince's music and who were marketed under the 'Madhouse' name simply because Prince decided so. So Madhouse is NOT an 'associated artist'. It is Prince.

.

And the same goes for the early Time albums (Morris singing lead, yes, so? He's singing as instructed by Prince so let's not overestimate Morris's artistic freedom on the first two albums...) The same goes for The Family, Vanity 6, Apollonia 6, The NPG Orchestra (lol, does anyone believe that was a real band/orchestra independent from Prince?) and The NPG. These are all Prince albums, period.
.

[Edited 5/1/19 6:41am]

Absolutely. My albums are filed on my drive under their official (original) release moniker because I know what's what and I do not consider it my prerogative to rename the "artist" (which I believe is Discogs' strict politics and I believe they are right or soon the site, which is collaborative, would burn with endless editing wars, they just put whichever entry is on the record as such), but I know who is the lead creative force between an album regardless the name on the cover or the identity of the lead singer.

databank said:

.The only factual, absolute line in the end is the name of the cover. It is what it is.

.

You mean the TWO different names he used as his own?...

databank said:

I'm not debating because there is no right or wrong here, there is just what is and cannot be challenged, I'm just trying to put this reality in context because I'm nice.

When it comes to the "all inclusive" vs "divided" discography there is no clear answer indeed. On my site there's an albums page which tries to be all inclusive but it's complicated because there are records where Prince did all songs but one or 2, others where he did half, others where he relegated the final decision power to a third party, others where he acted as a sideman, etc., and where do you draw the line? That's why the separated discography is simpler in a way, you could even have three levels: Prince albums, side-projects that involved him nearly entirely, albums with one or more songs by Prince. But then again there's no clear line between 2 and 3. The only factual, absolute line in the end is the name of the cover. It is what it is.

I enjoy your discography immensely and believe you make the right decisions in regards clarity, but as for what is "factual" I think the truth is lot messier and, frankly, more fun than that. I believe MCD is arguing that since both his name and his picture are on the cover then there's a solid case for it being a Prince album before it's a side-project album. I enjoy the ambiguity of the album in that respect, but i'd probably feel differently if i was a librarian.

[Edited 5/1/19 7:03am]

databank said:

Kares said:

.
Yes. Official artist credits of releases are often just marketing labels. The SAME recordings are sometimes released under different artist credit, just because either the artist or the label decided so, usually because the marketing value of certain names change over the course of the artist's career.
.
The vast majority of Prince's studio albums have some other people collaborating with him, contributing ideas, solos, inspiration, whatever. Therefore crediting the 'Purple Rain' album to 'Prince & The Revolution' while crediting 'Sign O' The Times' to just 'Prince' is basically meaningless to me. They are equally Prince solo albums in my eyes and they both contain some collaboration with other band members too.
It's all just marketing.
Hence I find it absolutely ridiculous that sites like discogs totally separate most of the 'Prince & The Revolution' releases from Prince's catalog, as if that would be a different band.
.
I love The Revolution so I don't mean any disrespect, but let's be honest, they weren't a band on their own right. They were Prince's hired musicians, and at one point Prince decided to give them a name. The Revolution didn't exist independently from Prince, they hardly even took a breath without Prince's approval, let alone playing a note that didn't come from or wasn't approved by Prince. So don't tell me 'Prince & The Revolution' is a separate group that Prince was only a member of (this is how discogs sees it!).
.
Some people insist that '1999' was a 'Prince & The Revolution' release too just because the graphics of the album artwork includes this name. Yet the spine of the cover only says 'Prince' and almost everywhere it's officially recorded as a 'Prince' solo album. So these labels mean nothing in my eyes.
.
To me, the two Madhouse albums are pure 'Prince' albums too and I wouldn't ever file them separately. Madhouse weren't a real band on their own right. On record, '8' was mostly Prince playing everything. Live, it was a group of Prince's hired musicians who played Prince's music and who were marketed under the 'Madhouse' name simply because Prince decided so. So Madhouse is NOT an 'associated artist'. It is Prince.

.

And the same goes for the early Time albums (Morris singing lead, yes, so? He's singing as instructed by Prince so let's not overestimate Morris's artistic freedom on the first two albums...) The same goes for The Family, Vanity 6, Apollonia 6, The NPG Orchestra (lol, does anyone believe that was a real band/orchestra independent from Prince?) and The NPG. These are all Prince albums, period.
.

[Edited 5/1/19 6:41am]

Absolutely. My albums are filed on my drive under their official (original) release moniker because I know what's what and I do not consider it my prerogative to rename the "artist" (which I believe is Discogs' strict politics and I believe they are right or soon the site, which is collaborative, would burn with endless editing wars, they just put whichever entry is on the record as such), but I know who is the lead creative force between an album regardless the name on the cover or the identity of the lead singer.

.
I'm sorry but discogs is totally wrong in treating 'Prince & The Revolution' as a separate artist for many reasons, including my above explanation (The Revolution were never a real band on their own right, they were hired guns and did as they were told by Prince), also because it creates the absolutely ridiculous situation where albums such as 'Purple Rain' are missing from the Prince page on discogs, while separate songs of those albums (exactly the same master tapes) that came out on 'Prince' compilations are included.
.

Discogs even go as far as saying Prince is "Famous additionally for his work in the band Prince And The Revolution." "His work in the band"? LOL.
.
Also: while discogs treats 'Prince & The Revolution' as ONE separate artist, they treat his other bands as collaborations between the artist 'Prince' and the band named 'The NPG' or '3rdEyeGirl'. No consistency.

Kares said:

databank said:

Absolutely. My albums are filed on my drive under their official (original) release moniker because I know what's what and I do not consider it my prerogative to rename the "artist" (which I believe is Discogs' strict politics and I believe they are right or soon the site, which is collaborative, would burn with endless editing wars, they just put whichever entry is on the record as such), but I know who is the lead creative force between an album regardless the name on the cover or the identity of the lead singer.

.
I'm sorry but discogs is totally wrong in treating 'Prince & The Revolution' as a separate artist for many reasons, including my above explanation (The Revolution were never a real band on their own right, they were hired guns and did as they were told by Prince), also because it creates the absolutely ridiculous situation where albums such as 'Purple Rain' are missing from the Prince page on discogs, while separate songs of those albums (exactly the same master tapes) that came out on 'Prince' compilations are included.
.

Discogs even go as far as saying Prince is "Famous additionally for his work in the band Prince And The Revolution." "His work in the band"? LOL.
.
Also: while discogs treats 'Prince & The Revolution' as ONE separate artist, they treat his other bands as collaborations between the artist 'Prince' and the band named 'The NPG' or '3rdEyeGirl'. No consistency.

The NPG are on both the Prince page and their own separate one, seems to be the best solution. Agreed it's very silly not having the Revolution albums on the Prince listing.

databank said:

There are numerous problems in this online discography: the problems above with Lotusflow3r and Newpower Soul but also some important side projects are missing, it's a mess, it's hard to navigate, musicians' credits have been copied and pasted from Princevault without giving them credit...

.

This is one typical example of why it can be a bad idea to hire non-fans to do the job when they could have seeked advice from me and/or the Princevault team, all of us fans who have dedicated thousands of hours establishing and curating online Prince discographies for over a decade.

.

Estate, it's not too late! We're here, we wanna help!

Paisley Park has an email link that you can use to make your comments.

I've found them to be very responsive (and quick!)

jaawwnn said:

databank said:

I'm not debating because there is no right or wrong here, there is just what is and cannot be challenged, I'm just trying to put this reality in context because I'm nice.

When it comes to the "all inclusive" vs "divided" discography there is no clear answer indeed. On my site there's an albums page which tries to be all inclusive but it's complicated because there are records where Prince did all songs but one or 2, others where he did half, others where he relegated the final decision power to a third party, others where he acted as a sideman, etc., and where do you draw the line? That's why the separated discography is simpler in a way, you could even have three levels: Prince albums, side-projects that involved him nearly entirely, albums with one or more songs by Prince. But then again there's no clear line between 2 and 3. The only factual, absolute line in the end is the name of the cover. It is what it is.

I enjoy your discography immensely and believe you make the right decisions in regards clarity, but as for what is "factual" I think the truth is lot messier and, frankly, more fun than that. I believe MCD is arguing that since both his name and his picture are on the cover then there's a solid case for it being a Prince album before it's a side-project album. I enjoy the ambiguity of the album in that respect, but i'd probably feel differently if i was a librarian.

.

The only difference between albums credited to '' and albums credited to 'NPG' (or 'Madhouse' or 'NPG Orchestra' or whatever else) is that for the former he openly admitted that it's him, while for the latter he chose to play hide-and-seek.

jaawwnn said:

databank said:

I'm not debating because there is no right or wrong here, there is just what is and cannot be challenged, I'm just trying to put this reality in context because I'm nice.

When it comes to the "all inclusive" vs "divided" discography there is no clear answer indeed. On my site there's an albums page which tries to be all inclusive but it's complicated because there are records where Prince did all songs but one or 2, others where he did half, others where he relegated the final decision power to a third party, others where he acted as a sideman, etc., and where do you draw the line? That's why the separated discography is simpler in a way, you could even have three levels: Prince albums, side-projects that involved him nearly entirely, albums with one or more songs by Prince. But then again there's no clear line between 2 and 3. The only factual, absolute line in the end is the name of the cover. It is what it is.

I enjoy your discography immensely and believe you make the right decisions in regards clarity, but as for what is "factual" I think the truth is lot messier and, frankly, more fun than that. I believe MCD is arguing that since both his name and his picture are on the cover then there's a solid case for it being a Prince album before it's a side-project album. I enjoy the ambiguity of the album in that respect, but i'd probably feel differently if i was a librarian.

[Edited 5/1/19 7:03am]

Thx

The thing is today we're discussing this in the first place because of the official website, which is the work of a librarian.

Kares said:

jaawwnn said:

I enjoy your discography immensely and believe you make the right decisions in regards clarity, but as for what is "factual" I think the truth is lot messier and, frankly, more fun than that. I believe MCD is arguing that since both his name and his picture are on the cover then there's a solid case for it being a Prince album before it's a side-project album. I enjoy the ambiguity of the album in that respect, but i'd probably feel differently if i was a librarian.

.

The only difference between albums credited to '' and albums credited to 'NPG' (or 'Madhouse' or 'NPG Orchestra' or whatever else) is that for the former he openly admitted that it's him, while for the latter he chose to play hide-and-seek.

The thing with is that he had changed his name to this, it was his name at that time, not a moniker on top of a real name.

Kares said:

databank said:

.The only factual, absolute line in the end is the name of the cover. It is what it is.

.

You mean the TWO different names he used as his own?...

The tatoo thing? Yeah, true, and the CD only has the symbol while the spine only has NPG, but at the end of the day is was officially a NPG release, no argument about that. Prince liked to play games, like his vague presence on Exodus or the "you're not supposed to be on this record" line in MPLS.

The true question is why did he choose to release this as an NPG album. I suspect it was because Larry went with GCS and they were like OK so let's release it as our bands not ourselves. Clearly games and things, but at the end of the day we still get NPG and GCS.

databank said:

Kares said:

.

The only difference between albums credited to '' and albums credited to 'NPG' (or 'Madhouse' or 'NPG Orchestra' or whatever else) is that for the former he openly admitted that it's him, while for the latter he chose to play hide-and-seek.

The thing with is that he had changed his name to this, it was his name at that time, not a moniker on top of a real name.

.
I dunno. Did he change his name officially? In his passport and all? Afaik he only adopted the symbol as his new stage name, which is essentially just a marketing label for certain products he put out, not fundamentally different than attaching the 'NPG' name on other products.

Kares said:

databank said:

Absolutely. My albums are filed on my drive under their official (original) release moniker because I know what's what and I do not consider it my prerogative to rename the "artist" (which I believe is Discogs' strict politics and I believe they are right or soon the site, which is collaborative, would burn with endless editing wars, they just put whichever entry is on the record as such), but I know who is the lead creative force between an album regardless the name on the cover or the identity of the lead singer.

.
I'm sorry but discogs is totally wrong in treating 'Prince & The Revolution' as a separate artist for many reasons, including my above explanation (The Revolution were never a real band on their own right, they were hired guns and did as they were told by Prince), also because it creates the absolutely ridiculous situation where albums such as 'Purple Rain' are missing from the Prince page on discogs, while separate songs of those albums (exactly the same master tapes) that came out on 'Prince' compilations are included.
.

Discogs even go as far as saying Prince is "Famous additionally for his work in the band Prince And The Revolution." "His work in the band"? LOL.
.
Also: while discogs treats 'Prince & The Revolution' as ONE separate artist, they treat his other bands as collaborations between the artist 'Prince' and the band named 'The NPG' or '3rdEyeGirl'. No consistency.

I see, I hadn't realized that. Yeah sometimes they see collabs as one entity, I've observed that before. So you get things like "Fennesz + Sakamoto" while it could just as well be "Fennesz" + "Sakamoto", so there's no logic in this or saying 'Prince And The Revolution" is a band but it's "Prince" and "The New Power Generation".

laytonian said:

databank said:

There are numerous problems in this online discography: the problems above with Lotusflow3r and Newpower Soul but also some important side projects are missing, it's a mess, it's hard to navigate, musicians' credits have been copied and pasted from Princevault without giving them credit...

.

This is one typical example of why it can be a bad idea to hire non-fans to do the job when they could have seeked advice from me and/or the Princevault team, all of us fans who have dedicated thousands of hours establishing and curating online Prince discographies for over a decade.

.

Estate, it's not too late! We're here, we wanna help!

Paisley Park has an email link that you can use to make your comments.

I've found them to be very responsive (and quick!)

Good to know, thx. I'll consider getting in touch with them eventually, right now I already have a list long as my arm of corrections to compile and send to Princevault

Kares said:

databank said:

The thing with is that he had changed his name to this, it was his name at that time, not a moniker on top of a real name.

.
I dunno. Did he change his name officially? In his passport and all? Afaik he only adopted the symbol as his new stage name, which is essentially just a marketing label for certain products he put out, not fundamentally different than attaching the 'NPG' name on other products.

He couldn't have changed his name legally because US laws state that names must be roman alphabet and have a relatively clear pronunciations (for example one guy wanted to change his name to 4 numbers and the judge said we can't know it it's one two three four or one thousand two hundred thirty four (it wasn't those numbers) so you can have it in full letters but not in numbers.

The name on his passport was "Prince Rogers Nelson" or "Prince Nelson" anyway: Prince at the end of the day was a stage name too in that sense. What I meant it was clearly meant to be this very specific person, not a group including him or someone else.

But then again there are bands who we don't know whether they are a person or band because they only have permanent member and so on, but I'd say it depends how you are supposed to a ddress the person in real life. In an interview people won't say "Hi Simply Red" to Mick Hucknall even though now he is Simply Red, but journalists weren't allowed to call Prince or encouraged to address him alone as New Power Generation.

Kares said:

jaawwnn said:

I enjoy your discography immensely and believe you make the right decisions in regards clarity, but as for what is "factual" I think the truth is lot messier and, frankly, more fun than that. I believe MCD is arguing that since both his name and his picture are on the cover then there's a solid case for it being a Prince album before it's a side-project album. I enjoy the ambiguity of the album in that respect, but i'd probably feel differently if i was a librarian.

.

The only difference between albums credited to '' and albums credited to 'NPG' (or 'Madhouse' or 'NPG Orchestra' or whatever else) is that for the former he openly admitted that it's him, while for the latter he chose to play hide-and-seek.

Well, if I believed that, which I don't, i'd have to ask what on earth Prince was thinking when he released an album where he calls himself a Nasty Girl and who exactly is The Most Beautiful Boy in the World about? Kirk?

jaawwnn said:

Kares said:

.

The only difference between albums credited to '' and albums credited to 'NPG' (or 'Madhouse' or 'NPG Orchestra' or whatever else) is that for the former he openly admitted that it's him, while for the latter he chose to play hide-and-seek.

Well, if I believed that, which I don't, i'd have to ask what on earth Prince was thinking when he released an album where he calls himself a Nasty Girl and who exactly is The Most Beautiful Boy in the World about? Kirk?

.
Mayte is a real person. 'Madhouse', 'The NPG' and 'The NPG Orchestra' weren't real bands, they were different bRands Prince made up to market his music.
.
And before someone would jump at my throat: what I mean on that 'The NPG' wasn't a real band is that they weren't a band on their own rights, they were hired guns who played with Prince and did as they were told. They are great musicians (well, most of them) and since Prince's passing they became a band playing Prince's music, but during Prince's lifetime 'The NPG' only existed when Prince decided so and it included people Prince decided to employ.