lavendardrummachine said:

databank said:

Did I name 3 categories??? O_o Then I must have been unclear I'm sorry.

I'm interested in what system you'd propose but either way since the current remasters program is not to be comprehensive, I don't think the way they label versions matter too much, as long as known recording dates are given (then we totally have enough info to sort it out, don't we?).

I don't really think it matters what system they use, what you listed was certainly valid as an option that would add even more clarity than what we're getting, I just think it needs more categories and for them to be clear for everyone.

Someone on Youtube had it as the "Dream Factory version", that would have worked too.

None of this should be a discussion, is what I'm saying. Neversin shouldn't have to detail what the bootleg version was, and fans shouldn't have to argue if they're hearing a posthomous edit version.

The Estate also shouldn't take for granted that sites like The Vault exist, and people on forums like this are sorting things out. Their approach from release to release has changed (going by era to going by project, kinda), and they're now considering that streaming audiences will have options to re-sequence, both of which are fine, but at the very minimum they need to document as they release.

"Early vocal run through", "Original outro"....I mean, okay they're describing version, no wait they're using nicknames, no wait, they're titling things for the people who listen to bootlegs based on the outro... it's just needlessly confusing, and we know they might one day release the demos, or working drafts of Witness 4 the Prosecution on top of it, which would include at least 2 other "versions" or whatever you want to think of them as, maybe more.

[Edited 6/26/20 17:54pm]

Yeah, I read ya and I guess we agree on the fact that in the end this is a debate between giving the job to Michael Howe vs giving it to Duane Tudahl (just 2 examples of course, because they incarnate corporate industry vs. dedicated researcher). At this stage I just accept it being what it is, if already we can pressure them to never ever release frankenstein mixes like on Originals, I think we did our share, and I'd rather have Prince alive and releasing his new album anyway...

always confused by the aggression of people on here. all good to disagree on semantics and dicuss stuff like that, but no need to get too upset. i love this version, i'll love what they call version 2, and the aspects i think they're leaving out i'll head over to my boot collection. excited to see what the next single will be for this

databank said:

lavendardrummachine said:

I don't really think it matters what system they use, what you listed was certainly valid as an option that would add even more clarity than what we're getting, I just think it needs more categories and for them to be clear for everyone.

Someone on Youtube had it as the "Dream Factory version", that would have worked too.

None of this should be a discussion, is what I'm saying. Neversin shouldn't have to detail what the bootleg version was, and fans shouldn't have to argue if they're hearing a posthomous edit version.

The Estate also shouldn't take for granted that sites like The Vault exist, and people on forums like this are sorting things out. Their approach from release to release has changed (going by era to going by project, kinda), and they're now considering that streaming audiences will have options to re-sequence, both of which are fine, but at the very minimum they need to document as they release.

"Early vocal run through", "Original outro"....I mean, okay they're describing version, no wait they're using nicknames, no wait, they're titling things for the people who listen to bootlegs based on the outro... it's just needlessly confusing, and we know they might one day release the demos, or working drafts of Witness 4 the Prosecution on top of it, which would include at least 2 other "versions" or whatever you want to think of them as, maybe more.

[Edited 6/26/20 17:54pm]

Yeah, I read ya and I guess we agree on the fact that in the end this is a debate between giving the job to Michael Howe vs giving it to Duane Tudahl (just 2 examples of course, because they incarnate corporate industry vs. dedicated researcher). At this stage I just accept it being what it is, if already we can pressure them to never ever release frankenstein mixes like on Originals, I think we did our share, and I'd rather have Prince alive and releasing his new album anyway...

.
Let's not forget that Prince's estate is managed by a freakin' bank for the forseeable future, so things could be far worse than they are. I see tons of issues with how P's legacy is handled too, but at least the doors of the vault are slowly opening and it is not only about Purple Rain anymore.

.

This is a great song and it sounds clean and tight. I love its rawness. Much better than the bootlegs. (If you listen to it on YT, make sure it's set to 'HD'. But go for the 24bit version, if you can.)
.
Also, it's a true vault release: no cassettes, no remixing from scratch, just a faithful remaster of an original mixdown tape. The real deal.

.

Chappers72 said:

Someone tell me I am not the only one that Hears new sounds over time???

Me too, I think I liked the bootleg the first time I heard it, but then couldn't sit through it...it just sounded off like he had a song in there but it didn't make it on tape and I got bored.

But now, I really like the release of this...it's a great song, and kind of reminds me of what I liked so much about the Deliverance, man opera ep (and might have guided that producer when he created that). Going back to the bootleg again, I hear everything in it, and hear that same song that's been there the whole time, so it's funny how that works.

In that same spirit....I'm also not hearing what everyone else is when they say they think it's Prince on guitar lead when it solos. Definitely sounds like Wendy and reminds me of her recent Purple Rain solos that were really good but not Prince...she plays slower without the same grace in transitions, and it's a little heavy handed, kind of pushing. But that could just be what I'm hearing.

lavendardrummachine said:

Chappers72 said:

Someone tell me I am not the only one that Hears new sounds over time???

Me too, I think I liked the bootleg the first time I heard it, but then couldn't sit through it...it just sounded off like he had a song in there but it didn't make it on tape and I got bored.

But now, I really like the release of this...it's a great song, and kind of reminds me of what I liked so much about the Deliverance, man opera ep (and might have guided that producer when he created that). Going back to the bootleg again, I hear everything in it, and hear that same song that's been there the whole time, so it's funny how that works.

In that same spirit....I'm also not hearing what everyone else is when they say they think it's Prince on guitar lead when it solos. Definitely sounds like Wendy and reminds me of her recent Purple Rain solos that were really good but not Prince...she plays slower without the same grace in transitions, and it's a little heavy handed, kind of pushing. But that could just be what I'm hearing.

It is definitely Prince - as a guitarist myself I can hear a few of Prince's signature "quick fast runs" (3:05 into the song) that is very common of his general playing. Plus a lot of the usage of wah pedal work and motifs he is doing are very typical Prince 80s licks, akin to his Erotic City guitar solo in the middle of the First Avenue '84 show (a good one for comparison since it is the same key)

Plus it is the same take that was in the version of just Prince (guitar, bass, drums, vox) on this song which would pre-date him giving the song to Wendy and Lisa to work on

[Edited 6/27/20 14:29pm]

wow having listened to the various boots of varying quality over the years, it sounds almost completely diffrent. But in a good way. Sounds amazing!

As someone who alwasy felt SOTT sounded muddy, i wonder if we'll hear a noticeble diffence or whether they purposely keep the original sound signitures.

[Edited 6/27/20 16:59pm]

Wolfie87 said:

SquirrelMeat said:

I actually prefer some of the earlier takes of The Beatles, like Strawberry Field, Across The Universe and I'm Looking Through etc.

I think, where we will suffer as Prince fans is, he has so much unreleased music, that dropping back to previous takes isn't required to fill vast SDE boxsets.

Most of the Beatles unreleased songs were on the cutting room floor for good reason, so alternate takes are the butter for their fans muffins.

Is this blasphemy, but are Prince's outtakes better than the Beatles ones? That shit wouldn't pass in any conversation if you came out from left field. People have no respect for Prince. The Beatles though, the most influential band of all time. But you're telling me he has better outtakes than them? [Edited 6/26/20 13:38pm]

I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm saying I prefer some of the Beatles earlier takes than the versions they chose to release.

With Prince, he has such a large volume of unreleased songs, that alt takes are second tier. New songs beat alt versions. The Beatles didn't have the same level of vault material in regards to unheard songs.

For me, a new song trumps and alt take every time. Offer me 'U Got The Look (Banjo outro)' Vs 'Walkin In Glory', I'll choose 'Walkin In Glory' every time.

Witness version 1 and version 2 are the final versions of 2 different recordings.

If they were to release the early version 1 at some point, then they just have to label it Version 1 Basic Tracking or Version 1 Early Mix etc etc.

mushmackalenta said:

This is a Frankenstein mix.

.

Where is Michael's explanation for this disgrace?

dbpdexter said:

bluegangsta said:

In what fucking universe is the considered as "Version 1"?

I guess it at least it appears to be the original mix (being Wendy & Lisa's version).

You’re thinking with bootleg logic.The version without horns and only his vocals is not finished just like old friends 4 sell #1 is not the finished version. Like Prince said, that’s the problem with boots.

.

Problem?

It is stuff that is available to us.

So we listen.

The fact that their numbering is different means that they ignore decades of fans naming and numbering versions.

Chappers72 said:

I got the 1999 box but scared to touch it really

.

Why?

It sounds wayyy better than the PR debacle.

Neversin said:

So many no-brainer options and they always keep choosing the laziest...

.

You forget to mention some part:

The finished version 1.

While the fans already had version 1, version2 and version 3 decades ago.

And never claimed it was finished.

udo said:

udo said:

dbpdexter said:

bluegangsta said: You’re thinking with bootleg logic.The version without horns and only his vocals is not finished just like old friends 4 sell #1 is not the finished version. Like Prince said, that’s the problem with boots.

.

Problem?

It is stuff that is available to us.

So we listen.

The fact that their numbering is different means that they ignore decades of fans naming and numbering versions.

They should ignore bullshit fan (and even worse, Bootleg) numbering and just use the proper numbering if they feel the need to number it, like they did on this version...
There's absolutely no need for naming a final version (as it would appear on an (unreleased) album; you don't see any version numbering or some dumb naming convention with the words "finished" on any track on "Parade" now do you?) "Finished" simply for the fact he retooled and tinkered with some final versions years later when they weren't released... See "The Dance" or even this version of "Witness 4 The Prosecution"; this version of "Witness" is the version as it would have appeared on the original "Dream Factory" and "Crystal Ball" but years later around 1997/1998 he retooled this version...
Just because someone copied and sold either W&L's or Eric's tape doesn't mean that Prince's initial/solo version is "version 1"... It's even better to be called a "Demo" (even though it isn't, maybe "Basic tracking" or something along these lines...) and released as such on a demos compilation...

Neversin.

[Edited 7/6/20 3:33am]

Neversin said:

udo said:

.

Problem?

It is stuff that is available to us.

So we listen.

The fact that their numbering is different means that they ignore decades of fans naming and numbering versions.

They should ignore bullshit fan (and even worse, Bootleg) numbering and just use the proper numbering if they feel the need to number it, like they did on this version...

.

Who are they trying to sell to?

What context do these customers have?

.

There's absolutely no need for naming a final version (as it would appear on an (unreleased) album;

.

I can see that, but fans can do that when it comes to unreleased.

Prince songs are never finished but once released some stage of 'finished' is reached.

.

you don't see any version numbering or some dumb naming convention with the words "finished" on any track on "Parade" now do you?)

.

Are you serious here?

.

Just because someone copied and sold either W&L's or Eric's tape doesn't mean that Prince's initial/solo version is "version 1"...

.

It is the fan's version 1 as it was the first version they got their sweaty palms on.

.

It's even better to be called a "Demo" (even though it isn't, maybe "Basic tracking" or something along these lines...) and released as such on a demos compilation...

.

That would be a nice perspective.

udo said:

[Edited 7/6/20 7:25am]

Neversin said:

udo said:

It is the fan's version 1 as it was the first version they got their sweaty palms on.

And thus should be ingored... We don't need bootleg quality bullshit info made up by fans on professional recordings...Especially if it's not even a "version"... And who gives a fuck what fans had in their possession by way of bootlegs? This is an irrelevant way of numbering things simply because this is not the way The Estate (or even Prince himself) referenced these tracks... The "versioning" fans use is irrelevant simply because it only pertains to bootlegs whereas The Estate (and this is an assumption) actually have useful references to label tracks properly... What do you want next? "Moonbeam Levels" to be officially renamed "A Better Place To Die" because that's the name of the first version "they got their sweaty palms on"?!

.

It is the fans they are trying to sell the product to.

It was the studio people (just the studio and perhaps label people) that got to see the `proper` numbering.

What group of people can they make more money off?

AvocadosMax said:

Guys gotta calm down. The mix will never be perfect. Sometimes he recorded tracks on broken consoles. Audio quality will always be a bit inconsistent, especially in certain periods of time. Just need to accept this.

-

Eeeeeexactly !

-

"Version 1", "Version 2", and "Version 3" labels were also only put there by the bootlegers as labels to differenciate the fact that there were 3 bootlegged, unofficial versions out there

It is simple, on this box set there are two versions of Witness. The first one is labeled "Version 1" for reference, and the second one is labeled "Version 2" for reference, because of the fact that there are, two versions on the box set lol


I think that out of everything to be concerned about, such trite details such as this is not one of them.

[Edited 7/6/20 11:42am]

udo said:

It is the fans they are trying to sell the product to.

It was the studio people (just the studio and perhaps label people) that got to see the `proper` numbering.

What group of people can they make more money off?

That's just it, there is no "proper" numbering, only timestamps and those don't say much regarding the final product...
These tracks aren't numbered or called "versions", like I said this is just fan bullshit to sort their garbage bootlegs and pretend it has any merit or worth... How long till they find out their precious version 3 of whatever track is actually version 8 and then you want The Estate to use this kind of stupidity?! They don't need even more stupidity to fuck up their releases...
It's already embarrassing enough to have a proposed 12" candidate of a song labeled with some cringy fan/bootleg title on the deluxe edition of his biggest selling album...

And they don't have to lure "the fans" because you know full well that The Estate doesn't have to try (and aren't even trying) to sell these releases to them because they sell themselves and that's why these releases continue to be halfassed, minimum effort releases that "the fans" gobble up and praise them for it... So why waste more money?

Neversin.

[Edited 7/7/20 0:45am]

Neversin said:

udo said:

It is the fans they are trying to sell the product to.

It was the studio people (just the studio and perhaps label people) that got to see the `proper` numbering.

What group of people can they make more money off?

That's just it, there is no "proper" numbering, only timestamps and those don't say much regarding the final product...
These tracks aren't numbered or called "versions", like I said this is just fan bullshit to sort their garbage bootlegs and pretend it has any merit or worth... How long till they find out their precious version 3 of whatever track is actually version 8 and then you want The Estate to use this kind of stupidity?! They don't need even more stupidity to fuck up their releases...
It's already embarrassing enough to have a proposed 12" candidate of a song labeled with some cringy fan/bootleg title on the deluxe edition of his biggest selling album...

And they don't have to lure "the fans" because you know full well that The Estate doesn't have to try (and aren't even trying) to sell these releases to them because they sell themselves and that's why these releases continue to be halfassed, minimum effort releases that "the fans" gobble up and praise them for it... So why waste more money?

Neversin.

[Edited 7/7/20 0:45am]

The use of versions on this release is probably just to let people distinguish the different versions of a track from each other.
I think everybody knows the fan's personal way of archiving their bootlegs and tracks id full of mistakes and of cours shouldn't be used for official releases.

Neversin said:

udo said:

It is the fans they are trying to sell the product to.

It was the studio people (just the studio and perhaps label people) that got to see the `proper` numbering.

What group of people can they make more money off?

That's just it, there is no "proper" numbering, only timestamps and those don't say much regarding the final product...
These tracks aren't numbered or called "versions", like I said this is just fan bullshit to sort their garbage bootlegs and pretend it has any merit or worth... How long till they find out their precious version 3 of whatever track is actually version 8 and then you want The Estate to use this kind of stupidity?! They don't need even more stupidity to fuck up their releases...
It's already embarrassing enough to have a proposed 12" candidate of a song labeled with some cringy fan/bootleg title on the deluxe edition of his biggest selling album...

And they don't have to lure "the fans" because you know full well that The Estate doesn't have to try (and aren't even trying) to sell these releases to them because they sell themselves and that's why these releases continue to be halfassed, minimum effort releases that "the fans" gobble up and praise them for it... So why waste more money?

Neversin.

[Edited 7/7/20 0:45am]

I guess in the context of a single, specific release they have to differentiate versions of a track on the booklet, so I'd say V1 and V2 or whatever is acceptable as long as it's only accepted in the context of this specific release. We could argue about whether the labels given are relevant but I guess in the end they need to use some label.

.

Now this "original outro" label on ROTF, that's something else, true bullshit because indeed the only reference point here clearly isn't the NPGMC rehearsal version (the only officially released version so far) but the bootleg version. What exactly are they trying to tell us here? That's kind of insulting because, as you say, whomever knows about the bootleg is interested in this boxset anyway. It's like saying "hey, you cheap idiots, you may not be interested in a remaster, 44 other outtakes and 2 live gigs, but you'll sure put 150 bucks for 15 additional seconds of ROTF". Huh? Whaaat? Seriously, Michael Howe! What were you thinking??

databank said:

Neversin said:

That's just it, there is no "proper" numbering, only timestamps and those don't say much regarding the final product...
These tracks aren't numbered or called "versions", like I said this is just fan bullshit to sort their garbage bootlegs and pretend it has any merit or worth... How long till they find out their precious version 3 of whatever track is actually version 8 and then you want The Estate to use this kind of stupidity?! They don't need even more stupidity to fuck up their releases...
It's already embarrassing enough to have a proposed 12" candidate of a song labeled with some cringy fan/bootleg title on the deluxe edition of his biggest selling album...

And they don't have to lure "the fans" because you know full well that The Estate doesn't have to try (and aren't even trying) to sell these releases to them because they sell themselves and that's why these releases continue to be halfassed, minimum effort releases that "the fans" gobble up and praise them for it... So why waste more money?

Neversin.

[Edited 7/7/20 0:45am]

I guess in the context of a single, specific release they have to differentiate versions of a track on the booklet, so I'd say V1 and V2 or whatever is acceptable as long as it's only accepted in the context of this specific release. We could argue about whether the labels given are relevant but I guess in the end they need to use some label.

.

Now this "original outro" label on ROTF, that's something else, true bullshit because indeed the only reference point here clearly isn't the NPGMC rehearsal version (the only officially released version so far) but the bootleg version. What exactly are they trying to tell us here? That's kind of insulting because, as you say, whomever knows about the bootleg is interested in this boxset anyway. It's like saying "hey, you cheap idiots, you may not be interested in a remaster, 44 other outtakes and 2 live gigs, but you'll sure put 150 bucks for 15 additional seconds of ROTF". Huh? Whaaat? Seriously, Michael Howe! What were you thinking??

.

A charitable interpretation could be that they digitized multiple versions of ROTF, tagged them with "original outro" and other qualifiers, and decided to release the one that they internally called "original outro", anticipating that they might release the other versions at some point.

.

So I guess my point is that they might be referring to the versions they have, not to the versions circulating on bootlegs.

[Edited 7/9/20 0:49am]

olb99 said:

databank said:

I guess in the context of a single, specific release they have to differentiate versions of a track on the booklet, so I'd say V1 and V2 or whatever is acceptable as long as it's only accepted in the context of this specific release. We could argue about whether the labels given are relevant but I guess in the end they need to use some label.

.

Now this "original outro" label on ROTF, that's something else, true bullshit because indeed the only reference point here clearly isn't the NPGMC rehearsal version (the only officially released version so far) but the bootleg version. What exactly are they trying to tell us here? That's kind of insulting because, as you say, whomever knows about the bootleg is interested in this boxset anyway. It's like saying "hey, you cheap idiots, you may not be interested in a remaster, 44 other outtakes and 2 live gigs, but you'll sure put 150 bucks for 15 additional seconds of ROTF". Huh? Whaaat? Seriously, Michael Howe! What were you thinking??

.

A charitable interpretation could be that they digitized multiple versions of ROTF, tagged them with "original outro" and other qualifiers, and decided to release the one that they internally called "original outro", anticipating that they might release the other versions at some point.

.

So I guess my point is that they might be referring to the versions they have, not to the versions circulating on bootlegs.

[Edited 7/9/20 0:49am]

I think the 'Crystal Ball' version should also be on there becuase with this version we still can't make the original Crystal Ball album as Howe claims.
But best would still be to do (limited edition) RSD releases of Dream Factory, Camille and Crystal Ball. Call them 'Multiverse' releases or something as if these would have been released in an alternate reality. Just to keep that Prince mystery going

JorisE73 said:

databank said:

JorisE73 said:

I think the 'Crystal Ball' version should also be on there becuase with this version we still can't make the original Crystal Ball album as Howe claims.
But best would still be to do (limited edition) RSD releases of Dream Factory, Camille and Crystal Ball. Call them 'Multiverse' releases or something as if these would have been released in an alternate reality. Just to keep that Prince mystery going

You still couldn't make CB with only the correct ROTF.

I haven't dived yet deep enough to check the tracklists, but indeed, no original Dream Factory (just shows how clueles Howe is if he thinks the one on Crystal Ball '98 is the same or even Crystal Ball itself without the flute intro.) and where's the full Joy in Repetition???
i'm kinda seeing the "insult" part with him dismissing these and pretend we think the released versions are the same as on the unreleased albums.