SoulAlive said:

a few of you would have added "The Grand Progression" to the album/movie.I have mixed feelings about this song.It's nice....but it kinda drags.I think "Still Would Stand All The Time" is the better song.

One can swap out any of these suggestions for the title track, which is a real genuine clunker.

Mintchip said:

Vannormal said:

-

Certainly would change that horrible cover art, which looked already outdated at the time,

(as I remember very well when I bought it).

It could've been a two LP/CD set, with one clear Prince album, and then a second album with all the associates.

Like that it could've been a overall more cohesive project.

This is what I made out of it;

-

LP 1

Side A :

1. Can't Stop This Feeling I Got

2. We Can Funk

3. The Question Of U

4. Thieves in the temple (extended version)

5. Pink Cashmere

6. Still Would Stand All Time

-

LP 1

Side B :

1. Joy In Repetition (+intro with that kick drum)

2. Elephants & Flowers

3. Tick, Tick, Bang

4. Grafitti Bridge (+Clare Fisher orchestration)

5. New Power Generation (both versions as one)

6. The Grand Progression

-

LP 2

Side A :

1. Shake!

2. Melody Cool

3. Round And Round

4. Release it

(I remixed it as a longer version)

-

LP 2

Side B :

1. Love Machine

2. Train (Mavis Staples)

3. Soul Psychodelicide (G. Clinton)

4. Oobey Doop (Elisa Fiorillo)

5. 7 Corners (Ingrid Chavez)

-

...and before "Can't Stop This Feeling I Got" i added fade-in sea shore sounds.

With the second part of (New Power Generation pt II' I left off the outtro.

I also added some score sounds from the film here and there as segues.

Would love to get my hands on the original verion of 'Round And Round' (the original configuration of the GB album had it as the sith track and not (re)mixed by Jr. Vasques).

Have to say, the second LP works pretty well for a non Prince LP.

Try it.

And I just love my own compilated Grafitti Bridge LP.

Sounds way more cohesive.

-

[Edited 7/30/20 4:09am]

This sounds good to me. What program do you use to edit your files?

-

Sound Forge Pro 14 Suite.

Complicated, but worth the use.

Once you get it you get addicted, and want to change so much albums and music I own.

That's how I'm fucking up all my free time.

-

[Edited 7/31/20 23:10pm]

Vannormal said:

Prince versions of all listed tracks:

Can't Stop This Feeling I Got

New Power Generation

Melody Cool

? of U

We Can Funk (1986 Version)

Joy in Repitition

Thieves in the Temple

Tick, Tick, Bang

Still Would Stand All Time

Soul Psychodelicide

Moonbeam Levels

We Got the Power

NPG Reprise (Hidden Track)

It's a soundtrack so the non-prince material should stay. I would just trim a couple weak tracks like "Tick Tick Bang" and "Elephants And Flwers".

I love "The Grand Progression" but it wouldn't really fit this album.

The movie is abysmal. Wish he never released it.

If you delete the movie and just make this a Prince album.

Can't Stop This Feeling I Got

New Power Generation

The Question Of U

The Grand Progression

Elephants & Flowers

We Can Funk

Soul Psychodelicide

Joy In Repetition

Thieves In The Temple

Still Would Stand All Time

databank said:

I know the practice is very common among users but I must admit I find it quite shocking. It wouldn't cross my mind to alter a work of art to make it more enjoyable. I'm not saying there's something morally wrong about it but it shows an attitude towards art that is clearly different from the one I was educated to have. I was taught to appreciate art as something of higher value, I was taught that I had to educate myself in order to be able to appreciate the work of artists, if not deserve it. Thus, altering a work of art to adjust it to my taste, the way I was taught, is like taking Mona Lisa off the walls of the Louvres museum and shitting on it.

.

We've found ourselves a few times on opposite sides of this debate. Just a bit more context.. Art, over human history, has generally been about a shared experience, like the oldest art forms, story telling and singing. Before being recorded, it was always about adding your own touch. Later, with painting and sculpture, it was mostly commissioned, that is, someone wanted something pleasting to look at and told an artist what to make and change it if it wasn't what they wanted.

.

Then there were the artists that were being kept by wealthy people, so that they could be paraded (Mozart, many many painters). The art was always just a tool to express something, most often to parade wealth, not from the artist, but the one commissioning. Works of art now deified and made untouchable were just tools. Case in point, the Night Watch, a famous Rembrandt painting, was originally wider, but they found it didn't fit where they wanted it, so they cut of the sides. That's now unthinkable, because the art has been killed. It is now like a taxidermist has done its work. It is lifelike, but no longer alive.

.

In music, things are not any different. Most everyone starting on an instrument starts with trying to recreate some songs. There is an entire cottage industry selling tabs and transcribed music. There are more bands playing covers than bands mostly playing original songs. (with differing levels of autenticity) Hip-hop (and most music now) takes it a step further with sampling. Sometimes blatantly so (Can't Touch This, Me Myself and I), sometimes more interesting.

.

Prince himself did much the same. He often (ab?)used his band's playing in a different song or different way of originally created. (so not his "art", but one of his band members) More extremely so with Clare Fischer's work, taking orchestration meant for one song and using it (altered or not) on another.

.

To recap, it's fine to appreciate something as it was. But it's basically looking at something that's dead and doesn't mean much anymore for today. In being able to "play" with the music, it's kept alive and relevant for whoever plays with it (and possibly others enjoying that). The more the option to play with art and to incorporate it into your life exists, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

.

The notion of what art should be and how it should be codefied and appreciated, to me, misses the point entirely. The mona lisa, which you mention, has been put in an awful place where it's impossible to enjoy. The throngs of people, the distance to the picture.. it should be enjoyed in a small quiet room, up close. Personally, I enjoy people applying it to their lifes or jokes more (i.e. shitting on it)

.

Just make it clear what is and what isn't by the original artist. It is already the case that any bootleg or song gotten through non-official channels, is suspect. And it definitely wasn't meant to be enjoyed that way. To me, let's just enjoy the art, in whatever way that's possible!

mediumdry said:

databank said:

I know the practice is very common among users but I must admit I find it quite shocking. It wouldn't cross my mind to alter a work of art to make it more enjoyable. I'm not saying there's something morally wrong about it but it shows an attitude towards art that is clearly different from the one I was educated to have. I was taught to appreciate art as something of higher value, I was taught that I had to educate myself in order to be able to appreciate the work of artists, if not deserve it. Thus, altering a work of art to adjust it to my taste, the way I was taught, is like taking Mona Lisa off the walls of the Louvres museum and shitting on it.

.

We've found ourselves a few times on opposite sides of this debate. Just a bit more context.. Art, over human history, has generally been about a shared experience, like the oldest art forms, story telling and singing. Before being recorded, it was always about adding your own touch. Later, with painting and sculpture, it was mostly commissioned, that is, someone wanted something pleasting to look at and told an artist what to make and change it if it wasn't what they wanted.

.

Then there were the artists that were being kept by wealthy people, so that they could be paraded (Mozart, many many painters). The art was always just a tool to express something, most often to parade wealth, not from the artist, but the one commissioning. Works of art now deified and made untouchable were just tools. Case in point, the Night Watch, a famous Rembrandt painting, was originally wider, but they found it didn't fit where they wanted it, so they cut of the sides. That's now unthinkable, because the art has been killed. It is now like a taxidermist has done its work. It is lifelike, but no longer alive.

.

In music, things are not any different. Most everyone starting on an instrument starts with trying to recreate some songs. There is an entire cottage industry selling tabs and transcribed music. There are more bands playing covers than bands mostly playing original songs. (with differing levels of autenticity) Hip-hop (and most music now) takes it a step further with sampling. Sometimes blatantly so (Can't Touch This, Me Myself and I), sometimes more interesting.

.

Prince himself did much the same. He often (ab?)used his band's playing in a different song or different way of originally created. (so not his "art", but one of his band members) More extremely so with Clare Fischer's work, taking orchestration meant for one song and using it (altered or not) on another.

.

To recap, it's fine to appreciate something as it was. But it's basically looking at something that's dead and doesn't mean much anymore for today. In being able to "play" with the music, it's kept alive and relevant for whoever plays with it (and possibly others enjoying that). The more the option to play with art and to incorporate it into your life exists, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

.

The notion of what art should be and how it should be codefied and appreciated, to me, misses the point entirely. The mona lisa, which you mention, has been put in an awful place where it's impossible to enjoy. The throngs of people, the distance to the picture.. it should be enjoyed in a small quiet room, up close. Personally, I enjoy people applying it to their lifes or jokes more (i.e. shitting on it)

.

Just make it clear what is and what isn't by the original artist. It is already the case that any bootleg or song gotten through non-official channels, is suspect. And it definitely wasn't meant to be enjoyed that way. To me, let's just enjoy the art, in whatever way that's possible!

I agree with pretty much everything you say and admit that my perspective is culturally biaised, i.e. a very Western, 19th/20th century idea of art's role in society, of how it should be treated and of the very special role of the auteur.

.

Keeping this in mind, I'd say the recorded format gave a new status to music: it fixed it in a way music sheets and tradition could not. I don't mind covers because they're a reinpretation, like someone who'd redraw Mona Lisa or rewrite Romeo and Juliet (as opposed to altering the original recording, picture or text)

.

Of course, having fun wth Mona Lisa is one thing, I probably would be amused more than anything else by someone remixing a Prince recording for comedic purposes.

More generally, what disturbs me is not the notion of appropriating/altering a work of art as an artist in order to revisit it for a new audience. When Bill Laswell posthumously remixes Bob Marley I can live with it because it's Bill Laswell not Joe Blow from Idaho, and because the project aims at offering the public a new interpretation of Marley's work by a true artist, not Joe Blow improving the recordings for Joe Blow's personal entertainment.

What confuses me is the notion of a non-artist (= civilian, muggle, mere mortal) altering the (holy) work of an artist (= magician, superhuman, god) in order to improve their own (insignificant) experience.

Of course it's everyone's prerogative, it's just something that sounds like blasphemy to me. The fact that I realize how trivial and subjective my sensibilities are does not make them any less real to me. I just wish more people would be more humble in front of the work of artists, particularly great artists such as Prince, and would just take the time to learn to appreciate such work as it is, without telling to themselves that they can "improve" it by altering it. Typically, when I read that people systematically skip tracks from albums, I'm like " but... why OH WHY???!!! ". I simply cannot understand how anyone who enjoys Prince's work could be infuriated by a Prince song to the point they can't listen to it. I simply cannot. I certainly like certain songs less than others but if I'm gonna play an album I'm gonna play an album. If I'm gonna watch a movie I'm not gonna skip the scenes I like less even if all my favorite movies have moments I fancy less than others. I'll just go with the flow.

.

Now at this stage I'm not trying to convince anyone or argue with anyone, I'm merely sharing my perspective, my confusion.

[Edited 8/2/20 12:27pm]

databank said:

databank said:

What confuses me is the notion of a non-artist (= civilian, muggle, mere mortal) altering the (holy) work of an artist (= magician, superhuman, god) in order to improve their own (insignificant) experience.

.

Excellently said. And I wouldn't want anyone to make it impossible to hear or see the original or make it hard to figure out which is the original.

.

That said, the Grafitti Bridge album could use some reshuffling/remixing/beatification.

homesquid said:

It's a soundtrack so the non-prince material should stay. I would just trim a couple weak tracks like "Tick Tick Bang" and "Elephants And Flwers".

I love "The Grand Progression" but it wouldn't really fit this album.

The movie is abysmal. Wish he never released it.

If you delete the movie and just make this a Prince album.

Can't Stop This Feeling I Got

New Power Generation

The Question Of U

The Grand Progression

Elephants & Flowers

We Can Funk

Soul Psychodelicide

Joy In Repetition

Thieves In The Temple

Still Would Stand All Time

It's interesting looking over this list with new information

Can't Stop This Feeling I Got ( 1982 outtake / 1986 Prince & the Revolution)

New Power Generation ( Bold Generation intended 4 the Time 1982

The Question Of U ( 1985 Parade era outtake ie Paisley Jam Flesh sessions )

The Grand Progression (1988 demo for Graffiti Bridge)

Elephants & Flowers (totally new song -1988 demo for Graffiti Bridge

We Can Funk ( 1984 Purple Rain era outtake/ + 1986 Prince & the Revolution outtake)

Soul Psychodelicide (1986 Prince & the Revolution rehearsal/jam)

Joy In Repetition (July 1986 outtake during the Parade tour)

Thieves In The Temple (totally new song... that we know of lol)

Still Would Stand All Time (1988 Lovesexy era outtake)

Tick Tick Bang (1981 Controversy outtake)

databank said:

Vannormal said:

-

Sound Forge Pro 14 Suite.

Complicated, but worth the use.

Once you get it you get addicted, and want to change so much albums and music I own.

That's how I'm fucking up all my free time.

-

[Edited 7/31/20 23:10pm]

I know the practice is very common among users but I must admit I find it quite shocking. It wouldn't cross my mind to alter a work of art to make it more enjoyable. I'm not saying there's something morally wrong about it but it shows an attitude towards art that is clearly different from the one I was educated to have. I was taught to appreciate art as something of higher value, I was taught that I had to educate myself in order to be able to appreciate the work of artists, if not deserve it. Thus, altering a work of art to adjust it to my taste, the way I was taught, is like taking Mona Lisa off the walls of the Louvres museum and shitting on it. It's being so mediocre that I cannot appreciate art for what it is and therefore I don't deserve to be exposed to it at all. I realize I received a relatively conservative, elitist upper middle class education, and that it does not represent any objective, universal truth, but I can't help being shocked. However as long as y'all keep your fanmixes for yourselves and don't put them online I have nothing to say against it. I just wanted to share my perspective on a friendly basis.

Life is too short for anyone to limit how they enjoy a work of art. If people want to make fan mixes or reconfigurations to improve their listening experience, that's completely valid and I don't see it as disrespectful at all. Prince made the albums he wanted to make and got to release them as such, and how people choose to engage with it is out of his hands. You can't even really say that his recordings are sacred or definitive versions of his art, given how he rearranged songs in live settings and changed lyrics quite often throughout his career to suit his headspace at any given time. So why shouldn't fans be able to construct the albums they want to hear?

The Mona Lisa comparison is also pretty disingenuous, because you know that nobody is replacing or defacing the original album. It's not like the original masters are being replaced with somebody's personal version of Graffiti Bridge and all original copies are being destroyed. It's just an alternate take on Prince's body of work from that era, and fans have a right to share their ideas online so that others might hear the songs in a new light.

herb4 said:

SoulAlive said:

a few of you would have added "The Grand Progression" to the album/movie.I have mixed feelings about this song.It's nice....but it kinda drags.I think "Still Would Stand All The Time" is the better song.

One can swap out any of these suggestions for the title track, which is a real genuine clunker.

yeah,I was disappointed with the title song

I don't know why anyone would be bothered or concerned with fans fucking around with Prince's official albums and trying to plish thme. Shit, he did it rather constantly and his ideas for a record shifted rather hard many times. I realize, sure, they're HIS albums but there's no harm in fans picking out stuff they'd have preferred near as I can tell.

For close to 3 decades, I cherry picked all his stuff to suit my own personal tastes but didn't mind since he was releasing so much more stuff. Not all of it was to my liking but I assembled some great track lists/mix CD's that were right in my wheelhouse and was greatful for the buffet he started serving up as he drifted further away from conventional releases.

I MUCH preferred Crystal Ball, Emancipation, MPLSound/Lotus Flower that gave me so much more to choose from - especially since I tend to like different shit than most others. Or so it seems at least.

Truth be told, sine his death, there's even MORE stuff to peruse through and it's so weird he didn't offer so much of it up for sale when he was alive. The live material alone that I've discovered is something I would have GLADLY paid for had he gone that route.

Sorry. I'm rambling.

databank said:

mediumdry said:

.

We've found ...

... your reply...

-

So. Question of the thread was: How would you change Grafitti Bridge?

I answered the thread question.

Your answer : "I wouldn't."

And then you answer again: "(...) the album with the Prince songs and a PP ost/sampler with the GB Time songs (...)" And that of course within the context you stated.

No argueing here, just mere 'thinking, debating'.

-

Mediumdry said exactly what I think:

"We've found ourselves a few times on opposite sides of this debate." (...)

"To recap, it's fine to appreciate something as it was." (...)

"The notion of what art should be and how it should be codefied and appreciated, to me, misses the point entirely." (...)

"To me, let's just enjoy the art, in whatever way that's possible!"

Couldn't agree more to all he said.

-

You replied :

"I agree with pretty much everything you say and admit that my perspective is culturally biaised, i.e. a very Western, 19th/20th century idea of art's role in society, of how it should be treated and of the very special role of the auteur.

What you say there is very interesting. But i'm an artist as well, and I live nearly 20 years in the twenty-first century, so my approach of how art should be treated has a more contemporary interpretation.

Then you state :

"Of course, having fun wth Mona Lisa is one thing, I probably would be amused more than anything else by someone remixing a Prince recording for comedic purposes."

So let me call myself 'Joe Blow'. I like that. I am a muggle civilian and of course mere mortal like all of us, and so I am improving the recordings for my personal entertainment, with great interest, and, even respect for the original author and his work, which may sound strange perhaps.

Cause there is nothing disrespectful of reworking it (for personal use), the way I see it.

But I'd like to make clear that other artists are mere mortals too.

Magicians don't excist, neither do superhumans and God is an ghostly invention by man.

Prince is kind of a Joe Blow too, only he was immeasurably far more creative and prolific and way much more interesting than Joe Blow here.

And... a completely different debat, no artwork is holy. All art is just... well art.

The mona Lisa for example is a painting that's being considdered by millions as the best work of art (ever?), just because it's being wanted thus very expensive too. Etcetera. (This needs a couple of days of debate at least. To understand different points of view, and not here on the .org.)

I understand that actions like this may sound like blasphemy. But then again, I don't believe in god, so blaphemy is unfamiliar to me, and of course I understand what you trying to say. And I don't wnat to lower myself into a disparaging comment.

But you are right when you state this :

"The fact that I realize how trivial and subjective my sensibilities are does not make them any less real to me." And you're absolutely right about that.

I just can't completely agree with this : "I just wish more people would be more humble in front of the work of artists." Artists works are always being approached in a complete personal way.

Some people know and learn about it, some do not or never will, and it doesn't make them less worthy or opinionated.

Look who's talking. lol

And what I also appreciate about what you said is this :

"(...) I certainly like certain songs less than others but if I'm gonna play an album I'm gonna play an album. (...) I'll just go with the flow."

That's nice. I personally never abruptly stop music while it was my choice of putting it on. I too let the music paly to 'end'.

(I think it's important but that's a whole other story.)

When I put a record on and I need to go, I don't stop it. (My hifi system allows this)

It can play further while I'm gone... into oblivion, or end unheard.

For me the idea of music continuing just like time does gives me peace. It's very personal i know, I

I believe that everyone has the right to have at least one hysterical manner of bevaviour.

And of course I am well aware that you don't want to convince or argue, and I appreciate your perspective and conclusion. We don't always have to agree on everything.

That's the beauty of life ànd art.

Stay open for other and new opinions, don't shove yours unasked into other people's throat or asses. We need to learn to agree to disagree, and then move on with the chance of learning something new. My personal approach of anything basically.

Peace.

-

[Edited 8/5/20 3:27am]

And this is how we found our Grafitti Bridge. (great rewrite of the script)

Vannormal said:

databank said:

... your reply...

-

So. Question of the thread was: How would you change Grafitti Bridge?

I answered the thread question.

Your answer : "I wouldn't."

And then you answer again: "(...) the album with the Prince songs and a PP ost/sampler with the GB Time songs (...)" And that of course within the context you stated.

No argueing here, just mere 'thinking, debating'.

-

Mediumdry said exactly what I think:

"We've found ourselves a few times on opposite sides of this debate." (...)

"To recap, it's fine to appreciate something as it was." (...)

"The notion of what art should be and how it should be codefied and appreciated, to me, misses the point entirely." (...)

"To me, let's just enjoy the art, in whatever way that's possible!"

Couldn't agree more to all he said.

-

You replied :

"I agree with pretty much everything you say and admit that my perspective is culturally biaised, i.e. a very Western, 19th/20th century idea of art's role in society, of how it should be treated and of the very special role of the auteur.

What you say there is very interesting. But i'm an artist as well, and I live nearly 20 years in the twenty-first century, so my approach of how art should be treated has a more contemporary interpretation.

Then you state :

"Of course, having fun wth Mona Lisa is one thing, I probably would be amused more than anything else by someone remixing a Prince recording for comedic purposes."

So let me call myself 'Joe Blow'. I like that. I am a muggle civilian and of course mere mortal like all of us, and so I am improving the recordings for my personal entertainment, with great interest, and, even respect for the original author and his work, which may sound strange perhaps.

Cause there is nothing disrespectful of reworking it (for personal use), the way I see it.

But I'd like to make clear that other artists are mere mortals too.

Magicians don't excist, neither do superhumans and God is an ghostly invention by man.

Prince is kind of a Joe Blow too, only he was immeasurably far more creative and prolific and way much more interesting than Joe Blow here.

And... a completely different debat, no artwork is holy. All art is just... well art.

The mona Lisa for example is a painting that's being considdered by millions as the best work of art (ever?), just because it's being wanted thus very expensive too. Etcetera. (This needs a couple of days of debate at least. To understand different points of view, and not here on the .org.)

I understand that actions like this may sound like blasphemy. But then again, I don't believe in god, so blaphemy is unfamiliar to me, and of course I understand what you trying to say. And I don't wnat to lower myself into a disparaging comment.

But you are right when you state this :

"The fact that I realize how trivial and subjective my sensibilities are does not make them any less real to me." And you're absolutely right about that.

I just can't completely agree with this : "I just wish more people would be more humble in front of the work of artists." Artists works are always being approached in a complete personal way.

Some people know and learn about it, some do not or never will, and it doesn't make them less worthy or opinionated.

Look who's talking. lol

And what I also appreciate about what you said is this :

"(...) I certainly like certain songs less than others but if I'm gonna play an album I'm gonna play an album. (...) I'll just go with the flow."

That's nice. I personally never abruptly stop music while it was my choice of putting it on. I too let the music paly to 'end'.

(I think it's important but that's a whole other story.)

When I put a record on and I need to go, I don't stop it. (My hifi system allows this)

It can play further while I'm gone... into oblivion, or end unheard.

For me the idea of music continuing just like time does gives me peace. It's very personal i know, I

I believe that everyone has the right to have at least one hysterical manner of bevaviour.

And of course I am well aware that you don't want to convince or argue, and I appreciate your perspective and conclusion. We don't always have to agree on everything.

That's the beauty of life ànd art.

Stay open for other and new opinions, don't shove yours unasked into other people's throat or asses. We need to learn to agree to disagree, and then move on with the chance of learning something new. My personal approach of anything basically.

Peace.

-

[Edited 8/5/20 3:27am]

So I decided to give the album another listen and see if I could "remake" the album. I got all of the relevant music together (the 12 inches with extra tracks, checked Princevault, etc) and looking at it, I just couldn't make the Grand Progression fit nicely. So I frankensteind some things together and came up with an album that's 10 tracks, together just about 45 minutes, 22 and a half minutes per side. So it would have been perfect if it had come out 3 years earlier

.

Here's my version:

Side A (22:29):

01-Can't Stop This Feeling I Got (orchestral intro from Graffiti Bridge, removed album intro) 4:21

02-New Power Generation (intro from Funky Weapon Remix, part i and II combined, rap removed) 5:05

03-Get Off (pretty much the 12" version, some mixed overlap with next track) 4:30

04-Loveleft, Loveright (intro mixed with Get Off, outro with QofU) 4:34

05-Question Of U 3:59

Side B (22:31)

01-We Can Funk (album version (if there was a cleaner JIR intro, I would have frankensteined this with we can fuck) 5:28

02-Joy In Repetition (the ugliest transition in the world, I wish there was a clean version of the intro of this song, just album version for now) 4:54

03-Tick Tick Bang (album version) 3:31

04-Thieves In The Temple (album version) 3:19

05-Still Would Stand All Time (album version) 5:21

.

So... why no Elephants & Flowers? I kinda always forgot that song right after I hear it. Might replace Get Off with it, but neither song is really strong. As it is, side A has a minor flow problem with track three. As side B has much stronger songs, it needed a lot less editing, plus.. in some cases I just couldn't because of the transitions. Especially for Database, I won't share it. (much)