Looks like 'If I Was Your Girlfriend' was included in the final sequence at the last minute, at the expense of 'Good Love'.

https://princevault.com/i..._The_Times

Alternate Album Configuration

Side 1 of 11 January 1987 configuration, Attributed to Marx. Bros. - Camille Prince

Side 1:
Sign O’ The Times (4:56)
Slow Love (4:22)
It (3:57)
Housequake (4:41)
Strange Relationship (4:01)

* The rest of the songs assumed to be the other eleven titles on the album, albeit possibly with Good Love instead of If I Was Your Girlfriend, as on the tentative next configuration. Adore was possibly before It’s Gonna Be A Beautiful Night as well, also as on its next rendering, but a sequences for side 2, 3 and 4 is unknown. Track-length above is occasionally different, but also tentative


Undated (post 11 January), tentatively configuration, attributed to Camille

Side 1:
Sign O’ The Times
Play In The Sunshine
Housequake
The Ballad Of Dorothy Parker

Side 2:
It (assumed)
Starfish And Coffee (assumed)
Slow Love (assumed)
Hot Thing (assumed)
Forever In My Life (assumed)

Side 3:
The Look
Good Love
Strange Relationship
I Could Never Take The Place Of Your Man

Side 4:
The Cross
Adore
It’s Gonna Be A Beautiful Night

[Edited 1/19/21 16:28pm]

Fascinating. I wonder why some sides are unknown, but Duane will explain all this soon.

.

I was always puzzled to see Good Love expelled, as it was an obvious choice for a single. Glad to know it almost made the cut

Yet more reasons to be pissed of at the SOTT SDE for not including a song that was actually planned to be included on the album.

BartVanHemelen said:

Yet more reasons to be pissed of at the SOTT SDE for not including a song that was actually planned to be included on the album.

I'm pretty sure the reasoning was "1988 = Lovesexy" + "We already don't have enough room for everything SOTT on the b-sides and mixes CD, so let's keep that one for Lovesexy because with only 3 singles there'll be room there".

.

I can't see what else it could have been.

-

Well, "Good Love" is one hell of a poppy funky track, with no

guitars and bass guitar in it.

Only fairlight computers by Prince (someone told me).

That unique sound makes it a pretty striking track.

Though it was recorded in the middle of the Camillie & SOTT sessions at the end of 1986.

True that it should've been on the SDE of SOTT.

That was a mistake.

-

databank said:

BartVanHemelen said:

Yet more reasons to be pissed of at the SOTT SDE for not including a song that was actually planned to be included on the album.

I'm pretty sure the reasoning was "1988 = Lovesexy" + "We already don't have enough room for everything SOTT on the b-sides and mixes CD, so let's keep that one for Lovesexy because with only 3 singles there'll be room there".

.

I can't see what else it could have been.

Isn't it more likely that it was excluded from the SDE because it's on Crystal Ball?

Interesting. Very interesting. I wonder where all this info is coming from.

TwiliteKid said:

databank said:

I'm pretty sure the reasoning was "1988 = Lovesexy" + "We already don't have enough room for everything SOTT on the b-sides and mixes CD, so let's keep that one for Lovesexy because with only 3 singles there'll be room there".

.

I can't see what else it could have been.

Isn't it more likely that it was excluded from the SDE because it's on Crystal Ball?

It's an edit on CB. WB owned the rights to the original that appeared on the Bright Lights soundtrack. So I think it's a shame they didn't put it on the B-sides disc at least, as a previously released song.

That opens a whole different can of worms. As ir was released in 88, should it go on Lovesexy, and should Feel U Up go on Batman? Or do they both belong on the B-sides disc of SOTT?

BartVanHemelen said:

Yet more reasons to be pissed of ...

Didn't know you needed a reason.

SquirrelMeat said:

TwiliteKid said:

Isn't it more likely that it was excluded from the SDE because it's on Crystal Ball?

It's an edit on CB. WB owned the rights to the original that appeared on the Bright Lights soundtrack.

The CB conspiracy theory has to be put to sleep.

So I think it's a shame they didn't put it on the B-sides disc at least, as a previously released song.

Had they done this, it would have to have been at the expense of something else. They couldn't already put everything that shoulda been there

That opens a whole different can of worms. As ir was released in 88, should it go on Lovesexy, and should Feel U Up go on Batman? Or do they both belong on the B-sides disc of SOTT?

I think when it comes to that, the decision was made that b-sides should be with the album they were associated with, or then you'd also have both Irresistible Bitch and She's Always In My Hair on PR. I wouldn't mind that, but that's clearly not the direction they chose to take. Good Love, as 4 The Tears In Your Eyes, are different cases, for both were released at the end of the PR and SOTT eras respectively, before anything from ATWIAD and Lovesexy came out. So technically they belong to the PR and SOTT eras. But I don't think Howe cares so much about that. + this logic clearly gets way more confusing after 1993, when things began to be released out of synch with the albums they were connected to, when they were connected to any album at all. It gets really hard to talk about "album eras" in certain cases when material from an album got released before another album (like some TGE material being out before Come, or some Emancipation material being out before C&D), or when several albums were released on the same day with related material being all over the place (such as Lotusflow3r and Mplsound or Plec and AOA).

databank said:

SquirrelMeat said:

It's an edit on CB. WB owned the rights to the original that appeared on the Bright Lights soundtrack.

The CB conspiracy theory has to be put to sleep.

So I think it's a shame they didn't put it on the B-sides disc at least, as a previously released song.

Had they done this, it would have to have been at the expense of something else. They couldn't already put everything that shoulda been there

That opens a whole different can of worms. As ir was released in 88, should it go on Lovesexy, and should Feel U Up go on Batman? Or do they both belong on the B-sides disc of SOTT?

I think when it comes to that, the decision was made that b-sides should be with the album they were associated with, or then you'd also have both Irresistible Bitch and She's Always In My Hair on PR. I wouldn't mind that, but that's clearly not the direction they chose to take. Good Love, as 4 The Tears In Your Eyes, are different cases, for both were released at the end of the PR and SOTT eras respectively, before anything from ATWIAD and Lovesexy came out. So technically they belong to the PR and SOTT eras. But I don't think Howe cares so much about that. + this logic clearly gets way more confusing after 1993, when things began to be released out of synch with the albums they were connected to, when they were connected to any album at all. It gets really hard to talk about "album eras" in certain cases when material from an album got released before another album (like some TGE material being out before Come, or some Emancipation material being out before C&D), or when several albums were released on the same day with related material being all over the place (such as Lotusflow3r and Mplsound or Plec and AOA).

Conspiracy theory? You sure love your melodrama.

We know Sony is going to reissue Crystal Ball in the near future. Aside from the Crystal Ball edit, none of the other period correct tracks were included on the SDE. Michael Howe confirmed recently that the two labels have been cooperative thus far, so I don't think it's much of a leap (and certainly not a conspiracy) to assume that WB agreed to leave Good Love off the set so as to not tread on Sony's toes.

UGTL ultimately cast aside GL in the transition process from CB into SOTT; it exists in the same ether as GL, while being commercially tenable (and newer, and more intensely worked on).

.

As a dark, personal psychosexual ballad, IIWYGF clearly had to remain, after some experimenting with test configurations.

.

[Edited 1/20/21 15:42pm]

If I could have been a fly on the wall for any moment with the Purple One, it would be watching him, all alone, thinking through these configurations in the middle of the night. Trying one song after another, and another. Shifting a song on the fifth side to the first. Taking a great pop confection like Good Love and replacing it with a scary spedup song that redefines the meaning of "girlfriend" forever. The final album is perfectly sequenced, truly, but the fraught backstory of arriving at it shows how much strife and love went into its creation. I'd die to see him listening and trying something else out, figuring out the shape his creation.

[Edited 1/20/21 22:53pm]

BartVanHemelen said:

Yet more reasons to be pissed of at the SOTT SDE for not including a song that was actually planned to be included on the album.

.

Was it censorship?

Oversight?

So much for the 'experts' they say they have on the team...

TwiliteKid said:

databank said:

Conspiracy theory? You sure love your melodrama.

We know Sony is going to reissue Crystal Ball in the near future. Aside from the Crystal Ball edit, none of the other period correct tracks were included on the SDE. Michael Howe confirmed recently that the two labels have been cooperative thus far, so I don't think it's much of a leap (and certainly not a conspiracy) to assume that WB agreed to leave Good Love off the set so as to not tread on Sony's toes.

"I don't think it's much of a leap" = "the only reason I believe this is because it appears logical to me without the slightest bit of evidence and despite other people telling me it makes very little sense" = a conspiracy theory.

udo said:

BartVanHemelen said:

Yet more reasons to be pissed of at the SOTT SDE for not including a song that was actually planned to be included on the album.

.

Was it censorship?

Oversight?

So much for the 'experts' they say they have on the team...

Censorship of what? How in the world could this word apply here?

Oversight? Maybe but unlikely. More like an editorial decision.

As for the experts the have Duane, I don't think there's a better expert out there.

Y'all need to keep digging for gold when the currency is dollar and there's a stash of money right in front of you

VaultCurator said:

The problem is that the 'Vault' discs are used for unreleased material only. The only time a previously released song appears on them is when they have an alternate version to release (a different edit, an extended version, different vocals, a remix etc.) Since Good Love has already been released in two different forms already, there probably isn't another version available. Or if their is, it's not notably different enough to justify releasing it again.

No one said it should have been on the vault CDs. It should have been on the b-sides and mixes CD, which was already filled to the bone and couldn't even include everything that shoulda been there.

.

I've actually just checked and with Lovesexy, if they include everything from the singles and promos (without even considering the edits from the whole album promo version), they pretty much fill a CD without Good Love though. But I wouldn't be surprised if they choose to include GL over some of the rarest promo mixes, since there's a lot of redundancy and since none of the CDs of b-sides and mixes was comprehensive in the past 3 SDE's (their priority clearly is "1 CD maximum" over "put everything that should be there").

.

Candidates for Lovesexy SDE are:

.

- All 9 tracks with a fade out from the US promo version of the album.

.

- Alphabet St. (Edit) - 2:25

- Alphabet St. (Cont.) - 3:14

- Alphabet St. (This Is Not Music, This Is A Trip) - 7:49

.
- Glam Slam (Edit) - 3:28

- Glam Slam (Remix) - 8:57

- Glam Slam (LP Version) - 4:40

- Glam Slam (Remix Edit) - 4:22

.

- I Wish U Heaven (Part 1, 2 & 3) - 10:10

- I Wish U Heaven (Radio Edit Of Remix) - 4:25

- I Wish U Heaven (Single Edit Of Remix) - 5:45

.
- Escape (Edit) - 3:30

- Escape (Free Yo Mind From This Rat Race) - 6:24

.

- Scarlet Pussy - 4:18

- Scarlet Pussy - 6:11

.

- Good Love - 5:12

.

Not counting the original album versions that'd be on the same set, and even if one excludes the promo version of the album, that's still 3 versions of Alphabet St., 4 versions of Glam Slam and 4 versions of I Wish U Heaven, most of which are just edits. Given his past editorial decisions on PR, 1999 and SOTT, and how many fans don't really care about edits, it's likely Howe will decide one or 2 edits can make way for Good Love.

.

Time will tell I guess. If it ain't on Lovesexy then the bets will be open again.

databank said:

udo said:

.

Was it censorship?

Oversight?

So much for the 'experts' they say they have on the team...

Censorship of what? How in the world could this word apply here?

.

Dunno.

These are strange times.

Censorship for music, lyrics, political affiliation, whatever.

.

Oversight? Maybe but unlikely. More like an editorial decision.

As for the experts the have Duane, I don't think there's a better expert out there.

Y'all need to keep digging for gold when the currency is dollar and there's a stash of money right in front of you

.

Ever looked at stock to flow numbers?

udo said:

databank said:

.

Dunno.

These are strange times.

Censorship for music, lyrics, political affiliation, whatever.

Yeah but this cannot possibly apply to Good Love.

.

Oversight? Maybe but unlikely. More like an editorial decision.

As for the experts the have Duane, I don't think there's a better expert out there.

Y'all need to keep digging for gold when the currency is dollar and there's a stash of money right in front of you

.

Ever looked at stock to flow numbers?

Jokes aside, my point was the same as in the Bowie thread. Some people have a hunger to figure things out by themselves, including when there's nothing to figure out, or when the answers are right in front of them and/or have been figured out long ago by people who know what they're doing.

They won't trust the experts, they feel they have to be the one to figure it out all by themselves.

Unfortunately, they also tend to lack methodology, to ignore Ockam's razor and their own cognitive biases.

The frequent result is they come-up with extraordinary ideas that seem perfectly logical to them, when, in fact, they're not.

Next thing you know, people are trying to seize the German parliament and the American Capitol because they believe Bill Gates' pedosatanists are putting 5G microchips in vaccines.

.

Here, very typically, there is only one way to assess the truth or at least get as close to it as possible: to ask M. Howe or someone involved in the project.

Until we do, we must try and see what the most rational hypothesis is.

The "Sony and Crystal Ball" theory requires more entities than the "they kept it for 1988" one, so it shouldn't be favored (google Ockham's razor if what I say sounds cryptic).

Then, among these additional entities, there's one that's pretty extraordinary, one that anyone defending this theory will have a bloody hard time to explain without coming up with some really far fetched reasoning: the presence of the CB single edit on SOTT SDE. This alone is enough to demolish the whole hypothesis or, at least, to make it waaaay more unlikely than the other one. Choosing to believe the unlikely over the likely without serious cause isn't rational. End of story.

So my point I guess was, why are we even discussing this over and over again, thread after thread? Why is it so cognitively costly for certain people to accept they made an error of judgement, even on a topic as unimportant as the one at hand here?

I don't mean to give anyone shit, I'm just like, "guys, WTF? Why are we doing this?"

databank said:

udo said:

.

Was it censorship?

Oversight?

So much for the 'experts' they say they have on the team...

Censorship of what? How in the world could this word apply here?

Oversight? Maybe but unlikely. More like an editorial decision.

As for the experts the have Duane, I don't think there's a better expert out there.

Y'all need to keep digging for gold when the currency is dollar and there's a stash of money right in front of you

the biggest experts I've heard about out there wouldn;'t want to be associated with The Estate or sign NDA's because they want as much transparency as possibble because they want the releases to be as accurate as possible. I respect Duane alot but now he's on The Estate payroll and my trust in his reporting and insight is going south because of that. Maybe I'm wrong but we'll see when his next book is released. If he signed an NDA then how can he possibly release a full on detailed book on sessions without The Estate demanding him to leave things out or even worse change things for whatever political reason?

JorisE73 said:

databank said:

Censorship of what? How in the world could this word apply here?

Oversight? Maybe but unlikely. More like an editorial decision.

As for the experts the have Duane, I don't think there's a better expert out there.

Y'all need to keep digging for gold when the currency is dollar and there's a stash of money right in front of you

the biggest experts I've heard about out there wouldn;'t want to be associated with The Estate or sign NDA's because they want as much transparency as possibble because they want the releases to be as accurate as possible. I respect Duane alot but now he's on The Estate payroll and my trust in his reporting and insight is going south because of that. Maybe I'm wrong but we'll see when his next book is released. If he signed an NDA then how can he possibly release a full on detailed book on sessions without The Estate demanding him to leave things out or even worse change things for whatever political reason?

This also is remarkable in terms of showing how people reason in the age of the Internet. Suspicion. Distrust. Seeing conflicts of interest everywhere. And a twisted reasoning on top. Guys, seriously... Is this thread aiming at exemplifying ecerything that's wrong in Internet users' minds today?

.

1/ It's very unlikely Duane Tudahl is on "the Estate's payroll". Most likely, he gets paid to do certain jobs on a job by job basis as a freelancer. It's not quite the same. You make it sound like he's now their little employee saying "good morning Sir" to Michael Howe every morning at the office. This is absurd.

.

2/ The "biggest experts", if they're freelancing and need to put food in their children's plate, as Duane does, would take a job with the Estate when given one. I don't see why not. At worst, they make money and they get to learn things off the record. At best, they can use some of the things they've learned in their reseach. Duane would have been a hell of a fool to decline the offer. And so would anyone else in his position.

.

3/ NDA's cover certain specific topics. In this case, that would be in connection to the things he worked on, not his own research. At worst, Duane wouldn't be allowed to use information he was given directly by the Estate, which he didn't need to write his previous book anyway.

.

4/ The reasoning on display here is completely twisted. Basically the argument is:

a) "The Estate doesn't have reliable researchers at hand because Duane isn't reliable." b) "Duane isn't reliable because he works for the Estate." Causality loop. Nonsense.

.

The only thing I see here that may represent a conflict of interest is the Frankenstein mixes. Duane hasn't ever come out to discuss them when he was the most qualified person to call the Estate's bluff.

And I could conceive that, in order to preserve future sources of income, he may not wanna come out here and publicly call Michael Howe a liar and a cheat. Because in the end, saying "yes, there was some Frankensteining" would be calling Howe a liar and a cheat.

Se we have that, and we also have the possibility that Duane may be forced to exclude certain recordings he was made aware of by the Estate from his books. How does that make him less of a reliable expert when it comes to be hired as a consultant by the Estate? It doesn't.

.

In passing, research suggests that, contrarily to what most people would assume, smarter people are more trusting that average people. The question is WHY would they be more trustful and what can average people learn from this? https://www.theatlantic.c...ng/284520/

.

[Edited 1/21/21 6:54am]

JorisE73 said:

If he signed an NDA then how can he possibly release a full on detailed book on sessions without The Estate demanding him to leave things out or even worse change things for whatever political reason?

.

Good observation.

databank said:

(....)

In passing, research suggests that, contrarily to what most people would assume, smarter people are more trusting that average people. The question is WHY would they be more trustful and what can average people learn from this?

.

Would be a very interesting item.

Don't you think 'smart' would imply not just IQ but also EQ here?

(not the 'audio' EQ that is)

.

Further:

In Dutch we have a certain saying, saying 'Wiens brood men eet, diens woord men spreekt', which implies that if a person is paid for work by another person, the worker tends to align their opinions to the person that is paying's opinions.

This would be a factor in the Duane/Estate situation.

databank said:

TwiliteKid said:

Conspiracy theory? You sure love your melodrama.

We know Sony is going to reissue Crystal Ball in the near future. Aside from the Crystal Ball edit, none of the other period correct tracks were included on the SDE. Michael Howe confirmed recently that the two labels have been cooperative thus far, so I don't think it's much of a leap (and certainly not a conspiracy) to assume that WB agreed to leave Good Love off the set so as to not tread on Sony's toes.

"I don't think it's much of a leap" = "the only reason I believe this is because it appears logical to me without the slightest bit of evidence and despite other people telling me it makes very little sense" = a conspiracy theory.

No, those don't equate, and frankly your position is based about as much evidence as mine.

[Edited 1/21/21 8:16am]

udo said:

databank said:

(....)

In passing, research suggests that, contrarily to what most people would assume, smarter people are more trusting that average people. The question is WHY would they be more trustful and what can average people learn from this?

.

Would be a very interesting item.

Don't you think 'smart' would imply not just IQ but also EQ here?

(not the 'audio' EQ that is)

.

Further:

In Dutch we have a certain saying, saying 'Wiens brood men eet, diens woord men spreekt', which implies that if a person is paid for work by another person, the worker tends to align their opinions to the person that is paying's opinions.

This would be a factor in the Duane/Estate situation.

You take the words right of my mouth. This is exactly what I meant.
Even if Duane is a freelancer for The Estate he would still burn bridges with them if he didn't left out or altered things in his book that they want or approve off. In the end The Estate isn't trustworthy and they pay Duane for whatever he does there so if they say he can't provide something he has to comply or leave.

TwiliteKid said:

databank said:

"I don't think it's much of a leap" = "the only reason I believe this is because it appears logical to me without the slightest bit of evidence and despite other people telling me it makes very little sense" = a conspiracy theory.

No, those don't equate,

Well I'll give you that "conspiracy theory" is a somewhat approximative comparison, but my point was the reasoning process is the same. + see all the accusations against Duane being in league with etc. If that ain't a conspiracy theories kind of atmosphere we're getting here, IDK what it is.

and frankly your position is based about as much evidence as mine.

My position requires less entities. As long as you don't understand the virtues of Ockam's razor, there really is no point for me continuing this discussion.

udo said:

databank said:

(....)

In passing, research suggests that, contrarily to what most people would assume, smarter people are more trusting that average people. The question is WHY would they be more trustful and what can average people learn from this?

.

Would be a very interesting item.

Don't you think 'smart' would imply not just IQ but also EQ here?

(not the 'audio' EQ that is)

.

Certainly. And probably other factors we don't even know how to estimate yet. Hopefully more studies about this will be done.