antonb said:

Same here

The vinyl production crisis ain't helping for sure.

Matthaus said:

I don't think it's wrong to think sexual assault is not a light matter that can be used in lyrics with no worries and that people who listen to those lyrics and feel angst should just suck it up. If that makes me a snowflake, then so be it.

What's the difference between lyrics threatening to rape someone and a novel about a serial rapist detailing his MO?
Neither should be banned and it's still legal to use fantasies or make up horifying things for entertainment purposes or whatever (see movies or books or songs). Besides isn't this one of those things that those 'Advisory' labels were created for?
Tehy should just release Extraloveable and Lust U Always with a disclaimer and problem solved.
If snowflakes wanted to ban or cancel Prince they would have done it already considering these tracks have been readily available and even on youtube since forever.

JorisE73 said:

What's the difference between lyrics threatening to rape someone and a novel about a serial rapist detailing his MO?

I don't think I said they should be censored? If they're artistic expression, then I understand perfectly that they shouldn't be forced down people's throats if they feel uncomfortable. I don't even think it's just "snowflakes" from today, wasn't Prince himself not against the parental advisory sticker when they called him to testify on court?

.

I know very well that Alfred Hitchcock didn't go around stabbing people in showers because of the movie Psycho, and so didn't Prince rape people because of his lyrics. But I understand and feel empathy for people who might not be into it because of theses themes. And everyone has something that tickles them uncomfortably. Nobody should be forced to consume something if they don't want to.

[Edited 10/28/21 9:00am]

JorisE73 said:

they should just leak high quality lust n extraluv and be done with it if its that big o deal .. just do it and say nothing and errbody who already had it in shitty quality will be happy and no one else will know about it anymore than they already do .. fact is that they pick stuff for the sde trying to avoid well circulated shows so they are fully aware that we could all have it and stop our bitching and bringing it up constantly just like that .. real easy

JorisE73 said:

Matthaus said:

I don't think it's wrong to think sexual assault is not a light matter that can be used in lyrics with no worries and that people who listen to those lyrics and feel angst should just suck it up. If that makes me a snowflake, then so be it.

What's the difference between lyrics threatening to rape someone and a novel about a serial rapist detailing his MO?
Neither should be banned and it's still legal to use fantasies or make up horifying things for entertainment purposes or whatever (see movies or books or songs). Besides isn't this one of those things that those 'Advisory' labels were created for?
Tehy should just release Extraloveable and Lust U Always with a disclaimer and problem solved.
If snowflakes wanted to ban or cancel Prince they would have done it already considering these tracks have been readily available and even on youtube since forever.

One difference is that, presumably, anyone reading such a book (much more likely to be true crime, not fiction) would know what they are getting into up front. It's the point of the experience and you make an informed decision before starting it. That's not really the same thing as Prince dropping casual and offensive rape threats at the end of otherwise jubliant, funky pop songs.

TwiliteKid said:

JorisE73 said:

What's the difference between lyrics threatening to rape someone and a novel about a serial rapist detailing his MO?
Neither should be banned and it's still legal to use fantasies or make up horifying things for entertainment purposes or whatever (see movies or books or songs). Besides isn't this one of those things that those 'Advisory' labels were created for?
Tehy should just release Extraloveable and Lust U Always with a disclaimer and problem solved.
If snowflakes wanted to ban or cancel Prince they would have done it already considering these tracks have been readily available and even on youtube since forever.

One difference is that, presumably, anyone reading such a book (much more likely to be true crime, not fiction) would know what they are getting into up front. It's the point of the experience and you make an informed decision before starting it. That's not really the same thing as Prince dropping casual and offensive rape threats at the end of otherwise jubliant, funky pop songs.

Exactly. There is literally nothing else about the lyrics of "Extraloveable" that suggest it's a song about a serial rapist or a genuinely dangerous person, he literally threw the rape lyrics in out of nowhere purely for shock value. There's zero build up, zero nuance, zero justification whatsoever for their inclusion.

Nobody here is calling for authoritarian censorship and strict regulations on what art can or can't be about, we're just rightfully criticizing cheap, offensive lyrics that add nothing to the artistic value of their respective song.

Matthaus said:

JorisE73 said:

What's the difference between lyrics threatening to rape someone and a novel about a serial rapist detailing his MO?

I don't think I said they should be censored? If they're artistic expression, then I understand perfectly that they shouldn't be forced down people's throats if they feel uncomfortable. I don't even think it's just "snowflakes" from today, wasn't Prince himself not against the parental advisory sticker when they called him to testify on court?

.

I know very well that Alfred Hitchcock didn't go around stabbing people in showers because of the movie Psycho, and so didn't Prince rape people because of his lyrics. But I understand and feel empathy for people who might not be into it because of theses themes. And everyone has something that tickles them uncomfortably. Nobody should be forced to consume something if they don't want to.

[Edited 10/28/21 9:00am]

-

Uncomfortable ?

Who says anything about forcing it down people's throats ?

This kind of soft apporach I really really don't understand.

If you don't like Prince singing about rape, don't listen to it and don't buy it !

Could it be more simple! Or turn the goddamn radio off... whatever.

And if you feel ticked by something, then don't feel tickeled by it, and avoid it.

No one ever forces you to listen to Prince.

Or am I completely losing it here ?

Sorry, nothing personal, but what a irrelevant approach of just a lyrical content that IS JUST AN ARTISTIC EXPRESSION of a musician.

-

I'm a 100% with Joris23.

Don't ever look at Caravaggio's paintings again, cause he was a cruel murderer, just saying.

-

TwiliteKid said:

JorisE73 said:

What's the difference between lyrics threatening to rape someone and a novel about a serial rapist detailing his MO?
Neither should be banned and it's still legal to use fantasies or make up horifying things for entertainment purposes or whatever (see movies or books or songs). Besides isn't this one of those things that those 'Advisory' labels were created for?
Tehy should just release Extraloveable and Lust U Always with a disclaimer and problem solved.
If snowflakes wanted to ban or cancel Prince they would have done it already considering these tracks have been readily available and even on youtube since forever.

One difference is that, presumably, anyone reading such a book (much more likely to be true crime, not fiction) would know what they are getting into up front. It's the point of the experience and you make an informed decision before starting it. That's not really the same thing as Prince dropping casual and offensive rape threats at the end of otherwise jubliant, funky pop songs.

-

No i do not agree. It is really EXACTLY the same thing.

There is nothing OFFENSIVE about it.

And what is it that by every artistic fart someone publically feels the need to feel offensive?

Why the urgent need to publically push your personal conservative idea and try to generalise it ?

Who does he offence in the first place ? All women ? Absolutely not.

If you can't see the artistic expression in lyrical content,

just don't listen to it then, don't buy it, don't read books, don't look at paintings, etc.

And Iron Maiden or any other hard core band out there can sing about relentless killing and torture etc.

No one forces anyone to take anything personally in the first place.

It would say a lot about that person in the first place.

Peace to all of us though.

Prince can sing about rape as much as he likes - it will always be within context.

Prudish approaches and religeous driven opinions are sickening this world (of art).

That's all.

-

And no, they should NOT release ''Extraloveable'' and ''Lust U Always'' with a disclaimer.

What kind of a poor give-in solution would that be ?

Prince never was a saint, and he did not inteneded to be one.

(...on the contrary this is what The estate and Paisley Park are trying to make of him imho, but that's another out of context matter for now...)

He did not make a mistakes with recording these songs.

He did not release them yet, but had they leaked. As so many songs did.

And those who feel offended, will always feel offended with whatever crosses their ideas.

It is in their being to feel offended. Some even live for it. Like religeon, sickening imho.

Complete off this world and out of the essential context.

Peace though.

-

Matthaus said:

JorisE73 said:

What's the difference between lyrics threatening to rape someone and a novel about a serial rapist detailing his MO?

I don't think I said they should be censored? If they're artistic expression, then I understand perfectly that they shouldn't be forced down people's throats if they feel uncomfortable. I don't even think it's just "snowflakes" from today, wasn't Prince himself not against the parental advisory sticker when they called him to testify on court?

.

I know very well that Alfred Hitchcock didn't go around stabbing people in showers because of the movie Psycho, and so didn't Prince rape people because of his lyrics. But I understand and feel empathy for people who might not be into it because of theses themes. And everyone has something that tickles them uncomfortably. Nobody should be forced to consume something if they don't want to.

[Edited 10/28/21 9:00am]

Prince didn't care about the parental advisory sticker otherwise he would have joined Zappa when he asked him to take a stand.
This song is an artisitc expression and whatever he thought writing and singing it is up to him and not to the consumer. Any consumer can get offended by anything but that doesn't mean anything shold be banned or disregaded just because someone feels something they don't want to feel, they shouldn't make there issue anyones elses issue or force there feelings on other and demand they should be offended too or else.
Would I play this song to someone who is a rape victim; no probably but that's as far as my empathy goes regarding this situation.

TwiliteKid said:

JorisE73 said:

What's the difference between lyrics threatening to rape someone and a novel about a serial rapist detailing his MO?
Neither should be banned and it's still legal to use fantasies or make up horifying things for entertainment purposes or whatever (see movies or books or songs). Besides isn't this one of those things that those 'Advisory' labels were created for?
Tehy should just release Extraloveable and Lust U Always with a disclaimer and problem solved.
If snowflakes wanted to ban or cancel Prince they would have done it already considering these tracks have been readily available and even on youtube since forever.

One difference is that, presumably, anyone reading such a book (much more likely to be true crime, not fiction) would know what they are getting into up front. It's the point of the experience and you make an informed decision before starting it. That's not really the same thing as Prince dropping casual and offensive rape threats at the end of otherwise jubliant, funky pop songs.

it doesn't matter if it's true crime or fiction, everybody is allowed to fantasize and paint a situation about whatever they want. If people are offended then so be it, the next time they'll not listen to it and let the song be. But they can't or shouldn't be allowed to force or demand from others to think, do and/or feel what they are. The thoughts and feelings of the offended aren't more important than that of anyone else.

See that whole Dave Chappelle nonsense going on right now, people just acting offended so they can complain about something or someone and trying to cancel or ban him just because he has other or different thoughts and opinions. The thought police shouldn't be allowed to exist.

JorisE73 said:

TwiliteKid said:

JorisE73 said:

it doesn't matter if it's true crime or fiction, everybody is allowed to fantasize and paint a situation about whatever they want. If people are offended then so be it, the next time they'll not listen to it and let the song be. But they can't or shouldn't be allowed to force or demand from others to think, do and/or feel what they are. The thoughts and feelings of the offended aren't more important than that of anyone else.

See that whole Dave Chappelle nonsense going on right now, people just acting offended so they can complain about something or someone and trying to cancel or ban him just because he has other or different thoughts and opinions. The thought police shouldn't be allowed to exist.

No one is preventing you from listening to either of these songs. No one is coming to your house to remove your hard drive (and the Estate doesn’t seem to care about the versions on YouTube either.) No one is forcing you to think like they do. The Estate has simply chosen to be sensitive to the fact that millions of men and women have been impacted by rape in some way and maybe don’t want to hear it joked about. It’s really weird that you put your desire for a pristine copy of these tracks over that basic bit of human decency.

And you think people are “acting” offended by Chappelle, huh? That kind of says all I need to know about you. [Edited 10/29/21 14:59pm]

-

I appreciate your concern and emapthy, but,

this is becomming completely irrelevant in this context, and has nothing to do with it.

There is noting ''human indecent'' at all tbh about these lyrics.

It's a song full of interpretation, desire and lust and fantasy. No factual happenings, nobody is done wrong or harm.

I should dare to say that religion is far more dangerous, or to blame for tons of other unhuman decendies done to so many.

But not a simple short lyric in this song.

-

TwiliteKid said:

JorisE73 said:

it doesn't matter if it's true crime or fiction, everybody is allowed to fantasize and paint a situation about whatever they want. If people are offended then so be it, the next time they'll not listen to it and let the song be. But they can't or shouldn't be allowed to force or demand from others to think, do and/or feel what they are. The thoughts and feelings of the offended aren't more important than that of anyone else.

See that whole Dave Chappelle nonsense going on right now, people just acting offended so they can complain about something or someone and trying to cancel or ban him just because he has other or different thoughts and opinions. The thought police shouldn't be allowed to exist.

No one is preventing you from listening to either of these songs. No one is coming to your house to remove your hard drive (and the Estate doesn’t seem to care about the versions on YouTube either.) No one is forcing you to think like they do. The Estate has simply chosen to be sensitive to the fact that millions of men and women have been impacted by rape in some way and maybe don’t want to hear it joked about. It’s really weird that you put your desire for a pristine copy of these tracks over that basic bit of human decency.

And you think people are “acting” offended by Chappelle, huh? That kind of says all I need to know about you. [Edited 10/29/21 14:59pm]

Human decency has nothing to do with it. If human decency was so imortant they wouldn't have released Blanche (mention of a 'Fag') or any track with religious overtones.
I think most rape victim aren't that oversensitive and am conviced nobody will commit suicide or die or end up in a coma because of these songs. And if they do then they have bigger issues they need to look at.

And yes those Dave Chappelle complaining are "acting" offended because, obviuoulsy, they haven't heard or seen his last special and just pounce on him because he mentions Trans people.
You come off as some millennial so I understand your softness regarding these things.

RODSERLING said:

I listened to it once, wasn't impressed. I will give it another hear. Nothing to justify selling it at 20€, even if we were in 1984 and that single were When Doves Cry (without his b-side!) Couldn't they at least couple it with another track like I Feel For You demo ( another thievery) ? Pure waste of raw material, in a time of global shortage. They should have spare it for the Gett Off remixes the estate have so much dilemma withwith to include in D&P SDE.

-

It's not a waste. Come on.

-

What do you know more that we don't know ?

The Estate ...dilemma ?

Since when is it official that D&P SDE is up coming ?

-

Vannormal said:

RODSERLING said:

I listened to it once, wasn't impressed. I will give it another hear. Nothing to justify selling it at 20€, even if we were in 1984 and that single were When Doves Cry (without his b-side!) Couldn't they at least couple it with another track like I Feel For You demo ( another thievery) ? Pure waste of raw material, in a time of global shortage. They should have spare it for the Gett Off remixes the estate have so much dilemma withwith to include in D&P SDE.

-

It's not a waste. Come on.

-

What do you know more that we don't know ?

The Estate ...dilemma ?

Since when is it official that D&P SDE is up coming ?

-

No official word yet indeed but a trustworthy source detailed this since last year together with W2A long before The Estate mentioned those. (Like he did with 1999 SDE and SOTT SDE)

Vannormal said:

RODSERLING said:

Vannormal said:

-

It's not a waste. Come on.

-

What do you know more that we don't know ?

The Estate ...dilemma ?

Since when is it official that D&P SDE is up coming ?

-

It s a waste of a side, to begin with. It's the same story I tell and predicted since February : D&P wasn't released that year because of the shortage in raw materials ( W2A was also supposed to come in June). The estate is determined to waste at least 2 LPs for Gett Off remixes to sell an Hyper Super Deluxe Edition at 350 $. The problem is, there's not enough vinyls available in the world for the estate to release that ludicrous thing. I think it will be released on April, at the soonest. I just hope they give up on unnecessary LP's ( all the remixes, the concerts), and replace it in the box by CD's or even the also hyped audio cassettes ( the latter being also analogic after all). Just to not make wait anymore the fams who doesn't care about D&P amd his remixes on vinyl, which wasn't his format by the way. [Edited 11/1/21 22:42pm]

-

The estate determined ?

A Hyper Super Deluxe Edition at 350 $ ?

-

There is still enough vinyl available, it all depends on the speed and will to pump up more oil.

The only reason why theremight be future delays has all to do with the ongoing production processes.

What is true is that prices eventually might go up.

Again ''might'' according to forecasting economics.

We all need to wait and see.

Cause too high prices might collaps a market too.

Nothing is yet written in stone.

That D&P SDE might be released (in April) or not. No one really knows anything right now.

-

The limited edition cassette release of ''Do Me, Baby'' can be an interesting harbinger of a future extra additional release in a Deluxe package. Again, ''maybe''.

Since it was sold-out almost immediately. I believe the single version is still available.

-

Vannormal said:

TwiliteKid said:

JorisE73 said:

What's the difference between lyrics threatening to rape someone and a novel about a serial rapist detailing his MO?
Neither should be banned and it's still legal to use fantasies or make up horifying things for entertainment purposes or whatever (see movies or books or songs). Besides isn't this one of those things that those 'Advisory' labels were created for?
Tehy should just release Extraloveable and Lust U Always with a disclaimer and problem solved.
If snowflakes wanted to ban or cancel Prince they would have done it already considering these tracks have been readily available and even on youtube since forever.

One difference is that, presumably, anyone reading such a book (much more likely to be true crime, not fiction) would know what they are getting into up front. It's the point of the experience and you make an informed decision before starting it. That's not really the same thing as Prince dropping casual and offensive rape threats at the end of otherwise jubliant, funky pop songs.

-

Again... it's all about interpreting the lyrics (the right way?).

I don't see these lyrics as threads.

it's an allusion to a huge desire for her; ''... if I must'', meaning if she wants him to do that.

That's the way I see it.

-

(...)
(Work out)
My body reeks with lust
I will rape U if I must
U C, my 4th grade teacher
Her name was Joni
(...)

-

Vannormal said:

it's an allusion to a huge desire for her; ''... if I must'', meaning if she wants him to do that.

That's the way I see it.

-

(...)
(Work out)
My body reeks with lust
I will rape U if I must
U C, my 4th grade teacher
Her name was Joni
(...)

-

That is not what "If I must" means. If I must means if I have no other options. Now I agree that the lyric is not meant to be a real threat or even an imaginary threat, but the way it's worded is letting the person know he'd like to be lusty with them, but if that's not welcome then rape is an option. It's not meant literally, of course, but "if I must" does NOT mean "if she wants him to do that."

Look, it's one thing to admit that the lyrics are troublesome but shouldn't be censored because sometimes great art goes into uncomfortable territories. It's another thing altogether to say "actually, these lyrics *that explicitly threaten rape* aren't really threatening rape, you just aren't reading between the lines hard enough".

mbdtyler said:

Look, it's one thing to admit that the lyrics are troublesome but shouldn't be censored because sometimes great art goes into uncomfortable territories. It's another thing altogether to say "actually, these lyrics *that explicitly threaten rape* aren't really threatening rape, you just aren't reading between the lines hard enough".

Replace 'rape' with 'fuck' and put the emphasis on 'will' and I bet nobody would care.
If people can't distinguish a written or sung fantasy from real life then there is something wrong with them. If people are get triggered and traumatized by the mentioning of a word ('rape' in this case) then they need help. Banning a word or even a song or poem or story or movie whatever is just backwards.

TwiliteKid said:

No one is preventing you from listening to either of these songs. No one is coming to your house to remove your hard drive (and the Estate doesn’t seem to care about the versions on YouTube either.) No one is forcing you to think like they do. The Estate has simply chosen to be sensitive to the fact that millions of men and women have been impacted by rape in some way and maybe don’t want to hear it joked about. It’s really weird that you put your desire for a pristine copy of these tracks over that basic bit of human decency.

And you think people are “acting” offended by Chappelle, huh? That kind of says all I need to know about you. [Edited 10/29/21 14:59pm]

Preach.

JorisE73 said:

TwiliteKid said:

One difference is that, presumably, anyone reading such a book (much more likely to be true crime, not fiction) would know what they are getting into up front. It's the point of the experience and you make an informed decision before starting it. That's not really the same thing as Prince dropping casual and offensive rape threats at the end of otherwise jubliant, funky pop songs.

it doesn't matter if it's true crime or fiction, everybody is allowed to fantasize and paint a situation about whatever they want. If people are offended then so be it, the next time they'll not listen to it and let the song be. But they can't or shouldn't be allowed to force or demand from others to think, do and/or feel what they are. The thoughts and feelings of the offended aren't more important than that of anyone else.

See that whole Dave Chappelle nonsense going on right now, people just acting offended so they can complain about something or someone and trying to cancel or ban him just because he has other or different thoughts and opinions. The thought police shouldn't be allowed to exist.

-

100 % agree.

David Chapelle at least allowes you to think and reflect too.

He doesn't want you to just accept whatever he is thinking/saying.

He has his own unique valuable apporach of all things debatable in life.

More people like him should wake those up who preferably and moraly like to attack whatever that doesn't fits their narrow conservative lives.

-

[Edited 11/4/21 4:09am]

fredmagnus said:

Same here

The vinyl production crisis ain't helping for sure.

I think they're all trying to make sure Adele's is printed on time

Cinny said:

fredmagnus said:

Same here

The vinyl production crisis ain't helping for sure.

I think they're all trying to make sure Adele's is printed on time

-

Well, ABBA's new album is released today,

but no vinyl available yet.

And thàt is a big group i should say.

Think that Adèle's will be later too.

-

I am assuming that this isn`t an "exact " replica and some measure of artistic licence in the artwork was employed, but I was wondering

at any stage in the 80`s did Prince actually have customised TDK tape stock? He did have customised Paisley Park Ray Bans, and matchbooks. Does anyone know? All of the in house tapes I have seen have been random brands and types...