this didn't get the love it deserved. maybe i already made a thread about this song, idc i'm doing it again. this is one of those melodies that only he could pull off combined with downright sinister and grooving ice cold sparse instrumentation. i'm not going to argue that it's a little barebones - it just needs a tad more, but melodically it's a subversive pop masterclass. who else could pull off that chorus?

So great

It's my current favorite.

happyshopper said:

There’s one thing that slightly annoys me about this track on the SDE, and that’s that the “do, do, do” singing at the start is just a guide for the horns, but maybe nobody realised or they couldn’t find the recordings. Shiela E performed it with the horns, so maybe the studio version exists… or (and I know it’s controversial), the estate could have got the NPG Horns to record it for this release. [Edited 9/1/24 1:58am]

.
It might also be controversial, but at the very least they could've created a listenable mix, one that's not ruined by all that unneccessary low end.

happyshopper said:

There’s one thing that slightly annoys me about this track on the SDE, and that’s that the “do, do, do” singing at the start is just a guide for the horns, but maybe nobody realised or they couldn’t find the recordings. Shiela E performed it with the horns, so maybe the studio version exists… or (and I know it’s controversial), the estate could have got the NPG Horns to record it for this release. [Edited 9/1/24 1:58am]

I like the "do do do" part. In "The Cocoa Boys", the bootleg/WIP version had them as well, whereas the mix on the SOTT SDE had the vocals plus the real horns.

You're right: maybe there's a later mix with real horns. Maybe the horns were added on Sheila's version only? Which means that we'd need to do a Bolas/Frankenstein mix to have both Prince's vocals and the real horns.

Not a big fan of it, it reminds me too much of Pheromone, another track i never liked all that much.

But yes, i have to admid, it's a decent song.

Although mediocre up to Prince's writing and recording standards (to me).

databank said:

The mix is terrible but that's what they found and I certainly don't want them to add instruments or remix it in order to make it listener-friendly. I don't want to be entertained, I want to be educated.

.
Well, they say that's what they found and at this point their credibility is questionable to say the least.
And while I agree that they shouldn't add or omit anything, I would also try to master the tracks with the goal of creating a more consistent sound on an album (even if that's just a chronological 'vault tracks' album) to create a better listening experience, after all, that is one of the most important, original idea behind the mastering process.
When you only have a bunch of songs with only draft mixes to start with, they can sound vastly different to each other, so putting them next to each other for the sake of chronology can result in an "unlistenable", inconsistent album – and that's exactly what we've been served with these SDEs so far and I don't like it. Simply correcting obvious mixing errors of a poorly done draft mix at the mastering stage is not 'remixing' in my view, it is exactly what mastering is supposed to do (amongst others). We know how fast P worked and how little time he allowed his engineers to work on draft mixes, no wonder they don't always sound great. I know there's only a very thin line between "fixing an obvious error" and "tampering with what's left behind", but the reality is that mixes almost always go through a mastering stage too, so we can't really expect to get a song in the exact shape it was left behind.
.
Furthermore: when you're putting out records and you chose a single, you want it to go as far as possible, don't you? You want it to be played on radio and on the beach, at least that is your often unrealistic aim. Chosing ATTLG as a single BUT leaving it in such an almost unlistenable state is plain stupid and amateur. If you really want that song to be the single, at least create a new mix of it that can sound great on radio, and include both the original and the new mixes on the SDE for the collectors.

[Edited 9/4/24 2:00am]

Kares said:

databank said:

The mix is terrible but that's what they found and I certainly don't want them to add instruments or remix it in order to make it listener-friendly. I don't want to be entertained, I want to be educated.

.
Well, they say that's what they found and at this point their credibility is questionable to say the least.
And while I agree that they shouldn't add or omit anything, I would also try to master the tracks with the goal of creating a more consistent sound on an album (even if that's just a chronological 'vault tracks' album) to create a better listening experience, after all, that is one of the most important, original idea behind the mastering process.
When you only have a bunch of songs with only draft mixes to start with, they can sound vastly different to each other, so putting them next to each other for the sake of chronology can result in an "unlistenable", inconsistent album – and that's exactly what we've been served with these SDEs so far and I don't like it. Simply correcting obvious mixing errors of a poorly done draft mix at the mastering stage is not 'remixing' in my view, it is exactly what mastering is supposed to do (amongst others). We know how fast P worked and how little time he allowed his engineers to work on draft mixes, no wonder they don't always sound great. I know there's only a very thin line between "fixing an obvious error" and "tampering with what's left behind", but the reality is that mixes almost always go through a mastering stage too, so we can't really expect to get a song in the exact shape it was left behind.
.
Furthermore: when you're putting out records and you chose a single, you want it to go as far as possible, don't you? You want it to be played on radio and on the beach, at least that is your often unrealistic aim. Chosing ATTLG as a single BUT leaving it in such an almost unlistenable state is plain stupid and amateur. If you really want that song to be the single, at least create a new mix of it that can sound great on radio, and include both the original and the new mixes on the SDE for the collectors.

[Edited 9/4/24 2:00am]

I understand your point of view. I think the solution to all our problems is to release BOTH, with what's deemed unreleasable on CD released digitally only.

.

The Bowie Estate releases new, improved and/or overdubbed mixes all the time, but ADDITIONALLY to the original mixes when they exist. I don't mind this as long as what's what is clearly labeled and as long as the "found", demoish mixes are released.

.

I was one to give a lot of heat to the Estate when they frankensteined things, so I wouldn't be fair if I now complained about them being faithful to what they find (though I always agreed with you that certain things, like P&AM83, with its tape hiss and pitch error, could and should have been cleaned a little more if possible).

.

As for putting things that don't fit together for the sake of chronology, I understand the point of doing it in a SDE context so I never made a fuss about it, but it was never my favorite approach. I'd rather have thematically arranged albums or EPs from a given period (somewhat in the vein of C&D and TVOF4S, those were good concepts), but I can't complain about everything when there's already so much to complain about, so I can live with chronological for now.

.

But for example, when it comes to the D&P outtakes, there clearly would have been an "album" to make with the more "organic sounding" D&P sessions proper, and another with most of the "new jack swing sounding" songs aimed at other artists, while I Pledge Allegience To Your Love and Letter 4 Miles obvioulsy fit with Symbol material much more than with D&P.

Similarly, with SOTT, the material could easily have been arranged into at least 2 or 3 subprojects with different sonic identities.

databank said:

Kares said:

.
Well, they say that's what they found and at this point their credibility is questionable to say the least.
And while I agree that they shouldn't add or omit anything, I would also try to master the tracks with the goal of creating a more consistent sound on an album (even if that's just a chronological 'vault tracks' album) to create a better listening experience, after all, that is one of the most important, original idea behind the mastering process.
When you only have a bunch of songs with only draft mixes to start with, they can sound vastly different to each other, so putting them next to each other for the sake of chronology can result in an "unlistenable", inconsistent album – and that's exactly what we've been served with these SDEs so far and I don't like it. Simply correcting obvious mixing errors of a poorly done draft mix at the mastering stage is not 'remixing' in my view, it is exactly what mastering is supposed to do (amongst others). We know how fast P worked and how little time he allowed his engineers to work on draft mixes, no wonder they don't always sound great. I know there's only a very thin line between "fixing an obvious error" and "tampering with what's left behind", but the reality is that mixes almost always go through a mastering stage too, so we can't really expect to get a song in the exact shape it was left behind.
.
Furthermore: when you're putting out records and you chose a single, you want it to go as far as possible, don't you? You want it to be played on radio and on the beach, at least that is your often unrealistic aim. Chosing ATTLG as a single BUT leaving it in such an almost unlistenable state is plain stupid and amateur. If you really want that song to be the single, at least create a new mix of it that can sound great on radio, and include both the original and the new mixes on the SDE for the collectors.

[Edited 9/4/24 2:00am]

I understand your point of view. I think the solution to all our problems is to release BOTH, with what's deemed unreleasable on CD released digitally only.

.

The Bowie Estate releases new, improved and/or overdubbed mixes all the time, but ADDITIONALLY to the original mixes when they exist. I don't mind this as long as what's what is clearly labeled and as long as the "found", demoish mixes are released.

.

I was one to give a lot of heat to the Estate when they frankensteined things, so I wouldn't be fair if I now complained about them being faithful to what they find (though I always agreed with you that certain things, like P&AM83, with its tape hiss and pitch error, could and should have been cleaned a little more if possible).

.

As for putting things that don't fit together for the sake of chronology, I understand the point of doing it in a SDE context so I never made a fuss about it, but it was never my favorite approach. I'd rather have thematically arranged albums or EPs from a given period (somewhat in the vein of C&D and TVOF4S, those were good concepts), but I can't complain about everything when there's already so much to complain about, so I can live with chronological for now.

.

But for example, when it comes to the D&P outtakes, there clearly would have been an "album" to make with the more "organic sounding" D&P sessions proper, and another with most of the "new jack swing sounding" songs aimed at other artists, while I Pledge Allegience To Your Love and Letter 4 Miles obvioulsy fit with Symbol material much more than with D&P.

Similarly, with SOTT, the material could easily have been arranged into at least 2 or 3 subprojects with different sonic identities.

Fully agree with you, databank.

.

If they are going through chonological order, I'd expect them to be a tad more comprehensive at least - otherwise (as it results in D&P SDE) what you get is a mixed bag of samples. It just don't flow by any means, and the end result is frustrating, at least to me. Some tracks I really like, some others I find sub-par, and still no meaning whatsover behind them. Even the bootlegs, limited as they are, are compiled with a bit more taste.

psyche2 said:

databank said:

.

As for putting things that don't fit together for the sake of chronology, I understand the point of doing it in a SDE context so I never made a fuss about it, but it was never my favorite approach. I'd rather have thematically arranged albums or EPs from a given period (somewhat in the vein of C&D and TVOF4S, those were good concepts), but I can't complain about everything when there's already so much to complain about, so I can live with chronological for now.

.

.

Fully agree with you, databank.

.

If they are going through chonological order, I'd expect them to be a tad more comprehensive at least - otherwise (as it results in D&P SDE) what you get is a mixed bag of samples. It just don't flow by any means, and the end result is frustrating, at least to me. Some tracks I really like, some others I find sub-par, and still no meaning whatsover behind them. Even the bootlegs, limited as they are, are compiled with a bit more taste.

.

Indeed. That's one of the things I dislike about the SDEs. Prince embraced ALBUMS. The 'Vault Tracks' discs of the SDEs are anything but real albums – they disrespect Prince's legacy right there. When P compiled Crystal Ball, he made sure he created a listenable sequence of songs, not just a bunch of tracks thrown together randomly or chronologically. In fact, he always created album sequences whenever he released something and it was even one of his well-known hobbies to draft album sequences.

lustmealways said: