databank said:

Someone (who's also here and may reveal themselves) mentioned somewhere else having heard of such an edit, slightly shorter and possibly faster than the album cut. It's supposed to also have landed on a few various artists comps. As it's not listed on Discogs or anywhere else and it's the first time I ever hear of this, I wanted to ask if anyone else has heard of it. Thanks [Edited 12/17/25 0:12am]

the song self on it is not faster but the fade out is earlier and faster, I was told it's another jukebox pressing and the other side has Kiss on it, and it wasn't from South Africa (I remembered wrong) but from Mexico like alot of the othr jukebox singles. The time for RB is 3.24 on it and Kiss is the album version without the ending that's on the regular single.

JorisE73 said:

databank said:

Someone (who's also here and may reveal themselves) mentioned somewhere else having heard of such an edit, slightly shorter and possibly faster than the album cut. It's supposed to also have landed on a few various artists comps. As it's not listed on Discogs or anywhere else and it's the first time I ever hear of this, I wanted to ask if anyone else has heard of it. Thanks [Edited 12/17/25 0:12am]

the song self on it is not faster but the fade out is earlier and faster, I was told it's another jukebox pressing and the other side has Kiss on it, and it wasn't from South Africa (I remembered wrong) but from Mexico like alot of the othr jukebox singles. The time for RB is 3.24 on it and Kiss is the album version without the ending that's on the regular single.

.
I understand that completists go for having/listing every single variation of a release but I'm pretty sure Prince didn't create a separate (shorter) version just for Mexico – it is obviously just the result of careless mastering by the Mexican record plant – so my question is: where do we draw the line? Isn't this release just as insignificant as a mispressing would be? Are these non-deliberate variations worth being listed as different versions of a song?
Not criticising anything, just a question.

[Edited 12/17/25 13:09pm]

JorisE73 said:

databank said:

Someone (who's also here and may reveal themselves) mentioned somewhere else having heard of such an edit, slightly shorter and possibly faster than the album cut. It's supposed to also have landed on a few various artists comps. As it's not listed on Discogs or anywhere else and it's the first time I ever hear of this, I wanted to ask if anyone else has heard of it. Thanks [Edited 12/17/25 0:12am]

the song self on it is not faster but the fade out is earlier and faster, I was told it's another jukebox pressing and the other side has Kiss on it, and it wasn't from South Africa (I remembered wrong) but from Mexico like alot of the othr jukebox singles. The time for RB is 3.24 on it and Kiss is the album version without the ending that's on the regular single.

Thanks for clarifying.

Still not on Discogs, though maybe if I investigate longer with this new info when I have a little time, I may find a trace of it elsewhere online?

Kares said:

JorisE73 said:

the song self on it is not faster but the fade out is earlier and faster, I was told it's another jukebox pressing and the other side has Kiss on it, and it wasn't from South Africa (I remembered wrong) but from Mexico like alot of the othr jukebox singles. The time for RB is 3.24 on it and Kiss is the album version without the ending that's on the regular single.

.
I understand that completists go for having/listing every single variation of a release but I'm pretty sure Prince didn't create a separate (shorter) version just for Mexico – it is obviously just the result of careless mastering by the Mexican record plant – so my question is: where do we draw the line? Isn't this release just as insignificant as a mispressing would be? Are these non-deliberate variations worth being listed as different versions of a song?
Not criticising anything, just a question.

[Edited 12/17/25 13:09pm]

Your question is very reasonable and I asked myself the same at some point.

When it comes to my website, my policy was always that if it's a misprint/error, it's not on purpose so not listed, but if it's a deliberate action by Warner or a local subsidiary of Warner (or another label for songs given to other artists, or a compilation/mix that was properly licenced from the labels owning the masters), I finally came to the concusion that it counts.

The reasoning there is: Prince contractually gave "Label X" contractual permission to alter the song or licence it to third parties, so it's an extension of his will (a similar situation would be remixes or even full rerecordings of songs he gave to other artists: for example, Prince literally had nothing to do with Nona Hendryx's album version of Baby Go-Go, and did not commission any of its remixes, but he gave Hendryx permission to rerecord the song from scratch and commission remixes).

So when all is said and done, my reasoning is Prince contractually gave permission to WB to allow local subsidiaries to create specific edits of songs for foreign markets even if he didn't personally oversee those, so they count.

Technically, I've been struggling with grey areas ever since I started this project. Another recent headache was live renditions of songs he gave to other artists by said artists (I added a paragraph about this on the main page if anyone wants to look into it). Certain songs streamed or released online by associated artists from 2000 onwards were another issue (it's not always clear whether Prince allowed them to do it or not). I also haven't resolved the question of DJing services, if only because it's sometimes hard to know which ones, save for Razormaid who had a strict policy to licence its material, were licenced or bootlegs. Songs used in movies are another pandora's box I'd rather not open...

databank said:

Kares said:

.
I understand that completists go for having/listing every single variation of a release but I'm pretty sure Prince didn't create a separate (shorter) version just for Mexico – it is obviously just the result of careless mastering by the Mexican record plant – so my question is: where do we draw the line? Isn't this release just as insignificant as a mispressing would be? Are these non-deliberate variations worth being listed as different versions of a song?
Not criticising anything, just a question.

[Edited 12/17/25 13:09pm]

Your question is very reasonable and I asked myself the same at some point.

When it comes to my website, my policy was always that if it's a misprint/error, it's not on purpose so not listed, but if it's a deliberate action by Warner or a local subsidiary of Warner (or another label for songs given to other artists, or a compilation/mix that was properly licenced from the labels owning the masters), I finally came to the concusion that it counts.

The reasoning there is: Prince contractually gave "Label X" contractual permission to alter the song or licence it to third parties, so it's an extension of his will (a similar situation would be remixes or even full rerecordings of songs he gave to other artists: for example, Prince literally had nothing to do with Nona Hendryx's album version of Baby Go-Go, and did not commission any of its remixes, but he gave Hendryx permission to rerecord the song from scratch and commission remixes).

So when all is said and done, my reasoning is Prince contractually gave permission to WB to allow local subsidiaries to create specific edits of songs for foreign markets even if he didn't personally oversee those, so they count.

Technically, I've been struggling with grey areas ever since I started this project. Another recent headache was live renditions of songs he gave to other artists by said artists (I added a paragraph about this on the main page if anyone wants to look into it). Certain songs streamed or released online by associated artists from 2000 onwards were another issue (it's not always clear whether Prince allowed them to do it or not). I also haven't resolved the question of DJing services, if only because it's sometimes hard to know which ones, save for Razormaid who had a strict policy to licence its material, were licenced or bootlegs. Songs used in movies are another pandora's box I'd rather not open...

.
Fair enough, just 2 points:
– I don't think P gave permission to Warners to let their subsidiaries create edits as they see fit, and
– (if it's really just an earlier fade-out of the song) I don't think it was deliberate by the Mexican subsidiary either, just some good old carelessness.
In fact, P hated when a Warner sub (e.g. Warner Japan) made up unsolicited compilations using his masters, so I seriuosly doubt he gave his blessing for anyone creating new edits. (Commissioned remixes are a different matter, of course.)

Kares said:

databank said:

Your question is very reasonable and I asked myself the same at some point.

When it comes to my website, my policy was always that if it's a misprint/error, it's not on purpose so not listed, but if it's a deliberate action by Warner or a local subsidiary of Warner (or another label for songs given to other artists, or a compilation/mix that was properly licenced from the labels owning the masters), I finally came to the concusion that it counts.

The reasoning there is: Prince contractually gave "Label X" contractual permission to alter the song or licence it to third parties, so it's an extension of his will (a similar situation would be remixes or even full rerecordings of songs he gave to other artists: for example, Prince literally had nothing to do with Nona Hendryx's album version of Baby Go-Go, and did not commission any of its remixes, but he gave Hendryx permission to rerecord the song from scratch and commission remixes).

So when all is said and done, my reasoning is Prince contractually gave permission to WB to allow local subsidiaries to create specific edits of songs for foreign markets even if he didn't personally oversee those, so they count.

Technically, I've been struggling with grey areas ever since I started this project. Another recent headache was live renditions of songs he gave to other artists by said artists (I added a paragraph about this on the main page if anyone wants to look into it). Certain songs streamed or released online by associated artists from 2000 onwards were another issue (it's not always clear whether Prince allowed them to do it or not). I also haven't resolved the question of DJing services, if only because it's sometimes hard to know which ones, save for Razormaid who had a strict policy to licence its material, were licenced or bootlegs. Songs used in movies are another pandora's box I'd rather not open...

.
Fair enough, just 2 points:
– I don't think P gave permission to Warners to let their subsidiaries create edits as they see fit, In fact, P hated when a Warner sub (e.g. Warner Japan) made up unsolicited compilations using his masters, so I seriuosly doubt he gave his blessing for anyone creating new edits. (Commissioned remixes are a different matter, of course.)

I agree, but until proven otherwise, I have to assume that the contracts were solid in that regard and that, had Prince tried to take WB to court about, say, the Japanese EPs or some specific regional edit, he would have lost. Thus, he signed contracts and gave permission even if he didn't necessarily agree with the permission he gave (same as giving away his masters, or playing on those 94 East recordings, then being mad about it).
– (if it's really just an earlier fade-out of the song) I don't think it was deliberate by the Mexican subsidiary either, just some good old carelessness.
It's very possible, but again rather speculative. Unless something is an obvious glitch, I find it more reasonable to assume it was deliberate (I may be wrong, of course).

[Edited 12/17/25 17:11pm]

Interesting!
Kinda off/on topic:
Do radio stations really have the right to edit songs to fit their programming?
I don't mean just fading out for the top o' the hour news,
I mean actually taking verses, choruses, bridges, solos, etc. out of the
officiall edited radio version?
I hear it all the time and it's a bit disturbing

nayroo2002 said:

Interesting!
Kinda off/on topic:
Do radio stations really have the right to edit songs to fit their programming?
I don't mean just fading out for the top o' the hour news,
I mean actually taking verses, choruses, bridges, solos, etc. out of the
officiall edited radio version?
I hear it all the time and it's a bit disturbing

I'm no lawyer, but I don't see why not. TV channels do it as well when music videos are too long for their taste.

For obvious reasons, though, I can't add those "edits" to my website

nayroo2002 said:

Interesting!
Kinda off/on topic:
Do radio stations really have the right to edit songs to fit their programming?
I don't mean just fading out for the top o' the hour news,
I mean actually taking verses, choruses, bridges, solos, etc. out of the
officiall edited radio version?
I hear it all the time and it's a bit disturbing

I see that very much like club DJs who make their own edits (longer or shorter) to accomodate whatever they want to do with them. Definetely that's not the official cut, and reckon it could be disturbing if you''re passionate about what you're hearing, but why not?

[Edited 12/18/25 8:35am]

nayroo2002 said:

Interesting!
Kinda off/on topic:
Do radio stations really have the right to edit songs to fit their programming?

.

Generally, they do. And in case there are some countries where it wouldn't be allowed by law, no-one cares if they do it regardless. No artist or record company would sue a radio station in some faraway, foreign land just because they cut out a verse from their song. It's better for both the artist and the label to be proactive and prepare and supply different radio edits that would likely be preferred by broadcasters so at least they retain some artistic control over the material, but still, they cannot stop the stations using their own scissors either.
.

JorisE73 said:

databank said:

Someone (who's also here and may reveal themselves) mentioned somewhere else having heard of such an edit, slightly shorter and possibly faster than the album cut. It's supposed to also have landed on a few various artists comps. As it's not listed on Discogs or anywhere else and it's the first time I ever hear of this, I wanted to ask if anyone else has heard of it. Thanks [Edited 12/17/25 0:12am]

the song self on it is not faster but the fade out is earlier and faster, I was told it's another jukebox pressing and the other side has Kiss on it, and it wasn't from South Africa (I remembered wrong) but from Mexico like alot of the othr jukebox singles. The time for RB is 3.24 on it and Kiss is the album version without the ending that's on the regular single.

I sorta dug on Discogs and I saw a Guatemala version that is 4 seconds shorter. But not sure if this is what is being referred to.

I get people want to document every single official edit or verison out there, but honestly with all the diffewrent jukebox singles Prince's personal acetates and one off presses with edits made to test in a club or something, I think this is just not possible to get a complete picture.
There was a acetate with a unique edit of the Extended version of MOuntains (was also reported on in a MTV news thing back in the 80s that Prince took with him to a club to spin, same with I Wish U Heaven, without the Take This Beat part, so a new edit of just part 1 and 2 that Prince had pressed probvably to spin at clubs.

TrivialPursuit said:

JorisE73 said:

the song self on it is not faster but the fade out is earlier and faster, I was told it's another jukebox pressing and the other side has Kiss on it, and it wasn't from South Africa (I remembered wrong) but from Mexico like alot of the othr jukebox singles. The time for RB is 3.24 on it and Kiss is the album version without the ending that's on the regular single.

I sorta dug on Discogs and I saw a Guatemala version that is 4 seconds shorter. But not sure if this is what is being referred to.

Thanks.

I most likely saw this years ago when I went through ALL Discogs entries for EVERY release until 1986 (I never got around going farther), looking for odd local releases.

If I didn't keep that one it must have been because it says "Time of Raspberry Beret is 3:27 on label, different to usual release time of 3:31." "On label" doesn't suggest it means the song itself is shorter, so in doubt I wouldn't have retained it.

Now could this be the one Joris was talking about? IDK, but it went from being South African to being Mexican, so if it ends-up being Guatemalese...

JorisE73 said:

I get people want to document every single official edit or verison out there, but honestly with all the diffewrent jukebox singles Prince's personal acetates and one off presses with edits made to test in a club or something, I think this is just not possible to get a complete picture.
There was a acetate with a unique edit of the Extended version of MOuntains (was also reported on in a MTV news thing back in the 80s that Prince took with him to a club to spin, same with I Wish U Heaven, without the Take This Beat part, so a new edit of just part 1 and 2 that Prince had pressed probvably to spin at clubs.

I don't list acetates and in-house material, only what was meant to be heard by the general public.

The most challenging category for me, so far, was the live snippets sent to, or filmed by TV stations to be aired in order to promote a tour visiting any given city/country. No one ever attempted to establish such a listing before me, so unlike other categories, there was nothing to improve on: I'm entirely depending on what I find online (when I do find it), and when it was sent to the TV station by Prince's organization, I can only attest of what was aired, which may be shorter than what was sent..

databank said:

JorisE73 said:

I get people want to document every single official edit or verison out there, but honestly with all the diffewrent jukebox singles Prince's personal acetates and one off presses with edits made to test in a club or something, I think this is just not possible to get a complete picture.
There was a acetate with a unique edit of the Extended version of MOuntains (was also reported on in a MTV news thing back in the 80s that Prince took with him to a club to spin, same with I Wish U Heaven, without the Take This Beat part, so a new edit of just part 1 and 2 that Prince had pressed probvably to spin at clubs.

I don't list acetates and in-house material, only what was meant to be heard by the general public.

The most challenging category for me, so far, was the live snippets sent to, or filmed by TV stations to be aired in order to promote a tour visiting any given city/country. No one ever attempted to establish such a listing before me, so unlike other categories, there was nothing to improve on: I'm entirely depending on what I find online (when I do find it), and when it was sent to the TV station by Prince's organization, I can only attest of what was aired, which may be shorter than what was sent..

.
I'm wondering whether we should consider tapes that were sent/given by Prince to radio or TV stations as promo releases or not. After all, they are "meant to be heard by the general public", only the format and number of copies is different than a promo CD, but the format should be irrelevant.
.
The example I'm thinking of is the DAT tape that was sent to several European radio stations in the Spring of 1994. It had the 13 Feb Paisley Park concert plus 8 studio tracks, including the brilliant Days Of Wild, for example. Why aren't these included with other promo releases in discographies? Am I missing something?

Kares said:

databank said:

Kares said:

.
I'm wondering whether we should consider tapes that were sent/given by Prince to radio or TV stations as promo releases or not. After all, they are "meant to be heard by the general public", only the format and number of copies is different than a promo CD, but the format should be irrelevant.
.
The example I'm thinking of is the DAT tape that was sent to several European radio stations in the Spring of 1994. It had the 13 Feb Paisley Park concert plus 8 studio tracks, including the brilliant Days Of Wild, for example. Why aren't these included with other promo releases in discographies? Am I missing something?

I consider them promos and I include them.

.
OK, you're right – and you're the only one to do so, probably But generally speaking we still consider 'DOW' as unreleased, for some reason.

[Edited 12/20/25 15:14pm]

Kares said:

databank said:

Kares said: I consider them promos and I include them.

.
OK, you're right – and you're the only one to do so, probably But generally speaking we still consider 'DOW' as unreleased, for some reason.

[Edited 12/20/25 15:14pm]

Do you consider a promo to be "released"? It's true that a promo is meant to be heard by the general public, but it's not meant to be commerically available for purchase by the general public. I consider that a gray area.

lurker316 said:

Kares said:

.
OK, you're right – and you're the only one to do so, probably But generally speaking we still consider 'DOW' as unreleased, for some reason.

[Edited 12/20/25 15:14pm]

Do you consider a promo to be "released"? It's true that a promo is meant to be heard by the general public, but it's not meant to be commerically available for purchase by the general public. I consider that a gray area.

.
Maybe, I'm not sure.

[Edited 12/21/25 9:21am]

lurker316 said:

Kares said:

.
OK, you're right – and you're the only one to do so, probably But generally speaking we still consider 'DOW' as unreleased, for some reason.

[Edited 12/20/25 15:14pm]

Do you consider a promo to be "released"? It's true that a promo is meant to be heard by the general public, but it's not meant to be commerically available for purchase by the general public. I consider that a gray area.

I like your distinction: "meant to be heard" vs "commercially available". It's a distinction that's not captured in "released" vs "unreleased".

A the end of the day, a list will either include an item or it won't include it. It's binary, so Databank has to make some choices about edge cases. I like his approach so far.

About the studio version of DOW: it's pretty clear that you have to know the whole story to get a good sense of the status of that track. Why Prince included it on TGE, then removed it, etc.

olb99 said:

Kares said:

databank said:

I don't list acetates and in-house material, only what was meant to be heard by the general public.

The most challenging category for me, so far, was the live snippets sent to, or filmed by TV stations to be aired in order to promote a tour visiting any given city/country. No one ever attempted to establish such a listing before me, so unlike other categories, there was nothing to improve on: I'm entirely depending on what I find online (when I do find it), and when it was sent to the TV station by Prince's organization, I can only attest of what was aired, which may be shorter than what was sent..

.
I'm wondering whether we should consider tapes that were sent/given by Prince to radio or TV stations as promo releases or not. After all, they are "meant to be heard by the general public", only the format and number of copies is different than a promo CD, but the format should be irrelevant.
.
The example I'm thinking of is the DAT tape that was sent to several European radio stations in the Spring of 1994. It had the 13 Feb Paisley Park concert plus 8 studio tracks, including the brilliant Days Of Wild, for example. Why aren't these included with other promo releases in discographies? Am I missing something?

.

There are also the various DAT tapes sent to Edel, one of which is the source of their Jacob Armen release, which IIRC was not supposed to get a commercial release and which PP only heard about because fans asked about it in the NPG Store in Minneapolis.

.

(I've always found that an odd story: why send a DAT tape plus artwork and then be surprised the label released it?)

.

IIRC there was also a Madhouse album among those DAT tapes, which we unfortunately didn't get because Edel were told to stop releasing those things.

bizzie said:

Kares said:

.
I'm wondering whether we should consider tapes that were sent/given by Prince to radio or TV stations as promo releases or not. After all, they are "meant to be heard by the general public", only the format and number of copies is different than a promo CD, but the format should be irrelevant.
.
The example I'm thinking of is the DAT tape that was sent to several European radio stations in the Spring of 1994. It had the 13 Feb Paisley Park concert plus 8 studio tracks, including the brilliant Days Of Wild, for example. Why aren't these included with other promo releases in discographies? Am I missing something?

.

There are also the various DAT tapes sent to Edel, one of which is the source of their Jacob Armen release, which IIRC was not supposed to get a commercial release and which PP only heard about because fans asked about it in the NPG Store in Minneapolis.

.

(I've always found that an odd story: why send a DAT tape plus artwork and then be surprised the label released it?)

.

IIRC there was also a Madhouse album among those DAT tapes, which we unfortunately didn't get because Edel were told to stop releasing those things.

.
But those DATs weren't meant to be heard by the public. I guess PP sent them out to Edel in hopes of getting big offers for the material, and when Edel just went ahead and released one without an agreement, PP stopped them. It's normal to send out complete masters hoping to secure a deal – in fact I did just the same when I sent out a DAT master to Edel by an artist I was representing at a time. I just didn't forget to make it clear in the cover letter that it's not theirs until we agree.

databank said:

olb99 said:

I like your distinction: "meant to be heard" vs "commercially available". It's a distinction that's not captured in "released" vs "unreleased".

A the end of the day, a list will either include an item or it won't include it. It's binary, so Databank has to make some choices about edge cases. I like his approach so far.

About the studio version of DOW: it's pretty clear that you have to know the whole story to get a good sense of the status of that track. Why Prince included it on TGE, then removed it, etc.

"Meant to be heard" is basically what I catalogue.

"Meant to be heard at some point", I guess? You could argue that the studio version of DOW was meant to be heard when it was sent to those radio stations, but not anymore when Prince changed his mind and removed it from TGE.

[Edited 12/22/25 7:37am]

As much as I enjoy this kind of discussion, anal retentive doesn't cover this topic enough.

bizzie said:

Kares said:

.
I'm wondering whether we should consider tapes that were sent/given by Prince to radio or TV stations as promo releases or not. After all, they are "meant to be heard by the general public", only the format and number of copies is different than a promo CD, but the format should be irrelevant.
.
The example I'm thinking of is the DAT tape that was sent to several European radio stations in the Spring of 1994. It had the 13 Feb Paisley Park concert plus 8 studio tracks, including the brilliant Days Of Wild, for example. Why aren't these included with other promo releases in discographies? Am I missing something?

.

There are also the various DAT tapes sent to Edel, one of which is the source of their Jacob Armen release, which IIRC was not supposed to get a commercial release and which PP only heard about because fans asked about it in the NPG Store in Minneapolis.

.

(I've always found that an odd story: why send a DAT tape plus artwork and then be surprised the label released it?)

.

IIRC there was also a Madhouse album among those DAT tapes, which we unfortunately didn't get because Edel were told to stop releasing those things.

Yeah but those were never meant to be released (they were at some point, but canceled before anything was to happen save the weird Jacob Armen situation, which is none of my concertn since P isn't on it), so they're in-house.

olb99 said:

databank said:

olb99 said: "Meant to be heard" is basically what I catalogue.

"Meant to be heard at some point", I guess? You could argue that the studio version of DOW was meant to be heard when it was sent to those radio stations, but not anymore when Prince changed his mind and removed it from TGE.

[Edited 12/22/25 7:37am]

I'd say that by definition most limited promo releases, anything sent/sold to radio or TV stations was only meant to be heard "at some point" only. The fact that DOW wasn't on TGE doesn't change the fact that it was sent as a promo a year and a half earlier.

psyche2 said:

As much as I enjoy this kind of discussion, anal retentive doesn't cover this topic enough.

Then any scientist or academic working on any given topic is "anal". Yet this is how knowledge is produced.

Did someone say anal?