I ws watching SOTT on video last week, and I stared wondering why so many orgers are down on Vegas, whereas they could be down on SOTT for the same reasons.See:

1) Vegas: not a full show, SOTT: not a full show
2) Vegas: features a song with a guest singer, SOTT: features an entire song without P even on the stage
3) Vegas: has short, annoying segues between songs, SOTT: has very long, very annoying bits of 'acting' between songs and even right over a part of ICNTTPOYM
4) Vegas: Little crowd noise/ambience. SOTT: the crowd was recorded in Rotterdam, the music in Paisley Park!
5) Vegas: Sound quality not great. SOTT, sound quality great BECAUSE THE MUSIC WAS RERECORDED IN THE STUDIO - DUH!

And I'm not even mentioning the video for U Got The Look halfway through.

I'm not complaining about Vegas, I'm happy to have it, but to me the big differences come down to the two different types of concerts. SOTT was very much a big budget production whereas ONA was billed as a cut down and more intimate show. The videos reflect this.


SOTT is also wonderfully artistically creative in terms of the camera work and segues. I don't know what sort of planning and production work went into SOTT, but it gives me the impression that a lot went into it. This sort of effort and expense doesn't seem to have been put into Vegas.

hectim said:

You don't get it. It's right there under your nose.

Sign is a creative work with a very cool style and avante garde type production. ONA live is...a camcorder with Prince in a conservative suit...both are Miles apart.

avante garde?



Man you have GOT to be kidding.

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

This thread has got to be taking the piss right. SOTT was put out because prince wasnt touring the US that year. It was a prommotion for the album, and whilst it wasnt completely live, the basic tracks were recorded live.


SOTT features the opening and closing songs of the show. Vegas features neither. SOTT was well filmed, Vegas wasnt.

If you ilke the Vegas DVD then good for you, in a way that justifies its existence, and whilst I like some of the numbers on Vegas, all in all I find it a highly disappointing document of an amazing tour.

SOTT is an infinitely better show and film.

I'm telling you, the guy's lipsynching the whole thing!

CrozzaUK said:

hectim said:

Yeah Ive often thought that the music and the vocal were recorded in the studio, but Ive heard boots of the original shows, and while there are differences, im sure these are just overdubs, and that the basic trakcs are live. It probably looks lip-synched due to the treatment it was probably given in post production.

If I was your girlfriend is a definite lip synch moment.

hectim said:I ws watching SOTT on video last week, and I stared wondering why so many orgers are down on Vegas, whereas they could be down on SOTT for the same reasons.See:

1) Vegas: not a full show, SOTT: not a full show

its more of a show, and it flows from start to finish.

2) Vegas: features a song with a guest singer, SOTT: features an entire song without P even on the stage

dont really mind either of those. except the song on sott without p is brilliant anyway.

3) Vegas: has short, annoying segues between songs, SOTT: has very long, very annoying bits of 'acting' between songs and even right over a part of ICNTTPOYM

those fantasty interludes are great and might not be much of a story but theyre imaginative, enigmatic, fun and give some kind of loose running thread to the whole thing.

4) Vegas: Little crowd noise/ambience. SOTT: the crowd was recorded in Rotterdam, the music in Paisley Park!

its still a better performance though. tons of concert films are edited and dubbed, same for live albums. its been going on since the beginning of time.

5) Vegas: Sound quality not great. SOTT, sound quality great BECAUSE THE MUSIC WAS RERECORDED IN THE STUDIO - DUH!

thts not excuse though. prince should have shelled out a bit more and made something of decent quality. and on the ONA box set, he did overdub some of it and look at how yuckily glossy that whole album is. sott might have been rerecorded but it WAS done on the paisley park soundstage with an audience. not that differnet from, say the 'live' tracks on the actual purple rain album.

And I'm not even mentioning the video for U Got The Look halfway through.

ok, that was a bit lame. good video though!
[This message was edited Mon Oct 13 6:41:22 PDT 2003 by thirstinhowlVIII]

i was going to add some kind of witty comment here but...come one, aladdin is so lame! the sott video is incredible on every level. when i watch it i don't ever think "where's the rest of it?" like i did when i saw aladdin.

its great that you enjoy the video. there is no justification necessary if you dig it.

no competition. SOTT rules

CrozzaUK said:

What you say sounds sensible, after all, why go and re-record entire tracks if the original live recordings just need a little touching up. However, I remember when I first saw it in the cinema something in the credits said that the whole thing was recorded in a studio, I remember feeling cheated cos I was sitting there with that lovely warm glow that comes from watching Prince on top form, when suddenly I find that the whole thing was just a studio recording.

Usually, live recordings which are touched up a bit in a studio are still sold as live recordings (except for bootlegs I don't think there's any band who would release 'live' recordings without a little bit of touching up first), so as SOTT does say it's a studio recording one wonders!

I take it your boots are definitely the same shows? How convinced are you that these are the actual tracks used on SOTT? If they are then that makes SOTT go up in my esteem and I may even watch it again! Although I will always dislike the stupid 'acting' bits. And I never understood why he would stick a pre-recorded video (I think it was U Got The Look - which seeing as I'm not entirely sure will give you some indication as to how long it is since I've watched it) in the middle of a live show, or even a 'recorded in studio but made to look like a live show, whichever it is.

I cant be 100% sure the boots are from the said shows, but little things he says during the show, and some of the horn parts are identical in their timing and style.

CrozzaUK said:

Sounds convincing enough. I can't imagine he would insert ad-libs from live recordings to a studio recording just to make it sound live. Although, thinking about it, that's probably exactly what he'd do to make it sound authentically live.

Hmmm. I'd like to believe that the original tracks were live and sexied up, cos that's the way it should be!

In some other threads on here, people have said that SOTT actually used the live Vocals an Music from the shows, and that the film footage was re-filmed at Paisley Park, and that he lipsyched to the live sound footage.


I questioned about some of the vocals which are in Camille voice or even "Beautiful Night" and they said that he uses a voice modulator at the concert, but I find that hard to believe.

hectim said:

No, I'm not. "Avante Purple", ever heard of the term?

Sign O The Movie is fucking a piece of Funk Art the world has ever seen. And if you were to look at the energy, the style, the technique, the TRUE FUNK of it, the quasi-psychadelia, the themes, ideas...and then look at...the JW ONA DVD...well, it's just not as good.

Like someone else said, it was FILMED. There was more of "let's create some art here" kind of vibe.

Sign O The Movie is sooo much more interesting and fascinating. Even Dr. Fink super funked while you had one of the Best horn sections and Drummers Prince has ever had! Miko Funked too.

Timeless stuff man. So he lip-synched or re-recorded some stuff at Paisley. Doesnt matter, the point I think was that it was a MOVIE. A great one. ONA Live has overdubs and stuff. But no magic.

CrozzaUK said:

Co-sign

hectim said:

This shit ain't even worth the debate

Once more for the record -- SOTT is comprised of audio recorded at the Rotterdam gig and touched-up at Paisley and filmed almost entirely to playback at Paisley. If it looks like he's lip-synching, it's because he is.

I actually have some bootleg "dailies" from the Paisley shoot -- several takes of "Housequake" from multiple angles.

no.

sorry, I just can't believe this comparison, talk about an original opinion

While I do think the SOTT movie is HIGHLY overrated, it's far superior to the vegas show, IMHO.

I don't care if the vocals were recorded in a studio (there was a good reason for that, btw), or the "u got the look" video, or that fact that I just think this is the most overrated period of prince's career, it's still leagues above vegas.
[This message was edited Mon Oct 13 19:19:52 PDT 2003 by lovebizzare]

hectim said:

there's a few reasons for that:
1. SOTT was released when prince still had a hint of commercialism
2. Anything and everything that is assocciated with SOTT is considered Godly around here
3. The SOTT movie doesn't look like it was
recorded on a $100 camcorder that looks like it could have been used to record a 5-year-old's birthday party

lovebizzare said:[quote]

hectim said:

So what is so overrated about Sign, that era? Whats better? Tell us expert.

FlyingCloudPassenger said:[quote]

lovebizzare said:

I'm just saying that a majority of the people here love sign, therefore they like the sign video A LOT better than the vegas dvd
don't get all touchy, sheesh

I've made it clear numerous times that I don't think the sign era is as great as others do, therefore i think it's overrated, and if others (not you) don't like/understand that, tuff.
[This message was edited Mon Oct 13 23:05:38 PDT 2003 by lovebizzare]