It was a major yawn for me too. Let me put it this way : when I saw Hahn was thanking his grandmas in the Acknowlegdments section, I was sure it was for ghostwriting the thing.

The book kills any interest the reader might have in Hahn's take by announcing its stance in its clichéd subtitle and, if you didn't get the idea from the dust jacket alone, the "spoiler" prelude, which acts like a movie trailer that gives away most of the plot.

The other major flaw of the book is Hahn's steely predictability in the way he treats the behavior of both Prince and his associates. On Prince, he casts a unforgiving eye and invariably sees the same pattern : manipulation, egomania, selfishness. Associates are treated with much more sympathy. They are generally presented as talent Prince suffocated, and their personal problems, while not directly attributed to Prince, are often described in conjunction with a list of aggravating things Prince did at the time.

The worst example of Hahn's sympathy toward his sources is probably when he describes Anna Garcia being taught to play the drums by Prince. After she's left alone and starts improvising, Prince appears to tell her "that's enough!". Incredibly, Hahn presents this as just another example of Prince's insanely competitive nature. How about Anna, like most people who just picked up drum sticks, was making more noise than music and getting on Prince's nerves?

Hahn reserves his most unforgiving prose for Prince's Emancipation/baby Gregory saga. His Royal Badness is shided for being "manipulative" and prone to "denial" as he decides to go ahead with the release despite the loss of his child (no explanation of the consequences of canceling Emancipation or not going on tours are offered - it's all about how Prince is this sorry individual too freaky to grieve like a normal person.)

By the end of the book, you are just hoping the next page will be the last, so predictable the conclusion is. You feel like you can guess the words on the next page before you see them. The author displays little passion for his subject's music. Even during the fabled "Rise", Hahn waits until 1999 -- the song -- to give any impression he was once excited by a Prince song. Hahn's assessment of Prince's records is just about the most sleep-inducing and unoriginal thing in the book. Everything follows the largest "critical consensus", as if Hahn had prepared for that part of his book by simply reading Rolling Stone's review of each record. Come to think of it, Hahn relies on consensus and exceedingly conventional interpretations basically for everything, robbing the book of any personal flava. The only thing personal seems to be the chip on the author's shoulder.
[This message was edited Sun Jun 1 21:47:34 PDT 2003 by Aerogram]

Peace to Aerogram !

Anyone wanting to read about Prince should read the Per Nielsen books or Purple Reign by Liz Jones.

Nielsen did a superb job with his writings.I wish he would follow up his DSMR with a review of the 1989-2003 Prince years.

Personally, I don't understand the negative take on this book.

The criticism leveled at this book seems to assume that the author owed Prince a positive critique. The title of the book alone suggests that the author is going to explore the less positive aspects of Prince's career. How this makes him bitter I'm not sure. But it certainly makes his book different from Per Nilsen's which is in essence a documentary and includes very little commentary.

In essence many of the takes on Hahn's book from this site come off as rather bitter opinions from fans who have difficulty with any criticism of their favorite artist.

I am not goint to buy it.

Thanks Aerogram.


nickfunk

Like i said before, i was planning to buy this book. As a Prince fan myself, i'm fully aware of whatever people write about Prince. I think i'm able to distilate the best out of someone's writings. But my question is; is the book really worth giving a try? Considdering the fact that i already did read every other book out there on Prince.
Not because of it's contents, but as a whole, to get some kind of insight in the whole 'Prince' world and way of making and creating music, working with other people, etc. And most of all how people see Prince, and think about him.
Or is it just like everyone here says about the book: it's a nagging and a major flaw, if not a predictable treat?
Help me out, i'm all confused!
héhé.

You are right, some can't take it... but I've been critical of Prince since the late eighties.

Hahn doesn't flesh out Prince much.. he tends to concentrate on what supports his conclusions, This makes for an exceedingly predictable read and a rather tedious book.

Aerogram said:

Hilarious. All I've seen you do is make up the lamest apologies for Prince's actions, full of understanding and compassion masking as "common sense" and never hindered by a complete lack of knowledge. Wasn't it funny how you were critical of former employees telling tales about Prince yet completely ignored that Prince had done far worse when it came to his relationship with WB or Arista? (Just to name one example...)

Typical. Who says I "ignored" it? I've been aware for longer than you've been a Prince fan that he bends the truth a whole lot and has all these flaws. Purple Rain, the movie that made him a superstar, shows many of these shortcomings, albeit to conclude with a "redemption", but if you stayed tuned during the rest of the eighties, there were many inescapable conclusions to be reached from projects like UTCM, Lovesexy, Batman, etc., even before reading a single biography. I've long since accepted that Prince was going to be Prince -- someone with an extravagant talent, but also a "rock star" with maddening habits and a pronounced taste for self-indulgence in both his music and his private and business lives. The book falls flat by simply reiterating many of the stories and shedding little new light on them.

Aerogram said:

Snore... We know where he'll end up because we are there right now. It's an inevitable conclusion, but it is supported by numerous events. And there is a lot of new info, especially when it comes to the pattern that has emerged that showed that Prince's current religious zeal was there from early on.

The "new info" brings nothing new and your conclusion that Prince's "religious zeal" was there early on is superficial. You could take a lot of us in our late teens and catch us in our early 40's, and discover we went from a superfioial rejection of certain values when we were defining ourselves to reclaiming of those same values once we've reached a "certain age". You could go back on some of our lives and say.. "See, even then you weren't that much of a rebel. You were bound to show your real self." As evidence of Prince's future "religious zeal", it is feeble, commonplace and boring in its own ZEAL to reach a certain conclusion. And we both know you are Zeal made Man, but a different kind of zeal, right?



BTW Isn't it funny how you didn't come down hard on Wellbeyond when he expressed excitement about the "upcoming" album "News" based on a ONE MINUTE LO-FI SAMPLE whereas I got a ton of critique when I exposed Rave as utter crap based on hearing half the album as pre-release MP3s (and was proven right)?

as posted by Aerogram:
You are right, some can't take it... but I've been critical of Prince since the late eighties. Possessed is simply not a good biography, and there's more than one reason for that. It's difficult to make this kind of "biography as near indictment" work. In the case of someone with Prince's reputation, you need either fresh insight or new info. Neither are provided. Hahn doesn't flesh out Prince much.. he tends to concentrate on what supports his conclusions, This makes for an exceedingly predictable read and a rather tedious book.

Here's what I'd recommend to fans :

If your knowledge of Prince's career is shaky, this book can be interesting as long as you're willing to put up with the predictability.

If you've read DMSR and know a lot of Prince "news" and "rumours" through your reading of such sites as "The Org", you may not find the book very useful. Get it if you're a completist.

I suppose my point was not to judge the biography on whether it was a good read or not. I haven't even finished it, I'm about half way thru. Thus far, I can say that with very few exceptions most of the information divulged so far I was already aware of. Maybe that'll change later in the book.

My point is that there seems to be quite a bit of outrage on this site about the way Prince is being portrayed in the book. I say the author owes Prince nothing in respect to how he paints his subject. His only responsibility is to be truthful in that regard. From what I can see so far, Hahn, in respect to most of the salacious aspects of the book has direct quotes to individuals who have the ability to confirm or refute their statements. Very few 'unnamed sources' in this respect.

With everything said, understand that writing a biography about Prince must be a very difficult undertaking. This is a man who is easily one of the most influential American artists of the 20th century yet there are only a handful of books available about him. This is a person who has been extremely guarded in respect to his private life. As a result die hard fans or fams have come to recycle the same information over and over. For a person with casual interest the things that you assume to be common knowledge may not necessarily be so.

Ultimately, I think the complaints of Hahn being a "hater" are just the squawkings of those unable to handle a little criticism directed at their hero.
[This message was edited Tue Jun 3 12:08:14 PDT 2003 by violator]

I suppose my point was not to judge the biography on whether it was a good read or not. I haven't even finished it, I'm about half way thru. Thus far, I can say that with very few exceptions most of the information divulged so far I was already aware of. Maybe that'll change later in the book.

My point is that there seems to be quite a bit of outrage on this site about the way Prince is being portrayed in the book. I say the author owes Prince nothing in respect to how he paints his subject. His only responsibility is to be truthful in that regard. From what I can see so far, Hahn, in respect to most of the salacious aspects of the book has direct quotes to individuals who have the ability to confirm or refute their statements. Very few 'unnamed sources' in this respect.

With everything said, understand that writing a biography about Prince must be a very difficult undertaking. This is a man who is easily one of the most influential American artists of the 20th century yet there are only a handful of books available about him. This is a person who has been extremely guarded in respect to his private life. As a result die hard fans or fams have come to recycle the same information over and over. For a person with casual interest the things that you assume to be common knowledge may not necessarily be so.

Ultimately, I think the complaints of Hahn being a "hater" are just the squawkings of those unable to handle a little criticism directed at their hero.
[This message was edited Tue Jun 3 12:08:14 PDT 2003 by violator]

I have been coming to this website for years...
The monitors at Prince.org or extremly biased...

They post many prince related artists activties but they never post the Terence Trent Darby News I post..

TTD is billion times more interesting and talented than Lenny Kravitz. or India Irie

I think its because TTD/Sananda's New album "Wild Card" is better than anything anyone has done in Years..

www.sanandamaitreya.com

Check out the Truth on TTD/Sananda June 4 On Jay Leno!!

Nielsen contributed to Hahn's book and, according to the author, backs Possessed's conclusions. It even looks like both writers share the same (terrible) proofreader.

BVH said:

The "new info" brings nothing new and your conclusion that Prince's "religious zeal" was there early on is superficial. You could take a lot of us in our late teens and catch us in our early 40's, and discover we went from a superfioial rejection of certain values when we were defining ourselves to reclaiming of those same values once we've reached a "certain age".

Man, the reason you are always the target of a lot of critique is that you are a zealot in your own right. You are categorical 99,999 % of the time.

You always insist its wall-to-wall crap. Even your darling Alex finds something good to say about The Rainbow Children, coincidentally about a song you treated as "crap" -- The Work Part I ("Yes Prince, we know you can imitate James Brown!" was your initial reaction).

As for WB's comments on NEWS, I didn't see them. Have you seen me actually praise ONA Piano or even Xpectation? I've defended Prince's right to do these low-key projects and indulge in "jazz", but I'm not a big fan of the records, just like I'm not an inconditional fan of any Prince records that came out after Lovesexy.

This reminds me that I don't remember seeing Hahn put TRC's jazz emphasis in proper biographical context. Unless I skipped a page, there's nothing in there that even alludes to Prince parents -- who, of course, were both jazz musicians when they met -- who were ill around the time TRC was recorded and who would die within months of each other. Ever noticed that the Joni Mitchell cover Prince dedicated to his father on ONA Piano has the "drink a case of u" line all over it?

Aerogram said:

Hilarious: complaining about someone's proofreader and then getting the name of the author wrong.

Aerogram said:

You've obviously not read the book.

Maybe I read the "bootleg" version?

Aerogram said:

That's about the same % as me being right. The difference is that it doesn't take me YEARS to admit to something being shit or overrated.

I'm well aware you think you're right all the time. You share that trait with rather unsavory historical figures, but let's not name them.

Aerogram said:

Hilarious! So I'm wrong if I don't like anything at all. I'm sick of the pathetic clutching at straws that so many Prince fans mistake for "support" of their artist -- "yeah, it's shit, but at least it's not as shit as earlier works".

You've been saying that you're sick of it for over half a decade, but you still visit Prince sites, still get the boots, still buy the records, still take on fans who disagree with your flat assessments. Maybe you should ask yourself why you are so fascinated by what makes you sick -- there's probably a medical term for it.

Aerogram said:

As per usual: completely missing the point.

Probably like you think I didn't read the book just because I don't interpret it *exactly* like you.

Don't you see a pattern here? You think you're right all the time and give terse little "missing the point" answers when someone doesn't adhere to your dogma. You are not too different from the average Bible Belt Televangelist. Prince is your Satan, which is quite fitting considering you've thoroughly demonized him almost to a pathological degree.

Aerogram said:

That would have been relevant if it weren't the case that Prince has performed that song countless times during his career regardless of the health of his parents. The inclusion of the song has probably far more to do with offering fans a "treat" -- "finally an officially released cover of this song!" -- much like the inclusion of some fan favorites during the Celebration and ONA tour. It's "look at me I'm such a real artist I'm covering Joni Mitchell!" muso stuff.

I have been coming to this website for years...
The monitors at Prince.org or extremly biased...

They post many prince related artists activties but they never post the Terence Trent Darby News I post..

TTD is billion times more interesting and talented than Lenny Kravitz. or India Irie

I think its because TTD/Sananda's New album "Wild Card" is better than anything anyone has done in Years..

www.sanandamaitreya.com

Check out the Truth on TTD/Sananda June 4 On Jay Leno!!

BartVanHemelen said:

As for WB's comments on NEWS, I didn't see them.