I received Brian Morton's "Prince: A Thief In The Temple" in the mail yesterday, and after reading the first dozen pages or so, I wonder why I even bothered to order this. Because it is a pretentious heap of crap, just like I expected.

1. I don't mind if these kind of books are printed as paperbacks only, the sales figures don't warrant a hardcover edition. But this one is nowhere near the quality of a decent paperback, and is more like the cheap throwaway versions of novels that get published a year or so after the first publication date.

2. It's not even 200 pages, and it isn't a large book, and yet the font is huge and there's lotsa whitespace.

3. I've read the first dozen pages and literally EVERY page contains a ridiculous error. Page 1: the author claims that Prince played the symbol-shaped guitar at the 1988 London aftershow. Considering that Prince didn't adopt the symbol until 1992 and that the symbol-guitar wasn't built until much later, that's quite a feat. One of the pics in the book is CLEARLY from the Purple Rain era (Prince in his white lace outfit) and yet it is claimed to date from the late 1980s (IIRC, I don't have the book handy here).

-----

For those who want another viewpoint:

http://www.metro.co.uk/me...page_id=28
http://living.scotsman.co...=383692007
http://theplayethic.typep...prodi.html
http://www.sundayherald.c...39.0.0.php
http://www.energylab.de/w...ss/?p=4229

See also: http://www.prince.org/msg/7/218966

-----

Re the symbol, a short history to show how easy it is to research something like this:

http://www.uptown.se/2005...elaw.shtml



Go to http://www.copyright.gov/.../cohm.html , and do a "Combined Search (all categories above)" for "Schoening". One of the results is "SCHOENING, ELISABETH", select that one and you get:



Oh, and the symbol guitar has been the subject of a lawsuit, so that could have also supplied some info to the author: http://www.projectposner....207F3d402/ .

-----

Awesome! There's nothing like a cheaply made and poorly researched bio . I'm going to buy it now!

Does it at any time reveal anything we haven't already heard about Prince?

Apart from the Uptown releases, most of these 'bio's' are utter pieces of crap.

OperatingThetan said:

I thought Dave Hill´s "Pop Life" was an interesting read.It´s out of print now.

Those reviews above seem to praise Morton´s book more than they praise Prince and his music. The book might be shit but, you never know, maybe he´s interviewed some interesting people who can tell a few anecdotes from way back in the days.Have you read any further than 12 pages ? Does it get more interesting, i.e. does it contain lots of interviews ?

thanks for the heads up Bart but why are you buying more books about Prince?

KoolEaze said:

Maybe the reviewers have never read anything to compare it to.

wonder505 said:

1. Cuz I got 'em all so why not buy this one.

2. I heard he'd talked to former employees, so who knows...

3. I got it cheap.

BartVanHemelen said:

but why? especially you. you claim to not be a fan and hate Prince. at this point what do you care if anyone talked to former employees. You can do what you want ofcourse however based on your posts and now this you seem truly Prince obsessed.

oh well...bizarre.
[Edited 3/28/07 12:02pm]

KoolEaze said:

see here: http://www.prince.org/msg/7/218966

also, I agree Hill's book was the best I'd read prior to DMSR. It can be found used online I believe. This book took much from Hill's.

BartVanHemelen said:[quote]I received Brian Morton's "Prince: A Thief In The Temple" in the mail yesterday, and after reading the first dozen pages or so, I wonder why I even bothered to order this. Because it is a pretentious heap of crap, just like I expected.

Most of them are....

wonder505 said:

Because that's how Bart is. And yes he is just as obsessed with P as some of the uber-fams that post here. Only his intent is to get info on stuff he can bitch about.

wonder505 said:

No, that's baloney you made up in your mind. Am I a fan? Of pre-1996 Prince, yeah.

wonder505 said:

Because "former" usually means Revolution/NPG members, i.e. pre-1996 folk. Who knows, maybe he just got lucky and accidentally got some interesting info from one of them, but I won't know that until I read the book. There's one bio out there that's 95% rubbish, but the remaining 5% are very interesting quotes from an interview with an engineer who worked at the Park for years.

wonder505 said:

No, I just know a lot. Ghee, I use my brain, SORRY. Prince -- pre-1996 Prince -- is one of many things that interest me, and thus I keep tabs on it. So what? I'm "obsessing" about an interesting musician, YOU are obsessing about a fan.

BartVanHemelen said:

I just found it odd to continue buying books about somebody you're not a fan of (as written in your profile) and don't care for (based on the majority of post you write which are negative).

But I see you finally admit you're obsessed so now it makes sense.

I think one of the great things about Prince is how his haters can be just as obsessed over him as his fans.

Wonder505 I think your going a little to harsh on the guy. Ease up a litte, as I mentioned many months ago your posts are some of the best on this site in my opinion but this thread is doing you no justice. He obviously like pre-1996 era Prince but as we all know P keeps a tight camp. Anyways you'd be better staring your own thread.

i ask again
why is a Prince a thief?
and in what temple?

the title is

BartVanHemelen said:

I must say, Bart, that this is by far your most reasonable post on Prince since, oh, 1996? And I mean it too!

vinaysfunk said:

I'm sure Wonder505 can hold his/her own but you must be new to this site because Bart doesn't hold back on anybody and hasn't since he began posting way back when. Sooo, what goes around ... comes around.

KoolEaze said:

i was looking at that on Saturday. i always loved the chapter names,

Ifsixwuz9 said:

I don't know about new but I've read the posts for 2-3 years but have been posting for the last one year. As far as Bart is concerned there will always be people who lash out for no good reason and these people are best ignored not debated with. Anyways it's all good. Wonder505 where U at? I know you can hold your own but it's waste of your good time.

KoolEaze said:

You can still get it used through Amazon.



http://www.amazon.com/Pri...-Dave-Hill
[Edited 3/30/07 18:20pm]

BartVanHemelen said:

I agree Bart that the book has errors and it isn't really up to much, but ... as you say, you expected that.

Regarding the errors, which you say appear literally on every page of the first twelve, I think it's probably best to read page 4 carefully.

This appears to be Morton's weak attempt at getting the reader's attention. He states, referring to the 1988 London aftershow:

"I have false memories of that first gig, which has become a kind of composite. Clothes, songs, and other guitars from earlier and later in Prince's career seem to be a part of it"

In other words, these opening pages aren't supposed to be accurate factual references, but rather something akin to a dream sequence based on a mixture of memories.

It's a poor and poorly executed opening to the book in my view. For those that know their Prince information, it is annoying and misleading. For those that don't, it's just misleading and confusing. It's possible that it could be an excuse for the author's poor grasp of the factual detail, which he amply demonstrates during the book. And, as you say, it comes across as pretentious, which at least sets the tone for the rest of the book.

.

I'll pass on this, then.

Thanks.

I never would have been dumb enough to fall for this, never!

langebleu said:

No, it's called LAZINESS. Prince didn't use that symbol until well into the 1990s, simply because it didn't exist in 1988. The guiter dates back to even later. Oh, and there's VIDEO of that gig.

And like I said, there's stupid stuff like this on almost every page.

He claims Prince recorded a cover of Like a Prayer -- false, Prince sent Madonna a tape with him playing loud guitar all over it, and she used some of it in a remix. Also, he seems not to know that Madonna and Prince have collaborated numerous times.

He claims it's rare that male artists cover Prince songs.

He uses "apparently" all the time even when he's talking about established facts, yet nonsensical crap like "the title of The Black Album refers to the Beatles' White Album" is presented as fact. It is well-known for instance that MJ had invited Prince on "Bad", hell Quincy Jones tells the story on the special edition of the album, yet this requires an "apparently".

He claims Camille is a female.

He claims The Time was an existing band and that Prince gave them a shot.

Page 86: Wendy Melvoin is a keybord player.

He claims Morris day's acting career took off after Purple Rain. Really? http://imdb.com/name/nm0206528/ . How many people know MD the actor, and how many know MD as frontman of The Time?

Page 97: Darling Nikki contains a "buried away" backwards vocal -- has that idiot even LISTENED to the track?

Page 104: author seems to know very little about W&L's post-Prince career.

Page 110: "When I want sax I send for Candy" -- has he LISTENED to the song? It's "I CALL Candy"

Claims there's an instrumental version of Paisley park on the 12 inch.

Claims the "parental advisory" sticker is provided by the PRMC and that TBA was to be one of the first albums to carry it -- let's see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...l_Advisory

:

Etcetera.

wonder505 said:

No, that's the only option I liked.

wonder505 said:

I see you still can't properly read what is written and instead make stuff up.

I also note that you didn't refute that you are obsessed with a fan.

.
[Edited 4/2/07 0:39am]

BartVanHemelen said:[quote]

wonder505 said:

No, that's the only option I liked.

wonder505 said:

oh please! Besides insinuating that I'm obsessed with you is you're way of getting me to back off, which is a pretty lame way to counteract a point I made. And there's nothing to make up. I think my question was pretty valid.

Anyway, I promised to behave, so carry on.
[Edited 4/2/07 9:17am]

BartVanHemelen said:

I gotta side with Bart on this.

I don't buy any of these poor excuses 4 journalism using the word "biography", mostly just because of these type of errors. Any INACCURACY discredits the whole piece. People literally shouldn't be allowed 2 publish this crap, and with the errors Bart points out above, this guy didn't even do the basic research. It's just wannabe biographers, trying 2 cash in on the latest "Prince resurgence", with sloppy and yes, lazy, attempts.

BartVanHemelen said:

I'm not trying to excuse the guy in the least. I read the book in its first week of release and reported here on some of the factual inaccuracies including some of the above (and probably some that fall into the etcetera).