New topic
Printableprettylies said: As my sig on my profile says "a mind changed against its will, is of the same opinion still." We both seem to be Beatles fans, we both seem to be lennon fans, we even both seem to prefer Prince from 10 years ago and back .. rather than 10 years ago to present. I think thats enuff common ground to be able 2 agree to disagree on anything else. I didn't join here to justify my opinions. I just came on cause i'm a Prince fan, a music fan and like to talk to other fans. I'm happy for people to disagree with my opinion and to have a different one. Let's just leave it at that eh and both enjoy listening to what we like,lol  Fair enough. I wasn't trying to get you to justify anything, just to clarify. I've never heard Paul McCartney put in the same league as Prince on any instrument, esp. not guitar, and was just curious, as I am a fan of both and own the majority of their catalogues, where I might find these hellified guitar solos or technical plucking by Mr. Mac that would enlighten me to his skills on the axe that would raise them beyond 'average' in my mind. [Edited 4/9/07 9:34am] No hard feelings. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
|
The Beatles created a more complex, mature and diverse body of work. 1. This is all well and good. Even if you were dead on accurate---this still does not determine who is "better". Maybe more preferable to you, but not "better". Answer this--Are The Beatles better than Miles Davis? 2. I disagree. Complexity: The Beatles were innovators, originators, and broke/remade the mold for pop music. However, just because they were the 1st to do things doesn't mean that others, including Prince, haven't done music that was equally complex. The Beatles were EXTREMELY complex for a pop/rock group but Prince is often equally complex in his production technique and lyrically. Just because he came after The Beatles and often used their blueprints doesn't make it less complex--just less original. Mature: What is mature? The Beatles and Prince are essentially pop acts that often skew off into other musical areas. Neither is guilt free of using inane lyrics, simple pop hooks, and formulaic rhythms. I would challenge you by saying that Prince lyrically and thematically covered more ground about religion, spoke more honestly/maturely about sex, and revealed a male sensitivity that surpassed The Beatles. The Beatles didn't talk frankly about sex.They used metaphors where as Prince often just says it. Diversity: I love The Beatles. I really do. However, after nearly 30 years Prince has them beat on this. I know this is an UNPOPULAR opinion, but, simply put,I never heard The Beatles do James Brown. They never did soul music. To me, that eliminates them from the conversation when it comes to music diversity. Prince gave us "Around the World in a Day". Prince gave us "Housequake". Where is The Beatles equivalent to "Housequake"? Where is their equivalent to "Do me, Baby"? Again, I am not saying this makes Prince "better". Perhaps, you should give me some specific song examples of The Fab Four being More mature, more complex, and more diverse to help your point. You could convince me with a stronger argument--as of now I just don't see it. Using new music, sound and instruments.
While Prince is much more a mix of things that already existed before him. The Beatles are true originators, creating new concepts and ideas. They created some of the most amazing melodies. I can't say the same for Prince. The Beatles are definitely more talented artistically. The Beatles didn't use "new" instruments per se--they used pre existing instruments in a new way. Sure, The Beatles created amazing melodies (which is kind of subjective), Prince not only created amazng melodies--he used rhythms that The Beatles wouldn't have touched. They never created a bassline that was like "let's work". Again, I am not saying who is better--just asking that you give credit where it's due. Now you can say Prince is a better performer, singer, dancer or musician. But I put John and Paul higher in my book. Hey if you think John and Paul were better singers, dancer, performers and musicans --God Bless you. That's your right. Just don't tell the millions of Superbowl viewers who fell asleep during Paul's halftime show. The Beatles were genius's on record, however they weren't even the best live act of their era--let alone all time. [Edited 4/9/07 15:28pm] "New Power slide...." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
This question is a good litmus test for one's Prince zealotry and how it stacks against their knowledge of history.
You seem to be from a mind set that The Beatles are automatically the greatest of all time. Since it's music, it's automatically a subjective claim--no matter how popular that opinion is. The Beatles, quite simply, are the supreme pop music act of all time. They pioneered the boy band, they introduced psychedelic pop, they blazed the trail for experimental art rock, they practically invented the concept album and the music video, they were the first to play a live stadium concert, the first to play to a global television audience, and they expanded what themes and subject matter were appropriate for mainstream radio. They captivated the entire world, defined a whole era, reflected the spirit of the most radical, turbulent generation of modern times (maybe ever), and they dominated the charts to their very last album. The Beatles are synonymous with fame, delirious fan girls, world wide mania. When a band makes it and performs to sellout crowds, they say they feel like the Beatles. They are to rock what Einstein is to intelligence.
No one is debating their impact or innovation or place in history--just wondering how massive popularity and innovation automatically makes them "better". Again, McDonald's is popular and innovative--does that make it "better" than anything else? Not necessarily. If you think Prince's stylistic changes are remarkable, consider The Beatle's transformation from teenybopper bubblegum group to brooding folk singers to tripped out Middle Eastern mystics to socially conscious activist rockers. Same could be said of Madonna. The Beatles were essetially a pop rock group that often veered into other genres. They never made an album that was different genre. They never even made a soul/r&b album. You spoke of the social movements of the 60's--answer this: Did The Beatles really transcend race lines like other acts such as James Brown, Sly Stone,Henrdrix, etc.? I think Elvis broke more color barriers than The Beatles ever did. I think Prince has a more diverse fan base than John, Paul, and the boys. The Beatles were a pop/rock group they didn't do soul. Prince does both---so for being able to stylistically change with every album--why weren't they broad enough in their range to do a James Brown type of funk song? Why didn't they do soul music? Sure they covered some early R&B--but they didn't really master the genre. And they did it without a precedent. Superstardom didn't even exist until Beatlemania. And rock 'n' roll wasn't considered art until Sgt. Pepper. Not only did they set the standard for pop celebrity, they also set the template for pop artistry and evolution, which Prince cribbed from liberally to chart his own development.
I call bullshit. Elvis Presley invented superstardom as well as the blue print to everything that being a superstar is. And if you think that Sgt. Pepper is really the 1st "art album" you need to look up The Doors and Bob Dylan. Prince is all kinds of wonderful, possibly the most talent ever assembled in one human being, but anyone serious about music history will have to defer to the gargantuan achievement of the Beatles.
No one was deferring their achievments--just nitpicking some subjective music history claims and wondering how they make The Beatles "better". Their contribution is so seminal to the formation of rock 'n' roll, its idioms and forms, its attitude, look, and spirit, that they rightly deserve the title greatest rock band/pop act/artist of all time. I'm sure there's a case to be made for Prince (if anyone approaches the Beatles' artistry it's him), but splitting hairs over the precise meaning of "better" or dismissing all notions of rank as "subjective" is probably not the way to do it. The Beatles are definitely the most popular and,just like Muhammad Ali in boxing, they'll get every kind of good talk that comes with that. However, that doesn't necessarily make them "the best"-just the most popular. I love both Prince and The Beatles I just see a lot of subjectivity and blurring of facts to further arguments. I guess that's what is part of the charm of prince.org. I still maintain that there is no "best"- just your favorite. It's art not a competition. [Edited 4/9/07 15:24pm] "New Power slide...." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Good stuff, Skywalker.
And there is no doubt Sgt. Pepper was a watershed moment in rock history but I assume most Beatle zealots here have heard of another little album that came before it -- Pet Sounds. The last copy I had of it contained liner notes by McCartney and I believe George Martin detailing the influence that little 'art record' had on what would become the Sgt. Pepper. No hard feelings. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Wall said: Good stuff, Skywalker.
And there is no doubt Sgt. Pepper was a watershed moment in rock history but I assume most Beatle zealots here have heard of another little album that came before it -- Pet Sounds. The last copy I had of it contained liner notes by McCartney and I believe George Martin detailing the influence that little 'art record' had on what would become the Sgt. Pepper. A great album. I remember an intervierw with Brian Wilson on t.v when he was over here maybe 2 years ago, maybe last I can't remember. He said he listened to Rubber Soul and thought he had to raise the bar, and then Pet Sounds came out. I don't think sgt pepper actually sounded like Pet Sounds,what does, tho it did certainly influence it hugely I think.and has always been mentioned as such by Beatles members.. And what better influence than Brian Wilson. Such a shame his own father cudn't appreciate him. I think songs like Heroes and Villians and God only Knows were pure class 2.Of course the Beatles were influenced by what was going on, I feel that's pretty much the same for artists of all genres and eras. Brian Wilson mentions the Beatls and their influence on him in practically every interview he does, and what goes around comes around. I also guess the Beatles were heavily influenced in their change of styles by Dylan as well as Brian Wilson and many others. It's all great music to me,and on that note I think i'll bow out of this thread,lol. I'll try to stick to Prince in here while its a Prince music forum from now on. Peace 2 everyone. [Edited 4/9/07 17:13pm] [Edited 4/9/07 17:32pm] " A mind changed against its will, is of the same opinion still" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
skywalker said: I still maintain that there is no "best"- just your favorite. It's art not a competition. [/b]
 Poeple can't seem to get it through their head that popularity and sales don't equal 'better' and all judgments on creativity, complexity, maturity and the like are subjective and personal. About the only thing you can objectively compare is the skill in playing a particular instrument. However, even that may be subject to the limitations of a specific performance and to even do that you really have to see each artist play the same bit of music.
There is no answer to the question of 'who is better'. I'm sorry for the people that strongly feel they need validation for their opinions, but that's the truth. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I've been comtemplating this question for several days now.
I still don't know who's better & now, I'm tired. So I'm going to bed. And while I hope that I'll have a definitive answer for all y'all tomorrow, I'm hoping even more that the answer turns out to be Prince. Pray for me, y'all. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
jtfolden said: skywalker said: I still maintain that there is no "best"- just your favorite. It's art not a competition. [/b]
Poeple can't seem to get it through their head that popularity and sales don't equal 'better' and all judgments on creativity, complexity, maturity and the like are subjective and personal. About the only thing you can objectively compare is the skill in playing a particular instrument. However, even that may be subject to the limitations of a specific performance and to even do that you really have to see each artist play the same bit of music.
There is no answer to the question of 'who is better'. I'm sorry for the people that strongly feel they need validation for their opinions, but that's the truth. Yep. I've said all I have to say about this. I like both Prince and The Beatles very much, but at the end of the day Prince just does more for me. That doesn't mean either are "better". Prince is just funkier than The Beatles and has many more flavors for me to choose from. Plus, he's does everything in concert that I could ever want or hope to see in a live act. I guess that's as close to "better" as he needs to be for this kid. "New Power slide...." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Graycap23 said: The biggest issue I have is that with groups like the Beatles, I like their music and I HEAR the music.
With Prince, I FEEL the music, and that is way more IMPORTANT 2 me. I've NEVER felt a Beatles song. N E V E R Wow, this is really unfortanate,  I would hope that everyone could be moved by the lyrics of a Beatles song. Diff strokes for Diff folks | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
For me it would be like trying to pick a favorite child. There's no way I'd say one's better than the other. I love The Beatles and Prince, perhaps on different levels. " a newborn child knows nothing of destruction, nothing of love & hate" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i own NOT ONE Beatles record. i've heard portions of songs just from being alive for three decades and that's been sufficient for me, never felt compelled to buy anything, don't think i ever will. i don't doubt there's probably some non-mainstream gems i'd appreciate from a songwriting perspective, but i don't like any of the singing voices i've heard. also, something in me just resists something/someone mainstream america, heck the world, deems gods, who can do no wrong. (my anti-establishment streak i guess). so to answer the thread's question, yes for me Prince is better. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
once and 4 all, THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Revolution said: Let's put this to bed....Prince is the best...EVER.
Argue all you want, but NOBODY(s) comes close to his genius. I concur! The best ever period no one comes close Luminous beings are we...not this crude matter.
Is this 2morrow or just the END of time? The Funk will always b with u "I've got a face, not just my race, Bang Bang I've got you babe!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
skywalker said: 1.Picking up on someone's spelling mistakes has always been the refuge for those who have no argument. It has? I thought it was just being polite. It's Paul McCartney. I thought grown ups were old enough to know how to spell it. 
If you are so sure that you are right, why are you arguing with me? Tell me this--Do you think that The Beatles are among the top 10 live acts ever? Do you think they were close to being the greatest live rock and roll band? I don't. I don't think they were even the best live act of their era. Furthermore, I don't think any of them (together or seperate) could do what Prince does in concert. Again, that doesn't make Prince "better"--but it is something to think about. Their musical genius was primarily rooted in what they did in the studio. Go to bed, son. Only grown ups here. Who cannot spell McCartney.
[Edited 4/7/07 23:29pm] [Edited 4/7/07 23:44pm] U are a true Jedi Luminous beings are we...not this crude matter.
Is this 2morrow or just the END of time? The Funk will always b with u "I've got a face, not just my race, Bang Bang I've got you babe!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Prince is different than the Beatles, not better. They are equally great for different reasons, in my opinion.
The thing about the Beatles is that they released very little filler, while I think Prince has released a few clunkers here and there. Blame it on the massive output from his musical brain.
jeff http://jeffreyanderson.blogspot.com | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
skywalker said: This question is a good litmus test for one's Prince zealotry and how it stacks against their knowledge of history.
You seem to be from a mind set that The Beatles are automatically the greatest of all time. Since it's music, it's automatically a subjective claim--no matter how popular that opinion is. No one was deferring their achievments--just nitpicking some subjective music history claims and wondering how they make The Beatles "better". Their contribution is so seminal to the formation of rock 'n' roll, its idioms and forms, its attitude, look, and spirit, that they rightly deserve the title greatest rock band/pop act/artist of all time. I'm sure there's a case to be made for Prince (if anyone approaches the Beatles' artistry it's him), but splitting hairs over the precise meaning of "better" or dismissing all notions of rank as "subjective" is probably not the way to do it. The Beatles are definitely the most popular and,just like Muhammad Ali in boxing, they'll get every kind of good talk that comes with that. However, that doesn't necessarily make them "the best"-just the most popular. I love both Prince and The Beatles I just see a lot of subjectivity and blurring of facts to further arguments. I guess that's what is part of the charm of prince.org. I still maintain that there is no "best"- just your favorite. It's art not a competition. [Edited 4/9/07 15:24pm] Give My young Apprentice a hand truly one of the best and most well informed posts I have ever read on here....superb! Yoda Luminous beings are we...not this crude matter.
Is this 2morrow or just the END of time? The Funk will always b with u "I've got a face, not just my race, Bang Bang I've got you babe!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Yes of course he is "better" than the Beatles...and of course he is "worse" than the Beatles. Prince is also the best and worst artist of all time.
All of this is 100% SUBJECTIVE and if someone thinks Prince sucks, they are correct and if someone else thinks he is great and better than the Beatles, then they are correct. Your question should have been, "Is Prince better than The Beatles to you?" [Edited 4/11/07 10:59am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
FunkiestOne said: Yes of course he is "better" than the Beatles...and of course he is "worse" than the Beatles. Prince is also the best and worst artist of all time.
All of this is 100% SUBJECTIVE and if someone thinks Prince sucks, they are correct and if someone else thinks he is great and better than the Beatles, then they are correct. Your question should have been, "Is Prince better than The Beatles to you?" [Edited 4/11/07 10:59am] I agree  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Wall said: Good stuff, Skywalker.
And there is no doubt Sgt. Pepper was a watershed moment in rock history but I assume most Beatle zealots here have heard of another little album that came before it -- Pet Sounds. The last copy I had of it contained liner notes by McCartney and I believe George Martin detailing the influence that little 'art record' had on what would become the Sgt. Pepper. I have Pet Sounds, and even the remastered cd edition of all the bootleg/alt versions of what went into Pet Sounds. It's great! But it's not quite the cacophony of insane creativity called Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts club Band. Pet Sounds is much more cohesive and disciplined... and not as dramatic. My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
If it's about the songs... then, no.
If it's about the music... then, no. If it's about overall artistic achievement... then, no. So, I guess that's a no, then. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
First, let me admit I did not read many posts in this thread. With that said...
I seriously cannot get into The Beatles. I've listened to Revolver, SPLHC, the White Album...the music just isn't my style. So, for me, the answer is yes. And, I think the answer is "yes" in general. I can easily spot the influence of Prince (especially since he's only one generation removed from this one). The influence of The Beatles is much more vague. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
