following on from a brief org exchange with BVH he, as he sometimes does, got me thinking about how 'relevant P is to the current scene?
So my Q to you is
1] given his longevity in the industry and on going success does he even need to be seen as relevant?
2] what would be your definition of relevance anyway?.

Personally I think the following:

-as a live perfromer / entertainer = 100%, bums on seats / tickets sold since 2004 more than prove that.

-influencing the current generation = 100% , watching Maxwell, listening to his obvious influence to the sounds of JT, Kanye West, Black Eyed Peas amongst many others. Also he seems to be referenced / spoken about more and more with artists from many generes.

-Musically = IMHO = 100% no, kills me to say it. I still get the same giddy excitement that most of us do when a new project is announed. Whilst I find his CDs from Rave onwards listeneable and often highly enjoyable and certainly better than most of the crap in the charts [in fact I think the LF disc is his best in many years] I have accepted that he either lacks the willingness to push himself anymore or his decision making is awful when collating albums or simply he just can't do it anymore and recah the heights that he once did.

-Business / being in control of his own music = 100% yes and whilst pearl jam and Trent Rez' are certainly way ahead of P , P will always be recognised and referenced as being a major artist who did things his way.Yes he gets into bed with the big boys but at least he has the clout to cut his own 1 off deals.

-Internet innovator = Maybe! - things could have been so much better, LF website promised so much and ,so far, has delievred sooooo little. With the right will power he could in a month deliver a supreme website that keeps hard core happy, gains new fans and makes him extra $ as we are all only to happy to pay!.

-As a celeb ? - 100% yes - in the modern age of celebrity if he wants it it's there, you don't score front row seats at 4 major Paris fashion shows by being a nobody, shallow but true!.

I could go on but IMHO I think he is relevant in many areas except the 1 that truly counts i.e. on record.

Prince is not relevant. That doesn't mean he isnt any good anymore. The Rolling Stones, Clapton, Steview Wonder U2 et. al aren't relevant. Nobody in th e game 25 yers plus is. This is pop music we are talking about here.

Oh and dont use BVH as a tipping point. He isn't relevant either.

It always makes me laugh when people talk about whether or not an artist is relevant. The likes of Lady Gaga, Amy Winehouse and other so-called relevant artists around today are entirely irrelevant to me and probably the vast majority of serious music fans.

Prince's music will always be relevant in my life and millions of other peoples for generations to come.

I find it incredibly arrogant when people say "so and so isn't relevant anymore" - well, that may be the case to you, but I got news for ya:


[Edited 10/9/09 9:09am]

MattyJam said:

I dont think the original poster was talking about 'personal relevance' but 'commercial relevance'

Because if that was the case, my dog is more relevant than any artists ever.

xlr8r said:

Maybe so, but even then, what do you base "commercial relevance" on? The charts? That's all rigged anyway.

Prince hasn't had a hit record since 1994, but sold out 21 nights at an arena in one city. Beyonce couldn't do that. Lil Wayne or Lady Gaga couldn't do that.

It's all a load of shit at the end of the day.

MattyJam said:

MattyJam said:

Oh I agree but let's be real now. Prince is not in any way and influence of the zeitgeist of now regardles of sales good and bad. Just like the artists I mentioned in my previous post.

skywalker said:

In my generation P is sooooo not relavent. However The Beatles, AC/DC, and U2 arguably are.

Don't ask me why. I don't completely get my fellow generation's musical taste.

funkyhead said:

How does Pearl Jam and Trent Rez'are ahead of Prince if they are following every single businnes move that he made????


Internet innovator = Maybe??? Dude are you really a Prince fan?? Do you know he invented the myspace and Itune system back in the mid 90's??? the system that every single artist in the world use.

aarontj said:

Dude, did you know that Prince did NOT invent myspace or Itunes? Tom Anderson-founder of myspace. Jeff Robbin-invented ITunes. It's funny how google works.

Define relevant. Hit singles on the charts? Cause that is about the only thing he doesnt have that the so called "relevant" performers have. His last 4 albums have debuted in the top 10 on the billboards. He sells out concerts with NO problem. He attends any major event he wants because they want him there..why?..Because Prince is a major draw. Its no secret that he is in constant demand to perform at most music award shows. He has been in more music magazines since 2004 than he has since the 80's and early 90's. I could go on and on..but I would still like to know what "relevant" means regarding this.
[Edited 10/9/09 11:50am]

I love Prince. I would pay to see him perform tomorrow.
But I'm not sure how 'relevant' the music he makes today
is to the wider music scene. To be honest, it's not like his music
has been cutting edge for the last 20 years anyway. But who cares?
It's Prince and his legacy is well and cemented.
He is a living legend and consummate performer.
And, in today's music climate with so much retro '80's
pop songs, he's very relevant, even if his current output isn't.
[Edited 10/9/09 15:25pm]

skywalker said:

Co-sign

owen said:

About as spot on as you could get, Owen.

I'd add that it is his legacy that is relevant - same goes for the Beatles etc that were mentioned above - you can't say those artists are not relevant in any way. Like Prince, they helped shape the popular music scene that we have today. Whilst these artists are not relevant in a contemporary manner, they already did their bit and to such an extent as to achieve a lasting relevance.

Prince is relevant to those who appreciate real music by real musicians. Also to his fanbase to varying degrees. Radio & Video Channels are so out of touch with what's good music and what's marketable that they push one hit wonders and more non musicians everyday. Prince can't fit in that mold and so he gets no airplay on most markets.

Relevance is an individual concept based upon one's own tastes.

I believe Prince is still relevant to the media because they jump all over him when he does appear in public and we've seen the photos to prove that on the Org..
[Edited 10/9/09 17:53pm]

aarontj said:

you are joking right?, trent and P.Jam are light years ahead of P. Not to say that P isn't also light years ahead of others but those 2 really do set the example of what can be achieved if an artist really wnats to 100% engage with their fan base. I guess just can't be arsed!.

I don't listen to artists who are relevant to the current scene. The scene is also different in every country. A hit record or two from current popular songs might find it's way to my ipod every now and then, that's all.

Prince is relevant for me now because I appreciate him for his talent and what he's capable of. The man's creativity over the years from 1984 when I first heard him (I think) up to now is immense. There are gems on every album & I've been away for a long while. It will never be the same as 1984 or 1994 because my musical ears have been filled to the brim. There is little new for me to hear, yet still his new music I've heard, equals & betters the stuff I've been listening to in the last 14 years.

The fact that current artists reference him speak enough about his influence.
As a live performer I think anyone would always want to see Prince. You know he's got the goods in house.

Music changes every decade. People age and the new generation takes over. While classic artists are still around, for the younger generation, the appeal is always for something new, young and fresh. That's life and 100% normal, has nothing to do with Prince being able to create hits or not. MJ perhaps managed because he bought out so few albums in comparison.

Regarding the internet and the newly announced Dance for me "special party" for Lotusflower French fans, that to me is worth far more than what's put online. Of course if you're not in that country, new web content is the next best.

Celebrity? Isn't Prince a little like MJ in that regard? A household name?
He has nothing more to prove so no I don't think it matters if he's relevant or not. People who respect good music, will always come back to Prince.

No it doesn't matter. We all know what "relevant" is, and why it's a crock. Prince is a legacy act, and is only "relevant" on those terms, i.e: comeback projects, hits tours and being a noted influence on "relevant" new acts.

On these terms, Prince has been more "relevant" in the past couple of years than he has been since before the years.

There is a certain watch maker that builds about 30 to 50 pieces each year. Each piece is worth $1 million dollars minimum. Would u rather own one of those or the relevent Timex at your local Wallmart?

Graycap23 said:

Right now, with quantity over quality P is the Timex!.

I think relevance is a personal thing. I don't find Miley Cyrus, Kanye West or a whole lot of the people who get airplay relevent. I'm not buying their music so their stuff doesn't matter to me. I love lots of artists who the general public thinks are well past their prime but I love them and jam to them as if they had a number 1 album AND song right now because they are relevant to ME. I would love for the general public to know what Prince is doing musically everytime he drops a new CD, I really would but as long as I know what he's doing and I'm enjoying what he's doing musically, it really doesn't matter that much. He's relevant to ME. Fuck everybody else.

One more point, if he was THAT irrelevant, then he would not be debuting high on the charts with his releases since 2004, so that says something.

funkyhead said:

lol...NOT in this life.