V10LETBLUES said:

HonestMan13 said:

Also keeping in mind that radio DJ's are basically told what to play and how often to play it. There are so few who can actually spin what they want on a consistent basis. If I had a radio station and could play what I want to a large demographic you'd hear more people talking about Prince, Nikka Costa, J'Davey and Van Hunt and a lot less chatter about Chris Brown and Rihanna in that area.

But Prince in the early 90's was not an obscure indie act that would slip "under the radar."

I think plenty of people listened and passed.

The thing is can a DJ play Prince tracks all day if that's what he wanted to or is that not going to be allowed? Could he play any artist that's not considered mainstream, crossover, pop, hot, it right now and ignore the pressure of advertisers and management. If DJ's could push the music they liked more you'd see a different radio landscape than what we have countrywide. For one thing it'd be more diverse than what he have now. This goes beyond indie and established. There are lots of artists who don't get heavy airplay that used to all over American radio. Did they all start making bad music or did the market just change against them at some point?

midnightmover said:

V10LETBLUES said:

But Prince in the early 90's was not an obscure indie act that would slip "under the radar."

It happens all the time. When artists are no longer hot they reach a point where the quality of their work becomes irrelevant since people just aren't paying attention anymore.

Prince was past his best by this point, but he was still better than most of the younger artists coming up at the time. He just wasn't "in" anymore. And, as others have said, his questionable production choices, ever-deteriorating dress sense and nutty behaviour really sealed the deal in most peoples' minds. They filed Prince in the mental drawer marked "over" and that was that. Only a masterpiece could've saved him at that point and "Gold" - though good - wasn't quite that.

Not even close.

HonestMan13 said:

The thing is can a DJ play Prince tracks all day if that's what he wanted to or is that not going to be allowed? Could he play any artist that's not considered mainstream, crossover, pop, hot, it right now and ignore the pressure of advertisers and management. If DJ's could push the music they liked more you'd see a different radio landscape than what we have countrywide. For one thing it'd be more diverse than what he have now. This goes beyond indie and established. There are lots of artists who don't get heavy airplay that used to all over American radio. Did they all start making bad music or did the market just change against them at some point?

Bad music.

V10LETBLUES said:

HonestMan13 said:

The thing is can a DJ play Prince tracks all day if that's what he wanted to or is that not going to be allowed? Could he play any artist that's not considered mainstream, crossover, pop, hot, it right now and ignore the pressure of advertisers and management. If DJ's could push the music they liked more you'd see a different radio landscape than what we have countrywide. For one thing it'd be more diverse than what he have now. This goes beyond indie and established. There are lots of artists who don't get heavy airplay that used to all over American radio. Did they all start making bad music or did the market just change against them at some point?

Bad music.

So everything on the radio now is considered "good music"?

HonestMan13 said:

V10LETBLUES said:

So everything on the radio now is considered "good music"?

There is a lot of good stuff. Yeah. I can always see why a song is a hit even if I don't particularly like it. And I can definitely hear why Gold and most of his 90's work tanked,.. even for the rare tracks I do like.

Minority opinions are certainly valid, but so is the opinion of the greater music buying consumer. It's not like we are talking about classical music or esoteric jazz, The Gold Experience was a very commercial sounding record for the masses. "Commercial" as in shamelessly flagrant pandering for a hit record. And it was ambarassing to see him stooping so low.

[Edited 1/7/13 18:43pm]

It's one of the few P songs that I can't sing in my head outright. Hook is just not good.

V10LETBLUES said:

HonestMan13 said:

There is a lot of good stuff. Yeah. I can always see why a song is a hit even if I don't particularly like it. And I can definitely hear why Gold and most of his 90's work tanked,.. even for the rare tracks I do like.

Minority opinions are certainly valid, but so is the opinion of the greater music buying consumer. It's not like we are talking about classical music or esoteric jazz, The Gold Experience was a very commercial sounding record for the masses. "Commercial" as in shamelessly flagrant pandering for a hit record. And it was ambarassing to see him stooping so low.

[Edited 1/7/13 18:43pm]

You're deceiving yourself. People who believe that quality equals success always say they can see why something's a hit AFTER it's become a hit. They might have heard it before it was a hit and dismissed it as total shit but afterwards they say that - actually - they can hear why some people might like it. It's very easy to do AFTER the song is a hit.

We could be here all day naming great pop songs that got nowhere on the charts and awful ones that succeeded. There are so many variables at work that it's inevitable. How hot is the artist? How do they fit into the current climate? How committed is the record company? How good is the video? The fact that "Gold" was a Top 10 hit in the UK and a flop in the US is proof of this by itself. It was the same song in both countries, wasn't it? What was different was the climate.

Just ask yourself this question and you'll see the point. Imagine Diana Ross releases a great pop song this year. At the same time Rihanna releases a mediocre one. If I asked you to bet your life which one would be a bigger hit there's no way you'd bet on Ms Ross because you know she's "out" and Rihanna's "in". The quality of the song would be irrelevant. Your bet in that instance would confirm that deep down you know that song quality is not the determining factor. It's just a nice belief to have when you hate the song in question.

[Edited 1/8/13 5:25am]

midnightmover said:

You're deceiving yourself. People who believe that quality equals success always say they can see why something's a hit AFTER it's become a hit. They might have heard it before it was a hit and dismissed it as total shit but afterwards they say that - actually - they can hear why some people might like it. It's very easy to do AFTER the song is a hit.

We could be here all day naming great pop songs that got nowhere on the charts and awful ones that succeeded. There are so many variables at work that it's inevitable. How hot is the artist? How do they fit into the current climate? How committed is the record company? How good is the video? The fact that "Gold" was a Top 10 hit in the UK and a flop in the US is proof of this by itself. It was the same song in both countries, wasn't it? What was different was the climate.

Just ask yourself this question and you'll see the point. Imagine Diana Ross releases a great pop song this year. At the same time Rihanna releases a mediocre one. If I asked you to bet your life which one would be a bigger hit there's no way you'd bet on Ms Ross because you know she's "out" and Rihanna's "in". The quality of the song would be irrelevant. Your bet in that instance would confirm that deep down you know that song quality is not the determining factor. It's just a nice belief to have when you hate the song in question.

[Edited 1/8/13 5:25am]

Yes to all of this.

skywalker said:

midnightmover said:

You're deceiving yourself. People who believe that quality equals success always say they can see why something's a hit AFTER it's become a hit. They might have heard it before it was a hit and dismissed it as total shit but afterwards they say that - actually - they can hear why some people might like it. It's very easy to do AFTER the song is a hit.

We could be here all day naming great pop songs that got nowhere on the charts and awful ones that succeeded. There are so many variables at work that it's inevitable. How hot is the artist? How do they fit into the current climate? How committed is the record company? How good is the video? The fact that "Gold" was a Top 10 hit in the UK and a flop in the US is proof of this by itself. It was the same song in both countries, wasn't it? What was different was the climate.

Just ask yourself this question and you'll see the point. Imagine Diana Ross releases a great pop song this year. At the same time Rihanna releases a mediocre one. If I asked you to bet your life which one would be a bigger hit there's no way you'd bet on Ms Ross because you know she's "out" and Rihanna's "in". The quality of the song would be irrelevant. Your bet in that instance would confirm that deep down you know that song quality is not the determining factor. It's just a nice belief to have when you hate the song in question.

[Edited 1/8/13 5:25am]

Yes to all of this.

Yes! Yes! Yes! SO well said... I almost never post on here, but just had to say how much this is on the money. Some people think "Gold" is vintage Prince, while others aren't especially fond of it, but it's sure as hell better than "Have You Ever Really Loved a Woman," "On Bended Knee," and a bunch of other big hits from that time period.

If we're talking about Prince not having a hit potentially equalling him putting out poor music, what about Dylan?... his "Love & Theft" album was really great, but he sure didn't have a hit single off of it. I remember Bowie coming out around that same time with an excellent album called "Earthling" that had a couple of absolutely killer tracks on it ("I'm Afraid of Americans" and "Telling Lies"), but I don't think those songs, or anything else from "Earthling," really went anywhere. I don't think Stevie has had a top 40 single since the late 80s, but he's still an amazing artist, isn't he? These legendary musicians didn't suddenly lose their touch or start to suck... that's silly. People like young and trendy, tastes change, everybody's looking for the next big thing, etc.

There's a chapter in Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point," about Kenna (a really talented musician who defies genres... check out his songs "Freetime" and "Kharma Is Coming" on youtube)... Gladwell's explanation is too detailed to summarize in this post, but he demonstrates really well how & why quality often does not = commercial success, both in music and in many other fields. If you were to look at the top-grossing movies of the past few years, lots of junk would be in there; some really great films would be MUCH further down the list.

"Gold" isn't one of my favorite Prince songs, but I think it would have been a hit in a different milieu... actually, I shouldn't even say "I think" as that's proven by its chart performance in the UK. The fact is Prince hasn't had a real hit since the early-mid 90s. Even the biggest naysayers would have to admit that Prince has had a high quality song here or there over the last 18 years or so. In fact, some of those Prince songs have been WAY better than some very big hits over that time period (which isn't even difficult to accomplish... some big hits totally suck).

The reality is that the reasons for success and, more specifically, for popular music success are incredibly nuanced and reliant on all sorts of factors. People like to find easy answers and construct a fake linear narrative, including a black-or-white opinion that they can defend to the death, but real life isn't like that... and neither is music.

midnightmover said:

You're deceiving yourself. People who believe that quality equals success always say they can see why something's a hit AFTER it's become a hit. They might have heard it before it was a hit and dismissed it as total shit but afterwards they say that - actually - they can hear why some people might like it. It's very easy to do AFTER the song is a hit

We could be here all day naming great pop songs that got nowhere on the charts and awful ones that succeeded. There are so many variables at work that it's inevitable. How hot is the artist? How do they fit into the current climate? How committed is the record company? How good is the video? The fact that "Gold" was a Top 10 hit in the UK and a flop in the US is proof of this by itself. It was the same song in both countries, wasn't it? What was different was the climate.

Just ask yourself this question and you'll see the point. Imagine Diana Ross releases a great pop song this year. At the same time Rihanna releases a mediocre one. If I asked you to bet your life which one would be a bigger hit there's no way you'd bet on Ms Ross because you know she's "out" and Rihanna's "in". The quality of the song would be irrelevant. Your bet in that instance would confirm that deep down you know that song quality is not the determining factor. It's just a nice belief to have when you hate the song in question.

[Edited 1/8/13 5:25am]

Wow, does it seem to you that you just claimed your opinion as fact while at the same time dismissing someone Else's as fiction? Music is too subjective to be put into such simple terms. A song charts because people buy it. People buy it because they like it. They like it because THEY think it is good. Who, in the history of ever, has said to themselves "This song is awful, I will buy it next time I hit the mall?" Nobody. Teenagers control the music industry. They are the ones that buy the CD's, shirts, stickers, posters etc. They like music that they identify with. In the 80's when Prince was on fire, androgyny was in. When "Gold" came out the Jeri curl was gone. Urban kids were wearing baggy jeans and Timberland boots, and suburban kids were wearing checkered flannel and "Ambercrombi and Fitch." Prince did not change his look nor his instrumentation. As evidence, I offer today's youth and music scene. We old folks complain about the "Euro-centric, mechanical, techno crap" music that is on the charts today. Look at the world they are growing up in. Technology is in every facet of their lives, it is normal that their music will reflect that. So yep, Justin Beiber and Rihanna will sell far more records than Prince and Diana Ross from here on out. Like Prince sold more records in his period than The Temptations did. The Temptations sold more records in their period than Nat King Cole did, and it goes way back. A generation wants a sound to claim as it's own for the most part. There are some exceptions, but they are few and far in between. It has always been that way. Quality is so subjective, it is a non-component in the equation.

leonche64 said:

midnightmover said:

We could be here all day naming great pop songs that got nowhere on the charts and awful ones that succeeded. There are so many variables at work that it's inevitable. How hot is the artist? How do they fit into the current climate? How committed is the record company? How good is the video? The fact that "Gold" was a Top 10 hit in the UK and a flop in the US is proof of this by itself. It was the same song in both countries, wasn't it? What was different was the climate.

Just ask yourself this question and you'll see the point. Imagine Diana Ross releases a great pop song this year. At the same time Rihanna releases a mediocre one. If I asked you to bet your life which one would be a bigger hit there's no way you'd bet on Ms Ross because you know she's "out" and Rihanna's "in". The quality of the song would be irrelevant. Your bet in that instance would confirm that deep down you know that song quality is not the determining factor. It's just a nice belief to have when you hate the song in question.

[Edited 1/8/13 5:25am]

Wow, does it seem to you that you just claimed your opinion as fact while at the same time dismissing someone Else's as fiction? Music is too subjective to be put into such simple terms. A song charts because people buy it. People buy it because they like it. They like it because THEY think it is good. Who, in the history of ever, has said to themselves "This song is awful, I will buy it next time I hit the mall?" Nobody. Teenagers control the music industry. They are the ones that buy the CD's, shirts, stickers, posters etc. They like music that they identify with. In the 80's when Prince was on fire, androgyny was in. When "Gold" came out the Jeri curl was gone. Urban kids were wearing baggy jeans and Timberland boots, and suburban kids were wearing checkered flannel and "Ambercrombi and Fitch." Prince did not change his look nor his instrumentation. As evidence, I offer today's youth and music scene. We old folks complain about the "Euro-centric, mechanical, techno crap" music that is on the charts today. Look at the world they are growing up in. Technology is in every facet of their lives, it is normal that their music will reflect that. So yep, Justin Beiber and Rihanna will sell far more records than Prince and Diana Ross from here on out. Like Prince sold more records in his period than The Temptations did. The Temptations sold more records in their period than Nat King Cole did, and it goes way back. A generation wants a sound to claim as it's own for the most part. There are some exceptions, but they are few and far in between. It has always been that way. Quality is so subjective, it is a non-component in the equation.

You're making two seperate arguments here - one of which is perfectly sensible and echoes what I myself was saying. You're basically saying that fashions change. I totally agree. And those fashions are not just to do with sounds, they're to do with faces too. Since we mentioned Diana Ross, let's use her as an example. Her 1989 single "Workin' Overtime" was completely contemporary sounding. Everything about it was totally in fashion (even the video) and yet it flopped because SHE was no longer in fashion. Her cycle was over.

I also agree with you that androgyny was out of fashion in the mid-90s and this worked against Prince. By saying that you're actually supporting my argument. These factors have nothing to do with the quality of the song which some have argued is the key factor. Your whole post shows that you don't share this delusion but you're confused in other ways.

Where you're confused is you naively assume that kids just like something because they like it. This is nonsense. First of all, kids can only like a song if they get the chance to hear it in the first place, and usually they'll need to hear it several times. How many US teenagers heard "Gold" at all? Even if they do get to hear it their response will be conditioned by the factors we've already mentioned. Is this artist young or old? Does this sound like something my friends in school would approve of? etc, etc. This is the point. Song quality is not the determining factor. That should be obvious.

midnightmover said:

leonche64 said:

Wow, does it seem to you that you just claimed your opinion as fact while at the same time dismissing someone Else's as fiction? Music is too subjective to be put into such simple terms. A song charts because people buy it. People buy it because they like it. They like it because THEY think it is good. Who, in the history of ever, has said to themselves "This song is awful, I will buy it next time I hit the mall?" Nobody. Teenagers control the music industry. They are the ones that buy the CD's, shirts, stickers, posters etc. They like music that they identify with. In the 80's when Prince was on fire, androgyny was in. When "Gold" came out the Jeri curl was gone. Urban kids were wearing baggy jeans and Timberland boots, and suburban kids were wearing checkered flannel and "Ambercrombi and Fitch." Prince did not change his look nor his instrumentation. As evidence, I offer today's youth and music scene. We old folks complain about the "Euro-centric, mechanical, techno crap" music that is on the charts today. Look at the world they are growing up in. Technology is in every facet of their lives, it is normal that their music will reflect that. So yep, Justin Beiber and Rihanna will sell far more records than Prince and Diana Ross from here on out. Like Prince sold more records in his period than The Temptations did. The Temptations sold more records in their period than Nat King Cole did, and it goes way back. A generation wants a sound to claim as it's own for the most part. There are some exceptions, but they are few and far in between. It has always been that way. Quality is so subjective, it is a non-component in the equation.

You're making two seperate arguments here - one of which is perfectly sensible and echoes what I myself was saying. You're basically saying that fashions change. I totally agree. And those fashions are not just to do with sounds, they're to do with faces too. Since we mentioned Diana Ross, let's use her as an example. Her 1989 single "Workin' Overtime" was completely contemporary sounding. Everything about it was totally in fashion (even the video) and yet it flopped because SHE was no longer in fashion. Her cycle was over.

I also agree with you that androgyny was out of fashion in the mid-90s and this worked against Prince. By saying that you're actually supporting my argument. These factors have nothing to do with the quality of the song which some have argued is the key factor. Your whole post shows that you don't share this delusion but you're confused in other ways.

Where you're confused is you naively assume that kids just like something because they like it. This is nonsense. First of all, kids can only like a song if they get the chance to hear it in the first place, and usually they'll need to hear it several times. How many US teenagers heard "Gold" at all? Even if they do get to hear it their response will be conditioned by the factors we've already mentioned. Is this artist young or old? Does this sound like something my friends in school would approve of? etc, etc. This is the point. Song quality is not the determining factor. That should be obvious.

What is this? Some kind of Jedi mind trick? You have simply rephrased my statement which was apparently a paraphrase of a previous statement of yours. I guess we are not in disagreement after all. In regards to the song "Gold" itself, I quote my comments on the first page. Being a big fan at the time, I liked the album as a whole, but did not care for the song itself. It appears that my opinion is speaking to the quality of the song. Oh my...

Because it was not a good song. The lyrics are trite and cheesy, and the song has no hook at all. The tags on the third verse: Old, soul, know, go. Goes in to the bridge: sold, told, mold, ...all that glitters ain't gold." Not the most inspired of writing. And throw in the fact that the video was shot on a sound stage...

leonche64 said:

What is this? Some kind of Jedi mind trick? You have simply rephrased my statement which was apparently a paraphrase of a previous statement of yours. I guess we are not in disagreement after all. In regards to the song "Gold" itself, I quote my comments on the first page. Being a big fan at the time, I liked the album as a whole, but did not care for the song itself. It appears that my opinion is speaking to the quality of the song. Oh my...

Because it was not a good song. The lyrics are trite and cheesy, and the song has no hook at all. The tags on the third verse: Old, soul, know, go. Goes in to the bridge: sold, told, mold, ...all that glitters ain't gold." Not the most inspired of writing. And throw in the fact that the video was shot on a sound stage...

In other words you're blaming it's failure on the quality of the work which completely contradicts your staments in your last post about fashion being the major factor. I think you need to sit down and think a little before debating in future. At the moment you're a wee-bit lacking in clarity.

leonche64 said:

if a song from a nobody becomes a hit it's because it is a decent song or at very least .. a decent kiddie song .. gagnam style

songs can also be hits if they follow certain musical trends .. bieber and the rest of the micky mouse gang pushing songs to 7 year old girls

songs can be hit based upon previous hits .. rhianna and kanye have both plummeted in quality but still sell ok

this is much like prince .. he had quality songs that pushed his fans into obsession overdrive .. prince could now release a pile of poo aka his latest whatever .. and prince fans would buy it .. but as in the dnp era .. if it is decent at all .. all the fans will buy it plus more pushing it to hit quality

gold simply was not good .. had it been .. especially following beautiful girl .. it would have done much better .. sexy mf was not great but it was at least good .. and its sales are respectable for an already outdated prince because it has a decent hook and good music

dylan has late career success .. his albums get good reviews and he sell respectably for his market .. prince does not sell respectively for his market .. he cannot sell even to his own fan base .. gold was one of the low points that put off even prince own fans .. beautiful girl was sold to 7 year olds and grandmas and prince fans who respect his pop work .. even when it is super cheesy .. gold was just too much like buying the sound track to some kiddie barny episode

he turned off his own fan base and the general public and even the little kiddies couldn't find anything appealing in his horrible raps and beyond stupid lyrics

hits are not defined in static terms .. they are defined by where an artist is in their career and what could be reasonably expected based upon that point in time ... gold exp was crap compared to where he should be in terms of musical output .. and it was a crap single of a crap song and all of that refected as it should have ..

just like now .. even if prince had a good song .. it probably would not do well because he has pissed off most of his fans with horrible songs that they have lost interest .. however .. if it were a good song .. he could at least get a good showing from his few fans left .. as is his songs are so bad even his fans wont toucht them ..

there is nothing prince has put out in 20 years that should or could be a hit under any circumstance .. even that stupid verizon comercial couldn't push guitar into a hit .. its just not a good song .. neither was gold

midnightmover said:

V10LETBLUES said:

leonche64 said:

V10LETBLUES said: You tell me it is not my personal opinion? Interesting. Quick, tell me what I am thinking right now...Get my point? I stated my reasons for not warming up to the song. In my youth, Prince would take you on a lyrical journey, this song did not do that for me. I listed my perceived short cuts he took in the song. The reference to the pop culture at that time was to show why others may have not had a connection to the song.

I was joking. Just playfully reiterating midnightmover's same comments to me as well.

V10LETBLUES said:

leonche64 said:

V10LETBLUES said:

I was joking. Just playfully reiterating midnightmover's same comments to me as well.

V10LETBLUES!!!!! I totally missed that the first time through. The force is strong in you. Well played young Jedi, well played.

..and I wholeheartedly agree with your statements on this thread.

leonche64 said:

midnightmover said:

In other words you're blaming it's failure on the quality of the work which completely contradicts your staments in your last post about fashion being the major factor. I think you need to sit down and think a little before debating in future. At the moment you're a wee-bit lacking in clarity.

You do understand I stated it as my opinion on the song itself. The previous post was on music trends in general and contributing factor and speaking to the post where you stated your opinion as fact. It is all guess work at this point as we are trying to prove a negative, "Why wasn't Gold a bigger hit in the U.S?" The only true answer is "because not enough people bought it." We can only offer opinions as to the why of the matter.

Yes, and some of those opinions can be safely dismissed as nonsensicle.

midnightmover said:

leonche64 said:

midnightmover said: You do understand I stated it as my opinion on the song itself. The previous post was on music trends in general and contributing factor and speaking to the post where you stated your opinion as fact. It is all guess work at this point as we are trying to prove a negative, "Why wasn't Gold a bigger hit in the U.S?" The only true answer is "because not enough people bought it." We can only offer opinions as to the why of the matter.

Yes, and some of those opinions can be safely dismissed as nonsensicle.

And others, I assume, cannonized? Really? Is it that hard to see and accept a different point of view? Don't have to agree with it, but there is always more than one way to the church.

midnightmover said:

leonche64 said:

midnightmover said: You do understand I stated it as my opinion on the song itself. The previous post was on music trends in general and contributing factor and speaking to the post where you stated your opinion as fact. It is all guess work at this point as we are trying to prove a negative, "Why wasn't Gold a bigger hit in the U.S?" The only true answer is "because not enough people bought it." We can only offer opinions as to the why of the matter.

Yes, and some of those opinions can be safely dismissed as nonsensicle.

mmm...nonsensicles!

Actually there are MANY reasons, ONE being the first single "I hate U" was not that BIG, it peaked very quick is was mainly an RB Hit. TWO Prince was through as a POP artist at this point, though Beautfiul Girl was huge that was it, his day was coming to a close on the Hot 100 for the most part, writing was on the wall and it continued with Emancipation where Nothing was a HIT on that chart, Holy River was a huge DUD. His pop songs were considered corny and cheesy, and thats fine, look at Bon Jovi, but problem was PRINCE doesnt have the audience JOVI has, Jon is more in touch with what he does well, Prince is not, he experiments more But he also is not a "freindly" artist overall, true he can go out and play hits and sell shows, but more often than not he has a very loyal following that is much much smaller than a Bon Jovi or U2. THIRD issue was that this album was a dead deal, it peaked he wasnt promoting, SLAVE on the face while singing this song NOT a good idea, people thought he was nuts across the board WHITE and BLACK, he really was just not in a good place to have music out at that time.

ludwig said:

Because Prince was at war with Warner Bros back then, and the whole situation was a mess. Prince promoted the album long BEFORE it was released, and whet it came out he wasn't interested anymore. Anr as far as I know the video never was delivered to music channels.

And the same could be said for just about anything Prince has done since. His career overall would have fared alot better had he stuck to good solid marketing processes. Instead, he rarely does music videos, when he does do music videos he has them pulled down the moment they appear on Youtube, he doesnt have an official website, he doesnt use any social media, and as a result, much of what he does these days flies under the radar to the general public. Most of what he has done during the 1990s and 2000s has really only been accessed by his more hardcore fan base who are perhaps constantly checking up on what he is doing.

There are many many more people out there who like Prince and his music, yet remain largely unaware of anything he has done in the last 15 or so years.

DFUNK said:

Instead, he rarely does music videos, when he does do music videos he has them pulled down the moment they appear on Youtube,

While he does seem to pull a lot of his music videos, it seems like he makes more music videos then any other artist. He makes videos for almost every single worthy song from reports of music video directors, staff, etc.

It seems like he enjoys making music videos, but not to show them to anyone outside of his circle. Same goes for songs and even albums.

I remember when "I Hate U" was released as a single.The song had alot of momentum,especially on the R&B stations.But Prince didn't even deliver the video,even though he had filmed one! It's as if he was purposely trying to sabotage his own album,just so he could blame Warners when it flopped.

'Why do U think the "GOLD" single was such a flop in the US ?'

All that glitters aint gold?

Tremolina said:

imago said:

Kurt Cobain & Alanis Morrisette

1995 was deep into the post-Cobain, Alanis Morrisette period.

The 'alternative music' movement was falling apart, but the quazi pop-rock 'alt-rock' sound that was inspired by them was in full swing. The Gold Experience arrived on shelves a year too late, with almost no promotion since Prince had promoted it a year before, in a music landscape that had become so heavily influenced by the late 80s post-modern, art-rock, indie scene that Prince's hip-hop infused pop music wasn't going to compete well.

The what scene? How about Gold just being an average song?

Quasi, pseudo nonsense.

No, your post is nonsense. It's so off the mark I don't even know where to begin.

First, Gold was just an average song, but you obviously have no idea how pop music in the

states becomes successful. It has little to do with a great song. Cheryle Crowe's dreadful nonsese

was enjoying tremendous chart success at the time. You want to tell me it was superior to the Gold

Experience?

Shit, bitch please

The music scene at the time was dominated by this post-Cobain stuff that the industry was

trying to promote and Prince didn't fit (in combination with that afore mentioned stuff I stated

above which is dead on that your ignorant ass is calling nonsense )

imago said:

Tremolina said:

The what scene? How about Gold just being an average song?

Quasi, pseudo nonsense.

No, your post is nonsense. It's so off the mark I don't even know where to begin.

First, Gold was just an average song, but you obviously have no idea how pop music in the

states becomes successful. It has little to do with a great song. Cheryle Crowe's dreadful nonsese

was enjoying tremendous chart success at the time. You want to tell me it was superior to the Gold

Experience?

Shit, bitch please

The music scene at the time was dominated by this post-Cobain stuff that the industry was

trying to promote and Prince didn't fit (in combination with that afore mentioned stuff I stated

above which is dead on that your ignorant ass is calling nonsense )

WHOA!!!! Pump your brakes there kid, you 'bout to cross some lines. Tremolina made a comment in response to your post, and your response is to call her names? Is this really how you live your life? I know this is only the Internet, and it is all make believe, but come on son, you can do better than that, right?