jcurley said:

Will someone finally clear up for me what JAZZ is. When Prince does it everyone says it's not proper jazz and yet soooo many artists are called jazz musicians when to me it sounds even more watered down than Prince delivers and no one berates them.

I'm not convinced that when people do this they are not trying to just show off and make themselves look more muso than they are.

Yeah, you're absolutely correct with your criticism.

What Prince did with NEWS, Xpectation and C-Note is not that different from what most artists doing jazz fusion are doing. I just saw John Scofield a few nights ago and it sure as hell wasn't that different from what Prince did on those records stylistically.

That age-old "that's not jazz" bullshit is annoying also for the reason that the music on the records is "jazz fusion" (if you want to be even more specific you could use the expressions "jazz rock" and "jazz funk", largely depending on the individual piece). They weren't intended as old-fashioned, pre-1970s jazz anyway.

novabrkr said:

jcurley said:

Will someone finally clear up for me what JAZZ is. When Prince does it everyone says it's not proper jazz and yet soooo many artists are called jazz musicians when to me it sounds even more watered down than Prince delivers and no one berates them.

I'm not convinced that when people do this they are not trying to just show off and make themselves look more muso than they are.

Yeah, you're absolutely correct with your criticism.

What Prince did with NEWS, Xpectation and C-Note is not that different from what most artists doing jazz fusion are doing. I just saw John Scofield a few nights ago and it sure as hell wasn't that different from what Prince did on those records stylistically.

That age-old "that's not jazz" bullshit is annoying also for the reason that the music on the records is "jazz fusion" (if you want to be even more specific you could use the expressions "jazz rock" and "jazz funk", largely depending on the individual piece). They weren't intended as old-fashioned, pre-1970s jazz anyway.

Scofield's (great) work is far from being traditional jazz.

databank said:

funksterr said:

Um.. that's where you really went way too far. Really I think the terms "fresh" and "challenging" are the standout words that are utter bs. I straight out love the Madhouse records. I value those albums more than I can properly express. But there was never anything "fresh" or "challenging" about them. None of them are particularly well written pieces of music, but they are enojyable as funk-lite jam session-ish instrumentals. Prince could crank those out on a yearly basis and I wouldn't complain one bit. Compared to contemporary pop music at the time they were created, look don't make me say "Kenny G. was better than Prin..". I don't want to go there. Prince is a pop star with some funk skills and a nice falsetto. He used sex to sell records, not amazing jazz skills, songwriting abilities or shit else. He talked dirty when everybody else was clean. As soon as 2 Live Crew came out he was done. Since then we've witnessed one ego trip after the other, while he tried to find another niche in the pop music landscape, since dirty alsone can't get the public's attention. Prince isn't a jazz artist by any definition. You guys are truly reaching with that one.

Actually in the 80's jazz and jazz fusion artists, for the most part, took one way or another: either they kept playing trad jazz such as bebop or hardbop, went all the way into avant-garde free jazz (cf. the New York scene of those days), or they desperately tried to "go electronic" and include synths and drum machines into their music the way Herbie Hancock, Miles Davis or Toshinori Kondo did. (I'm not even gonna talk about Kenny G. and that crappy kind of poppish so-called smooth jazz). The result is that every record in that last category are extremely dated. Not to mean they're necessarly bad, but they sweat "80's" like riverfalls when one listens to them today and to be honest Miles had a gift for using cheap synthesizer sounds that no one in their right mind would use at the time, and Hancock's electronic trilogy was a bit soulless even though "Rock It" itself was a visionary masterpiece. Kondo's albums remain absolutely gorgeous to this day because they were really edgy, but nonetheless they sound very dated and wouldn't please anyone who doesn't like the sound of the 80's.

Madhouse, both albums, managed to be something else entirely: those albums are not classic jazz, neither free jazz, but still they are totally ageless: managed to sound... just like , no more no less. He could have done jazz that sounded like 1999 with linn drums, sequencers and synths being all over the place but he just did something that at the same time sounded contemporary without being stuck forever in the sound of that particular decade. And they also managed to be accessible for the average listener by opposition to most of the avant garde free jazz at the time which was pretty agressive in the end, even though went quite wild on 16 by creating very edgy tracks and toyed with a very unconventional kind of jazz fusion at the time by merging jazz and ambient on Eight (this particular fusion would become more common in the 90's but was pretty unheard of at the time unless you consider Jon Hassell to be a jazz artist).

Honestly I still have to hear any other 80's "jazz" albums that managed to find this perfect balance between contemporary, dated and edgy and if this isn't "fresh" and "challenging" then I don't know what is. To me 8 and 16 are waaaaay better than Miles' albums with Kenny Garrett or Herbie Hancock's trilogy with Bill Laswell (and God knows I worship Laswell).

I think, to sum up your post, you are saying that when listened to retrospectively Prince's jazz albums are better than initial reactions might have suggested at the time because they are so different (bad?) they are actually innovative and therefore... good? Sighh... And this, folks.. this is why I come to Prince.org. I remember back in the day when I tried to convince some "1999" era fans, that Prince hadn't lost it. "200 Balloons" was actually just as good, hell, even better than, uh, let's just not. This is what it has come down to for Prince's biggest fans and supporters. Arguing the definition of "bad" music. I was doing it all the way back in 1989 in Northland Mall, outside Detroit. And you are doing it in 2014.

A couple of points. Pop jazz, smooth jazz, hiphop instrumentals were selling like hotcakes in the 80's. If Prince was doing anything so great, he would have cornored that market too.

Next, I have a problem with the word "dated" as applied to music. That's a trap term, that is only applied to music. Particularly Dance, R&B, Soul and Funk. I don't think it's a valid criticism of a production, particularly a pop production, to say it sounds dated. It literally was supposed to sound like the technology and popular trends of the era in which it was created. Music is a market competitive product, built to sell afterall. If in retrospect, at some point in time it does or doesn't sound dated, that's just happenstance. Prince didn't leave linn drums off his jazz records because he didn't want to sound dated. It was because he was trying to emulate true jazz records. And they are mostly good albums, but nothing spectacular. It's still an amazing fact that this guy even has jazz records, he's a pop star funk and roller afterall, and the fact that his records are fairly enjoyable so long as you don't ask to much of them, is good enough. Honetly, it's AMAZING that Prince has jazz albums. WTH? But trying to say they are some form of avante garde, this or that, is an incredible stretch.

funksterr said:

databank said:

Actually in the 80's jazz and jazz fusion artists, for the most part, took one way or another: either they kept playing trad jazz such as bebop or hardbop, went all the way into avant-garde free jazz (cf. the New York scene of those days), or they desperately tried to "go electronic" and include synths and drum machines into their music the way Herbie Hancock, Miles Davis or Toshinori Kondo did. (I'm not even gonna talk about Kenny G. and that crappy kind of poppish so-called smooth jazz). The result is that every record in that last category are extremely dated. Not to mean they're necessarly bad, but they sweat "80's" like riverfalls when one listens to them today and to be honest Miles had a gift for using cheap synthesizer sounds that no one in their right mind would use at the time, and Hancock's electronic trilogy was a bit soulless even though "Rock It" itself was a visionary masterpiece. Kondo's albums remain absolutely gorgeous to this day because they were really edgy, but nonetheless they sound very dated and wouldn't please anyone who doesn't like the sound of the 80's.

Madhouse, both albums, managed to be something else entirely: those albums are not classic jazz, neither free jazz, but still they are totally ageless: managed to sound... just like , no more no less. He could have done jazz that sounded like 1999 with linn drums, sequencers and synths being all over the place but he just did something that at the same time sounded contemporary without being stuck forever in the sound of that particular decade. And they also managed to be accessible for the average listener by opposition to most of the avant garde free jazz at the time which was pretty agressive in the end, even though went quite wild on 16 by creating very edgy tracks and toyed with a very unconventional kind of jazz fusion at the time by merging jazz and ambient on Eight (this particular fusion would become more common in the 90's but was pretty unheard of at the time unless you consider Jon Hassell to be a jazz artist).

Honestly I still have to hear any other 80's "jazz" albums that managed to find this perfect balance between contemporary, dated and edgy and if this isn't "fresh" and "challenging" then I don't know what is. To me 8 and 16 are waaaaay better than Miles' albums with Kenny Garrett or Herbie Hancock's trilogy with Bill Laswell (and God knows I worship Laswell).

I think, to sum up your post, you are saying that when listened to retrospectively Prince's jazz albums are better than initial reactions might have suggested at the time because they are so different (bad?) they are actually innovative and therefore... good? I wasn't there but from everything I've read initial reactions were pretty positive at the time and no, that's not at all what I was trying to say in the first place anyway

A couple of points. Pop jazz, smooth jazz, hiphop instrumentals were selling like hotcakes in the 80's. If Prince was doing anything so great, he would have cornored that market too.

You're not actually gonna tell me that u ACTUALLY believe that the quality of music has ANYTHING to do with the way it sells, are u? I'm quite sure u can't believe that u're not a 16 years old rookie. Madhouse received virtually zero promotion, it was a fans and a hipsters thing.

Next, I have a problem with the word "dated" as applied to music. That's a trap term, that is only applied to music. Particularly Dance, R&B, Soul and Funk. I don't think it's a valid criticism of a production, particularly a pop production, to say it sounds dated. It literally was supposed to sound like the technology and popular trends of the era in which it was created. Music is a market competitive product, built to sell afterall. If in retrospect, at some point in time it does or doesn't sound dated, that's just happenstance. Prince didn't leave linn drums off his jazz records because he didn't want to sound dated. It was because he was trying to emulate true jazz records. And they are mostly good albums, but nothing spectacular. It's still an amazing fact that this guy even has jazz records, he's a pop star funk and roller afterall, and the fact that his records are fairly enjoyable so long as you don't ask to much of them, is good enough. Honetly, it's AMAZING that Prince has jazz albums. WTH? But trying to say they are some form of avante garde, this or that, is an incredible stretch.

I understand ur problem with "dated" and I mostly agree with u on that. It's not specifically applied to music, tough, some films, novels, choregraphies, visual arts or plays are also being coined as being "dated"

[Edited 7/20/14 9:35am]

databank said:

funksterr said:

I think, to sum up your post, you are saying that when listened to retrospectively Prince's jazz albums are better than initial reactions might have suggested at the time because they are so different (bad?) they are actually innovative and therefore... good? I wasn't there but from everything I've read initial reactions were pretty positive at the time and no, that's not at all what I was trying to say in the first place anyway

A couple of points. Pop jazz, smooth jazz, hiphop instrumentals were selling like hotcakes in the 80's. If Prince was doing anything so great, he would have cornored that market too.

You're not actually gonna tell me that u ACTUALLY believe that the quality of music has ANYTHING to do with the way it sells, are u? I'm quite sure u can't believe that u're not a 16 years old rookie. Madhouse received virtually zero promotion, it was a fans and a hipsters thing.

[Edited 7/20/14 9:35am]

I pretty much do believe that the higher quality stuff sells what it's supposed to. I'm a big believer in "to the winner, belong the spoils". No matter how much promotion something gets, at the end of the day there usually has to be enough right about the track to excite people to a purchase. I hated Biz Markie's "Just A Friend". But then again you've got to give him credit for being relateable to a lot of people and you could make the argument that his song has artistic merits as a throwback to early blues and negro spirtual slave-era work songs. But that whack-azz piano... yep also a throwback to early blues records. Things slip through the crack on both sides of the argument, but in the end, I believe if a major-label project, overall, was as good as it's supposed to be for it's genre and era, it's going to do what it's supposed to do.

Madhouse got promotion. I remember stumbling across magazine adds of Moneca Lightner's cover. There were posters in stores. It was promoted as well as most things were at the time. Back then music videos were not mandatory and songs oftentimes broke on radio before the video was filmed. Though if I remember correctly Prince filmed like an entire music video/movie for the album, right? WB passed on releasing it, I wonder why? They must not like money (or maybe they do and they didn't want to waste theirs).. Anyway, "Erotic City" got zero promotion, it wasn't even it's own single, yet we all know how that blew up. Why? Because it was perfect for Prince's audience. Prince delivered precisely what he had conditioned his audience to crave from him. That's how it's done. With Prince's jazz projects, particularly Madhouse, it's a heat check. He's trying to blow a jazzhead's mind, and then deliver the coup de gras mind-fuck, that on yeah, btw, that's PRINCE doing all this bish! That's what it was all about, and in the end we got not so much a jazz album, but another great Prince album, right? Nothing wrong with that in my book.

funksterr said:

databank said:

[Edited 7/20/14 9:35am]

I pretty much do believe that the higher quality stuff sells what it's supposed to. I'm a big believer in "to the winner, belong the spoils". No matter how much promotion something gets, at the end of the day there usually has to be enough right about the track to excite people to a purchase. I hated Biz Markie's "Just A Friend". But then again you've got to give him credit for being relateable to a lot of people and you could make the argument that his song has artistic merits as a throwback to early blues and negro spirtual slave-era work songs. But that whack-azz piano... yep also a throwback to early blues records. Things slip through the crack on both sides of the argument, but in the end, I believe if a major-label project, overall, was as good as it's supposed to be for it's genre and era, it's going to do what it's supposed to do.

Madhouse got promotion. I remember stumbling across magazine adds of Moneca Lightner's cover. There were posters in stores. It was promoted as well as most things were at the time. Back then music videos were not mandatory and songs oftentimes broke on radio before the video was filmed. Though if I remember correctly Prince filmed like an entire music video/movie for the album, right? WB passed on releasing it, I wonder why? They must not like money (or maybe they do and they didn't want to waste theirs).. Anyway, "Erotic City" got zero promotion, it wasn't even it's own single, yet we all know how that blew up. Why? Because it was perfect for Prince's audience. Prince delivered precisely what he had conditioned his audience to crave from him. That's how it's done. With Prince's jazz projects, particularly Madhouse, it's a heat check. He's trying to blow a jazzhead's mind, and then deliver the coup de gras mind-fuck, that on yeah, btw, that's PRINCE doing all this bish! That's what it was all about, and in the end we got not so much a jazz album, but another great Prince album, right? Nothing wrong with that in my book.

No music videos for 8 but 2 for 16 that were sent to TV channels but I doubt MTV played them much. Big surprise for me to learn that Madhouse received any promotion at all: WB and were so often accused of doing nothing to promote the label... Could it be that this is not entirely true? Nonetheless was the casual listener really aware of the existence of Madhouse? (were those adds released only in the music press or in other mags?).

.

As for success there are of course a few exceptions: some movies, songs or albums bombed despite heavy promotion and some others were successes despite low key promotion but those are exceptions. We may disagree on this but I totally believe that the success of music and movies has little to do with what they are and a lot to do with how promoted they are. Honestly if good music sold one would know by now, and if poor music bombed one would know as well. Sure sometimes a good piece of work gets heavy promotion (much less often today than back in the 80's when daring artists were often supported by majors) but IDK, usually people are being fed with crap and they buy it because they don't have a clue. I mean just look at what's on mainstream TV channels and radio channels! And at the same time u have hundreds of talented artists who're gonna be happy with selling 50,000 copies of their albums. For one or one Kate Bush or one Björk to be #1 at the Top 200, how many prefabricated Kesha or Pink songs do u get in that position? And how many of the hundreds of albums Bill Laswell, who's one of the most remarkable and critically acclaimed talents of the modern music scene, has been involved with for the last 20 years has made its way to the Top 200? ZE-RO.

[Edited 7/22/14 0:03am]

RodeoSchro said:

I have never listened to "Xpectation", "N.E.W.S." or any Madhouse album. I guess I really should, but I'm just not a fan of jazz. It's not that Prince doesn't sing; it's that it's jazz and I just don't care for jazz.

Wow! This statement blows my mind. I would think as a prince fan you would be a fan of "prince music". U don't have to love everything he does but I would think you would be interested to hear what he does with the genre.

This reminds me of fans who have never bothered to listen to the protogee albums. Its a incomplete picture of who prince is to bypass those albums or albums aimed at specific genres. Open your minds lol!

databank said:

No music videos for 8 but 2 for 16 that were sent to TV channels but I doubt MTV played them much. Big surprise for me to learn that Madhouse received any promotion at all: WB and were so often accused of doing nothing to promote the label... Could it be that this is not entirely true? Nonetheless was the casual listener really aware of the existence of Madhouse? (were those adds released only in the music press or in other mags?).

.

As for success there are of course a few exceptions: some movies, songs or albums bombed despite heavy promotion and some others were successes despite low key promotion but those are exceptions. We may disagree on this but I totally believe that the success of music and movies has little to do with what they are and a lot to do with how promoted they are. Honestly if good music sold one would know by now, and if poor music bombed one would know as well. Sure sometimes a good piece of work gets heavy promotion (much less often today than back in the 80's when daring artists were often supported by majors) but IDK, usually people are being fed with crap and they buy it because they don't have a clue. I mean just look at what's on mainstream TV channels and radio channels! And at the same time u have hundreds of talented artists who're gonna be happy with selling 50,000 copies of their albums. For one or one Kate Bush or one Björk to be #1 at the Top 200, how many prefabricated Kesha or Pink songs do u get in that position? And how many of the hundreds of albums Bill Laswell, who's one of the most remarkable and critically acclaimed talents of the modern music scene, has been involved with for the last 20 years has made its way to the Top 200? ZE-RO.

[Edited 7/22/14 0:03am]

Prince has a few #1 pop hits that are highly dubious artistically and musically: Gett Off, 7, Batdance, Thieves In The Temple and possibly Alphabet St and Kiss. Are any of those songs really any better, as art, than sample happy fluff tracks like Ariana Grande's "Problem" or Kanye West's "Golddigger"? How does "Pussy Control" stack up against Kesha's "Tik Tok", from a songwriting perspective? Pretty much the same shock value tricks and very little else for your ear to cling to, right? Only Kesha's track did enough correctly that it better matched up to her target demographics tastes and therefore sold better. In 1995, P Control was the very definition of bad rap. It's still bad today. I don't have a lot of sympathy for artist's who fail to capture the listener's imagination. At the end of the day the audiences expectations trump everything else an act is doing. And that's where Prince's "jazz albums" have problems. If they don't meet the expectations of jazz audiences they aren't good as "jazz albums". However as Prince albums, they are mostly pretty good. Madhouse got some marketing, afterall it was a bit of a hit on the black charts at the time, but no amount of marketing was going to sell that record to it's intended jazz audience.

funksterr said:

databank said:

No music videos for 8 but 2 for 16 that were sent to TV channels but I doubt MTV played them much. Big surprise for me to learn that Madhouse received any promotion at all: WB and were so often accused of doing nothing to promote the label... Could it be that this is not entirely true? Nonetheless was the casual listener really aware of the existence of Madhouse? (were those adds released only in the music press or in other mags?).

.

As for success there are of course a few exceptions: some movies, songs or albums bombed despite heavy promotion and some others were successes despite low key promotion but those are exceptions. We may disagree on this but I totally believe that the success of music and movies has little to do with what they are and a lot to do with how promoted they are. Honestly if good music sold one would know by now, and if poor music bombed one would know as well. Sure sometimes a good piece of work gets heavy promotion (much less often today than back in the 80's when daring artists were often supported by majors) but IDK, usually people are being fed with crap and they buy it because they don't have a clue. I mean just look at what's on mainstream TV channels and radio channels! And at the same time u have hundreds of talented artists who're gonna be happy with selling 50,000 copies of their albums. For one or one Kate Bush or one Björk to be #1 at the Top 200, how many prefabricated Kesha or Pink songs do u get in that position? And how many of the hundreds of albums Bill Laswell, who's one of the most remarkable and critically acclaimed talents of the modern music scene, has been involved with for the last 20 years has made its way to the Top 200? ZE-RO.

[Edited 7/22/14 0:03am]

Prince has a few #1 pop hits that are highly dubious artistically and musically: Gett Off, 7, Batdance, Thieves In The Temple and possibly Alphabet St and Kiss. Are any of those songs really any better, as art, than sample happy fluff tracks like Ariana Grande's "Problem" or Kanye West's "Golddigger"? How does "Pussy Control" stack up against Kesha's "Tik Tok", from a songwriting perspective? Pretty much the same shock value tricks and very little else for your ear to cling to, right? Only Kesha's track did enough correctly that it better matched up to her target demographics tastes and therefore sold better. In 1995, P Control was the very definition of bad rap. It's still bad today. I don't have a lot of sympathy for artist's who fail to capture the listener's imagination. At the end of the day the audiences expectations trump everything else an act is doing. And that's where Prince's "jazz albums" have problems. If they don't meet the expectations of jazz audiences they aren't good as "jazz albums". However as Prince albums, they are mostly pretty good. Madhouse got some marketing, afterall it was a bit of a hit on the black charts at the time, but no amount of marketing was going to sell that record to it's intended jazz audience.

I mean, really!

funksterr said:

databank said:

No music videos for 8 but 2 for 16 that were sent to TV channels but I doubt MTV played them much. Big surprise for me to learn that Madhouse received any promotion at all: WB and were so often accused of doing nothing to promote the label... Could it be that this is not entirely true? Nonetheless was the casual listener really aware of the existence of Madhouse? (were those adds released only in the music press or in other mags?).

.

As for success there are of course a few exceptions: some movies, songs or albums bombed despite heavy promotion and some others were successes despite low key promotion but those are exceptions. We may disagree on this but I totally believe that the success of music and movies has little to do with what they are and a lot to do with how promoted they are. Honestly if good music sold one would know by now, and if poor music bombed one would know as well. Sure sometimes a good piece of work gets heavy promotion (much less often today than back in the 80's when daring artists were often supported by majors) but IDK, usually people are being fed with crap and they buy it because they don't have a clue. I mean just look at what's on mainstream TV channels and radio channels! And at the same time u have hundreds of talented artists who're gonna be happy with selling 50,000 copies of their albums. For one or one Kate Bush or one Björk to be #1 at the Top 200, how many prefabricated Kesha or Pink songs do u get in that position? And how many of the hundreds of albums Bill Laswell, who's one of the most remarkable and critically acclaimed talents of the modern music scene, has been involved with for the last 20 years has made its way to the Top 200? ZE-RO.

[Edited 7/22/14 0:03am]

Prince has a few #1 pop hits that are highly dubious artistically and musically: Gett Off, 7, Batdance, Thieves In The Temple and possibly Alphabet St and Kiss. Are any of those songs really any better, as art, than sample happy fluff tracks like Ariana Grande's "Problem" or Kanye West's "Golddigger"? How does "Pussy Control" stack up against Kesha's "Tik Tok", from a songwriting perspective? Pretty much the same shock value tricks and very little else for your ear to cling to, right? Only Kesha's track did enough correctly that it better matched up to her target demographics tastes and therefore sold better. In 1995, P Control was the very definition of bad rap. It's still bad today. I don't have a lot of sympathy for artist's who fail to capture the listener's imagination. At the end of the day the audiences expectations trump everything else an act is doing. And that's where Prince's "jazz albums" have problems. If they don't meet the expectations of jazz audiences they aren't good as "jazz albums". However as Prince albums, they are mostly pretty good. Madhouse got some marketing, afterall it was a bit of a hit on the black charts at the time, but no amount of marketing was going to sell that record to it's intended jazz audience.

Wtf.

Of course they are.

"Kiss" alone is a long time critics' favourite and used as an example of an artistically daring song becoming a big hit.

databank said:

funksterr said:

Prince has a few #1 pop hits that are highly dubious artistically and musically: Gett Off, 7, Batdance, Thieves In The Temple and possibly Alphabet St and Kiss. Are any of those songs really any better, as art, than sample happy fluff tracks like Ariana Grande's "Problem" or Kanye West's "Golddigger"? How does "Pussy Control" stack up against Kesha's "Tik Tok", from a songwriting perspective? Pretty much the same shock value tricks and very little else for your ear to cling to, right? Only Kesha's track did enough correctly that it better matched up to her target demographics tastes and therefore sold better. In 1995, P Control was the very definition of bad rap. It's still bad today. I don't have a lot of sympathy for artist's who fail to capture the listener's imagination. At the end of the day the audiences expectations trump everything else an act is doing. And that's where Prince's "jazz albums" have problems. If they don't meet the expectations of jazz audiences they aren't good as "jazz albums". However as Prince albums, they are mostly pretty good. Madhouse got some marketing, afterall it was a bit of a hit on the black charts at the time, but no amount of marketing was going to sell that record to it's intended jazz audience.

I mean, really!

I love how some posters talk to the point that you can no longer even take their views seriously.

thieves in the temple (TITT?) is brilliant!

put ur foot on the rock!

Xpectation and N.E.W.S. are very high on my list of favorite Prince albums. I love his instrumental music and his forays into Jazz. I would pay serious money if he would release another CD like those two. I'm not trying to be a ridiculous fanboy. I just listened to both of those CD's SO many times, it would be worth a stash of cash to have some more like it. I know I would get my moneys worth.

Phanstar said:

Xpectation and N.E.W.S. are very high on my list of favorite Prince albums. I love his instrumental music and his forays into Jazz. I would pay serious money if he would release another CD like those two. I'm not trying to be a ridiculous fanboy. I just listened to both of those CD's SO many times, it would be worth a stash of cash to have some more like it. I know I would get my moneys worth.

Also two of my favorites. Too bad Xpectation is not available on CD...

novabrkr said:

funksterr said:

Prince has a few #1 pop hits that are highly dubious artistically and musically: Gett Off, 7, Batdance, Thieves In The Temple and possibly Alphabet St and Kiss. Are any of those songs really any better, as art, than sample happy fluff tracks like Ariana Grande's "Problem" or Kanye West's "Golddigger"? How does "Pussy Control" stack up against Kesha's "Tik Tok", from a songwriting perspective? Pretty much the same shock value tricks and very little else for your ear to cling to, right? Only Kesha's track did enough correctly that it better matched up to her target demographics tastes and therefore sold better. In 1995, P Control was the very definition of bad rap. It's still bad today. I don't have a lot of sympathy for artist's who fail to capture the listener's imagination. At the end of the day the audiences expectations trump everything else an act is doing. And that's where Prince's "jazz albums" have problems. If they don't meet the expectations of jazz audiences they aren't good as "jazz albums". However as Prince albums, they are mostly pretty good. Madhouse got some marketing, afterall it was a bit of a hit on the black charts at the time, but no amount of marketing was going to sell that record to it's intended jazz audience.

Wtf.

Of course they are.

"Kiss" alone is a long time critics' favourite and used as an example of an artistically daring song becoming a big hit.

Not the point. The point is Prince played the pop tracks game. Kiss, is a very simple song from a musical perspective. It's not impressive music. It's just good music. David Z said it himself and he made the track. Not knocking it, And the guitar lick hook, I mean ok Prince played the guitar, but in the end, in terms of what the composition of the song is, you can get the same effect from a sample. I can teach anybody to play that part with two fingers in like a minute. There are no great innovations to the songs I mentioned. They are run of the mill pop tunes. They are is some cases, less musicaly innovative than what was on Paula Abdul records at the time. In fact you can break them down to their core components in much the same way you can a thousand other pop tracks, that are not 'real music by real musicians', and find samples and all types of shit that Prince fans look down upon when other acts do, but pretend not to notice when Prince himself does it. Prince, at his best is not any great writer or has any insight into jazz or anything else. Dude is a funky pop star, jazz his beyond his capabilities, for the most part. The only reason why he even dabbles in jazz, is his ego is beyond his own understanding of his personal limitations.

funksterr said:

novabrkr said:

Wtf.

Of course they are.

"Kiss" alone is a long time critics' favourite and used as an example of an artistically daring song becoming a big hit.

Not the point. The point is Prince played the pop tracks game. Kiss, is a very simple song from a musical perspective. It's not impressive music. It's just good music. David Z said it himself and he made the track. Not knocking it, And the guitar lick hook, I mean ok Prince played the guitar, but in the end, in terms of what the composition of the song is, you can get the same effect from a sample. I can teach anybody to play that part with two fingers in like a minute. There are no great innovations to the songs I mentioned. They are run of the mill pop tunes. They are is some cases, less musicaly innovative than what was on Paula Abdul records at the time. In fact you can break them down to their core components in much the same way you can a thousand other pop tracks, that are not 'real music by real musicians', and find samples and all types of shit that Prince fans look down upon when other acts do, but pretend not to notice when Prince himself does it. Prince, at his best is not any great writer or has any insight into jazz or anything else. Dude is a funky pop star, jazz his beyond his capabilities, for the most part. The only reason why he even dabbles in jazz, is his ego is beyond his own understanding of his personal limitations.

I so totally disagree with every word your write.

I don't know what is "real music by real musician", I don't make a hierarchy based on sophistication and I respect electronic music. Kiss and Alpbabet St. were very innovative songs, as was When Doves Cry precisely because of their sheer simplicty and minimalism (as you say yourself it was good music but it was impressive too, impressive doesn't have to mean "complex", Aphex Twin and Alva Noto make extremely impressive music with just computer clicks and bleeps). If you start dismissing music because it's simple then you better dismiss everything except for classical music because the best pop or even jazz track won't stand a chance by comparison to Wagner.

Batdance was quite innovative too, there were precedents for sure (M/A/R/R/S, S'Express and other house acts) but it was done is a much different way with a typical "Prince" touch and was still daring for 1989. I remember people's reactions back then, it was a big "WTF???!" on the first listen and I suspect it was only that successful because of heavy promotion, for it was waaay too experimental for the usual taste of mainstream audiences (which also proves that they could like sophisticated music if the marketing effort was there).

Gett Off was also something quite unique at the time and there's a reason why it became quite a cult song even though it wasn't that successful from a commercial point of view. It was weird, sexy, different from what was on the radio at the time.

P. Control is not bad rap because it's not even rap at all in the first place, by this I mean it's not and it was never intended to be hip-hop and compete with what hip-hop was at the time the way Jughead was for example. P Control is future funk, listen to what labels such as Tokyo Dawn are doing now, everything was there 20 years ago in P Control. The mere notion of judging it as a rap song is absurd, if it belongs to any genre it's "Prince", it's him doing his thing at its best and it's a little musical world of its own.

Thieves and 7 while not unforgetable were solid pop songs with an oriental vibe, I suspect the fact that you specifically mentioned those 2 songs out of dozens may just mean u don't like the oriental vibe?

My point is that somehow you named some of 's most odd and innovative songs and said they were not so great and I find this interesting. You could have said Little Red Corvette, Take Me With U, Raspberry Beret, Mountains or U Got The Look which are all awesome pop songs but are nonetheless molded in a much more typical "pop song" mold and are impressive because of how they're great at embracing that mold in its more efficient aspects more than because they were different or challenging. Tracks like Kiss, Alphabet St., Batdance, Gett Off or P. Control are doing something only he did at the time, it's him experimenting with the rawest and purest aspects of his own work without trying to emulate anything else (save Batdance OK, but he took house music and turned it into some weird minimalist, agressive, dark electofunk extravaganza and made it his own). So I'm a bit puzzled by your analysis, in the end I may be tempted to think that like many people here you actually don't like or understand 's music in the first place, just some songs and albums, but I don't know u and I'm not gonna go as far as 2 claim I know what's in your head. I'm also puzzled by the conservative approach that says that the level of complexity of a piece of music is what makes it interesting. It's a factor, sure, but just one among many. himself is speaking total nonsense about it when he gives us his "real music by real musicians" bullshit, because for the likes of Wynton Marsalis he's doing "cheap music by poorly gifted musicians" and in the end whether one embraces this theory or doesn't but the minute u start claiming that the complexity of your pop music is what makes u better than a guy with a computer, you imply that your pop music is sheer crap by comparison to hardbop or classical music, and I doubt believes his own music to be sheer crap.

As for doing jazz (or fusion, whatever) I doubt it has much to do with his ego. Remember that when he had Eric record his parts on 8 he told him that he wasn't going as far as to claim this was jazz and that if he would release it as a "Prince" album, critics would flame him, saying "who does he think he is trying to do jazz", so he decided to release it as Madhouse to see how it would be judged on its own. Also note that he chose not to release the Flesh and the 2 24 albums, most likely because he wasn't so confident in the music. I think the reason he ventured into jazz sometimes is just that it was musically interesting and challenging for him. I guess the reason he didn't do it so often is because he's basically into electrofunk and in the end this is what he truly has a ball doing, but every once in a while he would try and do something different, which he didn't just do with 8, 16, Times Squarred, Xpectation, N.E.W.S. and C-Note but also with The Undertaker, C&D, Kamasutra, The Truth, The War, ONA... and Lotusflow3r. I guess when u're a prolific artist every once in a while u wanna try something different, all the great pop and jazz acts of our time have done it, releasing albums that venture outside of their usual comfort zone just to give it a try.

Peace

DB

databank said:

funksterr said:

Not the point. The point is Prince played the pop tracks game. Kiss, is a very simple song from a musical perspective. It's not impressive music. It's just good music. David Z said it himself and he made the track. Not knocking it, And the guitar lick hook, I mean ok Prince played the guitar, but in the end, in terms of what the composition of the song is, you can get the same effect from a sample. I can teach anybody to play that part with two fingers in like a minute. There are no great innovations to the songs I mentioned. They are run of the mill pop tunes. They are is some cases, less musicaly innovative than what was on Paula Abdul records at the time. In fact you can break them down to their core components in much the same way you can a thousand other pop tracks, that are not 'real music by real musicians', and find samples and all types of shit that Prince fans look down upon when other acts do, but pretend not to notice when Prince himself does it. Prince, at his best is not any great writer or has any insight into jazz or anything else. Dude is a funky pop star, jazz his beyond his capabilities, for the most part. The only reason why he even dabbles in jazz, is his ego is beyond his own understanding of his personal limitations.

I so totally disagree with every word your write.

I don't know what is "real music by real musician", I don't make a hierarchy based on sophistication and I respect electronic music. Kiss and Alpbabet St. were very innovative songs, as was When Doves Cry precisely because of their sheer simplicty and minimalism (as you say yourself it was good music but it was impressive too, impressive doesn't have to mean "complex", Aphex Twin and Alva Noto make extremely impressive music with just computer clicks and bleeps). If you start dismissing music because it's simple then you better dismiss everything except for classical music because the best pop or even jazz track won't stand a chance by comparison to Wagner.

Batdance was quite innovative too, there were precedents for sure (M/A/R/R/S, S'Express and other house acts) but it was done is a much different way with a typical "Prince" touch and was still daring for 1989. I remember people's reactions back then, it was a big "WTF???!" on the first listen and I suspect it was only that successful because of heavy promotion, for it was waaay too experimental for the usual taste of mainstream audiences (which also proves that they could like sophisticated music if the marketing effort was there).

Gett Off was also something quite unique at the time and there's a reason why it became quite a cult song even though it wasn't that successful from a commercial point of view. It was weird, sexy, different from what was on the radio at the time.

P. Control is not bad rap because it's not even rap at all in the first place, by this I mean it's not and it was never intended to be hip-hop and compete with what hip-hop was at the time the way Jughead was for example. P Control is future funk, listen to what labels such as Tokyo Dawn are doing now, everything was there 20 years ago in P Control. The mere notion of judging it as a rap song is absurd, if it belongs to any genre it's "Prince", it's him doing his thing at its best and it's a little musical world of its own.

Thieves and 7 while not unforgetable were solid pop songs with an oriental vibe, I suspect the fact that you specifically mentioned those 2 songs out of dozens may just mean u don't like the oriental vibe?

My point is that somehow you named some of 's most odd and innovative songs and said they were not so great and I find this interesting. You could have said Little Red Corvette, Take Me With U, Raspberry Beret, Mountains or U Got The Look which are all awesome pop songs but are nonetheless molded in a much more typical "pop song" mold and are impressive because of how they're great at embracing that mold in its more efficient aspects more than because they were different or challenging. Tracks like Kiss, Alphabet St., Batdance, Gett Off or P. Control are doing something only he did at the time, it's him experimenting with the rawest and purest aspects of his own work without trying to emulate anything else (save Batdance OK, but he took house music and turned it into some weird minimalist, agressive, dark electofunk extravaganza and made it his own). So I'm a bit puzzled by your analysis, in the end I may be tempted to think that like many people here you actually don't like or understand 's music in the first place, just some songs and albums, but I don't know u and I'm not gonna go as far as 2 claim I know what's in your head. I'm also puzzled by the conservative approach that says that the level of complexity of a piece of music is what makes it interesting. It's a factor, sure, but just one among many. himself is speaking total nonsense about it when he gives us his "real music by real musicians" bullshit, because for the likes of Wynton Marsalis he's doing "cheap music by poorly gifted musicians" and in the end whether one embraces this theory or doesn't but the minute u start claiming that the complexity of your pop music is what makes u better than a guy with a computer, you imply that your pop music is sheer crap by comparison to hardbop or classical music, and I doubt believes his own music to be sheer crap.

As for doing jazz (or fusion, whatever) I doubt it has much to do with his ego. Remember that when he had Eric record his parts on 8 he told him that he wasn't going as far as to claim this was jazz and that if he would release it as a "Prince" album, critics would flame him, saying "who does he think he is trying to do jazz", so he decided to release it as Madhouse to see how it would be judged on its own. Also note that he chose not to release the Flesh and the 2 24 albums, most likely because he wasn't so confident in the music. I think the reason he ventured into jazz sometimes is just that it was musically interesting and challenging for him. I guess the reason he didn't do it so often is because he's basically into electrofunk and in the end this is what he truly has a ball doing, but every once in a while he would try and do something different, which he didn't just do with 8, 16, Times Squarred, Xpectation, N.E.W.S. and C-Note but also with The Undertaker, C&D, Kamasutra, The Truth, The War, ONA... and Lotusflow3r. I guess when u're a prolific artist every once in a while u wanna try something different, all the great pop and jazz acts of our time have done it, releasing albums that venture outside of their usual comfort zone just to give it a try.

Peace

DB

You misunderstood my point completely. I only mentioned those songs as examples of Prince hits, that required no great music knowledge for Prince to write. In some cases he sampled or co-opted other artist's work and contributed very simple music ideas to finish them out, which is fine. Just don't go calling the guy a jazz sensation. He is a pop star. For the record I LOVE the songs I mentioned, but I can rationally analyze the musical ideas behind them and admit they are not the work of a jazz genius or even close to it. I never said that they are not enjoyable, just that they are in the class with other typical pop horndog-music-for-freaky-teens and not jazz, ok? I'm not saying simple is bad, complex good, I'm just saying I hear no evidence in any of Prince's music, of an above average jazz musician.

I read the rest of what you wrote and, while I agree with much of it, I just think that, in general, you are projecting. P Control is Prince trying to do a rap song and failing... hard. It's "Warm It Up Kriss", by Kriss Kross. You can, today, say well that sounds like this genre called future funk, but that's streching the truth. By that standard, you can claim everything falls into an obscure genre and was therefore actually not awful, but good. BTW, does anyone know a genre by which Tony M is not a poor man's Chuck D, but equal to Tupac? Too many Prince fans are doing this. I've been around long enough to remeber when Prince fell off, and this trend in the fanbase started. Fans, forced into a state of denial, because Prince is releasing one bad album after the next..

I appreciate your POV, though.

funksterr said:

Too many Prince fans are doing this. I've been around long enough to remeber when Prince fell off, and this trend in the fanbase started. Fans, forced into a state of denial, because Prince is releasing one bad album after the next..

[img:$uid]http://global3.memecdn.com/the-less-you-care_o_388051.jpg[/img:$uid]

funksterr said:

databank said:

I so totally disagree with every word your write.

I don't know what is "real music by real musician", I don't make a hierarchy based on sophistication and I respect electronic music. Kiss and Alpbabet St. were very innovative songs, as was When Doves Cry precisely because of their sheer simplicty and minimalism (as you say yourself it was good music but it was impressive too, impressive doesn't have to mean "complex", Aphex Twin and Alva Noto make extremely impressive music with just computer clicks and bleeps). If you start dismissing music because it's simple then you better dismiss everything except for classical music because the best pop or even jazz track won't stand a chance by comparison to Wagner.

Batdance was quite innovative too, there were precedents for sure (M/A/R/R/S, S'Express and other house acts) but it was done is a much different way with a typical "Prince" touch and was still daring for 1989. I remember people's reactions back then, it was a big "WTF???!" on the first listen and I suspect it was only that successful because of heavy promotion, for it was waaay too experimental for the usual taste of mainstream audiences (which also proves that they could like sophisticated music if the marketing effort was there).

Gett Off was also something quite unique at the time and there's a reason why it became quite a cult song even though it wasn't that successful from a commercial point of view. It was weird, sexy, different from what was on the radio at the time.

P. Control is not bad rap because it's not even rap at all in the first place, by this I mean it's not and it was never intended to be hip-hop and compete with what hip-hop was at the time the way Jughead was for example. P Control is future funk, listen to what labels such as Tokyo Dawn are doing now, everything was there 20 years ago in P Control. The mere notion of judging it as a rap song is absurd, if it belongs to any genre it's "Prince", it's him doing his thing at its best and it's a little musical world of its own.

Thieves and 7 while not unforgetable were solid pop songs with an oriental vibe, I suspect the fact that you specifically mentioned those 2 songs out of dozens may just mean u don't like the oriental vibe?

My point is that somehow you named some of 's most odd and innovative songs and said they were not so great and I find this interesting. You could have said Little Red Corvette, Take Me With U, Raspberry Beret, Mountains or U Got The Look which are all awesome pop songs but are nonetheless molded in a much more typical "pop song" mold and are impressive because of how they're great at embracing that mold in its more efficient aspects more than because they were different or challenging. Tracks like Kiss, Alphabet St., Batdance, Gett Off or P. Control are doing something only he did at the time, it's him experimenting with the rawest and purest aspects of his own work without trying to emulate anything else (save Batdance OK, but he took house music and turned it into some weird minimalist, agressive, dark electofunk extravaganza and made it his own). So I'm a bit puzzled by your analysis, in the end I may be tempted to think that like many people here you actually don't like or understand 's music in the first place, just some songs and albums, but I don't know u and I'm not gonna go as far as 2 claim I know what's in your head. I'm also puzzled by the conservative approach that says that the level of complexity of a piece of music is what makes it interesting. It's a factor, sure, but just one among many. himself is speaking total nonsense about it when he gives us his "real music by real musicians" bullshit, because for the likes of Wynton Marsalis he's doing "cheap music by poorly gifted musicians" and in the end whether one embraces this theory or doesn't but the minute u start claiming that the complexity of your pop music is what makes u better than a guy with a computer, you imply that your pop music is sheer crap by comparison to hardbop or classical music, and I doubt believes his own music to be sheer crap.

As for doing jazz (or fusion, whatever) I doubt it has much to do with his ego. Remember that when he had Eric record his parts on 8 he told him that he wasn't going as far as to claim this was jazz and that if he would release it as a "Prince" album, critics would flame him, saying "who does he think he is trying to do jazz", so he decided to release it as Madhouse to see how it would be judged on its own. Also note that he chose not to release the Flesh and the 2 24 albums, most likely because he wasn't so confident in the music. I think the reason he ventured into jazz sometimes is just that it was musically interesting and challenging for him. I guess the reason he didn't do it so often is because he's basically into electrofunk and in the end this is what he truly has a ball doing, but every once in a while he would try and do something different, which he didn't just do with 8, 16, Times Squarred, Xpectation, N.E.W.S. and C-Note but also with The Undertaker, C&D, Kamasutra, The Truth, The War, ONA... and Lotusflow3r. I guess when u're a prolific artist every once in a while u wanna try something different, all the great pop and jazz acts of our time have done it, releasing albums that venture outside of their usual comfort zone just to give it a try.

Peace

DB

You misunderstood my point completely. I only mentioned those songs as examples of Prince hits, that required no great music knowledge for Prince to write. In some cases he sampled or co-opted other artist's work and contributed very simple music ideas to finish them out, which is fine. Just don't go calling the guy a jazz sensation. He is a pop star. For the record I LOVE the songs I mentioned, but I can rationally analyze the musical ideas behind them and admit they are not the work of a jazz genius or even close to it. I never said that they are not enjoyable, just that they are in the class with other typical pop horndog-music-for-freaky-teens and not jazz, ok? I'm not saying simple is bad, complex good, I'm just saying I hear no evidence in any of Prince's music, of an above average jazz musician.

I read the rest of what you wrote and, while I agree with much of it, I just think that, in general, you are projecting. P Control is Prince trying to do a rap song and failing... hard. It's "Warm It Up Kriss", by Kriss Kross. You can, today, say well that sounds like this genre called future funk, but that's streching the truth. By that standard, you can claim everything falls into an obscure genre and was therefore actually not awful, but good. BTW, does anyone know a genre by which Tony M is not a poor man's Chuck D, but equal to Tupac? Too many Prince fans are doing this. I've been around long enough to remeber when Prince fell off, and this trend in the fanbase started. Fans, forced into a state of denial, because Prince is releasing one bad album after the next..

I appreciate your POV, though.

Sorry for the misunderstanding

Yeah your ideas are interesting too even though we don't agree on everything it's nice to have constructive convos and exchanging POV's P. Control had nothing to do with what was happening in rap in 1994, which is why I never thought of it as hip-hop at all. Jughead, Face Down, Da Da Da, Call The Law, that was him trying to do hip-hop, but P. Control???? i've listened to that Kriss Kross song u mentioned on YT: it has many distinctive hip-hop elements, actually ALL of it is distinctive hip-hop. P. Control save the rapping (which is actually more singing than rapping) has little to do with hip-hop.

.

Hip hop or not, P. Control always have and will always lift me up, though

.

I wouldn't call my appreciation of 's music denial. I don't listen to anymore that much actually, if only because he doesn't release too many albums anymore and because I trip on so many other artists and albums. But nonetheless I've had a deep appreciation of almost each and every album ever released by . It's not denial, I guess me and his music get along is all, and just as much if not more after 95 than before. Mplsound made my day for several months in 2009, I just genuinely enjoyed it and just as much as I used to enjoy Purple Rain years earlier. I see qualities in those albums, I see qualities in many other albums. I have something like 4000+ albums that I keep in my collection and therefore enjoy to a degree or another, I'm just not so much in a love/hate relationship with music, I find things to enjoy in a much more diverse quantity of artists, albums and genres than most people I guess. I guess my point is that most of the people I know couldn't find 4000 albums they like if their life depended on it, most of the people I know have an immediate and definitive reaction to music the first time u play them a song, it's either I like it or I dislike it and it's usually final, and it's usually 1 like for 10 dislikes, and that pisses me off a bit because when u're with friends and u put some music in the background they will immediately complain that they don't like a song and make a fuss about it with every single bloody song they dislike instead of doing what they're here for, i.e. having a chat with their friends. I just don't have this kind of relationship to music, albums often grow on me, I rediscover them from different angles with each listen, I appreciate what artists are trying to do and how, so in the end loving 60 albums among 3900 other albums by other people isn't really the result of me being a fan, more of me being a fan of music in general.

.

Also, I think I understand where is coming from, what he's trying to do, and to me that's what doesn't really make his 80's albums so much better than the recent ones because understanding what he's trying to do allows me to understand why he succeeds at it. I know Militant does get it, too. There's a high intimacy between me and 's music (and lyrics!), somehow what he does always rang a bell with me and it didn't change just because his classic years were past him. I think many people here just don't understand 's music (and lyrics), at all. I'm not saying you but many people. Many people here don't even like 's music. They just like a few albums or a few eras of his music so passionately that it led them to believe they are fans but they never have been this in the first place. I worship some albums by David Bowie but some others just don't excite me so much. I have them all but I could only name maybe 5 that are albums I totally get into from beginning to end. I don't call myself a David Bowie fan just because I'm a fan of 5 of his albums and moderately enjoy the 20 or so others. I don't go to David Bowie forums either. I see many people here that probably like about one quarter of 's total discography and dislike everything else, I don't even understand what they're doing here in the first place, they're not fans, they're just people who like some albums by . Just my opinion, 4 what it's worth

funksterr said:

novabrkr said:

Wtf.

Of course they are.

"Kiss" alone is a long time critics' favourite and used as an example of an artistically daring song becoming a big hit.

Not the point. The point is Prince played the pop tracks game. Kiss, is a very simple song from a musical perspective. It's not impressive music. It's just good music. David Z said it himself and he made the track. Not knocking it, And the guitar lick hook, I mean ok Prince played the guitar, but in the end, in terms of what the composition of the song is, you can get the same effect from a sample. I can teach anybody to play that part with two fingers in like a minute. There are no great innovations to the songs I mentioned. They are run of the mill pop tunes. They are is some cases, less musicaly innovative than what was on Paula Abdul records at the time. In fact you can break them down to their core components in much the same way you can a thousand other pop tracks, that are not 'real music by real musicians', and find samples and all types of shit that Prince fans look down upon when other acts do, but pretend not to notice when Prince himself does it. Prince, at his best is not any great writer or has any insight into jazz or anything else. Dude is a funky pop star, jazz his beyond his capabilities, for the most part. The only reason why he even dabbles in jazz, is his ego is beyond his own understanding of his personal limitations.

Okay, thanks for explaining your point, but I don't think you're really getting "Kiss" if that's how you feel about it. It's a very innovative and even "avant-gardist" take on the poppier end of 80s funk stuff. It is very impressive music. It's not even among my favourite Prince tracks, but c'mon, that track is widely recognized as an example on a pop artist being innovative. With the Paula Abdul comment above I think you're just trying too hard to justify some statements that you've made earlier.

I agree with the last point about Prince having limitations as a musician and that resulting in the jazz (or "jazz fusion") records he's released. However, I genuinely believe that those records were simply done too quickly and he had the potential to make them better. Had he spent more time on those projects he should have come up with more solid performances. Those records are in need of better edits and had he edited out some of the synth stuff (those rompler strings in particular, aargh) they would have instantly become more tasteful. I also feel that some of the weaknesses attributed especially to NEWS and Xpectation are due to what Eric Leeds plays on them. He's a fine saxophonist, but his playing post-Madhouse 8/16 and SOTT/Lovesexy era has been pretty much pop jazz.

I don't know, I love Zawinul, but one has to admit that his solos got a bit too simplistic and sketchy as years progressed (he was a fine pianist and a rhodes player early on, but something changed with Weather Report, definitely). You can have a bandleader like that and still come up with impressive stuff like Weather Report. Not everyone in a jazz group has to be playing their ass off constantly and I think that especially with jazz-fusion it's for the better that there are some members in a group that are playing stuff that has nothing to do with what the established names in classic jazz were doing. I don't want the keyboardists in jazz-fusion bands to sound like Bill Evans and there's always some room in jazz-fusion for guitarists that simply play rock solos.