^ I was speaking mainly about it's commercial success (or lack of) and what people here are saying.

Personally I'm happy to have the 3CDs. I picked up the album for £9.99 not long after it came out. In fact it was seeing the song performed on the Brits. Still to this day I think the title track is immense. The bass on that song is one of the funkiest things ever committed to record. 2 BASS GUITARS.

I think Prince just wanted to put out a Triple album. Perhaps he saw it as a milestone of sorts after Warner refusing his previous attempts. Partly as an F-You because he could. Maybe as a middle finger to Jacksons History double album. "My Computer" as an outtake would have been a "Movie Star" type legendary outtake. One of those quirky "Only Prince" songs. As an album track Prince deems it his best work that year which adds a new context.

The more songs you release the more chance you're putting some filler on the album. When they're leaked out they're curiosities. When they're put on an album they're deemed great by the artist. So as a fan I can say - it's like having the album and 2 discs of outtakes (if you choose to look at it that way). Its Certainly a nice box set next to Fantasia, Deposition, Dreams, Cosmos CrystalBall/The truth. If thats what he was going for he did a pretty good job and made it an international top 20 with a couple of hit singles. The concept however was simply 3CDs at 60 minutes per CD hoping to charge more for a bigger set.

[Edited 10/27/14 13:49pm]

EmancipationLover said:

One more thing...

.

Why is "Emacipation" often referred to in terms of platic production and going for the trends in mid-90s R'n'B, but "Come" gets a pass?

.

"Come" has an electronic sound to it with many beats reflecting the typical mid-90s Montell Jordan-type R'n'B. Hey, "Letitgo" has "I want to sound current" written all over it...

.

I don't want to state that "Come" is a bad album, it is just an indication that the whole "TGE era vs. Emancipation era" thing simply doesn't fully work...

----

When I first see the word "plastic" being bantered around I automatically think of the 1980s, the most plastic decade in all of human history. The sound production from that time was notoriously weak, thin, cold and....well....plastic. Prince may have been wildly experimental and creative in the latter half of the 80s, but he was still trapped in an era where the limits of technology and sound production were beyond his control.

----

The 1990s, though, were like a quantum leap where the sound production became so very yummy, warm and fat......not to mention razor sharp and crystal clear. I can't listen to the 80s stuff after listening to albums like Come or Emancipation because the drop in sound quality is so jarring. I don't think remastering will make much of a difference either because the source will always be that inferior "plastic 80s" sound production.

----

At the time I much preferred Come to TGE (and still do) and felt like Emancipation, with a heavy emphasis on drum loops rather than live band material, was a return to form. Because of that I don't feel the disconnect between the two eras.

EmancipationLover said:

Noodled24 said:

^ I agree Emancipation only suffers from being a 3CD set.

.

I just don't get this.

.

If you dig an artist, you normally want him to release as much music as possible. You're normally also interested in B-sides and rarities that the average listener would give a flying fuck about.

.

Granted, this material will then also contain some weak stuff that was rightfully edited out. But at least it is up to you then to decide what you (the fan) want to listen to and what you want to ignore.

.

No one is forced to listen to "Emancipation" for 180 min in a row. You can actually stop in between if it's too much stuff for you to digest or if you get tired from its sound.

.

We've had tons of "edit 'Emancipation' to one disc" threads around here, and there probably have not been two identical configurations for a 12-track best-of version of "Emancipation" on the history of this website. It's up to every listener what they like and what they want to skip.

----

I know, right? "Hey Prince, I'm a massive fan, but please release LESS music!" This never fails to crack me up.

---

Sure he could have condensed Emancipation down to one disc of nothing but the strong tracks, eliminating the weak filler, and thereby creating a timeless masterpiece. And those perfect tracks would undeniably be:

---

Jam of the Year
Somebody's Somebody
We Gets Up
White Mansion
Sex in the Summer
Curious Child
Dreamin' About U
Joint 2 Joint
New World
Face Down
Style
Sleep Around
My Computer
Emancipation

---

There it is, folks. All killer and no filler! The perfect album for all eternity! Set in stone and blessed by Moses himself.

---

Wait....what? Ya'll disagree? Impossible! Well, then it's a damn good thing he released a three album set because I wouldn't want to be without any of those songs.

---

Personally, there are only four songs on the whole album which I don’t particularly care for, but I’m glad he put them on there anyway. And the rest of the songs which initially sounded like filler to me eventually grew on me. After playing those listed above to death I started exploring the rest of the album and found myself discovering gem after beautiful, radiant gem. In this manner it benefited from being three discs, rather than suffered….there was so much more to explore and enjoy. As it is, I think it’s damn near a staggering masterwork of unprecedented magnitude which has given me many, many years of solid sonic enjoyment.

TheBoneRanger said:

EmancipationLover said:

.

I just don't get this.

.

If you dig an artist, you normally want him to release as much music as possible. You're normally also interested in B-sides and rarities that the average listener would give a flying fuck about.

.

Granted, this material will then also contain some weak stuff that was rightfully edited out. But at least it is up to you then to decide what you (the fan) want to listen to and what you want to ignore.

.

No one is forced to listen to "Emancipation" for 180 min in a row. You can actually stop in between if it's too much stuff for you to digest or if you get tired from its sound.

.

We've had tons of "edit 'Emancipation' to one disc" threads around here, and there probably have not been two identical configurations for a 12-track best-of version of "Emancipation" on the history of this website. It's up to every listener what they like and what they want to skip.

----

I know, right? "Hey Prince, I'm a massive fan, but please release LESS music!" This never fails to crack me up.

---

Sure he could have condensed Emancipation down to one disc of nothing but the strong tracks, eliminating the weak filler, and thereby creating a timeless masterpiece. And those perfect tracks would undeniably be:

---

Jam of the Year
Somebody's Somebody
We Gets Up
White Mansion
Sex in the Summer
Curious Child
Dreamin' About U
Joint 2 Joint
New World
Face Down
Style
Sleep Around
My Computer
Emancipation

---

There it is, folks. All killer and no filler! The perfect album for all eternity! Set in stone and blessed by Moses himself.

---

Wait....what? Ya'll disagree? Impossible! Well, then it's a damn good thing he released a three album set because I wouldn't want to be without any of those songs.

---

Personally, there are only four songs on the whole album which I don’t particularly care for, but I’m glad he put them on there anyway. And the rest of the songs which initially sounded like filler to me eventually grew on me. After playing those listed above to death I started exploring the rest of the album and found myself discovering gem after beautiful, radiant gem. In this manner it benefited from being three discs, rather than suffered….there was so much more to explore and enjoy. As it is, I think it’s damn near a staggering masterwork of unprecedented magnitude which has given me many, many years of solid sonic enjoyment.

I'm glad there are others to acknowledge the sheer absurdity of fans complaining about their (so-called if u ask me) favorite artist releasing too much music.

thebanishedone said:

Emancipation wasnt one of the best efforts by Prince but

still everytime Prince wants to go mainstream he models his production similar to Emancipation era songs.

AOA and 3121 are just some of the examples.

Do you think Prince thinks Emancipation is a great production or what?

---

I think Prince can hear the difference from a technical standpoint, that the 90s and onward has a superior sound production, and that's why he's reluctant to truly return to replicating the classic 80s sound (just slapping a Linn drum on it doesn't qualify). Now, just because a thing is technically improved doesn't mean you should like it better. A Ferrari may be technically better than a station wagon, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy the station wagon more (you can certainly fit more people in it for the party).

---

I do think the 80s was a great decade for music, especially after the drab 70s. But the 70s had that analog warmth which seemed to evaporate in the 80s. Then it seemed like technology caught up in the 90s and married that analog warmth with the digital revolution and voila....warm, fat, razor sharp, crystal clear, yummy goodness.

---

But, yeah....the 80s had that wonderful sunny glow of optimism and an explosion of pop savvy songs unparalleled in history. But it was also the most thoroughly plastic decade as well.

[Edited 10/28/14 9:57am]

One thing I never liked about "Emancipation," was how he sang the title of the song before the first verse at the beginning of what seemed like most songs (particularly on Disc 1). Aside from that, some good production. I could do without some of the sound effects, though.

Prince's production in general since the 90's has been mostly miss for me. Be it the transistion from the "kinda-glossy Vegas" sound of the Symbol album to the "super-high gloss blind me with midi science" of TGE. Emancipation (and NewPowerSoul and most everything after that) have sounded artifically "dry" to me, not really plastic as many people say. Controversy and Dirty Mind had a dry sound too but it didn't seem to be processed to sound that way, whereas these new albums do.

EmancipationLover said:

One more thing...

.

Why is "Emacipation" often referred to in terms of platic production and going for the trends in mid-90s R'n'B, but "Come" gets a pass?

.

"Come" has an electronic sound to it with many beats reflecting the typical mid-90s Montell Jordan-type R'n'B. Hey, "Letitgo" has "I want to sound current" written all over it...

.

I don't want to state that "Come" is a bad album, it is just an indication that the whole "TGE era vs. Emancipation era" thing simply doesn't fully work...

Come is a disaster as well. But thankfully it doesn't last 3 discs.

mordang said:

Come is a disaster as well. But thankfully it doesn't last 3 discs.

what???

Come is fantastic... a great album... much better than Emancipation imho.

thedance said:

mordang said:

Come is a disaster as well. But thankfully it doesn't last 3 discs.

what???

Come is fantastic... a great album... much better than Emancipation imho.

I do agree with you that it is much better. Beter said it is a lesser disaster, but a disaster still. Emancipation is way down on the bottom...anything would be better.

I do like Space a lot actually it is one of my favorites. Letitgo is enjoyable..and there are a few others that have a certain appeal.

But it is not enough to save this album.

Strangely there is this bootleg/pirate album The Dawn, where some of these songs are on (mixes and alternate version included) which is an absolute stunning collection of songs. Every track is from that period (mid-90ties, something...can't be bothered about the exact time), which makes it clear that Prince did make good music....but he made so many mediocre material as well that it totally overwelmed the few gems that he did make.

I don't know who made that bootleg, but I think it is the best effort that anyone ever made to make a own solid studioalbum from existing Prince material. Coherent, dynamic, strong and balanced. It overshadows Emancipation and Come.

Having said that...it does proffit from songs of the Gold Experience which is a superior album to come and Emancipation in every possible aspect.

databank said:

controversy99 said:

databank said: This is insane ... no offense, but Ema is in no way a trademark P sound.

What I mean is that it's been released 18 years ago and ever since, up to the last album, has been doing variations on the "plastic sound" production approach that was inaugurated with Emancipation. Even though he's also revisited his original Linn/MPLS sound and explored other territories over those years, I think in the end he's been using the "plastic" sound more often and more proeminently. So if you take his now 36 years of career globally, it means that overall the plastic sound has been used more often than his original trademark sound, and admitting still has a good 20 or 30 years of career ahead of him, and that he may keep using the plastic sound a lot, then the plastic production approach will end-up as being if not the prime, at least a second "Prince trademark sound".

I think many people have a vision of 's career as if 1978-1988 represent 75% of his work and 1989-to the day of his death as the remaining 25%. While 's role in the history of pop music has been extremely significant during the first 10 years and will be remembered as such, in the end he's going to leave a legacy that's waaaaay larger than that, and his "non classic" years will represent a much longer era of musical production than his classic years. I'm quite sure future music historians will be more inclined to acknowledge this fact (if only because they won't have been there to have a personal, first hand listener relationship with the excitment of the first decade), and in the end the plastic sound production may represent the most definitive sound, the one he adopted when he was 36 and never let go after that, while his ventures into typical MPLS sound will have been way more occasional after 1987.

We may disagree on this, but in the end is an artist's trademark sound the one that had the most impact on other acts or the one he'll have used the most over the course of his career? Open debate if u ask me

I was thinking almost exactly this just a few days ago. It's like people think of a classic period and then everything after that is "late period" Prince. Well, the late period, as defined by almost anyone, is now most of his career--even if you go as late as the end of the (first) Warner Bros. phase. He's not flooding the market with multiple releases every year like he was during the early eighties (counting protege albums), but the bulk of Prince is now "late period," and it's just as much "Prince" as whatever "real Prince" anyone wants to cling to. It's just weird to see people saying they feel a certain way (usually negatively) about his "new" music--and the word "new" as they use it covers most of his career.

EddieC said:

I was thinking almost exactly this just a few days ago. It's like people think of a classic period and then everything after that is "late period" Prince. Well, the late period, as defined by almost anyone, is now most of his career--even if you go as late as the end of the (first) Warner Bros. phase. He's not flooding the market with multiple releases every year like he was during the early eighties (counting protege albums), but the bulk of Prince is now "late period," and it's just as much "Prince" as whatever "real Prince" anyone wants to cling to. It's just weird to see people saying they feel a certain way (usually negatively) about his "new" music--and the word "new" as they use it covers most of his career.

.

You guys can keep tryign to sell everyone on this nonsensical idea, but the fact of the matter is that EVEN PRINCE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU. What songs does he play in concert? There's your answer.

BartVanHemelen said:

EddieC said:

I was thinking almost exactly this just a few days ago. It's like people think of a classic period and then everything after that is "late period" Prince. Well, the late period, as defined by almost anyone, is now most of his career--even if you go as late as the end of the (first) Warner Bros. phase. He's not flooding the market with multiple releases every year like he was during the early eighties (counting protege albums), but the bulk of Prince is now "late period," and it's just as much "Prince" as whatever "real Prince" anyone wants to cling to. It's just weird to see people saying they feel a certain way (usually negatively) about his "new" music--and the word "new" as they use it covers most of his career.

.

You guys can keep tryign to sell everyone on this nonsensical idea, but the fact of the matter is that EVEN PRINCE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU. What songs does he play in concert? There's your answer.

.

It is not a nonsensical idea, it is simply a matter of fact that in terms of quantity, the majority of Prince's officially released material is now post-1993 stuff. Do we really need to count the songs to prove this obvious point? However, that does not tell us which period of his career made him the star he was/is, nor does it tell us anything about the quality of the music.

databank said:

I'm glad there are others to acknowledge the sheer absurdity of fans complaining about their (so-called if u ask me) favorite artist releasing too much music.

---

It is indeed absurd, but it's always great for a good laugh, too. That kind of backward logic deserves to be mocked.

BartVanHemelen said:

EddieC said:

I was thinking almost exactly this just a few days ago. It's like people think of a classic period and then everything after that is "late period" Prince. Well, the late period, as defined by almost anyone, is now most of his career--even if you go as late as the end of the (first) Warner Bros. phase. He's not flooding the market with multiple releases every year like he was during the early eighties (counting protege albums), but the bulk of Prince is now "late period," and it's just as much "Prince" as whatever "real Prince" anyone wants to cling to. It's just weird to see people saying they feel a certain way (usually negatively) about his "new" music--and the word "new" as they use it covers most of his career.

.

You guys can keep tryign to sell everyone on this nonsensical idea, but the fact of the matter is that EVEN PRINCE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU. What songs does he play in concert? There's your answer.

We ain't tryin to sell shit to anyone, we're just making an observation that's open to debate. + it's not so much the compositions that r playes in concert that the production approach that we're discussing here. hasn't played proper Mplssound live since the PR tour (or, to some extent, the Nude Tour maybe), and the plastic sound is so "studioish" that he's not even ever really tried to emulate it live. If what plays live was any indication of what he considers his definitive sound then it would be yet another thing, a more traditional and less personal approach in fact than anything he does in the studio. It's really hard to anticipate what a global perception of 's body of work will be 50 years after he dies but I believe it won't be as focused on the 80's at it is now, if only because there won't be any survivor from those years. Contemporary perceptions are often different from retroactive historical perception when it comes to art. I may be wrong, though, so sue me...

BartVanHemelen said:

EddieC said:

I was thinking almost exactly this just a few days ago. It's like people think of a classic period and then everything after that is "late period" Prince. Well, the late period, as defined by almost anyone, is now most of his career--even if you go as late as the end of the (first) Warner Bros. phase. He's not flooding the market with multiple releases every year like he was during the early eighties (counting protege albums), but the bulk of Prince is now "late period," and it's just as much "Prince" as whatever "real Prince" anyone wants to cling to. It's just weird to see people saying they feel a certain way (usually negatively) about his "new" music--and the word "new" as they use it covers most of his career.

.

You guys can keep tryign to sell everyone on this nonsensical idea, but the fact of the matter is that EVEN PRINCE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU. What songs does he play in concert? There's your answer.

Bart--

I'm not saying anything about the quality of the later releases--and obviously he plays what he thinks (correctly, I'm sure) what most people in the audience want to hear. There's more stuff I absolutely love in those first 10 years than in all the years since. But he hasn't spent the past 20 years recording music that isn't what he wants to record. He set things up very carefully to give himself that freedom, and that's what he's done. All that music (which certainly isn't "new" anymore) is just as much a part of his total body of work as the first 10 or so albums.

.

Whether you, I, or anyone else likes it, Prince's career is 2/3 (or more) after the generally considered high points. If he's making the same sort of choices (production-wise, composition-wise, lyric-wise) throughout that period, it's because that's who he is. What's nonsensical is to pretend that the first 10 years (or 15, or whatever) were the real artist's work, and the rest is somehow fake. If you really don't like the last twenty years, than you really don't like most of Prince's work. Big deal. I don't care either way. But it's not like it's just the last 2 or three albums people are complaining about, and it just seems silly--if you really don't like most of a performer's work, it's strange to even think much about it. If he'd only released 3 albums, and I only liked the first one, I wouldn't go around acting like the first album was "real" and the others were him chasing trends or trying to go pop or whatever. I'd just say, "huh... so I guess that's what he really wanted to do. Oh well, I sure like that first album, though."

.

EddieC said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

You guys can keep tryign to sell everyone on this nonsensical idea, but the fact of the matter is that EVEN PRINCE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU. What songs does he play in concert? There's your answer.

Bart--

I'm not saying anything about the quality of the later releases--and obviously he plays what he thinks (correctly, I'm sure) what most people in the audience want to hear. There's more stuff I absolutely love in those first 10 years than in all the years since. But he hasn't spent the past 20 years recording music that isn't what he wants to record. He set things up very carefully to give himself that freedom, and that's what he's done. All that music (which certainly isn't "new" anymore) is just as much a part of his total body of work as the first 10 or so albums.

.

Whether you, I, or anyone else likes it, Prince's career is 2/3 (or more) after the generally considered high points. If he's making the same sort of choices (production-wise, composition-wise, lyric-wise) throughout that period, it's because that's who he is. What's nonsensical is to pretend that the first 10 years (or 15, or whatever) were the real artist's work, and the rest is somehow fake. If you really don't like the last twenty years, than you really don't like most of Prince's work. Big deal. I don't care either way. But it's not like it's just the last 2 or three albums people are complaining about, and it just seems silly--if you really don't like most of a performer's work, it's strange to even think much about it. If he'd only released 3 albums, and I only liked the first one, I wouldn't go around acting like the first album was "real" and the others were him chasing trends or trying to go pop or whatever. I'd just say, "huh... so I guess that's what he really wanted to do. Oh well, I sure like that first album, though."

.

What beats me is how so many people -not Bart in particular, I mean in general- here think of themselves as Prince fans and obviously spend a lot of time thinking about his music while they actually claim at the same time that they don't like anything released since 1995 or so. IDK, to me they're not people who loves Prince's work, just people who love some albums by Prince. Doesn't justify them being on a fan forum or claiming they're Prince fans in my book, I mean they do whatever they want but I see a real illogical situation here, one that doesn't bother me but probably shows such people have lots of emotional issues and it's quite sad for them. Prince's work covers 1978 to 2014 and while it's natural that each of us will be more inclined to like such album or era more or less than others, I think someone who totally rejects more than 50% of an artist's work actually doesn't understand it at all and should move on with their lives, listening to the old albums they used to enjoy every once in a while and bother with/listen to other artists' current work than Prince's.

the FACT is that nobody gave a flying fuck about emancipation when it came out .. nobody gives a flying fuck about it now and nobody will even remember emancipation in 50 years

.

just because p can slap his name/symbol on a record and sell half a million does not make it good or even worth considering as his cannon

.

nobody will give a shit about pussy control, the rainbow children or musicology or lotus is 50 years

.

the only music that will stand the test of time are from his golden era, during which prince made mostly solid albums .. the past 20 years we have been lucky to get a single song or 2 from each record that doesn't make kesha look like a fucking genius .. people buy those records for those one or 2 songs .. and that is only the hardcore fans .. nobody else in the world that actually buys music gives a crap about prince

.

history will be much pickier than the hardcore fans ... the reason fans hang on after 20 bad years is because it is just so baffling how such a genius can drop terd after terd .. it's like u buy a record and think 'there has got to be SOMETHING good in here' .. and then the realization sinks in that prince thinks his fans are morons that only listen to shitty rehashed rnb with bevis and butthead level sex metaphors

.

noone knows what happened to real prince .. but nuprince will not be remembered by history and emancipation deserves its current price tag of a 99cents for all 3 cds .. if that

TrevorAyer said:

the FACT is that nobody gave a flying fuck about emancipation when it came out .. nobody gives a flying fuck about it now and nobody will even remember emancipation in 50 years

.

just because p can slap his name/symbol on a record and sell half a million does not make it good or even worth considering as his cannon

.

nobody will give a shit about pussy control, the rainbow children or musicology or lotus is 50 years

.

the only music that will stand the test of time are from his golden era, during which prince made mostly solid albums .. the past 20 years we have been lucky to get a single song or 2 from each record that doesn't make kesha look like a fucking genius .. people buy those records for those one or 2 songs .. and that is only the hardcore fans .. nobody else in the world that actually buys music gives a crap about prince

.

history will be much pickier than the hardcore fans ... the reason fans hang on after 20 bad years is because it is just so baffling how such a genius can drop terd after terd .. it's like u buy a record and think 'there has got to be SOMETHING good in here' .. and then the realization sinks in that prince thinks his fans are morons that only listen to shitty rehashed rnb with bevis and butthead level sex metaphors

.

noone knows what happened to real prince .. but nuprince will not be remembered by history and emancipation deserves its current price tag of a 99cents for all 3 cds .. if that

For one think we must realize that we are only speculating for no one has any idea how music will be remembered in the future. Recorded music is a very recent phenomenon in human history and nowadays it's likely that more musical compositions are made available to the public in recorded form every month than the total sum of original compositions (music sheets) we still have from the whole 19th century. Given the quantity that's going to keep accumulating, it's merely impossible to guess which popular music artists from the last 50 years will be remembered by the post-humans who'll live in year 2300 or 2500. For fuck's sake it's even impossible to guess what being a human being will mean by then!

Will anyone save specialists of 20th century music know who The Beatles, David Bowie, Miles Davis or Elvis Presley were in 2500? It's impossible to say, really. There will always be specialists to study very confidential or old genres the same way we have Renaissance music specialists today, but the masses will probably only know the names of 5 composers from the whole 20th Century at most, and Prince will probably not be one of them, so whoever's interested enough to find out who he was will probably have as many opportunities to listen to Emancipation than to Purple Rain, even though encyclopedic articles will certainly emphasize Purple Rain as a more important work than Emancipation.

If we look at how artists from past centuries in any discipline are being remembered today, it seems to me that they are remembered in different ways by different people:

- Specialists of an era or genre and scholars will know many classical music composers, painters or writers that no one else has ever heard about since the day they died, and study their work as a whole.

- People with a solid background in general culture will know the names of the most famous artists from past centuries and will be able to name their most famous works.

- People with average cultural background will know a few names without exactly being able to know when they lived and what they did, and know some extremely famous works by name such as DeVinci's Joconde or Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (often without knowing the artist's name nor when it was created).

- People with zero cultural background won't even be able to tell you who Mozart, Emile Zola or Michaelangelo were nor what they did at all.

It will be the same with current artists except that the quantity is spectacular so it's really hard to tell what or who will manage to remain famous nor why.

In the end though, if you so some research about most artists from past centuries online, from the most important to the most obscure ones, you will first be exposed to an overview of their work that will both sum-up their career as a whole and name their most influential works. Admitting that Prince is still remembered by people of average or higher education in 300 years, I think his hits will be so long gone that he will be remembered primarly for the bulk of his work. Of course 1999, Purple Rain and SOTT will certainly be cited as his most important works but my take is that if he's remembered at all it'll be for his legacy as a whole waaaaay more than for a few songs that will be more outdated by then than a 1925 jazz tune is today for most listeners, because 20 million sales in 1984 won't mean so much in 2384.

Just a guess, though, once again it's friggin' impossible to tell how art will be remembered in the future given the fact that it's been produced in enormous quantities for the first time in human history over the last century or so.

databank said:

TrevorAyer said:

the FACT is that nobody gave a flying fuck about emancipation when it came out .. nobody gives a flying fuck about it now and nobody will even remember emancipation in 50 years

.

just because p can slap his name/symbol on a record and sell half a million does not make it good or even worth considering as his cannon

.

nobody will give a shit about pussy control, the rainbow children or musicology or lotus is 50 years

.

the only music that will stand the test of time are from his golden era, during which prince made mostly solid albums .. the past 20 years we have been lucky to get a single song or 2 from each record that doesn't make kesha look like a fucking genius .. people buy those records for those one or 2 songs .. and that is only the hardcore fans .. nobody else in the world that actually buys music gives a crap about prince

.

history will be much pickier than the hardcore fans ... the reason fans hang on after 20 bad years is because it is just so baffling how such a genius can drop terd after terd .. it's like u buy a record and think 'there has got to be SOMETHING good in here' .. and then the realization sinks in that prince thinks his fans are morons that only listen to shitty rehashed rnb with bevis and butthead level sex metaphors

.

noone knows what happened to real prince .. but nuprince will not be remembered by history and emancipation deserves its current price tag of a 99cents for all 3 cds .. if that

For one think we must realize that we are only speculating for no one has any idea how music will be remembered in the future. Recorded music is a very recent phenomenon in human history and nowadays it's likely that more musical compositions are made available to the public in recorded form every month than the total sum of original compositions (music sheets) we still have from the whole 19th century. Given the quantity that's going to keep accumulating, it's merely impossible to guess which popular music artists from the last 50 years will be remembered by the post-humans who'll live in year 2300 or 2500. For fuck's sake it's even impossible to guess what being a human being will mean by then!

Will anyone save specialists of 20th century music know who The Beatles, David Bowie, Miles Davis or Elvis Presley were in 2500? It's impossible to say, really. There will always be specialists to study very confidential or old genres the same way we have Renaissance music specialists today, but the masses will probably only know the names of 5 composers from the whole 20th Century at most, and Prince will probably not be one of them, so whoever's interested enough to find out who he was will probably have as many opportunities to listen to Emancipation than to Purple Rain, even though encyclopedic articles will certainly emphasize Purple Rain as a more important work than Emancipation.

If we look at how artists from past centuries in any discipline are being remembered today, it seems to me that they are remembered in different ways by different people:

- Specialists of an era or genre and scholars will know many classical music composers, painters or writers that no one else has ever heard about since the day they died, and study their work as a whole.

- People with a solid background in general culture will know the names of the most famous artists from past centuries and will be able to name their most famous works.

- People with average cultural background will know a few names without exactly being able to know when they lived and what they did, and know some extremely famous works by name such as DeVinci's Joconde or Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (often without knowing the artist's name nor when it was created).

- People with zero cultural background won't even be able to tell you who Mozart, Emile Zola or Michaelangelo were nor what they did at all.

It will be the same with current artists except that the quantity is spectacular so it's really hard to tell what or who will manage to remain famous nor why.

In the end though, if you so some research about most artists from past centuries online, from the most important to the most obscure ones, you will first be exposed to an overview of their work that will both sum-up their career as a whole and name their most influential works. Admitting that Prince is still remembered by people of average or higher education in 300 years, I think his hits will be so long gone that he will be remembered primarly for the bulk of his work. Of course 1999, Purple Rain and SOTT will certainly be cited as his most important works but my take is that if he's remembered at all it'll be for his legacy as a whole waaaaay more than for a few songs that will be more outdated by then than a 1925 jazz tune is today for most listeners, because 20 million sales in 1984 won't mean so much in 2384.

Just a guess, though, once again it's friggin' impossible to tell how art will be remembered in the future given the fact that it's been produced in enormous quantities for the first time in human history over the last century or so.

What an intelligent response to a moronic post.

if prince is remembered at all .. it will not be for emancipation or its 'sound' .. all the hypothesis in the world cannot undo this fact .. sorry

The 1st problem (as per most threads on here) is your trying to have a sensible discussion!

Anyway I get your point infact there are a few parts on AOA that made me think of Emancipation wrt the Production sound - namely "This Could Be Us", i could quites easily be pursuaded to belive that it is an Emancipation out take... which I can't be as it is stated as being written recently.

Being younger than I expect most of you are, the sound that my age (mid 30's) 1st really heard Prince as current music with TMBGITW which is very much in this "plastic music" style and very few of my freinds at school knew of anything byond that, Purple Rain, 1999 & maybe D&P. So this follows in someway your reply to TrevorAyer.

PS I have just finished listening to Emancipation over the last 3 commutes work/home/work and enjoy it, with the style of production really helping some tracks - Dreamin' About You, Curious Child, Sex In The Sumer, Joint To Joint - and other not so - Style, Emancipation (not that I dislike them).

Good luck in future discussions Databank, I'm sure you get more silly/pointless comments that true discussion. But the informative bits inbetween are always interesting to read!

databank said:

For one think we must realize that we are only speculating for no one has any idea how music will be remembered in the future. Recorded music is a very recent phenomenon in human history and nowadays it's likely that more musical compositions are made available to the public in recorded form every month than the total sum of original compositions (music sheets) we still have from the whole 19th century. Given the quantity that's going to keep accumulating, it's merely impossible to guess which popular music artists from the last 50 years will be remembered by the post-humans who'll live in year 2300 or 2500. For fuck's sake it's even impossible to guess what being a human being will mean by then!

Will anyone save specialists of 20th century music know who The Beatles, David Bowie, Miles Davis or Elvis Presley were in 2500? It's impossible to say, really. There will always be specialists to study very confidential or old genres the same way we have Renaissance music specialists today, but the masses will probably only know the names of 5 composers from the whole 20th Century at most, and Prince will probably not be one of them, so whoever's interested enough to find out who he was will probably have as many opportunities to listen to Emancipation than to Purple Rain, even though encyclopedic articles will certainly emphasize Purple Rain as a more important work than Emancipation.

If we look at how artists from past centuries in any discipline are being remembered today, it seems to me that they are remembered in different ways by different people:

- Specialists of an era or genre and scholars will know many classical music composers, painters or writers that no one else has ever heard about since the day they died, and study their work as a whole.

- People with a solid background in general culture will know the names of the most famous artists from past centuries and will be able to name their most famous works.

- People with average cultural background will know a few names without exactly being able to know when they lived and what they did, and know some extremely famous works by name such as DeVinci's Joconde or Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (often without knowing the artist's name nor when it was created).

- People with zero cultural background won't even be able to tell you who Mozart, Emile Zola or Michaelangelo were nor what they did at all.

It will be the same with current artists except that the quantity is spectacular so it's really hard to tell what or who will manage to remain famous nor why.

In the end though, if you so some research about most artists from past centuries online, from the most important to the most obscure ones, you will first be exposed to an overview of their work that will both sum-up their career as a whole and name their most influential works. Admitting that Prince is still remembered by people of average or higher education in 300 years, I think his hits will be so long gone that he will be remembered primarly for the bulk of his work. Of course 1999, Purple Rain and SOTT will certainly be cited as his most important works but my take is that if he's remembered at all it'll be for his legacy as a whole waaaaay more than for a few songs that will be more outdated by then than a 1925 jazz tune is today for most listeners, because 20 million sales in 1984 won't mean so much in 2384.

Just a guess, though, once again it's friggin' impossible to tell how art will be remembered in the future given the fact that it's been produced in enormous quantities for the first time in human history over the last century or so.

---

This is brilliant, databank! Very insightful and well articulated. I'm enjoying reading this several times over.

---

BartVanHemelen said:

EddieC said:

I was thinking almost exactly this just a few days ago. It's like people think of a classic period and then everything after that is "late period" Prince. Well, the late period, as defined by almost anyone, is now most of his career--even if you go as late as the end of the (first) Warner Bros. phase. He's not flooding the market with multiple releases every year like he was during the early eighties (counting protege albums), but the bulk of Prince is now "late period," and it's just as much "Prince" as whatever "real Prince" anyone wants to cling to. It's just weird to see people saying they feel a certain way (usually negatively) about his "new" music--and the word "new" as they use it covers most of his career.

.

You guys can keep tryign to sell everyone on this nonsensical idea, but the fact of the matter is that EVEN PRINCE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU. What songs does he play in concert? There's your answer.

If your theory was true, he'd be playing 6 hours concerts playing three to four worthy songws from each album (and I think there are actually at least three songs worth performing live on each of his albums).

I'm not sure he likes to go back to a period where everything was going to be okay after the whole WB/Slave struggle, and then everything fell apart.

Who would like to perform songs retrospectively tied to the loss of a son, and then a wife?

As for the "plastic sound", I don't get how some of us put everything in the same bag.
To me, Musicology has a different sound than 3121, and TGE is different from TRC.
Of course they're not that different, it's always the same guy taking the final decisions, but swapping songs from AOA to Emancipation? Seriously?

Last time I spent a week with Emancipation, must have been 2 years ago, I was surprised at how well this ages, if we consider and forgive Prince for always pursuing some ultimate Pop-R'n'B-FM standard in his head.

Put it next to Massive Attack's Protection (same year of issue), it invents nothing, that's for sure.

But it is the main Prince idiom to be in a league of its own, where the outer world does not exist, and where references are always self-references, and the production ideas never change, just evolve.

Still I'm thankful for Somebody's Somebody, Big White Mansion, The Holy River, My Computer... We all know this album would be considered a classic if reduced to a single record (9~10 songs). And I think its sound would be considered as a part of its success.

Been listening to it for the last 2 hours (Emancipation), it's probably my favorite album ever, no contest. My favorite album period ever. It's OK if y'all don't like it, I just wish y'all could hear it the way I hear it, such beauty, such delicateness, such a wonderful musical and lyrical world from the first note to the last. That's what it is for me, esthetic perfection, all of it, and I'm glady I got lucky enough to ever hear this album It's OK if u don't feel it that way, but I do and it makes me happy

no doubt there are great ideas all over emancipation .. the production is so extraordinarily awful in every possible way that it actually outweighs the good ideas burried underneath it all