i never found his interviews about prince interesting or flattering . he never seems as if he really cared to work with prince that him being a jazz musican was so much better than playying with prince .just my opinion and how i feel and i said it and im sticking to it

cbarnes3121 said:

i never found his interviews about prince interesting or flattering . he never seems as if he really cared to work with prince that him being a jazz musican was so much better than playying with prince .just my opinion and how i feel and i said it and im sticking to it

I know where you're getting that idea from by the way he discusses his time with Prince but I don't think that's the case at all.

NouveauDance said:

cbarnes3121 said:

NouveauDance said:

cbarnes3121 said:

i never found his interviews about prince interesting or flattering . he never seems as if he really cared to work with prince that him being a jazz musican was so much better than playying with prince .just my opinion and how i feel and i said it and im sticking to it

I know where you're getting that idea from by the way he discusses his time with Prince but I don't think that's the case at all.

I don't think so, either. If he held Prince in such low esteem, why would he have worked with him as often - and for as long - as he did?

I think the point Eric Leeds is trying to make (perhaps clumsily) is that Prince didn't define music, as some people suggest. But rather, that Prince used music to define who he was. And a lot of people happily bought a ticket for that ride.

It sounds (to me) like Eric Leeds is grateful for the opportunities he had with Prince, but views his work with him as a chapter in his own musical journey - not the defining feature of it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[Edited 5/18/17 8:15am]

Do you have a favourite album you made with him, and why?

Strange as it may sound, I was never a huge fan of Prince's music. I was a fan of Prince the musician. So, while there isn't one ‘go-to’ album for me, I enjoyed certain songs on several albums. But if someone NOT familiar with his music would ask me where to start in getting into his music, I would say to them to listen to Sign O' The Times first. It may, more than any of his albums, embody the diversity and eclecticism of his music.

Yes strange thing to say i suppose all the money you earned because of him helped He does come off as thinking he was too good to perform with Prince

[Edited 5/18/17 8:23am]

Guitarhero said:

Do you have a favourite album you made with him, and why?

Strange as it may sound, I was never a huge fan of Prince's music. I was a fan of Prince the musician. So, while there isn't one ‘go-to’ album for me, I enjoyed certain songs on several albums. But if someone NOT familiar with his music would ask me where to start in getting into his music, I would say to them to listen to Sign O' The Times first. It may, more than any of his albums, embody the diversity and eclecticism of his music.

Yes strange thing to say i suppose all the money you earned because of him helped He does come off as thinking he was too good to perform with Prince

[Edited 5/18/17 8:23am]

Listen to the interview

Genesia said:

NouveauDance said:

I know where you're getting that idea from by the way he discusses his time with Prince but I don't think that's the case at all.

I don't think so, either. If he held Prince in such low esteem, why would he have worked with him as often - and for as long - as he did?

I think the point Eric Leeds is trying to make (perhaps clumsily) is that Prince didn't define music, as some people suggest. But rather, that Prince used music to define who he was. And a lot of people happily bought a ticket for that ride.

It sounds (to me) like Eric Leeds is grateful for the opportunities he had with Prince, but views his work with him as a chapter in his own musical journey - not the defining feature of it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[Edited 5/18/17 8:15am]

like i said i said what i said and im not changing it where i got it from is how he speak of prince not like he speaking down but he always try and say like im this jazz musican thats so high and great

Why is this guy even speaking at a prestigious conference in Prince's honor? he is coming off self-aggrandizing (probably the real reason he is there) and like a jazz snob.

He is a talented musician however. But his statement that no one has innovated music in the last 30 years is more than a bit off the mark.

And the whole not-being-a-fan-of-his-music-but-him-as-a-musician" is basically him being a music snob and a bigger fan of Prince as a performer than as a songwriter.

Maybe, the organizers of this conference should have looked into his previous interviews before assuming that Leeds wouldn't spend the whole time trying to promote his own abilities.

I understand wanting to remind people that he himself has his own musical journey and to not ride on Prince's coattails, but the reality is that he is at a conference in Prince's honor (his life and legacy). Its not about how Prince brought to light the brilliant Eric Leeds.

[Edited 5/18/17 15:07pm]

[Edited 5/18/17 15:09pm]

I think that Genesia is correct in that Prince was not the center of Eric Leeds musical world. That does not mean that Leeds does not respect or admire Prince, but, like Leeds said, he was a professional musician fifteen years before working for Prince. Additionally, we must remember that Leed's brother, Alan, had worked professionally with James Brown and many other great icons of which Eric would have been familiar. So, it's not that Leeds is trying to minimize Prince but merely acknowledging in his own way that Prince may be equal to some of the people that he admires but not necessarily above all of them.

*

I think that because we often see so many musicians whose dream it is to work with Prince because Prince was their entire or majority inspiration that it makes Leeds seem not as interested or not as grateful for having worked with Prince. But, in truth, Prince is merely one of the many great musicians Leeds has know and with whom he has worked. As such, Leeds is not a gushy teenager when discussing Prince but, seemingly, talking in objective terms about Prince as he relates him to other greats, such as Miles Davis, James Brown, and others.

*

Now, would I, personally, like for Leeds to be a bit more enthusiastic when discussing Prince? Sure. But, I don't think that's Leeds personality. I may be wrong, but both Leeds brothers seem to be low-key when it comes to their emotions. And, after reading the interview, I didn't see anything that is dismissive or marginalizing of Prince.

NouveauDance said:

cbarnes3121 said:

i never found his interviews about prince interesting or flattering . he never seems as if he really cared to work with prince that him being a jazz musican was so much better than playying with prince .just my opinion and how i feel and i said it and im sticking to it

I know where you're getting that idea from by the way he discusses his time with Prince but I don't think that's the case at all.

Yeah.

I mean this IS a Prince specific forum, so people might be in they feelings if they suspect that anything seems to take away from the genius of Prince.

But, if people actually read the interview, it really kind of frames what Eric is saying.

When I was young and listening to Ray Charles, James Brown etc it never occurred to me that one day universities would consider their place in music worthy subjects for academic analysis. But clearly, our culture has been influenced and defined by the contributions of many pop artists.

Here he mentions Ray Charles and James Brown and discusses them within the context of "pop artistry." I think a reactionary reading of that is that some people might want to instantly get protective of this because they might associate "pop" with like Britney Spears or whatever.

But, if his framework for understanding music theory is framed within one outside of a "pop" framework (Western Classical, Jazz?) in which one rarely analyzes pop music, then his remarks don't seem that far off. And Ray Charles and James Brown are not bad company to keep if one is comparing another to a pop artists.

And just to add even more context: in the Prince Podcast link above ^^ when Leeds is asked who inspired him to pick up an instrument his response is "Ray Charles... that was my Prince." If Eric is comparing Prince with Ray Charles, I don't know that its shade in the above context.

Also, a key point to the above quotation is that part about "it never occurred to me that one day universities would consider their place in music worthy subjects for academic analysis"

That part right there is kind of important. Anybody here take a music theory class and actually do analysis on pieces of music? For Eric leeds who may have taken these types of classes when he was younger, I can absolutely understand why he might say that. If anything, this line right here is a critique of the history academic institutions of music and their reluctance to incorporate things other than Western Classical and types of music for study.

So remarks like

By the time I began working with Prince, I had already been playing professionally for almost 15 years, so I was pretty much defined by the musical influences I grew up with.... So being a part of Prince's musical ‘process’ re-affirmed my own sense of my ability to realise my own musical goals once I had the opportunity to do that.

Don't really irritate me as much and don't read as shady to me. Especially given the context of his music education and prior work history. But I do wonder what theory Prince could have taught Eric about his instrument..

I also wonder how Clare Fischer might answer such a question.

I can also see how some might get the snob angle too. But let's not pretend P was above the shade game either.

[Edited 5/18/17 18:27pm]

Saying he is not a fan of Prince's music (but a fan of him as a musician) whilst speaking at a conference about Prince??? (BTW, how can you be a fan of the musician but not his recorded music? What the fvck does that even mean?)

His collaborators don't have to worship the ground Prince walks on or think highly of his albums, but if they don't like at least his music, they shouldn't speak at conferences about him. Appreciating his music (on record) should be a prerequisite for even speaking at this conference.)

It would be like speaking about the legacy of Ernest Hemingway at a conference but believing that only his short stories were any good.

1725topp said:

I think that Genesia is correct in that Prince was not the center of Eric Leeds musical world. That does not mean that Leeds does not respect or admire Prince, but, like Leeds said, he was a professional musician fifteen years before working for Prince. Additionally, we must remember that Leed's brother, Alan, had worked professionally with James Brown and many other great icons of which Eric would have been familiar. So, it's not that Leeds is trying to minimize Prince but merely acknowledging in his own way that Prince may be equal to some of the people that he admires but not necessarily above all of them.

*

I think that because we often see so many musicians whose dream it is to work with Prince because Prince was their entire or majority inspiration that it makes Leeds seem not as interested or not as grateful for having worked with Prince. But, in truth, Prince is merely one of the many great musicians Leeds has know and with whom he has worked. As such, Leeds is not a gushy teenager when discussing Prince but, seemingly, talking in objective terms about Prince as he relates him to other greats, such as Miles Davis, James Brown, and others.

*

Now, would I, personally, like for Leeds to be a bit more enthusiastic when discussing Prince? Sure. But, I don't think that's Leeds personality. I may be wrong, but both Leeds brothers seem to be low-key when it comes to their emotions. And, after reading the interview, I didn't see anything that is dismissive or marginalizing of Prince.

Why? Money and opportunity perhaps.

Genesia said:

NouveauDance said:

I know where you're getting that idea from by the way he discusses his time with Prince but I don't think that's the case at all.

I don't think so, either. If he held Prince in such low esteem, why would he have worked with him as often - and for as long - as he did?

I think the point Eric Leeds is trying to make (perhaps clumsily) is that Prince didn't define music, as some people suggest. But rather, that Prince used music to define who he was. And a lot of people happily bought a ticket for that ride.

It sounds (to me) like Eric Leeds is grateful for the opportunities he had with Prince, but views his work with him as a chapter in his own musical journey - not the defining feature of it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[Edited 5/18/17 8:15am]

cbarnes3121 said:

i never found his interviews about prince interesting or flattering . he never seems as if he really cared to work with prince that him being a jazz musican was so much better than playying with prince .just my opinion and how i feel and i said it and im sticking to it

i just assumed it was because he wasn't close to prince at all. He also seems to be a rather dry personality unlike his brother. Not very verbal.

purplerabbithole said:

Saying he is not a fan of Prince's music (but a fan of him as a musician) whilst speaking at a conference about Prince??? (BTW, how can you be a fan of the musician but not his recorded music? What the fvck does that even mean?)

His collaborators don't have to worship the ground Prince walks on or think highly of his albums, but if they don't like at least his music, they shouldn't speak at conferences about him. Appreciating his music (on record) should be a prerequisite for even speaking at this conference.)

It would be like speaking about the legacy of Ernest Hemingway at a conference but believing that only his short stories were any good.

1725topp said:

I think that Genesia is correct in that Prince was not the center of Eric Leeds musical world. That does not mean that Leeds does not respect or admire Prince, but, like Leeds said, he was a professional musician fifteen years before working for Prince. Additionally, we must remember that Leed's brother, Alan, had worked professionally with James Brown and many other great icons of which Eric would have been familiar. So, it's not that Leeds is trying to minimize Prince but merely acknowledging in his own way that Prince may be equal to some of the people that he admires but not necessarily above all of them.

*

I think that because we often see so many musicians whose dream it is to work with Prince because Prince was their entire or majority inspiration that it makes Leeds seem not as interested or not as grateful for having worked with Prince. But, in truth, Prince is merely one of the many great musicians Leeds has know and with whom he has worked. As such, Leeds is not a gushy teenager when discussing Prince but, seemingly, talking in objective terms about Prince as he relates him to other greats, such as Miles Davis, James Brown, and others.

*

Now, would I, personally, like for Leeds to be a bit more enthusiastic when discussing Prince? Sure. But, I don't think that's Leeds personality. I may be wrong, but both Leeds brothers seem to be low-key when it comes to their emotions. And, after reading the interview, I didn't see anything that is dismissive or marginalizing of Prince.

*

Well, as a poet and fiction writer, myself, I can tell you that I admire a lot of different writers' techniques and styles even if I'm not a big fan of their books or collections. For instance, I love a lot of the imagery used in Claudia Rankine's awarding-collection of poetry, Citizen, but I don't care much for the lyrical aspects of the poetry or the resolution, or lack-thereof, of the book. In fact, other than her use of imagery, there is not much of her work that I like. Also, there are a lot of writers who write in various genres of whom I like their work in one genre over another. To that point, I thank that Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” is a fine as anything he’s written, including his novels. The socio-politics of gendered communication—or how genders are taught to communicate—presented in the story is well-executed.

*

As for Leeds speaking at the conference, he should because he can provide technical and historical accounts and affirmations, which is a major purpose of a conference. A prerequisite of speaking at any conference is having critical/scholarly knowledge of the topic, which, again, Leeds has. A conference is not just to "gush" over or about an artist but to engage in serious study of an artist. So, again, Leeds' personal reflections as well as his professional knowledge are very much valued for a "serious" study of Prince's work. The real question or issue should be if the folks there asked Leeds any scholarly questions regarding songwriting, recording, and playing techniques. I'm sure they would have gotten more extended, if not better, answers if they would have asked these types of questions. Furthermore, I'm knowledgeable of Prince's studio bootlegs and his live bootlegs, but I like his live bootlegs more. In fact, I'm not moved nearly as much by Prince's unleased studio work as I am by his unreleased live shows. I probably listen to/like about ten percent of the unreleased studio songs; yet, I spend a great deal more time listening to/enjoying his live shows. As such, I could present a paper at a conference discussing how/why Prince's live performances are critical to understanding Prince as much as his studio work. I could probably even write a thorough paper asserting that, often, Prince's live performance of a song seems always to be enjoyed more than the recorded studio version.

*

Finally, if you have ever attended any conferences, you know that most folks at conferences specialize in one or two aspects of an artist's works. There are some scholars who specialize in Shakespeare's tragedies while other scholars specialize in his comedies. (There are classes at many universities that teach only the tragedies or the comedies.) Believe it or not, there are Shakespearean scholars that specialize in his poetry. And, the same is true of Hemingway. Some scholars specialize in his short stories while others specialize in his novels. So, at a conference, there will be various scholars discussing various aspects of an artist's work, which provides a well-rounded, insightful, and illuminating conference. Just think how boring it would be if a conference invited twenty scholars all to discuss the same aspect. What would be the point of attending more than one of the panels? So, I hope that this conference had scholars that specialized in various aspects of Prince's work and legacy so as to produce well-spring of knowledge.

PeteSilas said:

cbarnes3121 said:

i never found his interviews about prince interesting or flattering . he never seems as if he really cared to work with prince that him being a jazz musican was so much better than playying with prince .just my opinion and how i feel and i said it and im sticking to it

i just assumed it was because he wasn't close to prince at all. He also seems to be a rather dry personality unlike his brother. Not very verbal.

I agree. And his type seemed to be Prince's favorite kind of musician -- the one who clearly recognized Prince as boss, was down to jam at any and all times, and never seemed to be interested in getting in Prince's life/biz aside from that. Those types were usually the ones he'd keep around for a long time. and i agree he's not as animated and entertaining as Alan

[Edited 5/18/17 19:13pm]

Oops--double post.

[Edited 5/18/17 19:17pm]

[Edited 5/18/17 19:18pm]

Oh my goodness. I am no professional writer or poet but it might suprise you to learn that my major in college was English secondary education and my minor was creative writing.

As for my post that you responded to, I understand specializing in different aspects of a writer's body of work for the purpose of a symposium or conference, but I still believe that the experts/speakers on certain writers should at least be a fan of the majority of their work. A conference about Prince's work would most likely focus on his studio albums more than his live performances due to the limited number of official concert films out there from Prince. (bootlegs probably wouldn't count). If the conference were to focus on a performer known primarily for his live stage work or performance style, then maybe Leeds would be a good choice since he was there on tour and could provide history. I still contend that he is a poor choice for this conference due to his general lack of interest in Prince's artistry other than what he himself contributed.

I used a poor analogy earlier with the Hemingway short stories obviously. So, I will attempt another one. Its almost like Leeds is Hemingway's editor saying something akin to "I dislike Heminway's turn of phrase but I love his penmanship and work effort; and yeah, check out how wonderfully I corrected his grammar". Okay, here's another one. What expert on Shakespeare would contend that his tragedies are the only thing worth reading? A preference is one thing.. I personally rather read his plays than his poems but I acknowledge that they are all well-written. Gushing over Prince isn't what a conference should do but a certain degree of reverence would be good considering its not supposed to be a takedown of Prince.

As for your belief that his live version of unreleased music is prefereable to the studio versions, I agree but I also believe that his best studio work is the stuff he chose to release.

1725topp said:

purplerabbithole said:

Saying he is not a fan of Prince's music (but a fan of him as a musician) whilst speaking at a conference about Prince??? (BTW, how can you be a fan of the musician but not his recorded music? What the fvck does that even mean?)

His collaborators don't have to worship the ground Prince walks on or think highly of his albums, but if they don't like at least his music, they shouldn't speak at conferences about him. Appreciating his music (on record) should be a prerequisite for even speaking at this conference.)

It would be like speaking about the legacy of Ernest Hemingway at a conference but believing that only his short stories were any good.

*

Well, as a poet and fiction writer, myself, I can tell you that I admire a lot of different writers' techniques and styles even if I'm not a big fan of their books or collections. For instance, I love a lot of the imagery used in Claudia Rankine's awarding-collection of poetry, Citizen, but I don't care much for the lyrical aspects of the poetry or the resolution, or lack-thereof, of the book. In fact, other than her use of imagery, there is not much of her work that I like. Also, there are a lot of writers who write in various genres of whom I like their work in one genre over another. To that point, I thank that Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” is a fine as anything he’s written, including his novels. The socio-politics of gendered communication—or how genders are taught to communicate—presented in the story is well-executed.

*

As for Leeds speaking at the conference, he should because he can provide technical and historical accounts and affirmations, which is a major purpose of a conference. A prerequisite of speaking at any conference is having critical/scholarly knowledge of the topic, which, again, Leeds has. A conference is not just to "gush" over or about an artist but to engage in serious study of an artist. So, again, Leeds' personal reflections as well as his professional knowledge are very much valued for a "serious" study of Prince's work. The real question or issue should be if the folks there asked Leeds any scholarly questions regarding songwriting, recording, and playing techniques. I'm sure they would have gotten more extended, if not better, answers if they would have asked these types of questions. Furthermore, I'm knowledgeable of Prince's studio bootlegs and his live bootlegs, but I like his live bootlegs more. In fact, I'm not moved nearly as much by Prince's unleased studio work as I am by his unreleased live shows. I probably listen to/like about ten percent of the unreleased studio songs; yet, I spend a great deal more time listening to/enjoying his live shows. As such, I could present a paper at a conference discussing how/why Prince's live performances are critical to understanding Prince as much as his studio work. I could probably even write a thorough paper asserting that, often, Prince's live performance of a song seems always to be enjoyed more than the recorded studio version.

*

Finally, if you have ever attended any conferences, you know that most folks at conferences specialize in one or two aspects of an artist's works. There are some scholars who specialize in Shakespeare's tragedies while other scholars specialize in his comedies. (There are classes at many universities that teach only the tragedies or the comedies.) Believe it or not, there are Shakespearean scholars that specialize in his poetry. And, the same is true of Hemingway. Some scholars specialize in his short stories while others specialize in his novels. So, at a conference, there will be various scholars discussing various aspects of an artist's work, which provides a well-rounded, insightful, and illuminating conference. Just think how boring it would be if a conference invited twenty scholars all to discuss the same aspect. What would be the point of attending more than one of the panels? So, I hope that this conference had scholars that specialized in various aspects of Prince's work and legacy so as to produce well-spring of knowledge.

[Edited 5/18/17 20:33pm]

[Edited 5/18/17 20:42pm]

[Edited 5/18/17 20:45pm]

That "Hemingways editor" is an even worse analogy, Alan Leeds didn't edit or produce Prince.

Clearly he enjoyed playing with Prince musician to musician but probably has no interest in pop music in general so doesn't see much value in the side to Prince that we all enjoy so much. His loss sure, but there's no lack of people willing to talk about Prince's pop genius so I always value his perspective even if I don't share it.

[Edited 5/18/17 20:46pm]

Its Eric, not Alan.

Of course, he didn't edit or produce him. He worked with him and performed his work is all I am saying. Working with him doesn't give him the ability to analyze his work. Unless the point of the conference is the performance styles of Prince, or how Prince collaborates, why invite a man with no reverence for his work to a conference celebrating his work?

Eric would be a good reference for a book about Prince's recording history, but since Eric can't offer any insight about his personal life and doesn't give a shit about his legacy, why is he at a conference about Prince's "life and legacy"?

Third attempt at an analogy (I am tired so don't be rude),

If an actor who wanted a better paying gig took a job doing a playwright's work that he generally disliked, would he be a good expert to consult for a conference about the legacy that playwright?

jaawwnn said:

That's an even worse analogy, Alan Leeds didn't edit or produce Prince.

Clearly he enjoyed playing with Prince musician to musician but probably has no interest in pop music in general so doesn't see much value in the side to Prince that we all enjoy so much. His loss sure, but there's no lack of people willing to talk about Prince's pop genius so I always value his perspective even if I don't share it.

[Edited 5/18/17 20:55pm]

[Edited 5/18/17 20:57pm]

purplerabbithole said:

Its Eric, not Alan.

Of course, he didn't edit or produce him. He worked with him and performed his work is all I am saying. Working with him doesn't give him the ability to analyze his work. Unless the point of the conference is the performance styles of Prince, or how Prince collaborates, why invite a man with no reverence for his work to a conference celebrating his work?

Eric would be a good reference for a book about Prince's recording history, but since Eric can't offer any insight about his personal life and doesn't give a shit about his legacy, why is he at a conference about Prince's "life and legacy"?

Third attempt at an analogy (I am tired so don't be rude),

If an actor who wanted a better paying gig took a job doing a playwright's work that he generally disliked, would he be a good expert to consult for a conference about the legacy that playwright?

jaawwnn said:

That's an even worse analogy, Alan Leeds didn't edit or produce Prince.

Clearly he enjoyed playing with Prince musician to musician but probably has no interest in pop music in general so doesn't see much value in the side to Prince that we all enjoy so much. His loss sure, but there's no lack of people willing to talk about Prince's pop genius so I always value his perspective even if I don't share it.

[Edited 5/18/17 20:55pm]

[Edited 5/18/17 20:57pm]

Ha, yeah, my bad re: Eric. Sorry for being rude, i'm tired as well.

Anyway, i think his opinion is worth listening to as a musician who worked with him rather than as a pop fan who wants to analyse pop songs. Prince's musicianship is part of his legacy.

[Edited 5/18/17 20:59pm]

Just a little bit insight if we're going to discuss the propriety of who and who should not be speaking here. Per the actual event:

About

Purple Reign: An interdisciplinary conference on the life and legacy of Prince is a three day international academic conference hosted by the School of Arts and Media, University of Salford, UK and the Department of Recording Industry, Middle Tennessee State University, USA.

The conference, taking place between 24th-26th May 2017, will provide fresh perspectives on the creative and commercial dimensions of Prince’s career, re-examining the meanings of his work in the context of his unexpected death.

Purple Reign presents a timely consideration of the cultural impact, iconic status of Prince and his global legacies across many media platforms. It will examine all aspects of his creative output and the ways in which it intersects with video, performance, literature, theatre, film, digital culture, design and fashion.

We will address the issue of Prince’s significant influence and lasting appeal from a number of multi-disciplinary perspectives. We have welcomed scholars from across the globe, covering study fields of popular music and sound, gender and culture, television, film and celebrity studies, visual arts, performance studies, and digital media.

Bold is mine.

But yeah, given the actual aims of the event, one doesn't really have to be a fan of his music in order to be able to speak any of these many different topics not limited to the actual music.

Eric's comments do speak to Prince's influence. I don't see how his perspective is not relevant to this specific event's aims.

[Edited 5/18/17 21:16pm]

Isn't this largely a case of us, fans, to expect everyone who has worked with Prince to be limitlessly praising him?

Just as there are non-Prince fans, there will have been musicians Prince worked with who clearly found it interesting and fun etc, but who were not star struck, or indeed, were not molded by Prince.

Eric was not a young novice when joining the band and had largely found his voice as a musician. Whether he's less successful or known than Prince does not mean his position towards his Prince days is throwing shade or unrespectful.

For once someone is really talking about their journey and putting things in perspective when it comes their time with Prince and fans are already getting annoyed.

The problem here is not Eric but the expectations and tolerance levels of some fans when Prince is subject of discussion.

zobilamouche said:

Isn't this largely a case of us, fans, to expect everyone who has worked with Prince to be limitlessly praising him?

Just as there are non-Prince fans, there will have been musicians Prince worked with who clearly found it interesting and fun etc, but who were not star struck, or indeed, were not molded by Prince.

Eric was not a young novice when joining the band and had largely found his voice as a musician. Whether he's less successful or known than Prince does not mean his position towards his Prince days is throwing shade or unrespectful.

For once someone is really talking about their journey and putting things in perspective when it comes their time with Prince and fans are already getting annoyed.

The problem here is not Eric but the expectations and tolerance levels of some fans when Prince is subject of discussion.

could be, i don't read much into it. there are going to be a variety of opinions about anything and anyone, just the way it is. and as far as strictly musicianship, sorry, there are a billion great musicians, many of them in prince's league as strictly musicians, I couldn't see a renato neto being blown away by Prince's playing, hell, even prince would tell you that he's not as advanced as a player. Plenty of musicians are blown away by prince but usually it's either a combination of things or how much better than he is than them at an instrument, which, like I said, there are really a billion great musicians. The thing that made Prince special was his variety of abilities all put together. And not everyone is a fan of everyones music, lots of people think the beatles are overrated or don't like elvis or whatever.

zobilamouche said:

Isn't this largely a case of us, fans, to expect everyone who has worked with Prince to be limitlessly praising him?

Just as there are non-Prince fans, there will have been musicians Prince worked with who clearly found it interesting and fun etc, but who were not star struck, or indeed, were not molded by Prince.

Eric was not a young novice when joining the band and had largely found his voice as a musician. Whether he's less successful or known than Prince does not mean his position towards his Prince days is throwing shade or unrespectful.

For once someone is really talking about their journey and putting things in perspective when it comes their time with Prince and fans are already getting annoyed.

The problem here is not Eric but the expectations and tolerance levels of some fans when Prince is subject of discussion.

Orson_welles_clapping.gif

zobilamouche said:

Isn't this largely a case of us, fans, to expect everyone who has worked with Prince to be limitlessly praising him?

FFS, this.

Not everybody is going to stan every aspect about him be it his artistry, style, disposition, work, etc.

People are entitled to their own opinions based upon their actual direct interactions with the man.

Guitarhero said:

Genesia said: