runningbear said:

Think the consensus amongst most fans would be MPLSound, but without Elixir and Lotusflower. Check out classics like There Will Never b Another Like Me, and Chocolate Box, both most would agree are top 10 overall Prince songs. Some also would include classics, When Doves Cry and I Could Never take the Place of your Man as top 10, agree, but from different albums, so must be MPLSound, enjoy it

Adorecream said:

Deleted - lange bleu - moderator

Ok. I guarantee, if Mozart Bach or Beethoven came down to earth. Or Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis for that matter. Or hell, even Liberace. NONE of them would rate NEWS or The Rainbow Children poorly. So while reviewing P albums effectively from a score out of 1000, you might want to acknowledge you don't get jazz, or anything approximating it.

Parade

Sign O The Times

Dirty Mind

fortuneandserendipity said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Adorecream said:

Deleted - lange bleu - moderator

Ok. I guarantee, if Mozart Bach or Beethoven came down to earth. Or Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis for that matter. Or hell, even Liberace. NONE of them would rate NEWS or The Rainbow Children poorly. So while reviewing P albums effectively from a score out of 1000, you might want to acknowledge you don't get jazz, or anything approximating it.

I don't like jazz, bores me to tears. Just my generation I guess (Gen X) and I am not ashamed of it. NEWS and TRC suck as they are boring, have nothing new to offer and as Moonbeam said, Prince's take on jazz is weak and superficial, Kenny G style 1980s corporate schlock.

.

I also dislike TRC for its Darth Vader voices, offensive bible belt lyrics and dogmatic crap.

Adorecream said:

I also dislike TRC for its Darth Vader voices, offensive bible belt lyrics and dogmatic crap.

Same here, although I do like bits of NEWS - which has none of those things!

Adorecream said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Ok. I guarantee, if Mozart Bach or Beethoven came down to earth. Or Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis for that matter. Or hell, even Liberace. NONE of them would rate NEWS or The Rainbow Children poorly. So while reviewing P albums effectively from a score out of 1000, you might want to acknowledge you don't get jazz, or anything approximating it.

I don't like jazz, bores me to tears. Just my generation I guess (Gen X) and I am not ashamed of it. NEWS and TRC suck as they are boring, have nothing new to offer and as Moonbeam said, Prince's take on jazz is weak and superficial, Kenny G style 1980s corporate schlock.

.

I also dislike TRC for its Darth Vader voices, offensive bible belt lyrics and dogmatic crap.

If you're unable to realize the difference between Kenny G and Madhouse/Xpectation/NEWS, it's really scary

that's Kenny G on the right yeah?

Moonbeam said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Ok. I guarantee, if Mozart Bach or Beethoven came down to earth. Or Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis for that matter. Or hell, even Liberace. NONE of them would rate NEWS or The Rainbow Children poorly. So while reviewing P albums effectively from a score out of 1000, you might want to acknowledge you don't get jazz, or anything approximating it.

I'm not that big into jazz, but I find Prince's jazz work to lag well behind that of people like Sun Ra, John Coltrane, Charles Mingus, or Miles Davis.

There's a simple explaination to that: all the people you quote had a deep knowledge of musical theory, while Prince didn't.

It could also be argued that jazz was those people's main musical playground, while it never was Prince's. Typically, Miles lagged far behind Prince when he tried to make electrofunk and pop in the 80's.

Prince's "jazz" works were interesting for the same exact reason most of what Prince did was interesting, but you're not gonna do them a fair trial by comparing them to the top 10 greatest geniuses in the history of jazz. It's just as ridiculous as trying to evaluate Kamasutra by comparison to the works of Mozart, Beethoven and Chopin altogether, or The Truth by comparison to the works of Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell.

It can also be noted that in the context of 1987, 8 and 16 were pretty remarkable jazz-funk records by comparison to what was done at the time in terms of trying to bridge the gap between jazz, funk and electronic music.

databank said:

Moonbeam said:

fortuneandserendipity said: I'm not that big into jazz, but I find Prince's jazz work to lag well behind that of people like Sun Ra, John Coltrane, Charles Mingus, or Miles Davis.

There's a simple explaination to that: all the people you quote had a deep knowledge of musical theory, while Prince didn't.

It could also be argued that jazz was those people's main musical playground, while it never was Prince's. Typically, Miles lagged far behind Prince when he tried to make electrofunk and pop in the 80's.

Prince's "jazz" works were interesting for the same exact reason most of what Prince did was interesting, but you're not gonna do them a fair trial by comparing them to the top 10 greatest geniuses in the history of jazz. It's just as ridiculous as trying to evaluate Kamasutra by comparison to the works of Mozart, Beethoven and Chopin altogether, or The Truth by comparison to the works of Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell.

It can also be noted that in the context of 1987, 8 and 16 were pretty remarkable jazz-funk records by comparison to what was done at the time in terms of trying to bridge the gap between jazz, funk and electronic music.

To be fair, we can't yet properly analyze Prince's contribution to jazz, because he hasn't really done an out and out jazz record, that's been released. P once said in interview (98/99) one of the things in his vault that would attract most interest was the "best jazz". I take by that, he meant jazz that wasn't a halfway house between two different genres. So until we hear that stuff we can't really judge.

fortuneandserendipity said:

databank said:

There's a simple explaination to that: all the people you quote had a deep knowledge of musical theory, while Prince didn't.

It could also be argued that jazz was those people's main musical playground, while it never was Prince's. Typically, Miles lagged far behind Prince when he tried to make electrofunk and pop in the 80's.

Prince's "jazz" works were interesting for the same exact reason most of what Prince did was interesting, but you're not gonna do them a fair trial by comparing them to the top 10 greatest geniuses in the history of jazz. It's just as ridiculous as trying to evaluate Kamasutra by comparison to the works of Mozart, Beethoven and Chopin altogether, or The Truth by comparison to the works of Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell.

It can also be noted that in the context of 1987, 8 and 16 were pretty remarkable jazz-funk records by comparison to what was done at the time in terms of trying to bridge the gap between jazz, funk and electronic music.

To be fair, we can't yet properly analyze Prince's contribution to jazz, because he hasn't really done an out and out jazz record, that's been released. P once said in interview (98/99) one of the things in his vault that would attract most interest was the "best jazz". I take by that, he meant jazz that wasn't a halfway house between two different genres. So until we hear that stuff we can't really judge.

There's no such thing, take my word: Prince didn't know music theory, which is a great handicap if you're gonna claim to compose or play traditional jazz.

.

There's probably a lot of music in the vein of his already known jazz projects in the vault, and I look forward to hearing it because I love his jazz stuff, but I doubt anything in the vault is of a nature to radically change anyone's perception of it. But I don't really understand that need to judge those records as "jazz records" to be honest. They're more funk than jazz, they just have a jazzy flavour.

.

They have inherant qualities that aren't necessarily jazz qualities per se.

.

I don't know, I find 8 to be a remarkably warm, relaxing and intimate record. There's a strangeness to it, too, but it deosn't try to sound like anything but Prince, it's first and foremost very typical Prince music, only with a jazzy vibe. It's a simple record really, not an album that tries to impress, it's a bit like a sort of funny wet dream, almost cartoonish at times, and it works perfectly. It flows remarkably well, too. There was a very well written article in Wax Poetics, with a review of 8 that pretty much caught the spirit of the album IMHO: http://www.waxpoetics.com...ric-leeds/

.

16 is on the other side of the same spectrum: while sharing a "texture/color" with 8, it's a remarkably agressive record, almost a prelude to the Black Album that was supposed to follow it. 16 is one of Prince's most radical pieces of work! Some tracks are actually comparable to techno, but played with organic instruments! Besides the obvious avant-garde nature of such a project, this gave it all its strength at a time where "hip" jazz musicians buried themselves under synthesizers and drum machines that they were generally uncapable of using properly. Prince was, but he knew better than to try and do it like everyone else, when he actually could have done it better than any of them given his mastery of drum machines and synths. This was an admirably smart approach in the context of 1987.

.

I won't comment too much on Times Squared because when he finished the record, Eric somewhat "tamed" Prince's music by polishing it a little too much. He almost made it too politically correct, giving Prince's music a more conventional smooth jazz tone. That makes for a cool record that I really like but it also makes it an easy target for those people who want to compare Prince's jazz to Bitches Brew or A Love Supreme. It would be interesting to hear the tracks as they were before Eric reworked them and see how it sounds. I don't mean to demean Eric's work, he's one of my musical heroes, but he certainly took a safer path there than Prince would have.

.

Xpectation is an interesting record because it sounds like something pretty smooth and innofensive, but there's a lot of tension hiding behind the appearances. It's there, it never blows off, but you can feel it. Xpectation implies a world of complexities in the image of the somewhat pedantic "X" titles. The band plays remarkably well, of course, which doesn't hurt. And Prince really took Candy to places she never goes on her own, which also makes it all the more interesting because she reveals an aspect of herself you wouldn't suspect from her own records. There obvious references to Funkadelic, too, which shows again that it was all more about funk than jazz in the end.

.

As for NEWS, it may be the most remarkable of the bunch. Besides the incredible musicianship displayed by the 5 musicians, it is an extraordinarily narrative piece of music, it's very cinematic, very visual and all in connection to the geographic areas the titles design. People often fail to hear any of that but if you really get into it it's a hell of a journey throughout very different landcapes, climates, eras and civilizations! It may also be Prince's most daring record in the sense that he probably never went so far outside of his comfort zone, save maybe on Kamasutra and The War. NEWS doesn't really sound like Prince, and if there was one thing Prince had a hard time doing (not that he tried much), it was not sounding like Prince!

.

So this is the Prince jazz canon: 5 vastly underrrated records, and not much indeed in the gigantic bulk of Prince's work. I wouldn't count C-Note as a jazz record at all because it's really an instrumental funk album, closer to 70's funk than jazz. But if you wanted to do that it has its qualities too, though it somewhat lacks cohesiveness with Empty Room thrown in the middle, and pace with 3 ballads ending it back to back.

.

Of course we also know the 1977 instrumental sessions (again more funk than jazz), the marvelous Flesh sessions (that will blow the critics' minds when released) and 2 additional Madhouse albums that both have very interesting qualities and atmospheres, but unfortunately none were released so, so far, they do not belong to the canon. There was also NPGQ but the few tracks we heard really weren't encouraging: IDK exactly how involved Prince was in this but it sounded to me like terribly generic.

.

So IDK. Again, the problem is that Prince's "jazz" records, if you insist on calling them jazz, have a big problem finding an audience among Prince fans. Prince's audience has a great share of rock and folk fans who aren't into R&B or funk at all in the first place, let alone jazz. It also has a great share of people who only listen to mainstream pop and have no taste for, nor knowledge of instrumental or experimental music whatsoever (let us not forget those orgers who occasionally claim that instrumental albums are not real albums, leaving us to wonder what they are, then!). And the few fans who are into jazz then ask Prince to level with the greatest jazz composers of all times, which is evidently unfair since Prince never was a jazz artist, and never studied musical theory. So what's left? A bunch of people who are very much into funk and find great qualities in his jazz-funk works, and another bunch of people who are very much into Prince's work as a whole -as opposed to a few selected favorites- and find as many inherant Prince qualities in his jazz records as in the rest of his works.

.

And we can add to that that there's, well, a world between albums such as 8 and NEWS, The Flesh and Xpectation, or 16 and the 1993 24, that makes it pretty much vain to try and pigeonhole all those works into being "Prince's jazz records", because they're just all so unique and different in the end!

.

[Edited 10/19/17 9:35am]

Adorecream said:

databank said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

To be fair, we can't yet properly analyze Prince's contribution to jazz, because he hasn't really done an out and out jazz record, that's been released. P once said in interview (98/99) one of the things in his vault that would attract most interest was the "best jazz". I take by that, he meant jazz that wasn't a halfway house between two different genres. So until we hear that stuff we can't really judge.

There's no such thing, take my word: Prince didn't know music theory, which is a great handicap if you're gonna claim to compose or play traditional jazz.

.

There's probably a lot of music in the vein of his already known jazz projects in the vault, and I look forward to hearing it because I love his jazz stuff, but I doubt anything in the vault is of a nature to radically change anyone's perception of it. But I don't really understand that need to judge those records as "jazz records" to be honest. They're more funk than jazz, they just have a jazzy flavour.

.

They have inherant qualities that aren't necessarily jazz qualities per se.

.

I don't know, I find 8 to be a remarkably warm, relaxing and intimate record. There's a strangeness to it, too, but it deosn't try to sound like anything but Prince, it's first and foremost very typical Prince music, only with a jazzy vibe. It's a simple record really, not an album that tries to impress, it's a bit like a sort of funny wet dream, almost cartoonish at times, and it works perfectly. It flows remarkably well, too. There was a very well written article in Wax Poetics, with a review of 8 that pretty much caught the spirit of the album IMHO: http://www.waxpoetics.com...ric-leeds/

.

16 is on the other side of the same spectrum: while sharing a "texture/color" with 8, it's a remarkably agressive record, almost a prelude to the Black Album that was supposed to follow it. 16 is one of Prince's most radical pieces of work! Some tracks are actually comparable to techno, but played with organic instruments! Besides the obvious avant-garde nature of such a project, this gave it all its strength at a time where "hip" jazz musicians buried themselves under synthesizers and drum machines that they were generally uncapable of using properly. Prince was, but he knew better than to try and do it like everyone else, when he actually could have done it better than any of them given his mastery of drum machines and synths. This was an admirably smart approach in the context of 1987.

.

I won't comment too much on Times Squared because when he finished the record, Eric somewhat "tamed" Prince's music by polishing it a little too much. He almost made it too politically correct, giving Prince's music a more conventional smooth jazz tone. That makes for a cool record that I really like but it also makes it an easy target for those people who want to compare Prince's jazz to Bitches Brew or A Love Supreme. It would be interesting to hear the tracks as they were before Eric reworked them and see how it sounds. I don't mean to demean Eric's work, he's one of my musical heroes, but he certainly took a safer path there than Prince would have.

.

Xpectation is an interesting record because it sounds like something pretty smooth and innofensive, but there's a lot of tension hiding behind the appearances. It's there, it never blows off, but you can feel it. Xpectation implies a world of complexities in the image of the somewhat pedantic "X" titles. The band plays remarkably well, of course, which doesn't hurt. And Prince really took Candy to places she never goes on her own, which also makes it all the more interesting because she reveals an aspect of herself you wouldn't suspect from her own records. There obvious references to Funkadelic, too, which shows again that it was all more about funk than jazz in the end.

.

As for NEWS, it may be the most remarkable of the bunch. Besides the incredible musicianship displayed by the 5 musicians, it is an extraordinarily narrative piece of music, it's very cinematic, very visual and all in connection to the geographic areas the titles design. People often fail to hear any of that but if you really get into it it's a hell of a journey throughout very different landcapes, climates, eras and civilizations! It may also be Prince's most daring record in the sense that he probably never went so far outside of his comfort zone, save maybe on Kamasutra and The War. NEWS doesn't really sound like Prince, and if there was one thing Prince had a hard time doing (not that he tried much), it was not sounding like Prince!

.

So this is the Prince jazz canon: 5 vastly underrrated records, and not much indeed in the gigantic bulk of Prince's work. I wouldn't count C-Note as a jazz record at all because it's really an instrumental funk album, closer to 70's funk than jazz. But if you wanted to do that it has its qualities too, though it somewhat lacks cohesiveness with Empty Room thrown in the middle, and pace with 3 ballads ending it back to back.

.

Of course we also know the 1977 instrumental sessions (again more funk than jazz), the marvelous Flesh sessions (that will blow the critics' minds when released) and 2 additional Madhouse albums that both have very interesting qualities and atmospheres, but unfortunately none were released so, so far, they do not belong to the canon. There was also NPGQ but the few tracks we heard really weren't encouraging: IDK exactly how involved Prince was in this but it sounded to me like terribly generic.

.

So IDK. Again, the problem is that Prince's "jazz" records, if you insist on calling them jazz, have a big problem finding an audience among Prince fans. Prince's audience has a great share of rock and folk fans who aren't into R&B or funk at all in the first place, let alone jazz. It also has a great share of people who only listen to mainstream pop and have no taste for, nor knowledge of instrumental or experimental music whatsoever (let us not forget those orgers who occasionally claim that instrumental albums are not real albums, leaving us to wonder what they are, then!). And the few fans who are into jazz then ask Prince to level with the greatest jazz composers of all times, which is evidently unfair since Prince never was a jazz artist, and never studied musical theory. So what's left? A bunch of people who are very much into funk and find great qualities in his jazz-funk works, and another bunch of people who are very much into Prince's work as a whole -as opposed to a few selected favorites- and find as many inherant Prince qualities in his jazz records as in the rest of his works.

.

And we can add to that that there's, well, a world between albums such as 8 and NEWS, The Flesh and Xpectation, or 16 and the 1993 24, that makes it pretty much vain to try and pigeonhole all those works into being "Prince's jazz records", because they're just all so unique and different in the end!

.

[Edited 10/19/17 9:35am]

Can anyone know for sure P never learnt music theory? Granted, it was quite obvious earlier in his career, he learnt basics and how to play by ear. He also said later on, that he only 'knew 2 chords [by name]'. But that doesn't preclude him learning music theory at some point in future.

Also, it was quite apparent he knew how to play lots of chords, judging by piano left hand skills as well as his all-round guitar ability. He also claimed to have helped Beyonce's singing by teaching her scales. Would he have needed to know all the written theory to acquire those necessary skills for learning jazz? I'm not sure. It's a lot more free form, so to speak, than classical music for instance, which has to be written down.

SignOthetimes1987 said:

databank said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

databank said:

There's no such thing, take my word: Prince didn't know music theory, which is a great handicap if you're gonna claim to compose or play traditional jazz.

.

There's probably a lot of music in the vein of his already known jazz projects in the vault, and I look forward to hearing it because I love his jazz stuff, but I doubt anything in the vault is of a nature to radically change anyone's perception of it. But I don't really understand that need to judge those records as "jazz records" to be honest. They're more funk than jazz, they just have a jazzy flavour.

.

They have inherant qualities that aren't necessarily jazz qualities per se.

.

I don't know, I find 8 to be a remarkably warm, relaxing and intimate record. There's a strangeness to it, too, but it deosn't try to sound like anything but Prince, it's first and foremost very typical Prince music, only with a jazzy vibe. It's a simple record really, not an album that tries to impress, it's a bit like a sort of funny wet dream, almost cartoonish at times, and it works perfectly. It flows remarkably well, too. There was a very well written article in Wax Poetics, with a review of 8 that pretty much caught the spirit of the album IMHO: http://www.waxpoetics.com...ric-leeds/

.

16 is on the other side of the same spectrum: while sharing a "texture/color" with 8, it's a remarkably agressive record, almost a prelude to the Black Album that was supposed to follow it. 16 is one of Prince's most radical pieces of work! Some tracks are actually comparable to techno, but played with organic instruments! Besides the obvious avant-garde nature of such a project, this gave it all its strength at a time where "hip" jazz musicians buried themselves under synthesizers and drum machines that they were generally uncapable of using properly. Prince was, but he knew better than to try and do it like everyone else, when he actually could have done it better than any of them given his mastery of drum machines and synths. This was an admirably smart approach in the context of 1987.

.

I won't comment too much on Times Squared because when he finished the record, Eric somewhat "tamed" Prince's music by polishing it a little too much. He almost made it too politically correct, giving Prince's music a more conventional smooth jazz tone. That makes for a cool record that I really like but it also makes it an easy target for those people who want to compare Prince's jazz to Bitches Brew or A Love Supreme. It would be interesting to hear the tracks as they were before Eric reworked them and see how it sounds. I don't mean to demean Eric's work, he's one of my musical heroes, but he certainly took a safer path there than Prince would have.

.

Xpectation is an interesting record because it sounds like something pretty smooth and innofensive, but there's a lot of tension hiding behind the appearances. It's there, it never blows off, but you can feel it. Xpectation implies a world of complexities in the image of the somewhat pedantic "X" titles. The band plays remarkably well, of course, which doesn't hurt. And Prince really took Candy to places she never goes on her own, which also makes it all the more interesting because she reveals an aspect of herself you wouldn't suspect from her own records. There obvious references to Funkadelic, too, which shows again that it was all more about funk than jazz in the end.

.

As for NEWS, it may be the most remarkable of the bunch. Besides the incredible musicianship displayed by the 5 musicians, it is an extraordinarily narrative piece of music, it's very cinematic, very visual and all in connection to the geographic areas the titles design. People often fail to hear any of that but if you really get into it it's a hell of a journey throughout very different landcapes, climates, eras and civilizations! It may also be Prince's most daring record in the sense that he probably never went so far outside of his comfort zone, save maybe on Kamasutra and The War. NEWS doesn't really sound like Prince, and if there was one thing Prince had a hard time doing (not that he tried much), it was not sounding like Prince!

.

So this is the Prince jazz canon: 5 vastly underrrated records, and not much indeed in the gigantic bulk of Prince's work. I wouldn't count C-Note as a jazz record at all because it's really an instrumental funk album, closer to 70's funk than jazz. But if you wanted to do that it has its qualities too, though it somewhat lacks cohesiveness with Empty Room thrown in the middle, and pace with 3 ballads ending it back to back.

.

Of course we also know the 1977 instrumental sessions (again more funk than jazz), the marvelous Flesh sessions (that will blow the critics' minds when released) and 2 additional Madhouse albums that both have very interesting qualities and atmospheres, but unfortunately none were released so, so far, they do not belong to the canon. There was also NPGQ but the few tracks we heard really weren't encouraging: IDK exactly how involved Prince was in this but it sounded to me like terribly generic.

.

So IDK. Again, the problem is that Prince's "jazz" records, if you insist on calling them jazz, have a big problem finding an audience among Prince fans. Prince's audience has a great share of rock and folk fans who aren't into R&B or funk at all in the first place, let alone jazz. It also has a great share of people who only listen to mainstream pop and have no taste for, nor knowledge of instrumental or experimental music whatsoever (let us not forget those orgers who occasionally claim that instrumental albums are not real albums, leaving us to wonder what they are, then!). And the few fans who are into jazz then ask Prince to level with the greatest jazz composers of all times, which is evidently unfair since Prince never was a jazz artist, and never studied musical theory. So what's left? A bunch of people who are very much into funk and find great qualities in his jazz-funk works, and another bunch of people who are very much into Prince's work as a whole -as opposed to a few selected favorites- and find as many inherant Prince qualities in his jazz records as in the rest of his works.

.

And we can add to that that there's, well, a world between albums such as 8 and NEWS, The Flesh and Xpectation, or 16 and the 1993 24, that makes it pretty much vain to try and pigeonhole all those works into being "Prince's jazz records", because they're just all so unique and different in the end!

.

[Edited 10/19/17 9:35am]

Can anyone know for sure P never learnt music theory? Granted, it was quite obvious earlier in his career, he learnt basics and how to play by ear. He also said later on, that he only 'knew 2 chords [by name]'. But that doesn't preclude him learning music theory at some point in future.

As far as the mid 2000's, he couldn't write or read music.

.
Also, it was quite apparent he knew how to play lots of chords, judging by piano left hand skills as well as his all-round guitar ability. He also claimed to have helped Beyonce's singing by teaching her scales.

Obviously, one can't make a career in music and have zero knowledge of how it works. I do not claim Prince had zero knowledge of musical theory. Just that he never studied it thoroughly. Similarly, most musician understand certain things about ingeneering even though they're not engineers.

.

Would he have needed to know all the written theory to acquire those necessary skills for learning jazz? I'm not sure. It's a lot more free form, so to speak, than classical music for instance, which has to be written down.

I'm not certain for sure, it would take a trained jazz musician to answer that one I guess. It is commonly accepted that one needs to master musical theory in order to master jazz, or you end-up playing blues packaged as jazz (it's mostly a matter of how chords change and harmony, I believe, but I myself don't know much about music theory). I remember a friend who was solid in music theory and while hearing Xpectation (the whole record) he told me "technically speaking, none of this is jazz even though it does give the appearance of being jazz". He didn't mean it was bad music or that he didn't like it, just that from a pure musical theory perspective, it wasn't jazz. Now this might be a purist perspective.

databank said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Ok. I guarantee, if Mozart Bach or Beethoven came down to earth. Or Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis for that matter. Or hell, even Liberace. NONE of them would rate NEWS or The Rainbow Children poorly. So while reviewing P albums effectively from a score out of 1000, you might want to acknowledge you don't get jazz, or anything approximating it.

The question is whether the marks reflect his personal tastes or claim to assess the objective quality of the records. I assume its his tastes and one is perfectly entitled to dislike good works of art.

True, I am incredulous at critics' end of year polls for best album. They all have shit for brains!

My favourite 2 albums since 1990 (probably only ones on same level as Prince's 80's work) are The Boo Radleys' C'mon Kids and Super Furry Animals' Rings Around the World. Not only do they not make greatest ever album lists, but miss out on in most end of year polls.

Just to be clear, lots of albums I would give a 9 - including several from Prince post-80s. But some of these critics' faves are nowhere near that. They're only good at writing. A lot of them - like those in 'business' in the music industry - don't have a musical background anyway. Like i said, shit for brains. But hey, everything's subjective.

fortuneandserendipity said:

databank said:

fortuneandserendipity said: The question is whether the marks reflect his personal tastes or claim to assess the objective quality of the records. I assume its his tastes and one is perfectly entitled to dislike good works of art.

True, I am incredulous at critics' end of year polls for best album. They all have shit for brains!

My favourite 2 albums since 1990 (probably only ones on same level as Prince's 80's work) are The Boo Radleys' C'mon Kids and Super Furry Animals' Rings Around the World. Not only do they not make greatest ever album lists, but miss out on in most end of year polls.

Just to be clear, lots of albums I would give a 9 - including several from Prince post-80s. But some of these critics' faves are nowhere near that. They're only good at writing. A lot of them - like those in 'business' in the music industry - don't have a musical background anyway. Like i said, shit for brains. But hey, everything's subjective.

It's not just a matter of subjective as in taste but of the equation being too complex.

For one thing before you define what are the 100 best albums of all times (or the year), you should first be able to define what your criterias are. No one does that. It's difficult.

.

Then, many critics are biased by the obligation to remain within the limits of the genre they write about, for example most Rolling Stores or so magazines will make lists with 75 rock albums + 25 Black and electronic albums not to look close-minded, and nothing else (as if there was nothing else but rock, Black music and electronica). That's how "100 best rock albums of all times" gets labeled as "100 best albums of all times".

.

Regarding yearly/contemporary lists, it's indeed very subjective but also a matter of trends. If a record is like super hype this year, ignoring it will make you look like a fool unless you care to explain why.

.

And regarding "all times" lists, many critics are also biased by historicity, as in "classics are necessarily better" and "it was better when I was young than it is today". That's why those lists typically list mostly 60's and 70's records and ignore recent masterpieces, or why most film critics will usually put 50 pre-1970 films on a list before Fight Club, while Fight Club is arguably better than any of those "protocinema" era films.

.

Obviously, in a world where hundreds of thousands of full length albums have been released over the course of 70 years, making a list of the "100 best albums" is a futile exercise. It could maybe make more sense to label those lists as "100 most influential albums". Same with films. Or then one should label it as "our 100 favorite records".

databank said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

True, I am incredulous at critics' end of year polls for best album. They all have shit for brains!

My favourite 2 albums since 1990 (probably only ones on same level as Prince's 80's work) are The Boo Radleys' C'mon Kids and Super Furry Animals' Rings Around the World. Not only do they not make greatest ever album lists, but miss out on in most end of year polls.

Just to be clear, lots of albums I would give a 9 - including several from Prince post-80s. But some of these critics' faves are nowhere near that. They're only good at writing. A lot of them - like those in 'business' in the music industry - don't have a musical background anyway. Like i said, shit for brains. But hey, everything's subjective.

It's not just a matter of subjective as in taste but of the equation being too complex.

For one thing before you define what are the 100 best albums of all times (or the year), you should first be able to define what your criterias are. No one does that. It's difficult.

.

Then, many critics are biased by the obligation to remain within the limits of the genre they write about, for example most Rolling Stores or so magazines will make lists with 75 rock albums + 25 Black and electronic albums not to look close-minded, and nothing else (as if there was nothing else but rock, Black music and electronica). That's how "100 best rock albums of all times" gets labeled as "100 best albums of all times".

.

Regarding yearly/contemporary lists, it's indeed very subjective but also a matter of trends. If a record is like super hype this year, ignoring it will make you look like a fool unless you care to explain why.

.

And regarding "all times" lists, many critics are also biased by historicity, as in "classics are necessarily better" and "it was better when I was young than it is today". That's why those lists typically list mostly 60's and 70's records and ignore recent masterpieces, or why most film critics will usually put 50 pre-1970 films on a list before Fight Club, while Fight Club is arguably better than any of those "protocinema" era films.

.

Obviously, in a world where hundreds of thousands of full length albums have been released over the course of 70 years, making a list of the "100 best albums" is a futile exercise. It could maybe make more sense to label those lists as "100 most influential albums". Same with films. Or then one should label it as "our 100 favorite records".

I go off how many times I play a record. The more, the better. I've played C'mon Kids over 500 times. Rings Around the World in same territory. I do use a scoring system that would put Adorecream's 'this P album 69.7 out of 100' to shame... for sheer simplicity

But at same time, I'm not guessing. I rate the songs before averaging out the score. You can't do that with movies or paintings or literature. The interesting thing is with music and polls - esp end of year ones - the various publications never agree!

I know this will come as a great shock to the forum, but I think Prince's two best albums are...

Purple Rain

and

Sign 'O' The Times


(waits for collective gasp to pass)


Maybe the more interesting question to ask is what the third-best Prince album is. I have a feeling about 75% of fans will name the same top-two I do, if they're being objective.

Anyway, for me a clear #3 is Around the World in a Day. I don't care for that over-the-top last track, but otherwise, for me, this album is right there with the two masterpieces that came before and shortly after it. (Conversely, I don't like Parade at all, but I know a lot of fans love it.)

langebleu said:

10 BEST Prince albums ever: http://prince.org/msg/7/401001 TOP 10 BEST PRINCE ALBUMS OF ALL TIME: http://prince.org/msg/7/438846( Prince albums -all of them - ranked from best to worst: http://prince.org/msg/7/410901 Which album is Prince’s greatest album? http://prince.org/msg/7/380240 etc..

ThePanther said:

I know this will come as a great shock to the forum, but I think Prince's two best albums are...

Purple Rain

and

Sign 'O' The Times


(waits for collective gasp to pass)


Maybe the more interesting question to ask is what the third-best Prince album is. I have a feeling about 75% of fans will name the same top-two I do, if they're being objective.

Anyway, for me a clear #3 is Around the World in a Day. I don't care for that over-the-top last track, but otherwise, for me, this album is right there with the two masterpieces that came before and shortly after it. (Conversely, I don't like Parade at all, but I know a lot of fans love it.)

I know this will come as a great shock to you, but I think Prince's two best albums are...

Purple Rain

and

Parade

(waits for solitary gasp to pass)

Maybe the more interesting question to ask is why a few songs on 'Sign' sound demoish and inferior to their concert film cousins.

Purple Rain

Sign O The Times

1999

1. Sign "☮" The Times (10)
2. 1999 (10)
3. Purple Rain (10)
4. The Love Symbol Album (10)
5. Around the World in A Day (9.5)
6. 3121 (9)
7. The Hits/B-Sides (9)
8. Parade (9) - six songs that made this a 9
9. The Gold Experience (8)
10. Crystal Ball (8)
11. Dirty Mind (8)
12. Graffiti Bridge (8)
13. Lovesexy (8)
14. LotusFlower / MPLSound (7.5)
15. Prince (7.5)
16. Diamonds & Pearls (7.5)
17. Emancipation (7.5)
18. Musicology (7)
19. The Black Album (7)
20. Batman (7)
21. Newpower Soul (7)
22. Controversy (7)
23. Art Official Age (7)
24. Rave Un2 The Joy Fantastic (6.5)
25. The Chocolate Invasion (6.5)
26. HITnRUN Phase 1 (6.5)
27. Come (6)
28. Slaughterhouse (6)
29. Planet Earth (5)
30. Chaos & Disorder (5)
31. For You (5)
32. The Truth (5)
33. The Rainbow Children (5)
34. 20Ten (4)
35. HITnRUN Phase 2 (4)
36. PlectrumElectrum (3)
37. The Vault... Old Friends 4 Sale (2)
    
    

databank said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

True, I am incredulous at critics' end of year polls for best album. They all have shit for brains!

My favourite 2 albums since 1990 (probably only ones on same level as Prince's 80's work) are The Boo Radleys' C'mon Kids and Super Furry Animals' Rings Around the World. Not only do they not make greatest ever album lists, but miss out on in most end of year polls.

Just to be clear, lots of albums I would give a 9 - including several from Prince post-80s. But some of these critics' faves are nowhere near that. They're only good at writing. A lot of them - like those in 'business' in the music industry - don't have a musical background anyway. Like i said, shit for brains. But hey, everything's subjective.

It's not just a matter of subjective as in taste but of the equation being too complex.

For one thing before you define what are the 100 best albums of all times (or the year), you should first be able to define what your criterias are. No one does that. It's difficult.

.

Then, many critics are biased by the obligation to remain within the limits of the genre they write about, for example most Rolling Stores or so magazines will make lists with 75 rock albums + 25 Black and electronic albums not to look close-minded, and nothing else (as if there was nothing else but rock, Black music and electronica). That's how "100 best rock albums of all times" gets labeled as "100 best albums of all times".

.

Regarding yearly/contemporary lists, it's indeed very subjective but also a matter of trends. If a record is like super hype this year, ignoring it will make you look like a fool unless you care to explain why.

.

And regarding "all times" lists, many critics are also biased by historicity, as in "classics are necessarily better" and "it was better when I was young than it is today". That's why those lists typically list mostly 60's and 70's records and ignore recent masterpieces, or why most film critics will usually put 50 pre-1970 films on a list before Fight Club, while Fight Club is arguably better than any of those "protocinema" era films.

.

Obviously, in a world where hundreds of thousands of full length albums have been released over the course of 70 years, making a list of the "100 best albums" is a futile exercise. It could maybe make more sense to label those lists as "100 most influential albums". Same with films. Or then one should label it as "our 100 favorite records".

I agree with you thoroughly but Fight Club which i consider quite overrated. The best thing for me about the film is watching Brad Pitt almost naked.

ThePanther said:

I know this will come as a great shock to the forum, but I think Prince's two best albums are...

Purple Rain

and

Sign 'O' The Times


(waits for collective gasp to pass)


Maybe the more interesting question to ask is what the third-best Prince album is. I have a feeling about 75% of fans will name the same top-two I do, if they're being objective.

Anyway, for me a clear #3 is Around the World in a Day. I don't care for that over-the-top last track, but otherwise, for me, this album is right there with the two masterpieces that came before and shortly after it. (Conversely, I don't like Parade at all, but I know a lot of fans love it.)

What is that, that you don't like about Parade?