Thank you. BTW some people are just passive aggressive etc. (not you).

namepeace said:

databank said:

databank, you didn't read my original post, and you're not familiar with my general position on these topics overall.

Here's what I originally said.

I've been here since 2003. I used to be baffled by it, but I got over it, because I realized that there were going to be generational dividing lines with such a prolific artist with a large discography.

There are post-electric/pre-electric splits among Dylan fans.

There are pre-Nebraska/post-Nebraska split among Springsteen fans.

Fans of jazz artists like Miles and 'Trane are split on their favorite eras.

I hope I've learned that there is no wrong answer for such an accomplished artist.

What rdhull was identifying was the core bias that triggers these debates. Everybody is going to have a "cognitive bias" towards the eras that they either (i) grew up in, or (ii) discovered during formative periods on their lives.

neither rdhull nor I were justifying that bias. We were acknowledging that everybody brings that bias to the table. rdhull, for example, was saying that even acknowleding the bias exists, legit arguments can be made on the comparative merits.

People are always arguing about which artists are the greatest, which as were the greatest, and which artist's eras are the greatest. If it weren't entertaining we wouldn't be here. But we recognize that our positions are always biased to some degree or another.

rdhull simply pointed out why, and i co-signed that in peach and black in self-awareness of my own bias.

rdhull said:

dodger said:

rdhull said:

Yes, and some context. I meant we already heard about that scientific theory and its bogus because as I stated in the WHOLE comment was that regardless when you were teen or when ones bran ws formulating endaring memories or whatever, NPS still sucks compared to PR era etc. as does later works by the other artists I mentioned no matter when the brain was doing the do. There's a reason SOTT is heralded by others who were teens etc way AFTER that record was released.

[Edited 10/26/18 13:42pm]

I think I’ve just accessed The Baffle Experience

There is no such thing as too many baffles.

"When you were teen..."

Just because you feel your heart has athropied since 1984
doesn't mean we're all on the same boat, people.
I love AOA as much as Lovesexy and that should baffle you?
Why don't you mind your own business?

What I don't get is wasting all this diversity Prince gives. I welcome the failed experiments, the paranoia, the isolation, the reconciliations. The trip in the desert is the best part. The Empire Strikes Back (poor WB, they took the whip enough).
You can really spend the day on Radio Prince and not getting bored (SKipper can go nasal a too many times, but hey, so is Bob).
The ones who put up a massive list (B-sides, bootlegs, live, protégé.e.s) and played it on random
know what I'm talking about. You don't have to hear Prince's voice all the time. Does Peanuts revolve around Snoopy alone?

If you want an artist that stays on the same refrain all his life long,
there are lots out there, otherwise what'd U came here 4?
D.M.S.R. is 4 letters, not 1.

"Hot dogs! Pizza! Root beer! Pussy!"
I'll take them all, Thank U.

Prince once ate meat, hence the striking, self-crucifying beauty of this song.
With Bob George doing the gospel bass.

Why would one ever let the chain break?

Why break the chain of Prince's influences, their order of apperance, the order of the albums,
the recollection with Prince's personal events at one point in his life?

More to the ground: I was surprised to hear so much Clinton in Prince as well. Then he went all Sly, and I never could bear the grins of Uncle Larry doing these fucking quarter basses, these unnerving ostinatos on the beats, put a 16th from time to time in there, damn! But Prince wanted to learn, and studies is all we had for a moment, until he somehow, I don't know how he does it, he managed to reinvent himself again. And again. And again. And it should not have stopped so abruptly, I'm so pissed at God. If a guy ever deserved to die in is sleep while having a good dream, it was him.
I respect Prince as a musician too much to simply overlook work that I don't get. Most of the time it's because he pushes it way too far. And then I remember that's precisely why I'm into Prince.

He did all he could do with Joni's inpiration (Parade). All he could with the sixties (SOTT).
The futiristic neon laser shit, he did it as well, and change the sound of pop forever (1999).
He did punk. He did Beatles. So I guess you don't like metal, philly soul and alien means?
Some don't like the nineties because he went back in time (that's blatant)
and came out with futuristic versions of pop/rock classics.

So why can't the ultra eighties curve simply letitgo and enjoy the rest of Prince's years for what it brings?
No, some want Prince on '84 Carl Lewis mode all his life. "My tee.n.th.s, where are thou gone?"
Prince isn't a nostalgia artist. If someone ever kept on trying new things...

Give the man a break, and the noobies fans as well. Prince is time demanding, some think they listen to albums, but they just scratched the surface of what the man evolved into. Let him have top of the mountain anthems, he's the only one daring, willing to climb them in pop music, and never fearing ridicule. Prince trying to face God is not the schmaltzy, glittery thing you think at first. Where you just somewhere in the middle?

If hearing fans praising an album inspires you to give it a second try,
if you feel like you may be missing something others get,
then go for it. Go put the needle down and rewire your neurons,
if you call yourself a Prince fan you.ll know it can be done.

It's not a matter of suddenly adoring the album.
It's trying to understand these are songs that come from
an entirely different man than your teenage year wall posters.
And transformations happen more than once in every decade.

Myself, I laugh thinking Cloreen Bacon Skin as a good test for a club entry.
But what, yet another club? Another state of division?
Another favorite? Some are truly stucked on "High Fidelity" and all this bullshit.
Can't stand these fucking org lists no mo'. Your top blablablah, what would your playlist beblurblurblurb,
let's talk recurring topics in his songs, clever stuff in his lyrics, best codas, funny trivia, geez.
But the us vs. them, I have enough on the late shows already, thank U.

This place is kinda dead.
Radio is kind of dead.

Presonnally I'm not gonna let Rock'n'Roll die.
You do what you want with yo brains that don't fit more than ten albums.

[Edited 10/27/18 3:46am]

namepeace said:

databank said:

databank, you didn't read my original post, and you're not familiar with my general position on these topics overall.

Here's what I originally said.

I've been here since 2003. I used to be baffled by it, but I got over it, because I realized that there were going to be generational dividing lines with such a prolific artist with a large discography.

There are post-electric/pre-electric splits among Dylan fans.

There are pre-Nebraska/post-Nebraska split among Springsteen fans.

Fans of jazz artists like Miles and 'Trane are split on their favorite eras.

I hope I've learned that there is no wrong answer for such an accomplished artist.

What rdhull was identifying was the core bias that triggers these debates. Everybody is going to have a "cognitive bias" towards the eras that they either (i) grew up in, or (ii) discovered during formative periods on their lives.

neither rdhull nor I were justifying that bias. We were acknowledging that everybody brings that bias to the table. rdhull, for example, was saying that even acknowleding the bias exists, legit arguments can be made on the comparative merits.

People are always arguing about which artists are the greatest, which eras of music or genre of music were the greatest, and which artist's eras are the greatest. If it weren't entertaining we wouldn't be here. But we recognize that our positions are always biased to some degree or another.

rdhull simply pointed out why, and i co-signed that in peach and black in self-awareness of my own bias.

No we're cool. I was not questioning your judgement/analysis but making more of a general statement about people here (and elsewhere). I'm more unsure about Rdhull's arguments, but I will reply to him.

rdhull said:

namepeace said:

And that's really at the core of all of our debates on music here, Prince and otherwise.

(I highlighted this in Peach and Black to amplify the point . . .)

Yes, and some context. I meant we already heard about that scientific theory and its bogus because as I stated in the WHOLE comment was that regardless when you were teen or when ones bran ws formulating endaring memories or whatever, NPS still sucks compared to PR era etc. as does later works by the other artists I mentioned no matter when the brain was doing the do. There's a reason SOTT is heralded by others who were teens etc way AFTER that record was released.

[Edited 10/26/18 13:42pm]

Are we really sure of this?

.

The way you say it makes me question your objectivity and agenda. Originally you said "NPS sucks" and now you add "compared to PR" to make it sound more acceptable, but the harm's been done. Putting it like that...

A/ appears to aim at offending/upsetting those people who may like NPS and pleasing those people who dislike it, and...

B/ implies that NPS is a bad record (as opposed to "not as good as...")

Saying that NPS is inferior to PR is really much more reasonable than saying that NPS sucks, because "sucks" implies that it's just plain bad, and it is not.

.

But that's interesting because there is the aforementioned cognitive biases connected to nostalgia, teenage years and so on, but it also makes me wonder how much of an echo chamber/"repeated so often it becomes true" factor we have here.

The Princedom has a minority, but a very vocal minority of emotionally disturbed fans who overreacted to Prince's late 90's and later output, taking P's works as personal betrayal and making tarnishing Prince and his post 95 works' reputation a personal agenda. Therefore, for 20 years, anyone hanging out on this board and in other P fans communities will find it really hard to defend those records, and will be submitted to a huge peer pressure, which also means that anyone who would come in a community because they are beginning to like P's works will be exposed to that prejudice probably even they even heard the records in question.

.

I could compare that to the SW Prelogy. Today it's become a reflex to dismiss those movies, to the point of caricature: every article mentioning them in passing will bash them in passing, as if doing that guaranteed the writer a sort of bond or intimacy with their readers (I can hear the other readers' sniggers when reading those "let's bully George Lucas together" comments). I was quite puzzled by this until I found those statements by certain casual SW fans online, people who literally said things such as "I discovered SW with the Prequels, I really loved those movies, but as I kept reading and hearing so many negative comments, I finally started to dislike them too, and now I don't like them at all anymore". Those people were writing this naively, they weren't even aware of what they were saying, which wasn't "I was convinced by arguments" but "I yielded to the consensus".

.

When you choose the verb "sucks" over "is inferior to", you clearly make sure that your peers will identify you as a member of the pack.

.

Now I have reason to believe that PR or SOTT are superior records to NPS. Which BTW doesn't mean I like PR and SOTT more: I love all three records but at this stage in my life, if I had to go on a desert island with either PR, SOTT or NPS, I'd pick NPS without much hesitation. But there certainly are solid arguments that plead for PR or SOTT being the stronger works of art, so I'll go with that. But I also consider NPS as being a strong work of art so I wonder, from time to time, whether my diagnosis that PR/SOTT are stronger is really rational or if I myself am being influenced by consensus. When I do I usually end-up believing that it isn't the case, but doubt remains.

.

While I can understand why Prince's 80's work, Bowie's 70's work or Lucas' original trilogy were more historically significant and innovative than anything they did later, I still find such strengths in their respective later works that I believe they (the later works and the artists) are being treated very unfairly. Bullied is, in fact, the appropriate word. Why anyone would want to bully a record, a film or an artist they've never met, IDK, but this certainly comforts me in my belief that none of this is rational and that we hardly ever debate the works, but ourselves. And it's OK, except then we shouldn't pretend we're discussing the works.

bonatoc said:

No wonder

http://prince.org/msg/7/403247

.

.

.

[Edited 10/27/18 8:00am]

Am just baffled by other Prince fans, period.

We're not going to like all the same music, as we are all different, and I personally like that. Probably why P gave us such a big basket of all kinds of music. (They gotta like something here....) He was cool like that. And as you age, your taste in music changes. Through all his albums, we got to see his taste change as well. Enjoy the era you like!!

EmmaMcG said:

bonatoc said:

"When you were teen..."

Just because you feel your heart has athropied since 1984
doesn't mean we're all on the same boat, people.
I love AOA as much as Lovesexy and that should baffle you?
Why don't you mind your own business?

What I don't get is wasting all this diversity Prince gives. I welcome the failed experiments, the paranoia, the isolation, the reconciliations. The trip in the desert is the best part. The Empire Strikes Back (poor WB, they took the whip enough).
You can really spend the day on Radio Prince and not getting bored (SKipper can go nasal a too many times, but hey, so is Bob).
The ones who put up a massive list (B-sides, bootlegs, live, protégé.e.s) and played it on random
know what I'm talking about. You don't have to hear Prince's voice all the time. Does Peanuts revolve around Snoopy alone?

If you want an artist that stays on the same refrain all his life long,
there are lots out there, otherwise what'd U came here 4?
D.M.S.R. is 4 letters, not 1.

bonatoc said:

I love AOA as much as Lovesexy and that should baffle you?

baffles me to the ends of the earth

bonatoc said:

Why don't you mind your own business?

i was.... then you started talkin' crazy and got my attention.... i'm worried about you

I looove Hit N Run Phase 1, and I never liked Phase 2.


I see some (if not most) thinks the contrary, wow thst's strange..

MoBettaBliss said:

bonatoc said:

I love AOA as much as Lovesexy and that should baffle you?

baffles me to the ends of the earth

bonatoc said:

Why don't you mind your own business?

i was.... then you started talkin' crazy and got my attention.... i'm worried about you

When do I ever stop talking crazy?
You're supposed to wave the red flag then, not the other way around.
Was my pen ever that violent? That's taken out of context! Ohhh, the outrage.
I'm baffled.

Anyways, I'm touched by your worries.
Let's stay on the subject on diversity if you please.

I totally dig music lovers thinking I'm going overboard to kind of love all eras equally.
But it's because of the autobiographic aspect of it. Man I love Prince in his forties, in his fifties!
The "nothing left to prove" years can be unnerving, but that's a special relationship you have with Prince or don't, I can't explain.
He went through some deep shit and came out still believing. That's deep. It's almost as if I don't care about the music that much: the Musicology Tour is brilliant, but we know most of the songs in über-extremist mode, so to a hardcore fan it's kinda washed out. But if takes Musicology to hear Prince's guitar fiercely weep, let's have it.

Of course the man gets full credit at my table. I can understand the will to crystalize your teen idol, to frame him, and try to stop his time and yours. But that's not what life is about. Most of us have to keep repeating the same shit on our jobs day after day. I learned to understand why Prince tried other approaches, he admitted himself that at one point he had too much freedom. Experiments like Hypnoparadise that still leave me perplex, to say the least. Heck, if this the path it takes to come up with a pop gem LP that is 3121, let's have it.

But the brilliance of AOA has nothing to do with my purple tainted glasses.
This album shines as Prince's acceptance of time, something he ran away for years.

And I have my bad era too: I can't stand Larry doing its quarter-note slap stomp.
I just can't stand it. I can't stand the whole "silence around his son" era.
He doesn't sound happy, there's something wrong about the whole "Rave" thing.
We're far from Prince performing live in Eurovision broadcast. It's the beginning of the "you're either with me or with them" that pervases and almost ruins TRC, if it wasn't for the music and the positive affirmative slogans. It's Prince in full reclusive paranoia, performing in his Xanadu, with his childhood heroes posing like wax statues in a show coldly oiled.
Perhaps Spandex Smurfs® fans will enlighten me. Larry burping "The Chriii-i-i-iiiiist" is an abomination.

thedance said:

I looove Hit N Run Phase 1, and I never liked Phase 2.


I see some (if not most) thinks the contrary, wow thst's strange..

I shouldn't tell you already, but we're heating a stake, just for you.

databank said:

rdhull said:

Yes, and some context. I meant we already heard about that scientific theory and its bogus because as I stated in the WHOLE comment was that regardless when you were teen or when ones bran ws formulating endaring memories or whatever, NPS still sucks compared to PR era etc. as does later works by the other artists I mentioned no matter when the brain was doing the do. There's a reason SOTT is heralded by others who were teens etc way AFTER that record was released.

[Edited 10/26/18 13:42pm]

Are we really sure of this?

.

The way you say it makes me question your objectivity and agenda. Originally you said "NPS sucks" and now you add "compared to PR" to make it sound more acceptable, but the harm's been done. Putting it like that...

A/ appears to aim at offending/upsetting those people who may like NPS and pleasing those people who dislike it, and...

B/ implies that NPS is a bad record (as opposed to "not as good as...")

Saying that NPS is inferior to PR is really much more reasonable than saying that NPS sucks, because "sucks" implies that it's just plain bad, and it is not.

.

But that's interesting because there is the aforementioned cognitive biases connected to nostalgia, teenage years and so on, but it also makes me wonder how much of an echo chamber/"repeated so often it becomes true" factor we have here.

The Princedom has a minority, but a very vocal minority of emotionally disturbed fans who overreacted to Prince's late 90's and later output, taking P's works as personal betrayal and making tarnishing Prince and his post 95 works' reputation a personal agenda. Therefore, for 20 years, anyone hanging out on this board and in other P fans communities will find it really hard to defend those records, and will be submitted to a huge peer pressure, which also means that anyone who would come in a community because they are beginning to like P's works will be exposed to that prejudice probably even they even heard the records in question.

.

I could compare that to the SW Prelogy. Today it's become a reflex to dismiss those movies, to the point of caricature: every article mentioning them in passing will bash them in passing, as if doing that guaranteed the writer a sort of bond or intimacy with their readers (I can hear the other readers' sniggers when reading those "let's bully George Lucas together" comments). I was quite puzzled by this until I found those statements by certain casual SW fans online, people who literally said things such as "I discovered SW with the Prequels, I really loved those movies, but as I kept reading and hearing so many negative comments, I finally started to dislike them too, and now I don't like them at all anymore". Those people were writing this naively, they weren't even aware of what they were saying, which wasn't "I was convinced by arguments" but "I yielded to the consensus".

.

When you choose the verb "sucks" over "is inferior to", you clearly make sure that your peers will identify you as a member of the pack.

.

Now I have reason to believe that PR or SOTT are superior records to NPS. Which BTW doesn't mean I like PR and SOTT more: I love all three records but at this stage in my life, if I had to go on a desert island with either PR, SOTT or NPS, I'd pick NPS without much hesitation. But there certainly are solid arguments that plead for PR or SOTT being the stronger works of art, so I'll go with that. But I also consider NPS as being a strong work of art so I wonder, from time to time, whether my diagnosis that PR/SOTT are stronger is really rational or if I myself am being influenced by consensus. When I do I usually end-up believing that it isn't the case, but doubt remains.

.

While I can understand why Prince's 80's work, Bowie's 70's work or Lucas' original trilogy were more historically significant and innovative than anything they did later, I still find such strengths in their respective later works that I believe they (the later works and the artists) are being treated very unfairly. Bullied is, in fact, the appropriate word. Why anyone would want to bully a record, a film or an artist they've never met, IDK, but this certainly comforts me in my belief that none of this is rational and that we hardly ever debate the works, but ourselves. And it's OK, except then we shouldn't pretend we're discussing the works.

I don't buy that biased brain bullshit when it comes to music.
Behaviours, trauma, yes, biases make sense, but not art.
I'm still discovering albums that leave me in a velvet (or cold) sweat.
I'm still experiencing big discoveries, big emotions.
If anything, Prince has raised my critical bar pretty high.
The best is to go back in time. Like, discovering The New York Dolls in the 21st century? GTFO.
If anything, Prince helped me keep the inner teenager alive.
But this has nothing to do with nostalgia, it's an emotion very much grounded in the present.
If anything, Prince taught me to always stay curious.


I think it's unfair to bring Hollywood moguls to the table.
Lucas is a maverick, an outsider who did his thing but gradually became
the very empire he was against. A brand, with stockholders.

Prince, brand notwithstanding, went the opposite way, thank you very much.

When the system tried to eat Prince, Prince showed the sytem the finger.

Lucas, he sold his hairy ass to Disney and stained his own work with a ™ sign
forever carved on his forehead. Luckily, some true rebels are still hidden somewhere,
out there, and they keep the original spirit alive.

We shall overcome.

[Edited 10/29/18 10:05am]

bonatoc said:

databank said:

Are we really sure of this?

.

The way you say it makes me question your objectivity and agenda. Originally you said "NPS sucks" and now you add "compared to PR" to make it sound more acceptable, but the harm's been done. Putting it like that...

A/ appears to aim at offending/upsetting those people who may like NPS and pleasing those people who dislike it, and...

B/ implies that NPS is a bad record (as opposed to "not as good as...")

Saying that NPS is inferior to PR is really much more reasonable than saying that NPS sucks, because "sucks" implies that it's just plain bad, and it is not.

.

But that's interesting because there is the aforementioned cognitive biases connected to nostalgia, teenage years and so on, but it also makes me wonder how much of an echo chamber/"repeated so often it becomes true" factor we have here.

The Princedom has a minority, but a very vocal minority of emotionally disturbed fans who overreacted to Prince's late 90's and later output, taking P's works as personal betrayal and making tarnishing Prince and his post 95 works' reputation a personal agenda. Therefore, for 20 years, anyone hanging out on this board and in other P fans communities will find it really hard to defend those records, and will be submitted to a huge peer pressure, which also means that anyone who would come in a community because they are beginning to like P's works will be exposed to that prejudice probably even they even heard the records in question.

.

I could compare that to the SW Prelogy. Today it's become a reflex to dismiss those movies, to the point of caricature: every article mentioning them in passing will bash them in passing, as if doing that guaranteed the writer a sort of bond or intimacy with their readers (I can hear the other readers' sniggers when reading those "let's bully George Lucas together" comments). I was quite puzzled by this until I found those statements by certain casual SW fans online, people who literally said things such as "I discovered SW with the Prequels, I really loved those movies, but as I kept reading and hearing so many negative comments, I finally started to dislike them too, and now I don't like them at all anymore". Those people were writing this naively, they weren't even aware of what they were saying, which wasn't "I was convinced by arguments" but "I yielded to the consensus".

.

When you choose the verb "sucks" over "is inferior to", you clearly make sure that your peers will identify you as a member of the pack.

.

Now I have reason to believe that PR or SOTT are superior records to NPS. Which BTW doesn't mean I like PR and SOTT more: I love all three records but at this stage in my life, if I had to go on a desert island with either PR, SOTT or NPS, I'd pick NPS without much hesitation. But there certainly are solid arguments that plead for PR or SOTT being the stronger works of art, so I'll go with that. But I also consider NPS as being a strong work of art so I wonder, from time to time, whether my diagnosis that PR/SOTT are stronger is really rational or if I myself am being influenced by consensus. When I do I usually end-up believing that it isn't the case, but doubt remains.

.

While I can understand why Prince's 80's work, Bowie's 70's work or Lucas' original trilogy were more historically significant and innovative than anything they did later, I still find such strengths in their respective later works that I believe they (the later works and the artists) are being treated very unfairly. Bullied is, in fact, the appropriate word. Why anyone would want to bully a record, a film or an artist they've never met, IDK, but this certainly comforts me in my belief that none of this is rational and that we hardly ever debate the works, but ourselves. And it's OK, except then we shouldn't pretend we're discussing the works.

I don't buy that biased brain bullshit when it comes to music.
Behaviours, trauma, yes, biases make sense, but not art.
I'm still discovering albums that leave me in a velvet (or cold) sweat.
I'm still experiencing big discoveries, big emotions.
If anything, Prince has raised my critical bar pretty high.
The best is to go back in time. Like, discovering The New York Dolls in the 21st century? GTFO.
If anything, Prince helped me keep the inner teenager alive.
But this has nothing to do with nostalgia, it's an emotion very much grounded in the present.
If anything, Prince taught me to always stay curious.


I think it's unfair to bring Hollywood moguls to the table.
Lucas is a maverick, an outsider who did his thing but gradually became
the very empire he was against. A brand, with stockholders.

Prince, brand notwithstanding, went the opposite way, thank you very much.

When the system tried to eat Prince, Prince showed the sytem the finger.

Lucas, he sold his hairy ass to Disney and stained his own work with a ™ sign
forever carved on his forehead. Luckily, some true rebels are still hidden somewhere,
out there, and they keep the original spirit alive.

We shall overcome.

[Edited 10/29/18 10:05am]

Hey now, no need to bring Uncle George into this. I hear what you are saying, but that man was commericially minded since he created and perfected movie/toy/bedsheet/lunchbox marketing. So, since '77?

databank said:

namepeace said:

No we're cool. I was not questioning your judgement/analysis but making more of a general statement about people here (and elsewhere). I'm more unsure about Rdhull's arguments, but I will reply to him.

understood. happy Orging.

skywalker said:

bonatoc said:

I don't buy that biased brain bullshit when it comes to music.
Behaviours, trauma, yes, biases make sense, but not art.
I'm still discovering albums that leave me in a velvet (or cold) sweat.
I'm still experiencing big discoveries, big emotions.
If anything, Prince has raised my critical bar pretty high.
The best is to go back in time. Like, discovering The New York Dolls in the 21st century? GTFO.
If anything, Prince helped me keep the inner teenager alive.
But this has nothing to do with nostalgia, it's an emotion very much grounded in the present.
If anything, Prince taught me to always stay curious.


I think it's unfair to bring Hollywood moguls to the table.
Lucas is a maverick, an outsider who did his thing but gradually became
the very empire he was against. A brand, with stockholders.

Prince, brand notwithstanding, went the opposite way, thank you very much.

When the system tried to eat Prince, Prince showed the sytem the finger.

Lucas, he sold his hairy ass to Disney and stained his own work with a ™ sign
forever carved on his forehead. Luckily, some true rebels are still hidden somewhere,
out there, and they keep the original spirit alive.

We shall overcome.

[Edited 10/29/18 10:05am]

Hey now, no need to bring Uncle George into this. I hear what you are saying, but that man was commericially minded since he created and perfected movie/toy/bedsheet/lunchbox marketing. So, since '77?

OK, I've been harsh. It was his creation, he can do whatever he wants with it.
My point is, Lucas didn't exactly go against the stream. And he didn't stay hungry, his work post-eighties is memorabilia for adulescents. He didn't throw it all on the table on one, mad, artistically bold as THX, insane movie. He got cautious. Bravo for the business, maybe less so for the arts.

bonatoc said:

skywalker said:

Hey now, no need to bring Uncle George into this. I hear what you are saying, but that man was commericially minded since he created and perfected movie/toy/bedsheet/lunchbox marketing. So, since '77?

OK, I've been harsh. It was his creation, he can do whatever he wants with it.
My point is, Lucas didn't exactly go against the stream. And he didn't stay hungry, his work post-eighties is memorabilia for adulescents. He didn't throw it all on the table on one, mad, artistically bold as THX, insane movie. He got cautious. Bravo for the business, maybe less so for the arts.

Cautiously stuck to the mythic/heroic journey narrative for his works. Yet, the technical side of things he remained INCREDIBLY a maverick. Basically single handedly pioneering/leading the digital revolution in film. As much as people slag off on the CGI and digital "reality" of the Star Wars prequels, that's exactly what allows something like Avatar, or Avengers: Infinity War to exist. They are basically following Lucas's lead in this regard. The dude revolutionized the movie industry in more ways than one.

skywalker said:

bonatoc said:

OK, I've been harsh. It was his creation, he can do whatever he wants with it.
My point is, Lucas didn't exactly go against the stream. And he didn't stay hungry, his work post-eighties is memorabilia for adulescents. He didn't throw it all on the table on one, mad, artistically bold as THX, insane movie. He got cautious. Bravo for the business, maybe less so for the arts.

Cautiously stuck to the mythic/heroic journey narrative for his works. Yet, the technical side of things he remained INCREDIBLY a maverick. Basically single handedly pioneering/leading the digital revolution in film. As much as people slag off on the CGI and digital "reality" of the Star Wars prequels, that's exactly what allows something like Avatar, or Avengers: Infinity War to exist. They are basically following Lucas's lead in this regard. The dude revolutionized the movie industry in more ways than one.

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls explores that very well.

diversity

MoBettaBliss said:

diversity

"She ain't worth Traci Lords, Baby."

bonatoc said:

databank said:

Are we really sure of this?

.

The way you say it makes me question your objectivity and agenda. Originally you said "NPS sucks" and now you add "compared to PR" to make it sound more acceptable, but the harm's been done. Putting it like that...

A/ appears to aim at offending/upsetting those people who may like NPS and pleasing those people who dislike it, and...

B/ implies that NPS is a bad record (as opposed to "not as good as...")

Saying that NPS is inferior to PR is really much more reasonable than saying that NPS sucks, because "sucks" implies that it's just plain bad, and it is not.

.

But that's interesting because there is the aforementioned cognitive biases connected to nostalgia, teenage years and so on, but it also makes me wonder how much of an echo chamber/"repeated so often it becomes true" factor we have here.

The Princedom has a minority, but a very vocal minority of emotionally disturbed fans who overreacted to Prince's late 90's and later output, taking P's works as personal betrayal and making tarnishing Prince and his post 95 works' reputation a personal agenda. Therefore, for 20 years, anyone hanging out on this board and in other P fans communities will find it really hard to defend those records, and will be submitted to a huge peer pressure, which also means that anyone who would come in a community because they are beginning to like P's works will be exposed to that prejudice probably even they even heard the records in question.

.

I could compare that to the SW Prelogy. Today it's become a reflex to dismiss those movies, to the point of caricature: every article mentioning them in passing will bash them in passing, as if doing that guaranteed the writer a sort of bond or intimacy with their readers (I can hear the other readers' sniggers when reading those "let's bully George Lucas together" comments). I was quite puzzled by this until I found those statements by certain casual SW fans online, people who literally said things such as "I discovered SW with the Prequels, I really loved those movies, but as I kept reading and hearing so many negative comments, I finally started to dislike them too, and now I don't like them at all anymore". Those people were writing this naively, they weren't even aware of what they were saying, which wasn't "I was convinced by arguments" but "I yielded to the consensus".

.

When you choose the verb "sucks" over "is inferior to", you clearly make sure that your peers will identify you as a member of the pack.

.

Now I have reason to believe that PR or SOTT are superior records to NPS. Which BTW doesn't mean I like PR and SOTT more: I love all three records but at this stage in my life, if I had to go on a desert island with either PR, SOTT or NPS, I'd pick NPS without much hesitation. But there certainly are solid arguments that plead for PR or SOTT being the stronger works of art, so I'll go with that. But I also consider NPS as being a strong work of art so I wonder, from time to time, whether my diagnosis that PR/SOTT are stronger is really rational or if I myself am being influenced by consensus. When I do I usually end-up believing that it isn't the case, but doubt remains.

.

While I can understand why Prince's 80's work, Bowie's 70's work or Lucas' original trilogy were more historically significant and innovative than anything they did later, I still find such strengths in their respective later works that I believe they (the later works and the artists) are being treated very unfairly. Bullied is, in fact, the appropriate word. Why anyone would want to bully a record, a film or an artist they've never met, IDK, but this certainly comforts me in my belief that none of this is rational and that we hardly ever debate the works, but ourselves. And it's OK, except then we shouldn't pretend we're discussing the works.

I don't buy that biased brain bullshit when it comes to music.
Behaviours, trauma, yes, biases make sense, but not art.
I'm still discovering albums that leave me in a velvet (or cold) sweat.
I'm still experiencing big discoveries, big emotions.

I fear that it's really not much a matter of belief, those things have been studied for half a century. Cognitive biases do exist. The brain does change with age.

.

You, my friend, certainly aren't representative of the way most people think, I can tell by your posts. Our brains aren't all the same and maybe also you have decided not to lose your sense of wonder, which helps a lot. I know I don't want to become like that.

.

Nevertheless, look at most people over 60, take a little survey: How many still listen to new music? How many enjoy recent music? How many will you find who won't tell you that music was better before and that they have no interest in current music? There has to be a reason why those people who are 70 today got stuck in 1980. And again, maybe your grandma isn't like this. But most grandmas are. Take the survey if you won't take my word for it.

.