Review featured in the live section, 'Q Review: the month in gigs'
Prince: Hammersmith Apollo, London
3 October 2002
4 Stars (out of 5)

I'm not gonna play Purple Rain," pouts the 44 year-old Artist Once Again Known As Prince. "I'm not interested in what you already know. I'm interested in what you're willing to learn." The lesson involves 90 minutes of new material referencing Miles Davis, Jimi Hendrix and James Brown, plus a cover of Led Zeppelin's Whole Lotta Love, and then some old songs including Raspberry Beret and How Come U Don't Call Me Anymore?, as covered by Alicia Keys. Following a period of self-imposed exile from the charts, Prince's most intimate London gig in 20 years is a revelation. He remains pop's most extravagantly gifted star.
Paul Elliot
Verdict: A comeback? If he can be bothered.

The article is printed over a photograph of Prince (credited to 'All Action'), as well as a picture of the notice displayed at the venue, displayed bottom left, which reads:

STRICTLY NO CAMERAS
At the express request of Prince, with the exception of approved members of the Press, no photography is permitted inside the auditorium at any time this evening. Those found to be ignoring this instruction will not be issued a warning; they will be asked to leave.
Cameras can be left at the cloakroom at no charge, please do so.
Thank you for your co-operation.

The article and photograph is accompanied by a caption at the bottom which reads: 'Prince leaves the venue ... but what's he got hidden under that hat? Left (referring to the notice): that means you, wily Q photographer.'

Further to the above, the photograph assumed to be of Prince above appears to be The Lookalike Vaguely Resembling Prince

http://www.prince.org/msg...&tid=27248

90 minutes? What gig was this reviewer at? Saturday was three hours!

Anyway, interesting that Q mag think Prince could do a 'comeback' if he could be bothered.

I think they are referring to the fact that about a third of the concert was "new" material - ie, stuff from Rainbow Children and unreleased stuff like empty room. Hence, the likening to Miles Davis, Jimi, etc because of the rock and jazz fusion.

I have a friend that works at Q.

Apparently what happened is they were refused permission to photograph so Q, a little bitter after supporting him in the past, printed a picture of the look-a-like (not) that appeared recently in The Mirror. Plus they printed the photography policy as way of making a sarcastic statement.

Shame as i've waited all month to get my copy of Q just for the Prince Live review. Which normally would have been half to full page.

Shame. No-one wins this way. Magazines such as Q take a veiled swipe by knowingly printing a lookalike piccy. Newspapers like The Times feel it necessary to print photographs from previous tours. Both reviewed the show extremely positively.

I guess Prince could argue that they shouldn't have published an image which 'misrepresented' him in some way by juxtaposing it with the review, and they should have simply stuck to the words. On the other hand, a couple of mock-live snaps from the Tourbook shoot could very easily have been made available to the press and avoided all of this.

langebleu said:

Or Prince should lighten up & realize that he's not going to turn to stone if some fans, let alone the press, are allowed to take his picture.

I'm not sure that it isn't Prince you know...
If you look at the latest picture of the tour on NPGMC's members section, Prince looks quite similar to these photos.. he looks like he's gained weight in his face.
Mixed with unflattering lighting, I think these photos are of Prince.

funkyfine said:

Ahem... yeah OK funkfine.

Is there a doctor in the house?!!!

funkyfine said:

Prince commented on these newspaper reports on the Thursday or Friday London show. He stated in surprisingly non cryptic terms that it was not him pictured and that the press had it wrong again. He also said something about the blonde pictured with the lookalike, along the lines that he would never be seen with her.

I saw Prince from the fourth row at his Toronto show, and I didn't see any fat on his cheeks! My friend and I commented many times "Wow, he looks so good!" Compare him with Michael Jackson and Madonna (who are the same age), and he looks like a baby. Unless he's aged a lot since June, I scoff at anyone who says he's gotten fat and old. Only "The King" did that, not our Prince. =P

I'm surprised he thinks we still give a shit whether he plays Purple Rain anymore.
[This message was edited Thu Nov 7 8:09:51 PST 2002 by mrchristian]

u can understand Q's point by printing a pic they know is not Prince...(and let me tell u..this is not Prince!)..but the length of the review (although very positive) is not what I expected from a magazine as good as Q.

Dan said:

Q has gone downhill. Buy "Uncut" instead. a much much MUCH better magazine.

yeah...but they give everything 5 stars!

Dan said:

Every Live report in this latest issue received either 4 stars (Prince, The Rolling Stones, Suede, Turin Brakes) or 3 stars (The Strokes, Sigur Ros, Supergrass). Albums (new and re-released), Live Reviews, Books, DVDs rarely receive 5 stars - which is classified as 'Truly Exceptional'. This month, 5 stars were given to Nirvana's 'Nirvana', David Bowie's 'Best of Bowie', Elvis Costello's 'Imperial Bedroom', Bob Marley and The Wailers' 'Soul Rebels', The Stone Roses' 'The Very Best of The Stone Roses' (all album re-releases); 'Band of Brothers' amd 'The Sporanos Series 3' (DVD)
from nearly 200 reviews.

Isn't anybody allowed to take a picture of Prince if he is out in public??? I understand how he can restrict it at concerts...but if he's just walking down the street, or at a club???

UR ACCOUNT :

653431 - One Nite Alone Live - Box set 1 $0.00 - In Progress

jimipaisley said:

Is this what I think it is?...

So does this mean we're getting the live set as part of the membership? Oh, I'm not sure about this.

All I want is as much new music as I can get my hands on, and I don't think this helps our chances of seeing some of the other stuff we've been salivating about. At least not in this year of the club.

Dammit!

to langebleu:

I was referring to the reviews in "Uncut" magazine that they give everything 5 stars(mostly anyway).


The reviews in Q I have no problem with.

I've got a lotta time for Q magazine as they still give Prince the props he deserves and have never really followed the "everything hes done since 1988 is crap" line that other music rags tend to spew every time an album is released ,if they review it at all.And they concentrate on the MUSIC ,Qs review of TRC was one ofthe few I read which ignored Prince' narration throghout the album and just recognised the high quality ofthe music,as any decent reviewer should be doing.

Dan said:

Sorry Dan, my mistake.

moonshine said:

I agree, Simon. I have time for Mojo as well, Q's sister magazine. despite coming across as the muso's mag, they are at least careful to research their articles. My only gripe is the clique that Q appears to relish which is very rock-oriented. It's almost as if they have a deal going with the unwritten music establishment which says: 'Het Macca, Bono, you whacky Manics, and Thom Yorke - give us an interview and we'll give you all the space you want.'

Dunno, maybe it's the state of music today, or maybe it's just Q's direction, but leafing through the Q Music Awards section of this month's issue, I feel as if they have given Jimmy Cliff an award just to prove they have half an hour to lend one ear to something which doesn't qualify as rock or pop. then again, their annual Q Award report generally comes across to me as some back slapping shindig in which Q magazine lines up interviews and articles for next 12 months.

Dan said:

Sure they do...

http://groups.google.com/...%404ax.com

I've found that I've agreed with plenty of Uncut's reviews and IMHO it's one of the best music & movies magazines out there.

moonshine said:

No, reviewers should review an album, i.e. the music AND the lyrics (and even more than that, like the artist's intentions etc.). Your feeble theory for instance would excuse neo-nazi rock if the tunes were good enough. And often the inspiration for an album (which is often most clearly expressed through the lyrics) is the reason why an album is great or ghastly (hence most "Christian" rock/rap/pop/etc. being unlistenable).

langebleu said:

Really? Here's an email I sent them earlier this year...



Dear Mojo

I was surprised to find Prince's Black Album in "The Vanished", an article on "lost" classic albums (Mojo 99, February 2002, page 70-73), since it actually was released -- on 22 November 1994. In fact, Warner Bros. had wanted to release it for quite some time: there were talks in 1991 to release it as part of a Greatest Hits compilation (it would have been one CD of a two-CD set). The 1994 release wasn't even a remastered version of the original album, Warners used the masters from 1987.

The 1994 release was originally part of a multi-album deal: Prince would receive $4 million from Warner Bros. in exchange for The Black Album (to be released in November 1994), The Gold Experience (to be released in early 1995) and a soundtrack for a to-be-determined Warner Bros. movie. This three album deal would count as two albums towards the remaining four albums of Prince's infamous $100 million contract from August 1992. However, Prince blew off the deal -- he wanted more money -- while his attorney was on his way to pick up the cheque and sign off on the papers. Lenny Waronker and Mo Ostin, at that time still part of Warner Bros.' top management (although they were on their way out), managed to salvage The Black Album -- Prince received around $1 million for its release.

You also goofed when it comes to Prince's reason for canceling the album. The "explanation" from Susan Rogers you offered is incorrect and taken out of context. Yes, most of the songs were recorded during the Sign O' The Times sessions -- though one could argue that there were no such sessions (except for a short period from mid December 1987 to mid-January 1987), since Sign O' The Times is in fact a reworked version of Crystal Ball, a 3-LP album Prince proposed to Warner Bros. -- and were intended for Sheila E.'s birthday party in December 1986. But Prince wasn't talked into releasing the album, that was his decision: he wanted to show that he still could be "funky". (Matter of fact, The Black Album was originally titled The Funk Bible.)

The actual reason for the cancellation of The Black Album has long been the subject of much speculation, not in the least thanks to Prince's self-fabricated mythology. However, his "explanation" does hint at an epiphany of sorts, and while Prince has been known to act irrationally, canceling an album less than a week before its release is such a radical act that he must have experienced something extraordinary to bring this on.

Per Nilsen revealed the background to the cancellation in his 1999 book "DanceMusicSexRomance -- Prince: The First Decade": "It is alleged amongst some close associates that his decision to cancel the release was directly influenced by an experiment with the drug ecstasy. [...] Matt Fink confirms the story: 'He had a bad ecstasy trip and felt that the the album was the devil working through him. I heard this directly from Gilbert [Davison], who was there at Paisley Park the night it happened.' "DanceMusicSexRomance" contains more testimonials from people who spoke to Prince that night, which seem to back up this story.

It's actually kind of strange that you didn't know this, considering Q magazine only recently -- in their November 2001 issue -- mentioned the XTC story. Moreover, the "General Prince FAQ", available online at http://www.prince.org/faq/, also mentions this explanation.

Your inclusion of The Black Album as a "lost album" is even more ridiculous when you consider that Prince has actually shelved dozens of albums during his career, some far more interesting than The Black Album. I'd even guess that you could write an extensive article on this subject alone. If you need information and help on this subject, I'd suggest you contact the Sweden-based fan magazine Uptown (http://www.uptown.se/). Much of the information they've gathered throughout their ten years of existence is available in books like Per Nilsen's "DanceMusicSexRomance -- Prince: The First Decade", "Uptown presents: Days Of Wild -- A Documentary Of Prince/The Artist" and "Uptown presents: Turn It Up 2.0 — The Complete Guide To Prince Recordings And Performances" (see below for ordering information).

Which neatly brings me to a suggestion: since Mojo is merely a magazine and therefor can only devote time and space to a limited period from an artist's career, wouldn't it be possible to include book recommendations at the end of articles ("further reading")?

Per Nilsen's "DanceMusicSexRomance -- Prince: The First Decade" (FireFly Publishing / SAF Publishing / Helter Skelter, September 1999, ISBN: 0 946719 23 3 -- http://www.saf.mcmail.com...ince.html) is available in both regular and online bookstores.

The two Uptown books however are only available through their site:
- "Uptown presents: Days Of Wild -- A Documentary Of Prince/The Artist" (Uptown, April 2000, ISBN: 91-630-9225-5 -- http://www.uptown.se/daysofwild/) and
- "Uptown presents: Turn It Up 2.0 — The Complete Guide To Prince Recordings And Performances" (Uptown, August 2001 -- http://www.uptown.se/turnitup2/)