Alex: thanks for the response. I'm planning on reading the book since I've been a fan for 20 years now. I feel Prince shares his life in his music. There have been many changes in his music but we all change as we get older. Aren't we all trying to be better people? I'm very open to his creativity and have much respect for him. I find him fascinating and it sounds like you do too. Thanks

While your heart may be in the right place, the title is very misleading and very poor taste. When you say fall, I'm thinking the guy's either dead, a wasted drug addict or in jail. Prince is still fairly young and he's just going through what most stars of his stature go through. They rise and for a period become very hot and then as they age they keep putting out music, but it isn't to the sensation of their younger years - but they didn't fall. Heck, to me the Stones haven't done a decent song in years compared to their younger years, but I give them credit, they're still there, still packing them in and putting on a great show. The same with Bowie, Dylan, McCartney, I can keep going. Prince is no different. He still has enough fans to keep him going regardless of what he puts out. I suspect he may lay low for a period and then pop out again. Every now and then they pop out with a bad ass CD.

I'll be happy to check out your book, but change the title. Prince didn't fall. Let the man grow older and mature and bring whatever fans who want to watch him excel to the rest of the old glories who haven't had a decent hit in years but charge way too friggin' much to go see them.

LQ

Its not about the truth or eyeclearing, the book was written for the $$ off someone else's career. Any Prince fam knows the true about Prince.(instuments played, song written, influences, songs influences, control, temper, etc.) What i think any of us look for is a positive in this world, not the negitive that surrounds us. Prince brings us POSITIVITY with his Performance, Showmanship, and Music. He takes something and makes it better. (Example if prince took the Model T he would have made it a 2003 S600.)

I might buy the book,but the title is going to be a major point of concern.

I really feel for the fan who thinks that Prince needs to have a major hit to be successful again.The music today has changed into something that many of us will not understand.

Prince has grown up.

Maybe we should too.

I would check the book anyway, although the 'fall' part may not sound appropriate to state as a fact for some, even though it was based on some viewpoints, and certain facts.

Thanks for your post. It sounds very sincere, and that's very important. In all cases, time will only tell, because we all know where Prince stands with us.
[This message was edited Mon Jan 13 21:57:45 PST 2003 by Starmist7]

I'll have to read the book, but regardless of the motives for selecting this title, it's perfect to sell the book. It upsets supporters, vindicates critical fans and perfectly matches the sentiment of most people who have stopped following his career, but might want to know what happened.

Too bad it's also one of the most cliched that could be selected for an unauthorized biography. I don't think Alex's explanation that "The title (..) merely reflects a basic fact: Prince’s work during the 1990s (..) does not match that of his earlier work." is very convincing. It implies.. no.. it STATES that the criterion is purely artistic, and I can think of lots of artists who are still around and whose input no longer matches the "earlier work". Can you imagine...

The Rise and Fall of Stevie Wonder
The Rise and Fall of Aretha Franklin
The Rise and Fall of The Rolling Stones

None of these acts are putting out any influential music these days, and no one is talking about their "fall". So it must be that the title is based on more than artistic achievement.

I've long been convinced that there are fans out there who completely and utterly bought into that "Prince, pop pioneer and cultural revolutionary" dream and expected him to continue pushing musical boundaries like he did in the eighties. That's a very tall order. If he no longer does that and that merits to be characterized as a "fall", then maybe the title reflects the author's disappointment as a fan who expected too much. Because last time I checked, Prince was still getting rave reviews that some of the acts above would be proud of getting.

Aerogram said:

co muffuggin sign.

this man always seems to state it best.

I've never been discouraged after reading
books or articles about Prince. I've NEVER
taken them seriously. This book is NO different.
New title for the book- "Love Him, Hate Him: A True Musician"

To those of you who are criticizing the title of the book,I think it's important to keep in mind that ALL artists experience a "rise and fall" in their careers.That's how the music biz works.I don't think the title is meant to imply that Prince WAS great before,but has now become a crack-smoking,second rate musician with no money and fans left...lol...

BOTTOM LINE: read WB & Aero's posts!

Aerogram said:

Precisely. For SOME reason Prince is held to a standard that not many artists are held to. The fact that he could break musical ground and find himself on the charts simultaneously is not common. Prince fans who expected that to be common thru his entire career have been artistically spoiled in that sense. I realize that he has set the bar very high, but so have many others who level off artistically and commercially later on in their careers. Where are those other books with the same titles that Aerogram posted?

And borrowing is something he's always done. Even excluding his seemingly bandwagon fascination with rap, he was borrowing. It's not realistic at all for anyone to expect an artist to be innovative with each and every subsequent piece of music - unless they have an extremely short career. We're talking about someone who has been in the game for 25 years now.

LadyQ said:

I think there's a big difference between Prince and the other artists you've mentioned. With them their artistic decline was more gradual, over a period of time, with Prince it really was abrupt, right after 'Lovesexy'. Whether you're a fan(m) or not I think that after 'Lovesexy it's quite easy to see how he tried to appeal to a more mainstream audience by writing simpler songs and incorparating so called contemporary urban elements in his music like rap and hip-hop (even though he dissed this on 'The Black Album' as basically non-music). In other words being more down to earth. And he succeeded in this when he released 'Diamond and Pearls', which was a huge commercial succes. But in my opinion he wasn't artistically true to himself with this album and with most of the music he released after that. But I always kept believing in his talent because his change of direction in the late 80s was so abrupt (meaning that he didn't gradually loose his artistic brilliance but probably kept it on hold or something). When "Rainbow Children" was released I think that was first time since 'Lovesexy' that his music sounded honest again, musically and lyrically. Even though the ol' Prince-magic isn't quite there yet at least he has stepped in the right direction, doing his own thing again, regardles of trends. The only thing I hope is that he also wants to be innovative again, which was one of his main driving forces up until 'Lovesexy'. Because with Prince I think that the keyword is "want". Musically the man can almost do anything, but what does he want? Hopefully to be musically different in a intelligent and intellectual way, much like his original vision for Paisley Park.

(sorry for any spelling errors, I'm Dutch)

“What do I care for your miserable fiddle when the spirit moves me”.

Words spoken by Beethoven to a violinist complaining about one of his later works. A piece which is now generally regarded as one of his many great compositions.

I would not compare Beethoven and Prince as musicians and would certainly not place them in the same realm. But it is interesting that Beethoven was also a musician who lost much of his loyal and enthusiastic audience after composing works that were not within the expectations of audiences of the time. Works like the Eroica symphony, now generally regarded as one of the greatest.

Of course it’s easy to sit back now and scoff at the thinking of some people at that time who could not recognize the genius of his work. In his book Serious Creativity, Edward de Bono explains the self organizing information system of the mind. We are all subject to its mechanisms. We can only interpret things using our current knowledge and experience. This goes a long way to explaining why people can’t keep up with an innovator with creative energy such as Beethoven in his own time.

Understanding the self organizing information system of the mind, you can start to see that people will re-act to innovation and creativity in different ways. Consider the song One Nite Alone. How would someone whose primary diet is popular music perceive this song. What about a Jazz fan, how would they perceive it. To me this work is a milestone. It is an exquisite, creative and innovate work full of the most wonderful subtleties. While I think this, others will perceive it differently. Indeed some may see it as just a ballad lacking funky beats.

So what do I think is innovative and wonderful about this song.

- The combination of subtle digital effects with an acoustic instrument and human voice. For example, it starts with a digital effect that gives you the impression you are having brief flashing visions of something. The opening note, a B in the treble, is struck on the piano at the height of the effect and is allowed to fade away. A series of other notes and intervals are played, each being given space to sound. This includes a low D octave, and higher dissonant intervals of a minor second (B and C). The digital effect includes a very subtle sampling of the B and C dissonant interval played as a trill and then sped up.

- The use of voice as an instrument. A soft male voice slides into the singing part along with a digital effect again reinforcing the fleeting visions. The singer uses dramatic changes in style from falsetto to tenor to talking in baritone. These changes in voice seem to match the content of the lyrics and enhance the picture you are starting to form in your mind. The effect is just as exciting as the dynamic changes in a Beethoven piano sonata.

- The capability to produce mental images. The creative wording and the interplay with the style of voice, complimentary rhythms and melodies provided by the piano and digital effects provide you with an exotic picture.

- It has a definite beginning, development and end. It is not like the vast majority of popular music which needs to be faded in and out. One Nite Alone ends with a gentle singing voice returning with the digital effect giving you another fleeting vision. The singing briefly continues in falsetto style to conclude the lyrics. A low D played with middle C and D are used to conclude the piece. This slightly dissonant ending provides an effective resolution but leaves you with lingering pictures in your mind.

- It requires a reverberant acoustic to fully appreciate the subtleties. You need to listen to this song to get the most from it. This is not the same as the sort of concert experience which benefits rock and pop.

To me it seems inevitable that a highly creative and talented person would eventually find little to keep them producing popular music. It would also seem inevitable that highly innovative and talented people will eventually not be able to meet the expectations of some loyal fans because of the very nature of their creativity. New works may not be perceived as innovative because of the mechanisms of our minds and the limits of our self organizing information systems.

I find this extract from the Allgemeine Musicalische Zeitung interesting. It was written by a critic after an attendance of a performance of Beethoven’s Eroica symphony.

“The long and extremely taxing work is actually a protracted, daring and wild fantasy. There is no lack of striking and beautiful passages, which reveal the energy and talent of their creator, but more often the work appears to lose itself in anarchy … This reviewer undoubtedly belongs to Beethoven’s most sincere admirers, but he must admit to finding too much here that is bizarre and shrill.”

Aerogram said:

Well said. Same goes for posts by Nupwrsoul and Wellbeyond.

I can't believe you guys are getting so fired up about this book.Let's be real here...it's not like this book is gonna make the Bestseller list,and I doubt that Oprah will be inviting Alex on her show to discuss it...lol...and if you're really so appalled by the title or it's contents,simply don't read it.

DavidEye said:

Thank You DavidEYE.

DavidEye said:

If you think I'm appalled, think again. I don't buy Alex's explanation that the title reflects "a basic fact". The title is overblown, premature and cliched. I'll still buy it. I'm pretty sure that's all Alex wants.

To all those who said nice things about what I wrote : thank you!

To all those who want to contradict what I said : bring it on.
[This message was edited Tue Jan 14 14:11:24 PST 2003 by Aerogram]

AlexHahn said:

- Alex...I hope so. Good luck with your book. Some fans (specially the ´fams´) get offended more easily. The title of the book is provocative, and even aggressive, but I understand it refers to a commercial point of view.
Prince is kind of special among other artists his age. Most of them still keep their fanbase and appeal to the ´smooth music´ market, like Sting, Phil Collins, etc. But Prince was (or is) in a different situation. He is not that innovator anymore, he lost some fans because of that, and because of his new ´religious´ directions. And he doesnt reach the teens and the ´adult radio´ audience. That´s the price he pays for being unique.

I know it´s off topic, but I must say that the ONA box set is a great album. Prince´s guitar playing improved a lot. His solo on ´Joy in repetition´ is one of his best ever.

Once again Aerogram serve us some mature reflektions. I´m with U.

And Gustavo - "...That´s the price he pays for being unique." That´s so true.


Off topic:
Gustavo, when it comes to guitar playing. Man,I´ve told U about the Vega-gig (Copenhagen), didént I? That aftershow has the best-rudest-wildest guitar playing I´ve heard from The Man!! "Scotty! guitar up, guitar up.."
yaaahhhooo!!

DavidEye said:

Uhh, David, your post seems more fired up than any I've read in the thread (admittedly I didn't read them all). And I can't speak for others but I don't think Wellbeyond and Aero, and certainly not I, am "appalled" about the title. The book's title didn't move me in any way to even respond to other threads about it, the author's explanation of the book is where I see implausibilities. I noticed people in other threads about this book were verbally chastized to wait to find out what it's about before forming an opinion. Now that the author himself has explained what it's about and people are questioning him I don't see why folks are acting as if the people questioning him don't have the right.

Mellow out, the questions are about a bio and an author's motives, it's not political legislation.
[This message was edited Tue Jan 14 17:24:32 PST 2003 by Supernova]

One thing that will be of particular interest to me is how Prince's recent jazzy output is treated. I've been following Prince for over 20 years, and I find it very significant that he has chosen to do so at this point.

toccata said:

I enjoyed your post very much. It expresses perfectly many of the same thoughts I have had.

Several of the composers we now regard as the Masters were misunderstood and underappreciated during their lifetimes and received negative reviews. J.S. Bach was criticized for composing in the "old" baroque style rather than the new "lighter" classical style then coming into vogue. However, in retrospect, he brought the baroque form to its zenith, but many of his manuscripts, considered worthless, were used to wrap fish and chink walls in the family home after his death.

We should caution ourselves against making an attempt to summarize Prince's position in music history just yet. It's difficult to judge a body of work that isn't yet completed.

kaparn said:

well said

GREAT BOOK! I JUST USED ALL 5 PAGES TO WIPE MY AZZ

HEY MICHAEL MICHELLE,,,LETS PRETEND WE'RE MARRIED!

My thoughts after devouring this very intelligent thread:

1) The more varied the set of opinions you have at your disposal, the stronger your opinion will become. Hopefully “Per Nilsen” does not overly inform this author’s opinions and this book adds to that much needed diversity.

2) When Prince does truly fall, you won’t be able to arouse much of a debate on the topic.

3) Let me flip the author’s words around and see what sticks. Prince’s work in the 80s has seen him morph into an often pornographic and hypocritical figure that, from a musical standpoint borrows (for example, from Sly Stone, Stevie Wonder, and James Brown) far more than he influences. As oversimplified as my argument is, it’s still informed, there is certainly no shortage of allies to its philosophical foundation, and there’s even an element of truth to it. Start to repeat it often enough and you wont’ be able to see anything that doesn’t fit its pattern. Bias is the earwax of music; the more you got, the harder it is to hear.

4) I wonder which came first, the plot or the desire “to understand him better.” I hope for the former, but instinct and experience tells me it’s the latter.

5) Prince did not invent or re-invent music in the 80s. Stop holding him to such mythically high standards. Every artist borrows heavily from that which came before him or her. There’s no way around it. Otherwise you’re back in the cave banging rocks.

6) People worry far too much about innovation and influence (two items that are extremely difficult to measure while the paint is still wet), and far too little about quality. Thirty years from now if some budding young musical genius should pick up “Avalanche”, “It Ain’t Over” or “Family Name” out of a used CD bin, I don’t think that he or she will be too concerned about how it sold or whether during its time it was considered sufficiently cutting edge by some music geek. What will ultimately matter -- and either hold the young buggers interest or not -- is whether its any good.

7) Prince’s music continues to be broken down into this oversimplified 80s versus 90s nonsense, when in reality the truth of his musical journey if graphed would probably look something more like the New York Stock Exchange numbers. Almost all artists are that way; the greatest ones just have higher highs and a longer shelf life.

8) Relevancy cannot be measured at your local Wal-Mart register. Countless artists have influenced from outside the mainstream. Prince influenced once before as a cult artist, let’s see if he can do it again. Or are some of you just here in the off chance that Prince becomes popular again?

9) If the first two years of this decade are a harbinger for what’s to come, I predict that someone will be writing a book 10 or 20 years from now called, "Possessed: The Rise, the Fall, and the Resurrection of Prince". Hopefully, Alex, you are a cool enough person to admit it if it happens and write the sequel yourself. You put yourself out there to fail big time if your conclusions are wrong, and that takes guts. Good luck, man!

Brendan

HalluRain said:

Thanks HalluRain, I appreciate you taking the time to comment.

It's almost comical to think of Bach's manuscripts being used to wrap fish and chink walls, but he probably wouldn't see the funny side of it.

Can I have a free copy? I'll review it on Amazon and on the Org if you like. Also, I'm easily bribed.

Alex Hahn, comes on as a thoughtful and direct sort of bloke, who explained his basis of the new book very well, and what do the kiss ass fams do? They treat this rather nice man like he butt plugged their pet gerbil. Get over it folks! He wrote the book to appeal to readers of all stripe, not just fams, who would limit his ability to make a mint. And he seems to be fair and bases his book on in-depth interviews on non-biased help from the great Per Nilson. But we shit down his throat because he doesn't think the lousy Rainbow Chitlin album is some masterpiece. We all know that disk is cocktail jazz bullshit that doesn't compare to the brilliance of SOTT or Lovesexy. Hahn is just honest to admit it. And his critique of Princes self-righteousness is right on as well. Prince and his shitty JW beliefs have made Prince into a raving lunatic. (Remember the "Satans Claws" poem?) Hahn is right to critisize someone who used to talk about freedom and liberal thought. Also his dumb views about not cursing and his desire to not play risque songs from his past, show just how much of a stick in the mud he has become.

Hahn, I am with you man. I will buy a hundred copies of your book, pass them around to other disgruntled Prince fams and he will beat Prince down with them.

Yea, his live album is great, but endless jamming on stage is really out. The man is turning into the Las Vegas lounge singer, as of late.

Just as Pete Townsend or Michael Jackson deserve criticism, Prince deserves it as well; as long as it is fair and from good sources.

this aint CJ folks; Hahn seems to be a fan, so let's give him some love and support. He sure respects you more than Prince does.

And did I mention Prince is greedy?

Dansa, you hush.

In all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.” – Mark Twain

--
Sorry, Mr. Twain.
[This message was edited Wed Jan 15 23:05:27 PST 2003 by Brendan]