A preliminary note: for answers to questions about my inspiration for the book, visit www.princepossessed.com. For my responses about whether I interviewed Prince and why/why not, see the interview with me at www.indiedisco.com

Another general comment: I appreciate the questions you have asked and find most of them to be fair and insightful. A few people bashed me, but I guess that is to be expected.

Below are my answers to various questions and clusters of questions:

Q: Why has Prince fallen, especially in comparison to other artists? Why do you think that Prince's career would go beyond the normal five to ten year span of most artist in pop music? Lovesexy was the beginning of the end, eh? Many (most?) would strongly disagree.

I agree that “rise and fall” is a phrase that doesn’t


convey a lot of nuance. However, it is a title that



provokes people to think and debate, which was one of my







hi alex. i've e-mailed before and gave you props and
feedback on your book. as far as questions i think you
answered most of mine. the only thing i want to bounce
off of you was something mentioned about andre cymone.

after he quit prince's group and went solo-one of the
things you had in your book stated that the reasons
behind andre's leaving (most of which i knew about)
the one thing you mentioned one thing he "held AGAINST
prince was the fact he felt prince should have treated
him better because HIS mom (bernadette anderson) took
prince in and took care of him when he needed it.

this was an intriguing point to me. no other book
mentioned this reason-which i think is an important
part of their BREakup. i know andre and prince did
Dance electric Later on but here's my question:
did prince give andre the song to make amends or because
bernadette begged him to give him the song?


another related question is this: people like eric leeds
and sheila e have continued to do music with prince on and off through the years and to an extent so did rosie gaines.

why do you think they have continued to work with him?
when others haven't?

morris is another guy who had a major fall-out with prince
but seems on decent terms now. what's the story behind that?

i have things to do...and might not get on the chat tonight.
but if i don't i want to let you know everything i said to
you in previous correaspondence stands.

your book was good. whether it made prince out to be a BAD
guy is subjective. and depends on a reader's view.

one curious aside ...i'm reading a new book by Peter Burns
on another fave of mine CURTIS MAYFIELD. its quite good.

a bit different than your book but just as arresting.

curtis was the prince of his time. he recorded a mammoth
amount of music...his style was more political and instead
of doing sexual tunes he did LOVE songs.but his committment
to his craft mirrors princes.

you might want to check this book out...

peace & love ALEX...charles "youngca"


objectives. Anyone who reads the book, or even parts of it, hopefully sees that I’m not claiming Prince has self-destructed or is a failure. He’s a brilliant musician, and a focused, energetic person.

In terms of artistic output, fairly nor not, I hold Prince to a higher standard because he is so much more talented than other musicians. At his creative peak, he was functioning at a level comparable to Hendrix or the Beatles at their peaks. From LS on, it’s been much spottier, and there’s certainly been less innovation. For me there’s just not the same excitement, although songs like “7” and a lot of Emancipation reminded of his brilliance. That’s one person’s opinion of course. There is some objective support for it, however. While I think the majority of people who post to the org. think that it’s ludicrous to say “Prince has fallen,” I do think that many music critics, former fans, and even former members of his bands would agree that his post-SOTT or post-Lovesexy output does not consistently break ground in the way that his Prince-SOTT stuff did.

This is something we could debate endlessly. Many people agree, many don’t. But there is some support for the proposition of an artistic decline beyond just my opinion. To me, it’s fairly simple: Prince’s work from Prince-SOTT constitutes probably the best run of pop albums ever. Then there’s a fall-off. I think Emancipation was a great comeback, but since then he hasn’t done anything that I’ve enjoyed very much at all, including the newest stuff.

Q: How did publishers react when you approached them with the idea for the book? Is Prince's star in the descendency so much they were hesitant over such a publication? Is there an appropriate market for a book like this about Prince in light of his drastically reduced presence on the charts and mainstream media?

Yes, there was hesitancy. There was limited or no interest in my book proposal from the community of major publishers. Again, I think this provides some objective evidence of “the fall,” so to speak. Books about the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix are still being written at a rapid clip. From the perspective of major publishers, Prince is an interesting figure, but not one who deserves inclusion in that pantheon. I disagree, of course, which is why I wrote the book.

Billboard Books/Watson-Guptill is not an entity with the resources of a Simon & Schuster. I will say, of course, that Billboard is an excellent company that has been very supportive of my efforts, and the people there are great. Still, the lack of interest from a huge publisher impacted the book, to be sure. While a few fans and critics seem convinced that this book is my way of “cashing in,” I can tell you candidly that it has been anything but. Even paying the rent was a struggle during the time that I worked on the book. I would have liked to have spent much longer on it (I spent about a year and a half, during which I was working other jobs much of the time), but that was impossible from an economic perspective.

There was also a page limit for the book. I think a Prince biography could be twice as long, and twice as complete. There just wasn’t enough time or space. I did the best I could with the time and space I had. I did my best to track down key sources, but I’m sure there are others I could have found with more time.

With all that said, I did the best I could to cover his entire career to date and to include new information. I hope I’m wrong, but I think it’s unlikely – unless Prince’s career takes a major turn – that another publisher, even one on Billboard’s level, will get behind a biography that is more comprehensive than this one.

Q: In the early 1990s, some 5 million people were interested in him. These days it's a miracle if he sells 100,000 copies of an album.

This comment to me does support the thesis I advance in the book. I don’t believe sales are everything, of course; but I think Prince is capable of reaching many more people. He had one of the largest hardcore followings in the history of pop music – passionate, intelligent fans who treated every release date like Xmas. This group has shrunk greatly, which I think says something.

Q: So, since this is the FIRST I am ever hearing of YOU, Mr. Hahn... does that mean that THIS is your peak? And because I never will hear of you again, does that mean your career is over? Mind your own MF and let a Man be a Man

This may well be my peak as a writer…I’m not sure I could find a more interesting subject…I’ve never claimed, and never will claim, to be a talent on the order of Prince.

Q: Hahn is doing nothing more than cashing in on those of us fans who he feels will buy anything.

I have done my best to make serious Prince fans aware of the book. I have a responsibility to Billboard to help them make back their investment of the book, and I have course I want it to do well – not so I can “cash in,” because I doubt my royalty checks will be at all sizeable, but so that, hopefully, I can do another book someday.

Q: The book basically tells the story of Prince, the one we heard a hundred times.

I was trying to write a book that would, in addition to attracting serious fans of Prince, be interesting to a mainstream audience. I do know that there are some new things in this book that haven’t been in others, and I also know that I interviewed a lot of sources that hadn’t been interviewed by either Per Nilsen or Liz Jones, who wrote the most recent two Prince books. But if there’s information that seems repetitive to the serious fan, that’s because I’m writing in part for a general audience.

Q: How many of Prince's album's do you have in your collection and which is your favorite?

I have all of his “official releases” under the name Prince (or the Symbol), with the exception of the Black Album, which I had in a bootleg version that someone gave me back in 1988. I discarded my copies of Diamonds and Pearls and Symbol due to my frustration with the rapping, and then picked them up again while writing the book. I continue to buy his records that make it into stores, although I haven’t joined the NPGMC. A favorite is hard to pick – I think SOTT is his strongest album. Dirty Mind is one I can always go back to and enjoy, as is 1999.

Q: U2's long and fruitful career is attributed (at least partly) to Bono's 'adventurous guitar work'…. The song "Murph Drag" (inexplicably listed twice) is listed as one of the monthly download releases, however this was not the case. Neither was "Goldie's Parade" a monthly download.

Various people on the org. have pointed out some typos and inaccuracies that are surely worthy of correction in a paperback version, if the company decides to put one out. I will make sure these and any others that people have informed me of are fixed. Without offering this as an excuse, I’ll say that for sure I’m human. The book was edited and re-edited and copyedited by very astute people at Billboard, and of course I read it over and over while drafting it. Somehow, none of us saw that “The Edge” had been referred to as Bono. It’s my mistake, and it’s a silly one. There are others about dates of releases, etc. The scrutiny of these has been heavy on prince.org. Thanks for pointing these out. I did my level best to make the book accurate and error free, but when digesting as much information as I had, and trying to address a career that spans more than 20 years and hundreds of songs, it’s definitely challenging.

Q: One last item I'd like to address is your contention of Prince's cocaine use. You said that this information came from a source that had spoken to Miko Weaver, who admitted to sharing cocaine with Prince during the Diamonds and Pearls tour. However, Miko Weaver had long been out of the picture by the time this tour happened (I believe UPTOWN reported that he left the fold after the Nude tour) which clearly casts a serious doubt about the veracity of that claim.

This is a valid point, but a couple of clarifications…I’m not making a “contention” that Prince used cocaine. There is a very brief discussion on page 197 about possible use. I present some claims and suppositions, but I don’t assert that they are assuredly true. It seems the source who discussed Miko Weaver’s purported cocaine use with Prince was confused between the Diamonds and Pearls tour and the Nude Tour; the source was present during both tours. It’s actually true that Miko was there during Nude but not Diamonds and Pearls. I’m glad this has been brought to my attention, and I’ll certainly correct it in subsequent editions. But in any case, I am convinced of the credibility of the statements made by my source – that is, I don’t think the source would lie to me. The source was mistaken about the time period, but not necessarily about the substance of what was observed. And, as I note in the book, this report was consistent with other observations of Prince during this period. At the same time, though, I quote Alan Leeds as doubting that Prince became a regular user. In sum, I place the allegations in context so that people can judge for themselves.

In the course of reporting the book, I encountered many claims that were more salacious and inflammatory than any presented in the book. I left them out because I wasn’t able to document them sufficiently. Nor did I want the book to become sensationalistic. I thought that the brief discussion on page 197 was warranted based on what I had learned.

Q: You have claimed that your publication is a serious attempt to analyse and study Prince in a professional context. Why therefore, does the majority of your book focus on rumours regarding Prince and his private-life, which would not be out of place in a low-market tabloid? You may dispute this, but one of the stories you have featured in your book has the UK newspaper 'The News of the World' as its source material. This newspaper has a well-known reputation for fabrication, exaggeration and distortion. What would make a credible writer use such a source?

My discussion of the News of the World piece is very critical of that piece. I describe the story as “luridly written” and I also go to state that some of the allegations in the story were undocumented. Page 216 of Possessed explains that many of the rumors that appeared in the News of the World piece were unfounded. Again, I’m not perfect, but I did my best to get the story right and to discuss it in a balanced way.

Q: Did you ever consider another title than "Possessed" for the book?

I’ll tell you a story about the title. When Per Nilsen and I were batting around title ideas, he told me about a book he’d read called “The Rise and Fall of Orson Welles,” or something to that effect. Per offered some interesting comparisons between Prince and Welles, and offered the idea “Possessed: the Rise and Fall of Prince” as the title. So it was really his idea.

Per was very helpful with the project. If you read my interview in Uptown, I talk more about this. I’m not saying that Per necessarily agrees with everything in the book. If you don’t agree with something in the book, blame me, not him. But the title was basically his idea. I never seriously considered another title.

Q: Who is the next Prince of our time?

I don’t see anyone with the breadth or depth of talent. I do think that folks like D’Angelo, Tricky, and Trent Reznor are making music that is often braver, more challenging, and more interesting. I like music that is edgy and subversive, which to me Prince’s music was for a long time. I think Prince at some point got confused about his artistic direction and hasn’t quite regained his trajectory. When I listen to the current music I feel like I’m being lectured. But the talent is there as always.

Q: Do you have a deeper or lesser respect for the man (and his music) after researching your book

I’m not here to criticize Prince as a person. I have respect for him musically, and also as a person. I don’t think the book portrays him as a bad person. I think he has flaws like all of us. Whatever psychological demons he might have are probably garden-variety, and I’m sure I share many of them…that’s one reason why I’m interested in him on a personal level. But he’s one of the leading musicians of our time, and thus his flaws and quirks are magnified, and he gets more scrutiny…from me and others. The think what troubled me most about Prince was when he sued Uptown – that’s why I got involved in the suit. I don’t really think it was a fair suit. Although I’m a lawyer, I really dislike lawsuits and think they are a waste of time. I really thought he should have had a direct dialogue with his fans instead of resorting to lawyers. I thought that was a mistake, but we all make mistakes. Obviously, I do too. The book portrays him as not always treating people that well. Again, no one’s perfect in this respect. He’s a control-freak, but he’s also a musical genius. It comes with the territory.

I'll be in the chat room at 7 p.m. Eastern Time to answer more questions.

Alex

AlexHahn said:

Hey... I know a "bad man" wrote the book. He must be "Possessed".

A preliminary note: for answers to questions about my inspiration for the book, visit www.princepossessed.com. For my responses about whether I interviewed Prince and why/why not, see the interview with me at www.indiedisco.com

Another general comment: I appreciate the questions you have asked and find most of them to be fair and insightful. A few people bashed me, but I guess that is to be expected.

Below are my answers to various questions and clusters of questions:

Q: Why has Prince fallen, especially in comparison to other artists? Why do you think that Prince's career would go beyond the normal five to ten year span of most artist in pop music? Lovesexy was the beginning of the end, eh? Many (most?) would strongly disagree.

I agree that “rise and fall” is a phrase that doesn’t convey a lot of nuance. However, it is a title that provokes people to think and debate, which was one of my objectives. Anyone who reads the book, or even parts of it, hopefully sees that I’m not claiming Prince has self-destructed or is a failure. He’s a brilliant musician, and a focused, energetic person.

In terms of artistic output, fairly nor not, I hold Prince to a higher standard because he is so much more talented than other musicians.

At his creative peak, he was functioning at a level comparable to Hendrix or the Beatles at their peaks. From LS on, it’s been much spottier, and there’s certainly been less innovation. For me there’s just not the same excitement, although songs like “7” and a lot of Emancipation reminded of his brilliance. That’s one person’s opinion of course. There is some objective support for it, however. While I think the majority of people who post to the org. think that it’s ludicrous to say “Prince has fallen,” I do think that many music critics, former fans, and even former members of his bands would agree that his post-SOTT or post-Lovesexy output does not consistently break ground in the way that his Prince-SOTT stuff did.

This is something we could debate endlessly. Many people agree, many don’t. But there is some support for the proposition of an artistic decline beyond just my opinion. To me, it’s fairly simple: Prince’s work from Prince-SOTT constitutes probably the best run of pop albums ever. Then there’s a fall-off. I think Emancipation was a great comeback, but since then he hasn’t done anything that I’ve enjoyed very much at all, including the newest stuff.

Q: How did publishers react when you approached them with the idea for the book? Is Prince's star in the descendency so much they were hesitant over such a publication? Is there an appropriate market for a book like this about Prince in light of his drastically reduced presence on the charts and mainstream media?

Yes, there was hesitancy. There was limited or no interest in my book proposal from the community of major publishers. Again, I think this provides some objective evidence of “the fall,” so to speak. Books about the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix are still being written at a rapid clip.

From the perspective of major publishers, Prince is an interesting figure, but not one who deserves inclusion in that pantheon. I disagree, of course, which is why I wrote the book.

Billboard Books/Watson-Guptill is not an entity with the resources of a Simon & Schuster. I will say, of course, that Billboard is an excellent company that has been very supportive of my efforts, and the people there are great. Still, the lack of interest from a huge publisher impacted the book, to be sure. While a few fans and critics seem convinced that this book is my way of “cashing in,” I can tell you candidly that it has been anything but. Even paying the rent was a struggle during the time that I worked on the book. I would have liked to have spent much longer on it (I spent about a year and a half, during which I was working other jobs much of the time), but that was impossible from an economic perspective

There was also a page limit for the book. I think a Prince biography could be twice as long, and twice as complete. There just wasn’t enough time or space. I did the best I could with the time and space I had. I did my best to track down key sources, but I’m sure there are others I could have found with more time.

With all that said, I did the best I could to cover his entire career to date and to include new information. I hope I’m wrong, but I think it’s unlikely – unless Prince’s career takes a major turn – that another publisher, even one on Billboard’s level, will get behind a biography that is more comprehensive than this one.

Q: In the early 1990s, some 5 million people were interested in him. These days it's a miracle if he sells 100,000 copies of an album.

This comment to me does support the thesis I advance in the book. I don’t believe sales are everything, of course;

but I think Prince is capable of reaching many more people. He had one of the largest hardcore followings in the history of pop music – passionate, intelligent fans who treated every release date like Xmas. This group has shrunk greatly, which I think says something.

Q: So, since this is the FIRST I am ever hearing of YOU, Mr. Hahn... does that mean that THIS is your peak? And because I never will hear of you again, does that mean your career is over? Mind your own MF and let a Man be a Man

This may well be my peak as a writer…I’m not sure I could find a more interesting subject…I’ve never claimed, and never will claim, to be a talent on the order of Prince.

Q: Hahn is doing nothing more than cashing in on those of us fans who he feels will buy anything.

I have done my best to make serious Prince fans aware of the book. I have a responsibility to Billboard to help them make back their investment of the book, and I have course I want it to do well – not so I can “cash in,” because I doubt my royalty checks will be at all sizeable, but so that, hopefully, I can do another book someday.

Q: The book basically tells the story of Prince, the one we heard a hundred times.

I was trying to write a book that would, in addition to attracting serious fans of Prince, be interesting to a mainstream audience. I do know that there are some new things in this book that haven’t been in others, and I also know that I interviewed a lot of sources that hadn’t been interviewed by either Per Nilsen or Liz Jones, who wrote the most recent two Prince books. But if there’s information that seems repetitive to the serious fan, that’s because I’m writing in part for a general audience.

Q: How many of Prince's album's do you have in your collection and which is your favorite?

I have all of his “official releases” under the name Prince (or the Symbol), with the exception of the Black Album, which I had in a bootleg version that someone gave me back in 1988. I discarded my copies of Diamonds and Pearls and Symbol due to my frustration with the rapping, and then picked them up again while writing the book. I continue to buy his records that make it into stores, although I haven’t joined the NPGMC. A favorite is hard to pick – I think SOTT is his strongest album. Dirty Mind is one I can always go back to and enjoy, as is 1999.

Q: U2's long and fruitful career is attributed (at least partly) to Bono's 'adventurous guitar work'….

The song "Murph Drag" (inexplicably listed twice) is listed as one of the monthly download releases, however this was not the case. Neither was "Goldie's Parade" a monthly download.

Various people on the org. have pointed out some typos and inaccuracies that are surely worthy of correction in a paperback version, if the company decides to put one out. I will make sure these and any others that people have informed me of are fixed. Without offering this as an excuse, I’ll say that for sure I’m human.

The book was edited and re-edited and copyedited by very astute people at Billboard, and of course I read it over and over while drafting it. Somehow, none of us saw that “The Edge” had been referred to as Bono. It’s my mistake, and it’s a silly one. There are others about dates of releases, etc. The scrutiny of these has been heavy on prince.org. Thanks for pointing these out. I did my level best to make the book accurate and error free, but when digesting as much information as I had, and trying to address a career that spans more than 20 years and hundreds of songs, it’s definitely challenging.

Q: One last item I'd like to address is your contention of Prince's cocaine use. You said that this information came from a source that had spoken to Miko Weaver, who admitted to sharing cocaine with Prince during the Diamonds and Pearls tour. However, Miko Weaver had long been out of the picture by the time this tour happened (I believe UPTOWN reported that he left the fold after the Nude tour) which clearly casts a serious doubt about the veracity of that claim.

This is a valid point, but a couple of clarifications…I’m not making a “contention” that Prince used cocaine. There is a very brief discussion on page 197 about possible use. I present some claims and suppositions, but I don’t assert that they are assuredly true. It seems the source who discussed Miko Weaver’s purported cocaine use with Prince was confused between the Diamonds and Pearls tour and the Nude Tour; the source was present during both tours. It’s actually true that Miko was there during Nude but not Diamonds and Pearls. I’m glad this has been brought to my attention, and I’ll certainly correct it in subsequent editions. But in any case, I am convinced of the credibility of the statements made by my source – that is, I don’t think the source would lie to me. The source was mistaken about the time period, but not necessarily about the substance of what was observed. And, as I note in the book, this report was consistent with other observations of Prince during this period. At the same time, though, I quote Alan Leeds as doubting that Prince became a regular user. In sum, I place the allegations in context so that people can judge for themselves.

In the course of reporting the book, I encountered many claims that were more salacious and inflammatory than any presented in the book. I left them out because I wasn’t able to document them sufficiently. Nor did I want the book to become sensationalistic.

I thought that the brief discussion on page 197 was warranted based on what I had learned.

Q: You have claimed that your publication is a serious attempt to analyse and study Prince in a professional context. Why therefore, does the majority of your book focus on rumours regarding Prince and his private-life, which would not be out of place in a low-market tabloid? You may dispute this, but one of the stories you have featured in your book has the UK newspaper 'The News of the World' as its source material. This newspaper has a well-known reputation for fabrication, exaggeration and distortion. What would make a credible writer use such a source?

My discussion of the News of the World piece is very critical of that piece. I describe the story as “luridly written” and I also go to state that some of the allegations in the story were undocumented. Page 216 of Possessed explains that many of the rumors that appeared in the News of the World piece were unfounded. Again, I’m not perfect, but I did my best to get the story right and to discuss it in a balanced way.

Q: Did you ever consider another title than "Possessed" for the book?

I’ll tell you a story about the title. When Per Nilsen and I were batting around title ideas, he told me about a book he’d read called “The Rise and Fall of Orson Welles,” or something to that effect. Per offered some interesting comparisons between Prince and Welles, and offered the idea “Possessed: the Rise and Fall of Prince” as the title. So it was really his idea.

Per was very helpful with the project. If you read my interview in Uptown, I talk more about this. I’m not saying that Per necessarily agrees with everything in the book. If you don’t agree with something in the book, blame me, not him. But the title was basically his idea. I never seriously considered another title.

Q: Who is the next Prince of our time?

I don’t see anyone with the breadth or depth of talent. I do think that folks like D’Angelo, Tricky, and Trent Reznor are making music that is often braver

, more challenging, and more interesting.

I like music that is edgy and subversive, which to me Prince’s music was for a long time.

I think Prince at some point got confused about his artistic direction and hasn’t quite regained his trajectory. When I listen to the current music I feel like I’m being lectured.

But the talent is there as always.

Q: Do you have a deeper or lesser respect for the man (and his music) after researching your book

I’m not here to criticize Prince as a person. I have respect for him musically, and also as a person. I don’t think the book portrays him as a bad person. I think he has flaws like all of us. Whatever psychological demons he might have are probably garden-variety, and I’m sure I share many of them…that’s one reason why I’m interested in him on a personal level. But he’s one of the leading musicians of our time, and thus his flaws and quirks are magnified, and he gets more scrutiny…from me and others. The think what troubled me most about Prince was when he sued Uptown – that’s why I got involved in the suit. I don’t really think it was a fair suit. Although I’m a lawyer, I really dislike lawsuits and think they are a waste of time. I really thought he should have had a direct dialogue with his fans instead of resorting to lawyers.

I thought that was a mistake, but we all make mistakes. Obviously, I do too.

The book portrays him as not always treating people that well.

Again, no one’s perfect in this respect. He’s a control-freak, but he’s also a musical genius. It comes with the territory.

I'll be in the chat room at 7 p.m. Eastern Time to answer more questions.



Alex

CherrieMoonKisses said:

Get over it: Prince has fallen. In the early 1990s, some 5 million people were interested in him. These days it's a miracle if he sells 100,000 copies of an album.

(And don't even get me started on the quality ofd those records -- do you really think it is a coincidence that Prince has barely played anything released post-1995 on his tours? He knows damn well himself that most of it is crap.)

Dear Bart,

You like facts?

Your first argument is purely commercial. Fact : Commercial success is not a reliable predictor of quality.

Your second argument is that the material is not good. Fact : You are entitled to your opinion, but the reviews from the last two years show many reviewers had praise for the new songs.

Which brings us to your contention that Prince doesn't play post 1995 material. Fact : Many reviewers remarked that the One Nite Alone tour and boxset were heavy on new material taken from TRC, the Truth, and One Nite Alone piano. Since I already had this conversation with you on AMP when Alex's book was announced, I know you're going to say the TRC material was just so he could preach to his fans.. but that doesn't make your contention true.



How about all those artists that when they talk about Prince clearly talk in the past tense, about what he did in the 1980s and how great he was back then, and how he threw it all away? How many songs from the past decade or so were covered by other artists, vs how many from the 1980s?

Peers talk of Prince at the past tense... Fact : For artists of Prince's longevity, this is pretty much the norm Even if this were a good indication that Prince has "fallen", you have to account for his poor marketing efforts and the fact he has radically changed his image, because they do contribute to his lack of exposure, which in turn reinforces the "has been" factor. Despite all of this, many reviewers noted that Prince is *still* an amazing force in concert and on record. You conveniently dismiss the positive reception Prince's music of the last two years has received. Sure, it's a "succès d'estime", but it is *still* a success.


As for selling out performances: that's easy when you switch from multiple arena dates to a single small theatre date. And even then he didn't sell out every time, there's at least one occasion on the 2002 Canada tour where they cancelled an entire gig for lack of interest.

Fact : Years after Prince's last top 40 hit, he was able to fill most halls respectably despite very expensive tickets. He also did respectably in the Hit n Run tour.



(And if anyone thinks people are gonna talk about the 2002 ONA tour in ten years time the way they talk about say the SOTT tour, the Parade tour of the Lovesexy tour, they need to check their head.)

Fact : Many reviewers remarked this tour was his strongest since those much touted days. Not too bad for a washed up pop star. Will we be talking about it in ten years? Judging by the enthusiastic reactions of some longtime critics of Prince's post-95 output, it is sure to be seen as a return to live concert form, despite all the flaws and preachy content. I believe those who saw the concerts will remember them.

CONCLUSION

All we really know is that Prince is presently not a viable pop star. If that's what the "fall" is about, then alright Bart, do your victory dance. Let Possessed be the ultimate confirmation.

That his musical decline is certain or irremediable is another question. Even if you consider ALL of Prince's post-Warner material up to Rave to be total crap, it's in my view very hard to argue that TRC and ONA piano don't show *some* amazing musical creativity and ability that does recall the heydays. The difference is that the lyrics are often far less appealing. I hope Prince can get back to lyrical form, because he *still* has the chops. A bit more editing wouldn't hurt either.

It's silly to act as if all the right elements could never coalesce again in his case, especially with the present NPG members. Obviously, the way he expresses his religious beliefs is a barrier. But people mellow even about those things. In *fact*, I just wrote to an old friend who has joined and left a sect or two.

On a sidenote, do you remember discussing the possibility of another major biography of Prince three years ago? Your response was that it was.. let's just say unlikely, though you used your usual categorical tone. Isn't it ironic that we are now discussing such a bio, Mr. "Prove me wrong!"?

Mr7 said:

The fact that those stories have only anonymous sources has more to do with fear of litigation (gag orders and the likes) plus the hope of the interviewee ever working with Prince again, than with fabrication. Plus these stories are often consistent despite them being told by people from all over prince's career. One story might be a lie, two a coincidence, but when just about everyone is saying the same thing...

Oh, and you might be interested to know that those evil tabloids have often broken stories that were denied at first and then later on admitted as truth. Of course the tabloids sensationalise them, but look at it this way: if only half of the story as presented in the paper is true, is that really so much better?

You may dispute this, but one of the stories you have featured in your book has the UK newspaper 'The News of the World' as its source material. This newspaper has a well-kinown reputation for fabrication, exaggeration and distortion. What would make a credible writer use such a source?

BartVanHemelen said:

Bart van norton:
Don't confuse "facts" with personal observations. As you would have seen if you read my comments SLOWLY (which you obviously need to do), I did not say Bono never touched a guitar, but rather, I hadn't seen him with one, merely satyrically pointing out that he wasn't much of a guitarist. I understand your childish need to be abrasive, but try to do so more accurately.

Cocaine?

"What u putting in your nose
is that where all your money goes
The river of addiction flows
u think it´s hot, but there won´t be no water
when the fire blows
Dig it
Pop Life..."

"The reason why my voice is so clear is
there´s no smack in my brain
I no..."

"People without... spend money on things they can´t afford. People without do ecstacy..." (19th August 1988 at Het Paard van Troje, The Hague aka Small Club)

"Pop guns & weed, brother please..."

"In september my cousin tried reefer for the very first, now he´s doing horse, it´s june"

Why are you slamming everybody? It's all opionated.

I would rather see a "noteable critic" write a good book on Prince. Maybe someone like Kurt Loder etc.

As you would have seen if you read my comments SLOWLY (which you obviously need to do), I did not say Bono never touched a guitar, but rather, I hadn't seen him with one, merely satyrically pointing out that he wasn't much of a guitarist.

BartVanHemelen said:

You like facts?

Your first argument is purely commercial. Fact : Commercial success is not a reliable predictor of quality.

Your second argument is that the material is not good. Fact : You are entitled to your opinion, but the reviews from the last two years show many reviewers had praise for the new songs.

Which brings us to your contention that Prince doesn't play post 1995 material. Fact : Many reviewers remarked that the One Nite Alone tour and boxset were heavy on new material taken from TRC, the Truth, and One Nite Alone piano.

Peers talk of Prince at the past tense... Fact : For artists of Prince's longevity, this is pretty much the norm

Even if this were a good indication that Prince has "fallen", you have to account for his poor marketing efforts and the fact he has radically changed his image, because they do contribute to his lack of exposure, which in turn reinforces the "has been" factor.

Despite all of this, many reviewers noted that Prince is *still* an amazing force in concert and on record. You conveniently dismiss the positive reception Prince's music of the last two years has received.

That his musical decline is certain or irremediable is another question. Even if you consider ALL of Prince's post-Warner material up to Rave to be total crap, it's in my view very hard to argue that TRC and ONA piano don't show *some* amazing musical creativity and ability that does recall the heydays.

It's silly to act as if all the right elements could never coalesce again in his case, especially with the present NPG members.

On a sidenote, do you remember discussing the possibility of another major biography of Prince three years ago? Your response was that it was.. let's just say unlikely, though you used your usual categorical tone. Isn't it ironic that we are now discussing such a bio, Mr. "Prove me wrong!"?

I am skeptical about any book written about somebody living without said person's consent.

bzzz said:

That wasn't your point, and you know it damn well. You implied that you were knowledgeable about U2 and that you didn't think you "ever saw Bono with a guitar". Whereas I who doesn't like U2 and has virtually no interest in them, HAVE seen Bono play a guitar in a video on MTV. If you pretend to be some very informed guy, make sure you don't end up with egg on your face. Here's an idea: just say "I was wrong and Bart was right".

Aerogram said:

BS. Prince is a POP ARTIST. He isn't making some bizarre unlistenable mix of post-rock and white noise, he's making POP music, aimed at a large audience. If he doesn't reach a substantially large audience, he's failed. And the fact is that for years he easily sold millions of records, whereas today he struggles to reach 100,000. You'd think that some of those 5,000,000 would check in every now and then, but they don't.

Fact : Prince cannot be described as being strictly a pop artist. While he's made his mark in the pop world, he excels at several genre that fall outside of pop. Certainly, his arrangements of the last two years and the Truth are not "oop" for the most part. Prince can play a number of styles traditionally and has in fact adapted traditions to the synth age. Now he seems go be going back the other way. The truth is that he's a talent that goes way beyond pop.

Besides, what to make of all those posts of yours over the years, telling him to stop trying to be a pop star?

Aerogram said:

And there are plenty who don't, and far more who don't even bother reviewing him anymore. Ten years ago new Prince albums were given a royal treatment, these days most publications don't even register he's got a new album out, including ones that years ago featured him almost every issue. FACT.

The majority of the reviews were positive and some were superlative. As for the "fact" that many publications don't bother reviewing Prince records, you can't ignore the "fact" that he has no press service and ludicrous marketing and distribution plans. The reviewers that bothered to review TRC or One Nite Alone live had to take the initiative. You're absolutely right, it's not the same as ten years ago. Journalists don't get free copies or seats to the concert, they haven't been handed a videotape with the latest video or received any word from their friendly major label contacts, who supplies cds for all sorts of other artists as well.




There was a Prince track on the recent No Doubt record. I've read ten page interviews with No Doubt that barely mention the track. If this had happened ten years ago, the only questions they had been asked was "how is workign with Prince like?" FACT.

Funny... I saw an interview where it was mentionned, before the record came out. No Doubt has frequently mentioned Prince. So they don't do it every single time... "FACT".

Aerogram said:

FACT: Even during the US tour that material was featured less and less in favor of old hits and fan favorites. By the time the tour hit Europe, it was mostly gone. Now compare to SOTT, Parade, etc. FACT.

I saw the next to last gig of the North American tour and it was PACKED with new songs. Again, your "facts" are selective, neglecting that many TRC songs stayed on the program the whole time.

Aerogram said:

BS. I regularly see artists praising other artists' most recent albums, even if those others have been around for a long time. Just look at the heaps of praise Johnny Cash is getting the last couple of years.

Johnny Cash has been a born again critic's darling for several years now. He has the backing of a major label and a press service. He is a hero to a whole new generation, has videos out, etc. In other words, he plays the game far better and in more favorable conditions than Prince, who has chosen to operate outside the usual marketing apparatus.

Aerogram said:

Blah blah blah. The FACT is that many of those artists do keep track of Prince, and simply don't care about what he's doing these days.

They care enough to follow what he's doing but don't care about what he's doing. It must be handy to be so omniscient.

Aerogram said:

I'm talking artists, and bam there's you with the reviewers again.

That's because I base myself on the record available, not on an uninformed guess on what other artists might or might not think about Prince.

Aerogram said:

BS. It's cliche upon cliche upon pretentiousness.

You're welcome to that opinion, but the critical record shows the majority of reviewers did not react to the songs that way.

Aerogram said:

The present NPG members are just as bad as the previous ones: they adore Prince so much not a single critical word passes their lips. Prince's best music was when there was conflict and opposition and challenge in his band.

FACT : The press the present NPG has received was generally superlative. It was justifiably called the best band he's had possibly since the famed Lovesexy band.

Aerogram said:

This isn't exactly a major biography. Alex Hahn is doing a great deal of effort in promoting it, but in the end it's again a book from the Uptown circle, published by a relatively small company. IIRC we were talking more along the lines of an outsider, an established writer, doing one.

Way to wish Alex well, Bart...



(And damn, learn to quote. It's pretty easy.)

I'm fine, thanks...

This review is an interesting antidote to Jon Bream's caustic review of the book. Where Bream found it tabloid-ish, this reviewer found it "painstakingly detailed" and far less "salacious" than other "Behind-the-Music"-worthy pop narratives." Go figure. Here's the link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi...304395.DTL
Also, visit http://www.princepossessed.com for an update on the book, including a retort by the author to Mr. Bream.

[Don't miss the LIVE, excusive interactive interview with the author, THIS FRIDAY, 4/25 in the 'org chatroom! -Ben]

I could be wrong, but I think I know what my point is. I do have some knowledge about U2, and Bono is NOT a guitar player (he occasionally plays a guitar).

does alex have a connection with warner brothers?

BartVanHemelen said:

Fact : Prince cannot be described as being strictly a pop artist. While he's made his mark in the pop world, he excels at several genre that fall outside of pop. Certainly, his arrangements of the last two years and the Truth are not "oop" for the most part. Prince can play a number of styles traditionally and has in fact adapted traditions to the synth age. Now he seems go be going back the other way. The truth is that he's a talent that goes way beyond pop.

Besides, what to make of all those posts of yours over the years, telling him to stop trying to be a pop star?

BartVanHemelen said:

Funny... I saw an interview where it was mentionned, before the record came out. No Doubt has frequently mentioned Prince. So they don't do it every single time... "FACT".

Aerogram said:

BartVanHemelen said:

That's because I base myself on the record available, not on an uninformed guess on what other artists might or might not think about Prince.

bzzz said:

Check your original post: that's NOT what you wrote. Only when someone pointed out that you were talking BS you changed your tune. Which means I was right, and you were wrong. Now be a man and admit it.

Aerogram said:

Did I say pop STAR? No I didn't.

Aerogram said:

Again with the reading troubles I see. I said BARELY MENTIONED. They do ùmention it occasionally, but compared to what other artists went through when they had a Prince song on their record, it's amazing how people are barely interested in the Prince track.

Aerogram said:

There's TONS of interviews. I do not need to make up things, I simply have to read them. And they all show a pattern: pre-1990s = fantastic, recent outings = pathetic.

Pop star, pop artist.. who cares, Bart? Drop "pop", keep "artist", forget "star".

There's plenty of credible music journalists still willing to vouch for Prince's future, perhaps not as a full-fledged "pop artist" like you'd like to see as if ordering from a freaking menu, but simply as the extraordinary musician he is.

Besides, I think the fact you're still here 13 years after your sources say Prince stopped making "fantastic" music ought to make you wonder about either their taste or your inability to let go of what you don't like.

YOU should re-read (a few times) my original post. I think my point was obvious.