oneradyear said:

I don't mean...to be mean but uh if you think this book is well written you musn't have read many books in your life mate

THIS is what i find to be most interesting...that even back in the "dirty mind" days prince was supposedly concerned with the "theocratic order" already.

and bart, that was uncool how you slammed on aerogram's sight.


bart said: The book shows that what we thought was a fairly recent evolution, brought on by a religious conversion, is in fact something that has always bothered Prince.

BartVanHemelen said:

That's right..I'm objective and your stil Bart Van Hemelen David Chapman-esque. Same as it ever was..same as it wever was..same as...

security be on your toes

Supernova said:

Bump because it needs to be seen. He actually went there in his supposed "intellectuality" .

Aerogram said:

copyy..print..save

The book was good. I enjoyed it, a few factual errors and 'he said, she said' quotes notwithstanding. Those criticisms are valid, but I still enjoyed reading it overall.

edit: one thing that the book hits a lot on that I've always found fascinating is Prince's propensity for being involved romantically and working with so many talentless, shallow females (Appolonia, Vanity, Carmen, Sheena...). I've always thought that spoke highly to his true quest for superiority and control.

"Control", in fact, seems to be the operative theme in his life. Good for him, I say. I wish I had more direct control over some of the circumstances in my life.
[This message was edited Fri May 16 11:10:57 PDT 2003 by herb4]

from SacBee syndicated review:

'"Possessed" too often seems secondhand and gossipy. Reading it, you wonder if Hahn has ever seen Prince in concert. Could he see the purple through the pain?'

great finish!

Aerogram said:

It's rare that I read a response to Bart's arrogant twaddle that's so good, it diffuses my desire to post a response myself...this post was one of 'em.

Aerogram said:

cosign.

Can anyone tell me who BartVanHemelen is?

Link to Prince afro Pic taken on 18/4/2003 http://www.ofoto.com/Phot...205&page=1

To take any book seriously, you have to believe the stories being told. Okay, so Hahn has (supposedly) interviewed Paisley insiders (most of them no longer employed...) but can you take this book as 100% accurate when he states that U2 are built around Bono's guitar playing?


Hmmm. Thought not.

justin10 said:

Agent Smith

Well, I’ve finally picked up the book this morning and worked through it in less than a day. I tried to keep any preconceptions to a minimum and, before I started, I wasn’t overly bothered by the subtitle…

However, from early on there were worrying signs about the ‘quality’ of the book, and of the journalistic qualifications of the author. Early reports circulating that it was the Wall Street Journal meets The National Enquirer are probably misleading on both fronts. Yes, it IS gossipy, but it could have been a lot worse. As it is, the book works on one level only… a semi-interesting collection of quotes from Prince’s circle through the years, as cobbled together by Hahn.

As a work of journalism it’s scrappy, and at times nothing short of woeful. Without exaggeration the book features the most spelling and punctual errors I’ve encountered within a dust jacket. And frankly, at this level, Hahn has to shoulder some of the blame. With almost a handful of everyday four letter words going the way of the typo, you have to wonder how much care was put into this. And his constant errors, when name-checking Prince’s offshoot bands, gets more than a little annoying. Perhaps, like the purple one himself, Hahn allows himself his own set of typographical rules, which you’ll just have 2 get used 2.

Worse still is the ambitious claim come page 250 that he will try and avoid being ‘duplicative’ during his ‘comprehensive’ appendix. Sweet Jesus – it’s a bit of a boast given he’s just written a study in duplicity during the previous 250 pages! So much information is relayed time and again that I couldn’t decide whether Hahn was writing for the Attention Deficit Generation who would trawl through his tome at a page a week, or he was just a poor writer with no sense of remaining fresh.

Morris Day joins Prince’s band and they are suddenly re-christened Champagne and now managed by Day’s mother. Then, after what must have been a glitch in The Matrix, this all happens again a chapter on. If you missed the bit about why LoveSexy was a strange CD due to the lack of a ‘sequence index’ then Hahn will explain it again for those at the back about five pages later. As for Rosie Gaines’s prediction about the fate of Matye and Prince, well… you get the picture.

Of course, at least in the above examples, the duplicity is nothing if not ‘just that’. The same fate does not await Duane Nelson, whose relationship to Prince is mentioned each and every time after his name! Not only overkill, but it’s nice to see him climb up the ranks from being a stepbrother (no blood relation) to being a half-brother. Well done Duane - you stick in son, and soon you’ll be officially one of Mattie’s own!

I might as well also take Hahn to court over his ‘angle’ and the way he cuts the book in half – the Rise and Fall. You see, the thing is Hahn only likes a handful of Prince albums after he reaches his peak. And, after Purple Rain, he confesses a fondness for three others with a further one almost making the grade. And which albums are these? Sign O’ The Times, The Gold Experience, Emancipation and The Rainbow Children (sort of). The only problem is that these are heavily bulked in the ‘Losing It’ section of his book. He cites Sign O’ The Times as a great album (what a rebel!), and then immediately moves onto how Prince is now in freefall!

But this doesn’t make any sense now, does it? If he’s justifying it purely on record sales, then technically Prince’s acceleration downhill never reached higher speeds than it did after Purple Rain and the We Are The World fiasco. But, in order to keep up a pretence that something important was still happening in PrinceWorld until after Sign O’ The Times, Hahn tells us that after Purple Rain his popularity in Europe was still on the increase. So perhaps his fall isn’t right after Purple Rain? In that case, Alex, you should stick to your own convictions, and show that his European popularity, whilst growing, was still five years from its peak at the point you think he turned a corner!

In truth, Prince’s career was to be one of peaks (of not quite Purple Rain levels) and troughs. And the spanner in the works all came from his enlightenment – the name change, the Warner fallout, both of which done severe damage to his commercial clout.

Hahn’s examination of the music isn’t awful, but neither is it what was promised. ‘In depth’ it is not, and Hahn relies on repeating comparisons from other reviews. In fact, ‘reviews’ of Prince albums, also show how hard he pushes his own agenda. In the instances where Hahn approves of an album, he showers us quotes from the positive reviews, and vice versa. Only when he can’t seem to make up his own mind (The Rainbow Children) do we get what we should have received all along – a mix of the good and the bad.

Hahn also ignores Prince as a live force, Oh, he covers the tours and all that. But Prince’s own outstanding live abilities are mostly ignored, and the gruelling schedule for the Minneapolis Genius is never evident. It also takes Hahn until the LoveSexy section to even mention the word ‘Aftershow’ with no accompanying description of what is actually is! And, if you’re not a Prince fan, who’s to say you’re gonna know? The Princely Phenomenon of the Aftershow is given one more mention, but still no explanation as to the what, when or how.

Hahn also lacks any journalistic flair which Liz Jones, with much less to work with, wasn’t short of. There are no humorous injections that don’t come directly from quotes, or clever juxtapositions within the text. It also stinks of amateur hour when you see the same phrases pop up time and again from ’affable’ Alex. Scarcely an album goes by without it being ‘plodding’ or ‘pedestrian’ and it’s all so ‘co-incidentally’ this or that. His first draft (surely what I’ve just read) should have been returned with a ‘try harder’ note and complementary thesaurus.

Hahn is also not that great at putting the pieces of his jigsaw together. He never really gets under Prince’s skin, or understands what makes him tick. But, I guess, there is enough material on offer for you to work it out yourself. Prince’s unrivalled productivity comes at just the moment he cuts off almost everyone – both events cannot be mutually exclusive.

And if you’ve ever read a biography of the late Adolf Hitler, you will notice some striking similarities between their business methods – Hitler’s in war (as he seems to be losing the battle) and Prince’s (as his star is on the wane). As Hitler faced losing the war to the Russians, he would continually come up with a new get-out scheme: the next time the Germans won a battle, he would use this momentum to agree a peace deal with Stalin, who might accept under those circumstances. But, of course, as soon as Hitler got the victory, he suddenly became convinced that total victory was at hand and pressed on until he eventually lost everything. And so it is with Prince, whose every success is viewed as vindication that he was right all along, as he strides headlong into an even bigger business disaster. His self-released successes (The Most Beautiful Girl In The World, Crystal Ball – at least financially) may have done him more harm than good. With Prince now bunked up in his Paisley money pit, the answer is clear – hope and pray for another ‘Clive Davis / Rave’ opportunity – and if at first it doesn’t sell millions, then promote the shit out of it, even if it takes you two years.

As for Alex – my advice would be to stick to the court room. The book isn’t terrible by any means – and let’s face it, as a showbiz biog/tell all, it’s already categorised as part of the very asshole of the written word. But Alex talked a good fight before this one was released and, aside from the fundamental errors, he just can’t catch fire as a writer. His editors have to take some of the blame too. Next time, Alex, don’t thank anyone in your intro for ‘eagle-eyed editing’ when there are schoolboy errors all over the place! Send Part II to me first, and I’ll help you lick it into shape. For the usual fee.

McD said:

Holy shit! That was the best thing I've read on this site in a while!



LMAO!

Nicely written review/whatever, McD.

McD said:

Copy..Print...Save

Great review McD!!!

McD said:

Fantastic!

I think Alex Hahn's cardinal sin is that he "does not get under the skin" of his subject. Maybe he was trying to look objective, but there's not many signs Hahn wants to undetstand his subject better. It's more like he wants the reader to understand how he understands Prince. Like a lawyer, he seems to decide what kind of person the defender is, then present supporting evidence. It's a shame, because there's a great book to be written.

Hasn't Bart's site been in beta for a while now? He should have at least made the lego background interactive or something at this point!

Aerogram said:

YOU made your eyesight (and your hearing) an issue a long time ago. You expect sympathy at some times, and other times you pretend it isn't an issue (quality of videos or mp3s). Not too long ago you said you probably wouldn't buy it, and now you are reviewing thebook? Unless you have read it, don't review it, okay?

As for the rest of your answer: YOU are the dogmatic one.

McD said:[quoteIf he’s justifying it purely on record sales, then technically Prince’s acceleration downhill never reached higher speeds than it did after Purple Rain and the We Are The World fiasco. But, in order to keep up a pretence that something important was still happening in PrinceWorld until after Sign O’ The Times, Hahn tells us that after Purple Rain his popularity in Europe was still on the increase. [/quote]

He still sold several millions of each album -- albums which are critically acclaimed. Quality AND quality. Prince was a HUGE star, despite making music on his own terms.

SonnySixkiller said:

HEY! y don't cha watch where ya crawlin' Sonny, THIS IS MY SHELL!

McD said:

I found two typos in your post.

minneapolisgenius said:

There is a big difference between a post on a message board, written in haste in real time after finishing the book and not proof read, and a published hardcover book. Aside from the fact I didn't charge!

There are three other punctual errors too, as well as my incorrect spelling of 'it' and 'Mayte'. Can you find those?

I'll re-do it if you like! There are a few things I forgot to mention.

McD said:

Those were the two I noticed, and I didn't notice the punctuation errors, but I WAS CHARGED! for reading this post! No one else was?! WTF!


BTW, I was kidding around of course.

BartVanHemelen said:

Bart, my eyesight is of absolutely no relevance here. If we were discussing the proper name of the purple hue used for Possessed's dustjacket, I'd understand, but you know I can read print. Admit it... your little remark was just an irritant you threw in. If that's the kind of ammo you like to use, then fine... but know this : I'm not hurt by such remarks -- you are, by making yourself look less evolved.

As for whether I said I would "probably" not read the book... please... "Probably" means "possibly", and besides who cares if I changed my mind? I have not yet posted a real review of the book because I'm too sleepy from reading it.
[This message was edited Mon May 19 16:06:03 PDT 2003 by Aerogram]

BartVanHemelen said:

what an incredibly callous post, Bart. i'm ashamed to share this board with you.

may your tortured soul one day find the peace you so desperately need.

minneapolisgenius said:

___

Beyond the typos, McD may want to check out the definition of "duplicity" vs. "duplication" and "punctual" vs. "punctuation" before calling a brother out on his writing abilities.

SassyPants said:

Hmm... I'm afraid I'm going to have to send you running back to your dictionary. 'Duplicity' and 'Duplication' mean the same thing, even if you do have license to use the former for other means. That said, I have a feeling that you believe 'Multiplicity' has nothing to do with 'multiplying', and the fact that the film of the same name goes from having one Michael Keaton to four of him is nothing but a bizarre co-incidence!

As for 'punctual', it should be obvious where this is derived from (or vice versa), and the meaning fully understood from the context. English works like that. Aside from anything else, the strictness of the language you are trying to impose on me renders your own slang statement of 'calling a brother out' as completely nonsensical!

I should point out that the word used by Hahn is 'duplicative', not that it makes any difference. His 'comprehensive' index, through which he boasted so much, is nothing to write home about. He seems perplexed about what constitutes a sideline project, justifying the inclusion of the Eric Leeds 'Times Squared' album given Prince’s song writing involvement. I don’t know why he even thought twice about its inclusion – Leeds’s instrumental talents act as vocals, so it’s not so different from, say, Jill Jones.

Personally, I thought the division should have been more obvious to anyone. Martika’s Kitchen is clearly in the wrong section – sure, it gets more than the usual couple o’ tracks, but it’s still an album that Prince contributed work to, but had no control over. Hahn should have kept to a simple rule – if it’s heavy on Prince and either Warner, Paisley or NPG, then it’s a sideline project.

I suppose Martika should be grateful she even made the appendix at all! She appears nowhere else in the book! And she would have provided plenty of talking points for Hahn. For a start, there were four songs which, in my humble opinion, comprised of two classics and two fillers. It should also be noted that the Martika co-writing credits are more than a little dubious. She probably contributed nothing (unlike the contemporary tracks by Monie Love where she clearly deserved her credit). This would have been a counterpoint to another of Hahn’s grudges – Prince’s lack of giving out song writing credits. Hahn doesn’t seem to notice that on the albums where this seems to be prevalent, credit is shared right from the off as ‘Produced, Arranged, Composed and Performed by Prince and The Revolution / New Power Generation’. Thus Prince feels he has given some kind of blanket credit, and only seems to distinguish on a few individual tracks. Affable Alex doesn’t seem to spot this, however. Ah well.

And I’m sure, if he’d done his homework, that he’d know George Clinton shouldn’t have been credited on We Can Funk. But hey… the man is often generous, which is ignored in Hahn’s book completely. The Eric Leeds album is less clear, but I’ve no doubt that the Spandau Ballet lawyer, who found for the song writer and against Tony Hadley and co, may have disputed Leeds claim to co-authorship of even these numbers! I could be wrong (and let’s face it, I wasn’t there when the tracks were composed) but given that Leeds doesn’t stray too far from the melody (which Prince almost certainly composed), then he adds no more compositional involvement than an interpretive vocalist on an old Beatles standard. But, as I said, I could be wrong.

Back to Martika. Clearly a case of Prince giving co-authorship to women (see also Easton, Sheena) who may not have even been in the country when the song was written and recorded. Perhaps Hahn’s psychological & sexual study of Prince could have benefited from a close look at Love… Thy Will Be Done. Was Martika involved in the lyric? Check this out…

‘I see all of your creations as one perfect complex
No one less beautiful or more special than the next’

Clearly, this is a love song, and the recipient of this deep love can be none other than Prince, whose unmatched body of work is being referred to. Let’s face it, even if you’re a huge Sting fan, the phrase just doesn’t quite work, does it?

So, did Martika write it, and is this another celeb affair we can add to the ‘sex’ section of Hahn’s book? Or did Prince write this love letter to himself, which surely Hahn could have tried to analyse in some psycho-sexual fashion. Oh, and whilst he was at it, he could admit that Prince is often a tad generous when giving out song writing credit. As much as (if not more than) instances where he doesn’t!

And as for that ‘comprehensive’ index – I don’t want to get picky again and point out that he missed listing the company credits on Times Squared. Especially when I can point out that, despite indexing an obscure song given to Kenny Rodgers, Hahn has (in another Homer Simpson moment) suddenly forgot all about the recent Larry Graham / Chaka Khan albums! Par for the course on this book really!
[This message was edited Tue May 20 11:35:49 PDT 2003 by McD]