I would have to disagree with you about TRC. Just after I bought it, I dreaded having to take the time to sit down and actually listen for the hour. So I scanned through the tracks quickly, and it sat on a cd rack for about a month. Finally, I decided to give it a whirl. I opened up the cd book and followed along like a book on tape (remember those?), and I fell in love with the story. Yeah, maybe some of the more conservative listeners will have to ignore the religious statements, but I seriously loved it. Could've done without "A feast, a feast, a smorgasboard at least", but other than that I was impressed. I feared that Prince would lose his funk and all out musicianship with the change of his beliefs, but I was dead wrong. Although it is not the greatest album I have ever heard, it will stay in my car along with my other Prince favorites.

IrishEcho said:

Yanno, when I have to explain even the simplest of things to you over and over again, all it does is underscore how pathetic your comprehension skills are...you're so set on trying to match "wits" with me(if that's what you call your posts) that you can't even stay focused on the topic of debate...lol...

I really have no interests in matching wits with you. I was raised to know enough not to tease the handicapped. Besides, you began this little exchange. You just have to have an opinion on everything and everyone, don't you? Your "wits" only paint you as an arrogant, ignorant & tiresome know-it-all blowhard.

One last time, and I'll bold it for ya since you're so fond of that..lol..the person who started this thread faulted Prince--and TRC--for not being innovative...my argument was that Prince shouldn't have to be "innovative" in order to be praised, then gave examples of U2 and Sting being praised while offering nothing in the way of musical innovation recently

Please tell me you finally got that...lol

What's with all this lol nonsesnse? Are you that amused by yourself? Have you been adding something to your brownies? Are you always just happy as a mongoloid? And no, what you actually wrote was:

"after 25 years in the biz, and with about 10 of those years being extremely innovative, Prince simply needs to focus on quality, musicianship, and passion...U2 and Sting aren't innovative at all...neither is Springsteen...Stevie Wonder wasn't all that innovative thru his career..."

which can be interpreted in any number of ways. Nowhere in that initial post do you say that Sting, Springsteen or Stevie Wonder were ever innovative. Whether or not you're now going to claim that you "implied" it there is only rewriting your original ramblings. And do you really think that you're offering some grandly thought out observation? Prince is praised and not praised just as widely as Sting, Springsteen, etc. are praised and not praised. Even if we accept your line of thought, they were praised and mocked equally when they were "being innovative." Innovation never was nor has it been an infallible mark of acceptance and success. What has Britney Spears innovated beyond the halter top? Her success, just like Prince's, or how you feel about his or her music is based on your own opinion. What makes you so self-righteous that you have to challenge everyone else's? It surely can't be your B.A. in graphic design? So what if the original poster wants to see Prince work with Dr. Dre? It's what he wants. His opinion. You don't want to see it. Your opinion. Leave it at that. Hopefully, Prince's career direction isn't going to be influenced by either one of you.



Damn...not only do you not know the definition of "innovative", you dont' know the definition of "elitist" either..lol...I should just post a link to Websters.com for you from now on...

Excuse me? I am quite aware of what I wrote and why I considered that an elist statement. To be an elist is to consider yourself a superior member of a group. In this case, Supernova's statement implies that to understand TRC requires "freeing your mind, thinking outside of the box." New age nonsense, which implies that it's only for a select or elite group of listeners, or that the key to understanding this silly record requires something elite. Understanding your posts, on the other hand, requires only a cup of coffee to stay awake while you pat yourself on the back for what you perceive to be some form of enlightment.


Emphasis on "at the time"...lol...things like arabic touches were hardly new at the time of Sting's single...just because they're not the "norm" at the time doesn't make them innovative, either...you know, men singing in falsetto's are so amazingly rare on the radio these days that, by your definition, Prince releasing a single in a falsetto would be "innovative"...lol

Ok, let's take a look at a definition of innovative. Let's even go back to the Latin root of the term: innovare - to renew. And we'll stick with the Sting example. Sting's use of the Arabic singing & musical element in that song certainly sparked a renewed interest, acceptance and potential for that type of music's presence in a pop song on a wider scale than say someone who isn't getting radio play. Sorry to bring up Latin roots of words, but you know, if you look in a dictionary, you'll find that words can have more than one meaning.


Just because the record company discourages it doesn't make it innovative!!...lol...GEEEEEZ, how hard is that to comprehend??...By the way, just because it's not heard on radio does NOT mean it's not heard at ALL...whooopee if Sting--or Prince for that matter--puts arabic flourishes into a pop song...there are dozens of other artists who don't cater to the pop masses who do the SAME damn thing...or are you saying their contributions should be ignored, leaving the title of "innovator" to the likes of Sting cuz he used it in a radio-friendly song??...


I feel like I'm playing tennis against an armless man here. To innovate can also mean to begin or introduce something. Using Sting as an example once again, his bringing that Arabic influence into his music certainly brought or introduced something new to pop radio. It renewed an interest and I'm sure it has sparked immitations as well. Whether or not Sting or Prince are the first at anything, they have an audience. There's a quote I like. "The danger of censorship in cultural media increases in proportion to which one approaches the winning of a mass audience." Why do you think that is? Because more people are hearing whatever is in danger of being censored, just as more people heard Sting's song than some streetcorner crooner who happened to wail a bit in Arabic before breaking into Barry Manilow.

I can't even have a discussion with you if you're not willing to allow yourself to use the word "innovation" correctly...let me know when you truly understand what that word means, and not just what you want that word to mean...

I'm going by the definition in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2 Masters degrees & a Jesuit education. I think that will hold up against the likes of you.


Um, nope...Prince was most definitely ahead of his time, and there is ample evidence in how his music from almost 20 years ago is still influencing today's music scene, and in significant ways...so being "ahead of one's time" is being innovative, so Prince fits that description...also, Prince's use of synths and drum programming had not been heard before...find ONE song anywhere that came before "Annie Christian" or "Something In The Water" which sounds like either of those songs...the thing is, you won't...drum programming was pushed way, way ahead by Prince in the 80's, to the point that guys like Timberland right now owe their success to what Prince started 20 years ago...so right there, Prince fits the definition of "innovative"...

Um yep. Or haven't you heard of the constant comparisons of Prince to Jimi, Sly, various soul singers, etc.? Seems to me that you think innovation only applies to Prince, as if he truly did come from nothing. But as a matter of fact, his is a combination of styles that all came BEFORE he did. So by your definition, nope, he's not an innovator. Sting's music from decades ago & even his current stuff still has influence on current musicians, that's as obvious as Prince's. And now, you're changing your tune by saying that Prince is still innovative, when earlier you rambled on how Prince shouldn't worry about being innovative. Dancing like a tapper.

Does your stupidity have no limits??...

You tell me, you're "well beyond" them. No pun intended.


Dont' mistake your high-pitched farts for a "breath of fresh air"..and if you do, it only goes to show how stale and rank your surroundings have been thus far...lol

Fandangouk said:

That's probably the most common complaint I've heard about it. But it doesn't affect me the way it seems to affect those who intensely dislike it. It just seems incidental to the album, because it doesn't overshadow anything. Except maybe the last part of "Digital Garden" where the guitar is grungy.



Maybe if you can't seem to get the glide in your stride and the dip in your hip. It's probably the truest Funk song (in a truly Princely fashion) on the album.



I agree that it gets even better as it goes along, but with the title track the album starts out with urgency and conviction too. And those things are probably what Prince was missing for years throughout a single album.



Dre has nothing to teach Prince. All Prince needed was something to write about he felt passionately about. When that happened it seems the production fell in line with it. Maybe if you had said another musician - but Dre ain't. And good Lord, the LAST thing Prince needs to do is be involved with more rappers.

Nobody can be innovative ALL the time. Unless they have an extremely short career.



Free your mind. Think outside the box, or listen to "She Loves Me 4 Me", and your ass will follow.

Personally I don't listen to TRC much lately anymore. Not because it doesn't have staying power - it had so much staying power that I just about exhausted it by playing it so much since day 1.

1) The narrator's voice is a mistake.. end of discussion - it doesn't add anything, it doesn't even SOUND good, it actually detracts from the music

2) 1+1+1=3 is overhyped just because it has those gorgeous squiggly guitar flourishes, but in the end it is a bit too messy and hard to get into

3) The last 4 songs are immaculate and what I have been waiting to hear from P for years.

Now, where even of all of this becomes a moot point is because: it was Athena (Minerva in Roman mythology) who sprang fully formed from her father's (Zeus's) head. Athena is the Goddess of Wisdom and War (strange combination, huh?) Zeus thought he was having a hell of a headache, and instead, this woman in armor busts out of his head!!!! Talk about an "Alien" moment!

AnotherLoverHoleinYoHead said:

On a totally unrelated note, I dig The Who's "Athena".

Irish Echo said: And as a matter of fact it is an innovation, regardless of whether or not it's a personal one, unless you're claiming that Prince created his style out of nothing, like Venus springing forth fully formed from the head of Zeus?


Sorry, Irish Echo, can't let that one go--first of all, you talk about "Zeus"--referring to the Father of the Gods in Greek mythology. But then you refer to "Venus", and that's Roman mythology's name for the Goddess of Love and Beauty (Aphrodite is the Greek equivalent).

Now, where even of all of this becomes a moot point is because: it was Athena (Minerva in Roman mythology) who sprang fully formed from her father's (Zeus's) head. Athena is the Goddess of Wisdom and War (strange combination, huh?) Zeus thought he was having a hell of a headache, and instead, this woman in armor busts out of his head!!!! Talk about an "Alien" moment!

Aphrodite (Venus) came fully formed out of the Mediterranean Sea at Paphos, which is on the island of Cyprus.

Thank you very much. You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.
[This message was edited Sat Apr 13 19:23:34 PDT 2002 by AnotherLoverHoleinYoHead]
[This message was edited Sat Apr 13 19:24:46 PDT 2002 by AnotherLoverHoleinYoHead]

It is an excellent album - and anybody who says it isn't can go back to listening to Simple Minds.

Swallow your tongue, don't just bite it, after saying something like that, so it never happens again. Both U2 and Sting are quite innovative, if that term still means to try something new. U2's music has evolved considerably since the early 1980s...and Sting defied radio convention, not to mention his record company, when he included that Arabic bit in the single Desert Rose, which is not only a good song, but also was quite a hit. He constantly finds new ways to approach music and exposes his listeners to new styles and elements in his compositions, from traces of classical music to new jazz, while still presenting an accessible song. Sting has also recorded songs in a number of languages from Spanish & French to Gaelic, which while it's not exactly innovative, it's taking chances. Prince's 1990s output for the most part took zero chances, but TRC (while I'm hardly a fan of it specifically) is a step in the right direction musically. Though, you can't really sing along to lyrics about "theocratic orders" the same way you can about Prince's earlier work.

IrishEcho said:

- Sorry....Sting was innovative way back with the Police. I have ´Brand New day´, I like it a lot, but there is NOTHING challenging there. ´Desert Rose´ has nothing challenging to the radios. It´s a nice song, but P did things much more challenging (P Control, IMO - the chorus is a scream). And U2 is a band that has style, but not so innovative too. They even follow the rules. The only time they tried something different (POP) they went back to their standard rock because it didnt sell as much as they expected