BlaqueKnight said:

I don't believe that anyone here was disputing/debating the fact that Jimi is IT when it comes to the guitar. Prince is not an innovator when it comes to playing the guitar, however, contrary to what you say his skills are underated by the masses.

After many Musicology concerts there was always a general astonishment among casual fans that Prince is so good on guitar. In general people who aren't Prince fans were surprised that he can do things like tear up "A Whole Lotta Love". That's why people (not just Prince fans) were freaking out after "while My Guitar gently Weeps" at the Hall of Fame. Don't believe me? Go to any George Harrison or Tom Petty message boards and look at the threads from last summer. Those people had no idea Prince could do what he does on guitar. Does that make him better than Jimi? No. Is he more innovative on guitar? Obviously not. However, to say that Prince is not a musical innovator is to display your ignorance about Prince and pop music in general.

You acknowledge the fact that Prince is very good on several instruments, (your claim that he is great on none is highly subjective and endlessly debatable).

You said "Prince's greatness is in his ability to blend various styles of music and formulate his own sound; not in being one of the greatest innovators on guitar." That is true. As I said before, no one was debating you there. However, you own statement points out the reasons Prince is an innovator.

First of all, no one in popular music has been able to cross/blend genres and been as successful as Prince has. No one. not The Beatles, not James, not Jimi, not even Sly. No one with as much mainstream success as Prince has crossed genres like he has. I'm not just making this up. Countless musicians/critics/etc. acknowledge this.

Secondly, no who has had as much mainstream success as Prince has been able to "do it all". I'm sure that there are a ton of musicians in the world who employ the "one man band" technique and write, produce, arrange, and compose. However, none have been as successful as Prince.

Lastly-again, you said it yourself.Prince formulated his own sound. That is the very definition of "innovator". He took everything that came before and made it something else-something unique and brand new. That's why when you hear someone like Andre 3000- you don't say "oh that sounds like Hendrix, or Dylan, or Stevie,etc." You say, "Damn that sounds like Prince."

Once more, no one was saying that Prince was an innovator on guitar and attempted to even say he was equal to Jimi on guitar.

What I am saying is that to claim Prince isn't an innovator is simply incorrect. Also, you asked us to compare Prince's guitar playing to Jimi's when they were the same age. If you turn it around and compare Jimi's skills to Prince's at the same age Jimi gets spanked hard in almost every other category of musicianship. From output, to chart success, to production skills, to genres covered, to vocal skills, to abilities on other instruments-Jimi can't run with Prince.
[Edited 2/28/05 11:03am]

Blaqueknight i think you haven't read the thread, the discussion turned into Hendrix X Prince as an overall artist, not as a guitar player. You triped on your response.

now let's get it all in perspective on the fact that jimi hendrix and prince are both guitar GODS that are still imitated cause they play the kind of guitar that 40 and 25 years later still give people tears and chills....

7salles said:

As an overall artist in what sense? Influence on others? Record sales? Musicianship? I addressed a few points. There's no debating that Prince is an influential artist, as is Jimi. Record sales - gotta give it to Prince. That is a very poor point of judgement, as other less talented artists sell more records than Prince. Prince had the higest grossing tour of 2004. That speaks for itself as to Prince's influence to a degree.
Talentwise, you have to take into account the differences in time periods and what was going on in music at the time and how each artist stood out from their peers, etc. Artists are influenced by other artists and a midget standing on the head of a giant can see farther than the giant, but it doesn't make the midget ther greater of the two.

OverAll in all senses possible. This is what the thread is about. We discussed the vocals, the songwriting departament. I thinks it's silly to compare, i will give you that, but i was just defending Prince cause jacktheimprovident said that hendrix was a better singer and that he was more funky than Prince, and i cant accept this, i accept that hendrix is teh better guitar player, more innovative musican, more important. But in my eyes I give Prince all props over hendrix in his voice, funk music, and song writing in general.

7salles said:

Funk was not really a genre when Jimi was ruling the airwaves. R&B was, but it was a different incarnation than what it is now. Do you know who Jimi played with? You think Prince is funkier in general or funkier on guitar? Ask Ernie Isley that question. Jimi chose to innovate a genre instead of going the "funk" route. Prince is not the apex of funk by any means. Jimi influenced Prince, Prince's influences and the other artists who helped Prince shape the MN sound. That's like saying Vladimir Horowitz was a greater artist than Beethoven or Mozart. Different time periods and access to knowledge, techniques, etc. dictate the outcome of abilities, especially when new resources come into play. Jimi & Prince are both great artists, but Jimi is damn near synonymous with guitar; Prince isn't and never will be. Its really hard to talk about Jimi without bringing guitar into the conversation. As far as singing goes, I prefer Prince over Hendrix any day.

I agree with you that Prince had more acess to funk music and hendrix had close to none acess, but that does not make Hendrix funkier than Prince, or music general. It is like saying Hendrix rocked harder than Pantera. He did not period. He can be better, the genious, the GOd of guitar, but he didn't rock harder than Pantera nor was funkier than Prince. Just because he was not around as long as the others to absorb lots of influence does not make him the best in everything. I dont like to compare different artists from different eras, but if you compare, you got to analyze what Hendrix was, and not what he could be, because it is just speculation, and Prince is funkier than Hendrix period.

And other thing, I know it's unfair to Hendrix to be compared to Prince in this terms, but it's also unfair to Prince to be compared to one of the most brilliant artist of last century that was found dead when he was in his top. You know what happens when idols die young no?, they achieve the GOD status, so I won't discuss this anymore, but let's not trip, there are people here saying Hendrix was more ecletic on his music than Prince, and saying Hendrix has a better voice. I cant accept that. For good or worse Prince did even HIP HOP, reggae, french cabaret music and Muzak. Hendrix could never do this, primarly because he was not long enough to absorb music as much as Prince, and those days everything was more difficult. But let's stay true to the reality at least. I love Hendrix, from his vocals in Angel, to the genious arrangments in
1983 and still raining still. But i give up on this. I think prince is a more complete artist, and was more creative than Hendrix as a songwriter when he was in his best. But those days are gone, and Prince always fucked a little because he always was at least a little commercial. HEndrix no, he never cared for hits i think, he was just searching, and it was incredible, he never found but he was the most talented guy to ever hold a guitar, IMO.

BlaqueKnight said:

"Any references to innovation was pertaining to the subject at hand - guitar playing."

Again- I am not disputing that Jimi is the innovator on the guitar. I will, however, debate that the general public still doesn't know how good Prince is on guitar.I think we are mostly in agreement, though.


"Jimi has mystified many and is still doing so long after his passing."

Only because he died young. Prince and many others can NOW do what Jimi did on guitar--only because they have lived longer an followed Jimi. I mean, Santana and Clapton are probably better techniquewise than Jimi. Does that make them better or innovative? No.

I was never arguing that Prince comes close to Hendrix in GUITAR influence or innovation. However, Prince is a better and more complete all around musician as well as a innovator in popular music.
[Edited 2/28/05 13:30pm]

minneapolisgenius said:

That's where you acknowledged that what he said was fine.

RazzBeret said:

That has nothing to do with his comment really. You called him childish for saying what he did, and I said what I said because your original statement was childish in itself IMO, therefore hypocritical. We do have the right to criticize others' tastes. This from the site rules: "Reminder: be respectful of others' musical tastes--criticism is okay, but not to the point of flaming another orger."

There was no "flame" on my part at all. And if you're that sensitive to what others say, and who we may or may not agree with, then I can't help you. Deal with it.

minneapolisgenius said:

I guess Prince changed his policy from "luv4oneanother" to "criticism4oneanother," sorry.

RazzBeret said:

Yep. That's why this is a discussion board. If we all agreed on everything it would be boring as hell.

Oh and....Prince doesn't run this site, so his policy doesn't really hold much water here. Plus, I really doubt that Prince lives according to his own "policy" anyway, but that's a different thread for a different day.

minneapolisgenius said:

So are you saying it's better to hurt peoples feelings than to be bored? Wow! You're heartless. And if we are on a Prince site, it would make the most sense to go by what he preaches, since we're all raving fans. Just to let you know, I have bipolar disorder, so yes, I do get offended easily, so maybe you should think about keeping your condescending and critical attitude to yourself before you just go out against people that you don't know.

RazzBeret said:

I guess I'm heartless then. And I DON'T live by what Prince preaches because that would mean I'd be a JW then, wouldn't it? I'm not a "raving fan" of the man personally. All of us here have different levels of love, respect, casual interest, etc. in the man's music. I rarely post in this forum anyway, and if you'd wander into the Non-Prince Music forum, you'll find hundreds of others who are able to discuss, criticize, and debate just about every artist under the sun and not get all bent out of shape about it. As I am not a mind reader, (at least not in this case) I would have no knowledge that you have bipolar disorder. Maybe you should put that in your signature so others can know that before they reply to you about things from now on. It would save people time and energy on things like this in the future.

minneapolisgenius said:

Well, I figured if you went as far enough to join a site called prince.org, and go into the specific "Prince-Music and More" forum, that you must have at least a slight obsession with the man, but I guess I shouldn't have assumed that. There are a peaceful people over in this part of the site who are kind and express "luv4oneanother," I could've handled your criticism if maybe you would have shown a little respect towards my opinion, but because you like Jimi, you were unwilling to have an open mind (even though I'm 14 and am able to have an open mind about other artists and peoples opinions--go figure). Oh well, I shouldn't have expected much.

RazzBeret said:

Yeah, that makes sense. I joined this site actually because it has a wonderful Music forum, with really people who really know their stuff, and are willing to debate and discuss other musicians, as well as Prince. It's one of the best music forums around on the internet IMO. Ever check people's profile's on here? Well check mine, and THEN tell me that I don't have an open mind when it comes to music. Oh well, you are just 14, so in your own words, "I guess I shouldn't have expected much."

minneapolisgenius said:

By that, I didn't mean that ALL people who liked Jimi don't have an open mind, just you in particular. So what about your profile? You were unwilling to accept my dislike for Jimi, something you've obviously never delt with before, so you totally disregarded my opinion. And that's just the kind of condescending, patronizing adult attitude I would expect; most adults think they are high and mighty just because of there age, and can look down on other people just because they are older, you obviously being one of them. And I hate to break it to ya, but life isn't ALL about debating and arguments. I shouldn't have to even be telling you this, just because of the age factor, but it looks like I have to.
[Edited 2/28/05 14:39pm]

RazzBeret said:

And all this coming from a person who states in their own profile that "arguing" is one of their hobbies. That alone causes me to disregard everything you've said now, as it's a "hobby" for you I see.

Come back in a few years after you've learned how to debate musical opinions properly and handle them without having to cry about it. And yes, as an adult, you DO have more knowledge about music and just about everything else in the world than you did when you were 14. That's a fact. You'll just have to accept that.

minneapolisgenius said:

Yes, arguing as in about world topics in debate club, where personal shots ARE NOT taken. And you've debated no musical opinion whatsoever, you've just taken shots at me, it seems as though you could care less about the music! And yes, adults DO know more, but that doesn't give them the right to treat everyone below there age like crap, like what has been done here.

RazzBeret said:

Perhaps it's because Hendrix threads are done to death over in the music forum already, so if you want to do a search you'll find plenty with my input. Where have I taken personal shots at you? Name them.

My advice to you is to GROW UP. That's all I can say to you further. The majority of your posts are filled with broad generalizations about me and what I think about younger people, how I treat them like crap, how I'm heartless, how I don't live according to Prince's "policy", how I don't have an open mind, you name it. Look in the mirror man. Maybe if you joined a music discussion like a normal person, you might learn something. It will actually open your mind, and maybe change your opinion about something you once thought you didn't like. It's worked for me countless times. That's what this thread is all about, isn't it? Prince and Hendrix.

minneapolisgenius said:

You've made this personal, not about Prince and Hendrix. And I grow up? Wow, you're so mature a grown-up, I mean, all the adults I know spend all their time just managing to get by in a debate with someone half their age, and once again, you've made this discussion not about music, but more about "if-you-don't-like-Hendrix-you-don't-matter" discussion, which has NO relation to music.
And what is your definition of a "normal person" ? Someone who goes at all costs to disregard another person and defend their musician. Please. In yours words, GROW UP.

Let me just reiterate and clarify my opinion here since a lot of people have objected to certain things I've said.

While I admitt there are certain aspects of musicianship in which Prince is superior to Hendrix, I do not think Prince is a greater, or even as great an overall artist as hendrix. Prolificness, eclecticism and versatility are not the only measurements of overall greatness, and prince isn't necessarily greater in these three categories than Hendrix either. Prince is only more prolific because he's recorded music for much longer, he's only more eclectic for the same reason and because he's dabbled in a lot of styles with mixed results, and he's only more versatile by virtue of his greater vocal range and dance moves, which in and of themselves are not that great (and by that I mean not as great as prince fans/fanatics make them out to be) and certainly don't put him in the same league as the greatest singers or dancers. Prince may be able to scream, sing in falsetto and go deeper than hendrix, but his voice is often an acquired taste and also is very unappealing to a lot of people, whereas Hendrix's vocal ability may not be as accomplished, but his voice is perfectly suited to his music.

Many people have been arguing that Prince's songwriting ability is superior as though it's an objective fact. As I already mentioned, prince's superior quantity and variety of songs isn't indicative of anything more than his longer life and having been privy to more developements in popular music (as well as having tried many styles once or twice with hit or miss results), nor do quantity and variety necessarily preclude quality. Sure, there's no way to measure the relative quality of prince vs. hendrix's melodies or lyrics, but personally there are plenty of hendrix songs that have moved me as much or more than anything prince has ever made.

What it comes down to is that people often proverbially fellate prince as though he's this demi-godly hybrid of all the best aspects of his predecessors and I don't believe that prince has necessarily surpassed all or even most of his influences. In many ways I think he's just standing on the shoulders of giants, and even that analogy bothers me because it implies that prince's music is "higher" or greater than that of his predecessors. The standards of good music are timeless as far as I'm concerned, and while yes there are certain technical and technological things that allow people in music today the ability to do things that people couldn't do in decades past, it doesn't elevate today's music above the music of the past. Who here would argue that Mozart's music is still great by ANY age's standards? He may not have had access to drum machines and synthesizers but his music will always be "greater" than anything made today INCLUDING prince or hendrix. Great music is not "great for its time" or "great by the standards of the time", truly great music is timeless. Hendrix is above prince in influence and impact by far, but I think both of them will be talked about by true music lovers for age to come.

Well in the end it's all just personal taste. I take Hendrix over Mozart any day. I wont say Hendrix is the better musican but for me he is more talented because I relate more to his music than mozart's music, even if the IQ of mozart was 10 times bigger than Jimi, even if his songs are full of complexity, talent for me is someone creating something that touchs me deeply, and Mozart cannot do that. There is no reason to discuss things like this I suppose. Each one hold its own.

"Prince is only more prolific because he's recorded music for much longer.."

Wrong. Compare Jimi's 4 years of releasing material to Prince in any 4 year period (including music written/created and given to others). Jimi's output was never as prolific as say-Prince from 1983-1987. The sheer volume of Prince's output towers over Hendrix.

"..he's only more eclectic for the same reason and because he's dabbled in a lot of styles with mixed results, and he's only more versatile by virtue of his greater vocal range and dance moves, which in and of themselves are not that great (and by that I mean not as great as prince fans/fanatics make them out to be) and certainly don't put him in the same league as the greatest singers or dancers.."

He's more eclectic and versatile because of a song like "pussy control" being on the same album as a song like "endorphine machine" and "shy". No popular artist who has been as successful as Prince can do that shit. It's not just that Prince does 4 or 5 genres in his career-the man does that many on one album sometimes. How many genres does "sign o' the times" encompass? More than Jimi hit on in his 4 year career.As far as the dance moves go- Prince is never put in the same category as Gene kelly, Fred Astaire, Savion, or Gregory Hines. However, he is in the same class as Michael Jackson, and James Brown-you are gonna tell me those two aren't great dancers???

"As I already mentioned, prince's superior quantity and variety of songs isn't indicative of anything more than his longer life and having been privy to more developements in popular music (as well as having tried many styles once or twice with hit or miss results), nor do quantity and variety necessarily preclude quality."

Yes, song quality is hard to measure as it is subjective. However, again take a 4 year slice of Prince's career to compare with jimi's active years. From the years (and I'm being arbitrary) 1983-1987 the man put out more music than hendrix, had more chart success, and bigger sales. Who knows? He may have toured more and had bigger concert revenues. 4 years-just like Hendrix.


"What it comes down to is that people often proverbially fellate prince as though he's this demi-godly hybrid of all the best aspects of his predecessors and I don't believe that prince has necessarily surpassed all or even most of his influences. In many ways I think he's just standing on the shoulders of giants, and even that analogy bothers me because it implies that prince's music is "higher" or greater than that of his predecessors."

Well, then you have Prince confused with Lenny Kravitz.

Many of Prince's predecessors have gone on record themselves stating that Prince has gone above and beyond what has come before. Clapton, Robert Plant, George Clinton, Santana, Little Richard, Ron Woods, etc. have all joined the group of people that "proverbially fellate Prince."

There are some things Jimi did that Prince couldn't due to time of existence and talent and vice versa. Simple as that.
[Edited 2/28/05 16:46pm]

skywalker said:

[Edited 2/28/05 17:02pm]

"There are Hendrix sessionographies out there that have records of THOUSANDS of Hendrix songs, look it up."

Unreleased songs??? Don't even go there-

http://www.uptown.se/2005...tiu2.shtml Turn it Up.

"Covering a lot of ground in an album doesn't make an album great necessarily (The Gold Experience is one of his most overrated albums ever IMO), nor does covering a lot of ground in a single album make your career as a whole more eclectic. Sign O' the times really isn't THAT eclectic, The White Album, Songs in the key of life and few others are more eclectic and London Calling and yes ELECTRIC LADYLAND are almost as much"

Not comparing Prince to Stevie, The Beatles, or the Clash. Comparing him to Jimi. However, most reputable music critics/magazines/sources will cite Prince as the latest great mixer of genres. Definitely more so than Hendrix ever will be. Find me something in Electric Ladyland that sounds like "housequake" or "Adore" or "hot thing".

"Prince may have put out more music, that doesn't necessarily mean he recorded more music, or recorded more music of higher quality."

Again, quality is subjective. How are you gonna measure it? As far as recording more music Prince has Jimi beat. you can almost pick any 4 year period if you buy this book-----http://www.uptown.se/2005/book_tiu2.shtml

"don't rate Prince above Hendrix or The Beatles or Stevie Wonder I'm confusing him with Lenny Kravitz?"

No proclaim you "think he's just standing on the shoulders of giants" and you have him confused with Kravitz.

"In regards to his predecessors considering him greater than they were. So what? That doesn't mean he is, or that we all have to agree with what George Clinton or Santana allegedly think of him (I'd be interested to know the actual quotes too)."

No, but I think Santana, George Clinton, Robert Plant and Stevie are more qualified to judge Prince's musical talent (especially compared to his predecessors ) than you are. I don't have a whole list of quotes written down from these artists, but if you watch MTV's "The Art of Musicology" or BBC's "Omnibus: Prince a Portrait" you can find most of them. If I find some I'll send them to you....

"Our man Prince is a bright star but he's not the sun and I don't think he sounds quite as good when held up in comparison to many of those who inspired him."

"Oh yeah, I don't think prince is anywhere near as good a dancer as james brown or Michael jackson"

Well, there is no accounting for taste.

The debate between us was not "What is Prince's place in music history", "Is Prince better than any of his predecessors?", or "Who are jacktheimprovident's favorites?" It was "Is Prince a more accomplished musician than Hendrix was?" The answer, even accounting that Jimi died young, is yes.
[Edited 2/28/05 17:25pm]

RazzBeret said:

Your comments are laughable at best now. Mostly, because where do you see me "defending" Hendrix all over this thread? Take some time and read what the others on here are debating about in their lengthy arguments about the subject at hand, and you'll see that I'm not even involved in their discussion, let alone one with YOU about how your opinion doesn't matter about music, etc. As if I ever even said that. Paranoid much? YOU'VE made it not about the music because you seem to enjoy pointing out how I don't live by the "love4oneanother code", and I'm "hurting your feelings" by having my OWN opinion. In another thread, I noticed that you listed Hendrix as a musician you don't like. Someone on that thread said they questioned your sanity because of that. Someone on THIS thread said you had no taste in music. Did you attack them either of them? No. I don't know what your personal problem with me is, but I suspect it's just because you like to, as you say in your profile, "argue". Well, by all means, knock yourself out.

Since you seem to want to continue this discussion with me over something that doesn't exist, I am ALSO beginning to question your sanity, just as that other orger said. Not about you disliking Hendrix, but because your posts are becoming delusional, confrontational for no reason whatsoever, and I'm also beginning to question your ability to read as well because you seem to have me confused with someone else.

skywalker said:

No the answer is not "yes" the answer is that most prince fans like to think so. Prince is not the superior songwriter, multi-instrumentalist or innovator than jimi hendrix. I've seen much of the uptown book, there are books on hendrix just as impressive. Are there songs like Adore, Hot Thing or Housequake on Ladyland? Well the title track is closer to Adore than you might thing, and what songs like Voodoo Chile, Still Raining still Dreaming, or Merman are there on SOTT? Yes Prince is a great musician and he's received much deserved praise from his peers and predecessors, but that doesn't mean he's "above and beyond" them. Yes Prince is one of the most versatile rockstars ever, that doesn't mean he's the greatest. YES prince is in some ways a more well-rounded musician than hendrix, but apart from singing on dancing, there isn't anything that prince is unequivocally better than jimi at and there are a few things he's unequivocally not as good at (innovating, guitar playing).