devilstwin said:

There is no doubt Prince HAS been influential and, yes you can hear his influence on many artists today.

and then he said:

I really doubt that anyone can say that he has had been so influential.

which is it?

pumpkin71¤

02/25/05 7:50am
Joined 10/04

Only a journalist could so misquote me! My position is that Prince has been influential in that he has been inspirational to artist who have wanted to cover his records or to some extent mimic his sound.
What he hasn't done is provide a blue print for a new kind of music which to me one ought to do to be acclaimed a creative genius. He got close to this with 'Lovesexy' which many people accept appears to come from a different place - it is an incredible mismash of funk and gospel with superlative songwriting throughout.If this incredible record had somehow been taken further to create something like funky gospel then which had then been taken up by others who imitated a genre would then have been created. To me it is a lost chapter in music

Only a journalist could so misquote me! My position is that Prince has been influential in that he has been inspirational to artist who have wanted to cover his records or to some extent mimic his sound.
What he hasn't done is provide a blue print for a new kind of music which to me one ought to do to be acclaimed a creative genius. He got close to this with 'Lovesexy' which many people accept appears to come from a different place - it is an incredible mismash of funk and gospel with superlative songwriting throughout.If this incredible record had somehow been taken further to create something like funky gospel then which had then been taken up by others who imitated a genre would then have been created. To me it is a lost chapter in music

Only a journalist could so misquote me! My position is that Prince has been influential in that he has been inspirational to artist who have wanted to cover his records or to some extent mimic his sound.
What he hasn't done is provide a blue print for a new kind of music which to me one ought to do to be acclaimed a creative genius. He got close to this with 'Lovesexy' which many people accept appears to come from a different place - it is an incredible mismash of funk and gospel with superlative songwriting throughout.If this incredible record had somehow been taken further to create something like funky gospel then which had then been taken up by others who imitated a genre would then have been created. To me it is a lost chapter in music

Please at least read my commments before criticizing me! I do consider Prince to be Brilliant and I DO still enjoy listening to his music. I just don't consider him to be a Genius.

I'll try to restate what I'm getting at. There is no doubt Prince HAS been influential and, yes you can hear his influence on many artists today. However once upon a time it seemed to me that he would deliver so much more, perhaps even reinvent the genres he was working in in the same way Einstein reinvented science, Beethoven classical music, the Beatles rock music. I really thought he was going to be on THAT level. I really doubt that anyone can say that he has had been so influential. He may do in the future, but the signs are not good because his music has lost some vitality

"and by the way, how exactly did the Beatles "reinvent" rock music??.."

The Beatles from "rollingstone.com----

"The Beatles cast such a large shadow over their contemporaries -- even the most popular of them -- that sometimes it's difficult to distinguish what they actually contributed to the world of pop music and what they simply popularized. Something they definitely did do was open the floodgates for the British Invasion of the '60s, beginning, for all intents and purposes, with Ed Sullivan's portentous introduction in the beginning of 1964: "Ladies and gentlemen, the Beatles." Popular music has never been the same; at least that's definite. They were also one of the first bands to take rock 'n' roll and merge it with other forms like popular standards, folk (with a little help from Bob Dylan), blues, etc. And although they are often derided for their weaknesses as a true-blue, hard-living, hard-rocking, parent-frightening, cooler-than-all band, one need only compare the versions of "I Wanna Be Your Man" as done by the Fab Four and by the Rolling Stones; their early days in Hamburg taught them well the rules of blistering rock 'n' roll. At least their retreat from the stage was matched by a wealth of awesome material -- everything from the "Penny Lane" / "Strawberry Fields Forever" single to what was to be the band's death knell, "The End" off of Abbey Road, was arguably the most advanced popular music of the time. They had the resources, the talent, the producer ("fifth Beatle" George Martin) and the desire to push the boundaries of their music. Even more amazing is that it has maintained such a grip on the public's ear and imagination. "

That's how they reinvented rock music

skywalker said:

Um, that didn't explain at all how rock was "reinvented" by the Beatles...it only explained their popularity and what they brought to the table, talent wise...

The only sentence in there that comes remotely close to explaining a reinvention of the genre was this one:

"They were also one of the first bands to take rock 'n' roll and merge it with other forms like popular standards, folk (with a little help from Bob Dylan), blues, etc."

Notice three things...1) They were "one" of the first bands...not THE first band...2) I think Bob Dylan had FAR more than a "little" influence in merging rock and folk...3) It mentions "bands" merging these genres of music, not "musicians"..because individual rockers that were in existence well before the Beatles came on the scene had elements of folk, blues, "etc" in their music...Bottom line, even this sentence doesn't come close to explaining how rock was reinvented...

Were the Beatles great, even genius??...I think so, yes. Did they "reinvent" rock??...If so, not in the ways talked about in that paragraph.

Ifsixwuz9



02/25/05 8:47am
Joined 2/02

devilstwin said:

devilstwin said:

There is no doubt Prince HAS been influential and, yes you can hear his influence on many artists today.

and then he said:

I really doubt that anyone can say that he has had been so influential.

which is it?


Only a journalist could so misquote me! My position is that Prince has been influential in that he has been inspirational to artist who have wanted to cover his records or to some extent mimic his sound.
What he hasn't done is provide a blue print for a new kind of music which to me one ought to do to be acclaimed a creative genius. He got close to this with 'Lovesexy' which many people accept appears to come from a different place - it is an incredible mismash of funk and gospel with superlative songwriting throughout.If this incredible record had somehow been taken further to create something like funky gospel then which had then been taken up by others who imitated a genre would then have been created. To me it is a lost chapter in music



Ok this statement sounds like your saying he's not a genius (despite all of thoughful commentary which seem to prove the opposite posted on this thread)because the music industry didn't create a specific name for the type of music he created like Teddy Riley and New Jack Swing or Miles Davis and Be-Bop.

For me, Prince is a genius simply because when I listen to his music I think "wow, that's incredible". No other music has the same impact on me, doesn't even come close.

For me, Prince is a genius simply because when I listen to his music I think "wow, that's incredible". No other music has the same impact on me, doesn't even come close.

Ok I take your point. I'm just trying to understand what happened to Prince after 'Lovesexy', why he seemed to go backward. I'm not saying that prince isn't brilliant - he is, no doubt about it - but to be a Genius most people agree that you have to be truly exceptional, a true orignator - hence my reference to Einstein. He doesn't appear to have had that kind of effect on pop music when it appeared that he was about to have, and I wonder why he appeared to run out of steam after 'Lovesexy'????

greedygreg

02/25/05 11:04am
Joined 2/05
There are many facets to being a "genius". One is the ability to break new ground, and to provoke conversation. Over the years P has done exactly this., Once a genius always a genius. It is not something you "lose". You sir, on the other hand, have lost your right to be called a P fan.To quote a famous rapper, you need to "check yourself before you wreck yourself..."

skywalker¤



02/25/05 11:12am
Joined 3/02

"The only sentence in there that comes remotely close to explaining a reinvention of the genre was this one:

"They were also one of the first bands to take rock 'n' roll and merge it with other forms like popular standards, folk (with a little help from Bob Dylan), blues, etc."

Notice three things...1) They were "one" of the first bands...not THE first band...2) I think Bob Dylan had FAR more than a "little" influence in merging rock and folk...3) It mentions "bands" merging these genres of music, not "musicians"..because individual rockers that were in existence well before the Beatles came on the scene had elements of folk, blues, "etc" in their music...Bottom line, even this sentence doesn't come close to explaining how rock was reinvented...

Were the Beatles great, even genius??...I think so, yes. Did they "reinvent" rock??...If so, not in the ways talked about in that paragraph."

Listen, it sounds like you need a music lesson if you have to ask about The Beatles. I'm not that old, nor a Beatles fan, but this is not speculation nor opinion it is rock music history fact:

Here it is in plain terms--- The Beatles took rock n' roll as it was (think Elvis, Little Richard, Bill Haley ,Buddy Holly, rockabilly) and saved it by turning into something new.

Right before The Beatles arrived Rock n' roll was on it's last breath. Elvis was in hollywood, Buddy Holly, Ritcie Valens, and The Big Bopper were dead, and Little Richard had found God. and the whole genre was growing stagnant and the initial rebellion of rock in the 50's had turned into safe commercialism and teen/beach movies. Rock was over run by producers and "teen idols" who were more cute than talented.

from MTV.com----

"So much has been said and written about the Beatles -- and their story is so mythic in its sweep -- that it's difficult to summarize their career without restating clichés that have already been digested by tens of millions of rock fans. To start with the obvious, they were the greatest and most influential act of the rock era, and introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century. Moreover, they were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did. Relentlessly imaginative and experimental, the Beatles grabbed a hold of the international mass consciousness in 1964 and never let go for the next six years, always staying ahead of the pack in terms of creativity but never losing their ability to communicate their increasingly sophisticated ideas to a mass audience. Their supremacy as rock icons remains unchallenged to this day, decades after their breakup in 1970.


Even when couching praise in specific terms, it's hard to convey the scope of the Beatles' achievements in a mere paragraph or two. They synthesized all that was good about early rock & roll, and changed it into something original and even more exciting. They established the prototype for the self-contained rock group that wrote and performed its own material. As composers, their craft and melodic inventiveness were second to none, and key to the evolution of rock from its blues/R&B-based forms into a style that was far more eclectic, but equally visceral. As singers, both John Lennon and Paul McCartney were among the best and most expressive vocalists in rock; the group's harmonies were intricate and exhilarating. As performers, they were (at least until touring had ground them down) exciting and photogenic; when they retreated into the studio, they were instrumental in pioneering advanced techniques and multi-layered arrangements. They were also the first British rock group to achieve worldwide prominence, launching a British Invasion that made rock truly an international phenomenon.

What the Beatles had done was take the best elements of the rock and pop they loved and make them their own. Since the Quarrymen days, they had been steeped in the classic early rock of Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Carl Perkins, and the Everly Brothers; they'd also kept an ear open to the early '60s sounds of Motown, Phil Spector, and the girl groups. What they added was an unmatched songwriting savvy (inspired by Brill Building teams such as Gerry Goffin and Carole King), a brash guitar-oriented attack, wildly enthusiastic vocals, and the embodiment of the youthful flair of their generation, ready to dispense with postwar austerity and claim a culture of their own. They were also unsurpassed in their eclecticism, willing to borrow from blues, popular standards, gospel, folk, or whatever seemed suitable for their musical vision. Producer George Martin was the perfect foil for the group, refining their ideas without tinkering with their cores; during the last half of their career, he was indispensable for his ability to translate their concepts into arrangements that required complex orchestration, innovative applications of recording technology, and an ever-widening array of instruments.


...Just as crucially, the Beatles were never ones to stand still and milk formulas. All of their subsequent albums and singles would show remarkable artistic progression (though never at the expense of a damn catchy tune). Even on their second LP, With the Beatles (1963), it was evident that their talents as composers and instrumentalists were expanding furiously, as they devised ever more inventive melodies and harmonies, and boosted the fullness of their arrangements. "She Loves You" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand" established the group not just as a popular music act, but as a phenomenon never before seen in the British entertainment business, as each single sold over a million copies in the U.K. After some celebrated national TV appearances, Beatlemania broke out across the British Isles in late 1963, and the group generating screams and hysteria at all of their public appearances, musical or otherwise.

Hard as it may be to believe today, the Beatles were often dismissed by cultural commentators of the time as nothing more than a fad that would vanish within months as the novelty wore off. The group ensured this wouldn't happen by making A Hard Day's Night in early 1964, a cinéma vérité-style motion picture comedy/musical that cemented their image as "the Fab Four": happy-go-lucky, individualistic, cheeky, funny lads with nonstop energy."

Are you saying that he did create a new type of music? because I've not heard anyone say that he has.

There was a time when Prince seemed to be about to do something which would change the direction of Pop Music forever (a category to which he must belong due to his general blending of 'popular music styles') - after SOT, after Lovesexy, he seemed to be on course to produce a Massive Innovation (like the General Theory Of Relativity in music terms) Then suddenly,too suddenly, he lost his way. He took a backward step with Graffiti Bridge. Then another with Batman which sounds at times like him trying to make Lovesexy more 'rocky'. Suddenly he is self cannabalizing, mining ideas he has already had instead of plunging headlong in to the abyss. Everything since sounds like a rehash of somebody elses idea - queenlike operatic rock of The Symbol album, to poppy mainstream jazz of TRC. It is just not good enough for someone who wishes to be perceived as a Genius. He ceased to create the new, just to rehash the old.
He was on the edge of being a Genius, now he is just in the foothills of mediocrity

'Prince has lost the right to be called a 'Genius''