BT11 said:[quote]

skywalker said:

Find me a straight up rock song on "songs in the key of life".

personally I don't think any of the songs on SOTT are of a singular straight up genre. The Cross for example is a "doors" type of rock song from circa '69, but it isn't because of the arrangement and mix which give it this weird bony dry blunt prince SOTT genre sound.


Actually.... the only one that sounds like a standard genre to me is "Slow Love." I remember a lot of Prince fans being turned off by how that one seemed so boring to them back then.

No, a concert film is not going to break box office records. I used the "Sign O The Times" concert film as an example of how his popularity had faded by the time it was released. Had the VHS of "Prince and the Revolution Live" from 1985 been released in theaters, it would have done much better than "Sign O The Times". Again, just showing how his popularity had faded by that time.

"Sign O The Times", the album, may have sold fairly well worldwide because he had support of audiences overseas. Here in the states, Prince had become a joke to many by the time "Sign O The Times" was released. I'm not just talking about the fickle "Purple Rain" crowd, I'm talking about many of the long time fans that abandoned him. He had sold very well before the "Purple Rain" album with his long time fans only and he had decent sales after it but with a much broader audience than he had before it. Many of the long time fans left him and were gone by then.

Many people love "Sign O The Times" for the diversity of the album but not everyone does. In fact, for many of the earlier fans, the diversity was a turn off and that's why they didn't buy it. They had been burned once with "Around The World In A Day", twice with "Parade", and weren't about to be burned a third time. People had given up on Prince by the time of "Sign O The Times".
.
.
[Edited 9/20/05 23:15pm]

Those of us who were around and were big Prince fans at the time of sott coming out will recall that the critics recieved it with lukewarm enthusiasm. By the end of that year though it had gained their respect, probably with repeated listenings, they began to call it one of the years best. The movie did flop, I recall not even being able to get to a theater where it was being played. The film got rave reviews from Roger Ebert. As for my opinion of the album, I do think it fully deserved it's belated accolades and is a brilliant album.This is Prince at full bloom, not in a pop marketplace but in own artistic development. It has been said he got lost after Purple Rain and it has been said that he found his way back with Sott. The album is vintage Prince with all the new tricks he learned with his previous 3 albums. It marked a return to him working alone (for the most part) and this affected the music. It is true that there is some filler on the album and that it would have made a perfect single album but it was released as it should have been. Sign o' the Times was a great single, playing in the sunshine, It, Forever in my life were filler, but Starfish and Coffee was brilliant funk, pschedelia that was inspired by a retarded girl that Susanah Melvoin related to prince from elementary school. Check out the funk on The Ballad of Dorothy Parker, I remember playing it at high speed and hearing a terrific, funky bassline hidden in the mix. Slow Love was a great torch ballad revealing his ever-improving deepening voice. U Got The Look was one of his best singles ever, If I was Your girlfriend and Strange Relationship along with Adore and I could Never Take The Place Of Your Man is just a generous giving of his genius, that was the special thing about the man. What eventually turned into oversaturation began as prolific, generous sharing of his music, a giving that goes beyond the money he makes. What other explanation for the B sides Shockadelica and La, La La, hee, hee hee, both singles that could have knocked the filler off the album had he included them. He went above and beyond his duty as an artist in those days even when his sales started to lag and he started to be replaced by whoever in the pop world. As a musician, this is probably one of my favorite of the Prince periods, Prince was a leader for me and a touchstone, I can't tell you how many times I've listened to this album to clarify my own ideas.

skywalker said:

Where's the punk on SOTT?

vainandy said:

-----
17 years later this Cd is on everyone's top 10 list. Loads of other artist praise it and loads of the songs have been re-done by other artist. I don't think after all this time Sign of The Time is still riding on hype.

skywalker said:

"why don't we do it in the road" predated "darling nikki" by 16 years.

of course, it's more blues than funk, but i did a double take the first time i heard it and paul went into that falsetto.

If Prince was here himself he'd kick your ass.

Personally, I think its UNDER rated. Most Prince fans know that its brilliant, but the general public does not know that this is an album worthy of inclusion alongside Songs in the Key of Life, Physical Graffiti, Abbey Road, and other classic, definitive works.

This album is great, but I agree some do overrate it a bit.
For the most part though it gets it's just do. Strange Relationship is one
of my absolute favorites, but he sounds much better playing it on the Aladdin Dvd
than on the album

Anxiety + Cloudbuster---


"Where's the punk on SOTT?"

Please tell me you are not gonna try to convince me that there is anything that can really be called "punk" on "the white album".



"'why don't we do it in the road' predated 'darling nikki' by 16 years. "

I thought we were talking about "Sign O' The Times".

"..of course, it's more blues than funk, but i did a double take the first time i heard it and paul went into that falsetto."

Neither "Darling Nikki" nor "why don't we do it in the road" are really funk. If you think they are, we should stop now because our definitions will get in the way.


Listen, I love The Beatles. I do not want this to turn into a Prince vs. The Beatles conversation.

However, I think you are off the mark if you honestly think that "the white Album" (which I agree one of the best albums known to man) covers more range of different genres than "Sign O' The Times" does. "The White album" is amazing because, before it, no pop/rock album had ever dabbled in so many genres. However, "Sign O' the Times" covers more genres with only it's 1st disc.
[Edited 9/21/05 9:38am]

skywalker said:

not really in the mood to nitpick over what was only meant to be a semi-facetious comment in the first place, though if you don't think the white album covers a broad range of styles, you really need to go back and give it another listen.

vainandy said:

Yeah,I heard that a lot off "old"fans left him after ATWIAD
and even after Parade.
There seems 2 be a difference between the fans be4 Purple Rain
and those who became fan due 2 Purple Rain.
The last category loves the ATWIAD,Parade and surely Sott period,
the others worship Dirty Mind,Controversy & 1999.
It's something I've seen a lot on the popularity threads.

But hey,who has 2 (or 3) carreers in one life???

Yo mama is overrated..lol

"Sign o' the Times [Paisley Park, 1987]
No formal breakthrough, and despite the title/lead/debut single, no social relevance move either, which given the message of "The Cross" (guess, just guess) suits me fine. Merely the most gifted pop musician of his generation proving what a motherfucker he is for two discs start to finish. With helpmate turns from Camille, Susannah, Sheila E., Sheena Easton, he's back to his one-man-band tricks, so collective creation fans should be grateful that at least the second-hottest groove here, after the galvanic "U Got the Look," is Revolution live. Elsewhere Prince-the-rhythm section works on his r&b so Prince-the-harmony-group can show off vocal chops that make Stevie Wonder sound like a struggling ventriloquist. Yet the voices put over real emotions--studio solitude hasn't reactivated his solipsism. The objects of his desire are also objects of interest, affection, and respect. Some of them he may not even fuck. A+"

Robert Christgau

Exactly! Very true.

skywalker said:[quote]

BT11 said:

With pleasure: 'Contusion'
Well, it's more a jazz-rock song but it still shows his wide musical range.
Apart from that, you said so many genres, not all genres.
And I think both SITKOL and SOTT qualify to that.

JediMaster said:

I totally agree with that. It deserves the props it gets and it should be used as an example of how to do a fantastic album.

skywalker said:

Sign O' the times really isn't THAT eclectic. Hell, London Calling and Songs in the key of life cover more genres than SOTT and the White Album is head and shoulders above either of those in variety. I really think the prince fan cliche that "no one does as many genres as well as prince" is getting tired, there are many artists, solo artists and bands, who equal or surpass prince in that respect. Saying that SOTT covers more genres than the White album is just erroneous; I don't think it's even a matter of opinion. SOTT covers funk, rock, quasi-psychedelic pop and jazzy pop songs, which is really just prince's old bag of tricks, though there are hints of a few other things like folk (forever in my life) gospel (The cross). The White Album covers everything from ska (obladi oblada), 20s jazz-pop (honey pie, martha my dear), heavy blues rock (yer blues), heavy metal (Helter Skelter, which most people will call "proto" heavy metal, but to is as much heavy metal as anything Zeppelin or Sabbath ever did), folk (blackbird), mellow-ass celtic bard music (long long long), baroque-classical (piggies), country (rocky raccoon). Need I even mention Revolution 9? You say there's more mixing of styles in the first disc of SOTT than the white album, I'd say there's more mixture of styles in the song "happiness is a warm gun" than there is on the first side of SOTT.

BT11 said:

I'd also add all day sucker. Once again, not pure rock, but as heavy, rockin' and nasty as any funk-rock prince's ever made.

By the way Jack, we've had many arguments before about how you think that The Beatles and any other of your favorites from the 60's and 70's trump Prince in every department so I gotta let you know I'm not real interested in letting this argument go in that direction again. SOTT could justifiably be called Prince's best ever. So if you want to get into a debate about Prince vs. The Fab 4 let's do it some other place.

jacktheimprovident said:

So many wrongs my head is spinning a little. I believe you are a little style-impaired.

"So many wrongs my head is spinning a little. I believe you are a little style-impaired."


Yount!!!

skywalker said:

First of all, I'm not arguing that prince isn't a great musician or one of the best stylistic synthesists out there, or that he didn't do a great job, better than almost anyone of treading the line between R&B and rock. I agree with all of this. But one has to take into account that the distinction between rock and r&b is (at least originally) largely artificial and partially motivated by racial discrimination, and it latter days it's pretty much a commercial distinction (I'm not even gonna get it to what they call R&B these days). And you're mistaken if you think "R&B/Soul" isn't one of the acknowledged stylistic elements of the Beatles music; they didn't name an album "Rubber Soul" for nothing; it was a mixture of folk rock and R&B. The Beatles may not be "R&B" musicians in the strictest terms, but they've made many songs that could be classified as Soul or soul-inflected, and come up with their share of funky grooves (nothing that could be considered pure "funk" but "funky" for sure). Hell, groups like the Isley Brothers and various Motown acts were a HUGE influence on the Beatles. You're just as mistaken if you think Stevie couldn't "rock". Stevie made some of the best funky rock ever made; Superstition alone stands head and shoulders above most funk-rock songs prince has ever done, and you're kidding yourself if you think most hard rock fans and critics would embrace a lot of prince's music as "hard rock" (I know from experience trying to introduce hard rock fans to him). It may be true that critics or music fans wouldn't readily classify stevie as "rock" or the Beatles as "R&B" (though there are a few who would and have), and I would agree that the Beatles definitely leaned more towards the "guitar rock" side and stevie more towards the soul side, but both treaded the line better than they're given credit for and pulled inspiration from all over the spectrum of music.

Additionally, I'm fully aware of how much praise prince has gotten from all different corners of the music world and I think he deserves most of it (and the man is, if anything UNDERRATEd by the general public). BUT, I think prince has many equals and at least a few superiors in the history or pop music and the beatles and stevie wonder are certainly among them. As I've said before, prince is a bright star but he's not by any means the sun. All I really mean in reference to this topic is that I think it's going way overboard to say that Sign O' the Times is the most stylistically diverse/eclectic album of all time, and all your beloved critics, musicians and music fans would definitely rate the white album and at least a few others above it.

Last but not least I'm just gonna defend my classifications a little bit: obladi oblada is often cited as a reggae/ska parody/homage, and paul mccartney said he had those threads of jamaican music in mind when he wrote it. Helter Skelter may not be "heavy metal" simply because the term heavy metal didn't exist, but almost every review of the white album I've ever read labels it either "proto-heavy metal" or at least "metallic". Rocky Raccoon is also pretty unequivocally a country song, Paul even does his best southern accent immitation just to lay it on thick. And I never said Contusion was a straight rock song, rather a guitar heavy fusion/instrumental funk song.
[Edited 9/21/05 20:37pm]

vainandy said:

VAINANDY I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT ANY BETTER! I, HIS LONG TIME FANS SINCE SOFT & WET, WAS SOMEWHAT EMBARRASSED WHEN THAT ALBUM CAME OUT. THIS ALBUM CONTAINED TOO MANY GENRES. ONLY 3 SONGS ON THIS DOUBLE ALBUM I LIKE ADORE, SLOW LOVE AND SOTT(WHICH IS ONE OF MY ALL TIME FAVORITE). THIS ALBUM IS A MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT IN MY BOOK AND THAT'S WHY I DON'T OWN IT AND HAVE NO DESIRE TO PURCHASE

Blasphemy.

While you guys are arguing back and forth between SOTT and The White Album, as far as genre-hopping is concerned, I must bring up Blondie's severely over-looked Autoamerican from 1980. Perhaps it doesn't get the recognition of Parallel Lines BECAUSE it is so eclectic. In order, the album jumps from classical guitar instrumental to rollerdisco boogie to straight-ahead 20s jazz, then on to reggae, dream-pop, mariachi rock, disco, and rap. Plus a show tune, hard rock, lounge jazz, and a Native American tribal rock song. Blondie was all over the stylistic map with that one, and managed to pull most of it off well.

I'm not so delusional as to say Autoamerican is as monumental as The White Album or SOTT, just throwing it out there and showing Debbie and the boys some love. They took a lot of chances on that record.
[Edited 9/21/05 21:00pm]

"...But one has to take into account that the distinction between rock and r&b is (at least originally) largely artificial and partially motivated by racial discrimination, and it latter days it's pretty much a commercial distinction (I'm not even gonna get it to what they call R&B these days)...."

Agreed to a point, the classification also has to do much with the STYLE in which the music is presented/performed. It has to do with THE ATTITUDE. You cannot look at Prince during the "parade" tour and The Beatles at any point and say the only difference is that Prince is black or that it is a commercial distiction. The Beatles simply never had a song with as much R&B/soul infused into it as "Adore". Did they touch on R&B from time to time? Sure, it's in their roots as a rock band. Did they wholly embrace the R&B genre and do it in an all encompassing manner? No. That's the difference. Prince , often, entirely embraces the rock genre flat out. It's not sprinklings of a riff. He often will flat out do a genre pure.



And you're mistaken if you think "R&B/Soul" isn't one of the acknowledged stylistic elements of the Beatles music; they didn't name an album "Rubber Soul" for nothing; it was a mixture of folk rock and R&B. The Beatles may not be "R&B" musicians in the strictest terms, but they've made many songs that could be classified as Soul or soul-inflected, and come up with their share of funky grooves (nothing that could be considered pure "funk" but "funky" for sure).

Exactly, soul inflected etc. They touch on genres, the graze it. Are you gonna compare a Beatles "soul" song from the early 70's and compare it to James Brown and say "well, they are both soul"? No. It's not because of a color difference it is because of a style and attitude difference.

".... Stevie made some of the best funky rock ever made.."

Exactly, not pure blues/guitar rock. what you call "funky rock" it's not straight up guitar rock. It's Stevie touching on rock, not embracing wholly.

"...Superstition alone stands head and shoulders above most funk-rock songs prince has ever done..."

Quite a subjective and HIGHLY debatable statement. I doubt Stevie would even agree with you.


".... and you're kidding yourself if you think most hard rock fans and critics would embrace a lot of prince's music as "hard rock"..."

When did I say this? Are you saying Prince doesn't play "Hard rock"? Prince has recievd high praise all last summer (2004) for nailing this shit out of Zep's "whole Lotta Love" , so don't pretend that critics and hard rock fans didn't take notice of him layin' it down on THAT hard rock song. Prince has been featured on the cover many a "guitar" magazine usually reserved for the hardest of rockers. Point is, that claim is easily debatable. Are most Mettallica fans gonna call Prince "hard rock"? No. Would a hard rocker who knows about more than just his genre? Yes. Many a guitar metal God has named dropped Prince's rock skills.

It may be true that critics or music fans wouldn't readily classify stevie as "rock" or the Beatles as "R&B" (though there are a few who would and have), and I would agree that the Beatles definitely leaned more towards the "guitar rock" side and stevie more towards the soul side, but both treaded the line better than they're given credit for and pulled inspiration from all over the spectrum of music.

Right. But, neither as well or as successfully as Prince.


"All I really mean in reference to this topic is that I think it's going way overboard to say that Sign O' the Times is the most stylistically diverse/eclectic album of all time, and all your beloved critics, musicians and music fans would definitely rate the white album and at least a few others above it."

And that's fine. You said yourself Prince is underrated. They are not my "beloved critics" I just used them to illustrate that it's not just Prince fans spewing out how great he is a genre blending/crossing/etc.

Last but not least I'm just gonna defend my classifications a little bit: obladi oblada is often cited as a reggae/ska parody/homage, and paul mccartney said he had those threads of jamaican music in mind when he wrote it. Helter Skelter may not be "heavy metal" simply because the term heavy metal didn't exist, but almost every review of the white album I've ever read labels it either "proto-heavy metal" or at least "metallic". Rocky Raccoon is also pretty unequivocally a country song, Paul even does his best southern accent immitation just to lay it on thick. And I never said Contusion was a straight rock song, rather a guitar heavy fusion/instrumental funk song.



And here is where you hedge on what you previously so boldly stated.

obladi oblada is ska because Paul had jamaican music in mind when her wrote it?

Helter Skelter-"Mettalic"? That's not heavy metal. Not as heavy as "Endorphinmachine". No as heavy as U2's.

Paul does a southern accent--suddenly it's as country song? Don't tell Willie Nelson or Johnny Cash they'll slap you.

"Contusion-a guitar heavy fusion/instrumental funk song"-AKA Not ROCK.
[Edited 9/21/05 21:10pm]

oh HELL no. U2's version of 'helter skelter' is NOWHERE as sludgy or heavy as the original. NOWHERE.




johnny cash covered the beatles, you know. he covered "in my life" on his very last album, if i'm not mistaken. just sayin'.

skywalker said:

[Edited 9/21/05 22:24pm]