vainandy said:

This thread is now "clean"

Zelaira. There are words for artists who never change their style. One Hit Wonder and Flash in the Pan. Prince's career would've been over a long time ago if he had just stuck to making music like Dirty Mind.

Don't GET ME WRONG.... I NEVER WANTED him to be MUNDANE and COMMONPLACE. I LOVE the fact he is ALWAYS DOING DIFFERENT STYLES OF MUSIC.. MAYBE it was his COMMERCIAL FACTOR or lACK OF RADIO OR MTV VISIBILITY that HURT HIM Saleswise back in the 90's.

brothaluv said:

Great post...Coming up during that time, i remember the critics who reacted negatively to ATWIAD...I agree with you that his drastic musical evolution added to his legend in the long run...Yet, to me the only thing that fucked Prince up in terms of his commercial muscle was The LoveSexy album...That album had some spirited and emotional tracks, but most of the time Prince was dabbling in artistic masturbation. LoveSexy almost destroyed the man's career...Thank god for the LoveSexy tour...

vainandy said:

2 b honest though, u r totally subjective!! R Prince supposed 2 do the music u wanna hear!! Get Real Now! Truely u may be dissapointed in u and ur life? prince's life is a journey, urs might not be, got stuck in the past ayh!?? 4give me, not trying 2 be mean, just my honest view upon this topic

he cant stand still. he has ants in his music pants and Im happy about those ants.

vainandy said:

That is a matter of opinion. You mean weaker to you and others. I respected Prince for not copying himself. ATWIAD through Lovesexy added to his evolution as an icon and legend IMO.
[Edited 11/20/05 4:25am]

vainandy said:

Totally agree! Of course he would have had better success had he stuck with his Minneapolis sound that worked and everybody dug. That mix of powerful rock and hot funky soul with synths replacing horns.

rudeboynpg said:

a good singer can do that for some years and do ok and then fans get bored but a great one will try to change even if people dont always like the music so much. i think you can look at a great artist and see all the albums and how they fit together and it doesnt matter if you like some and dont like some because you understand all of it and respect it and understand he is like a girl and still popular

crossover artists have been dead commercially from 1988ish. only U2 i think have survived making their rock danceable and using synths.

i wish he had used his guitar on record a lot more from 88. it has been mainly used for the odd funk riff, jazzy scale run, or wah wah drenched solo. there was hope when i heard dolphin, and bits of chaos and disorder, but there has not been a lot of thought into his guitar usage/sound/textures/arrangements up until rainbow children.

I could be wrong but when I see an album in the record store for sale, I just assume that it is something that was made for me to listen to.




I was looking straight ahead to the future. I'm not the one that got in a time machine and took a trip back to the 1960s, that was Prince.




It's cool.

That's exactly right, it is a matter of opinion. I may have grown to like Prince's "new" (really it's old) style, but many others that aren't here to voice their opinion, showed it by dropping Prince. As for legend and icon status, I would sacrifice it in a minute for more good strong "cold" funk.
.
.
[Edited 11/20/05 8:29am]

this is really a good thread


but am I wrong to never include PR in the Dirty Mind, Controversy, 1999 grouping.....I really see it as a stand alone cd. Not that it was artistically aggressive as ATWIAD but I just never see it as apart of the DM, Con, 1999 era.


change shows growth.....so I appreciate the change.

Vainandy said:

excellent!!!

He could have continued his style, and made millions, up until around maybe 1989 or 1990. This would have been the perfect time for a style change. An album like "Around The World In A Day" would have been perfect then. The musical style (by all artists) was changing for the absolute worst and albums like "Around The World In A Day", "Parade", "Sign O The Times", and "Lovesexy" would have been great in the 1990s. Of course, most kids of the 1990s would not like them because they were, and still are, obsessed with hip hop. At least the older fans would have better type Prince albums in the 1990s than the ones he actually released in this decade and still would have had more killer Prince "Minneapolis Style" albums in the late 1980s. Don't try to fix something until it gets broke.

Vainandy: We have had this conversation over and over again.

You wish Prince would have kept that "1999" sound on all of his albums until 1990. That's fine. You have admitted yourself that, in retrospect, you dig Prince's post "Purple Rain" albums. That's cool too.

Flashback to 1985-At the time, you were pissed because your 17 year old self didn't "get" what Prince was doing with "Around the World in a Day"-you weren't the only one. You hated the strings and weren't ready to switch to things you and your friends deemed "uncool" (sounds like a typical 17 year old to me).However, you have to step back and realize that a 27 year old Prince Rogers Nelson probably had more vision and knowledge about music than you did. He knew what he was doing-even if you didn't. Even if you still don't get it.

See, what I don't understand, is how you have been a fan all this time and still haven't realized that Prince doesn't give a fuck what you, your friends, his friends, his fans, the general public, or anyone else wants him to do or be. He's gonna do what he wants. That's what makes him Prince.

As far as Prince's fame goes- I'll say it again, he is as famous as he wants to be. Hindsight is 20/20 and I doubt that you could be better at being Prince than he could. How many of the acts you dug in 1985 (instead of ATWIAD) are still around and still as artistically credible or as famous as Prince?
[Edited 11/21/05 8:23am]

vainandy said:

Perhaps then it's too late?
Maybe Prince wasn't trying to fix anything. Maybe he was putting more importance on his body of work than just living in the moment and trying to be a people pleaser. That ish is for pop stars, not artists.

Something else to consider:

With "Purple Rain" Prince the kind of massive commercial and artistic success that few others ever reach. There was nowhere to go, but down. He wasn't going to "top" Purple Rain. I think he knew that-so he didn't try. A lot of folks around here think he should have tried to, but consider this-

Both MJ, and Madonna (who were comparable to Prince in the 80's in terms of appeal and commercial success) stuck to their "formula" for their follow up albums. They both did what many of you wish Prince would have done. Did "Bad" go further than "Thriller" in any way? Did "True Blue" top "Like a Virgin"? No to both. Neither recaptured the commercial, cultural, or critical success. The time was different-the audience was different. Also, both MJ, and Madonna waited and made people anticipate their next move. It didn't matter-lightning doesn't strike twice. Prince simply chose to go with his guts and be an artist.

DiamondGirl said:

I didn't like 'ATWIAD' I still think it was a weak follow-up to 'Purple Rain'.

One thing ppl r missing:

Synths were on the way out by '85, but most of what you were hearing on the radio would've made u think otherwise. What had been cutting edge in 1980 was by then old hat that everyone was doing. In fact, the emphasis on guitar on PR was really the first move away.
I remember noone getting ATWIAD - I had to work at it to get into it, and coudln't really share it with many folk. Fortunately my best mate and I were of similar minds - we went into the store the first week it came out, took two sets of phones and listened to snippets together (lifting the needle to move from track to track as one did then). We were surprised and a bit freaked, but still mainly excited: we were prepared to "do the work". In fact, spending time getting into the album was the fun part. We had great teasers, like the beat on Tambourine, the guitar on America and Temptation, the soul of the Ladder and the funk of Pop Life, that were self-evident, and we were just gonna have to let them guide us through the rest. Then again, we were both into the Beatles too.
I can relate to Vainandy's angst - it was from ATWIAD on that it became a bit wierd to admit you liked P. I reckon, though, that would've happened anyway. It's just that, if he had had a more predictable, commercial follow-up, the embarrassment would be about liking this big poppy sensation (which is how I felt around the time of D&P!!!!), instead of this eccentric wierdo.
I prefer the latter, which I guess is why I'm still here!

skywalker said:

'Like A Virgin' sold 10 million copies in the US,and the worldwide sales are around 19 million.

'True Blue' sold 7 million in the US,but the worldwide sales are around 20 million (outselling 'Like A Virgin'),but perhaps more importantly,it was a bigger success with the critics than 'LAV' was.

So I disagree when you say that Madonna never recaptured the commercial,cultural,or critical success of her biggest album.I also disagree when you say that she followed a "formula".'True Blue' is worlds apart from 'LAV',imo.Contrary to popular belief,it is possible to sell alot of records while still moving ahead,musically.

"'Like A Virgin' sold 10 million copies in the US,and the worldwide sales are around 19 million.

'True Blue' sold 7 million in the US,but the worldwide sales are around 20 million (outselling 'Like A Virgin'),but perhaps more importantly,it was a bigger success with the critics than 'LAV' was.

So I disagree when you say that Madonna never recaptured the commercial,cultural,or critical success of her biggest album.I also disagree when you say that she followed a "formula".'True Blue' is worlds apart from 'LAV',imo.Contrary to popular belief,it is possible to sell alot of records while still moving ahead,musically."

1- Madonna moving a head musically has to do as much with a bunch of OTHER musicians and producers as it does with Madonna herself.

2- You're kidding yourself if you think that "True Blue" was as big as "like a Virgin" as far as popular and cultural impact goes. Listen, I think "True Blue" is a much better album than "like a Virgin." I also do not think "Like a Virgin" is Madonna's best album (just as I don't think "purple Rain" is Prince's best). "Like a Virgin" was not "better" but it was MORE SUCCESSFUL than "True Blue." Especially considering what people int this thread are using to gauge "success".

All I am saying is that "True Blue" was a pop star doing the next expected/logical thing/step. People around here were saying Prince should have done that with "Around the world in a day"and he would have been "more successful.".
I used "bad" and "true blue" to illustrate that neither of these were able to recapture the sheer mania of "thriller" or "like a virgin". Prince wouldn't have been able to top "purple rain" even if he had "stuck to formula." So it is all very speculative as to how much "more successful" he would have been.
[Edited 11/21/05 12:57pm]

"I used "bad" and "true blue" to illustrate that neither of these were able to recapture the sheer mania of "thriller" or "like a virgin". Prince wouldn't have been able to top "purple rain" even if he had "stuck to formula." So it is all very speculative as to how much "more successful" he would have been."

Let the church say AMEN!

IMO, record sales and chart placements are OVERRATED!

Of course that's what I wish but this particular thread is not about what any of us wish. This thread is asking the question if Prince would have been more successful if he hadn't changed. Of course he would have and I can't help it if doing what it takes to be more successful is what I've been saying all along for years. I hate to say I told you so but....hey....I told you so.



I realized that the first time I heard the first note on "Around The World In A Day". No one is disputing that he is going to do what he wants to do. That's why he is not as successful as he could have been.



Very few and that's not because they weren't great artists, that's because hip hop took over and forced everything out. Prince, today, isn't even near as big as he was in the late 1980s when people were leaving him and "Musicology" proves nothing because everyone knows there were sales tricks behind that one. You said it yourself "Prince is as famous as he wants to be". That sounds like, even from your lips, that he had the capability to be even more famous and successful, which is what this thread is asking.
.
.
[Edited 11/21/05 16:50pm]

Well, since the topic is dealing with "success", I would say a pop star is much more successful than an artist. There is such a thing as a "starving artist". I'm not saying Prince is exactly starving but I'm talking about artists in general. No one said it's right, that's just the way it is.

You must have dug out the Chris Rock interview from VH1 for that one. At least Chris asked Prince in that interview if he ever thought about topping himself. No one in here said anything about topping "Purple Rain". That's something that happens once in a lifetime. Even Prince knows that himself.

However, he could have had much more successful albums in the late 1980s than the ones he had if he not changed gears. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. If someone has droves of people leaving because something sounds totally different, that is telling you that they would not have left if things had been business as usual. They were with him for all those years before "Purple Rain". Even the pop fans stuck around after "Little Red Corvette" because an album like "Purple Rain" was pleaseable to their ears and tastes.



And both of those artists were a bigger success in the late 1980s than Prince was. Both of them are still around also. Like Prince, both of them have loyal fans that are going to buy every single album without hearing it first. Prince may have earned the "genius" title, but those two passed him long ago in terms of success. Madonna, like Prince, has changed her style so many times but she was smart the way she changed....she waited until her brand of music was going out of style before she changed. That's why she has had much more continuous longterm success. There are spells in there where people have completely forgotten about Prince.
.
.
[Edited 11/21/05 16:55pm]

I must say this is one of the best threads I've read all year and I'm split in middle with this question. I definetly think Prince would have been much more successful had he kept making music in the vein of PR or 1999 but the albums that he did make in the late 1980's are a major reason why he's looked at as the man that he is today of taking chances and not giving a fuck. My mom got me Parade, my first Prince album when it was out in 86 and as a 7 year old, I was surprised that it didn't sound like anything that I had heard from 83 till that point. I was one of the people Vainandy talks about when he says that people (a kid in this case) was expecting the album to sound like Kiss because I loved it upon first listen (even if I had to get used to his falsetto voice) and it did remind me of the songs 1999 and When Doves Cry. I liked Parade but I thought it was weird. Now it's tied for first place with PR. That's the cool thing with the late 80's albums for me. When I brought them, with my money this time, as CD's in the late 90's, I was an adult and what I didn't understand when I was 7-10, I got it when I was 19-21 getting these albums again. That was fun I must say.

Having said all that, I wish he had done at least one more album like 1999 (now my 3rd favoite Prince album) but we can't cry over spilt milk. My concern now is that he's not even making dance music it seems but that's another topic to discuss. Truth be told with the stuff from the early 80's, the boots I have from 85 to 88, Prince could have been huge with the songs that never saw the light of day because some of them stayed in the Minneapolis vein but Prince did what he did and it's all a matter of opinion anyways. Either way, good decisions or bad, I'ma still ride and die with the man because he's still the shit, especially with what's out here today. Oh the horror!

Vainandy: So basically here is the equation for you.

success = popularity

I say BULLSHIT.

success is way more than popularity and not always the same thing. Muhammed Ali, for example,---he was hated often in his career by most of America. Was he not successful?


"Well, since the topic is dealing with "success", I would say a pop star is much more successful than an artist."

A pop star is "more successful" than an artist? I guess Britney Spears is waaaay more successful than Miles Davis huh? New Kids on the Block is way more successful than Beethoven right? Again for you popularity = success. And again to that I say BULLSHIT.

"Regardless of how she did it, she was still successful. Her name was on people's lips much more than Prince's during that time."

Again, popularity isn't the same as success. People talking about who you are dating, your hairstyle, and your tits isn't exactly success-especially if you are and artist.

"And it worked."

What worked? "True Blue" was nowhere near as big as "Like A virgin" it had neither the mania or cultural impact. It wasn't as "popular" you said yourself that means it wasn't as succcessful.


"And no one was asking if any of these artists could top themselves. You can still be a major success without topping yourself."

Whatever that means. The fact is you equate success with sales/popularity. Prince doesn't. Yeah, you can be a piece of shit and still sell records like Bird Flu vaccine. You see it all the time. Being popular isn't success- regardless of what your 17 year old buddies told you in 1985.

As I said before, hindsight is 20/20. You have no idea whether Prince sounding like 1999 until 1990 would have made him "more successful". It might have made him more popular, but "True Blue" and "Bad" didn't make Michael Jackson and Madonna "more successful" or even "more popular". So I fail to see how a clone of "1999" or "Purple Rain" would have made Prince "more successful." Prince is about as famous as people get. Is he always the floavor of the moment? Is he always hot? no. But in 1984/85, he couldn't get any more popular. The fact that you and your buddies didn't dig "Around the World in a Day" doesn't change that PRince is and was still a legend/icon/musical giant. The fact is-he didn't fade away. He didn't become a freak like MJ, and he didn't sell out and become famous for everything except his art, like Madonna. Thank God. I'm done. Have fun listening to the Backstreet Boys and their "Success" that they accomplished by being so popular.
[Edited 11/21/05 21:00pm]
[Edited 11/21/05 21:00pm]

If Prince continued the momentum of 1999 and Rain, he would still have been considered legend and would have been mpre successful (as the topic asks). He would have takin The Machinary to new heights as he did on 1999 and songs like Computer Bolue (whoch still sounds as fresh today and like nothing out there).


He would have continued his progression, just with the synth fried rock and it wouldn't sound dated, it would still be ehtereal and looked upon fondly.


I think he would have done super if 1985-86 were 1999 and PR continuations.

As it is, 1985-86 were flops. And just because in retrospect we dig those albums (because they are engrained in our heads at that beautiful space and time) doesn't mean anything else in there place wouldn't have been looked at with the same respect. It isnt like Prince would have released a New Power Soul dud in 1985-86.

DiamondGirl said:

Again, hindsight is 20/20. Prince was/is a musical legend and I doubt that adding another 1999 synthed out album to his stack in '85 would have added to his legend. It could have made him sound tired and repetetive. 1985-1986 were flops only when compared to "purple rain" they sold more or about the same as what had come before. Prince simply is and was one of the most famous musicians ever. He could do whatever the fuck he wanted and he did. Sorry it disappointed you.

He may have jeopardized being flavor of the moment, but he only added to a more lasting fame and added to his legacy as a genius at music. Again, "Bad" was more of the same and it didn't make MJ more famous or take him to new heights. Same with "True Blue" and Madonna.
[Edited 11/21/05 21:09pm]