7salles said:

- I agree. There is not a objective way to explain it. Some songs are only catchy, while others are catchy and timeless. Britney´s songs are very catchy, but songs like ´Hey Joe´, ´Light my fire´ or ´Ticket to ride´ are catchy and timeless. I don´t like catchy songs just for the sake of being catchy.

About ´Raspberry Beret´ vs ´Last December´...I think the last one is more cliche.
I remember I liked ´Raspberry´ even when I disliked Prince.

7salles said:

So why do you like Prince exactly?

You don't like songs like Sign Of The Times, 1999, Kiss, When Doves Cry, Purple Rain?

They're ALL singalong songs....

Just because a sing-along-song is classed as shallow pop it is not always necessarily the case.

Even Kiss is like the perfect pop song but it's got some great lyrics and sentiment. Yes it's light and upbeat but that doesn't make it shallow or meaningless.

We can all relate to that song and it's STILL catchy as hell and has a beautiful poetic rhyme and melody whilest still making complete sense and telling a great story.

Not one word sounds out of place or contrived and yet it still manages to stay pure and simple. It's a perfect example of how Prince can write a great catchy pop tune and make it look so easy.

pepper7, Salles point is that usually ´cheap´ pop songs suck. The Prince songs you described in your post are what I consider ´timeless´ AND pop.

(I only disagree about SOTT...I loooove this song, but I don´t think it´s THAT singalong)
[Edited 2/12/06 7:01am]

GustavoRibas said:

So why generalise that sing-a-long songs suck?

It's just a snobbish attitude to take towards music.

Yes SOTT is SING A LONG...it's rhyming poetry. It could also read like a rap song. Everyone KNOWS the beat to this song. That's why it is so FAMOUS..

GustavoRibas said:

I disagree I don't think any songwriter can write a catchy tune. Certainly not always a good one.

I also think that part of the reason why Prince is still classed as uncool is the subject matter that he sings about.

He writes very good love songs which will NEVER be cool.

Really Hendrix is known for his rockin' guitar playing. The Beatles ALSO wrote great pop tunes and melodies but they don't go any deeper that "Love, Love Me Do".

In other words Prince is less-accesible to us because he challenges our ideals of males and female sterotypes.

BUT above all Prince never wanted to be COOL. Infact anything but. Being cool to him was pretentious I think.

"The Beatles ALSO wrote great pop tunes and melodies but they don't go any deeper that "Love, Love Me Do"."


Not to jump in, but this statement weakens your argument big time. I am not more than a casual Beatles fan, but I laughed when I read this.

I know how it is to try to explain to people what it is about Prince. But seriously, why care about it? Sure, Prince said himself that he wants to be seen as a serious musician, but in the end he just did what he felt, not what would appeal to a certain audience.
Nowadays, when I hear someone putting Prince down, I don't feel "bad" at all and very seldom feel the need to explain it. I just know "yeah, you'll eat your words one day".

One very "positive" side effect about Prince also being a pop star, is that I really learned not to judge certain artists before you really explored them. You'll never know what you might find.

Anyone who tells me they don't like Prince, I instantly know that they don't know sh*t about music. If you truly love music, prince has made something that would appeal to you. I believe that. I've met literally 100's of musicians and when I bring up Prince they show the love. That is what counts. Being a music lover myself, i consider Prince the greatest musician of all time. All time.


Most of u all have made some nice points and I will add my 2cents. Prince will not get his due until he is dead. America rarely gives a Black man his due while he is alive. Now I know you guys are going to get all over me for introducing "race" as a part of the equation but it is a factor. if you don't believe it's a factor look at history and you will see what I mean. Hendrix, Marvin Gaye, hell even Tupac ( i don't like tupac) got way more respect after they died. Muhammed Ali became an old man before he got any respect. Remember how he was treated when he was a young powerful black man?

pepper7 said:

- Well, the radio is/was full of catchy songs...from Backstreet Boys to Mariah Carey, there are lots of melodies easy to assimilate. But few survive the test of time...´Purple Rain´ still plays on radio here, while Backstreet Boys don´t.



- Hendrix is the most innovative and influential player ever, but his songwriting is very powerful too. If you make a ´Best of Hendrix´ CD, you can fill with more than 15 songs easily...from ´Crosstown Traffic´ to ´Hey Joe´...even some obscure tracks are very nice, like ´Drifting´

I am not a Beatles fan, but they wrote some non-poppish music too. Let´s not forget they wrote ´Helter Skelter´, ´Yesterday´ and ´Tomorrow Never Knows´ and were very influential.

GustavoRibas said:

So what IS your point here?

You are actually saying that ANY songwriter (How you define songwriter I would like to know) can write a catchy tune (What is YOUR definition of catchy?) ???

And yes I could REALLY imagine Hendrix writing a love song like Nothing Compares 2 U or When 2 R In Love....

I was saying that some people use some formulas to write music. There are some harmonic cliches that are easily assimilated by human´s ears, or are proven to be effective. There are good and bad songwriters.

For me, catchy is a song that is easy to remember. "Oops, I did it again" is catchy...you listen to that chorus once, and it sticks to your mind, even if you hate it. ´Black Sweat´ is not. I had to listen to it more than 8 times to assimilate only the chorus and that´s why I am not sure if it will be a hit. It doesn´t mean it´s worse than Britney´s.

But as I said before...I think there is the good catchy and the bad catchy. Prince could write great catchy tunes in the past, as we know it. They were ´pop´ but not ´cheap´ and that´s why they are classic.

And I agree with you...Hendrix is not so versatile as Prince as a songwriter, but he made some rock classics for sure.
[Edited 2/12/06 12:21pm]

And I agree with you...Hendrix is not so versatile as Prince as a songwriter, but he made some rock classics for sure.
[Edited 2/12/06 12:21pm]
[/quote]

hendrix never copied anyone and just did what he felt. prince "drank" from maybe 2 many musicians

seekay said:

Yes because Prince is NOT innovative at all and HE has never been known for doing his own thing.

Yes he just copied, copied, copied.....

I'm surprised Prince even dared put on his own shows...
[Edited 2/12/06 13:00pm]

pepper7 said:

AGREE, but u have 2 admitt he copies better that anyone and mixes very well from real good PIONEERS.

prince has a great taste and is so talented that even this people as george clinton, lil richard or miles davis are fans of him.

honestly, i would love a non-biased opinion from a non-fan and a real true musician about princes music.

seekay said:

The way I see it we are ALL inspired by what we see around us and it's how we choose to use that inspiration.

Prince was not afraid to admit he liked folk music such as Joni Mitchell as well as funk such as James Brown and Hendrix.

When we are BORN we ARE not magically given skills that enable us to be great musicians, artists, etc.

EVERYONE has to work hard at what they do to get anywhere.

Even Mozart who was a child prodigy played piano from the age of four.

from:*****


"Prince’s legacy is set but it seems like it is going to take work to do it properly. Whom am I to say it isn’t being one properly or what’s already out there isn’t good enough? Just my opinion. His legacy is all part on cd and vhs for the most part. And of course for a proper legacy imho these things need transfers to dvd and re-mastering. Prince once said how wanted to have one of the biggest catalogues in the music bin...when I look at artists like Hendrix and Miles Davis in the stores there is a plethora of material. I think this is what he meant. And the material by those artists as well as others have all been given the legacy respectful treatment by their respective record companies etc. It’s just my luck the artist I latch onto has beef with his past in all endeavors music, personality and otherwise. Lets see what is possibilities of remastering and transfers.

Music releases:
SOTT , , DM, Prince, Lovesexy, Parade, 1999 (desperately needs work), Controversy. For the most part the 90’s output seems pretty top par in sonic sound imo. Plus this is not what some consider as his classic music.

VVHS-Performances

Purple Rain ( many possibilities but there just may not be available extra material….probably has peanut butter all over the extra film stock.. But it’s be cool to see him come and try to take Apollonia during the rehearsal and swing at Jellybean which was allowed in Graffiti Bridge sort of. Plus the other scenes from the trailer on the dvd that are cut from the released film like when he is running in front o f some billowing white linen)

UTCM…needs a dvd release even if there were no extras. A color version would be too cool too…somehow I think he is embarrassed by this though.

SOTT-nuff said. If it isnt already actually being done etc.

Livesexy-nuff said. “Liberace on acid” over excess but at a peak of inspiration

Nude Tour.

Undertaker-just for proof
And the other assorted vhs releases such as 3 chains O Gold etc.

A comprehensive video release on dvd

Hendrix, Clapton , Rolling Stones etc has much of their concerts etc released and many of them are on dvd. I know this takes some money in itself to produce from the record companies or production companies that own the rights, and prince himself, but I’m not sure anyone working in these media outlets are concerned or fans to help preserve princes legacy. I’m sure he is a little shit about certain aspects but Davis et.al. wasn’t? And the profit margin is actually not a huge excuse because as stated, other artists with an overabundance of material transferred, do not sell in huge huge numbers anyway. It must be a love for the music and legacy with some of these releases. (Is there anyone at WB at least who is fan enough to get the ball rolling on his own?) Not all of Claptons, Stones, Davis etc are all very very very profitable. Talk about flooding the market. Prince material is out there and even though he has been quite prolific, in the long run it seems he has not flooded the market as much as could be, as much as others. And what he has flooded the market with needs to be given the legacy treatment.

There is just so much material out there already released that if given the legacy treatment that there wouldn’t even really need to be any vault product release to satiate the public, fans, and let this mans music and creativity to be appreciated properly. Many of these releases would show the ups and downs of his brilliant career.
Just as others and their catalogue does. I mean its 25 years into his career I think it’s about time. Even if that means him swallowing some of his pride and taking time off from creating new things for a while. Take some time to work things out and make ones past able to be appreciated. Maybe its not in the cards which would be so Prince-fandom like but gotdamn,throw us a friggin bone here and there…WB, Prince, somebody. Folks are left with fan re-masterings of Lovesexy and SOTT (and they are brilliant works from them , not taking away from that) but it seems like the fans have more passion than the original artist and companies ( which is understandable from a fan vs. company pov I guess). Its been 25 years and many many artists have their works remastered and transferred even when in their prime. I hope this all comes together some way somehow before it gets too damn late in the game. I mean he’s had his comebacks, returns to form , personal bests, personal highs and lows...instead of rushing to the next forward movement project it would be great if he now concentrated on some things of his past while living his life so the future can be seen and entered with an approach of accomplishment form his pov and from the fans pov etc. Just my opinion. Everyone is allowed to live their life and he can run his career the way he wants to...he has been successful and its obviously working for him. This is only a wish, not a demand or advice since I’m not a manager etc."


.
[Edited 2/12/06 15:05pm]

I agree because I wish some of his more obscure stuff could be remasterd.

Plus there's a lot of remixed stuff and 12 inches that I had on record but I can't get on CD.

Yep I agree there should be a lot more stuff on general sale.

You go into Record stores in England and you can barely get a copy of Purple Rain. Maybe Musicology aswell at the moment.

When, oh, when is the Lovesexy tour going to be brought out on DVD ?

W here are all the extras ??

It's always the way - I had some guy trying to tell me that Chris de Burgh is an unrecognised genius and that I should listen to his albums and not judge him on his radio stuff. Anyone who is a major fan of someone half-popular will always believe that they're not being truly recognised for their legacy (not saying Prince shouldn't be - I just think he will, the time will come dudes).

pepper7 said:

i dont think mozart copied anyone nor hendrix...well maybe lil richards moustache, or should I say Esqueritas moustache?

Hendrix went toa buddy guy show with a tape recorder to steal his licks.

of course...even the great innovators had their influences...even Jimi, Picasso, Mozart, Miles...

GustavoRibas said:

yes but they developed a new style, a new path. they took and they went further.

seekay said:

Yes, and Prince never did, is what your saying ?

pepper7 said:

no, i mean yes....well i dont really no.


im not an xpert musicologist

seekay said:

Everyone has a style (even Oasis) and everyone has influences (even the Beatles), but some artists are more innovative than others.

Some, like Prince are heavily derivitive and innovative at the same time. I might say the same about Mozart & Beethoven, artists whose musical forms & models were clearly defined by tradition, but were notorious for breaking those rules.

I would say that Prince grabbed elements from all his influences and created something unique. But he didn´t influence as many people as Jimi, for example, and he didn´t create a new musical style (like James Brown, who invented funk).

I think Prince´s strongest point in music is his versatility, his body of work, not to mention his skills to produce and play several instruments.

andyman91 said:

Well said !

GustavoRibas said:

Which is a skill in itself .

GustavoRibas said:

Bach didn't invent a new style either. He was seen as behind the times, in fact. But he did what he did so much better than everyone else, that 300 years later, he's the only one of his time that is a household name.

There are probably a few reasons Prince is not up there with the Beatles & Jimi & other greats in people's minds (except ours). The Beatles were associated with more serious movements. The 60's, they led the British invasion, they pioneered psychedelica with others. Jimi's effect on guitar is obvious. Bruce Springsteen is seen in the tradition of Dylan--socially conscious, serious. James started a new style of music. Marvin Gaye & Stevie made the transition from light pop to serious music & themes just like the Beatles. Even U2 is taken more seriously by some.

Prince is lumped in with Michael Jackson & Madonna and the 80's. While their artistic merits can be argued, their style is not typically seen as having much substance. They are seen as entertainers, and Prince is seen the same way by most people. Similarly, the Bee Gees could be (for the sake of argument) the greatest group of all time, but I don't think Saturday Night Fever will allow that as their legacy.

No need to worry about his legacy. He was a first ballot nominee and inductee in to teh Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I remember vividly the chatter on the ORG about how quite a few members believed he wasn't going to get inducted. NOt only did he get inducted, he got to open the show and basically it was all about him. If that doesn't cement his legacy for you all, what does? Also, I read an article in the paper a while back, not sure which one, but it basically stated taht his catalog was by far superior to any other artist currently in regard to songs getting remade etc.