GoldenGlove said:

your age is showing if you don't understand what I'm saying. Trust me when your in your 30's and some 15 year doesn't get the music you listen to now you'll understand. I too was like that but for me my music range is more vast then when I was 15.

PurpleKnight said:

Is there any specific reason you feel Let's Go Crazy did it "a million times better"...other than you just like the song more, that is?

PurpleKnight said:

-----
Sorry dude it is not just orgers who think this CD is great. It turns up in the Top Ten list of most music critics and other artist. We are still hearing people trying to ride off of this CD today.

I question your judgement when you question "It's Gonna Be Beautiful Night." One of P's all time jams. Nothing wrong with music that is fun and danceable.
All music does not have to have great topics about the state of the world.

PurpleKnight said:

No you don't need to have been born when a piece of music was released to appreciate it but your level of appreciation is different from someone who was in their mid-twenties when SOTT was released. A person who was 25 when SOTT was released has lived thru Hendrix & James Brown & Little Richard & The Beatles & Joni Mitchell & Disco & Punk so when SOTT was released Prince's music was part of a evolving process of music. You can't - thru no fault of your own -appreciate the nowness of this music.
Its like when I listen to A Rite of Spring. Its a powerful orchestral piece that I love but I can never fully comprehend the way people in the 1920's reacted to it. They found it so disturbing they left the theater in an uproar. Because at that time it was revolutionary. But when I first heard it it is part of a soundtrack to a Walt Disney movie. I didn't run from the theater because the music was so no longer disturbing since in the fast track evolution of 20th century music anything new eventually becomes mainstream.
And thats kinda the difference. When SOTT was released it was fresh & bold & exciting. Now it seems like a nice collection of songs.


[Edited 2/25/06 13:18pm]

PurpleKnight said:

On the other hand, "Play in the Sunshine" has that wonderful piano hook and the interesting, very creative ending. And the production is brilliant too.

Every time Prince makes an uptempo pop-rock song, people come up comparing it to "Let's go crazy". It happens to "Play in the sunshine", "Can't stop this feeling I got" and, recently, even "Fury". And ballads are compared to "Adore" all the time. Why? Is his music really that repetitive?

And, just for the record, I appreciate it that we have people here with opinions that differ from the mainstream and the balls to state them. Makes things interesting.

PurpleKnight said:

Well, I have a full brain, luckily enough, which is why I probably disagree with you...

I think Let's Go Crazy's lyrics are every bit as "sugar coated" as you say Play In The Sunshine's lyrics are ("Take a look around/Least you got friends"..."Let's look for the purple banana til they put us in the truck")...the beginning of LGC is indeed completely orniginal, but the ending is a completely stereotypical big-arena-rock standard, done a million times before by a million bands before. Play In The Sunshine's ending, by comparison, is indeed unique and, to use your words, "oddly appropriate" for what on the surface is a 'happy pop song'...hell, it almost sounds like a death march with a melancholy "Play in the sunshine..." repeated over and over, winding down with the somber "La..la..la"...it's almost making fun of the happiness that proceeded it. Either that, or Prince is indeed pronouncing that "having fun" is not as easy as we all seem to think, cuz even his attempt in this song comes crashing down to a depressing, sad, mournful end. Let's Go Crazy didn't EVEN come close to adding in something that counteractive...

thedoorkeeper said:

EXCELLENT point... ...I feel the same way with paintings, especially from Van Gogh. Can you imagine seeing something like "Starry Night" for the first time at the TIME it was first created??...Now?...Now I see it as a wall mural down on Venice Beach..lol...now I see it as an oversold print that college students who want to believe their more "complex" than they really are hang on their dorm room walls. Now, I see it as a great painting and understand it's greatness on an intellectual level, even an emotional one...but I didn't live through what proceeded it to fully understand what it is I'm seeing.

The context and artistic environment does flesh out the work of art you're experiencing, and gives you a deeper, more relevant understanding of what's taking place.
[Edited 2/25/06 13:26pm]

PurpleKnight said:

Thats not a fact its your opinion.

PurpleKnight said:

I've heard it called "guitar wankery that does nothing to propel the song forward" and "musical masturbation"...lol...

Byron said:

I can't fault the song for it considering it'd be missing something crucial without it.

PurpleKnight said:

No, but I think it has everything to do with your personal taste moreso than any objective measurement...which is a conclusion you haven't quite accepted as possible yet.

PurpleKnight said:

You have override, though, as to whether or not you let your personal taste take the place of anything used in unbiased measurement. I could never speak as intensly, or at all, on country music simply because I know my tastes are so drastically different than what I'd hear on 99% of country music that I couldn't possibly detect the artistry in it. Play me the best country and western album ever created by mankind, and I'll stare blankly into space, with none of it connecting with me. I'll grow bored. The album will feel like it's 12 weeks long.

But I won't say "That's really not very good"...because I'm already aware that my personal tastes are dictating my opinion, and pretty much blocking out any ability to recognize all the elements of the music that are indeed worthy of the praise everyone else gives it. That, of course, is an extreme example of what I'm getting at, but I wanted to illustrate my point as best I could.

PurpleKnight said:

Not necessarily. The more time falls between the creation of music and its perception, the smaller the overall role of personal taste becomes. You can simply judge what is high quality by having a look around what is still there.

For example, "2 unlimited" were huge in Europe in the early to mid 90's, but the music was pretty cheap (euro dance by numbers), and the consequence is that they are rarely mentioned nowadays. So, even if people thought it was the hottest shit back in the days, what overall role does this play just a few years later?

As for Prince, we can surely say that both PR and SOTT were important pop albums in the 80's, as they still get repeated mentions in that context pretty much everywhere. Which one was greater? Hard to tell - that's where personal taste still might play a role. Maybe just one of the records will get a mention in 100 years (so you can use that as an objective argument for its greatness), but I'm afraid we won't be around anymore then.

Okay I can't take it anymore so I'm just gonna say it -
Star Wars really isn't that great.

I mean the special effects are poorly done & the acting is wooden & the dialog is moronic. Why would anyone think this is a great movie. At the time it came out - and I was there - I saw Star Wars in a Times Square Theater 1 week after it was released - it was wonderful & new & exciting. I sat thru the movie twice I loved it so much. But looking at it now it ain't great art & it ain't timeless.

Byron said:

Yeah, but my personal taste isn't necessarily taking the palce of unbiased measurement. It's merely affecting it the way it does anything else.

I love the styles presented on SOTT, but I just feel the songs don't match up to certain ones that displayed such prowess on past albums. Your interpretation of the genius of PITS is just as affected by bias as mine. We both offered constructive thoughts on the song, and we simply disagree. That's fine.



Alright. That was utterly pointless in a thread about Prince, but I'm glad you got it off your chest if you needed to.
[Edited 2/25/06 14:07pm]

PurpleKnight said:

Pointless but oh so true.

woah, are you kidding me? Star Wars the the perfect genius melding of old hollywood archtypes with funky geometry japanese scifi war with an echo of fairytale core mixed with the hippest coolest current attitude and Cali culture of 1970's. It was and always will be pure ART because it was and is relevant to this day.
hey hey

Ralph McQuarrie forever!

thedoorkeeper said:

I agree with PurpleKnight.

This album sounds a little lifeless (maybe that's not the case on the vinyl). I'd gladly take the dramatic guitar segue and pounding drums of Sign O' The Times live than the abrupt start and stale sounding linn drums on the studio version.

Also, Play In The Sunshine is one of my favorite tracks on the album.

PurpleKnight said:

You can state your opinions any way you like but don't be surprised to get the reactions you get. I figured you knew what was coming. I

For the record I don't use "imo" either, but I also don't start threads about my opinions and get defensive when people call me on it. Hell, I state my opinions quite bluntly because I want to see the reaction and because I know this is all silliness anyway.

Se7en said:

Remeber that this is my own opinion !!
U2 - Everything they do sounds the same - Same guitar tones rythm etc..I used to love Under a Blood Red Sky but got bored very quick with U2
Michael Jackson - Bad.....I wanna be more funky and upbeat instead of singing about lovey dovey cr*p like I did on my last 6 albums - Bad was exactly as it stated - Fact is besides Earth Song I think MJ sucks ass (remember Personal Opinion)
George Michael - Faith ....Actually, wasnt too horrible.....Though I feel it was his "I am NOT in Wham any longer" album.
Madonna....."Who's That Girl" yet more pre processed music.....I could never like madonna, ok she was hot on the cover of Liek A Virgin.....but that is about it !! lol.....and SOTT still did make other musicians look lame, they were all following the same sound from the last 7 years.....Well, actually not all musicians as 1987 was the beginning of House music if I recall correctly??



Not being snotty, but just putting across that I like 'My' kind of music and 1987 didn't give me none....besides SOTT.....even other bands / Artists like Iron Maiden, Metallica, WASP and possibly 20 other bands / Artists I listen too, that year didn't do nothing for me Although I did discover Michael Hedges / Joe Satriani / Steve Vai that year.So wasnt all bad....


Funnily enough.....Dire Straits "Brothers In Arms" Album was still in the Charts then.....Now that was Cool !!! .....

Byron said:

I am surprised that more people don't recognize Hot Thing as one of Prince's masterpieces. This song became my favorite all time Prince song back in 87 and it still remains my favorite to this day. I listened to this song everyday for 3 years.


To Purpleknight: Back in 1987 ,I bought SOTT and brought it home and listened to it and hated the album ! I put it down and continued to listen to Parade.
A couple of weeks later I picked it up again and it was like someone turned a light on. I think that the problem is that the record sounds like it was recorded in a cave and the production quality is not there. Newer records have much slicker production and we are now spoiled to that richness of sound.

PurpleKnight said:

LOL, ok...

Name a few albums better than SOT
[Edited 2/25/06 19:09pm]

"Sign O The 60s" is very overrated around here.