New topic
Printabledewalliz said: And don't put words in my mouth. I never said that my experience is true for all communities. Where in the hell did you got that conclusion from? Oh, I don't know... maybe from the fact that you keep generalizing the tastes of whole "communities" and fans... random quotes from you include: "the R&B community didn't like the singles", "typical R&B fans at the time didn't like Parade". You have only hearsay to report but nothing of concrete value to back it up. Like I said just because the singles peaked high on the charts that don't mean crap when it comes people liking the singles or not. So all about Parade did good on the charts doesn't mean squat.
Hard facts mean a heck of a lot more than unsubstantiated hearsay any day. People actually going out of their way to buy albums/singles and calling up stations to request songs mean a heck of a lot more than unsubstantiated hearsay . I don't know about you but I rarely plunk down hard earned cash on music I don't like and there's nothing at all to indicate that Parade was a special case that drew in zombie purchasers. If people heard Mountains or Anotherloverholenyohead on R&B radio and didn't like it they are NOT going to run into the store to buy the single any more than they would have for Little Red Corvette or Delirious. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
vainandy said: There's a very simple explanation for that. By the time of "Parade", Prince had a much larger audience that included pop fans and a large growing European fan base. In earlier years, he only had mainly his R&B audience to depend on.
Interesting theory but two points of issue here... a) I don't see how the "growing European fan base" has anything to do with the success of Parade and it's singles on the US R&B charts. b) It's true that Prince did have a sizable group of pop fans by the time of Parade but this had been true prior to PR, as well, as 1999 changed his audience practically overnight according to most accounts. I think 1999 was the first album where the singles were generally more successful on the pop charts than the R&B charts. So, considering that Prince had lost those fair-weather PR fans by '86 I think it's semi-safe to postulate the general audience make-up for Parade was not too, too different than 1999. It's also, important to note that Parade (and singles) did BETTER on the R&B charts than on the pop charts, which is the reverse of 1999. This doesn't indicate weakening support among R&B consumers to me. Also "Parade" had a very misleading lead single called "Kiss" that tricked people into buying the album because Prince knew they were pissed about "Around The World In A Day".
I'm not going to contemplate on whether Prince was attempting to mislead anyone with "Kiss", however, I can easily see how it might be a bit of a surprise for non-fans who go on to purchase Parade and find a cornucopia of surprises within. :-p Otoh, I can't imagine how anyone who semi-regularly purchased Prince albums expected a straight ahead release given the eclecticism displayed on the previous 5 outings. Prince's entire '80s output had been full of twists and turns at that point. Also, with all these new fans aboard, how was anyone going to determine who's album purchase went to which chart? For all we know, those sales on the R&B chart could have been purchased by pop fans.
Interesting idea BUT there is a distinct disconnect between the R&B and Pop charts during that time period. If, for example, mainly pop fans were purchasing Anotherloverholenyohead from R&B retailers wouldn't we, also, assume they'd be buying it from mainstream pop stores as well??? This is not what happened at all. Anotherloverholenyohead was a top 20 R&B hit in the late summer of '86 (selling well at R&B retail and with good R&B airplay) but stalled at a lowly 63 on the pop charts. If pop fans weren't buying it in mass from pop outlets then I doubt they were specifically searching out R&B records stores. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NorthernLad said: very cool thread!
I love Parade and think its idiosyncrasies are what makes it so great. It definitely has plenty of strong material. I think the reason it wasn't as successful as it should have been had alot to do with 2 factors: 1 - the horrible movie, which flopped hideously and was ultimately an embarrassment. That really dampened the success of the album. 2 - the single choices. Kiss was brilliant, the obvious 1st single; but Girls and Boys was just as obvious a choice as 2nd single. It would have been a Top 10 hit, no question. Then follow with Anotherlover and Mountains. I always wished New Position was longer; wouldn't a 12 inch version of that just rock????? The extended remixes of the Parade singles are the best of his career, IMHO. Parade is every bit as important as SOTT, Purple Rain, 1999 or Dirty Mind. I think this aswell. Parade, like Lovesexy has grown and grown on me over the years. I also agree that he should have released the songs in that order. I think Girls and Boys is a great song. Also it's a brilliant video combined. It has a great energy and it's Prince at his mischievious best ! Shut up already, damn. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Well, I'm not going to say much more because I reckon I've said pretty much all I can say on the subject without repeating myself.
I would add that it is well known 1999 was a cross-over point for Prince - before that, it has been noted by band-members that the audience was almost entirely black, and after 1999 a lot more white faces started appearing. Not only that, but 1999 and Litte Red Corvette were some of the first videos by a black artist (along with Billy Jean & Beat It) to be shown on MTV, which up until that point focused almost entirely on 'white rock'. The fact the make-up of his audience was changing at this point is one of the reasons why I've been arguing that pure R&B fans had plenty of warning well before Parade that he wasn't going to stick to a strict R&B formula. On a wider note, being from the UK it is always interesting to me to discuss the American chart and music industry, as I find it a bit bonkers! The way the charts have been broken down into sub-categories to such a level is weird to me - is there a panel of experts somewhere that make a judgement on each record that comes out, pronouncing it 'pop' or 'R&B' or whatever and forever more it is stuck in that category? Really, it sounds a lot like a throwback to the bad old days of segregation, with 'white music' and 'black music' being kept apart. Was Prince thrust into the R&B category simply because he was black? Even when he was playing 'white rock' with Purple Rain was he still in the R&B category? Or it could just be that for the longest time 'black' music didn't have a big market and so needed a seperate chart to promote it. Whatever, with R&B and hip-hop dominating the world market these days, the need for an 'R&B' chart seems a bit redundant to me... If I was in control of the whole thing, I'd just get rid of all these vague charts and amalgamate them into one single chart for ease of understanding, much like we have in the UK. In the UK, we don't really have 'R&B only' record shops - there are record shops that specialise in one area, like jazz or classical, but they are few and far between. What we have is record stores where you can find a bit of everything - blues, jazz, classical, pop, R&B, soul, whatever. That's what I've grown up with and the notion of it being any other way is very alien to me. Of course, these days if I want a record I will most likely just order it over the internet - another place where 'categories' are being completely demolished. As well in the UK, we really have only one main pop chart, on which any category can appear, and the positions are decided on by sales alone, including recently, download sales. In the USA as I understand it right now, airplay counts towards the chart and is the biggest share. I really can't understand this, what is being played on the radio is not necessarily a reflection on what consumer's would want to buy. The radio is driving the sales, rather than the physical sales influencing what radio chooses to play. As I have heard, Black Sweat would have been number 1 on physical sales alone - but because DJs weren't playing it, it only got to number 60! This makes no sense to me. It's popular enough for people to actually go out and buy it, but because DJs don't like it, they sabotage it. Categorizing music to this extent only leads to confusion. You have R&B DJs not playing Prince because they don't regard him as R&B and rock/pop DJs not playing him because they DO regard him as R&B! One of the outstanding things about Prince is that he broke down the walls of these genres and played whatever he wanted, became uncategorizable - but the downside of this was that he has fallen into a kind of limbo between all the categories, and charts and DJs STILL don't know what to make of him! And that was probably true as far back as Parade as well. [Edited 4/14/06 12:39pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
pepper7 said: 2 - the single choices. Kiss was brilliant, the obvious 1st single; but Girls and Boys was just as obvious a choice as 2nd single. It would have been a Top 10 hit, no question. Then follow with Anotherlover and Mountains. In the UK, Girls & Boys was released as a single, instead of Mountains. As a guide to Prince's popularity in the UK based on SALES alone, here is Prince's top 40 chart successes in the period between his first UK chart hit 1999 upto Batdance: 25 1999 Jan 1983 4 When Doves Cry Jun 1984 8 Purple Rain Sep 1984 2 1999 / Little Red Corvette (re-issue) Jan 1985 7 Let's Go Crazy / Take Me With You Feb 1985 18 Paisley Park May 1985 25 Raspberry Beret Jul 1985 6 Kiss Mar 1986 11 Girls And Boys Aug 1986 36 Anotherloverholenyohead Nov 1986 10 Sign O' The Times Mar 1987 20 If I Was Your Girlfriend Jun 1987 11 U Got The Look Aug 1987 29 I Could Never Take The Place Of Your Man Nov 1987 9 Alphabet Street May 1988 29 Glam Slam Jul 1988 24 I Wish U Heaven Nov 1988 2 Prince Batdance Jun 1989 As you can see, it's a mixed bag, with generally his first song doing well and subsequent releases fairing less well, but I wouldn't say Parade was particularly any worse than any other album chart wise post-PR. 1999 - 25/2 Purple Rain - 4/8/7 ATWIAD - 18/25 Parade - 6/11/36 Sign O' The Times - 10/20/11 Lovesexy - 9/29/24 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EmancipationLover said: Novabreaker said: Accept it!
 Well, I haven't read your initial statement closely enough (sorry), I somehow missed the "Art as we call it nowadays" part. You're actually right on this as the concept of music as a form of art to be seen as self-expression really is a child of the romantic movement and hence the mid-19th century. Funnily enough, Beethoven is the first real prototype for the independent artist ideal of romanticism as he refused to be just a servant for some Earl or Duke... [...] You're still wrong though on the "mere entertainers" part. [...] The contradiction of "art" and "entertainment" is to a very large extent the product of the 20th century. In other words, Beethoven never was a Britney Spears-like figure. Have we jacked this thread now?  We most certainly have! That's a good point about Beethoven - yeah I believe he was one of the very first romantic artist figures and strongly contributed to the image of the artist as somewhat of a "out-of-this-world" figure, that even Prince to this day shares. Mozart was another perhaps as a personality but he merely settled for pleasing the masses with his opera works, that has to be acknowledged. Of course the usage of the term "entertainers" was meant as an exaggeration in the lack of better word, maybe artesans - but that still has too strong connotations to folk (art) tradition. The definition of "ars" was a rather technical term that later transformed to something that is more closely these days matched by various branches of "humanist" science ("ars humana"). If you ask me I don't for instance see any connection between the music of Haydn and what we call as "artistic", "artsy", "proper art" these days. It was just commissioned work to entertain the high-class back then. Nothing Basquiat about it. However I do not think the contradiction of "art" and "entertainment" is solely the product of the last Century - in fact the chronologists and history-writers of the past were always very keen to exclude "folk" music outside the definition of "music" altogether. The same thing with painting, sculpting and writing, yet of course nothing can deny the fact that with the birth of commercial mass culture and also especially the critical reaction to it that was born alongside it (largely instigated by the Frankfurt school of thinkers, or "critical theory") very much deepened the theoretical apparatus for this division. And as far as Bach goes, well... what can you really say about somebody's music when the researches of today haven't even come to the final discovery how the music should be even played: with straight rhythmic structure as it is interpretated by today´s notation standards or by some completely different way? Sure it's going to sound weird and artsy if nobody still to this day knows whether something is supposed to be played as a 1/4 or a 1/6 note. But he wrote for the Church and was actually very scholastic about it, even avoiding harmonies that would refer mathematically to dogmatically banned figures from the bible. He had a very mathematical approach about it apparently, without the help of mathematics you couldn't have composed the fugues anyway.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think Princes reaction on Parade was fuelled by a certain fear to draw to far away from his 'trademark' funk-rock sound (the minneapolis style to be heard from Dirty Mind unto Purple Rain).
Wether this reaction was fuelled by declining sales (in america at least) or by artistic reasons, i am not sure about. Maybe he thought he lost control over his music because of the input of the revolution members, maybe he thought he was alienating his core audience (in my opinion there never was a core audience, generalizing a bit: Princes music was loved by black disco / funk fans, white new wavers and white music journalists). The import thing to me is that during the period from around the world in a day unto sign of the times (with Lovesexy being some artistic culmination of those three records) Princes music and lyrics carried a certain depth, subtlety and (goofy) intelligence that elevated his music from being very good to great. I mean: the difference between Parade and 3121 is the first is a work of art, the latter is a work of 'just' good musicianship. The weird thing is, Prince seemed affraid / ashamed / reluctant (I have no idea, to be honest) to release such gems as Crystal Ball, Theres Others here with us and All my dreams around that time. But when you compare listening to those tracks to listening to those on 3121, it is like comparing listening to the 'rites of spring' by Stravinsky to, yes, Pharell or Missy Elliot: art versus good musicianship. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
pepper7 said: vainandy said: There are some songs I've listened to for 30 years and still don't know the lyrics to them. All I know is the music and the groove sounds good. Hell, look at Booker T and The MG's "Green Onions".....there ain't one word in that song and it is funky as hell....or Manu Dibango's "Soul Makossa".So you don't listen to a song like "Head", "Sexuality", "Dirty Mind" for the lyrics?? You listen to it purely for the "music value" ?? [Edited 4/13/06 14:39pm] I like and notice lyrics but the music and rhythm is what catches my ear when I first hear a song. A song can have the best lyrics in the world but if the music sounds horrible, you might as well be listening to "poetry" being recited. Andy is a four letter word. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jtfolden said:
Interesting idea BUT there is a distinct disconnect between the R&B and Pop charts during that time period. If, for example, mainly pop fans were purchasing Anotherloverholenyohead from R&B retailers wouldn't we, also, assume they'd be buying it from mainstream pop stores as well??? This is not what happened at all. Anotherloverholenyohead was a top 20 R&B hit in the late summer of '86 (selling well at R&B retail and with good R&B airplay) but stalled at a lowly 63 on the pop charts. If pop fans weren't buying it in mass from pop outlets then I doubt they were specifically searching out R&B records stores. There is no such thing as pop record stores and R&B record stores. I've seen a few independent owned record stores that sell nothing but R&B records but there are very few and there sure wouldn't be enough customers to make a difference in the record charts. 99% of record stores sell pop/rock, R&B, country, jazz,.....in other words, they sell everything and there is no way of the record clerks determining what the record buyer's taste is when he or she makes their purchase. Andy is a four letter word. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
loisclark88 said: origmnd said: Now Im sure we all love PARADE.
But if he didnt like those tracks, why didnt he use his countless vault tracks? We know how many GREAT unreleased tracks there were at that period. WHY wouldnt/didnt he use them? Reminds me of the current situation with 3121. What situation with 3121? Did I miss something? ...He's got better songs he couldve put on 3121... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jtfolden said: dewalliz said: And don't put words in my mouth. I never said that my experience is true for all communities. Where in the hell did you got that conclusion from? Oh, I don't know... maybe from the fact that you keep generalizing the tastes of whole "communities" and fans... random quotes from you include: "the R&B community didn't like the singles", "typical R&B fans at the time didn't like Parade". You have only hearsay to report but nothing of concrete value to back it up. Like I said just because the singles peaked high on the charts that don't mean crap when it comes people liking the singles or not. So all about Parade did good on the charts doesn't mean squat.
Hard facts mean a heck of a lot more than unsubstantiated hearsay any day. People actually going out of their way to buy albums/singles and calling up stations to request songs mean a heck of a lot more than unsubstantiated hearsay . I don't know about you but I rarely plunk down hard earned cash on music I don't like and there's nothing at all to indicate that Parade was a special case that drew in zombie purchasers. If people heard Mountains or Anotherloverholenyohead on R&B radio and didn't like it they are NOT going to run into the store to buy the single any more than they would have for Little Red Corvette or Delirious. Well all I know is that 20 years later, Parade doesn't received that much love on many R&B and funk stations that I listen to. I don't know why either since Anotherlover, Life Can Be so nice, Mountains, and Girls and Boys are R&B/funk friendlier songs. Personally those songs are the best ones from that album. The rest of the songs on that album I either say they are just okay or I don't like. That wasn't my intention of speaking for the entire R&B fanbase at the time but all I can say that the stories people told me who were around back in 1986 were saying the same story that people were generally disappointed with Parade and that they thought Parade was going to be like Kiss since the first single was kinda misleading. Whenever I meet people, I always mention Prince since he is my favorite artist and when they admitted that they are fans they do have stories to tell about Prince and how people they know from around the way reactions to his albums. And these are fans from all over US I spoken to online and offline but of course that is from my firsthand account. But I know one thing that R&B fans has more respect and also more loyal besides Prince's hardcore fans of course than other fanbase that I know. They was there when Prince started out and also they was there when Prince wasn't no longer love by the mainstream. There are numerous reasons why people purchase singles and that doesn't automatically means it is because they like the single. They might purchase singles because they like the artwork. I heard countless Prince fans who purchase singles just to add to their collection yet they hated the song. Go read some of the posts that people said on here when they mention their reasons why they purchase like for example singles from 3121. Personally, I buy singles for the B sides and the remixes and if that is wasting my money then so be it. Like I said singles sales means squat since no one knows the buyer's motivation [Edited 4/14/06 18:12pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dewalliz said: They was there when Prince started out and also they was there when Prince wasn't no longer love by the mainstream. I can't believe that also I was there for this whole fucking thread after I wasn't no longer interest in this pointless argument. ...: s l o w l y c a n d l e b u r n s :... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
doesn't this pic look like someone has Prince's ghost on film?
don't mind me | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
metalorange said: Well, I'm not going to say much more because I reckon I've said pretty much all I can say on the subject without repeating myself.
I would add that it is well known 1999 was a cross-over point for Prince - before that, it has been noted by band-members that the audience was almost entirely black, and after 1999 a lot more white faces started appearing. Not only that, but 1999 and Litte Red Corvette were some of the first videos by a black artist (along with Billy Jean & Beat It) to be shown on MTV, which up until that point focused almost entirely on 'white rock'. The fact the make-up of his audience was changing at this point is one of the reasons why I've been arguing that pure R&B fans had plenty of warning well before Parade that he wasn't going to stick to a strict R&B formula. On a wider note, being from the UK it is always interesting to me to discuss the American chart and music industry, as I find it a bit bonkers! The way the charts have been broken down into sub-categories to such a level is weird to me - is there a panel of experts somewhere that make a judgement on each record that comes out, pronouncing it 'pop' or 'R&B' or whatever and forever more it is stuck in that category? Really, it sounds a lot like a throwback to the bad old days of segregation, with 'white music' and 'black music' being kept apart. Was Prince thrust into the R&B category simply because he was black? Even when he was playing 'white rock' with Purple Rain was he still in the R&B category? Or it could just be that for the longest time 'black' music didn't have a big market and so needed a seperate chart to promote it. Whatever, with R&B and hip-hop dominating the world market these days, the need for an 'R&B' chart seems a bit redundant to me... If I was in control of the whole thing, I'd just get rid of all these vague charts and amalgamate them into one single chart for ease of understanding, much like we have in the UK. In the UK, we don't really have 'R&B only' record shops - there are record shops that specialise in one area, like jazz or classical, but they are few and far between. What we have is record stores where you can find a bit of everything - blues, jazz, classical, pop, R&B, soul, whatever. That's what I've grown up with and the notion of it being any other way is very alien to me. Of course, these days if I want a record I will most likely just order it over the internet - another place where 'categories' are being completely demolished. As well in the UK, we really have only one main pop chart, on which any category can appear, and the positions are decided on by sales alone, including recently, download sales. In the USA as I understand it right now, airplay counts towards the chart and is the biggest share. I really can't understand this, what is being played on the radio is not necessarily a reflection on what consumer's would want to buy. The radio is driving the sales, rather than the physical sales influencing what radio chooses to play. As I have heard, Black Sweat would have been number 1 on physical sales alone - but because DJs weren't playing it, it only got to number 60! This makes no sense to me. It's popular enough for people to actually go out and buy it, but because DJs don't like it, they sabotage it. Categorizing music to this extent only leads to confusion. You have R&B DJs not playing Prince because they don't regard him as R&B and rock/pop DJs not playing him because they DO regard him as R&B! One of the outstanding things about Prince is that he broke down the walls of these genres and played whatever he wanted, became uncategorizable - but the downside of this was that he has fallen into a kind of limbo between all the categories, and charts and DJs STILL don't know what to make of him! And that was probably true as far back as Parade as well. [Edited 4/14/06 12:39pm] In the US, we don't have just R&B and rock only stores either. Most record stores does carry music from all types of genre or they wouldn't be in business in the long run. But yes when for example rock fans want to purchase an album, they go to the rock section and that same example goes to a R&B lover or someone who is into dance and house. I know that UK people does have broader taste in music than people here in the States. That is why I clicked with UK people so well when comes to music. I feel more comfortable chatting with them about songs that I like and doesn't get the same love over here or that many people since forgot about. I also amazed people overseas knows their shit when it comes to rare funk and r&b music. Yet in another sentence, they also mentioned their love for some hard rock and jazz music. That occurance is rare here in the States. It is more segretated here. I know rock fans who are so close-minded and trash songs that aren't rock and same goes to people who are r&b, jazz lovers and so on. I even know people who are into Latin music trashes any music that isn't related to the Latin genre. I can't imagined myself only like funk and R&b music and I am open-minded when comes to music. In addition to funk and r&b, I listen to rock, pop, rap, jazz, and dance/house music from the 90s. I love 90s club music like Snap, Robin S, and Haddaway. And 10,000 songs in my collection proves so. It is a shame that people can be narrow-minded when comes to music but that how it is here. People who has that attitude are missing out some great music. Also I love the New Jack Era (you guys called it swingbeat) and how much UK fans love that era and still keeping the memory alive. If you don't know what New Jack/swingbeat is then just think of artists like Bobby Brown and Teddy Riley and their sound in the late 80s onto early 90s. Also there is only one New Jack Swing website on the net and it is running by some guy from UK. You guys are all right in my book when comes to music taste. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Meloh9 said: doesn't this pic look like someone has Prince's ghost on film?
don't mind me I thought the album cover of Dirty Mind is scary but damn that picture above is scarier. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dewalliz said: metalorange said: [Edited 4/14/06 12:39pm] In the US, we don't have just R&B and rock only stores either. Most record stores does carry music from all types of genre or they wouldn't be in business in the long run. There are plenty of Ma and Pa record stores in black communitys like where my mom lives that only carry R&B, Rap and maybe some Blues for older heads so I don't know if I agree with that. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
skip said: dewalliz said: They was there when Prince started out and also they was there when Prince wasn't no longer love by the mainstream. I can't believe that also I was there for this whole fucking thread after I wasn't no longer interest in this pointless argument. What do you mean? If you lost interest in this thread then move on, simple as that. The last time I check this is an open discussion board. Many threads on the org usually goes to another direction so why this one should be any different? If you going to address me then you should address to others on this thread as well who wasn't always on topic. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Meloh9 said: dewalliz said: In the US, we don't have just R&B and rock only stores either. Most record stores does carry music from all types of genre or they wouldn't be in business in the long run. There are plenty of Ma and Pa record stores in black communitys like where my mom lives that only carry R&B, Rap and maybe some Blues for older heads so I don't know if I agree with that. I aware of that and I do live in those areas but at the same time I was telling the other poster that we also have record stores that carries music from all types of genres. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dewalliz said: Meloh9 said: There are plenty of Ma and Pa record stores in black communitys like where my mom lives that only carry R&B, Rap and maybe some Blues for older heads so I don't know if I agree with that. I aware of that and I do live in those areas but at the same time I was telling the other poster that we also have record stores that carries music from all types of genres. ok now I see what you mean.. this thread is hard to follow.. too many long ass paragraphs. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dewalliz said: skip said: I can't believe that also I was there for this whole fucking thread after I wasn't no longer interest in this pointless argument. What do you mean? If you lost interest in this thread then move on, simple as that. The last time I check this is an open discussion board. Many threads on the org usually goes to another direction so why this one should be any different? If you going to address me then you should address to others on this thread as well who wasn't always on topic. Oh, I was just criticizing my own bad judgement. Talking to myself, really. Carry on. ...: s l o w l y c a n d l e b u r n s :... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
skip said: dewalliz said: What do you mean? If you lost interest in this thread then move on, simple as that. The last time I check this is an open discussion board. Many threads on the org usually goes to another direction so why this one should be any different? If you going to address me then you should address to others on this thread as well who wasn't always on topic. Oh, I was just criticizing my own bad judgement. Talking to myself, really. Carry on. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
vainandy said: There is no such thing as pop record stores and R&B record stores. I've seen a few independent owned record stores that sell nothing but R&B records but there are very few and there sure wouldn't be enough customers to make a difference in the record charts.
This is ENTIRELY UNTRUE. To quote from Billboard magazine itself: "All sales charts use the entire Nielsen SoundScan panel, with the exception of the R&B/Hip-Hop charts which uses a panel of core stores that specialize in the genre." As you can see, the R&B charts we have been discussing are based specifically on stores that focus on an R&B genre. During the '80s, there were more than a couple stores that fit that description even in my small-to-medium sized city. (I have no idea if they all still exist or not). 99% of record stores sell pop/rock, R&B, country, jazz,.....in other words, they sell everything and there is no way of the record clerks determining what the record buyer's taste is when he or she makes their purchase.
...and these are the stores handled by Soundscan and reported to the POP charts, etc. So, while most charts may be based on a mix and mingle of customers, the R&B charts are measuring real data for core outlets of that genre. As far as the singles charts themselves go, I quote again : "The Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart meshes audience data from R&B and hip-hop stations with sales from the core R&B/hip-hop panel." So, as a rule, singles on the R&B charts gain their success solely on how they perform with R&B buyers and listeners. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It might be different for those who were around at the time when it came it. Prince was growing musically, and was getting more interesting and intriguing. Granted, we know the other material he had in the vault at the time, which was great, but the music he chose was still facinating at the time, since it displayed his maturity and strive to be different. Those were the days. cracknbush | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Meloh9 said: this thread is hard to follow.. too many long ass paragraphs.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Meloh9 said: doesn't this pic look like someone has Prince's ghost on film?
don't mind me Have you read my Prince dream ? That white coat is relelvant ! http://www.prince.org/msg/7/184802 Shut up already, damn. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jtfolden said: vainandy said: There is no such thing as pop record stores and R&B record stores. I've seen a few independent owned record stores that sell nothing but R&B records but there are very few and there sure wouldn't be enough customers to make a difference in the record charts.
This is ENTIRELY UNTRUE. To quote from Billboard magazine itself: "All sales charts use the entire Nielsen SoundScan panel, with the exception of the R&B/Hip-Hop charts which uses a panel of core stores that specialize in the genre." As you can see, the R&B charts we have been discussing are based specifically on stores that focus on an R&B genre. During the '80s, there were more than a couple stores that fit that description even in my small-to-medium sized city. (I have no idea if they all still exist or not). 99% of record stores sell pop/rock, R&B, country, jazz,.....in other words, they sell everything and there is no way of the record clerks determining what the record buyer's taste is when he or she makes their purchase.
...and these are the stores handled by Soundscan and reported to the POP charts, etc. So, while most charts may be based on a mix and mingle of customers, the R&B charts are measuring real data for core outlets of that genre. As far as the singles charts themselves go, I quote again : "The Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart meshes audience data from R&B and hip-hop stations with sales from the core R&B/hip-hop panel." So, as a rule, singles on the R&B charts gain their success solely on how they perform with R&B buyers and listeners. Well, if that's their system then it is totally inaccurate because stores that sell only one genre of music are very few and stores that sell all genres are everywhere. I can remember back in the 1970s and very early 1980s, when even department stores like McRae's or JC Penny had a record section in their stereo section. Even those carried all genres (just not a large selection). There were record store chains that were in all areas of town. Whether you went to the ghetto or the ritzy part of town, you saw that same record store with the same name and when you entered they had all genres of music in each of the stores. There were also record stores with all genres in all the malls and everyone shops there. If this is their system, then I'm assuming that the stores they are basing their R&B sales on were in the ghettos. That would be a totally inaccurate count of sales because, first of all, not all black people live in the ghetto. Also, not all black people are R&B or funk lovers. There are some black people that are into rock and never have been into R&B. Also not all white people are pop/rock lovers, some of them are R&B fans also. If this is their system, then they must have started it during segregation times when people weren't free to shop in all areas of town and they had to buy records in the stores they were allowed in. In the 1980s, people shopped everywhere. . . [Edited 4/15/06 9:04am] Andy is a four letter word. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dewalliz said:
Well all I know is that 20 years later, Parade doesn't received that much love on many R&B and funk stations that I listen to. I don't know why either since Anotherlover, Life Can Be so nice, Mountains, and Girls and Boys are R&B/funk friendlier songs. Personally those songs are the best ones from that album. The rest of the songs on that album I either say they are just okay or I don't like. That wasn't my intention of speaking for the entire R&B fanbase at the time but all I can say that the stories people told me who were around back in 1986 were saying the same story that people were generally disappointed with Parade and that they thought Parade was going to be like Kiss since the first single was kinda misleading. There's definately some funk on "Parade" but it's not the kind of funk that people knew Prince for and it's not the type of funk that they wanted from him. These people had grown up with Prince for years. They had not just recently discovered Prince and said "Oh well, this is different but it's nice". If Prince had not been so well known and loved for his sound, people might have accepted the funk on "Parade" better and simply overlooked the classical stuff on the album because we've all bought albums by artists in which we don't like all the songs. The stories you are hearing from people about the era are absolutely true. The reason the album sold as well as it did is because the lead single "Kiss" was very misleading. Prince had recently changed his style and the single made them think Prince had come back to his senses. That's the reason for the high sales on both charts. When they got the album, they were extremely disappointed and then the jokes started on radio, in clubs, and among friends. A lot of people that love the album refuse to believe these things because they see the album as such a masterpiece and can't see why anyone else wouldn't. They want so much to believe that the album sold as well as it did because everyone else saw it as the masterpiece that they see, which is totally untrue. Hell, I wish "Dirty Mind" had sold more. It didn't and there are people that don't like it....oh well, that's just life. Andy is a four letter word. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
vainandy said: dewalliz said:
Well all I know is that 20 years later, Parade doesn't received that much love on many R&B and funk stations that I listen to. I don't know why either since Anotherlover, Life Can Be so nice, Mountains, and Girls and Boys are R&B/funk friendlier songs. Personally those songs are the best ones from that album. The rest of the songs on that album I either say they are just okay or I don't like. That wasn't my intention of speaking for the entire R&B fanbase at the time but all I can say that the stories people told me who were around back in 1986 were saying the same story that people were generally disappointed with Parade and that they thought Parade was going to be like Kiss since the first single was kinda misleading. There's definately some funk on "Parade" but it's not the kind of funk that people knew Prince for and it's not the type of funk that they wanted from him. These people had grown up with Prince for years. They had not just recently discovered Prince and said "Oh well, this is different but it's nice". If Prince had not been so well known and loved for his sound, people might have accepted the funk on "Parade" better and simply overlooked the classical stuff on the album because we've all bought albums by artists in which we don't like all the songs. The stories you are hearing from people about the era are absolutely true. The reason the album sold as well as it did is because the lead single "Kiss" was very misleading. Prince had recently changed his style and the single made them think Prince had come back to his senses. That's the reason for the high sales on both charts. When they got the album, they were extremely disappointed and then the jokes started on radio, in clubs, and among friends. A lot of people that love the album refuse to believe these things because they see the album as such a masterpiece and can't see why anyone else wouldn't. They want so much to believe that the album sold as well as it did because everyone else saw it as the masterpiece that they see, which is totally untrue. Hell, I wish "Dirty Mind" had sold more. It didn't and there are people that don't like it....oh well, that's just life. Here's another take on it, Prince wasn't that big pre-1999, he had a decent R&B fanbase but that was about it. Prince only made it big when he did rock. 1999/Little Red Corvette and the Purple Rain singles were rock songs and brought in masses of rock/pop fans. People were disappointed in ATWIAD because it wasn't another rock album, but bought it in large numbers anyway on the back of Purple Rain. Parade was another disappointment, the people still wanted another Purple Rain rock album, but didn't get it. Kiss was a massive hit simply because it is a fantastic, catchy pop song, and helped sell the album. Sign O The Times was an amalgamation of all that had come before - it had enough rock songs to keep Purple Rain fans happy and enough R&B songs to keep that fan-base happy. It halted the decline in popularity of Prince, but it didn't actually sell that well at the time in spite of that. I reckon it was ROCK fans turned off by Parade not R&B fans. Put it this way, if Parade isn't R&B OR Rock, what the hell genre is it? And what genre of pop fans WERE buying it? [Edited 4/15/06 10:38am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
metalorange said: vainandy said: There's definately some funk on "Parade" but it's not the kind of funk that people knew Prince for and it's not the type of funk that they wanted from him. These people had grown up with Prince for years. They had not just recently discovered Prince and said "Oh well, this is different but it's nice". If Prince had not been so well known and loved for his sound, people might have accepted the funk on "Parade" better and simply overlooked the classical stuff on the album because we've all bought albums by artists in which we don't like all the songs. The stories you are hearing from people about the era are absolutely true. The reason the album sold as well as it did is because the lead single "Kiss" was very misleading. Prince had recently changed his style and the single made them think Prince had come back to his senses. That's the reason for the high sales on both charts. When they got the album, they were extremely disappointed and then the jokes started on radio, in clubs, and among friends. A lot of people that love the album refuse to believe these things because they see the album as such a masterpiece and can't see why anyone else wouldn't. They want so much to believe that the album sold as well as it did because everyone else saw it as the masterpiece that they see, which is totally untrue. Hell, I wish "Dirty Mind" had sold more. It didn't and there are people that don't like it....oh well, that's just life. Here's another take on it, Prince wasn't that big pre-1999, he had a decent R&B fanbase but that was about it. Prince only made it big when he did rock. 1999/Little Red Corvette and the Purple Rain singles were rock songs and brought in masses of rock/pop fans. People were disappointed in ATWIAD because it wasn't another rock album, but bought it in large numbers anyway on the back of Purple Rain. Parade was another disappointment, the people still wanted another Purple Rain rock album, but didn't get it. Kiss was a massive hit simply because it is a fantastic, catchy pop song, and helped sell the album. Sign O The Times was an amalgamation of all that had come before - it had enough rock songs to keep Purple Rain fans happy and enough R&B songs to keep that fan-base happy. It halted the decline in popularity of Prince, but it didn't actually sell that well at the time in spite of that. I reckon it was ROCK fans turned off by Parade not R&B fans. Put it this way, if Parade isn't R&B OR Rock, what the hell genre is it? And what genre of pop fans WERE buying it? [Edited 4/15/06 10:38am] I can totally understand rock fans being turned off with "Parade" also because I don't really hear any rock in it. During that time, I don't remember anyone on either side of the fence being happy with the album. They might have even been more pissed than the R&B fans because I don't remember any of the other singles being played on pop radio. Even after "Parade", I think I might have heard the song "Sign O The Times" once or twice on a pop station and I never heard anything else until "Batdance". Meanwhile, R&B stations were still playing various songs from these albums. People were finding the songs decent but they weren't crazy about the songs like they were before and they sure didn't like them enough to go out and buy them. I knew ex-fans that loved "Adore" but they asked me "Is Prince still in his far out mode, if he is, I'm not buying this album because I'm tired of being burned". It's very easy to understand why R&B fans weren't feeling it even if it is R&B or funk. Just because something is actually R&B does not mean R&B fans are going to like it. There's R&B all over the radio today and I don't like any of it. Funk and R&B changes and it does not stay the same. Funk in the 1980s had changed a lot since the days of James Brown. People had moved on from the 1970s and did not want to revisit it. Look how much R&B has changed in the present day compared to the 1980s. Funk is totally extinct and just imagine if one of these present R&B artists with a big following started making funk like the 1980s, these kids that are their fans would be raising hell on earth. . . [Edited 4/15/06 14:00pm] Andy is a four letter word. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Without having read the previous posts, I just wanted to state that any artist is not the best at judging their own work and that goes for Prince too. Parade is on the short list of best Prince albums(at least mine) and captures him when he was still kooky, quirky, experimental and highly creative. Most of his albums display his basic mastery but only a few show true genius and Parade, whatever it's faults is one of them. 1999,Purple Rain, and Parade are about equal in my mind. Don't forget he was improving as a vocalist through all this also. 1999 had him trying out his natural voice with good results and he rapidly developed this through hard work to eventually become a great singer, which he was not to begin with. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
