One music critic once said: when Prince had released Parade as a double record, including outtakes like In all my dreams, Theres others here with us and the original Mia Bocca, it would have made a record as strong and classic as Sign of the Times. I agree with him on that.

Prince seemed to be on a creative 'roll' from 1985 unto 1987, putting out so much great material during that period: less blunt, more subtle, layered stuff then the music he released before and also after that. From being a musician bridging the gap between 'white' rock and black 'funk', Prince became the most eclectic musician in popmusic: I mean, he tried everything: from early 1920 - 1930 european music ala Brecht / Weill (under the cherry moon), french jazz (do u lie), Joni Mitchell-like folk (Sometimes it snows in april), Beatlesque pop-symphonies (christoper tracy's parade) and his own, very original hybrid on tracks like: In all my dreams, Crystall Ball and Mia Bocca.

During that period Prince sounded as a visionary, creating new audio landscapes, for me the period from Around the World in day unto Lovesexy can only be compared by the musical revolution The Beatles created from Rubber soul unto the white album

wasn't all my dreams a Parade outtake? now thats what I call some pretty strong material by my standards.

rudeboynpg said:

I think you'll find that several songs on Parade really have no relation to the film whatsoever. There's nothing about New Position, Life Can Be So Nice, or Mountains, for example, that is movie specific. The one thing about Prince is that not only will he write music to fit a film but he'll also bend a movie around a bit of music. Furthermore, Old Friends 4 Sale was used, as an instrumental, in the film... it's not that far of a stretch to have seen it on the album, even with modified lyrics.

I just don't see anything in his actions, while it was actually happening, to support this... There's no reason to believe he'd tank an album just because he became unhappy with the movie and there's every indication that he was excited about the music on Parade at the time.

In late 85 and 86 Prince tried to do to much. Put together a new band, the Family, direct and act in a comedy movie. Make an album with a new sound to go with the film. He didn't have the skills to do all that, and do it well.

Actually, The Family was 'put together' much earlier. Though their album was out in early '85 Prince, for all intents and purposes, had them on hold while he worked on UTCM. This was one of the reasons St. Paul left the group.

Prince was actually not doing a measurable amount more during this period when you look at it overall. Compare to the PR era when he was acting in his first movie, making an album with a new sound to go with the film (and working on what would become ATWIAD at the same time), and working on THREE (or more) side acts at once.

Novabreaker said:

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. Before that, musicians indeed were servants of either the church or some King or whatever.

You're still wrong though on the "mere entertainers" part. Bach as a church muscian (at least for the major part of his career, and, btw, there exists a quote of Bach that says something like "music isn't mathematics"!) wasn't allowed to write something entertaining - he was supposed to write something to accompany the service. It was his own stance though that the more artful and complex his music was, the better it can serve the glory of God - just look at the "St. Matthew Passion"! (He's based on the tradition of renaissance music with that attitude btw.)

"Entertainment" as we see it nowadays is a concept of our modern times mass culture. People (at least those from the upper class who Bach (in his non-Church times) and Beethoven wrote some of their music for) actually used to be entertained by art. 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?

EmancipationLover said:

BRAVO!!!!!
I wonder if such a genuine appreciation for music and it's history could be seen on any other "Pop" artists web site. Possibly Pink Floyds' fan site.

Bach and probably Vivaldi were the first 2 try and break the overly ornate sounds of the Baroque period, but still had to appease popular tastes.
Mozart & Hayden took a step further but the music was still inane and pleasing 2 the general populace.
Beethoven just tore the heart out of what was the norm in music of his era. Constantly adding new instruments 2 orchestras to get a unique sound. Constantly challenging the listener 2 think about what they were listening 2.
The word Genious is greatly over used but in Beethovens' case, it is thoroughly deserved. He set the pattern 4 music 4 the next 100 years. It then took the likes of Wagner & more so, Puccini 2 create a more modern sound again, bringing the music world kicking & screaming into the 20th century, with their more show tunesy sounds. From there I guess it's where all the great American composer took their cue untill we get 2 good old Bill Hayley 4 the next great jump.

Music is a fantastic creative vehicle and it evolution can be mapped with any major cultural event in history. The world has always had a soundtrack!