For the life of me I just can't understand why they even bothered printing that garbage about the Rainbow Children cd. They don't even have an official section for Prince just that review under his name. Even though Prince has done work with Miles Davis, they seem to only have reviewed this one cd because someone told them "it's jazz". In my opinion they can't criticize it because they haven't shown interest in him before when he fused jazz and was commercially sucessful. They are just using this album for fodder in their plot to find something wrong with him. I'm not saying they should like the cd, but if that is the only thing they are going to review when he has done so many things that can be referred to as jazz, why even bother? It's pointless. Have you guys read it? What do you think? It's like someone criticizing Yanni in a Source magazine.

I just saw this was already discussed but it still boils my blood!

Do you have a link for this review?

Actually, in the 80s and even a bit in the 90s, Prince got a lot of good reviews in DownBeat. Prince is considered to be a topflight musican/composer in many modern jazz circles though he's not "jazz" per se.

LadyCabDriver said:

aint much

yeah, i'd like to see it too...

Here it is... Very short.

"Prince
The Rainbow Children
NPG Records
***--

Ambition is a great thing, as long as you're not victimized by it. With The Rainbow Children's undercooked parables, Prince surely is. I'll wait for the instrumental remix.
Jim Macnie "

http://www.downbeat.com/d...il&rid=136
[This message was edited Mon Aug 5 5:27:43 PDT 2002 by Aerogram]

It seems harsh, but Jim Macnie is saying that "he" likes the music...("I'll wait"---he wants it?)...is he not?...So, it's a 50/50 type of review, I guess...Might make some of the folks who read the review a bit curious to hear TRC CD for themselves, maybe...which also means it could possibly be appreciated by more music lovers...that's nice...

BelleBeyond said:

It got three stars out of five... I think you are right. He must be really impressed with something to give it 3 stars if the lyrics bother him so much he'd wait for the instrumental.
[This message was edited Mon Aug 5 7:20:53 PDT 2002 by Aerogram]

I think I'm going to "reverse edit" the stupid lyrics on TRC just like NPGMC did on some of the songs last year. Anyone want a copy?
[This message was edited Mon Aug 5 21:01:12 PDT 2002 by joeycoco]

joeycoco said:

Sure...or some light vocal overdub along the lines of..

"With the accurate understanding of cod and cold slaw they went about the work of building a new ration"

Aerogram said:

Ah, well okay then! ...three stars out of five, pretty good...
So, what is that review, like, 66.6% or something... ...lol :p

Aerogram said:

A "flawed masterpiece" is my contention and the DB review rating supports this.
However, the brief blurb provides very little useful information to anyone wanting to
make an informed purchase decision. Another case of "reviewer's wit" where we get to see
the writer's craft at being snide. He's clearly bothered by the thematic elements, but seems
to like the instrumental tracks. While a remix of this sort is highly unlikely, I do think he'd want
the silly "Wedding Feast" and the intervening narrator excised.

PFunkjazz said:

Unfortunately, being snide ranks high on the skill list of most paid critics. So many are simply Opinion Designers when you think about it...

Aerogram said:

Not that being a critic is hardly a totally dishonorable position, but
publishing a snide review like that is of as much value as an
internet posting on the org that says "TRC sucks!". I find this
a worthless, pointless endeavor. I find the better reviewers
provide some insight of things I may not be aware of or
confirm a conclusion I had already reached. I really don't know about this
"Opinion Designers" thing you allude to and don't spend much time
thinking about it.

PFunkjazz said:

I've always been interested in critics and practically learned English reading movie reviews. Well, once I found a French book called something like "Critique des critiques" ("A Critique of Critics"), and it was a detailed "review" of a number of then famous French critics --- it was hilarious. As much as the arts, critics deserve to be reviewed because there's so much that's flawed in what they do.

I've been a reviewer, so it's not like I have no sympathy for the "profession", but it IS often a dubious credential.They are frequently hired more for their ability to write or talk in an interesting way more than for their actual knowledge of the field. In smaller markets, the same people move from movies to books to records. Case in point, a friend of mine who is a competent music reviewer got invited to talk literature on radio, even though he admits reading the same 20 books over and over again, with barely anything new in between. Of course, he thought the book he had to review was "intellectual masturbation". I'm not sure what he said on the radio, but I'm not gonna listen to some guy just because someone thinks he's articulate and has "good taste" in general. Obviously, Downbeat hires critics whose credentials are beyond reproach, but there's no denying that part of the "critic's mystique" is an ability to rule on matters of taste with a snide little comment.
[This message was edited Mon Aug 5 12:01:52 PDT 2002 by Aerogram]

Aerogram said:

I can deny it, because I see it for what it is: a snide little comment. No "critic's mystique" to baffle me.

Opinions in reviews, being "matters of taste", are hardly defintive, though they may be imbued with a sense of authority due to the writer's pathos. Honestly, though, fans often take umbrage when a published opinion runs counter to what they "expected". One would expect some editorial control that would simply avoid publishing such baseless piece of writing. Just find the self-confidence to form your own opinions and use reviews as guide and not a measuring stick.