Ifsixwuz9 said:

he doesnt hold back on the subject of prince...why make this stuff personal?

sosgemini said:

well... Did Bart really need his own post on this topic? He could have just chimed in with the rest of us on the original thread (that he was obviously aware of since he referred to it). IMO, this whole thread was a duplicate.
No offense Bart.

paisley16 said:

i havent a clue...don't know the history of this subject at all.

Wow, this book does seem like crap. It's frustrating that Prince has yet to have any quality/serious biography or musical journalistic statement on the bookshelves. I believe there is a general bias toward Prince as a serious musician from the music press for a lot of different reasons. You can find hundreds of books on the Sex Pistols, Springsteen, Rolling Stones, Lou Reed, Nirvana, U2 and other critical darlings. Where are the great journalistic efforts on Aretha, Stevie, Carlos, Sly, James Brown, and Little Richard. For someone who digs musical history there is definately a void.

Note: For a great book check out Craig Werner's (UW Professor) book on soul music. He has an interesting Prince chapter where he compares him to Duke Ellington.

No reason whatsoever to call this Brian Morton fellow an "idiot" though is there?

Bart van Hemelen is always going on about sticking to the facts, yet can't resist resorting to name-calling... Totally uncalled for...

It's not complete shit. Sure the nutty hardcore fans get annoyed by the slightest factual error, but most people don't give a shit. I posted a mini-review of the book on the other thread - it isn't brilliant, but it enjoyable enough for what it is. Clearly written by an enthusiast, at least it encouraged me to dig out some of the older Prince albums again.

thanks for the warning!

wonder505 said:

I'm not insinuating that, I'm stating a fact. I start a thread about a book, you decide to go off-topic and debate me.

wonder505 said:

Yet you constantly do.

jdcxc said:

Per Nilsen and Uptown have released plenty of worthy stuff.

jdcxc said:

In the case of Sly: access. Very telling is "Oral History", where lots of less important people (and some bandmembers IIRC) tell the truth and it is ugly:
http://www.amazon.com/Sly...0380793776
There's also http://www.amazon.com/Fam...826417442/

BTW Greil Marcus has written about Sly in Mystery Train.
[Edited 4/3/07 11:29am]

ian said:

But the point is that the FACTS are wrong, and plenty of his "theories" are infantile. I'm at page 150 and he's still not done talking about Prince's 1980s albums, plenty of those pages spent on debating TBA which is a minor album, yet judging from the book it is one of the most important albums from Prince's career. Lord knows how many fans are gonna take this book's content as gospel and are gonna repeat the BS over and over again.

ian said:

But a pretentious enthusiast who didn't bother to research much, yet spends two pages on reasons TBA wasn't released, which seem to have been provided by a bunch of posts on some ignorant message board. Of course he misses out on the truth which Per Nilsen uncovered a decade ago.

paisley16 said:

Which I didn't notice until afterwards. However, that title's thread refers to an article about the book and I wouldn't be surprised that some people hadn't even noticed it. My new thread's title mentions the auther, the title, and that it's a book.

MartyMcFly said:

He claims Parade is the first album to feature strings -- apparently he's never heard the coda to Purple Rain. Oh, and ATWIAD also has plenty of strings: http://www.artistdirect.c...76,00.html

He also claims Parade was where Prince stopped disliking horns -- gee, I recall at least one saxophone solo on ATWIAD (Temptation).

He also believes Prince's father has co-written all those tunes he is credited on, which is nonsense. IIRC Prince's dad only contributed to Computer Blue (via Father's Song), all other credits are ways for Prince to send a bit of money to his dad.

Etcetera.

That guy wrote a "book" about Prince and "apparently" didn't even bother listening to the records he talks about.

http://dictionary.referen...owse/idiot : "an utterly foolish or senseless person"

BartVanHemelen said:

Here's how I picture it: by page 150, author:

1. Has barely any material left to write about

2. Is told by the publishers that he had a week left before they go to print

3. Rushes down to his local record store and purchases 'Emancipation' for £1.99, and scribbles down 50 pages hailing the album as an overlooked masterpiece (but still manages to misname a track on it!)

4. Figures it should end on an upbeat note so he describes the happiness Prince has found with Manuela!

5. Manages to throw together half a discography sprinkled with mistakes at the back, so he retitles the second half 'Selected singles' 'Selected videos and DVDs' etc....
.

6. posts it

langebleu said:

I actually have the impression that it was finished about a year ago, and had a quick update recently just to mention 3121 for instance. But I've still got 50 pages to read...

sosgemini said:

It's not personal to me at all. I'm just pointing out a fact.

Per Nilsen and Uptown have released plenty of worthy stuff.

I would consider Per Nilsen an archivist more than a critical musical journalist and Uptown a fanzine. Where are the shelves of different analysis on a very interesting, intriguing, important and controversial musical figure? If there were you wouldn't have had to buy the Morton book.


In the case of Sly: access. Very telling is "Oral History", where lots of less important people (and some bandmembers IIRC) tell the truth and it is ugly:
http://www.amazon.com/Sly...0380793776
There's also http://www.amazon.com/Fam...826417442/

BTW Greil Marcus has written about Sly in Mystery Train.
[Edited 4/3/07 11:29am]
[/quote]

I'm not saying that there are not any musical journalism that touches on Sly or any of the listed musical greats. But I believe that the majority of rock music journalists and critics are baby boomer, white, 60's fixated writers who identify with and prop up the likes of Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, Lennon, Elvis Costello, Lou Reed, Sex Pistols, etc. at the expense of their influences or the musical children (Prince) of soul music. It's a shame and it is represented in the classic radio format. Your average mainstream music fan does not get to read about the complex legacy of Prince or his predecesors.

And I do not believe that "access" is the reason for the lack of mature musical journalistic representation of African-American artists. Sly's tragic circumstances are no different than multiple rock stars (Nirvana, Punks, Elvis, etc.)

I agree that Mystery Train was a great book.

jdcxc said:

You might wanna look up where those soul artists make their money (European "jazz" festivals) and what labels they're on (Solomon Burke, for instance).

jdcxc said:

Nirvana did a ton of interviews plus most of the people they worked with are still around. Ditto for punks, Beatles,... I've got a documentary made by two Dutch guys a decade ago, who went to the US looking for Sly et al, and it just breaks your heart. They don't get anywhere, because it just gets blocked.

BartVanHemelen said:

jdcxc said:

Searching for Sly, IIRC. Nowhere available. Got it on VHS somewhere, taped from TV. One day'll I'll find it back and digitze it. Also contains a little about Prince: at one moment one guy who was writing a book plays Love Or Money and notices how it rips off Sly.

jdcxc said:

Dude, Bjork is beloved by music journos.

Any "major critical biography" about Prince worth its salt should not fail to mention "Erotic City".

Somehow, this one does.

.