Genesia said:

The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, The Who, Frank Zappa, Hendrix, The Doors... I was talkin' about quality, not popularity. Prince was more talented in the 80's than MJ was... Say just one artist (or band) that had the level of quality of Prince in the 80's...i would say U2...

I've come down fairly heavily in favour of the Beatles on this thread. But I must say, I got heavily into the Beatles age 11 when lennon died and then Prince in '84 at just turned 15. In all the years since there has been no one who has given me anything like the musical pleasure that both these acts have given me.

If I could only take one act's music to a desert island it wud be the Beatles, but i'd try my damndest to sneak in my Prince collection while no one was looking

I guess I feel a lil bad that I argued against Prince for first time,lol. I love his music to bits, I guess i've discovered tonight that I love the Beatles just that touch more.

McCartney had hit (#1) charting singles with Micheal Jackson and Stevie Wonder each... I wonder what would've happened with Prince?

PS, McCartney is a fan of Prince.

A neat thing about The Beatles is that they split, leaving a clearly defined (and now legendary) body of work. Solo/star artists can't really achieve that type of closure until retirement or death. Perhaps Prince was hoping for a similar effect when he changed his name. Perhaps. But I don't think Prince is better than The Beatles. Just different.

Again, subjective. Which, I suppose is a given, but it still doesn't even begin to answer who is "better" only who you like more.



1.If you are making rhythm's that are at all equally inventive and exciting as Prince's then you should not be here discussing with us.

2. Just because something is musically hard or easy for you to do doesn't mean that other people (especially music genius' like John, Paul, and Prince) find these things to be as easy or difficult.

Bottom line: How are you going to compare your music endeavors/stuggles to those of Prince and The Beatles? That's like me saying that Michael Jordan is better than Larry Bird because it is easier for me to make a 3 pointer, like Bird, than it is for me to dunk the ball, like Jordan. It makes no sense.



And the same could be said of "if I was your girlfriend" or "anna stesia". So? This still in no way will help us figure out who is "better". It's a question with no factual answer--only subjective opinions.

JoeTyler said:

Exactly! The Beatles didn't "own" the 60's. The surely weren't the best live act of the 60's. Not even close.

Revolution said:

100% agreed!

As a player of instruments...of ccourse Prince is better. As a songwriter...no. Isn't this obvious? "Revolution" versus "cybersingle" or "Hey Jude" versus "20 whatever: Radical Man?" I don't think so.

I'm a fan of Prince but I'm just telling it how it is.

pald1 said:

Well, to be fair, you cannot take some of Prince's one off obscure internet releases and compare them to The Beatles strongest songs. If you are going to measure songwriting skill, you have to pit classic Beatles vs. classic Prince.

In all fairness, Lennon and McCartney both had their share of shit songs after The Beatles. Also, they didn't release as many songs as Prince has so Prince has a larger body of work .

Do this: Compare Prince's more obscure work to John Lennon's Two Virgins--then we will see whose songwriting skills shine through.

[Edited 4/7/07 22:29pm]
[Edited 4/7/07 22:31pm]

skywalker said:

Can you tell me what some of The Beatles' shit songs are?
Also, around the globe, "written by Lennon & Macartney" has far more impact and recognition that "written by Prince." Look, we all love Prince but get real, son. Please, think about it a bit more.

No.

Whoa simmer down kiddo.

1st of all, it's Lennon and McCartney. Not Macartney--yeah it has more impact and recognition, but that doesn't make it "better" nor did it make you spell Paul's name right.

Also, it's not "written by Prince", it's "Produced, Arranged, Composed, and Performed by Prince." That's a little trickier than just "written by" or "performed by" isn't it?

2ndly, I said that John and Paul wrote some shit songs after The Beatles. So thanks for reading before you started to flame me.

3rd of all, like I said, listen to John Lennon's Two Virgins album, and you will see that John Lennon was capable of putting out/writing some very shit material. However, if you want to claim that Two Virgins is better than Prince's worst go for it. Furthermore, if you ask me to choose Prince's catalogue vs. Wings I will choose Prince everytime.

Again, I am not saying Prince is "better". I never have. I have always maintained that it is simply a matter of taste. There is no way to answer the question of who is better with a factual answer--only an opinion. Again, how can anyone prove who is "better"? What does that even mean?
[b][Edited 4/7/07 22:58pm]

skywalker said:

1.Picking up on someone's spelling mistakes has always been the refuge for those who have no argument.

2. Why bring in 'Two Virgins,' 'Wings,' Humpty Dumpty and my grandmother? The question asks who is better: Prince or THE BEATLES.

3. Your statement: "yeah it (The Beatles) has more impact and recognition, but that doesn't make it "better" is both contradictory and illogical.

4. You're right, it is your opinion. I, on the other hand, am right.

Go to bed, son. Only grown ups here.

JoeTyler said:

The Stones and The Who would've been nowhere without The Beatles, who led the British Invasion in the 60s.

Prince was more talented than MJ? Jesus.

Kid, you need to lay off the purple kool-aid for awhile. It's rotting your brain.

It has? I thought it was just being polite. It's Paul McCartney. I thought grown ups were old enough to know how to spell it.



Paul and John are the primary songwriters of The Beatles. I was pointing out that John and Paul are/were not immune to writing shit song or putting out a shit album. Again, I am not saying this makes them "worse" than Prince. However, to be fair in the comparison you should use use classic Prince songs vs. classic songs by John and Paul (The Beatles)--not the obscure, one off stuff.

You were comparing songwriting skills--if you aren't going to use John and Pauls' less known, less than classic material -you shouldn't be able to use Prince's less known, less than classic, material to better your argument. It makes for a poor and weak comparsion.




How so? Impact and Recognition does not equal "better". If that was so, McDonald's would be the best food on Earth.


If you are so sure that you are right, why are you arguing with me?

Tell me this--Do you think that The Beatles are among the top 10 live acts ever?
Do you think they were close to being the greatest live rock and roll band? I don't. I don't think they were even the best live act of their era.

Furthermore, I don't think any of them (together or seperate) could do what Prince does in concert. Again, that doesn't make Prince "better"--but it is something to think about. Their musical genius was primarily rooted in what they did in the studio.


Who cannot spell McCartney.
[Edited 4/7/07 23:29pm]
[Edited 4/7/07 23:44pm]

No

nobody is better than anybody

my mom is a Beatles fan

i'm a Prince fan

she had like 6 great years following their best stuff

i'm still following Prince after 20 years and he is still making great stuff

skywalker said:

Are you saying you don't trust your own mind because it is subjective? You are making a coward's loop, meaning you are evading an answer by bluffing philosophy. Who you (and others) "like more" IS a definition of "better". There, I just wrote it. It's written.




I probably am not likely to have much time or incentive to discuss too much with you these days. I also said I could make something in the mold of, meaning Prince or the Beatles invented their respective molds, I would merely be copying it. I do get asked to make music professionally from time to time and often commercial music is simply imitation, not invention. Just ask John Williams.

2. Just because something is musically hard or easy for you to do doesn't mean that other people (especially music genius' like John, Paul, and Prince) find these things to be as easy or difficult.

It's not just difficult for me, it's apparently difficult for Prince... and any musician out there who is actively creative. You should go ask about twenty and see what they say. Listen to modern radio. How many authors are known for intricate and catchy rhythms versus strong melodies? One mark of a strong melody is how quickly it becomes part of culture through time, turning up years later in the whistling of a worker to the generic performances at a kareoke bar, until finally, it is ripped off or covered professionally over and over.

Bottom line: How are you going to compare your music endeavors/

stuggles

Well, I'm now informing you it's more difficult for most musicians. Not just me.






So you think that "Anna Stesia" or "If I Was your Girlfriend" are as potent as "Come Together"? Let's not be subjective, let's be scientific. Get a hundred initially neutral people to listen to each song, and ask them to rank them. That would be quantitative measure, correct? Let me now define the reality of "better" as the mass consensus ranking by intelligent listeners.

Stop using the Kool-aid slur... the O'Reilly-fication of your insult insults me!

You do realize that someone like Paul McCartney produces, arranges, composes, and performs everything on some tracks (including recordings falsely credited to co-authorship with Lennon or input by The Beatles or George Martin)?

Even "Kid Rock" can play every instrument. I've watched him do it right in front of me, in person.

Some people like Prince more, some people like The Beatles more. I still don't see how that makes one or the other unequivocally "better" than the other. I'm not trying to evade anything--mostly I like Prince more. However, that doesn't mean I think he is "better" than The Beatles. I like "gett off" better than "Strawberry Fields" but I think "Strawberry Fields" is a better song. Again, subjectivity doesn't help here....



Okay that's fine. As a musician, would you put yourself on the same level as Prince? The Beatles? John Williams?



I hear you, but aren't we essentially just talking about popularity of a melody?

I don't think that's a good barometer for the "quality" of a song. I don't think we can only rely on writing popular melodies as THE measurement for who is "better". I mean, I've been whistling "My Humps" and McDonald's jingle "I'm lovin' it" for months on end now, but I'm not sure I would rank those songs of being some of the all time greatest quality music.

So again, how do you know that is is difficult for Prince, or Paul McCartney to write a "good" melody. Some of Prince's catchiest melodies never were played on the radio--and thus-- not "popular". Does that make a song like "17 days" less somehow?





Well, it depends what you mean by potent.

I think that both "anna Stesia" and "If I was your girlfriend" are just as infectious, emotional, and catchy as "come together". Furthermore, I am willing to bet that I am not the only person on earth to feel this way. Again, does that mean that I think "If I was your girlfriend" is a better song? Well, I like it better--but the title of this thread isn't "who do you like better?". Maybe it should be.



100 neutral people? Okay so pretend we find 100 people who have never heard The Beatles or Prince....




Rank them how? According to how dancable it is? How much it makes you want to fuck? How much it makes you want to sleep? If it has enough guitar for you? Enough vocals?

Do they rank it on scale of 1 to 10? Overall enjoyment? How difficult they think it was to write the melody? How difficult it was to play the instruments?
How difficult they think it was to produce?



I just don't think you can boil music down to a quantitative measure. I think people enjoy music for several, maybe even countless, reasons. You can not truly quantify music enjoyment--you can just do a popularity contest based on a few listens. (even that is very flawed--how many of your favorite songs were you favorite after only a few listens? How about a song that grew on you?).

Basically- even if you could you've essentially narrowed it down to popular taste--does that really mean the same as quality? Or help to determine who is better? Miles Davis was less "popular" than Elvis--does that make Elvis and his music "better"?

I don't think an act is "better" because more people like them. And again, I don't think there is a way to measure who is "better".

[Edited 4/8/07 1:54am]
[Edited 4/8/07 1:56am]

ufoclub said:

Yes, I do. Do you think Paul McCartney is a better guitar player than Prince?

skywalker said:

I THINK he's every bit as good. I've sat front row centre for both. FOR ME,
Prince's guitar playing can be somewhat all over the place live. Because Macca
doesn't wail and scream out with his guitar doesn't make him less skilled with
the instrument IN MY OWN VIEW. Sometimes I like to hear the notes the guitar plays and not just the noise.I THINK Macca is a far more interesting bass player than Prince, I also THINK he's a better composer for acoustic guitar. Look at the tabs for Blackbird.

I FEEL Prince is more of a showman with his guitar, but i'd RATE many guitarists i've seen live equal to Prince. Joe Walsh impressed me as much as Prince live, so did Lindsey Buckingham when I saw Fleetwood Mac.I PREFER Prince as an artist to Fleetwood mac etc..but I don't THINK he's like the world's best at every last thing he does.

All said as personal opinion without pretending to be factually correct. I didn't check for typos but i'll still get thru the rest of today if i've made any,lol.

People can get quite grumpy and aggresive about such trivial stuff can't they,lol.
[Edited 4/8/07 3:52am]

Illustrator said:

I've often wondered what Prince would have done if he had been in a proper music group of other like-minded creative people like the Beatles were. Can you imagine if there had been a Prince #2 that had his own slightly different ideas and how they would have kept each other edited and motivated and supplemented and collaborated...

that's why the Beatles were so damn great, there was more than one strong creative force.

In a way people think that Wendy and Lisa functioned as that kind of "band" element, but I'm not so sure.

viewaskew said:

John Lennon's statement was really taken out of context. He was not boasting or bragging about being "bigger than Jesus" (although it is very easy to automatically think that).

He was making a social commentary on how much misplaced adoration and worship that generation of kids placed on pop stars. If anything, John Lennon himself was ridiculing his own fame, but using it as a tool to make people think.

ufoclub said:

Agreed - that is what I was trying to say earlier. Prince surrounds himself with different people (who each contribute). It would've been great to still have a Revolution 20 years later and see what they would've accomplished.

Wendy/Lisa/Sheila (to me) were his biggest influences. I would love to see a reunion with any of all of them, and I would love to see him finally nail down a permanent group instead of new people every few years.

I'm not sure what the OP was hoping for with this thread. Art is entirely subjective. We can each sling our opinion into the ring until the end of time, and there still won't be a reliable consensus. You might end up with a general idea of which one is 'liked' more, but you'll never have an answer concerning which one is 'better'. So why the need to argue about it? Is it really that important to have some nebulous pseudo-confirmation?

^ I agree. "Better" is such a subjective term. Some people love Prince's music, some people hate it. Some people love the Beatles' music, some people hate it. The results of a "Who's better?" poll would depend on who was being asked.