But then who is better, Wagner or Vanilla Ice? It's subjective so neither is better, right?

DreamyPopRoyalty said:

It's ok man, I think all of us kinda enjoy the new fans coming in ... we've had over a decade with nothing but people leaving, so welcome
The superbowl was really good, no doubts about that. There's a lot of stuff for you to listen to still that will no doubt blow your mind... and it ain't the Beatles

MantuaPharoah said:

Artistically the Beatles own Prince easilly. No comparison. Now you can say Prince is more talented, sings better, dances better, plays instruments better. But artistically there's no comparison.

I enjoy the Beatles more than Prince.

Are we factoring Tony M. and Yoko Ono into the mix? Cause that really complicates things.

I don't necessarily disagree, but what do you mean by artistically?




So being more talented, singing better, dancing better, and playing instruments better is not a sign of artist merit? It seems that this statement sort of contradicts your previous one.




Again, I am not disagreeing, but I am interested in how/what criteria you use to judge "artistically" who is better....



Does this fact make them artistically better?
[Edited 4/8/07 13:01pm]

Here is why he is better than everyone:

If you get tired of Beatles music , you have to go to another artist. If you get tired of Prince music , you go onto another Prince ERA of music, and itll keep you interested.

ufoclub said:

Before you ask that question, define what you mean by "better" because it sounds to me that you're still asking a question that is entirely subjective.

We can't base 'better' simply on who someone likes more, and we can't base it on popularity - for obvious reasons - so what then?

krayzie said:

No, judging art is not an exact science. How do you measure the natural creative skill of either one?

The short answer is no, but Prince is a great artist in his own right!

Graycap23 said:

Gotta agree with you Graycap23, I like listening to the Beatles but the passion is never there for me. I hear great songs with clever ideas and nice hooks but it's always missed the feeling I get when I hear a passion infused Prince song or when I see him live, I feel what I think he's sending out. The beatles, just good solid music for me.

luvsexy4all said:

That applies more to the Beatles. They have more variety per album and between than Prince to my ears. Most outsiders see a lot more similarity between Prince songs than hard core Prince fans.

In fact, Prince himself actively tries to have a marketable signature Prince sound (since "Dirty Mind") (and was clearly abandoned on "Rainbow Children") for most all his major pop releases. He has instructed his engineers not to deviate too much from it (source cited: Femi Jeyi). It's the "Prince" brand sound: Minimal instruments up to the fore, even accent instruments like hi hats or percussion effects are dry and up front in the mix, vocals are usually filled with undisciplined emotion, multi-tracked, and pop out in the mix as well.

Prince even releases songs he has lying around for years with a little bit of tweaking. This also lends an even consistency to his releases.

Try to convince someone that "Wild Honey Pie" is the same band as "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" or "The Long and Winding Road" from the sound alone.
"
Of course there are exceptions to Prince's catalog like "Bob George", "Ronnie Talk to Russia", or "Te Amo Corazon" (which could fit right into Rainbow Children) that seem unusual for him.

prettylies said:

This is a humorous debate and much credit to Skywalker for doing a great job holding his own. However, saying Paul McCartney is as good as Prince with a guitar is utterly ridiculous. Playing an instrument is a technical matter and Paul Mac is no where near as accomplished in guitar playing as Prince. If you want to hear each note defined, there's loads of shows where he plays jazz guitar, as well as studio recording as well as pop tracks. I'd be willing to wager no serious, accomplished musician nor McCartney himself would even put him in the same league as Prince. And yes, I noticed all the caps indicating YOUR OPINION, it's just too ludicrous not to comment on. Can you seriously imagine Paul McCartney playing the solo on Let's Go Crazy, My Guitar Gently Weeps or Just My Imagination? I can't imagine him doing anythng but picking his jaw off the floor. Same thing goes for the bass but I'll grant you those tabs on Blackbird are something else.

You make it sound as if you could simply take any song from a Prince album of any era and drop it on any other Prince album and that the difference in production technique wouldn't be noticable. That is VERY inaccurate. If you are suggesting that Prince has maintained the same "sound" throughout his career you need to go back and listen again. The production techniques on 1999 are very different than that on Diamonds and Pearls or Emancipation, or One Nite Alone, or Parade.

There is no doubt that The Beatles are more varied than the poster you were responding to claimed, but you are going to have to fight a much harder battle to successfully argue that :

1. Prince doesn't/didn't vary his production technique much.
2. That The Beatles did more changing in 6+ years in the studio than Prince has done in nearly 30.

Listen, I am not saying that you are wrong, but you are clearly giving Prince too little credit for his evolving sound.

And in the end--you still haven't come up with a way to prove who is "better". Even if The Beatles are more varied, which I do not think they are, that does not make them "better".

Maybe we should change the discussion to : Whom do you like more Prince or The Beatles and why.....

[Edited 4/8/07 19:54pm]
[Edited 4/8/07 20:06pm]

skywalker said:

Yup, we're 100+ posts in here and there's been no serious attempt to define exactly what 'better' means, if when requested.

ufoclub said:

Naw....you can listen to 87/88 era jump to 93/94 go onto 01/02 back to 80-82 and only yo momma gonna get bored

ufoclub said:

dp
[Edited 4/8/07 20:33pm]

This is tough by far. You're talking about a group who both Elvis and James Brown couldn't take down combined. I'll say this much, individually, Prince would slay them one by one. But as a whole, I just don't know. I'll call it a draw and leave it at that.

LoDog said:

Take down?? In a fight? When else would Elvis and JB have to "take down" The Beatles?? Both of 'em had better stage shows and more hits than The Beatles (again that doesn't make anyone better), but back to the point....

I bet if Elvis and JB teamed up they could both beat up all 4 Beatles in a fight. John Lennon said "Give Peace a chance"? JB had the big "payback", and Elvis...well you saw his movies, also he knows karate.....

This is a humorous debate and much credit to Skywalker for doing a great job holding his own. However, saying Paul McCartney is as good as Prince with a guitar is utterly ridiculous. Playing an instrument is a technical matter and Paul Mac is no where near as accomplished in guitar playing as Prince. If you want to hear each note defined, there's loads of shows where he plays jazz guitar, as well as studio recording as well as pop tracks. I'd be willing to wager no serious, accomplished musician nor McCartney himself would even put him in the same league as Prince. And yes, I noticed all the caps indicating YOUR OPINION, it's just too ludicrous not to comment on. Can you seriously imagine Paul McCartney playing the solo on Let's Go Crazy, My Guitar Gently Weeps or Just My Imagination? I can't imagine him doing anythng but picking his jaw off the floor. Same thing goes for the bass but I'll grant you those tabs on Blackbird are something else.[/quote]


Playing an instrument is a technical matter!! You're not talking to a 12 yr old you know budd,lol. I'm a 38 year old musician who has played giutar/ Piano for over 25 years, to a very high technical level thank you very much. Just because my opinion doesn't match yours doesn't make me wrong. It wud be far easier on a Prince forum to shut up and agree with Prince is god but I'll stick to my opinions.

Course I can imagine Paul Mccartney playing While my guitar Gently Weeps on guitar (without the need to make it a Prince solo and staying loyal to its origins and the integrity ofthe actual song). As for let's go crazy, God I love that song, but if you're a talented musician yourself i'm surprised you use that as an example of his great guitar playing?? Glitter, bows and bangles don't make something technically difficult do they? Otherwise we might as well talk about Aerosmith and Kiss!! I can play the guitar parts to Let's Go Crazy myself and have been doing since I was 15 or 16, not that technically difficut at all.

Yes Prince is a good jazz guitarist, in my opinion, I think the guy is overall a musical genius, but again, I've seen many guitarists live (which is where music matters to me) that have impressed me as much as Prince and yes that includes Paul Mccartney. My opinion, and it sits happily with me, without me having to resort to arguing about it...it's just an opinion and you're no one to tell me i'm wrong...U can disagree, but you telling me i'm wrong is quite an arrogant stance and counts for nothing
[Edited 4/9/07 3:55am]

skywalker said:

The Beatles created a more complex, mature and diverse body of work. Using new music, sound and instruments. While Prince is much more a mix of things that already existed before him. The Beatles are true originators, creating new concepts and ideas. They created some of the most amazing melodies. I can't say the same for Prince. The Beatles are definitely more talented artistically.



Now you can say Prince is a better performer, singer, dancer or musician.

But I put John and Paul higher in my book.

This question is a good litmus test for one's Prince zealotry and how it stacks against their knowledge of history.

The Beatles, quite simply, are the supreme pop music act of all time. They pioneered the boy band, they introduced psychedelic pop, they blazed the trail for experimental art rock, they practically invented the concept album and the music video, they were the first to play a live stadium concert, the first to play to a global television audience, and they expanded what themes and subject matter were appropriate for mainstream radio. They captivated the entire world, defined a whole era, reflected the spirit of the most radical, turbulent generation of modern times (maybe ever), and they dominated the charts to their very last album. The Beatles are synonymous with fame, delirious fan girls, world wide mania. When a band makes it and performs to sellout crowds, they say they feel like the Beatles. They are to rock what Einstein is to intelligence.

If you think Prince's stylistic changes are remarkable, consider The Beatle's transformation from teenybopper bubblegum group to brooding folk singers to tripped out Middle Eastern mystics to socially conscious activist rockers. And they did it without a precedent. Superstardom didn't even exist until Beatlemania. And rock 'n' roll wasn't considered art until Sgt. Pepper. Not only did they set the standard for pop celebrity, they also set the template for pop artistry and evolution, which Prince cribbed from liberally to chart his own development.

Prince is all kinds of wonderful, possibly the most talent ever assembled in one human being, but anyone serious about music history will have to defer to the gargantuan achievement of the Beatles. Their contribution is so seminal to the formation of rock 'n' roll, its idioms and forms, its attitude, look, and spirit, that they rightly deserve the title greatest rock band/pop act/artist of all time. I'm sure there's a case to be made for Prince (if anyone approaches the Beatles' artistry it's him), but splitting hairs over the precise meaning of "better" or dismissing all notions of rank as "subjective" is probably not the way to do it.

padawan said:

MantuaPharoah said:

You should've posted this thread in Music:Non-Prince. The orgers there can give your a better arguement.

prettylies said:

My point is guitar playing is a technical matter and therefore, while it's still subject to opinion, you can break it down a bit more like algebra -- level of proficiency in styles and so forth. I don't know where you got the idea I didn't think it wasn't. And in terms of technique, Paul McCartney or "Macca" as you so intimately refer to him, isn't anywhere near Prince. He's an average guitar player, nothing more.

Second, I meant the solo on Let's Go Crazy.

Third, I'm sure Paul McCartney could strum along just fine to While My Guitar Gently Weeps, but if you think he could play a solo with as much ferocity, emotion and technique like Prince did, then you need to remove those Wings-coloured glasses, my friend. Or the Super Bowl press-conference, or Just My Imagination or the warm up on Joy In Repetition from ONA Live, or any other of his thousands of solos. And Prince hardly distorts his sound, it can get crunchier when he wants it to, but he certainly developed a rep for playing sweet, clean solos ala' Santana earlier in his career. He may not be the best guitar player ever, but he's certainly the most versitle I've ever seen. He can't do Classical guitar, though.

Lastly, I love Paul McCartney too and think a good many of his solo records are undervalued. Ram, London Town, even Tug of War and London Town are favorites of mine, so I'm not coming down on the guy as someone who lost his relevancy post Beatles, I just can't imagine anyone other than a Beatles fan thinking the guy is as good a guitar player as Prince. It's one of the nuttiest thing I've read on this board and we all know there's been a long line of nutty things written here. I guess fandom does things to your head and blinds your vision.

Second lastly, I hardly think Prince is a god. I think his only worth has been his incredible live shows for the past umpteen years. In fact, while his studio output is incredibly tired and trite since 88 (save for a few spots) his live bands and performances have gotten stronger.

Got to be the beatles, based upon the sheer range of musical styles. U can tell a prince song from 50yards. The beatles were able to utilise the talent of 4 pple, hence wider range of possibilities.....

pigeontoes said:

Or at least 3 people.

I agree with Skywalker, this is a silly question. Who had more impact on pop music? The Beatles, no doubt about it. Who is the musical genius, par excellence? Prince, no doubt about it. Who is better? Well, art should not be treated as a politic or a sporting event. You don't have to have 'your team,' in art, and by attempting to make it a game of colors, you go down a road of pornographic appreciation and chest thumping, ala, a Footballhooligan and removes you from the path of aesthetic arrest and enjoyment which good dance, music, sex, romance should fill you with.

My point is guitar playing is a technical matter and therefore, while it's still subject to opinion, you can break it down a bit more like algebra -- level of proficiency in styles and so forth. I don't know where you got the idea I didn't think it wasn't. And in terms of technique, Paul McCartney or "Macca" as you so intimately refer to him, isn't anywhere near Prince. He's an average guitar player, nothing more.

Second, I meant the solo on Let's Go Crazy.

Third, I'm sure Paul McCartney could strum along just fine to While My Guitar Gently Weeps, but if you think he could play a solo with as much ferocity, emotion and technique like Prince did, then you need to remove those Wings-coloured glasses, my friend. Or the Super Bowl press-conference, or Just My Imagination or the warm up on Joy In Repetition from ONA Live, or any other of his thousands of solos. And Prince hardly distorts his sound, it can get crunchier when he wants it to, but he certainly developed a rep for playing sweet, clean solos ala' Santana earlier in his career. He may not be the best guitar player ever, but he's certainly the most versitle I've ever seen. He can't do Classical guitar, though.

Lastly, I love Paul McCartney too and think a good many of his solo records are undervalued. Ram, London Town, even Tug of War and London Town are favorites of mine, so I'm not coming down on the guy as someone who lost his relevancy post Beatles, I just can't imagine anyone other than a Beatles fan thinking the guy is as good a guitar player as Prince. It's one of the nuttiest thing I've read on this board and we all know there's been a long line of nutty things written here. I guess fandom does things to your head and blinds your vision.

Second lastly, I hardly think Prince is a god. I think his only worth has been his incredible live shows for the past umpteen years. In fact, while his studio output is incredibly tired and trite since 88 (save for a few spots) his live bands and performances have gotten stronger.[/quote]



You STIL talk as tho ur talking FACT. You aren't , you're merely talking opinion, as am I.I'm not saying i'm right, i'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying mine is an opinion and as valid as your's without getting personal and calling people's opinions nutty and claiming I have wings coloured glasses. I'm a far bigger lennon fan than Mccartney (or macca as he's known pretty much throughout the world, again you being sarcastic and getting personal and straying from your point).

I'm a much, much bigger fan of Prince than Paul Mccartney (solo)..much bigger. I can still rate Macca as a guitarist, it doesn't make me wrong. Try to just allow another opinion to that of your's without the need to resort to insults or sarcasm. The lack of being able to do that suggests the coloured glasses belong to someone else other than I.

I respect your right to an opinion without question, please respect my right to mine.Again, you are in no position to tell me i'm wrong, you aren't qualified to do so, You merely have a right to an opinion that's different to mine, you aren't the holder of fact on this subject as there are none.

Try being happy with ur opinion and if you know you're right and i'm nutty, leave me in my rose coloured world of nuttiness, it shouldn't be important to you that I agree with you.
[Edited 4/9/07 8:36am]
[Edited 4/9/07 8:41am]

I'm a bigger Lennon fan, too, though I think due to volume "Macca" ended up putting out just as much good music. Lennon has more than his share of unlistenable music. Blame it on the smack.

Well can you enlighten me to where I might find Paul McCartney displaying these great guitar techniques? I believe I own virtually all of his releases, solo and Wings, and I'm not able to think of one guitar solo that McCartney has to his credit that's even in the realm of Prince's worst day. Denny Laine has some fine moments on record, but I can't think of anything for McCartney.

Wall said:[quote]I'm a bigger Lennon fan, too, though I think due to volume "Macca" ended up putting out just as much good music. Lennon has more than his share of unlistenable music. Blame it on the smack.

Well can you enlighten me to where I might find Paul McCartney displaying these great guitar techniques? I believe I own virtually all of his releases, solo and Wings, and I'm not able to think of one guitar solo that McCartney has to his credit that's even in the realm of Prince's worst day. Denny Laine has some fine moments on record, but I can't think of anything for McCartney





As my sig on my profile says "a mind changed against its will, is of the same opinion still." We both seem to be Beatles fans, we both seem to be lennon fans, we even both seem to prefer Prince from 10 years ago and back .. rather than 10 years ago to present. I think thats enuff common ground to be able 2 agree to disagree on anything else.

I didn't join here to justify my opinions. I just came on cause i'm a Prince fan, a music fan and like to talk to other fans. I'm happy for people to disagree with my opinion and to have a different one. Let's just leave it at that eh and both enjoy listening to what we like,lol