Found this buried on the USA Today website. It's extremely short, but figured I'd share it here. I really hope Edna Gundersen does the real review.

---

First Impressions: Checking out (mostly) new albums

Pretty interesting batch of records to choose from what I happened to listen to last week. The format, as usual: quick first-hearing reviews of mostly upcoming albums, organized alphabetically for your convenience:

*snip*

Prince, Planet Earth (out July 24): An odd one, very anachronistic-sounding, split between slow-jam soul (one over-the-top spoken tune among them), spirited funk and the best upbeat pop songs he's done since he was entranced by The Bangles.

doesn't sound too bad. which song is "over the top" though?

livewire said:

Why's that? Cause she's never done anything but blow smoke up his ass? I have hard time taking her seriously. Or USA Today itself, for that matter.

tznekbsbfrvr said:

probably that mr. goodnight song.. everyone seems to say that

what does "anachronistic" mean

livewire said:

I guess is a very positive review, Branes says that in PE there are the best P pop songs since 1986!!!

I've never cared about other people's opinions when it comes to Prince's music. What touches me may not touch him.

vinx98 said:

Old fashioned, dated, old school. From the past.
Not in a bad way though.

TwiliteKid said:

Yep, that's it!

The fact that I know her a little bit, think she's a cool lady and respect her opinions doesn't figure into it at all.

livewire said:

That's fine man, and I'm sure she's a lovely person, but she is in no way objective when it comes to Prince. Would you not agree that that's an important quality in a journalist?
[Edited 7/6/07 12:04pm]

TwiliteKid said:

Of course I agree that objectivity is important for a journalist. But I completely disagree that "she is in no way objective when it comes to Prince." I've read Edna's reviews of Prince's albums for nearly two decades and IMO in all that time she's never come across as a gushing syncophant. It's true that for the most part she likes his music, but that's because she likes his music. She's an ethical reviewer. If she says she liked it, she did.

TwiliteKid said:

I disagree....Edna Gundersen is a fan, which of course makes her less objective then some non-fan but this also means that she understands his music much better than other journalists and is familiar with his body of work and therefore is able to come up with an interesting review. Probably more interesting than some review by some bitter, arrogant and cynical journalist who´ll come up with some " the artist formerly known as..." bullshit etc.

And the fact that she´s a fan does not mean that she will praise anything he puts out. Jon Bream is also a fan and has been following his career since day one, and he still writes critical stuff when necessary.

livewire said:

I didn't mean to imply that she's not ethical. I think you're right: she says she likes it because she does. However, I disagree that she doesn't come off like a syncophant. I think her reviews are littered with hyperbole, such as this nugget from her Rainbow Children review:

"...strikingly original music, a soulful symphony of rock, funk, gospel and jazz hybrids."

Or recall that she gave Emancipation 4 stars out of 4. I just don't think she's capable of looking at his work critically enough to be of value.

But you know what? My original post was really just intended to be funny. I'm sorry if I've offended you.