EvilAlthom said:

dreamshaman32 said:

Excellent post!

This post should go in the quotable member section.

skywalker said:

Where exactly have you been for the last 15 years? You yourself have started threads complaining about people's frequent criticism of P's output. You said in this very thread "How many times have we heard from fans that Prince has lost it? We hear it a lot." Now you're turning around and saying that it's just me and a small group of "my friends". Make up your mind. Or could it be that you change your mind according to what's most convenient to you at the time?

See, back in 2004 most the USA rediscovered Prince and he has a so called "comeback". He had the year's most successful tour and he has since been riding a wave of popularity that he had not seen since at least 1991

I'm sure you know as well as I do that was a nostalgia tour. People were going to hear the old hits that Prince had promised to play. They didn't go to hear his new material. The proof of that is that he gave away more than a million free copies of his latest album to punters. Why would he do that if they were already into it? I don't remember him giving away free copies of PR to concert goers in 1984. He didn't need to. They had it already. Furthermore, it was the recent material they wanted to hear, unlike in 2004. I'm sure you're aware of this.

Tiresome is you trying to quabble about technicalities rather than try to back up your faulty claim.

Said the pot to the kettle.

Now. You've done a good job of ignoring the most important points, so I'll have to remind you of them and see what novel ways you find to avoid them again. You said that Prince's 80s work only came to be appreciated in hindsight, and it got "mixed reviews" at the time, implying that it was no different to the situation now. I responded saying that although specific albums may have baffled some people, he was far and away the most critically acclaimed artist of that decade. If you look at the end of decade critics polls he topped almost all of them. Above Springsteen, above MJ. Furthermore, he had veteran artists like Miles Davis, Eric Clapton, Stevie Wonder, Paul McCartney and others drooling over his then current work. His peers like Madonna idolised him (and his then current work) too. He was routinely hailed as a genius even by people who didn't like him. That was all based on recent achievements. So to imply that there was some general retrospective reevaluation is extremely disingenuous. His work was revered at the time. For every negative review there were a dozen ecstatic ones. If anything, his work has been unfairly reevaluated downwards, as people's perception of him as a godlike genius has been eroded. Look at any poll of the best all time albums. Prince will usually be ranked below far lesser talents like MJ, Kirt Cobain, and even (sometimes) Madonna. In the 80s or early 90s that would have been unthinkable.
The criticisms of his output we hear now have been ongoing for many years. They are not just restricted to an album here or an album there. If you pretend not to know that then you just make yourself look dishonest.
[b][Edited 7/14/07 5:49am]

EvilAlthom said:

LOL. I just re-read the review. Loder is not really criticising the album. He just seems disappointed that Prince hasn't saved the human race and delivered us all to the promised land. LOL

ufoclub said:

Read Per Nilsen's "Prince: A Documentary" released in 1989. He systematically quotes reviews of all of P's albums up to Batman. You'll find that most reviews of SOTT were ecstatic, particularly in the UK where they were practically having orgasms over it. No Prince album since has received that kind of unreserved adulation from people who heard it. American reviews were more reserved, but still overwhelmingly positive. The one so called "bad" review people have drudged up (from Kurt Loder) actually says much more about how revered P was at the time than it says about the album itself. Loder's criticism seems to be that Prince is merely like Jesus when he could be so much more.
It's also worth noting that no one here has even attempted to argue that PR was not universally acclaimed on it's release, because we all know it was.

midnightmover said:

Both Purple Rain and SOTT were robbed of Album Of The Year, IMO. SOTT is my favorite album, by any artist.

Prince has always seemed to absorb the "culture of the day" (from disco to punk to pop to R&B to even rap). But in the past, he used various elements and molded them into his own sound. In recent past, he seems to just be copying sounds and putting out what he thinks the public wants.

I also think that with the current state of the music industry, it's hard for Prince to be a rebel AND stay in the public eye. He's trying to secure an entirely new younger fanbase, so he's playing it "safe" so to speak. I doubt we'll hear any controversial stuff anytime soon (TRC, The Truth, etc.).

I'm content if each of his albums have at least 3 or 4 killer tracks.

midnightmover said:

I'm almost 38, I read reviews in my newspapers, magazines, and got reviews live from friends and dj's at the time. I saw how teenagers and college age music lovers responded.

let's see if google has some of the main criticisms from the main pop culture media at the time...

On a side note (not relating to reviews per se), I find mistakes in facts of Per Nilsen's book about little things. Especially when I was actually there at an aftershow or event.

ah well, google doesn't hold reviews that far back that are convenient to find.
[Edited 7/14/07 6:52am]

I might also add that Dirty Mind was another 80s Prince album that received unanimously positive reviews. That was when critics first began to drool over him and realised what a colossal talent he was. No cynical attempts to try and rewrite history can obscure that. The only criticism he got was on moral grounds for the sexual lyrics. Artistically he was praised emphatically at the time.

NME said "The first thing that has to be said is that this would be a stunning single LP. And if anyone knows that, it's Prince himself, the clue being the way he has arranged the running order of the LP.

Apart from the title track, and two other songs, sides one and two contains some of the weakest material Prince ever committed to vinyl. Most of the songs here sound like demos, and are vapid and totally underdeveloped. As a reaction to the 80's emphasis on over-production, it's a brilliant statement. In reality, it simply doesn't work."

that "shoulda been cut down to one lp" was a very typical criticism of SOTT, which later resurfaced (more accurately imo) with Emancipation.
[Edited 7/14/07 7:15am]

Detroit Free Press:

Diversity has its pitfalls, however, and "Sign's" spare, high-tech numbers often sound like good ideas that were never finished. If he had lightened the workload and taken more time, "Sign" would be a killer album instead of an uneven, though noble, document of experimentation.

ElCapitan said:

I also remember that most reviews of SOTT used the word experimental.

Reviewers seemed to change their tone after the movie came out.

Se7en said:

The movie certainly helped me appreciate the album more. I just didn't "get" certain songs at the time.

ElCapitan said:

I can understand the criticism that it could have been edited, but look at that first line "The first thing to say is that this would be a stunning single LP". In other words no one is disputing that the album contains breathtaking songs. I notice you've edited this review dramatically. Could it be that the reviewer then goes into ecstatic praise of side two? I think so.

Se7en said:

Prince was aware of that "experimental" label...

"What people were saying about Sign o' the Times was 'There are some great songs on it, and there are some experiments on it.' I hate the word experiment -- it sounds like something you didn't finish. Well, they have to understand that's the way to have a double record and make it interesting."

ElCapitan said:

Well, if the Detroit Free Press is talking.... What have you got next for us, The Baghdad Gazette?
P.S. How many rave reviews are you trudging through in order to dig up these highly edited and obscure nuggets?

midnightmover said:

DETROIT FREE PRESS

Published: Monday, March 30, 1987
Section: FTR
Page: 3C

pop: Prince's latest a mixture of styles

Sign O' the Times -- Prince (Paisley Park): With five albums of his own (including two double-record sets), a half-dozen production jobs, two films and three tours during the past four and a half years, you can't call Prince lazy. Or unambitious. The two-record "Sign," his ninth album, is his broadest outing yet, a largely one-person project that takes on a something- for-everyone range of musical styles and lyrical approaches. There's James Brown-style funk ("Housequake"), smooth Philly soul ("The Ballad of Dorothy Parker"), r&b crooning ("Adore"), sordid sexuality ("It," "Hot Thing"), peppy pop-rock ("I Could Never Take the Place of Your Man," "U Got the Look"), psychedelia ("The Cross," "Starfish and Coffee") and a terrific stomper called "It's Gonna Be a Beautiful Night," recorded live in Paris. Diversity has its pitfalls, however, and "Sign's" spare, high-tech numbers often sound like good ideas that were never finished. If he had lightened the workload and taken more time, "Sign" would be a killer album instead of an uneven, though noble, document of experimentation.

-- GARY GRAFF

Botton line we can argue among our selfs as much as we want...the lp sucks!!! Prince delivered a stinker.

midnightmover said:

ufoclub asked for some critical reviews from back then, he got some..

Of course there's no shortage of glowing reviews for SOTT. Time, the New York Times and other loved it. Even Rolling Stone has since re-evaluated its review of SOTT as their website doesn't reference Loder's original review.

That said, there's a reason SOTT was robbed of album of the year, and it's partly due to some of the criticism (wrong imo) it received back then. In hindsight, history has properly deemed it a masterpiece, but at the time it wasn't quite so unanimous.
[Edited 7/14/07 7:47am]

ElCapitan said:

Two thngs. Firstly, that's not the review I asked for, as I'm sure you know. I asked for the NME one where I'm pretty sure the writer goes into ecstatic praise for Side Two. However, the one you've shown us proves my case anyway. As soon as we read the unedited review it becomes clear that this short review is basically positive, but just with some caveats at the end. Caveats, by the way that I kind of agree with, though I think he's overstating the case. Even the songs that could have been left out are at least interesting, which is more than can be said for the 12 or so tracks that should have been deleted from Emancipation. Mr Happy anyone?
[Edited 7/14/07 8:05am]

midnightmover said:


It is what it is, there's some good, there's some bad... it's a mixed review.


of all the weird things to debate....
[Edited 7/14/07 8:09am]

ElCapitan said:

You're borrowing a leaf out of skywalker's book here. Re-read the post you're referring to. You'll see the "ecstatic praise" prediction was referring to the NME article you quoted in highly edited form. You still haven't posted that full review for some reason. Either you were confused and got mixed up, or you deliberately decided not to because it would prove me right.

P.S. I've now edited my previous post to include this point.
[Edited 7/14/07 8:54am]

midnightmover said:

This is retarded. Yes NME liked the other half of the album. They loved it. Half the album was a good example of Prince at his best...

The point is that SOTT was not universally acclaimed at the time. It should have been. But it wasn't. Even Prince knew that.

ElCapitan said:

You're getting a bit emotional now (that's not you in your avatar, is it?). Let's keep the namecalling out of this. Firstly, I'm still waiting for that unedited NME review. If you could show the whole Detroit Free Press one then I'm sure you can show the NME one just as easily. Could it be that the praise heaped on Side Two is a little too "emphatic" for your liking?
I also think you're taking the phrase "universally acclaimed" a bit too literally. Of course some had reservations, but as I'm sure you will concede, the vast majority were overwhelmingly positive. The rather hollow attempts to prove otherwise only make that clearer, since I'm sure you know I could fill several thread pages with unedited rave reviews if I wanted.
Finally, let's not ignore the key point here, which is that the reviews for SOTT were a million times better than anything he's released subsequently. This shows why the comparison between the response to his work then and his work now is a specious one. That's the real point here.
[Edited 7/14/07 8:33am]

midnightmover said:

I didn't call you anything. this "debate" is retarded. I'm done posting reviews for today.

You're right,I'm, wrong, everybody loved SOTT.

have a good weekend

jacobpb

My premise was never anything as concrete as "you must hear all songs to completely form an opinion". Simply that it is lazy and premature not to. Do what you want--I still maintain that it is jumping to gun and being ambitiously cynical to do so. Sorry if I upset you with that. Can you not see where I am coming from?




I never attempted to debate the quality of the album. Just to question why you would review a half listened to album...


What are your motives and intentions to give us a lengthy review to an album you have only partially listened to?

Again, can you not see why I might be puzzled to by you going off on a rant when you have not heard the whole album? What's the point? Don't you think it's premature to get all worked up one way or the other? Again--I am sorry if I pissed you off--that was not my intent.





Cool. I am sorry that you felt like I was personally attacking you. I am not sure it warranted you getting angry enough to be edited by the moderators.

Bottom Line: I still don't understand why you'd post a such a long review about an album you have not fully heard. Nor do I think it makes for a good accurate assessment of the art.It's like if Roger Ebert reviewed a movie based on the trailer. What's the point?
[Edited 7/14/07 11:49am]

midnightmover said



Listen, you made general statements to the effect of "everybody knows Prince has lost it".

I am simply asking you: Who are "these people" or the "everybody" you are talking about? Prince fans? Your friends? The general public? People at this website? That's all. People here at prince.org are fickle--no doubt. Myself included. So what?



I am just trying to understand you better. If you want to be rude about it we can just quit..





Call it what you like-- in general,no one walked away from the tour or went into it saying that "Prince has lost it".





I've backed up all my claims.


I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree because we are talking ultimately about how we, and others, perceive Prince and his legacy. Personally, I think that the general perception of Prince is MUCH better than it has been in years. He IS STILL hailed as a genius. Yes, the 80's were his heydey--but people still know that he is one of a kind.

I disagree that he was universally loved in the 80's---it wasn't exactly easy to be a fan then. His albums rarely were the best sellers of the time, and his reviews, despite what you say, were mixed. I am not saying that the 80's weren't a glorious time for him--but after Purple Rain it was basically his 1999 fanbase that was really into him. Hell, the USA portion of the Lovesexy Tour didn't even sell out everywhere.

Think about that--Prince in 1988, 4 years after Purple Rain, couldn't sell out his biggest/best tour (Lovesexy) in the USA. His career was at a lull. He had to do Batman to straighten out his finances and have a "hit" record again.

I am not sure why you are so defensive of his untouchable 80's period. All I am claiming is that things weren't as vastly different from how Prince was viewed then as now by the general public.

He was great then--he is still now. For every Prince lover in the 80's there was a naysayer--same as 2007. Difference is--you seem to be on the other side of the fence.

Now as to how "good" the music was then vs. now is a whole other debate...


[Edited 7/14/07 10:40am]

No you are right. Prince albums, especially after Purple Rain, often received mixed reviews. They still do.

Hi guys.. I have read some of the text throughout this forum.. and it was interesting reading - u guys are hardcore!!

Just to go back to the beginning for me. One night in 1980, [I was 12yrs old at the time] I was listening to music under my pillow so that my mother couldn't hear it!!
I heard:
"I ain't got no money
I ain't like those other guys you hang around
And it's kinda funny
But they always seem to let you down
And I get discouraged
'cause I never see you anymore
And I need your love, babe yeah
That's all I'm living for, yeah"
.....and we all know how that goes..

You know what.. he had my LOVE from that day! I had no idea who he was or what he looked like, but the raw [falsetto] voice of his just hit my core. From that day, I was berated and laughed at for enjoying Prince's music and for just liking him.. period. From the moment I saw a photo of him, I was in love.. I didn't care, my nickname was 'the Prince freak' - people were actually offended by him and his music.. and trashed him relentlessly and I refused to let them.

I have all his music and believe it or not , there is some not so good stuff in there - man alive.. but I don't give a stuff! There is no artist who only has good material - we are all human and our emotions, try as you might, will come out in one way or another. Not everyone will like everything and that should be ok!

I have seen Prince live each and every time in London. I turn up and I am transformed by this completely awesome performer. I don't agree he is now ONLY a live musician, he has much more to him than that and has nothing else to prove as far as I am concerned, but he probably has other plans.. so good for him!!!

For all the great memories to his great music, I am grateful and lucky to have experienced that.

We should all be happy and excited.. who knows what is in store?! Roll on Aug 1st.. enjoy my friends.. take care out there. Marcie x

skywalker said:

Once again you're misrepresenting what I said. I never said "Everybody knows Prince has lost it". I simply said that was a widespread view, whether you agree with it or not. You have flat out contradicted yourself on this point. One moment complaining about people's negativity, then denying that negativity exists.



Since you yourself have elsewhere acknowledged the prevalence of this view you shouldn't still be asking me who "these people" are. You are merely feigning ignorance in order to imply that the view is not widespread when you know it is. "These people" fall into all of the four categories you just mentioned.
[Edited 7/15/07 6:08am]

skywalker said:

In the first sentence of the quoted section you're responding to, I mention that you've ignored the central points and predict you will ignore them again. Sure enough, you've done just that. I pointed out that Prince was revered at the time for his then current work, after you claimed it only came to be respected in hindsight. You haven't addressed any specifics, merely repeating the same mantra, "reviews were mixed", etc, even after I comprehensively dealt with that point elsewhere. I've pointed out that the respect he gets now is totally different to the respect he got then which was based on his then current work. Nowadays he's an elder statesman of rock which is a totally different thing altogether. You've ignored this distinction. Moreover, I never said he was "universally loved" in the 80s as you claimed. He's way too idiosyncratic a figure to ever be "universally loved".