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.

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.

Well, after hearing the PE tracks - it is sadly apparent: Prince has decided to become (or fell into becoming) merely a live musician -- albeit one of the best live musicians of today.

No longer does Prince seem to care about creating quality, complex, interesting, and simply well produced songs. Now, it's all about playing live and putting on concerts. It's as if he's putting out PE (and 3121) because he has too, because he's going through the motions (ironic, because this is exactly what he claimed to do in 1995 and 1996).

His production is lazy and lame. Point: think about the song "Positivity." Imagine him recording this song in the studio in 2007. We would not hear the interesting beat, the layered guitar, or the complex arrangements. We'd here just a normal drum beat with bland guitar and his regular voice. it would ruin the entire song. Darling Nikki: same thing. That song is good only because of the brilliant production and complex arrangements. Today we have "Lolita" and "Guitar."

I shouldn't fault Prince -- he's done it for a while and maybe he just doesn't have the energy/creativity to produce in the studio anymore, maybe he's content on being a great live musician -- nothing wrong with that - but as prince fan it's depressing to see his "comeback" tempered with such lame new output.

Maybe we are talking about the difference between Prince live and in the studio, but it seems to me that you are speaking about Prince's career on a much bigger scale than that. You seem to be speaking of how the world views him.

If the general perception is that Prince has "lost his mojo" he wouldn't be having the massive success he is having now.

I claimed that it (his 80s work) went from being well respected, to being considered damn near untouchable.

Jatrig said:

I agree, just like most of the big acts of the past...

But I don't think that Prince doesn't care about creating quality, complex, interesting, and simply well produced songs. He's just not inspired like he used to be in the 80's. It happens to all artists.

But at least he releases new materials every year.

Syevie Wonder has released nothing for many years.

Comprehensively? You have not been specific either. You never gave us any sources, or posted any reviews

I don't agree with the claim that all of his post Purple Rain albums were met with only universal praise

I am sorry if you thought I was trying to ignore your points to further my argument

Just for the record, Prince has just sold out 21 shows at one of London's biggest venues, plus he's about to sell out the corresponding aftershows as well (I already had problems getting tickets for that one day after they went on sale). All this has happened without any announcement of these shows being "greatest hits" shows or anything. In fact, there was next to nothing announced what will be played in the London shows.

Congratulations. After several obtuse paragraphs you finally acknowledged a key distinction you've been thus far avoiding, though typically you try to pull out of it after one sentence. No, I'm not talking on a "much bigger scale than that". That's exactly what I'm saying. Forget concerts. Everyone agrees he's still great live, so we can leave that out of the conversation.

What massive success? As stated above we're not talking about concerts. The Rolling Stones still sell out their concerts and no one cares about any song they've recorded now for 20 years. World wide sales of his albums, whilst better than in the 90s, are still hardly stunning.

You've been spending way too much time on the org. P's 80s output is highly respected now, but is certainly not considered untouchable. Like I said earlier, take a look at any poll of the best all time albums. P will only ever get one entry (SOTT). He will usually be ranked way below people who were less critically respected at the time, like MJ. As I've already said DM, PR, and SOTT were all ecstatically praised on their release. Even those who tried to quibble about SOTT failed to produce a genuinely bad review and were forced to acknowledge most reviews were ecstatic. He topped every critics poll at the end of the decade. The other albums, which genuinely did get mixed reviews, were also lavishly praised an awful lot. All were listed among the best albums of the 80s yet have subsequenly come, unfairly, to be ranked below U2, Nirvana, Madonna and others.

I'm being forced to repeat myself now, simply because you ignored these points before.

1. The huge respect he received from his peers and critics in the 80s was based on then current work. The respect he has now is based on his older work and his position as an elder statesman of rock. This is a distinction you seem blind to. Musicians citing him as an influence will rave about PR, not NPS.

2. The Musicology Tour which you frequently cite as evidence of his ongoing relevance was a nostalgia tour. How else do you explain the fact that he gave away a millon free copies of that album? If they loved it anyway he wouldn't need to, would he?

you still claim his work is received just as well now as it was then?

I'll leave you to ponder that while I seek out some more consistent human beings to talk to. Adieu.

krayzie said:

Krayzie,
I'm gonna have to correct ya. Stevie Wonder had a release in 2005 call A Time 2 Love.

VonMarie said:

I'm gonna re correct ya, Stevie wonder has released one album since 1995. Compared to Prince, that's pretty nothing.

Just to stamp out the idea that P's 80s albums have gradually been elevated over time, I googled the Rolling Stone Albums Of The 80s list published in 1990. As you'll see, Prince rules it with Purple Rain at #2, 1999 at #16, Dirty Mind at # 18, and Sign O The Times at #74.

http://www.rocklistmusic....stone.html

Here's their all time best list from 1987. P's at #20 with Dirty Mind and #39 with PR

http://www.xs4all.nl/~fsg...Stone.html

Then here's the most recent poll of theirs. You'll find that Prince has been downgraded in favour of the likes of MJ, Nirvana, and U2. He now only has PR at #72 and SOTT at #93 whilst MJ has shot up the list.

http://www.rollingstone.c...f_all_time

I print this merely to snuff out a disingenuous argument before it actually gets any credibility.

Just to stamp out the idea that P's 80s albums have gradually been elevated over time,

midnightmover said:

And just to be clear--I never said that P's albums have been elevated by critics--I was talking about their status amongst hardcore Prince fans.

Now be honest. Have any of his albums in the 90s or 00s received the same level of critical praise as DM, PR,or SOTT? Put your cards on the table. If you think they have, then come out and say so. If not, and you admit they haven't, then you need to do the mature thing and stop trying to equivocate.

Please stop with this all-bold nonsense.

I thought the same thing. [Bait snip - luv4u]

Let's be clear about what you said. Should you dispute that you said these things I'll gladly produce quotes. You said that things weren't that different then to how they are now. I've already explained several times why they are fundamentally different. You dodged that issue. You said that people only came to view albums like Parade and Lovesexy as masterpieces in hindsight. What people? You haven't come up with anything to back that up. I'm sure some didn't like them at the time and some don't like them now. You've produced no evidence of an increase in their reputations. You constantly chanted the mantra of "mixed reviews". But since you're now admitting his reviews then were way better than his reviews now, it begs the question; why bring them up in the first place? Everyone gets mixed reviews. You may say you did so to show that he wasn't "universally loved", but since no one ever said he was, this is merely another example of you arguing with a straw man.

Finally, you have consistently and deliberately twisted my words throughout this thread, and then played dumb afterwards pretending you didn't know what I was talking about when I called you on it. In your last few posts you've actually denied doing it and apologised and then carried on doing it anyway. I haven't bothered to point it out because it gets tiresome, though I will gladly produce examples if you want me to.

It's this and other devious debating tactics such as implying things without actually saying them (again, I'll give examples if you want) that rub people up the wrong way. Hopefully now that I've pointed them out to you, you may develop a little self awareness and eliminate these habits.
[Edited 7/17/07 14:15pm]