New topic
Printabletoots said: Lothan said: Is there a Prince dick rider category cuz you would be king of that bitch.
I would say he is a "hater" himself by some form or the thread would not have came up or he wouldnt be responding to posts at all.And saying he doesnt care WHAT we think ROFL! If he DIDNT care he sure the hell would NOT be responding. "Hating" on other people just because they have a different value of opinion of his music of then and now, and catorgorizing them is complete and utter BS. [Edited 7/24/07 12:40pm] | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Lothan said: toots said:
I would say he is a "hater" himself by some form or the thread would not have came up or he wouldnt be responding to posts at all.And saying he doesnt care WHAT we think ROFL! If he DIDNT care he sure the hell would NOT be responding. "Hating" on other people just because they have a different value of opinion of his music of then and now, and catorgorizing them is complete and utter BS. [Edited 7/24/07 12:40pm] You have a valid point 
Smurf theme song-seriously how many fucking "La Las" can u fit into a dam song 
Proud Wendy and Lisa Fancy Lesbian asskisser  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SynthiaRose said: PurpleHouse said: Being an individualist means you know you are not a collectivist. Which means you DO know other people think like this. Well by nature I am an individualist when it comes to "unalienable rights" but I dont think you read my post carefully enough. I never once said "sales" or "profits".. mechanisms that guide the entertainment industry. But u HAVE to accept that art is about YOUR self expression... to others! That is why u created that art. That is what gives u the buzz, the drive to be artistic, know that u can communicate your thoughts and feelings to others who appreciate it. U can create art for urself and never let others hear it I suppose. And as usual there are exeptions to the rule. I wouldnt want to ask those ppl how much porn they have on their computer, or why they dont have a girl/boyfriend! lol. No, art is about self expression period. The audience is an afterthought and is irrelevant. A true artist could on a deserted island create something just for herself to behold. No true artist gets the "buzz" or "drive to be artistic" because they are communicating to others who appreciate it, as you claim. Art is creately purely for translation of abstract concept to masterful concrete form that you can behold. Artists speak rhetorically, like an echo over a cliff, to the universe at large, saying this is me, these are my beliefs. If others like or dislike it, so what.Who cares. Art is about the purity of creation not the reception. The confusion over that principle is why there are so many so-called artists' who participate in shock value or fame for fame's sake -- too much emphases on the audience. As a writer-artist, I interact with several artistic friends. One of my writer friends also does sculpture for himself and he rarely shows it to anyone. He won't sell it. He has occasionally given it away to close friends. You have probably seen a movie he's written, so he's not some abnormal closet porn freak. The thrill of creation for me is translating the concept into artistic form and beholding it. Then we sell it to have money to live so we won't sell ourselves out to 9 to 5 jobs. There's a difference in having an audience and pandering to them or creating for them/with them in mind. No artist should do that or think it's an any way important to the artistic process. BTW I think your "artistic" friend sounds more like a hobbyist. I know what ur saying.. in terms of being pure etc.. But u said he "rarely"shows it to ppl. Either u do or u dont. He DID want someone. at least 1 person, to see it. And that is the line my friend. Crossed right there and confirms my point. Should have bothered to read ur post a bit more closely!  The Tao te Ching gives advice to rulers:
"Interfere Less". | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
As in I should have.. sloppy writing on my part.. my bad... The Tao te Ching gives advice to rulers:
"Interfere Less". | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BanishedBrian said: emesem said: don't forget the "everything price records now is genius and the 80s are overrated" types that enable Prince release of garbage like Mr. Goodnight, Life of the party and Cinnamon Girl.
Word. The funny thing that these "fams" usually don't get is that people criticizing new works often aren't yearning for the '80s. Prince has made plenty of good music in the '90s and '00s too... but some songs over the last few years have been really bland. you're still posting on this thing !!  I thought you had long since moved on to whatever non-prince activity, but then my worldview is still limited to P&R."this especially prepared potato is called pomme de terre" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
tricky99 said: sosgemini said: because theres a difference between the subjective discussion of art and criticizing and judging folks for their opinion...huge difference. Why won't u say what cateogory u fit in? Obviously u take exception to my list because u see yourself in it. I'm not buying that u are riding so hard on this because u feel the need to protect everybody else. If I'm talking about u own up to it instead of hiding. I mean really if u fall into one of those groups why be moderator anyway? I would hope that someone that takes such a position would at least like Prince. And I mean the artist he is now not 20 plus years ago. are you finished trying to speak for me? look, if you want to have in intelligent conversation on a topic you are going to need to put down your damn blinkers and actually listen for a change...until then, stop the soapbox preaching and don't expect folks to answer your baited questions. what category do i fit into? none of the above because i don't consider myself a player of elementary school games. Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Lothan said: tricky99 said: Why won't u say what cateogory u fit in? Obviously u take exception to my list because u see yourself in it. I'm not buying that u are riding so hard on this because u feel the need to protect everybody else. If I'm talking about u own up to it instead of hiding. I mean really if u fall into one of those groups why be moderator anyway? I would hope that someone that takes such a position would at least like Prince. And I mean the artist he is now not 20 plus years ago. Oh, shit.  We don’t mourn artists because we knew them. We mourn them because they helped us know ourselves. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
because theres a difference between the subjective discussion of art and criticizing and judging folks for their opinion...huge difference. I hear you. In this thread are you having a subjective discussion of art or criticizing a person/opinion? "New Power slide...." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SynthiaRose said: PurpleHouse said: Being an individualist means you know you are not a collectivist. Which means you DO know other people think like this. Well by nature I am an individualist when it comes to "unalienable rights" but I dont think you read my post carefully enough. I never once said "sales" or "profits".. mechanisms that guide the entertainment industry. But u HAVE to accept that art is about YOUR self expression... to others! That is why u created that art. That is what gives u the buzz, the drive to be artistic, know that u can communicate your thoughts and feelings to others who appreciate it. U can create art for urself and never let others hear it I suppose. And as usual there are exeptions to the rule. I wouldnt want to ask those ppl how much porn they have on their computer, or why they dont have a girl/boyfriend! lol. No, art is about self expression period. The audience is an afterthought and is irrelevant. A true artist could on a deserted island create something just for herself to behold. No true artist gets the "buzz" or "drive to be artistic" because they are communicating to others who appreciate it, as you claim. Art is creately purely for translation of abstract concept to masterful concrete form that you can behold. Artists speak rhetorically, like an echo over a cliff, to the universe at large, saying this is me, these are my beliefs. If others like or dislike it, so what.Who cares. Art is about the purity of creation not the reception. The confusion over that principle is why there are so many so-called artists' who participate in shock value or fame for fame's sake -- too much emphases on the audience. As a writer-artist, I interact with several artistic friends. One of my writer friends also does sculpture for himself and he rarely shows it to anyone. He won't sell it. He has occasionally given it away to close friends. You have probably seen a movie he's written, so he's not some abnormal closet porn freak. The thrill of creation for me is translating the concept into artistic form and beholding it. Then we sell it to have money to live so we won't sell ourselves out to 9 to 5 jobs. There's a difference in having an audience and pandering to them or creating for them/with them in mind. No artist should do that or think it's an any way important to the artistic process. Art stops becoming self-expression alone the second that someone decides to sell it...or to strike a deal to give it away in a newspaper! "Drop that stereo before I blow your Goddamn nuts off, asshole!"
-Eugene Tackleberry | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
KingSausage said: SynthiaRose said: No, art is about self expression period. The audience is an afterthought and is irrelevant. A true artist could on a deserted island create something just for herself to behold. No true artist gets the "buzz" or "drive to be artistic" because they are communicating to others who appreciate it, as you claim. Art is creately purely for translation of abstract concept to masterful concrete form that you can behold. Artists speak rhetorically, like an echo over a cliff, to the universe at large, saying this is me, these are my beliefs. If others like or dislike it, so what.Who cares. Art is about the purity of creation not the reception. The confusion over that principle is why there are so many so-called artists' who participate in shock value or fame for fame's sake -- too much emphases on the audience. As a writer-artist, I interact with several artistic friends. One of my writer friends also does sculpture for himself and he rarely shows it to anyone. He won't sell it. He has occasionally given it away to close friends. You have probably seen a movie he's written, so he's not some abnormal closet porn freak. The thrill of creation for me is translating the concept into artistic form and beholding it. Then we sell it to have money to live so we won't sell ourselves out to 9 to 5 jobs. There's a difference in having an audience and pandering to them or creating for them/with them in mind. No artist should do that or think it's an any way important to the artistic process. Art stops becoming self-expression alone the second that someone decides to sell it...or to strike a deal to give it away in a newspaper! 
are you? wait...huh? umm...errr...you? Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Art stops becoming self-expression alone the second that someone decides to sell it...or to strike a deal to give it away in a newspaper! So what about when it is bootlegged? "New Power slide...." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: tricky99 said: Why won't u say what cateogory u fit in? Obviously u take exception to my list because u see yourself in it. I'm not buying that u are riding so hard on this because u feel the need to protect everybody else. If I'm talking about u own up to it instead of hiding. I mean really if u fall into one of those groups why be moderator anyway? I would hope that someone that takes such a position would at least like Prince. And I mean the artist he is now not 20 plus years ago. are you finished trying to speak for me? look, if you want to have in intelligent conversation on a topic you are going to need to put down your damn blinkers and actually listen for a change...until then, stop the soapbox preaching and don't expect folks to answer your baited questions. what category do i fit into? none of the above because i don't consider myself a player of elementary school games. 
Well said sosgemini!  Smurf theme song-seriously how many fucking "La Las" can u fit into a dam song
Proud Wendy and Lisa Fancy Lesbian asskisser | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
. [Edited 12/19/12 18:36pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: KingSausage said: Art stops becoming self-expression alone the second that someone decides to sell it...or to strike a deal to give it away in a newspaper!
are you? wait...huh? umm...errr...you? Hail to the king, he-bitch! "Drop that stereo before I blow your Goddamn nuts off, asshole!"
-Eugene Tackleberry | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleHouse said: SynthiaRose said: No, art is about self expression period. The audience is an afterthought and is irrelevant. A true artist could on a deserted island create something just for herself to behold. No true artist gets the "buzz" or "drive to be artistic" because they are communicating to others who appreciate it, as you claim. Art is creately purely for translation of abstract concept to masterful concrete form that you can behold. Artists speak rhetorically, like an echo over a cliff, to the universe at large, saying this is me, these are my beliefs. If others like or dislike it, so what.Who cares. Art is about the purity of creation not the reception. The confusion over that principle is why there are so many so-called artists' who participate in shock value or fame for fame's sake -- too much emphases on the audience. As a writer-artist, I interact with several artistic friends. One of my writer friends also does sculpture for himself and he rarely shows it to anyone. He won't sell it. He has occasionally given it away to close friends. You have probably seen a movie he's written, so he's not some abnormal closet porn freak. The thrill of creation for me is translating the concept into artistic form and beholding it. Then we sell it to have money to live so we won't sell ourselves out to 9 to 5 jobs. There's a difference in having an audience and pandering to them or creating for them/with them in mind. No artist should do that or think it's an any way important to the artistic process. Whatever. I give up trying to explain. I'm NOT talking about PANDERING to an audience. That is OBVIOUSLY no way to go. I am saying that if YOUR self expression, that is creating whatever u want how u want, is never heard/seen/understood or felt by anyone else.. chances r ur tone deaf and no-wonder YOU r the only person appreciating it. All creative artists usually have a message, something to say, and usually r desperate to get their art felt and heard by others. I dont know of any artist that wants to sing to an EMPTY stadium, or gets the same buzz from performing to themselves only. They feel a busting need to get their art "out there". I am going to remind u that yes I agree, a true artist SHOULD NOT pander to their audience. But any artist worth their salt will feel that second stage buring. That stag is to then get their art heard, felt and appreciated. So I'm glad as an individualist u enjoy "performing to yourself". But I have never got on a stage to sing to nobody. EVEN PRINCE is on record, for saying that he wanted to reach out to new ppl to get his record heard, with his new promo idea for PE. U cant give an example about urself and use that to suggest that is how all artists operate. Ur an extreme individualist. A self admitted anarchist! 9unless u were joking-not a funny joke). U only care about urself. So ur comments r not surprising. And again, using Prince as ur example is just about the worst ever. He has tried so hard recently to use tricks to get himself airplay, free PR, chart success. Why? and also, to u refering to Prince's "vault" as an example.. most of it is noodling around, experimentation, off cuts, cuts he DIDNT want others to hear because he wasnt happy with it in some way. So whats ur point? HE IS STILL THE MOST PROLIFIC ARTIST EVER!!! ur clutching at straws. So go speak to a real artist and ask if they write songs so that no-one will ever hear them. They dont write to please an audience. but they DO write hoping that some others will hopfully dig it too. I hope u enjoy performing to yourself. In everyway possible. BTW do u have a family? Its a collective noun I never used Prince as an example. Or referred to his vault. That's what skywalker in response to my post. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleHouse said: SynthiaRose said: No, art is about self expression period. The audience is an afterthought and is irrelevant. A true artist could on a deserted island create something just for herself to behold. No true artist gets the "buzz" or "drive to be artistic" because they are communicating to others who appreciate it, as you claim. Art is creately purely for translation of abstract concept to masterful concrete form that you can behold. Artists speak rhetorically, like an echo over a cliff, to the universe at large, saying this is me, these are my beliefs. If others like or dislike it, so what.Who cares. Art is about the purity of creation not the reception. The confusion over that principle is why there are so many so-called artists' who participate in shock value or fame for fame's sake -- too much emphases on the audience. As a writer-artist, I interact with several artistic friends. One of my writer friends also does sculpture for himself and he rarely shows it to anyone. He won't sell it. He has occasionally given it away to close friends. You have probably seen a movie he's written, so he's not some abnormal closet porn freak. The thrill of creation for me is translating the concept into artistic form and beholding it. Then we sell it to have money to live so we won't sell ourselves out to 9 to 5 jobs. There's a difference in having an audience and pandering to them or creating for them/with them in mind. No artist should do that or think it's an any way important to the artistic process. BTW I think your "artistic" friend sounds more like a hobbyist. I know what ur saying.. in terms of being pure etc.. But u said he "rarely"shows it to ppl. Either u do or u dont. He DID want someone. at least 1 person, to see it. And that is the line my friend. Crossed right there and confirms my point. Should have bothered to read ur post a bit more closely! No, I'm secure with my post. Everything is philosophically cohesive. I don't think you understand the meaning of artist, hobbyist, individualist or collectivist. Stop trying to convince me. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
KingSausage said: SynthiaRose said: No, art is about self expression period. The audience is an afterthought and is irrelevant. A true artist could on a deserted island create something just for herself to behold. No true artist gets the "buzz" or "drive to be artistic" because they are communicating to others who appreciate it, as you claim. Art is creately purely for translation of abstract concept to masterful concrete form that you can behold. Artists speak rhetorically, like an echo over a cliff, to the universe at large, saying this is me, these are my beliefs. If others like or dislike it, so what.Who cares. Art is about the purity of creation not the reception. The confusion over that principle is why there are so many so-called artists' who participate in shock value or fame for fame's sake -- too much emphases on the audience. As a writer-artist, I interact with several artistic friends. One of my writer friends also does sculpture for himself and he rarely shows it to anyone. He won't sell it. He has occasionally given it away to close friends. You have probably seen a movie he's written, so he's not some abnormal closet porn freak. The thrill of creation for me is translating the concept into artistic form and beholding it. Then we sell it to have money to live so we won't sell ourselves out to 9 to 5 jobs. There's a difference in having an audience and pandering to them or creating for them/with them in mind. No artist should do that or think it's an any way important to the artistic process. Art stops becoming self-expression alone the second that someone decides to sell it...or to strike a deal to give it away in a newspaper! I agree. It becomes both art and product. But it doesn't have to be cheapened by an artist making creative concessions to the buyer/audience. PE with its pop culture references and slang is sickeningly audience-aware (much like Musicology & 3121, although I loved the latter.) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SynthiaRose said: KingSausage said: Art stops becoming self-expression alone the second that someone decides to sell it...or to strike a deal to give it away in a newspaper! I agree. It becomes both art and product. But it doesn't have to be cheapened by an artist making creative concessions to the buyer/audience. PE with its pop culture references and slang is sickeningly audience-aware (much like Musicology & 3121, although I loved the latter.) I couldn't agree more. (Especially re: the last 3 albums!) "Drop that stereo before I blow your Goddamn nuts off, asshole!"
-Eugene Tackleberry | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
I agree. It becomes both art and product. But it doesn't have to be cheapened by an artist making creative concessions to the buyer/audience.
PE with its pop culture references and slang is sickeningly audience-aware (much like Musicology & 3121, although I loved the latter.) 1. Prince makes pop music--it's still art and it doesn't exist in a vacuum. 2. Pop culture references and slang? When has Prince NOT done this? One of his most famous songs name drops a famous sports car. The song "Kiss" references dynasty. Furthermore, you are talking about the dude who did the Batman soundtrack. "New Power slide...." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
KingSausage said: SynthiaRose said: I agree. It becomes both art and product. But it doesn't have to be cheapened by an artist making creative concessions to the buyer/audience. PE with its pop culture references and slang is sickeningly audience-aware (much like Musicology & 3121, although I loved the latter.) I couldn't agree more. (Especially re: the last 3 albums!)  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: tricky99 said: Why won't u say what cateogory u fit in? Obviously u take exception to my list because u see yourself in it. I'm not buying that u are riding so hard on this because u feel the need to protect everybody else. If I'm talking about u own up to it instead of hiding. I mean really if u fall into one of those groups why be moderator anyway? I would hope that someone that takes such a position would at least like Prince. And I mean the artist he is now not 20 plus years ago. are you finished trying to speak for me? look, if you want to have in intelligent conversation on a topic you are going to need to put down your damn blinkers and actually listen for a change...until then, stop the soapbox preaching and don't expect folks to answer your baited questions. what category do i fit into? none of the above because i don't consider myself a player of elementary school games. well its nice to know that u don't fit any of the categories. I stick by my initial post of the categories. As I said before they are simply observations I have made over the time I have been reading this site. If people have a problem with them that is not my fault. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleHouse said: PurpleHouse said: Being an individualist means you know you are not a collectivist. Which means you DO know other people think like this. Well by nature I am an individualist when it comes to "unalienable rights" but I dont think you read my post carefully enough. I never once said "sales" or "profits".. mechanisms that guide the entertainment industry. But u HAVE to accept that art is about YOUR self expression... to others! That is why u created that art. That is what gives u the buzz, the drive to be artistic, know that u can communicate your thoughts and feelings to others who appreciate it. U can create art for urself and never let others hear it I suppose. And as usual there are exeptions to the rule. I wouldnt want to ask those ppl how much porn they have on their computer, or why they dont have a girl/boyfriend! lol. and yes what other people think of you COMPLETELY defines you u r.. to those exact"other ppl". Ur obviously not a buddhist and havent read the theory of interdependance. I wont lecture u now. I am an individualist in some ways but not 100%. That would make you an anarchist. R u an anarchist? that's nonsense.. if you want to accept the labels other ppl put on your life.. that's your business.. for you to 'suggest' lecturing other ppl cause of your beliefs is bs .. the 'stop' sign goes up there for that (that's your belief, dont throw that on anyone else.. and i guess u're saying that if i call you names.. that defines who you are?? silly) .. this was a harmless thread .. wasnt even that heavy.. and ppl are getting so defensive about it  .. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Flowerz said: PurpleHouse said: and yes what other people think of you COMPLETELY defines you u r.. to those exact"other ppl". Ur obviously not a buddhist and havent read the theory of interdependance. I wont lecture u now. I am an individualist in some ways but not 100%. That would make you an anarchist. R u an anarchist? that's nonsense.. if you want to accept the labels other ppl put on your life.. that's your business.. for you to 'suggest' lecturing other ppl cause of your beliefs is bs .. the 'stop' sign goes up there for that (that's your belief, dont throw that on anyone else.. and i guess u're saying that if i call you names.. that defines who you are?? silly) .. this was a harmless thread .. wasnt even that heavy.. and ppl are getting so defensive about it .. Wow. sensitive or what. Well I didnt even lecture did I. The Tao te Ching gives advice to rulers:
"Interfere Less". | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SynthiaRose said: PurpleHouse said: Whatever. I give up trying to explain. I'm NOT talking about PANDERING to an audience. That is OBVIOUSLY no way to go. I am saying that if YOUR self expression, that is creating whatever u want how u want, is never heard/seen/understood or felt by anyone else.. chances r ur tone deaf and no-wonder YOU r the only person appreciating it. All creative artists usually have a message, something to say, and usually r desperate to get their art felt and heard by others. I dont know of any artist that wants to sing to an EMPTY stadium, or gets the same buzz from performing to themselves only. They feel a busting need to get their art "out there". I am going to remind u that yes I agree, a true artist SHOULD NOT pander to their audience. But any artist worth their salt will feel that second stage buring. That stag is to then get their art heard, felt and appreciated. So I'm glad as an individualist u enjoy "performing to yourself". But I have never got on a stage to sing to nobody. EVEN PRINCE is on record, for saying that he wanted to reach out to new ppl to get his record heard, with his new promo idea for PE. U cant give an example about urself and use that to suggest that is how all artists operate. Ur an extreme individualist. A self admitted anarchist! 9unless u were joking-not a funny joke). U only care about urself. So ur comments r not surprising. And again, using Prince as ur example is just about the worst ever. He has tried so hard recently to use tricks to get himself airplay, free PR, chart success. Why? and also, to u refering to Prince's "vault" as an example.. most of it is noodling around, experimentation, off cuts, cuts he DIDNT want others to hear because he wasnt happy with it in some way. So whats ur point? HE IS STILL THE MOST PROLIFIC ARTIST EVER!!! ur clutching at straws. So go speak to a real artist and ask if they write songs so that no-one will ever hear them. They dont write to please an audience. but they DO write hoping that some others will hopfully dig it too. I hope u enjoy performing to yourself. In everyway possible. BTW do u have a family? Its a collective noun I never used Prince as an example. Or referred to his vault. That's what skywalker in response to my post. My bad on that part then. The Tao te Ching gives advice to rulers:
"Interfere Less". | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SynthiaRose said: PurpleHouse said: BTW I think your "artistic" friend sounds more like a hobbyist. I know what ur saying.. in terms of being pure etc.. But u said he "rarely"shows it to ppl. Either u do or u dont. He DID want someone. at least 1 person, to see it. And that is the line my friend. Crossed right there and confirms my point. Should have bothered to read ur post a bit more closely! No, I'm secure with my post. Everything is philosophically cohesive. I don't think you understand the meaning of artist, hobbyist, individualist or collectivist. Stop trying to convince me. I did post right after that I meant to say "I"..as in I should have read ur post more closely. Otherwise it can be taken the wrong way (which it has). There is a good book I think u would like - called "Music, Art and Metaphysics". Its about where art comes from (no - not lecturing fellow sensitive orgers) Also, Heidegger's Being and Time - the chapter on authenticity is particularly relevant. Basically says how it is impossible to be truely authentic ie your idea that art can be 100% "pure" a romantic notion yes, but not possible. It will always have a % influence from what your being has experienced by others. Unless of course (sticking with a music analogy) you never..ever heard music at all ever in your whole life in any shape or form by any intrument, completely were unaware of any intrument, created ur own instrument and tried to create music. A virtually impossible task as things like art are generally handed down. It gets deep but I'll leave it there. And u then go on to say "PE with its pop culture references and slang is sickeningly audience-aware (much like Musicology & 3121, although I loved the latter.)" Right well what on earth do u think I was trying to say in the first place. And no, these albums r not the first. Some less than others though. Howver going back to 1983, it is on record that Prince asked Dr Fink what was making artists so successful. He told him about simple chord structures and ballards and hey presto - Purple Rain (the song). Prince at the time was desperate for.. Fame.. yes thats right. fame. He wanted to write a song that would make him a megastar. Prince might sing it from the heart, but it aint authentic or "pure". it was written with mass audience in mind - to drive him to fame. So every time u hear that song, u now know what it's inspiraton was. YES! other ppl! the list includes: Dr Fink, the other songs that had the same chord pattern as Purple Rain (countless songs have its same chord sequence and even the key -so Purple Rain was instantly accessable) and those lovely ppl at Warners. I dont know what part of "individual" or "pure" u get from that. However prince has certainly done music where he has also tried to be as perfectly pure as possible. Invariablely, they are not his famous songs. We can all try to be 100 pure, thats the way to go, but it is technically impossible from a metaphysical view point. And I dont know why a couple of orgers on this thread cant accept that u only are what others think of u. I mean- why do u think artwork is so important? And to top it off, Flowerz doesnt like deep conversations- well sorry flowerz. U have a choice. Dont bother reading or replying then. The Tao te Ching gives advice to rulers:
"Interfere Less". | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Art is an anagram of Rat.
Wait there's more. This just in. It's ALSO, I'm hearing, an ANAGRAM of TAR. Well that about raps it for this one, folks. I'm sure that many more anagrams of Art will emerge in the future but for now, this is Troy McClure handing you back to the studio. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |