In the last years i often have read musicjournalists saying: Prince is offering nothing new, he is repeating himselve, or: he hasn't developed since the eighties.

Personally, i don't always get those kind of remarks.

I often agree with them, that most of his work from the nineties and the new millenium lacks in quality compared to the eighties, but i think its nonsense to say Prince hasn't change his sound and songwriting since then.

I mean, look at:
- Lovesexy / Batman / GB: Prince incorporating dance beats into his music
- The NPG-period: Prince flirting with rap, hip-hop, New Jack Swing AND with a more lively, band-orientated sound.
- The Rainbow Children / NEWS: Prince flirting with jazz-rock and fusion
- The Rainbow Children / NEWS: Prince flirting with jazz-rock and fusion
- The NPGmusicclub internetreleases: Prince trying new things with minimalistic electrofunk
- 2004 - 2007: Prince back in the 'mainstream´, using several elements of his musical past, but definitely not offering pastiches.

Look at the Rolling Stones, are they accused of making the same album for over 30 years? Look at Bob Dylan, sorry but that guys music hasn´t really evolved since the seventies.

Its like they are (and maybe ´we´ also?) are expecting some groundbreaking musical revolution from Prince every time he releases a new album, when the fact is he is offering much more development (for good or worse) then the likes of Jagger, Dylan and McCartney.

i get annoyed by lazy posts lol!

show me a GB review where p was slagged for "dance beats"

same as lovesexy

P has never been slagged off for having live musicians..yes he was critisced for rap/hip hop which has been heavily documented

sorry young man im taking you to task!

prince is probably..at a push..one of the most favourably reviewed artists of the last 20-30 years-

critics fuckin love him

Critics fucking love him?

Yeah, right.....

Have you read the reviews of his albums from 1996 unto 2004?

You dont know what you are talking about.

And i didnt say he was being slagged for using dance beats on Lovesexy or GB.

I was pointing at the fact that Princes music has developed since the eighties, him trying out new styles and new things.

Riverpoet31 said:

Hell, you can go back further than that. Most of his albums after Purple Rain got very mixed reviews...

repost..
[Edited 8/20/07 11:07am]

I agree with you partially, skywalker.

But i must say the reviews differed from continent to continent.

My general view is that the american reviewers seemed dissapointed with ATWIAD, Parade and even Sign of the Times.

While on the other hand, in Europe, ATWIAD was received quite neutral, but Parade and Sign of the Times were almost ultimately praised from the beginning.

After that things began to get ´shakey´.

Lovesexy was both praised (the album the CD is invented for!) and talked down (way too busy, Prince is overindulging himself) on both sides of the ocean.

Batman did get the same mixed reviews.

And after that something weird seem to happen, at least IMO. I remember american musicreviewers being very positive about Graffiti Bridge and The symbol album, often reffering in their reviews about Purple Rain, the funkieness, the sexuality, while those 2 albums were often ´slaughtered´ by the musicreviewers in Europe.

Maybe it has something to do with cultural differences. I often feel like american journalists seem to like the more direct, over the top, bombastic Prince (Purple Rain, The symbol album), while European journalists tend to prefer the more quirky, experimental, ambivelant Prince (Parade, Lovesexy).

ive probably got most press reviews from 83 up until 99-shit even rave got very good reviews...

i would say the ratio was 80-90% positive-he is probably the most lauded musician of his generation and to say otherwise is churlish.

graffitti bridge was never slaughtered-"flawed masterpiece" was how one reviewer described it(VOX)

melody maker gave it an iffy review(the famous "call me descartes" review)-NME gave it a great review etc

so please dont tell me i dont know what im talking about.....

I don't like laziness is anything, especially myself.

And how can a critic help but say wrongheaded things while a desk full of music awaits a deadline? And the music that gets the most attention will likely be fitted with the most accuracy.

But here and there critics will say amazingly insightful things, as do non-critics, which is why I'm still reading and learning.

And someone could write a fairly good review, but then their corporation slaps on their near-mandatory rating for such artists. He's old and our reviewer liked it, so slap on that compulsory 3.5 out 5 stars.

Because no matter how good he may sound, we've already acknowledged that he is finished as a really important artist. But he can still be pleasant! He's very pleasant!

And Prince has been written off by so many (not necessarily formally), how could they really hear him for what he is anymore? That would take even more energy and also perhaps admitting that I was actually wrong (gasp) about something.

Perhaps if you put the same energy that you put into the young, "cutting edge" artists you just might occasionally find something rather fantastic; even from someone that you have already neatly categorized (“older artist that can’t produce greatness anymore”).

But that's not the way the game is played. Doesn't fit the formula. And besides, we have endless examples of older artists who are daft. So, we the lazy, are obviously right -- again!

But, let's be honest, there is a better chance of being really listened to if more of the majority feel subconsciously like they can relate with you (see "Bob Dylan"). Although this probably isn't desired when you are writing something that is truly poor, as you're likely to receive even more scrutiny than the person who is in the minority.

I’ve decided. I want to be in the minority when I screw up and in the majority when I’m great.

And, I agree, Prince is one of the most lauded artists of his generation. But being this praised brings with it a mountain full of warranted and unwarranted criticism.

So I would say that you’re both correct and could provide copious amounts of data to back up your points.

Fool who can't edit!
[Edited 8/20/07 18:50pm]

It's not uncommon for writers -- who often are writing under tight constraints of time and space -- to use shorthand to telegraph something to their respective audience.

The more famous the subject, the likelier one is to find such instances in writing. How often was Michael Jackson referred to as "the Gloved One" during his heyday? Sometimes, it's not laziness. Sometimes, it's effect.

Second, Prince is the only one of the entertainers you mentioned to whom the label "musical genius" has been applied so consistently throughout his career. Shouldn't the expectation be higher for him?
[Edited 8/20/07 18:59pm]

Calligraphy said:

That's very true and it'll come out in the wash if the rest of the article is great.



Certainly true.

But music and art appreciation are extremely complicated and it's also true that my expectations could be clogging my intended path.

And I don't want to be the obstruction, even though I often am anyway.

good point brendan!