JesseDezz said:

In the court of public opinion, I think Prince is an acknowledged genius. A jury of his peers would definitely grant him that title, as well as innovator, originator, and probably also pompous snob.

In fact, are we talking about Prince as a musician, producer, performer...?

Was just telling someone that one of the amazing things about him, IMHO, is that he manages to be both an exceptionallly gifted musician AND and amazing performer. He has a legendary sort of aura onstage that few performers achieve.

Thoughts on this?

Heiress said:

That would all fall under "musical genius". As a musician he's a genius. As a producer he's a genius. As a performer he's a genius.

Musician - A self-taught multi-intrumentalist strongly indicates genius - and has mastered a lot of those intruments.

Producer - Producing for a myriad of artists as well as himself, along with the sheer numbers of his producticity indicates genius. At 19, the man (kid) gets COMPLETE AUTONOMY on his debut album which was completely unheard of back then. That ALONE yells of "genius" when a musical giant like WB allows that.

Performer - Gives some of the best shows that are copied by everyone like Justin, Maxwell, D'Angelo, etc. Performed in bikini drawers well before Marilyn manson even knew what music was. The microphone kicks and splits is truly a sign of discipline and artistry. His after shows are brutal on himself and his band, which shows you the dedication to performing he has in him.

He's a musical genius. Again, this shouldn't even be up for discussion at this point in a 30-year career that's still going pretty damn strong. Anyone who disputes this truly hasn't a clue as to what they're speaking of. This site wouldn't be here and be as HUGE as it is if it weren't an indication of this man's genius.

MuthaFunka said:

Any of us who have tried to learn an instrument can appreciate the multi-instrumentalist part... yes, that's quite enough.

Oh, I forgot "songwriter"... he's a great songwriter.

Anyway, if genius is truly 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration... Prince is, as you say, a genius. He certainly works it.

It's amazing - you still haven't come up with anything resembling a coherent post - just attacks at moi. Of course the board means something to me - I've been a member here a number of years and the quality of my posts have been consistent. Thing is, I state my opinion - which of course, is subjective - and I back up my stated opinion with content, not name-calling. In your short time here on the org, you have yet to make an informed post on anything. And now, you're simply grasping at straws 'cause you don't have anything relevant to offer. "King of the org" - how original

If you're gonna come at me, ya gotta do better than that...

Class dismissed.

padawan said:

Thing is not every one of his peers has granted him that title. Innovator, maybe (again there are many who see him as someone who's a hodgepodge of things - see my initial post), pompous snob - probably

MuthaFunka said:

How does that strongly indicate "genius". Lots of musicians are multi-instrumentalists. Do you even know the meaning of the word?

Heiress said:

Bingo!

And even still, we have those here who fraudulently "claim" to know music yet they still can't tell us why he ISN'T a genius. They're all babble and all ego, with no argument to back it up. Go figure.

Tell me what is genius - not your opinion, but the exact meaning of the word. And while you're at it, look up virtuoso. These discussions have already taken place in other posts before you showed up with your emotion-filled, though misinformed posts. You're not the first newbie to do it and you won't be the last.

You can go on and on about performing in bikini briefs, et. al and how that makes Prince a genius. If that's all you have to go on, so be it.

Ah, the youth of today...

JesseDezz said:

And that makes them extremely talented while Prince has been able to take it further and incorporate it into his overall talent, creativity, skill, and use it to establish himself as a musical genius.

So, yes, while there are a lot of musicians that are multi-instrumentalists, very few are masters of most of those instruments, very few are great at most of those intruments, and very few are self-taught. ANY musician that resembles what I just described "strongly resembles musical genius".

So, care to counter any/all of that or is it about that time for some "grammar/spell check" smack to deflect so you won't have to admit P is a genius?

This P hateration in you is amazing. You sure you're a "fan" as you claim?

You're hilarious. As I'm stating for the umpteenth time, I can be a fan and still be objective without being a "hater". Go and check out some of posts over in the Associated Artists section. I've been a Prince fan for YEARS. Was a diehard fanatic in my youth - took a lot of s**t from the neighborhood toughs because of it. I'm also a musician who's had the opportunity to work with a lot of different musicians with totally differing musical tastes. It gives one a whole new perspective on things. So, I can still be a fan and still be totally objective about the man and his music.

And from a purely technical standpoint, playing-wise, Prince is not a virtuoso and I'm sure he'd be the first to admit it, just as he admits there are things that the John Blackwells and the Renaldo Natos of the world can do that he can't. Check out his early '80s Rolling Stone interview where he's just as self-effacing about some aspects of his abilities. When he took the Dirty Mind tour overseas, a review stated that he was no virtuoso like Hendrix, but he brought something different to the table.

A review of the LoveSexy tour in Guitar for the Practicing Musician states: "For while Prince is often lauded as a musical genius, given that he established his reputation on the basis of a broad instrumental facility, such an assumption is simply untrue. He is not, nor would he openly profess to be, a technically gifted instrumentalist. His guitar playiing wouldn't make first cut in a garage band, and his comparatively better piano technique smacks of musical greeting cards. What Prince does is to assemble the vast ramblings of his imagination, much as Picasso, Joan Miro and Salvador Dali did. It is not the integrity of the structure that is so important, as opposed to the accomplishment itself. It could be called nerve, and it could be called raw musicality, but Prince is undeniably creative.

Now, I totally disagree with the guitar part - Prince is a great guitar player. But the gist of it all and what I was trying to say from my initial post in this thread, is that others besides Joni Mitchell don't label Prince a genius. Doesn't make me a hater. Makes me a well-read, well-informed, OBJECTIVE fan. Period.

And as far as genius, as I stated in my initial post, I see Prince as a creative entity - I think that's a more powerful thing than genius because the word is totally overused. People call Kanye West a genius. Now, do you think he and Prince are in the same company?

Let me sit this hater-kid down right now. He seems to think there's only ONE definition of (in his OWN mind) of "virtuoso". Then again, anyone who uses "music reviews" (which are nothing but opinions) to base his entire argument off truly needs to sit this debate out.

Virtuoso:



(Prince easily fits that description.)

Here are some definitions I pulled up that define virtuoso:

virtuoso: 1. A musician with masterly ability, technique, or personal style. (Prince easily fits that definition) (freedictionary.com)

virtuoso: 1. exceptional performer: a musician who shows exceptional ability, technique, or artistry (encarta)
(Prince easily fits that definition)

virtuoso: 3 : one who excels in the technique of an art; especially : a highly skilled musical performer (as on the violin) (marriam-webster)
(Prince easily fits that definition)

See, your hangup is, you're going by YOUR standards or what some reviewer's standards of what YOU/THEY feel a musician (genius/virtuoso) should be, and that's where your entire thought process errs and it's mainly based off arrogance IMO.

Just because some dude in "Guitar for the Practicing Musician" says he isn't a virtuoso doesn't mean it's collectively agreed upon. There are more people that say otherwise than you and/or your guitar magazine cronies.


So, what have we learned?:

1 - Prince is STILL a musical genius despite what some people try to claim

2 - Prince is a virtuoso despite what a couple of magazine writers think

3 - Debating that Prince ISN'T a musical genius is pretty senseless to begin with

Now, I'm through with this pissing match with you, mainly because you're all out of urine anyway.

You're simply a lost cause, newbie... You can argue 'till the sun goes down. You'll never get it. So sad

Prince isn't a genius, musically anyway..
lyrically he is up there with Dylan and Joni,(even joni has said this in the past) Out of all the songwriters that idolize Joni, she respects very few, 1 is Prince though.

The term genius, especially in reference to music is often thrown around alot.
What is a genius first of all?
Definition is "Someone with an unusual mental ability?"
That definition is as vague as religion, but i digress.
A musical genius would then be someone who has Unusual mental ability in reference to music?
If we characterize genius' in this fashion than no one in the music industry would be considered geniuses except the originators of a musical genre.
So Genius would be synonymous with Originator: IE...
Dizzy Gilespie, Charlie Parker originators of Bebop, Miles originator of Cool Jazz, Little Richard and Chuck Berry originators of Rock & Roll etc... and etc...
Some would say Prince is the Originator of Synth funk rock,But even so the genre's popularity is debatable of its merits in musical history.
Prince often has been following his own influences, problem is his influences reign and dwell in the same genre's that he deals with. Meaning Sly is still the funk king, Joni is still the queen of folk, and lyrics, along with dylan as King. Jimmy Page is still the lord of guitar composition.
Thus compared to his influences he will never be a genius like them.
that doesn't take anything away from Prince. He's just a victim of being "late" in life, which is ultimately not his fault.
As Music begins to grow the term Genius begins to fade and becomes more meaningless and obscure.
When music was young, genius was a precious term.
but look now? even the likes of Timbaland are called "Musical Genius'" Now,
but thats because a musical genius now means, a person who uses old abandoned concepts of music and makes them new again.
IE a Re-inventor, instead of an Originator or Inventor of music.

I think the term genius was never good when comparing with musicians or anything rather artistic. Because it's too debatable. Nothing is solid in the arts.
There are hundreds of Artist better than picasso etc...
A real musical genius, least to me, is a person who loves music so much he/she dreams about it in their sleep, and beautiful music comes to fruition because of that notion.
if we measure people by that standard than Prince is indeed a musical genius, but then so are alot of people. And the term genius will mean nothing anyway.

My advice is forget the Genius thing,
and just enjoy the music.
It doesn't matter if he is one or not.
as long as you like the music, than no one can ever touch you.

Then by your own definition of what constitutes "genius," then Prince is in fact a genius because he was the ORIGINATOR of the Minneapolis Sound.

MuthaFunka said:

mmm i wouldn't say that because there were alot of people within that ring.
IE Prince's old bandmates in the 70's etc...
Since Prince is the only one who became famous out of the Minneapolis sound, people think he invented it
Minneapolis sound is another term for Synth funk Rock.
And i can tell you a hundred bands before Prince and his crew came, that did that type of music;
in the early 70's that were dabbling in synth funk rock. Hell even Miles Davis was doing that in the begginning of the 70's
one could say he was the originator
case & point bitches brew...
its meaningless to debate this because its impossible to know for sure
[Edited 9/9/07 16:53pm]

EmbattledWarrior said:

Then the exact same could be said for Little Richard and Chuck Berry, whom you list as "Originators of Rock & Roll". Rich and Berry had contemporaries that helped create R&R as well. The same can be said for Dizzy and Parker, they had fellow hornsmen in their era to help create bebop as well.

That's why it's such an elitist attitude one takes when trying to discount an artist like Prince because he had others along or around him to create and shape a sound, while giving "credit of creation" to other artists that are guilty of the same set of circumstances. Every sound/musical genre is derived from another sound/musical genre.

JesseDezz said:

- I agree, In fact, I wanted a broader debate about popular music history as a whole. I dont like some ´fams´ saying he was the greatest genius ever as much as I dont want people saying he is a fraud.

I just wanted to know if other so-called ´geniuses´ were originators or if they borrowed a lot as much as Prince.

Some artists say Prince is genius, some doesn´t. It´s not up to us to define if he is or not. It will be judged only in the future...

MuthaFunka said:

True and not true
When I talk about Prince's contemporaries im talking about Jimi Hendrix and Frank Zappa, they where truely the first cats to start experimenting with funk rock and synths but the term was just Psychedelic etc...Their contemporaries were The Doors and the Byrds (yardbyrds, i forget the two differences) , IE who were influenced by coltrane and the rock movement etc...
Usually an originator has to change something within an old genre to make it new
The jump from blues to rock was basically a processed guitar and simpler arrangements. The Jump from Rock & roll to funk rock or psychedelic rock, was complexing rock with elements of free jazz, eastern elements etc, and a groove mostly based on rhythm ala Funk...
Adding electriic instruments and the whole 9...
the last pioneers of music were in the 60's
generally nothing mildly prolific happened in the 70's and 80s that wasn't done.
what artist like Prince and Red hot chilipeppers did with the psychedelic sound
was expand it too different horizons...
no doubt its an important feat...
but def can't be noted as original , cause they theoretically didn't change much or if you analyze deeply, you'll notice that they didn't change anything at all
which is what Joni is saying...
The last major changes of music happened in the 60's
with much respect to the Bristol movement of the 90's which in my opinion was pretty prolific...., but i digress
There is no doubt Miles was the innovator of style because, he was truely the only one playing Modal Jazz, which gave birth to cool
every other horn player was stuck in that coleman hoawkins esque Notey type of playing...
Dizzy and and Charlie parker were majorly influenced by coleman hawkins, to create bebop, and changed the standard spectrum from sweet and hot bands to bebop and then to Hard Bop
basically adding more syncopated ryhthms and faster,generally a little muddled type of music
they were the only cats who did it before people started copying them...
same can be said for richard and berry
Prince had many cats doing what he did before him...
so he isn't a real originator...

I am a poet, I do not play an instrument, I listen well.
What I do know is that the world is populated with millions of talented
musicians. And there may be an infinite way to munipulate abcdefg, at
different octaves....They are still notes common to the human ear.
Just like a voice carries it's own unique fingerprint....They are still
human. Although every fingerprint is different....there are going to be
similarities. Music is the same way.

EmbattledWarrior said:

That's why it's best to say that every "originator" is really an "innovator" more so than an "originator" because something had to have been laid before them in order for them to come along and "create" a new sound/genre.

MuthaFunka said:

of course, only a true musician knows that their are no such things as geniuses in music. Because every so called innovator stole from his influences.
Whether they created something new is debatable.
But they all stole from the music they liked themselves.
no such thing as a truely original musician
they're all slaves to the queen of influence
so genius, original, innovator, they're words that mean nothing

EmbattledWarrior said:

Ah, but that's by YOUR reasoning and definition of "musical genius" and not the group collective's. There are in fact musical geniuses or else the term would have never been introduced to begin with.

MuthaFunka said:

thats a musicians reasoning...
i got my card from that club, where is yours?

EmbattledWarrior said:

Arrogance is usually the quickest downfall to any debator who employs it as their means to argue. You and Jesse are cut from that same mold of "I'm a musican and I know everythng there is to know about music" and you appear to be taking that same fall as he did - left with futile attempts at insulting their opponent, so try not to go that route.

Your error in thinking is that ALL musicians claim there is no such thing as a "musical genius". Now, do you care to offer ANY proof of this? Where are you getting this from? Is this from your inner circle of musician-friends who feel this way? If so, then that means absolutely nothing, unless your circle includes prominent and respected musicians.

So, name 10 prominent/reputable musicians who feel there is no such thing as a "musical genius". If you can't, then it's safe to say your so-called "card" just got pulled.

MuthaFunka said:

Fine,
but let a musician say it...
The only credible person to judge or criticize the merits is A. a doctor of music and B. a Musician

Fans are fans for a reason...
so its not hard for you to do, go down to org artist, and find a musician who agrees with you, org note him/her and thats it


What im saying is people who know intimately the process of creating music
know that a fair bit of recycling goes on in music, and that the term genius is too strong.

You still have failed to point out one single thing that makes Prince a Musical Genius?
One thing that under scrutiny is truly infallible.
See the arrogant one is you, who's soul becomes weary when the notion of your favorite pop stars musical credibility becomes tampered with.

If i'm rejecting the idea of genius, than arrogance is def not the case...
Or is it because i belong to the club of musicians?
well it makes me credible, i know the process
where is your credibility?
I hope not just as a listener.

If you think your credible as a listener, than you'd have to listen to nearly every genre this world has have to offer including indian rubato music.
ok if you want to play that game
Sir. i have listened to every genre
and im pursuing a doctorate in music,
Which could mean everything and nothing...
depending on whats your perception.
i personally think it means nothing, but hey thats me

But i really want other musicians opinions i hope you don't mind if i orgnote a few of my colleagues? do you?

Just some examples of "genius" in terms of "musical genius:


(Taken from Wikipedia)

Prince was a musical prodigy in his youth, along with Patrice Rushen, when they were both signed to WB in their teens. His genius was evident then when they gave a 17-year-old COMPLETE AUTONOMY on his first record, and the rest is STILL making history.


(Taken from Wikipedia)

This is right along the lines of how Prince would see in his head (and then play) all the parts to a song. Also how P says he hears sounds and music in his head all the time, it's like a curse, so he HAS to write them down, which is why he's so prolific in song output.

This quote also proves that the term "musical genius" does in fact exist, contrary to what EmabattledWarrior believes.

But perhaps this best describes "genius" as well:


(Encarta)

1, 2, 3, and 7 embodies Prince.

Here's another:



Again, P embodies all of that.

Musical Geniuses do exist. Prince is one of them. Simple as that.

MuthaFunka said:

What fall did I take? I simply got tired of your delusional ass. You're so pathetic that you've spent all this time on the same thread. You've got a serious problem

EmbattledWarrior said:

- I have stated my case in greater detail in my post above this one.

- You can orgnote them but I have no idea who they are from a musical standpoint, just as I have no idea who you are in that same capacity. That's why I said your inner circle had better consist of reputable/prominent musicians to where I can trust their views and judgment.

- And yes, having a background in music does help in deciphering all this and it holds the greatest weight, but it's far from the end all of backgrounds to where it has the final say. Sometimes genius is just so obvious that it doesn't need to be broken down to its finest parts just to be deemed so.