Three people turn 50 this year - Prince, Madonna and Michael Jackson. I found this article an interesting read...

http://music.guardian.co....e_continue

Interesting, thanks. My favourite line:

"He then launched into a long phase of career self-immolation - refusing to be called Prince, warring with his record company, releasing too many records too often with too little top-quality material on them - basically sabotaging his professional life through a mixture of pique, self-indulgence and personal idiosyncrasy."

I'm thinking of trying something similar with my own (office based non musical) career to see if I can also pull off some kind of major come back when I'm nearly 50...

50's no limit for Prince, he's gonna stay funky till the day he drops!!!! i just can't wait for new music!

what a load of scathing crap. I get the distinct impression that this journalist is either a failed musician or has issues with their own position within their particular genre. Who is this person to sit behind their desk and look down upon three of the most successful artists of all time? They have seen things and done things that would no doubt make this journalists hair curl, have created some of the most seminal songs of their time and despite what this person thinks they have influenced todays musicians (to varying degrees). What does he expect? That they should chuck in the towel the minute they hit their 30th or 40th birthday and sit knitting, take up golf, bake cakes??! Or should all rock stars join the 27 club?

Ok, some of you will think that I'm completely wrong but I think this article is just trite nonsense.... So there!

MrsGoodnight said:

Well, it's their job. I didn't think it was particularly scathing, quite favourable in fact.

And it's nothing new, it's just that particular generation's time to enter the Autumn years of the pop music business.

It was a fair article. None of them are musically relevant any more (Madonna, as always has the media's attention of course) - MJ is re-releasing his old stuff yet AGAIN, but this time doing a 1999: The New Master to them, which is completely abhorrent, but maybe he'll come out the other side of all this with some stronger material in a year or two, much like Prince did.

Prince him is releasing new music, but it's not relevant to the wider audience either - it's just the natural way a long-time career goes, it's nothing particularly individual to Prince, and he is relying on nostalgia live shows like the article says.

I'm actually surprised that I liked the article. The way it started, I thought he was going to bash MJ, Madonna and Prince for trying to stay in the game at 50 but he didn't. It was actually on point. I personally got a kick out of the author saying that Madonna (and Prince) do glammed up oldies shows. I'm used to hearing that with Prince but to see that said about Madonna made me laugh.

purplecam said:

I don't get it. Why do people laugh like the devil sometimes? What does that actually mean?

1nonly said:

I was just being silly. It's the evil laugh.

Then there's the fact that Prince is a rock star, and a remarkably important one, while Madonna and Jackson are mainstream pop stars.

interesting statement i thought in quite a fair article overall - i have to say i prefer my rock stars to look more like Prince than Jagger and play geetar

MrsGoodnight said:

I completely agree with you MrsGoodnight, my thoughts entirely. As for 'oldies' shows, did he attend any aftershows recently? I can think of a word I'd like to use to describe the author, it begins with W
[Edited 2/7/08 11:58am]

Jeffiner said:

well jennifer, the aftershow is 4 the hardcore fans, not many "casual" fans r going 2 go 2 a club afterwards after the main show. prince should flip it and make the main shows with the music that is played at the late night gigs and play that hits shit 4 the aftershow

"Unlike pathetic has-beens who peddle their musty wares from one provincial town to the next, Madonna and Prince play in huge venues and command huge ticket prices" - 31.21 - I don't think so!!!

L4OATheOriginal said:

Well Freddie, maybe you're right....

Jeffiner said:

yeah in fact i'm listening 2 a aftershow right now

Interesting read. Thanks for the post.

I do disagree with some of the writer's points though. For example, I think that he is correct when he says that the typical rock rules don't apply to Prince and Madonna. However, I think he is off base at some points. It might be because he is viewing these artists, particularly Prince, through a mainstream filter. Although Prince reached mainstream superstardom, I've never quite seen him as a fullfledged "mainstream" act. He's always been a musician's musician, which is why I think he will always draw crowds who want to hear what he is doing beyond "oldies." Fans of real music, especially his music will always find him relevant as they do jazz and classical musicians.

I also have always disagreed with the notion that Prince was "dead" after the 1980s. He was quite popular in the mainstream in the early 1990s. Even to the mid 1990s when Emancipation was out he was still filling huge venues. I saw him at the United Center in Chicago then. While he wasn't in the "mainstream" in the "Artist" days, he wasn't dead, especially not creatively. Some of his NPGMC output is very daring, creative, quality material. Prince's albums have always had hits and misses depending on personal tastes. I don't think you can measure his current musical relevance alongside what's out there now, because there isn't a place for real musicians in the current landscape. In the 1980s older acts from the 1960s and 1970s were still relevant because talent was still relevant. Today that isn't the case. I don't know any other time in history when so many untalented people were heralded as "artists."

So, again, I guess if the barometer is mainstream success, my assertions are obsolete. However, I still believe that Prince's career has been a very unique one in that he has long toggled between mainstream and underground success.

Im glad he gave up the silliness of the 90's, what a sad time to be a Prince fan after the incredible 80's
I wholehardedly agree with the article, it was spot on.

I hope he ages gracefully, and instead of earasing the dirty bits of his classic 80's song, he should erase EVERYTHING he did in the 90's, lol, he really made a complete fool of himself and his talent.
[Edited 2/8/08 20:59pm]

Joe Queenan said:


Ouch. Not sure she deserved that. She's a better businessperson than both Mj and Prince combined.

I thought this was a great article, and on point in almost every way. MJ washed up long ago, image and music both. Madonna was never much more than a well-packaged cabaret act. And Prince, whilst easily the most talented of the three, has long since ended his era of significant cultural relevance.

However, it is worth remembering that we cannot expect one artist to usher in two revolutions. Prince had his time as the revolutionary - it's extremely unlikely he could do it again. We are unwise to expect a trajectory that keeps going up; it's just not realistic. Instead, Prince defined himself in the first part of his career then has offered variations from thereon. There is still much to enjoy in what he does.

Sic transic gloria: "glory fades". Everything we love will eventually fade. And many of those things will take a good bashing as they go down. Art will be desecrated, personalities will tarnish their reputations, the leaders of causes will turn against those causes. This is the nature of things and Prince is no exception.

violetblues said:

in the 90's it was great being a fan of his music cause u could c the charge he was leading in terms of business and reclaiming the masters and going 2 a show and not worrying or dreading hearing none of the 80's music was great!!!! and he should go back 2 that style these days..leave the 80's behind and move forward with his life and music

-
[Edited 2/11/08 13:55pm]

jasmine3121 said:[quote]

Jezebel said:

Well it's true she is less talented than Michael and Michael is less talented than Prince. Prince is the true KING of music. If you don't know it by now you better ask somebody.

L4OATheOriginal said:

Nobody is saying to go back,.....there are many paths forward,....just moving forward and over a cliff with your sheep following you is not my idea of progress.

violetblues said:

so what would u suggest then? let's do a whole 80's revival and pretend that he never created a single note after batman?

L4OATheOriginal said:

C'mon now, ALL music critics, millions of fans and me cant all be wrong.
Duke Ellington, said it best "if it sounds good it is good" And its good to you and that's cool.

But I finally got "Ultimate Prince" and dammm did this thing go sour after mf*%ng Diamonds And Pearls (uggg yes it was a big hit) "Money Dont Mater Tonight)and "My Name is Prince"

to be fair i do like some 90's Prince, the albums "The Truth" and "Come" i like, and "7' is one of my faves

Great CD by the way,...if only for disc two. (thought I was gonna get it cheap on ebay, but its about the only Prince cd on there that you have to pay full price, which is cool tho)
[Edited 2/12/08 19:50pm]

jasmine3121 said:[quote]

jasmine3121 said:

violetblues said:

well it's different strokes 4 different folks then ..4 me i'd rather hear the 90's material now cause i'm overdosed on the 80s material. there is some really great music from the 90's 2 present day. go in with no xpectations and u'll find them just as well

DANGEROUSx said:

Thats right I said it.