viewaskew said:

Forgot to include that the colour of skin did not even enter my head!

mentalist, Prince has obviously 'wasted' his time on them at some point obviously, or else he wouldn't be performing any of them live at recent shows.

Just a thought

Bonedaddy said:

Fair point, and a good one too. But I still think the similarities are more co-incidental and not so directly influenced.

Prince was alot more Rock and Roll. Alot more Rolling Stones. And the similarities to around the world in a day is more image than music prompted most by the album cover and the Psychodelic Raspberry Beret video.

mentalist said:

I agree, I still think the influence, if any, comes from Wendy & Lisa's input. The reference to ATWIAD is easy pickings for the 'untrained' ears of non-Prince fans. People into Prince's work can clearly hear Princes diversity rather than copy-cat styles. I could much easier pick out Clinton or Mayfield, but it's definately his OWN thing.

mentalist said:

Right...and yet every single artist you mentioned as influential on Prince is black, ("Sly and the Family Stone, Parliament, Hendrix, James Brown etc....."), except for The Beatles, who you absurdly compare to ABBA.

Not many rational people would see any merit whatsoever in that comparison.

Graycap23 said:

To say Prince is merely a "funk" artist is absurd . His music (and therefore his musical influences) cross the boundaries of many musical genres, from soul, rock, r n' b, jazz, pop, etc, etc, etc.

I can definitely hear Beatles influences in material such as ATWIAD and Parade.

viewaskew said:

And my second list of artists are predominantly white and British.

The ABBA comparison is based on the fact that I feel that alot of the Beatles music follows and repeats a very safe musical formula that results in the tracks being instantly liked and recognisable on a commercial level without actually having any gritty substance underneath. I am not comparing the twos talent or music, but more the evident repetition of much of their material.

oh Pleeeaasssee

really the beatles?


hardly he cant have gone from hendrix to poptastic family fun beatles!!!


I cant get over paul oh sorry sir paul maccartney got a lifetime contribution WTF music award this year at the brits.

What contribution to music they only made music for a few years and most of was made by john leenon. Wings was and are shite. his most famous 'recent song' was the frog song total shite.


I doubt prince has been influenced at all by that boy band for that is exactly what they were.


the beatles are just myth even the stones still play and write new music hardly influential either unless you count Freddy Mercury copying the stance, strut and pout!!


I think if you said, 'so Prince - what aspect of The Beatles music has influenced your thousands of musical creations over the last twenty five years?'

He would simply put on his shades, cross his arms and sit staring tight lipped (ala in the back of the car in UTCM) in his famous pouting style and simply wait for you to die of shame in silence. Meanwhile his big ole bouncers would carry you and your sorry frozen shamful arse outa the building and throw you on the street.


that answer you?

mentalist said:

You are saying that songs like 'Helter Skelter' and 'Yer Blues' do not have any 'gritty substance underneath'? 'Helter Skelter' rocked harder than just about any song in the late '60s did. It was part metal and part punk with ferocious vocals by McCartney. 'Yer Blues' is one of the most angry songs of despair ever written. Sorry, but these 2 songs cannot be considerd 'a very safe musical formula' or even that commercial sounding either.

syble said:

And I thought it was just me!!!

PurpleJam said:

I said alot, not all. You are totally correct, but that's 2 songs from a quite impressive back catologue of what? 10/12 albums or so? Over their meagre 7 year history it's quite obvious that they quite while they were ahead because I don't believe there was much left to offer.

syble said:

Have you actually listened to any of The Beatles' music? Cuz if you haven't then you speak from a position of complete ignorance, and your opinion can be completely ignored.

[quote]

mentalist said:

Thats just your oppinion I actually believe Beatles were one of the Best Pop groups to walk the earth, I doubt there is even one bad Beatles album sure everythings relative but I mean most bands/artists put out at least one really crap album I doubt this was case for Beatles just better and not as good ones.
Yes of course Abba were influenced by Beatles the fact is almost every pop group in that era was to some dergree.

Now to answer the question I believe its imposible for an artist in Prince's generation to not be influenced at all by Beatles in some way. In my oppinion there are instances of Beatles influence on ATWIAD and Parade.
[Edited 4/2/08 5:12am]

why not havnt you heard hendrix play any Beatles
get a clue
[Edited 4/2/08 5:26am]

mentalist said:

WTF Mentalist... wash your mouth out..come on..Prince has been influence by the Beatles as every rock/pop act has since they came and went..but you have to look at the history of John Lennon to work out why this is so..The Beatles played alot of US Black R'n'B and played in clubs in the UK with Black Jamaican musicians and singers that was a heavy influence on their work and the sounds they created not forgetting the Indian music they added later.. of which George Harrison was really into..have you listern to "7" or the "The One U Wanna C" or "Raspberry Beret"...

LondonStyle said:

Hmmm, the bit in bold was a bit strong - I shouldn't have used the word 'wasted' as I do listen to alot of Beatles, so I'm obviously wasting mine - Fair do's!

You raise a fair point too that is very valid. I think my issue with the whole
'Beatles rain Supreme' thing is that I feel that there are so many other artists that at the time - just like Prince has been - are more clever, artistic and original with their music, but don't get the credit they deserve because the mainstream is blinded with a commercial sound.

All of the tracks on all the Beatles albums before Sgt Peppers are all just a couple of minutes long with about 4 or 5 breaking 3 minutes. They're like suped up radio jingles. Really happy, instantly catchy, and over before you feel tired of it.

Compared to the diversity of other artists like (as Ive said) Stones, Bowie, Zepplin etc. there music sounds a bit generic and because of this it is quite impossible for any artist after them 'NOT' to have a track or two that sounds like a Beatles song!

I'm not slagging off the Beatles, I'm just saying that there are a good however many or so other artists that I think Prince would pay attention to and be influenced by in favour of the Beatles.

They were good, but they're were so many more who were greater!!!!

mentalist said:

Fair point but the guys you have mentioned really come after The Beatles and I agree with you that their whole bunch of musicians before The Beatles ("of course alot of them where black artist that's a given") but they "The Beatles" really did break the mould and create "Pop" music as we know it today..as for "The Rolling Stones they did not break the mould just edited it to suite their so called "bad boys" of rock n roll style and even sour grape mick or keith would not stand up as against John Lennon"

Definately an influence, and definately a band that Prince respects.
So many great songs it's incredable.

I think others have said it all already, but if you want to hear The Beatles do funk just listen to Sgt Peppers (Reprise) - 1967 !!!

fadershader said:

Where did I say that? Learn 2 read.....not interpret.

LondonStyle said:

A good point you have made which I don't give enough credit to them for but actually should, is that they did break the mould and create 'POP' as we know it. So definitely kudos to them for defining a genre, but POP is what it stands for - Popular! They made music for the masses - good music without question - It's just for me, when I listen to their material it sounds too generic to be clever, and way to squeaky to feel the emotion. It's just POP!

mentalist said:

Thank u.

mentalist said:

Note Lyric Style to : Chelsea Rogers (Prince)
Er..no it's a bit more than that but it's still "POP" what the beatles did was not use / could not use the words Prince had licence to use at that time in history, so John and Paul used cleaver words to say what they wanted to say..
Note: Lyric Style to Eleanor Rigby (The Beatles)
Case 1: (i did not do the analysis got it of the net)
"Eleanor Rigby picks up the rice in the church where a wedding has been,
Lives in a dream."


[** OK, so here's the first bit of information we have on Eleanor. Right away, we are viewing a depressing image: a lonely woman who desires companionship is picking up the rice on the ground, after a wedding has just finished. Note how McCartney wrote that line: he doesn't say that she "sweeps up the rice". She "PICKS up the rice", making it seem as though she is doing it piece by piece. This would certainly indicate that she has A LOT of time on her hands. I disagree with those who think she works at the church as a janitor or something. The whole reason why she came to the church was because she "lives in a dream" that one day, she will be married or have some meaningful relationship.**]


"Waits at the window,
Wearing the face that she keeps in a jar by the door.
Who is it for?"


[** I've heard different theories as to exactly what the "face that she keeps in a jar" represents. Many people believe that Eleanor Rigby puts on makeup so that she can look her best, holding on to the hope that someone, anyone, will greet her. This is a good observation, but I don't think that's what the line is implying. Figuratively, the "face that she keeps in a jar by the door" could represent a sort of false-happiness that she only "wears" when a visitor has approached her door. She keeps it "in a jar" because it is only a mask to hide her loneliness and depression. The question is asked, "Who is it for?" Nobody can answer this question, not even Eleanor herself. She is still holding on to the hopeless dream that she will find love and/or companionship.**]


"All the lonely people, where do they all come from?
All the lonely people, where do they all belong?"


[** This part of the song speaks about loneliness in general. It basically asks the question, "Why are so many people lonely when there are so many of them?"**]


"Father McKenzie,
Writing the words of a sermon that no-one will hear,
No-one comes near."


[** We are now introduced to another character in the story, Father McKenzie. I do NOT believe that Eleanor Rigby and Father McKenzie knew each other at all. Nowhere in this song is that theory even hinted at. They were just two terribly lonely people, who both wanted to be involved in a relationship of some kind.

** Note how many direct references there are to loneliness in this part of the song. "Writing the words of a sermon that NO ONE will hear." This is a figurative line, to illustrate McKenzie's loneliness. I'm sure he has church members who WILL hear his sermon, but none of them can fill the void that is in him, so it doesn't even matter. The line, "No one comes near" is an example of how, even though McKenzie interacts with people at church, he manages to stay lonely because he has no relationship with them. It's as if they don't exist. This is where Eleanor Rigby and Father McKenzie are the most similar: both of them are WAITING for a relationship to happen instead of trying to find one. Eleanor "waits at the window" and McKenzie is upset because "no one comes near". Each character's passive attitude clearly has A LOT to do with their own descent into loneliness and depression.**]


"Look at him working,
Darning his socks in the night when there's nobody there.
What does he care?"


[** This part of the song can easily be compared to the line in the previous Eleanor verse, when Eleanor is "wearing the face that she keeps in a jar". (In fact, the music is identical for both lines.) The difference is that Father McKenzie seems to be "darning his socks" to take his mind off his own problems, and not necessarily to impress anyone. To add to the overall melancholy feel, he's doing something that most people would find terribly boring. Like Eleanor, he seems to have a lot of time on his hands. "What does he care?" Why should he care about his socks when he is filled with so much sadness? It's almost as if he's going through a stage of self-pity, and he's completely given up. It could also be compared to the first verse, when Eleanor "picks up the rice".**]


"Eleanor Rigby,
Died in the church and was buried along with her name.
Nobody came."


[** Now we come upon something interesting. This verse clearly states that Eleanor "dies in the church". Perhaps this is only mentioned to further connect the two characters, or perhaps there is a greater meaning. It is quite possible that it was used as irony. Eleanor wants to be married, and she dies in the very place where she would have been happiest. According to the verse, she was also "buried along with her name". This may give the listener an idea of a tombstone marking where she is buried, but it actually symbolizes how, when she died, the memory of her died also. "Nobody came" to the funeral, because nobody knew her. She would easily be forgotten.**]


"Father McKenzie,
Wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from the grave.
No-one was saved."


[** I'd like to interrupt my analysis to tell you this: I've just now realized that this song could take on a completely different meaning. I don't know which to believe, but both are fascinating. Here's my other theory:

Let's start by analyzing this verse. Father McKenzie is "wiping the dirt from his hands" almost as if he's actually accomplished something. This is followed by the line, "no-one was saved". At first, I thought nothing of it, but then I started to look at the complete lyrics. I realized just how many times the narrator FIRMLY DENIES something. "...A sermon that NO-ONE will hear," "NO-ONE comes near," "...when there's NOBODY there," "NOBODY came," "NO-ONE was saved". Suddenly, it hit me, that Father McKenzie is a priest, and is traditionally not supposed to have a serious relationship with a woman. Is it possible that the overuse of the words "nobody" and "no-one" are sarcasm, and that the narrator is trying to cover up something that DID occur between these two characters? What if you saw the lyrics this way:

"Father McKenzie,
Writing the words of a sermon that [Eleanor] will hear.
[Eleanor] comes near.

Look at him working,
Darning his socks in the night when there's [Eleanor] there.
What does he care?

Father McKenzie,
Wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from the grave,
[Eleanor] was saved."


Perhaps I am overanalyzing everything, but if the song did take on this different meaning, the whole message of the song would change. Eleanor would be "saved," in the Christian sense, and go to heaven. This would also explain why she "died in a church".


The first theory is certainly more logical, but the second one is also an interesting possibility. Perhaps you should form your own opinion. There is definitely more to this song than meets the eye (or rather, the ear).

mentalist said:

Point taken. But these 2 songs do show that they were capable of making some heavy music that rocked out and was also thought provoking. I think that 'Happiness Is A Warm Gun' is another song that could be added on the list which was also not your typical everyday sounding pop tune. Even a song like 'Run For Your Life' had some rather dark lyrics for a rather 'traditional' or 'typical' pop song as compared to the majority of the songs that were being released during the era.
[Edited 4/2/08 7:34am]
[Edited 4/2/08 7:47am]

Londonstyle mate, you've chosen one of my favourite Beatles songs and so for me that was a very interesting read, but this is from revolver which is the kind of benchmark of where the drugs heavily influenced the music and then all the albums from then on got undeniably better and more interesting.

Didn't Dylan and Joplin write in the same metaphoric style, especially about drugs, so that their records would still get airplay?

Based on the logic of this thread, Prince has been influenced by every artist that ever existed. The diverse nature of his music would suggest that. Prince's foundation is FUNK.....and branches out from there.

Graycap23 said:

What did you mean then? What was your comment inferring?

fadershader said:

My interpretation of influence must be different from everyone elses. When I hear someone say influence, that means that Prince's foundation as a musician is based in part in the Beatles. That is just NOT the case. Did Prince listen 2 a few Beatle songs and than create his own versions of that style? Maybe, but that is NOT the same as influence. At least NOT 2 me.

i see a couple of instances.

but i think prince's (awful) haircut in RASPBERRY BARET (dammit!) video looked alot like John Lennons SGt P. hair

Graycap23 said:

That's how I perceive influence to be. As far as the Beatles is concerned with Prince, it's more similarity than influence.

Influences would contribute to defining a style, and other than a couple of songs and images, I don't feel that Prince is anything like them.

It's been an enjoyable debate though and raised some really good points!

Nvncible1 said:

I always thought he looked like Sue Ellen from Dallas in that video. Hair and Make-up!