The Prince who broughts us such gems as Automatic, The Screams of Passion, Mia Bocca, All my dreams, and If i was your girlfriend is severely lost.

Its time he releases some music that matters.

i think P was making a very valid point. Now, how do i move left?
[Edited 7/19/08 18:23pm]

wildgoldenhoney said:

Exactly! Lol

This subject has been beaten to death.

Although I’m sure many disagree, I wholeheartedly believe that some music is – in ways that can be more-or-less universally and objectively considered – good or bad. There is precedence for this in nature – some smells, for example, almost universally are considered bad and others good. And while the middle ground may be occupied by an array of differences that allow for preferences and disagreement, there still seem to be tendencies for widespread agreement in such things. And Anthropologists are discovering that there is broad similarity across many cultures and ethnicities, about what is considered physical beauty or handsomeness among we humans. That doesn’t mean, of course, that the same is necessarily true when it comes to artifacts or objects of art created by humans. But music consists of sound, and certainly there are some sounds that are almost universally disliked – a crying baby, for example, or the sound of fingernails being scraped across a blackboard. So since our sensitivity to sound seems to be subject to some universality when it comes to what is considered good or bad, it follows that music should also be subject – at least to some degree – to universal standards.

There is a widespread notion these days, fostered in our current social climate that disdains value judgements, that all music is good and differences are just matters of cultural bias or personal preference. But, critical evaluation is different from personal taste and preference. Many things in life are this way: We may be quite fond of someone, yet recognize their faults, faults that are universally acknowledged as undesirable – extreme rudeness, for example; someone may treat us well, but be unacceptably discourteous to others. We are conflicted in such cases, so we distinguish our intellectual, judgmental awareness from our personal feelings, feelings that may not be entirely influenced by intellect. And in a similar way, sometimes we are attracted to music for a variety of emotional reasons: nostalgia for the past, perhaps an association some music has with a personally significant time or place, while recognizing that the music – apart from the unique meaning it has for us – has comparatively little value, or least less value, to others. We all are subject to such influences and most of us are able to distinguish these two distinct ways of responding to music. Many people do not, however. Many listeners are only concerned with what they like and do not question the why of it, and couldn’t be less concerned with what might be objectively considered good or bad. All that matters is that they like it. And that’s fine and understandable. The troublesome thing is when what one likes, based entirely on personal, individual attraction, preference, predisposition, . . . whatever, is considered what is "good" in the objective. And this is exactly how many people approach music. We all have experienced this, understand it, accept it – may even approve of it. But if we were to acknowledge, or at least concede purely for purposes of discussion, that there can be some objective criteria applied to music to justify – on bases other than our personal preferences - that some is better and some worse, what should they be? John Winsor’s ideas were quite well thought-out and compelling. But I suspect they may not be easily grasped by some of the very people who most commonly confuse personal taste with qualitative judgement.

Since I’m not as high-minded as Zalaria and spend much of my time railing against Prince’s 90’s music and the untoward influence of the broadcast media and entertainment industry, I probably should have an objective basis to justify such strong opinions about the relative worthlessness of most pop music if I’m not to commit the same transgression of confusing personal feelings with evaluative judgement. And, as a practical matter, in conversations with others it’s handy to have some criteria, some widely accepted if not universal criteria that can be applied to any music (since certainly there is excellent pop music and poor "classical music") to reference and frame discussions. So I offer some factors we may consider when talking with others about music, particularly with those who are not musicians or do not have significant musical backgrounds, but who sometimes hold strenuously to the notion that what they like is good because they like it.

Is the piece technically well executed? Regardless of the style, the performance - whether improvised, derived from notation, or electroacoustically produced - should be free of extraneous notes, sounds, effects, nuances of any kind that do not contribute to communication of the musical ideas.
Does it exploit a variety of elements of music, i.e. rhythm, harmony, melody, texture/timbre? Although a quality piece of music need not have all elements equally represented (in fact, many if not most fine works do not), a piece that relies solely on any one element is likely to be less than fulfilling.
Is the chief attraction not the music but the words? If the answer is yes, then the piece probably should be considered more as a theater piece or as poetry, than music. For music is the most abstract of arts, and although the marriage of text and music can be transcendent, the best does not need verbal associations to enhance it.
In closing to answer your question, I shall say yes
[Edited 7/19/08 19:11pm]

wildgoldenhoney said:

mrsquirrel said:

did i miss something?????

I kind of hope THAT Prince stays lost, I'm not one that liked that stuff much.

Speak for yourself Riverpoet31

violetblues said:

OMG what a monster of a post. I hope more than a couple of people read it.

a) You are absolutely right, it is possible to a make a qualitative judgement about music, because it is definately universal. I could be wrong but I suspect that song preceded language. It would not be all that different from bird song, where it would be used to communicate the most simple but most important messages.... the sort of messages that, as you said are universal.

b) I think the innovation is something that may also elevate a piece.

c) I know that I lack objectivity when I listen to Prince's music... I find it impossible to separate quality from personal response.

I wonder if i dislike later work not because it is bad, but rather because i have an emotional/ personal connection to his earlier work.

I wonder if those who love his later work are unable to detach themselves from an emotional connection to Prince himself.

Is that why we discuss the music? Do we want people to love the same songs because we want someone to validate our own ability to make a qualitative judgement?


i am now in a very philosophical frame of mind.

oh right.. in answer to the OP.... obviously, i don't know. I know F-all about music
[Edited 8/23/08 3:26am]

Riverpoet31 said:

NOPE! Prince's music has matured and gotten better. Planet Earth was great.3121 was even better. And Musicology was the BOMB! I didn't care much for "Rave", but I loved New Power Soul - which incidentally kicks the CRAP out of albums like "Around the World" and "Parade"

That's not even counting Crystal Ball or the NPGMC releases.

It's good to be a Prince fan. Damn good.

*****Warning... get comfortable... long read ahead*****

violetblues said:

Not a good example. Not sure how many books you've read about the physiology of living organisms... but I've read planty. We respond to distinctly 'pleasant' and 'un-pleasant' smells, sounds, touches, sights and taste due to a physiological response from our bodies... according to the sense and the stimuli in question.
- A skunks spray doesn't just smell bad but acts like tear gas in our eyes due to its bio-chem make up.
- A melon smells sweet... and taste sweet... and is benificial to your diet.
- Fire is hot and will burn every time.
- Harsh, loud or screeching sounds are not only unpleasant to hear but can cause damage to ours ears if exposed for prolongued perios of time.

Nature designed this. Stimuli in nature are designed to elicit a physiological response. Most to protect us from harm. Others to protect the species (We here a baby cry we instinctively respond to the sry) There does exist grey areas which can be more of an individual experience... but this is due to a manipulation of the 'rules'... ex. perfume or colognes. And most definatelty manifested via art. more on this later as you do have a gist in this area. Just that your example was not quite on base..


For instance...symetry in a persons face not only equates to 'handsomeness' and 'beauty'... but it also is an indication of 'health'


Instead of commenting on every thing you said because you said alot... i'll just make my points.because I tend to be kinda 'wordy' myself.

You touched the one word which you are actually defing but not applying to what you are saying. While there are sounds which we find pleasant and many we find harsh... the range inbetween is exponentially vast. This is the core of why we consider art a 'subjective experience.'

95% of music (and art in general) is create through individual manipulations in the range of sounds 'physiologically' we consider 'good'. However, art in all its forms and limitless range of subtleties... is too vast to accurately apply objective values which stem from why we don't like the sound of a baby crying and using that value to determine what is good and what is bad.

While I have always conceeded that there are some basis of what can be considered 'good' art and what may clasify as bad... there simply is no universal measure which will account for 'all' art... all of the time which is necessary for any arguement to suggest that music is objective and must adhere to a certain criteria vs being up to the individual ie a subjective experience.

If you try to use physiological qualification as a basis of good sounds vs bad sounds and apply that to the music we listen too... then the primary criteria which would enforce that as a truth would be what music appeals to the most people... ie... what sells the most and what music does everyone want to hear on the radio. Plain and simple... you would have to qualify the music by what appeals to the senses of the most people not to a selective few.

Of course... we in our musically elitist way.. WILL NEVER conceed that. I'm pretty darn sure that any musical enthusiast whether Prince fan or not will say that Sign O' The Times is artistically superior to anything Brittany Spears ever created. But the numbers defy that notion. So how can we say that Sign O' the Times is better than any Britany album even though all have out sold it substantially... and more people wanted to hear music from it than they did SOTT..... it is because the basis of our music.. of art in general and what is defined as good and/or bad has been determined not by the masses as a true physiological response would be... but rather by a selective few. It is and always have been through out history... the opinons of a selective few which has determined what was good and what was bad. What was genius and what was sheer folly. And more often than not... mass apppeal defies thier opinons time and time again.

Its like movie critics. how often do they hate a movie which turns out to be box office success vs. the ones they love which flop... yet turn up at the Academy Awards where more critcs have nominated five movies, four of which you never seen and of them, two you never heard of.

Music is more so the same way. A select few judging music based on thier opinons and judging that same musiic based on a criteria they created to begin with. They will say this album is genius... that one is crap... yet why is every one buying the crap and not the genius one..?

So once we accept the fact that the quality of music is judged based on the subjective opinons of a few... vs the objective notion that the masses would dictate we can go on to try and define 'genius' based on our criteria. As Prince fans... we are typically counted among the musically elite. Very very pickky and very judgemental of music in a whole.

Now what is the one thing that Mozart, John Lennon, Marvin Gaye, Jimi hendrix, David Bowie, Stevie Wonder, Bethoven and Miles Davis have in common..?

We consider them all to be genius. thier music was inspiring and pleasnt to listen to. but how can so many artist from soo many genres who sound nothing alike... all be genius if we hold onto the objective view? We can't... we have to adhere to the subjctive view and in that view..... we have to accept that just becuase 'this' does not sound like 'that' does not make it any less good..... just different.

Unlike Prince... every artist I listed and many more who are considered genius... defined thier sound over a relatively short period of time. Few have had the longivity of Prince... whether through death or simply putting the industry behind them. But if I use an example from those who did have relatively long careers... thier music did not stay the same. Those whose music did not go thhrough change found themselves 'forced' out of the indutry as thier music became dated.

Prince has been doing it for over 30 years... I repeat ... over 30 years... yet many of you expect the same music from a 50 y.o. that you got when he was 25. He is the same man by name and talent alone. but his experiences has changed him. We call it maturing. Some of us grew up with him and continue to enjoy the music he makes now. Do we expect another 'masterpeice'... no that is unfair because he has already given us more of those than almost any artist in modern history. You can only tap the tank so many times. But does he still give us good music on the whole.. yes.

However... some have not matured with Prince. You have stayed fascinated with the Prince of two decades ago You qualify his music based on a criteria you set up yourselves... nothing more. This in itself would be fine... we are all entitled to our opinons..... but you don't keep your opinions to your self. You go beyond expressing them which is your right... to the point that you try to force them on everyone else. You can't accept why people actually like the music still and you don't. You bash the music and you bash the opinons of those who like it.. and often bash the perons themselves.

And you come up with these 'reasons' to support why the music is no good to the point now, evidentially, that you're now claiming that its 'scientifically bad'..???

Is the music what it used to be...? No. But just like the music then... I like a lot... and there was stuff I didn't like... that aspect remains the same.
[Edited 8/23/08 6:22am]

I look 4ward to reading this later today..

Riverpoet31 said:

babynoz said:

Thank you.

I enjoyed reading violetblues article as well as BigDaddyHQ's response.

In my own personal life...I have partially started a book on ranges which I tend to ignore because my interests are not always focused on finishing something that I have begun to write, while other interests bring the satisfaction of completing an idea, such as a poem or short story.

The concept that through mathmatical fractions, parallel to individual emotions and perceptions, is a crucial foundation when addressing any topic. I get fed up with thinking...this paper will never end, which binds me to believing that this is why eternity is. Life is a living expression that appears to continuously evaluate and nurture its current condition, at the range of levels in between physical biology and spiritual philosophy.

So all of this jazz usually comes down to.. desiring someone you love to talk with...until I love you is all that you have to say.

babynoz said:

Even a stopped clock tells the time right, twice a day

I was up late with nothing better to do... so hey might as well write a long one.

BigDaddyHQ said:

Not you silly...I meant the OP. We get this topic in one form or another every two weeks like clockwork.