IMMORTAL1 said:

nope sm

doriangrayville said:

Goodie Gumdrops.

IMMORTAL1 said:

bullseye

doriangrayville said:

thats One mean fro you Rockin there

Rockability said:

John Williams is a modern day Mozart. Prince is a troubador.

viewaskew said:

Whats the Difference.

This thread is grotesque.

The only way a comparison bteween the two flies is that they were/are both prolific.

For the rest, you can't compare Mozart's music to Prince's.

Those who still try and come up with painfully embarassing statements like that the question is whether Mozart would be able to play funk, are simply showing to be fammy type fans knowing jack shit, let alone they are ignoring that unlike classical music, after merely 40 years "funk" is practically dead already and Prince isn't playing that much "funk" anymore at all. Al contrario, just like the rest of those who were "inspired by the funk" Prince nowadays mostly makes weak ass R&B and shit hop too. With the exception of a few good truly funky tracks here and there.

--
[Edited 2/4/09 6:43am]

viewaskew said:

John Williams is as close to Mozart as I am to Prince...

EmancipationLover said:

If your association with Prince is based on how out of touch with reality you are, then well said.

viewaskew said:

I suggest that you go to any modern day classical composer (suggestions: Wolfgang Rihm, Helmut Lachenmann, Thomas Ades, Mark Anthony Turnage, John Adams) and tell him that you think that John Williams is the modern day Mozart. Then the two of us can meet here again to discuss that reality thing...

Genesia said:

- I agree with you, but the kind of music Mozart used to write was completely different from the pop music structure we have in the 20th century. Different structure, different arrangements, different instruments.

EmancipationLover said:

Kickin Ass

The only likeness I see is that they are both musical geniuses...
nough said.....other than that they are two completely different musicians.

.

stupid spelling edit....guess I'm not a genius

.
[Edited 2/4/09 18:00pm]

obsessed said:

"two completely different musicians" -quote

I agree. One great, one so-so.

GustavoRibas said:

All that doesn't matter. Mozart was a pop artist in his day. Prince is a pop artist now.

EmancipationLover said:

@ this thread.

only the Good die young.

perhaps that is the more pertinent difference

between Prince and Wolf Gang.

EmancipationLover said:

As a matter of fact, I have done exactly that. I spend a great deal of time at Lincoln Center & the respect for John Williams there is quite sound.

John Williams has the skills to not only compose music for an orchestra that often includes parts for more traditional "band" instruments, he can also conduct. Williams, like Mozart or Prince (well, Prince 2 decades ago) crafts music that appeals to popular audiences.

Any of the musicians you mention above who scoff at Williams publically would kill to have one piece of music as identifiable as any 20 of his compositions are. Any attempt by some to discredit or devalue his contributions to the music world are based on jealousy & the failure of his critics to connect with audiences on the scale he's managed.

Despite your slavish devotion to him, Prince isn't in Williams' league (let alone in any of the other composers you mentioned).

viewaskew said:

I am not devoted to Prince (I never ever said he was in Mozarts league), I'm devoted to high quality contemporary classical music - and Williams just isn't capable of providing that. He is a solid, sometimes actually very good composer of music using an orchestra with a popular appeal (I wouldn't even call it 'classical'). However, in the world of contemporary art music he is completely irrelevant.

I studied seven years (private lessons) with a former student of Gyoergy Ligeti (I just assume you know who that was, otherwise this whole discussion is pointless), and that guy would laugh his ass off if I told him John Williams was comparable to Mozart.

You may love John Williams, fine for you. But a personal preference should not be mistaken for the relevance a certain musician has in a certain sector of the world of music. Go to any well-known music school in Europe with your hypothesis and you will be the joke of the month. I don't say that to ridicule you or to start flame wars, but as a simple matter of fact sine ira et studio.

Um...your mom is comparable to Mozart. And...stuff.

Yeah.

Incomprable, I like both, and love one more.

Mozart would not have released utter garbage like "Rave" and "New Power Soul". Prince has never composed a serious composition on par with Mozart.

Rockability said:

You really think Mozart was so-so?

In the context of pop music, I think Prince (Brian Wilson, Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder and some others) have displayed compositional skills that if coupled with a classical music education, could probably write satisfying classical music.

However comparing Prince's pop music compositions to Mozart's is perfectly slighting Mozart. Mozart was God showing off - belief in statements such as "Prince is a modern day Mozart" can only mean either you're insane, nescient of Mozart's music, or both.

the value of music is only in the ears of the listener.

chuckaducci said:

Judging from what I've heard of Paul McCartneys attempts at classical music, he probably should not try to continue these efforts.

coolcat said:

That is a widespread misconception.

Sorry, OP.

But i have never read that Prince compared himself to Mozart.

It were first of all some music critics in the eighties that compared him to 'Amadeus'.

My main complaints about that comparison:
1. Its like comparing apples and pears: pop-music and classical-music
2. Those critics where often looking for 'sensational' remarks, when it comes to expressing the awe they felt for Prince geniousness.

IMO, its much more 'suitable' to compare Princes output during the eighties (that is what they were talking about essentialy) to people that were acting in a common field, like: Sly and the Family Stone during the sixties and seventies, The Beatles during their short existence and, taking it to the edges of the jazz, Miles Davis.

Altough Prince shared a lot of influences with Sly and his band, I think its fair to say his influence and importance is bigger: his musical palette was even wider (adding folk, singer-songwriter, melodic pop and hard-rock to the mix) and the way he handled his music more clever and 'post-modern'.

When it comes to the 'Miles' comparison, Prince is an equal to Miles, but in the 'pop-field' that is: just as colour- and style-blind, just as free and openminded: using ultra-simple, even abstract, textures when needed, using dissonant harmonies and counterparts when he felt too.

But when it comes to the development the Beatles went through in between 1962 and 1970, i still consider Prince a second.
The Beatles created a musical revolution with their albums from Rubber Soul unto Abbey Road, that changed the palette of popular music forever. Prince borrowed a lot from them, added some things (turning a composition into a skeleton sketch, some abstract painting, that still 'worked', for example), but he wasn't 'new' in that sense.

EmancipationLover said:

Why?