sacrifice said:

OP?....lol

interesting perspective; i agree



i'm feeling a bit guilty here, but i would say prince himself is captive to the above

murph said:

These are really weak arguments... how are you measuring who ets MORE criticism? Prince is 20 times more popular than Joni; even when his records suck. Prince Sells out everywhere he goes. So people have some criticism of him, that doesn't necessarily mean their criticism is outlandish. Even if it was, you have no evidence that it's because he's black.

murph said:

It means "to the original post".

sacrifice said:

Cool...I thought u meant the homie OP...lol...All good...

JudasLChrist said:

I gave u Paul Mac, Neil Young, Bruce, Bob Dylan and anyone else you want to throw in...You are looking for something that's not there...

murph said:

The thing I am looking for is the substance of your argument, and you are correct that it definitely seems to not be there. Prince is probably not more popular than a Beatle, but maybe he is. It's a good question.

The thing here is that you have this theory, but you have nothing solid to back it up.

I think any artist, if they make a really great work, then they've set the bar for themselves. Expectations for the artist are based on that bar. Race is a always a factor in American life, but we experience that differently as time goes on.

I mean, you want to talk about supernegro expectations and Barack Obama, maybe then I'd feel ya. But Prince and Stevie? The only advanced expectations they set were by their own amazing output.

JudasLChrist said:

Hey, if you think there's no substance, cool....It is what it is...But it seems like you are trying to boil down my post into a very simplistic theme...As if I'm saying that Prince's music gets criticized because he's black...lol..

To me, the fact that you r getting such a silly notion out of my more nuanced post speaks volumes...Peace...

murph said:

Well the term Super Negro does more than just imply blackness. You say a bunch of stuff in yr nuanced post, but it's not clear what you are saying. It's all over the place.

If you are not saying he's being criticized because he's black, why then do you suppose he's being criticized?

JudasLChrist said:

He's not getting criticized because he's black....The expectations of him being an otherworldly artist is connected to the fact that he's black.And I'm looking at this through historical context, not just with Prince.....And your clear headed Obama comment speaks to this greatly....Follow that road...
[Edited 2/20/10 20:58pm]

My premise is this on a lot of Levels: If Prince was a white artist with everything else being equal, he would be considered the GREATEST artist of all-time hands down.

murph said:

That's not a nuanced argument, that's a semantic argument. I guess, in theory, because Prince is black every time he is criticized it is connected to the fact that he's black. But so what? The only other option would be to not be black? But then he'd be criticized in connection with being green, and as you know it's not easy being green (sorry). So, what then?

JudasLChrist said:

What then?....You don't agree with me....lol...And this ^^^ ain't my theory...
[Edited 2/20/10 21:08pm]

Graycap23 said:

Well, with that statement, you just have trashed all criticisms of Prince as being based in white supremacy, and that's... just plain wrong.

murph said:

That's what I'm trying to get at. What is your theory, and what SOLID evidence do you have to back up yr theory?

Just saying that people are critical of his post 80s work isn't enough.

murph said:

You know there are many countries in the world that don,t apply the color factor? I think this is a american problem.

At the end, music as art is universal.

murph said:

Obama was actually who I was thinking of in the first sentence of my initial reply.

aarontj said:

U r quite right...

murph said:

I agree with this section. I think part of the problem is not that the music is good or bad, it's the schedule at which he's releasing it. Releasing 1 album per year average is a statement in itself, and it had better be concise and good. Otherwise people suggest taking more time in between albums or editing the albums themselves.

Another point is Prince's battle for freedom from WB and his name change. He burned a lot of bridges and created an atmosphere of critique and ridicule for himself. That aside, the main reason for the emancipation was to release a flood of new music that he boasted rivaled or bettered his 80s work. That raised expectations - RIVAL or BETTER his 80s work?!

How would you classify John Legend, Maxwell, and Musiq Soulchild? I never expect anything groundbreaking from them - just solid, good music. I guess that would be "entertainers".

As far as Springsteen (example), I guess you could say he found his basic genre and honed his songwriting and instrumentation around it. You probably won't be hearing any rap songs or techno songs from him. While he's not breaking a whole lot of musical ground anymore, he is for sure delivering top-notch music. Is he "playing it safe" - no, not really. That's his genre.

I can guarantee you this: if Springsteen decided to release an album or more a year (and also produced proteges) and the music quality started slipping, you can be sure that his fans would criticize him too. It's not racial.

murph..Great thread. I hear where your coming from.

2elijah..You comments about P and his aura were on point. He had all those things going on (at that time) to keep the public interested.

Almost completely invalid post. Flat out" white musicican legends are supported by their fan bases for their entire careers - thorough breakups and breakdowns and sellouts. Black audiences have little fondness for their artists beyond their classic old hits. Chaka Khan draws a crowd only if she is going to sing Sweet Thing or Im Every Woman - not the wonderful jazz material that she does.

Same applies to Prince - which is why he continues to be a genius and do whatever the hell he wants with his career.
[Edited 2/21/10 6:16am]

murph said:

Exactly. Just because a musician name drops a writer or philosopher in their music has nothing to do with intellectualism. "Intellectual" musical composition is about a highly creative approach to words and sound. Are you saying Miles, Monk, Ellington were not "intellectual." Please. Prince is a more gifted and complex musician than Bowie or Young. They would tell you that. He was born a musical prodigy and he has an encyclopedic musical vocabulary and perfect pitch. Bowie has ripped off more than he has created. Bruce and Neil Young release the same three chord folk song structure album after album. Hell, Rick James taught NY how to play electric guitar (fact). Let's have a battle of the bands dammit!

I guess the unrealistic expectations and criticism P receives are fair. He has done things musically that are so revolutionary that he has set his own standard.

Brofie said:

U r correct....Which is why I said we are ALL partly to blame...Your point also goes back to my original statement that black artists (R&B) are always expected to be cutting edge...And that's by their own fans as well as critics...If you are not being "cutting edge", you are relegated to being a nostalgia act....
[Edited 2/21/10 7:39am]

JudasLChrist said:

It's okay...You don't agree with my premise...You oversimplified my whole point...So I'll leave you with this point from my original post...


"THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND WHEN IT COMES TO EXPECTATIONS OF BLACK ARTISTS

Either we are expected to be "entertainers" who rely heavily on the machine or we are expected to be THE SUPER NEGRO...And the crazy part is, we are ALL (black, white, asian, latino ect, ect...) to blame..."

You can take from this^^^what you will....Peace, homie....

murph said:

okay then
Look up in the sky...it's a bird, it's a plane...No!...It's Super Prince!!!!

now maybe you want to laugh at me but i really do think that prince would make a fine superhero!!!

please, just think about it for two seconds, if you will.

he already shares many characteristics with bruce wayne, a/k/a like batman. reclusive, rich, talented, a thinker so far outside the box he's like hardly anyone else in his neighborhood - wouldn't prince make a rocking superhero??

NOT to mention, he already has many of the costumes he'd require, alls he needs to do is hook up with an insanely brillant mad scientist "Q" type who'll build him the technology every good superhero has.

for prince, it's be like, the electric guitar ray gun, and the drum machine EMP, prince could also wear wristbands that function as recording equipment and i'm thinking antennae wouldn't be terribly out of line. and that cane he's always toting? sword cane!!! he'd be a natural.

Pretext - After reading this I really got on a ramble. Skip down to #1 and 2 to see the crux of my argument should you not be inclined to read all of this.

This is an interesting thread. It's cool to see three or four pages of back and forth on a topic that has a delicate nature and no one is being a donkey.

But I'm not so sure I really "get" what this is about.

To sum up, the original poster and many others agree that Prince is releasing material that is far below the innovative standard he set years before, and this standard is being unfairly applied to him because of the color of his skin? The Super Negro theory.

And the proof of this double standard is that artists like Bruce Springsteen, Paul Simon, Neil Young, David Bowie, Elvis Costello and Joni Mitchell don't face similar scrutiny ?

I really don't think any of this hypothesis/conclusion flies. If we look at the classic artists you have referenced, there is a very common denominator that runs through all of their works nowadays. Their albums don't sell like they used to. Admittedly, that is a function of the days of the download, but all of today's artists suffer from that.

But beyond album sales, let's look at their creative output as well.

Since Graceland in 1986, Paul Simon has released 4 proper albums in nearly 25 years. And one of them, Songs From the Capeman got SKEWERED. It was actually for a Broadway show that got cancelled weeks into production losing a small fortune.

Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen have almost always written songs of a traditional nature. Heck, if you threw out Springsteen's first two records, his entire career has been made on songs of simplistic nature.

I think the most overlooked musician with regards to setting the bar and changing direction is Elvis Costello. At the height of his popularity in 1980, he released an album of country standards. His next album was a Motown-esque tribute. The album following that was a Beatles-esque album with the same engineer as on many of the Beatles later albums. He's done classical albums, albums with Opera singers, folk albums and an album with Burt Bacharach.

And many of these experiments have been critically slammed, and commercially flopped.

But why do I say all this? I don't think Prince's output is being unfairly assessed based off the color of his skin. Not at all. I think there are two things really at play here.

1 - His artistry until late the 80's was so incredibly diverse, creative, innovative and brilliant, that it is almost an impossible standard to uphold while releasing new music every year. The problem, (if one in fact deems it to be a problem) is he continues to put so much music out that it is bound to have far more songs of a less creative nature. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that almost all of the artists I previously mentioned, (AND Stevie Wonder) release albums far less frequently now than when they used to. The creative juices have slowed down. Heck, Peter Gabriel released an album in 2002 that was his first proper record in TEN years. So what does he do for a follow up 8 years later? An album of covers called Scratch My Back.

Call me crazy, but I highly doubt this record is going to sell like hot cakes. Will he be skewered for it? Probably not. But it's been so long since he’s been artistically relevant to the general public's eye that it will just slip under the radar.

2 – And here is where I think the biggest problem with your assessment comes into play. Look at all of the people I have mentioned. They are almost all thought of as demigods. BRUCE!!! Stevie Wonder has a tribute or honor made in his name 10 times a year. Paul Simon same thing. Bowie, McCartney Neil Young sell out concert venues everywhere they go. But they are, to a person approachable, likeable people who are constantly doing charitable work. They are people the common man/woman can relate to. Most people want to root for them because they appear to care about us, whatever that means.

Prince? Since the beginning has always had a mystique about him. He has always been difficult to get to know. Elusive yet center staged. Cocky yet shy. Dirty yet spiritual. It is these things in his personality, (or at least the one we commoners get to see) that puts him in a category unto himself. Who exactly IS this guy? Why do so many controversial things keep coming up regarding his personality?

So when this uber-mysterious character of an uncommon other worldly genius starts putting out subpar material on independent terms, he is removing the common person’s INTEREST in the enigma. It is not the job of the fan to find the music. It is the job of the artist who wants to stay commercially relevant to find a way to get the music to the fan.

So folks my age, who grew up listening to Prince and worshipping his creative output hear his new music and say, oh well, he is not in the same league with himself anymore. That’s not unfairly judging him because he’s black. It’s fairly criticizing an album(s) because they simply don’t hold a candle to what he has given us before. So the mystery of who he is becomes less and less intriguing because his songs are less and less inspirational. Multiply that by 20 years and you have legions of fans falling off the map and a new generation who doesn’t really know what a genius he is.

And if Prince cares about this legacy, he sure has a strange way of going about showing it. His new web site is an absolutely perfect example of this. How can any objective person not look at what he has done to the fan who paid nearly 80 dollars to join his club and not be astounded. If you went to the average Joe on the street and told them it will cost you 80 bucks to join a sight and this is what you get, given today’s economic climate, and more importantly, the current state of the music biz, and they would tell you to take a flying leap. Shouldn’t Prince be SKEWERED for this?

And that’s the bottom line. If Prince is truly doing what he wants to do today, than his disappearance from the music world of relevancy makes perfect sense. Either way, no one on this site’s life depends upon his commercial viability right, so who cares? He’s just a musician, (albeit one of the greatest to ever live).

I think the color of his skin has zero percent to do with any of his criticism and the standard he is held to. I think it is simply a function of too many sub par albums and an individual who does not make themselves readily available to the general public.

All that being said. I still count him amongst my favorite artists of all time and still purchase everything he releases. He’s earned that respect from me.

Fenwick said:

Great, insightful post!!!....I may not agree with everything you posted, but you were very eloquent here...I still believe that it's not simply a "black" issue...It's an historical issue....

That's to say that black folks have always had to deal with being looked at as mystical or "super" when it comes to music...It's not that the criticism comes from being black....It's the unreasonable expectations to be everything to everyone and not just have the music taken for what it is...You mentioned Bruce in terms of him just making simplistic music...But as a lyricist he has been anything but simplistic...

Furthermore, Bruce, Neil Young and Bob Dylan are given free reign to look back at their influences without being charged as a jukebox act....Bruce can do a Rolling Stones, Clash and a Wilson Pickett cover in the same show and not worry about fans complaining that he's doing too many covers...

Like I said, we are all accomplices here. It's the same reason why the great Larry Bird was deemed a cerebral player (which btw, he was) and Jordan was deemed as simply athletic...Dealing with historical hang-ups can be a bitch...

thedance said:

A prime example of modern day apathy.

But:

Yes, I do think that TS has a point.

murph said:

murph, could you expound on exactly what you mean when you say that black musicians have always been viewed as mystical or super, I'm not entirely certain what it is you mean.

Great OP btw.

NouveauDance said:

Thanks homie....Well, it's an historical thing...

Since the dawn of popular music black artists have always been looked at as naturally possessing musical attributes....This started with blues artist and then jazz...Blacks were looked at as having some "special" feel when it came to music...Once the likes of Louis Armstrong and then Duke Ellington came along, it was a wrap....They were deemed "special"...To many people and music critics, their musical success had nothing to do with hard work and intelligence...Because, how could their music be intelligent when it came so naturally for these artists, right?

Well, flash forward to Stevie and Prince and you can read the rest of my OP to connect the dots...

And thanks for the kind words....