I keep reading that Prince's music was much better before (depending on who claims it) 1988, or 1995, etc.

I don't necessarly agree with this at all (i think Prince's music in the 90's and early 2000's is highly underrated) but i'll admit that he wasn't "paving the way" as he was in the 80's. But anyway and honestly, i can't find any other musician who kept releasing music that was as good (or at least, say, daring and innovative) as what they did in their prime.

Some have had a few great artistic "come-backs" like Bowie with "1 Outside" and "Earthling" in 1995 and 1997, or Hancock with "Future 2 Future" in 2001, and that was mostly because they chose to work with the right people, but basically, after 1980, Bowie and Hancock have been releasing material that is really cool but cannot be compared to what they did in the 1st 10 or 15 years of their careers.

George Clinton maintained a great level of quality and innovation as far as TAPOAFOM in 1996, but he wasn't paving the way like he used to in the 70's. Stevie Wonder, James Brown and Miles Davis hardly recorded anything spectacular after 1980 (though "Doo Bop" was a landmark album, but once again it was due to a younger producer). I don't know much about rock artists such as Springsteen, Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones or the surviving Beatles but i don't think they recorded a lot of stuff that was exceptionnal after their prime. Pink Floyd sure didn't. Pixies, who totally regenerated rock in the late 80's, did nothing that was really interesting after 1991 in their solo works or reunions.

Even Bill Laswell, after being the craziest genius you can think of in the 80's and 90's, has been repeating himself for the last 10 years. The only exemple of artists i can think of who really keep being absolutely relevant are YMO's Ryuichi Sakamoto, Yukihiro Takahashi and Haruomi Hosono in their collaborative works (such as Sketch Show, the HASYMO revival or Sakamoto's works with Christian Fennesz or Alva Noto) but on the other hand, their solo albums have been stuck in their own personnal routine for the last 15 years (folk for Hosono, solo piano for Sakamoto and pop for Takhashi). I don't know much about Frank Zappa but i've been told he kept experimentating a lot up until his death, not sure if it's true...

These are only examples, but i could go on and on and i think the same could be said about most composers i can think of in every possible musical genre. Even Björk or Tricky have been said "not to be like they used to" as early as the early 2000's!!!

Of course you might argue that Miles Davis kept being relevent up until he was 45 or 50 years old, but on the other hand he really didn't do anything revolutionary before he was 30, so his "prime" were just a bit late

So in the end, my point is: why are people complaining (because they ARE complaining) about Prince's music "not being what it used to" if it can be said about just everyone in the history of modern music? Why would he have to be better than all the other geniuses in jazz and pop history and what's wrong if he's not?

Or do you know any artist who kept being as creative and innovative as they used to up until the end of their carreer?
[Edited 4/22/10 18:15pm]

Bonnie Rate grew her 'brand as she progressed.

Santana had major success late in his career.



It depends on how the musicians evolve and what they do.


In the past, even when folks were fed up wit Prince, they'd still dig his songs performed by others.

He was experiencing a down year when Sinead O'connor had a massive hit with one of his songs.





But these days, I struggle to think if he could pull off the same thing. Say, have a current , younger act score big with one of new songs. Even tried and true classics by big selling names couldn't score hits.

If I was Ur Girlfriend by TLC didn't really make a splash.
I could Never Take the Place of Your Man didn't do well.

WHen Doves Cry--none of those did well.


And those are great songs. I couldn't fathom a Bria Valente track doing well on radio.

That's a fair point. For me I don't necessarily think he should be as good as he was but sometimes I don't think he pushes himself to be as good as he could be. Just my opinion but in the late '90s/early '00s I really feel like Prince was coasting. I've enjoyed most of his music from 2004-2009 much more but I still feel like he is capable of more.

I guess what I am saying is that I don't care if he falls short of my expectations as long as he is trying to be as good as he can be. When it appears that he isn't putting the effort in is when I tend to be disappointed.

TheVoid said:

I don't know much about Bonnie Raitt, i should check

As for Santana i don't know much about his late works so i might have missed something, but everything i heard (mostly his "Supernatural" hit album) was EVERYTHING but innovative or relevant: just OVER-commercial, completely formatted music: more a product than a work of art!

I think you're confusing 2 things, which are
1) being artistically challenging and relevant
and
2) having commercial success

For one thing when it comes to albums sales (or concert tickets sales) Prince is still doing quite good by the industry's standards (i.e. able to have a top-10 album and to sell 10,000 seats in 2 hours like he did in Paris last time).

And on the other hand, sales have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of what an artist does. I've read several times people here who seem to think that "high sales/hits = quality" but i couldn't disagree more. This thread isn't about artists selling records: it's about artists enjoying a critical acclaim about how creative, innovative and relevant to the evolution of music their work is. And as for radio broadcasting good music, don't even start me with this

& i don't understand what you meant about others singing his songs
[Edited 4/22/10 18:17pm]

Well said.

I would ask...what does "relevant" mean? It is a vague term. Often it is a loaded phrase/music snob code for popular.

In 1991 Prince was front and center in the music world, but I don't consider Diamonds & Pearls to be one of Prince's more artistic (or challenging) works. In the context of/compared to the rest of the 1991 pop music scene, it WAS artistic/challenging.

The same could be said about the most Prince albums.
[Edited 4/22/10 16:48pm]

skywalker said:

Just to clarify: by "relevant" i meant "relevant in terms of a particular artistic proposition at a particular moment in music history AND the artists' own musical history", but i admit that the word may be inappropriate or blurry. Let's stick to "challenging" and "innovative".

it depends on who's perspective of relevance one follows;
if it's according the general public who support him and
help him sell out arenas, or those fans who help him to sell
so many cd's as an independent/solo artist...he is still
relevant

for hardcore fans, the analysis and approach would have to
be slight altered

It's quite funny: how come everyone SUDDENLY disappeared. Where are all the people who claims what i'm talking 'bout?


[Edited 4/24/10 19:43pm]

NelsonR said:

You're right about this difference: intimacy with an artist's work indeed changes one's point of view. Now i wonder how things are on other artists' forums (i really have no clue)???.
[Edited 4/24/10 19:44pm]

One guy who recently released an astonishingly good album is Paul Weller, he's the same age as Prince and has also been releasing albums since 1977. The past 15 years have seen him release dull albums but he's released Wake Up The Nation which is up there with his finest work.

I'd given up hope of him ever releasing an album with fire, passion or vision ever again but the guy got his mojo back... so if Weller can do it I still hold onto the hope that Prince can do similar and amaze us all again.

I agree. At least with rock/pop music.

Artists within less popular genres seem to have longer relevancy...

crazydoctor said:

very good point, I think that is one reason Prince was still so 'relevant' in the 80's even for album that weren't huge commercial successes. He genre was so unique and the inclusion of New Wave and of course Rock always kept things on the edge.

In the 90's in my opinion the music by the way of vision was blurred. the inclusion of rap styles made him mediocre and he became what he said he didn't want to be in his beginning... a black artist.

Excellent points Databank and its something that I've been trying to get across to people for a long time! You know, people are often saying "he should do it like this!" or "he's not as good as he used to be" or even "he's just not putting in the effort", but most people have no idea what it is like to write music or create an album.

Rarely is there any preconception about it - you might have a theme in mind, but you can't predict entirely how the record will sound, whether people will like it, whether its going to break the mould or be the next big thing. That's just impossible to predict and, as an artist, you wouldn't be true to yourself if you went in to the studio with a particular agenda on those sorts of levels. All you can do is go in, write the music, record it and hope it sounds good. At the very least, an artist makes what they like to hear - if anyone else likes it, its a bonus! Do you think that when Prince wsa making his most innovative music that he was DELIBERATELY trying to do that - NO....he was just doing what came naturally to him and it just so happened that what he did was groundbreaking and fresh. Artists don't think about trying to be "relevant" - its meaningless and self-aggrandising. A proper artist (not a manufactured pop band that have producers deliberately playing on what is generic and popular just to sell records) just puts out what comes from within.

Its the same for almost every other artist - read anyone's biography and they will say the same thing! Unfortunately, consumers of music have an entirely different outlook and think that everything is contrived and pre-ordained. Here's a few quotes from other musicians that support what I'm trying to get across.

" Even though it was so successful, it was made in the same way as all our other albums, and the only criterion we have about releasing music is whether we like it or not. It was not a deliberate attempt to make a commercial album. It just happened that way. " Rick Wright (Pink Floyd) on Dark Side of the Moon

"No, every album is something like a snapshot. It only shows one moment in time. It shows what we feel and think right at that point in time, nothing more and nothing less." Damon Albarn

"I don't really think about what the subject of my next album will be. I just know that I'm going to make another album. " Lou Reed

Oh and, by the way, Databank - Frank Zappa is one of the very few who continued to innovate and produce extremely high-quality music and compositions right uop until his death and he was even more prolific than Prince - having released in excess of 60 original albums before his untimely death. There are a number of similarities between Prince and Zappa - perhaps you should check him out! (though, he is not for the faint-hearted and his acerbic humour and wit can often be taken as offensive - for me, he was a complete musical genius and guitar virtuoso)

Good thread and nice reading. Thanks Databank and Mindflux once again for some good posts

I think Prince's "relevance" is already established and cannot be taken away because of passing trends in music.
Prince continues to be...
one of the most bankable artists alive.
able to sell out arenas and literally compel his fans to come to him.
one of the most(if notthe most)bootlegged artists in the history of music.
an influence to youngers artists.
awe inspiring to his contemporaries.

I don't think that goes away because the masses didn't like a CD or a particular song. He's too well established and his music and styles will be emulated and scrutinized by future generations. He is the type of artist that will make current and future musicians step their game up and keep real music alive.