Genesia said:

I doubt it. My guess is, since his songs have titles, they won't have to. But I do think they might do what they did for Beethoven & Haydn, which is refer to periods-- Early, Middle, Late--something like that.

TheVoid said:

I agree he's not tarnishing his legacy. One period may be perceived as more important than another, but the same can be said of most artists. Look at Beethoven. He has lots of music, but he also has a "greatest hits" The 6th Symphony is famous, but not nearly as famous as the 3rd 5th or 9th.

And I believe people will not look at The Rainbow Children as utter trash, the same way some current fans do. They will look at the music, not the fact that he says "duck" instead of "fuck"

And after a person dies, their music is somewhat taken out of time. Beethoven is the guy who wrote "da da da duuuuummmmm," and nobody but fans care if that came early or late in his life. So if Purple Rain has lasting appeal, it won't matter if Musicology does not.

Honestly, there's a reason you can walk into Target and buy his latest 3 CD set for 4.99.

Neither.
His legacy is etched in stone. He could release nothing but crap from now until we live on mars, but his "legacy" will always be known as 1978-1994 and maybe 2004 for anyone outside of the purple cirlce.

daPrettyman said:

He's a walking disaster in business terms. Look at Bowie for the inspiration, but not Prince.

SquirrelMeat said:

Bowie? Really?

Never Let Me Down? Glass Spider? Tin Machine? ...Hours?

those were epic business suicides...

JoeTyler said:

We are talking business man, not artistic output. Bowie is a business man. He manages his publishing and copyright better than most. Prince stumbles from one event to the next.

Besides, I'd pick Never let me down and Tin Machine over Karma Sutra and Good Question any day!

SquirrelMeat said:

And I was talking about business...; Glass Spider was a financial suicide, just like the Tin Machine tours; and let's not forget the whole BlackTieWhiteNoise affair (it's a miracle that this album is still in print),...Hours had similar promotional problems as well; and his awful 1967 debut album has finally been re-released (something Bowie swore he would never allow ) and Tony DeFries?

For business inspiration look for (basically) Kiss or Madonna...

JoeTyler said:

I agree that Madonna is king.

But Bowie was not a disaster. Glass Spider was seen by three million people and made a small profit. Prince took the road in 1987 and 1988 and made a loss on each occasion.

Tin Machine was pants, but the tours made money. In the meantime, Prince was spending money on videos that were never going to be released.

The big difference with Prince and Bowie is that Bowie realised that his status was dwindling, and he entered into time shared ownerships to maximise his income. Prince became super paranoid and insular and ended up missing out on the whole "remaster" craze and retro marketing.

SquirrelMeat said:

True (poor fella )

SquirrelMeat said:

and true; sad, but true

SquirrelMeat said:

We're not talking "business". We're discussing his "legacy".

I use the boxing analogy, thats like saying ali tarnished his legacy after foreman. SOTT cemented him as certified genuis, 3rd masterpiece which is usually the benchmark for any genuis. The remainder of his career gave us gems, disapointments, sell outs and underground stuff, a pretty varied experience. Since 2004 he's built on his legacy as a rare legend and the last of a breed, his live guitar work is opening a new chapter and discussion about his place as possibly one of the greats on the axe. He's probably one of a handful of icons that fellow celebs are truly in awe of-good work if you can find it.

Well he is 52, Miles Davis was still doing some cool stuff at 52

But I think no matter what Prince does now, like Miles later in his career, it will not affect his past legacy. he is cemented in pop music history.
Even if Prince is able to muster another huge commercial and critical success, he will still be forever an icon of the 80's.
But unlike Prince, Miles was able to expand on his legacy by following up with ground breaking work and his seminal work was able to span more that one decade.

Prince on the other hand followed his seminal 80's work with two decades of mediocre music that was in no way shape or form groundbreaking in any way, but as a floundering pandering artist confused as to what an indusrty and consumer wanted. That certainly took some of the shine off of his current status, and let the focus of his accomplishments lay firmly in the past.

I love the Beatles, and Paul McCartney is still recording today 30 something years later, but his legacy is in a 10 year span somewhere in the 60's .
[Edited 4/28/10 10:43am]

You can't diminish your legacy. The things that make Prince great will always be in existence. The things that he isn't renowned for cannot take away from his accomplishments. I've said it before Planet Earth doesn't negate Purple Rain. They stand separately and while one may differing views upon them it won't damage the greatness or lack thereof of either.

HonestMan13 said:

exactly, bad music might diminish it, but only to those who are watching it happen right now--like us. For example, it's hard for me to see Aerosmith as a great rock band anymore, but in 50 years they will be remembered for their great stuff, not for being over the hill cheesy rock balladeers.

This seems a silly question. He is surely only enhancing it with every new tune he makes. What worries me though is, what they'll play of Prince if the same happened to him as MJ. They only concentrate on the beginning and news reports focus on the beginning and the moment they got stuck in the past they just trail out to some empty hole. Would they put on live footage of ONA for example or would they stop at D&P?

Bohemian67 said:

I think that depends a bit on the quality of the music, and the amount of time that passes. People who are alive to remember Prince will remember the popular stuff, but maybe in 200 years The Rainbow Children will be seen as better than Diamonds & Pearls

NDRU said:

I hope so.

Cmosfm said:

Yep. It's because nobody us buying CD's these days.

It is not a reflection of Prince, or the quality of his music, but a reflection of the music industry being in the toilet and outmoded.

HonestMan13 said:

I agree mostly. I mean, if Prince molested kids or sliced someone up, it might diminish his legacy.

skywalker said:

I don't know, R. Kelly still goes platinum.

Paris9748430 said:

true, but his legacy may not last that long

Of course a truly great artist almost always has certain aspects of their personal life overlooked

Are you fucking kidding me?

Diminishing! I have never in my life seen a set of fans (fams, etc) who had such a love hate relationship. I've seen people dunk on eerything from him being bitchy to his apparent bald spot. LMAO.

But either way, I know people are going to know who Prince is long after he's pusing up purple daisies. Just because he is Prince.

metallicjigolo said:

Well Said.

Paris9748430 said:

1. Prince's legacy isn't only about platinum records.

2. R. Kelly's legacy and Prince's are two very different animals.

skywalker said:

That would be a hit to his reputation. It wouldn't make 'The Beautiful Ones' into a crappy song. It would still be a great song sung by a pervert. The original poster seems to wonder if the music fans haven't appreciated is diminishing the music they have loved. One song has nothing to do with the next. Each one has a life of it's own and will grow upon the listener or not. Prince has given the world some much fantastic music and his fanbase even more great tracks the average listener probably knows nothing about. His legacy is secure and his place in history shall be well documented and studied.

HonestMan13 said:

Yeah, I guess we are talking semantics. To me, someone's legacy should be mostly about their art. However, when it comes to pop culture/rock stars/celebrities their legacy is usually about more than just their art. For example, Madonna's legacy is more than just her music. Bono's legacy extends beyond his work with U2...one has to take into account his humanitarian efforts. Anyways, I agree with what you are saying.

Stupid question! Prince is in the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame. His legacy is set in stone. He could retire now and never come back if he wanted.

He like many artist get old and less creative and the hits stop. Enjoy the live shows and what he gave us and be satisfied.

daPrettyman said:[quote]

purpledoveuk said:

Not really; Often when the conversation turns to Prince, people will ask me whether he still makes music. He's very much under the radar in Europe. Musicology was a big thing in the US but didn't have any impact over here. The concert series in London is about the only event that had people notice him over the last ten years.