Another song where Prince confuses politics, spirituality, and his own personal business struggles in the record industry, and one of the most glaringly wrong-headed instances of his stance as a shallow political gadfly where he regurgitates some vaguely interesting, yet unfounded contrarian view of world history that some wacko convinced him of one night over cocktails.


beautiful song though

I love the song even though Prince is a little misguided with his information? He kinda makes more problems with the song than he fixes but I still love the actual "SONG"

billymeade said:

Are there other colored snowflakes besides white?

thaCONcept said:

I'm confused by the people who keep referring to this song as "misguided" or "confused." Can those of you who feel this way please explain to me waht is misguided or confusing about the information provided in this song?

bellanoche said:

The information provided might be factually correct but without Lincoln's actions which is intentionally being diminished, the black race would have been F*cked even more. This is a fact which goes unrecognized too.....

The song bugs me.

It's another case of Prince wanting to expose some sort of hidden truth, but in this case even if what he says is true about Lincoln, I think that it's fair to judge this particular man by his actions and not his personal flaws.

A lot of people have the right beliefs but do not make the right decisions when it really matters. That is no better than having fucked up beliefs and making the right decisions--I think it's a lot worse, in fact.

Whatever his personal beliefs or his motivations do not change the fact that he did the right thing and made maybe the single most important decision/change this country has ever seen! He ended slavery in this country!! And died for it.

errant said:

This is the typical response of someone who does not know or does not want to accept the truth. There is nothing confusing about this song. I LOVE it and have been listening to it frequently in the past couple of weeks. Can you point out what is untrue or vague about any of it? As 2elijah so eloquently stated, the song recounts facts be they related to Lincoln whose ideology of black inferiority slaughtered the hopes,dreams, lives, etc. of black folks; Duke Ellington who was a musical genius who did not reap the financial rewards of his gift due to greedy predators who slaughtered his rights with predatory contracts; or Native American women and children who were slaughtered at Wounded Knee by racists who shared Lincoln's view of non-white inferiority.

Are you saying that some "wacko" made up these documented historical events and convinced poor, simple minded Prince of them after he was plied with alcohol?

tricky99 said:

I think it's because of his image in the early 1980s, the Purple Rain era, where he crossed racial lines, so when he sings about "social/political issues", many are uncomfortable because they may not be able to relate to the situation he sings about, and they see him as an artist that has managed to be successful in crossing racial lines, so I think think some are taken back, when he does sing about race or other social/political issues.

He is an international artist, and many of his fans are not American, so many of them may also not be aware of specific race or other societal/political issues, he has referenced or still references in some of his songs.

Many, not all, who don't like him singing those type of songs, you'll often find, will result in calling him names, as a way of expressing their anger/dislike for daring to sing such lyrics. But what does being angry at him for doing that changes? Nothing really, especially if the song is already released. You either like it or you don't. That's just about it.
[Edited 5/20/10 9:52am]

It's gutter trash.

Prince should have been very careful, white people are the most sensitive people on earth when it comes to stereotypical comments coming their way. Some of us like me shrug our shoulders when some mexican, black or other persuasion is wronged and it comes out on the news, we just realize that's always underneath the surface. People want to deny it they can but it's there. As for the song, I thought Prince was only wrong in trying to feminize and distance his own blackness throughout his career, and like Michael did, only grasped to blackness when it suited him. However, the song itself is a masterpiece, innacurrate lyrics and all. My interpretation was it was a geyser of resentment and self denial expressed itself in that song. I love an emotional artist even if they are a little wrong. His biggest innaccuracy in the song in my mind was his lyrics about John Hammond and Duke Ellington, he was plain wrong about both these men. John Hammond was an integrator and a boon for american culture who discovered and brought out more black and white music than anyone ever. But..., he never had a damned thing to do with Duke Ellington and Duke was a character so monumental, nothing like being black ever contained his personality. He would never have been victimized by anyone to the degree the song tries to portray, and I repeat, he never worked with Hammond. I've heard they had prickly encounters but never did business and never really liked each other, it does not equal what Prince is saying in the song.

2elijah said:

2elijah THANK YOU SO MUCH for being on this thread. I have been listening to One Nite Alone for about two or three weeks in my car. Therefore, it was funny for me to come here and see this. I was simply checking for updates on the Time concert that was cancelled yesterday and decided to post. I came here today and saw this!

These kinds of threads are part of the reason that I rarely post here anymore. It boggles my mind how people get angry at Prince for reminding him that he is black, and as such has shared the experience of racism, hatred, inequality and injustice that other blacks in this country have faced. They get angry at this rich and successful black man for having the audacity to talk about these issues because it makes them uncomfortable. They are more comfortable with the lie of bi-racial, half-black, half-Italian Prince who is impervious to racism.

It is insulting and annoying when I read the types of posts that I see on this thread from people who refuse to accept facts. If it were not for the 13th Ammendment, would Prince not have been born in slavery? Regardless of his "love" of the music, was John Hammond not a white man who got wealthy off of talented black musicians by slumming in Harlem and elsewhere, then thumbing his nose at the white establishment to partially fulfill his own inflated, rebellious savior of the Negro ego?

Anyway, thanks for adding your trademark wisdom and eloquence to this thread. :tuhmbsup:

Seeing that this is probably my favorite song on my absolute favorite post 1988 Prince record, I can not tell you how much I love this track.

I love the emotive delivery of the lyrics. The somber slide down on the chorus. The backgrounds during the second verse, "Who is it". I love, love love this song.

But as far as the lyrics go, I will say this and then go away because there is absolutely NO WINNING this debate. People simply feel too strongly about this on one side against the other. It's literally like trying to debate abortion. People just feel too strongly about certain subjects.

For me, despite how much I love this song, the lyrics during the first verse of this song are a bleeping avalanche. It reads like someone went to their freshman history class and their college professor said, "hey, have you opened your eyes to this version of the truth".

For those of you that love them, I'm happy they speak to you. To me, they are divisive, dismiss context of time and are the mental/emotional equivalent of running into a crowded theatre and yelling "FIRE"!!!!

I'm not "correct" in how these lyrics speak to me. And no one else is "incorrect" in how these lyrics speak to them.

But again, as far as the song itself is concerned, I consider it one of the best in his entire catalog. And certainly in the top 5 of the 2000s.

Fenwick said:

What happened in America's history is part of the reason many of us are here today. The part that this country is so afraid to discuss out in the open :: not so loud someone may hear us:: is pretty much always dismissed as though the individuals lives' who suffered during that time period, were worhtless.

I think it is sad that we tend to be hush, hush ( even in song), about the enslavement of blacks in America and also how the Natives were invaded on their own land, but yet America seems to have no problem discussing the Holocaust out in the open, adding value to it and recognizing the lives/existence of those that suffered and survived through it.

This is the reason I see these discussion divisive, not because of exposing the details of those tragedies, but basically the fact that the sufferings of specific groups are constantly dismissed, as though their lives had no importance and value, yet all Americans today, continue to reap the benefits of those particular groups' sufferings.
[Edited 5/20/10 18:27pm]

mozfonky said:

The GOP and right wing Christianity is full of self loathing closet cases. Ever considered that?

I think people are having a hard time in distinguishing from political theater and artistic license vs. a history lesson. The legacy of Lincoln is way to complex to evaluate in a 5 minute pop song. I interpret Prince's declaration that "Lincoln was a racist" as a attention-getting rallying cry about the falsehoods in the interpretation of American history. It is about getting past what we (black and white) have been taught and developing a new framework and understanding about the same old debate. It's opening a discussion by bashing a holy tenant. Prince has always been the contrarian.

But some truths must be cleared up to continue this discussion:

*Lincoln was instrumental in keeping the country together and pushing forward a path toward the elimination of slavery.

*Lincoln was not an abolishionist. He viewed the end of slavery in more strategic terms. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in certain confederate states as a military tool. Slavery was not outlawed until the 13th ammendment. He initially ran on a platform that did not explicitly call for the end of slavery. After the Civil War, Lincoln flirted with the idea of sending free blacks back to Africa. He believed in the intellectual superiority and supremacy of whites.

Also, not all whites were racists, supremacists and oppressors. There were many abolishionists, radicals and humanitarians who were opposed to slavery and the mistreatment of blacks. These outside fighters always get lost in the debate. People assume that white people had no options in their political and social views.

It's a cop out to excuse racist oppression at any time in history.

jdcxc said:

I'm glad that you stated this. Someone in an earlier post stated that Prince's statement that Lincoln was a racist does not take context of time into account. However, I HATE that excuse. As you stated, there were many whites who, regardless of the time, opposed slavery and did not view blacks as inherently inferior to whites. Lincoln's ideologies were racist, which in turn makes him a racist. He, like Thomas Jefferson, is lauded as a great man. However, in my opinion neither of them is great because of their racist beliefs.

? Regardless of his "love" of the music, was John Hammond not a white man who got wealthy off of talented black musicians by slumming in Harlem and elsewhere, then thumbing his nose at the white establishment to partially fulfill his own inflated, rebellious savior of the Negro ego?

Anyway, thanks for adding your trademark wisdom and eloquence to this thread. :tuhmbsup:

mozfonky said:

I understand what you are saying about not knowing if they worked together. I have no idea. However, I do not think that John Hammond was as wonderful as some people think. He reminds me of many white men who exploited the talents of blacks for their own benefit, especially during the time that he lived. Who knows, Duke being a strong personality might have seen through John Hammond's facade, which might be why they were not fond of each other.I just don't get all warm and fuzzy about stories about him or others like him.

Duke was a strong personality for sure, but he definitely did not reap the rewards of his genius the way he should have. Whether it be a bogus deal with John Hammond or someone like him, Duke got had - maybe not as badly as others, but had nonetheless. Look at Prince, he is a strong personality who knew a lot about the biz going in, and he still got had. Again, not as bad as others, but he still got had. I think that is the parallel he draws in this song though not explicitly stated. There's no difference in mentalities between Lincoln and the slaves, the colonists and the Native Americans, John Hammond and Duke Ellington or WB and Prince.

I think Prince has always known that he was black. He played the game to market himself to mainstream white audiences, who as Arthur Ashes stated in his autobio, "like their blacks in token amounts." So the lie of a mixed Prince with his multi-racial band played much better than light-skinned, two black parents having Prince who listens to Dick Gregory and knows Abraham Lincoln was a racist. However, unlike MJ, Prince has maintained an identifiable blackness, especially in his post-Revolution days after he cemented his legacy. One could take him to task for the fact that he played the game at all, but the difference between MJ and Prince to me is that Prince knew he was playing a game.

Here is an interesting bit on John Hammond that mentions Duke as well.

http://www.press.uchicago...89222.html

2elijah said:

I don't know much about the finances other than Hammond came from money, didn't need to do anything in music, he loved it. He never made a dollar off of duke and it's just wrong to drag a good man's name through the mud. Was Duke ripped off? yes, but not by Hammond.

mozfonky said:

I don't know if he was a good man or not. I really cannot say. However, based on what I know of him, I do not see him as any different than Leonard or Phil Chess or others like them. I stand by that. Did he help black artists by opening doors for them that only a white man could open at that time? Yes. Did he profit off of those black artists because he was the white man who could open doors for them? Yes. Was Hammond a white man with the superior attitude that he "knew" the Negro or "knew" what was best for the Negro? Yes. Does that tarnish his "legacy" in my opinion? Yes.That was evidenced by his review of Black, Brown and Beige.

Well, you're standards are higher than mine, in a way, I really don't expect much of white people so when one of them is halfway decent I give the kudos. Personally, if i had it my way, i would never answer to a white man again, ever. I personally have missed a lot of "opportunities"
Excerpt from Blowin'Hot and Cool by John Gennari:

A monument to Hammond’s self-importance as an arbiter of both political virtue and racial authenticity, the review defined “black music” in narrow ideological and formal terms that Ellington and many other African American musicians have challenged in a number of ways. By implying that the vitality of jazz was necessarily connected to both a specific political program and an exacting definition of “negroid” aesthetics, Hammond’s review posited a standard of purity that not even Hammond’s favored musicians could attain. Count Basie’s band, with its freewheeling riff style and eschewal of written charts, best matched Hammond’s prescription for authentic black jazz. But not even Hammond ascribed the superiority of Basie’s rhythm section to its players’ concerns about the problems of southern sharecroppers. Ellington had his own ideas about what he called “Negro music,” and they were not limited to the three-minute swing dance tunes Hammond would have preferred that he play. Though unwilling to submit to Hammond’s litmus test, Ellington harbored his own ideas about racial authenticity. He asserted that his aim “has always been the development of an authentic Negro music, of which swing is only one element.” Whether performing for social dancers or concert listeners, reveling in syncopated rhythms or writing complex harmonies, Ellington maintained that his musical aesthetic was “definitely and purely racial.” Whether as a jazz composer and bandleader or as a public celebrity, Ellington felt he certainly didn’t need John Hammond to instruct him on how to represent his race.

A bad man who did something that actually advanced the black race in this country. I understand why it would hurt you to think of Lincoln as a great president but good or bad he did something that changed the history" of this nation. But this agenda has no room for that. it's really bizarre.

Genesia said:

You are talking but you are not enlightening. Spell out your views. What exactly is "ridiculous"?
[Edited 5/20/10 9:24am]

2elijah said:

I'm not going to get drawn into this with you 2elijah.

I heap a ton of praise upon the song and give you my reasons for not wanting to engage.

You think it's brilliant, insightful and that it tells the truth. The truth you want to hear and embrace. I don't. And my desire not to enter into it has NOTHING to do with fear. And I'm also not trying to stifle/hush any further discussions you and others may want to have. Have at it.

Again, like on another thread you and I went back and forth on recently, it comes down to the AGENDA people want to push on threads like this.

Sorry, but Prince lobbing a grenade isn't the forum for it and certainly isn't a means to whatever predetermined truth any of us think we know. If you step back and think about it, do you REALLY think there is anythiing I could say to sway your mind on this issue? Really? (And I'm not being confrontational, I'm genuinely asking you a question).

You're smart. Well spoken. Assertive. And confident in what you believe. I might as well try to knock down a brick wall with a tennis ball. (That is not a judgment of whether your stance is right or wrong, just a commentary on the firmness of your beliefs).

But again, because this point will get overlooked, I LOVE this song!!!

The shock value of the lyrics aside.

Well, you're standards are higher than mine, in a way, I really don't expect much of white people so when one of them is halfway decent I give the kudos. Personally, if i had it my way, i would never answer to a white man again, ever. I personally have missed a lot of "opportunities" because i just won't bend with them, and i don't say that in a proud way, i say it in a way that I really don't know what to do about it because it's usually a white face we look at in a power position, they usually are very arrogant and say either blatant or subtle insulting things to try and keep you down and if you don't shut your mouth you will be gone. Recently, I worked for an Indian, you know what? he was even crazier and more arrogant and much more incosistent, leaving me feeling that I would rather work for white people and would never work for an indian again, I really loathe my own people these days, sad but true. As far as the chess bros, well, Chuck berry was always protective of them and had good dealings and never said a word against them, that speaks volumes to me because chuck is an asshole. If they were that bad he would not have actually lied on their behalfs to make them look good. Anyway, speaking of race, it's an old fucking story, Chuck Berry actually had "Indian" on his driver's license in the 50's (as if that was higher on the social ladder?) he also tried to whiten his pics and pass himself off as hawaiain. We all have the illness, it's the whites who want to fake all the indignation and deny it's around and that's ok with me.

bellanoche said:

The information provided might be factually correct but without Lincoln's actions which is intentionally being diminished, the black race would have been F*cked even more. This is a fact which goes unrecognized too.....