sure i hear you, but for anyone to say Prince is the greatest, they'd need to know a bit more about music than just this era, otherwsie it's just an uneducated wish.

know what you mean about where music 'seems' to be headed, but who knows? we might hear music the likes of which we've never heard before and it could totally blow ALL these cats off the map.

i'm ready to wait at least 300 years to find out, either that or build a time machine lol

catpark said:

I think it did, but I for one and majority of other people cannot relate to the classical musicans on a level. how i see it, i wasn't there 300 years ago, a totally different world.

Exactly. music will be made but it will be so diluted, instruments will be ancient antiques and if u want to hear music u'll make it urself with ur personal android, i can see that happening! lol

alexothetimes said:

i'm not trying to get flamed, but TO ME he was just an eccentric pop star who is a GREAT musician....so the answer is NO.....lol ppl act like he's some sort of god....."hear ye hear ye all hail the purple one"

robinhood said:

sure i hear you, but for anyone to say Prince is the greatest, they'd need to know a bit more about music than just this era, otherwsie it's just an uneducated wish.

know what you mean about where music 'seems' to be headed, but who knows? we might hear music the likes of which we've never heard before and it could totally blow ALL these cats off the map.

i'm ready to wait at least 300 years to find out, either that or build a time machine lol

catpark said:

Classical music is loved by a lot of people and i have a family member that love a bit of classical music and i've studied classical music as a teenager when I use to play the volin and later on at college, it was really pushed, well it was when i was younger and to be honest it hasn't enlighten or inspired me anymore now than it did back then, I just don't think classical music should be the only music to look at for greatness of all time. theres other music from so many cultures like in African and Indian music that I think is better and i would rather look into.

BartVanHemelen said:

ronnwinter said:

Prince ISNT an innovator? Are you sure? Not at all? Not even one little bit?

U say No Sly=No Prince... How about....

No Prince = No Lenny Kravitz

No Prince = No Terrence Trent Darby

No Prince = No ready for the World

No Prince = No Justin Timberlake (solo career)

No Prince = No JC Chavez (Solo Career...not that he really had a good one, but still)

No Prince = No Most current male singers that use a falsetto voice

Everyone has an influence. Just because you yourself have been influenced by someone else, does not automatically disqualify you from being an innovator.

Dude, if that's his legacy...

Oh, and Prince is the first artist to sing in falsetto? And I'm supposed to take lessons from you?

Did Sly Stone have influences? Sure, but that didn't stop him from revolutionizing funk and soul. But Prince? Sure, the Minneapolis Sound -- but that's not his invention, nor is it that original.

[Edited 6/4/10 14:53pm]

Did I say he was the first to sing falsetto? Nope, I did not. Did I say that is his legacy? Nope, I did not.

I was simply saying he influenced these people.

yankem said:

ronnwinter said:

Prince ISNT an innovator? Are you sure? Not at all? Not even one little bit?

U say No Sly=No Prince... How about....

No Prince = No Lenny Kravitz

No Prince = No Terrence Trent Darby

No Prince = No ready for the World

No Prince = No Justin Timberlake (solo career)

No Prince = No JC Chavez (Solo Career...not that he really had a good one, but still)

No Prince = No Most current male singers that use a falsetto voice

Everyone has an influence. Just because you yourself have been influenced by someone else, does not automatically disqualify you from being an innovator.

Curtis Mayfield ???

Ok, well maybe NO current male singers that use falsetto was an overstatment. But certainly, no where near the same amount. He is definately a bigger influence to current artists, than Mayfield. Mayfield may be an "indirect" influence, but Prince is the "direct" influence.

it is also down right silly to say that if a person was infuluenced by another or if there would be no X with out Y then they are not and can not be inovative.

With out Robert Johnston would there be a Jimmy Hendrix? Or a Jimmy Page? Or Prince? Or Sky? Or bootsy?

And if you believe the myth with out the Devil there would be no Robert Johnston!

Without GOD there would be no Devil so there other than GOD There are NOT ANY INNOVATORS at all.

ronnwinter said:

yankem said:

Curtis Mayfield ???

Ok, well maybe NO current male singers that use falsetto was an overstatment. But certainly, no where near the same amount. He is definately a bigger influence to current artists, than Mayfield. Mayfield may be an "indirect" influence, but Prince is the "direct" influence.

males singing in a high voice goes back 1000s of years.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

ronnwinter said:

Ok, well maybe NO current male singers that use falsetto was an overstatment. But certainly, no where near the same amount. He is definately a bigger influence to current artists, than Mayfield. Mayfield may be an "indirect" influence, but Prince is the "direct" influence.

males singing in a high voice goes back 1000s of years.

This is true...but the point that most people are missing here is that a lot of the ones that do it now, name Prince as a direct influence on their style.

BartVanHemelen said:

catpark said:

That list of classical musicans cannot be compared to Prince. I appreciate ur knowledge of all those musicans who were innovators of there time, but those artists have been dead for 100-300 yrs ago and we dont know how Prince will be looked upon from 100+ years from now, but im sure it would be on the same level as artist like Mozart and Beethoven etc, and it will be studied dissected and will be a source of fascination too.

Nonsense. For one, Prince isn't an innovator. No Sly Stone = no Prince.

This is heavily flawed logic.

For one, everyone has influences from the past...Sly Stone included. Music/art does not exist in a vacuum. Secondly, just because someone builds upon their influences/what came before doesn't mean they are not innovative.

Example: George Lucas was influenced by 1930's serials/sci fi, the teaching of Joseph Campbell/mythology, and Kurosawa. He also built upon film techniques of everyone who came before him.

That said, Lucas is one of the all time innovators in his field.

Same has been said about Prince by folks with more expertise/knowledge in the area than you.

[Edited 6/5/10 11:09am]

skywalker said:

BartVanHemelen said:

Nonsense. For one, Prince isn't an innovator. No Sly Stone = no Prince.

This is heavily flawed logic.

For one, everyone has influences from the past...Sly Stone included. Music/art does not exist in a vacuum. Secondly, just because someone builds upon their influences/what came before doesn't mean they are not innovative.

Example: George Lucas was influenced by 1930's serials/sci fi, the teaching of Joseph Campbell/mythology, and Kurosawa. He also built upon film techniques of everyone who came before him.

That said, Lucas is one of the all time innovators in his field.

Same has been said about Prince by folks with more expertise/knowledge in the area than you.

[Edited 6/5/10 11:09am]

to Bart: yeah, and No Robert Johnson = NOBODY

skywalker, you're right

catpark said:

robinhood said:

sure i hear you, but for anyone to say Prince is the greatest, they'd need to know a bit more about music than just this era, otherwsie it's just an uneducated wish.

know what you mean about where music 'seems' to be headed, but who knows? we might hear music the likes of which we've never heard before and it could totally blow ALL these cats off the map.

i'm ready to wait at least 300 years to find out, either that or build a time machine lol

Classical music is loved by a lot of people and i have a family member that love a bit of classical music and i've studied classical music as a teenager when I use to play the volin and later on at college, it was really pushed, well it was when i was younger and to be honest it hasn't enlighten or inspired me anymore now than it did back then, I just don't think classical music should be the only music to look at for greatness of all time. theres other music from so many cultures like in African and Indian music that I think is better and i would rather look into.

indian singing is a trip. they sing in half-tones. amazing!

skywalker said:

BartVanHemelen said:

Nonsense. For one, Prince isn't an innovator. No Sly Stone = no Prince.

This is heavily flawed logic.

It really is, its nonsense.

ronnwinter said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

males singing in a high voice goes back 1000s of years.

This is true...but the point that most people are missing here is that a lot of the ones that do it now, name Prince as a direct influence on their style.

which makes him influential if not innovative.

and I happen to think he is very talented, very influential, and very innovative.

catpark said:

skywalker said:

This is heavily flawed logic.

It really is, its nonsense.

yup which i proved with the Robert Johnston argument. Hell that it better than the chewbacca defense!

There's no such thing as a "greatest music artist of all time", nor is there a "greatest painter or a greatest writer or a greatest director of all times.

It's impossible to evaluate something as subjective as this and it depends what you consider to be "greatest" (playing multiple instruments? Most complex arrangements? Diversity of musical styles? Quantity of music produced in a lifespan). There are people who play more instruments than Prince. There are people who are much more complex arrangers than Prince. There are people who explore many more musical styles than Prince does. There are people who write more music in their lifespan than Prince does. Does it makes any of them better or lesser? I think the question is quite irrelevent. Prince is a major artist of the 20th/21st century. He is incredibly talented. History will likely remember him as one of the essential artists of our time. But there's no such thing as a "greatest music artist of all times".

Megas1 said:

In the general human consciousness of what we consider to be great, there is often a common point of view. Great people are those that rise above mediocrity and are distinguished in some capacity for their uniqueness and ability to significantly impact the lives of the people around them. They are people that more often than not possess strong abilities or skill that exceed the average level of knowledge and talent widely accepted as the norm. Great people not only influence and impact our lives but permantly change them. Great artists change the way we see ourselves and experience our lives. They expand our awareness through their individual expression.

In music, who do we consider to be great? What constitutes greatness? And more to the point of this premise, does Prince Rogers Nelson consititute greatness? Is he, one of the greatest music artists of all time?

I'd agree that he is one of the greatest of all times, yes.

databank said:

There's no such thing as a "greatest music artist of all time", nor is there a "greatest painter or a greatest writer or a greatest director of all times.

It's impossible to evaluate something as subjective as this and it depends what you consider to be "greatest" (playing multiple instruments? Most complex arrangements? Diversity of musical styles? Quantity of music produced in a lifespan). There are people who play more instruments than Prince. There are people who are much more complex arrangers than Prince. There are people who explore many more musical styles than Prince does. There are people who write more music in their lifespan than Prince does. Does it makes any of them better or lesser? I think the question is quite irrelevent. Prince is a major artist of the 20th/21st century. He is incredibly talented. History will likely remember him as one of the essential artists of our time. But there's no such thing as a "greatest music artist of all times".

sure there is, it is just extraordinarily hard to determine who it is/was/will be.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

databank said:

There's no such thing as a "greatest music artist of all time", nor is there a "greatest painter or a greatest writer or a greatest director of all times.

It's impossible to evaluate something as subjective as this and it depends what you consider to be "greatest" (playing multiple instruments? Most complex arrangements? Diversity of musical styles? Quantity of music produced in a lifespan). There are people who play more instruments than Prince. There are people who are much more complex arrangers than Prince. There are people who explore many more musical styles than Prince does. There are people who write more music in their lifespan than Prince does. Does it makes any of them better or lesser? I think the question is quite irrelevent. Prince is a major artist of the 20th/21st century. He is incredibly talented. History will likely remember him as one of the essential artists of our time. But there's no such thing as a "greatest music artist of all times".

sure there is, it is just extraordinarily hard to determine who it is/was/will be.

then get to work NOW

(I'll try to be brief in my response to this one:)

NO.

Megas1 said:

In the general human consciousness of what we consider to be great, there is often a common point of view. Great people are those that rise above mediocrity and are distinguished in some capacity for their uniqueness and ability to significantly impact the lives of the people around them. They are people that more often than not possess strong abilities or skill that exceed the average level of knowledge and talent widely accepted as the norm. Great people not only influence and impact our lives but permantly change them. Great artists change the way we see ourselves and experience our lives. They expand our awareness through their individual expression.

In music, who do we consider to be great? What constitutes greatness? And more to the point of this premise, does Prince Rogers Nelson consititute greatness? Is he, one of the greatest music artists of all time?

For me greatness in music is an unseen force that has the ability to open peoples minds to a new perspective or reality. It also can change moods and dispositions into a more positive, energetic feeling. I've seen this happen in my own life more than with any other artist. I've been fortunate to have seen and heard lots of musicians going way back, but only Prince does this for me. Unconditionally.

Megas1 said:

In music, who do we consider to be great? What constitutes greatness? And more to the point of this premise, does Prince Rogers Nelson consititute greatness? Is he, one of the greatest music artists of all time?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

it is also down right silly to say that if a person was infuluenced by another or if there would be no X with out Y then they are not and can not be inovative.

With out Robert Johnston would there be a Jimmy Hendrix? Or a Jimmy Page? Or Prince? Or Sky? Or bootsy?

And if you believe the myth with out the Devil there would be no Robert Johnston!

Without GOD there would be no Devil so there other than GOD There are NOT ANY INNOVATORS at all.

I don't hear any innovation in Prince, and so far I haven't seen anyone mention any proof that he is.

Definetly one of the greatest. There are several greats who did such new, intriguing, powerful things - to name a few: Monk, Al Green, Charles Ives, ... What makes P great to me is his vocals, his lyrics and ability to write the music/ to hear the music. Some people just hear things in a different way- like Al Green, or Monk who used space in such a great way. Ives heard/created music that makes others see things in their minds eye- that is an accomplishment ( I can't listen to "Central Park At Dark" without seeing an entire "movie" - it takes you into his world). Some of the great musicians just wrote music minus the vocals. Then you have some singers who just sing in such a manner that it grabs your attention, it seems to inject more feeling, or urgency to the vocals.

What makes P so great is that he is that rare complete package of vocal ability, interpretation, musicianship, songwriting mastery. and performer. To be so skilled at these various levels of music is quite a rarity and the reason I feel blessed every day to be able to see this man perform live.

no question. unfortunately Jimi Hendrix died so young....imagine what he could have done further....John Lennon and Elvis and lil Richard right behind. I would have put MJ, but I think he was more of a pop star than an artist.

BartVanHemelen said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

it is also down right silly to say that if a person was infuluenced by another or if there would be no X with out Y then they are not and can not be inovative.

With out Robert Johnston would there be a Jimmy Hendrix? Or a Jimmy Page? Or Prince? Or Sky? Or bootsy?

And if you believe the myth with out the Devil there would be no Robert Johnston!

Without GOD there would be no Devil so there other than GOD There are NOT ANY INNOVATORS at all.

I don't hear any innovation in Prince, and so far I haven't seen anyone mention any proof that he is.

Poor you

Greatest of all time? No way. Top 25 greatest? Nah. Top 100? Doubtful. Top 1000? Probably. Top 5000? Yeah.

Prince is not the greatest, but he's good.

MJ is the greatest. The way he beatboxes his music in interviews trying to explain to people how does it, his genius dance moves, his funky gibberish most people dont understand where it comes from.....how he dresses and uses his clothes in dance....

art i tell ya.

Mozart

Beethoven

Bach

The Beatles

Prince

one of the greatest, but not the greatest

BlackAdder7 said:

Mozart

Beethoven

Bach

The Beatles

Prince

one of the greatest, but not the greatest

Did you really say the Beatles are better than Prince?

Sure they have a few genius songs, and Lennon was a great lyricist. But better than Prince?

They were simply the first rebelious band to hit the U.S. It made them a phenomenon. They got the credit for making drugs and long hair a big thing amongst the young generation.

The other guys, Mozart, bach and beetoven... Great, yes they were. But the overall picture still puts prince above them. Prince just has way too much talent in way more catagories.

ronnwinter said:

BlackAdder7 said:

Mozart

Beethoven

Bach

The Beatles

Prince

one of the greatest, but not the greatest

Did you really say the Beatles are better than Prince?

Sure they have a few genius songs, and Lennon was a great lyricist. But better than Prince?

They were simply the first rebelious band to hit the U.S. It made them a phenomenon. They got the credit for making drugs and long hair a big thing amongst the young generation.

The other guys, Mozart, bach and beetoven... Great, yes they were. But the overall picture still puts prince above them. Prince just has way too much talent in way more catagories.

you're funny! The Beatles Sargeant Pepper was THE most revoluntionary music of the rock era. Period. Prince above Mozart?