BlackAdder7 said:

ronnwinter said:

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?

I think there is no such thing like "the greatest music artist of all time".

It´s all about taste and what peaople like. Sure there are such things like

how talented people are, how they do their music "technically", if they hit their notes etc...

Why not put Prince above Mozart?

I respect Mozart in every way and he was a fantastic composer

but Mozart didnt sing, he wasnt able to play guitar, drums etc.

He didnt do a so called performance nor anything near to that.

The Beatles was a group, so why compare 4 people with only one?

I think Prince is a genuis when it comes to music, he lives music like maybe

no one else and he is one of the greates live performers of all time in my opionion.

But as said before, it always depends on the beholder.

Graycap23 said:

robinhood said:

anyone with enough objectivity to discern. even though music is subjective, you have to consider the skill, knowledge, talent, output and level of achievment.

millions of people still buy their records to this very day.

I like a lot of their music........and love NONE of it.

The problem is this...many people will consider these guys great because they have been told that they are.

Like art...something may be hideous, but if the "experts" state it is great, the value is put on it.

I love many of those cats...half I can do without, I think Prince couldwalk among them and hold his own. My opinion though.

1kelle said:

robinhood said:

musical skill, quality of composition, level of output, level of achievement, the overall contribution they make to the quality of music on the earth as a whole, their integrity, discipline, and whether or not they leave the world a better place than when they found it, and for how long after death they are remembered and listened to with great respect.

how many instruments they composed music for, how long are those pieces, in different languages, those who composed operas had to compose for dancers and singers and in different languages. even the pianists were absolutely brilliant. Prince cant play piano like mozart could.

actually we don't really know the true level of piano playing he has.he hasn't really demonstrated that.he has been playing from childhood but we r more familiar with his guitar playing b cuz we c and hear it more.

I have never heard Prinice attempt classical music so I cannot say, but there are plenty of people who play Mozart on the piano, but that doesn't make them Mozart.

Mozart played the music of his time and was an innovator...if born today who knows what he would create.

Prince plays the music of his time and is considered an innovator....if born then who knows what he would have created.

So in that case.....Prince is = to Mozart as compared to the type of music that was created at the time they lived and their contribution to it.

Philly76 said:

BlackAdder7 said:

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

I think there is no such thing like "the greatest music artist of all time".

It´s all about taste and what peaople like. Sure there are such things like

how talented people are, how they do their music "technically", if they hit their notes etc...

Why not put Prince above Mozart?

I respect Mozart in every way and he was a fantastic composer

but Mozart didnt sing, he wasnt able to play guitar, drums etc.

He didnt do a so called performance nor anything near to that.

The Beatles was a group, so why compare 4 people with only one?

I think Prince is a genuis when it comes to music, he lives music like maybe

no one else and he is one of the greates live performers of all time in my opionion.

But as said before, it always depends on the beholder.

Um, here's why.

Just because Mozart didn't play guitar or drums, doesn't mean he wasn't proficient in other instruments. Mozart was proficient on the clavier (or pianoforte), piano, harpsichord, organ, violin, clarinet (some believe) and viola, which are all very technically demanding instruments. Mozart wrote over 33 symphonies between the ages of 8 and 19, which makes up about half of all symphonies he wrote over the course of his life. When you say that Mozart never performed publicly, is most definetely NOT TRUE. He began performing as a child in Vienna as a pianist, and later on, performed all throughout Europe as a pianist and as a conductor. Mozart may not have been reknown as a singer, but he wrote several voice pieces, for solo/choir, including the Requiem, which is a collection of several pieces arranged for choir. His first choral mass was Misa Brevis in G (earliest surviving), and he composed it at age 12.

I could go on and on...

I think there can be a comparison made between some aspects of Mozart and Prince. Both are multi-instrumentalists, and both are amazing composers. But to say that Prince is above Mozart is absurd.

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?

Prince is a great musician and his music is literally the soundtrack to my teen-aged life (the 80's). Where he lost most of the critical acclaim and most of his fan base in the 90's I think his music got richer and his lyrics got deeper. The "powers that be" may not consider him the greatest of all time, but he definitely is my all time favorite.

How many times has Mozart been metioned on this site?...hmmm Maybe 100.

The Beatles?...200.

Prince....Hundreds of thousands!

Peace & Love.

metallicjigolo said:

zaza said:

metallicjigolo said:

How many times has Mozart been metioned on this site?...hmmm Maybe 100.

The Beatles?...200.

Prince....Hundreds of thousands!

Peace & Love.

This place is called PRINCE.org, you know..

No shit. Food for thought.

metallicjigolo said:

zaza said:

metallicjigolo said:

No shit. Food for thought.

I mean, ask the same question on britney.org and see the result.. Then I could tell "Mozart has been mentioned 100 times, Britney hundreds of thousands!"

Wow. Nevermind. & Who the hell is Britney?!!

Peace.

[Edited 6/13/10 14:05pm]

metallicjigolo said:

zaza said:

metallicjigolo said: I mean, ask the same question on britney.org and see the result.. Then I could tell "Mozart has been mentioned 100 times, Britney hundreds of thousands!"

Wow. Nevermind. & Who the hell is Britney?!!

Peace.

[Edited 6/13/10 14:05pm]

Commercially Britney has had a far longer run at the top than Prince did. I don't know what that means exactly, but it's true.

Marrk said:

metallicjigolo said:

Wow. Nevermind. & Who the hell is Britney?!!

Peace.

[Edited 6/13/10 14:05pm]

Commercially Britney has had a far longer run at the top than Prince did. I don't know what that means exactly, but it's true.

What i really meant was...Who Is Britney?

metallicjigolo said:

zaza said:

Anybody who said Prince is better than Mozart..

I'm not and never have been into Mozart's music. It just doesn't move me in any way. I'm neither European or born in the century Mozart was in. Prince, on the other hand is the shit. Fuck a Mozart.

Philly76 said:

BlackAdder7 said:

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

I think there is no such thing like "the greatest music artist of all time".

It´s all about taste and what peaople like. Sure there are such things like

how talented people are, how they do their music "technically", if they hit their notes etc...

Why not put Prince above Mozart?

I respect Mozart in every way and he was a fantastic composer

but Mozart didnt sing, he wasnt able to play guitar, drums etc.

He didnt do a so called performance nor anything near to that.

The Beatles was a group, so why compare 4 people with only one?

I think Prince is a genuis when it comes to music, he lives music like maybe

no one else and he is one of the greates live performers of all time in my opionion.

But as said before, it always depends on the beholder.

yeah, it's all personal preference.

why should the greatest matter to me if I don't enjoy listening to it...

For me most definitely. I can't think of an artist who can do so much so well. So in terms of how we now judge music he ticks more boxes than others. To compare him to Mozart is a difficult one-we cant imagine how different context creates different sounds. Historically music was more existential whilst today it is more kitchen sink drama

artist who had a longer run commercially cant measure up artistically, artist who can measure up artistically cant measure up commerically. Artist who define themselves by a genre (like funk) are better but not by much, and prince can jump into multiple genres that his superiors cant follow him into. If he aint the best, his versitility certainly puts him in the discussion unlike anyone before him. It is really hard to fathom someone who can be as accomplished on so many levels of music from production to insturmentation and voice. The ability to express yourself on so many fronts will probably be his calling card, i dont knock JB for not being able to play killer guitar or Jimi for not being able to sing at high registers, i simply marvel at one guy who can do all of the above.

[Edited 6/14/10 2:39am]

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.

The question is greatest music artist, not inventor of falsetto. But lets take a long look at what prince "is". To me Rock and Roll started in the cotton fields, the greatest musical contributions of native music in this country was made by african descendents of slaves. The second wave of great contribution to commercial music was by British youth influenced by the descendents of African slaves. Prince as a modern artist embodies all of the innovation of both cultures, blues of blacks and the guitar as musical centerpiece by the brits. He also is well versed in funk and although he's long from his peak as a songwriter wrote some of the greatest rock songs of alltime, LRC the buildup and lyrical deft is all time great. His intuition for percussion and electronic beats influenced NERD and his melding of rock and funk into pop friendly hits in the 80's is pretty much a realization of all that came before him. Michael realized the commercial possibility and dreams of gnerations before but Prince held the standard musically. PR is a manifestation of Sly's vision and sentiments musically, Parade was JB, Miles and and a host of obscure influences adapted to the French Riviera. When you look at the modern celebs/artist the ecclectisizm is so contrived-everybody wants to come off as deeper and more well versed than they truly are, Prince truly is the forefather of that shit and more importantly he is the genuine article. There would have to be a historical context taken when regarding who he is musically because there are music demigods who swear to his overall talent. We dont have to argue this, ask fellow genuis's who they are in awe of and most of them will say Prince.

Please qualify "greatest".

dseann said:

zaza said:

Anybody who said Prince is better than Mozart..

I'm not and never have been into Mozart's music. It just doesn't move me in any way. I'm neither European or born in the century Mozart was in. Prince, on the other hand is the shit. Fuck a Mozart.

You don't really have to be an European to enjoy european music !!!! (the Beatles, the Stones, Bowie, Queen...)

yankem said:

zaza said:

yankem said:

You don't really have to be an European to enjoy european music !!!! (the Beatles, the Stones, Bowie, Queen...)

At the time of Mozart everything WAS European-so it's not an argument to be had. I'm not being arsey or pedantic America was European by default.

Prince, one of the greatest music artists of all time? Yes.

THE greatest? No. I rank Stevie Wonder & (maybe) Herbie Hancock higher than Prince.

Philly76 said:

BlackAdder7 said:

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

I think there is no such thing like "the greatest music artist of all time".

It´s all about taste and what peaople like. Sure there are such things like

how talented people are, how they do their music "technically", if they hit their notes etc...

Why not put Prince above Mozart?

I respect Mozart in every way and he was a fantastic composer

but Mozart didnt sing, he wasnt able to play guitar, drums etc.

He didnt do a so called performance nor anything near to that.

The Beatles was a group, so why compare 4 people with only one?

I think Prince is a genuis when it comes to music, he lives music like maybe

no one else and he is one of the greates live performers of all time in my opionion.

But as said before, it always depends on the beholder.

Yes the beatles were somewhat revolutionary. But maybe its just the sound they had. Their voices, their lyrics (most, not all) Sorry..Im no fan, AT ALL.

Never have liked the beatles. In my opinion they were the most overrated band of all time. I know, I know...That is blasphemy. But its just my opinion.

Without Lennon..they had ZERO genius.

Prince above Mozart...Yes. Again, Im looking at the overall picture. Not just one guy in one era.

Put a list together of songs, lyrics, instruments played for both artists, and see whos list is longer.

And its not just the fact that Prince does all these things in overwhelming quantity, but he does them all in great QUALITY as well.

Marrk said:

metallicjigolo said:

Wow. Nevermind. & Who the hell is Britney?!!

Peace.

[Edited 6/13/10 14:05pm]

Commercially Britney has had a far longer run at the top than Prince did. I don't know what that means exactly, but it's true.

Hmmm.. Really? I dont really keep up with current "artists" (and I use that term VERY loosely when it comes to Britney). So She hit the scene somewhere around 1998 or 1999.. i think. So in 10-11 years, she had a longer run at the top than Prince did in his first 10-11 years?

yankem said:

dseann said:

I'm not and never have been into Mozart's music. It just doesn't move me in any way. I'm neither European or born in the century Mozart was in. Prince, on the other hand is the shit. Fuck a Mozart.

You don't really have to be an European to enjoy european music !!!! (the Beatles, the Stones, Bowie, Queen...)

You know exactly what I'm talking about. That "classical" mushit period. Do you ever hear anything else but European music when that period is being mentioned?

dseann said:

yankem said:

You don't really have to be an European to enjoy european music !!!! (the Beatles, the Stones, Bowie, Queen...)

You know exactly what I'm talking about. That "classical" mushit period. Do you ever hear anything else but European music when that period is being mentioned?

Oh hey now...dude, i understand you don't like classical music, but please, no need to knock the entire selection of classical music there is out there. Classical music has several periods and was not entirely composed by European composers. Just sayin'...

SherryJackson said:

dseann said:

You know exactly what I'm talking about. That "classical" mushit period. Do you ever hear anything else but European music when that period is being mentioned?

Oh hey now...dude, i understand you don't like classical music, but please, no need to knock the entire selection of classical music there is out there. Classical music has several periods and was not entirely composed by European composers. Just sayin'...

I know there aren't just European composers of classical music, but they get all the credit. Name someone other than a European who is a classical musician from the classical period.

dseann said:

SherryJackson said:

Oh hey now...dude, i understand you don't like classical music, but please, no need to knock the entire selection of classical music there is out there. Classical music has several periods and was not entirely composed by European composers. Just sayin'...

I know there aren't just European composers of classical music, but they get all the credit. Name someone other than a European who is a classical musician from the classical period.

To my knowledge dseann, there aren't many (if any) classical composers from what you classify as the classical era. I studied music history, so I know that the Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque eras (all before the late 1700's.) had no known non-European classical composers. The classical era had no real non-European classical composers. All non-European composers came into the spotlight during the late-Romantic early 20th century. Most new, non-European composers are filed under contemporary, 20th century, and 21st century.

There is however, Indian classical music, Arabic classical music, and Japanese classical music, that has also been around as long as European classical music. I would say the reason they are not incorporated in classical repertoire is because of lack of communication between cultures, and perhaps a snobbish attitude towards what would have then been deemed as "indigenous folk music". But yes, you have a point. Hell, the term "classical music" is very much a modern coin-of-phrase because it didn't appear until the 19th century. Before then, the expression didn't exist. But then, this would mean that the term "classical music" needs revision in order to incorporate all other forms of non-European "classical" music.

[Edited 6/14/10 11:48am]