I am definitely enjoying this also.

Spinlight said: Doesn't this sort of relate right to the part where I talked about militant separatism? I didn't mean for the term "militant" backed with "arrogant" to sound offensive, honestly. What I think I don't understand is the shift of swagger. I almost sense indignation in some of Prince's records. When I first heard "Dear Mr. Man" I was really put off. Not necessarily because what he said was untrue, but because it continued to paint an Us vs Them picture. As you can probably tell from my past responses, I have a bit of an idealistic approach to racism and would rather people just surrender their arms and get along. I know, this will sound cheesy, but a white person in the USA (or a Chinese person in China, a Palestinian or Jew near Gaza, etc) could grow up and exist completely independent of their race/country's social issues and still be painted with the same brush. How often are "Americans" deemed fat, stupid, and war-hungry when... Really only 1 of those things is predominantly true? I find placing "white guilt" or harboring "colorism" are both fruitless endeavors. Am I wrong?

The term, “The Man” is a colloquial if not generational metaphor. It simply means, “the powers that be,” and in this case the powers that be are usually white, especially if Prince is commenting on the power that has limited or arrested the development of African Americans. Accordingly, if an individual has never acted or worked to limit or arrest the development of African Americans, then they should not be offended. In the case of the “Us vs. Them,” at some point the oppressed must be able to identify the specific issues and people (individuals) who are helping to perpetuate their oppression. So, in the case of African Americans, racism by whites must be discussed. Additionally, the poor decisions by African Americans themselves must also be discussed, which as a poet, short story writer, and essayist I do also. In fact, since someone in this thread invoked Farrakhan, I find it interesting, if not hypocritical, that most people comment on and are angered when Farrakhan discusses white racism, but almost no one comments that he spends more than sixty percent of his speeches discussing the poor decisions of African people that perpetuate their own oppression and second-class citizenship. So, the complexity of racism or solving racism for African Americans is addressing simultaneously white oppression and poor African American decision making. And, I hope that I would not have an issue with Prince writing a song about African Americans needing to take more accountability of our own poor behavior and decisions. However, I’ll admit that he probably will not do that because of his often fragile relationship with hip hop and other members of the African American community because he might be charged as a sellout or Tom by people who would not know his history of The Rainbow Children or “Dear Mr. Man,” or “We March,” in much the same way that Bill Cosby was attacked by many African Americans for saying that African Americans need to be more accountable.

As for how the international community views white Americans, putting aside, for a moment, that much of the international world has a similar view of African people as inferior (At least that is what a great number of African Americans perceive when we interact with other races or nationalities who have come to America for their various reasons.), you are right about white Americans often being lumped into the category of being the “fat” or “arrogant” or “ignorant” Americans. (And even as an African American I often say that when it comes to soccer, I’m an ignorant American because I respect the skill and beauty of soccer, but I just don’t enjoy it like American sports.) However, white Americans do not lose or have their power limited because of these names or notions being cast upon them whereas for hundreds of years African people had their very humanity (intelligence and morality) scandalized by words and films, such as Birth of a Nation. And based on this history and circumstance, for African Americans it is not just a choice of “harboring” colorism. From birth we are inundated with “white is right,” “white is more beautiful,” and “white is the power,” and many of our parents and grandparents were forced to embrace/accept these notions as a form of survival, which means that they passed or disseminated this to their children. As a way as to seem not rebellious or dangerous, African Americans had to find ways, historically, to acquiesce to the white power structure and never to seem as a threat or a challenge to that structure. Even with a name like Barack Obama, it was his demeanor that allowed him to appear to be safe (as well as mulatto), like the characters of the novels from the Harlem Renaissance. Survival for African Americans is not just about acting like their oppressor but convincing the oppressor that one would never pose or attempt a challenge to the status quo of the power structure. Thus, much to the disappointment of many so-called white liberals (because most African Americans understood this, if they were to be completely honest) President Obama is not the President of fundamentally changing the structure of America; he could not have been elected if that were the case. He is the President of improving the American economy, which means to keep as much of the status quo as possible while marginally lessening Wall Street corruption. So, I am not surprised that he has been, so far, a slow to act, weak president because his agenda, given his socio-economic background, is to try to appease as many white people as possible. But, when America is as divided as it has ever been along the issues of race and economics, which are inextricably tied, trying to appease as many white people as possible makes you a fence sitter. Thus, President Obama, as it looks now, will meet the fate of those “tragic mulatto” figures of Harlem Renaissance literature who also tried to straddle the fence. So, for all the people who say that art is not “that” important, President Obama, it seems, will meet a fate that he could avoid if he had read more African American literature rather than, as it seems, exclusively the curriculum of the white power structure. Thus, African Americans do not choose to “harbor” colorism. It is a naturally produced toxin of the American infrastructure. It is in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the movies and television programs we view, the billboards we view, the magazines we read, and the news we watch. And any time an African American tries to break that cycle he or she is deemed a militant. (I’m not saying that you were doing this, but this is what happens.) Once I was in a Wal-Mart, and my grandniece wanted a Tinker Bell doll. I would get the doll of Tinker Bell’s black friend, but not a blonde haired, blued-eyed white doll for her to fantasize with as the supreme object of beauty. A white lady was on the isle with us, and her face was twisted into a raison. She finally said, “You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to make that child a racist like you.” To which I said, “Okay, lady, you get the little black doll for your child, and I’ll get the Tinker Bell for mine, and we’ll go to the checkout counter and begin the new Civil Rights Movement.” She just turned and left the isle—with no black doll! So what does that tell you about the schizophrenic mentality of American racism? This white lady expected me to purchase a white doll for my grandniece when should could not even fathom the idea of purchasing a black doll for her child. Being infected with colorism is not a choice. It is a mental birth defect that must be fought from the womb to the tomb.

As for white guilt, I’m not interested in making anyone feel guilty or in getting something based on guilt because that is also demeaning to me. I agree with James Brown. “I don’t want anybody to give me nothing. Just open up the door; I’ll get it myself.” However, I do take a more nationalistic stance than Brown. I don’t even want the door opened by anyone. I want African people to build their own buildings with their own doors that they can control. As long as African people don’t control when and how they are educated and employed, they can be nothing more than second-class citizens. Now, this may sound militant, but why is it acceptable for all other races to control their education and employment but not African people? In fact, I only care about white racism because most African Americans must be either educated or employed by whites. If the majority of African Americans were educated by and employed by African Americans, we would not be having this discussion because African Americans would be in control of their own destiny. Prince having a diverse band did not change the socio-economic condition of African Americans. White guilt has not changed the socio-economic condition of African Americans. Only when African Americans have been able to seize control of their educational and economic situation have they been able to improve their socio-economic condition.

You and I both know that it is damn near useless to attempt to guess what is on Prince’s mind. Yet, it is also fun to do so. Until Prince decides that he wants to have some forthcoming interviews with probing and thought-provoking questions that he desires to answer honestly and not cryptically, your guess is as good as mine why, at this moment, he has mostly African American musicians in his band. Yet, for those who do not enjoy his current output, I don’t think that the color of the musicians has anything to do with that. And just because I enjoy his current output, I don’t think that the musicians’ color is the cause of that. It does seem that he chooses musicians based on a particular sound he likes, which seems to be affirmed by having two different bands: the Cora and Josh group and the Sonny T. and Michael B. group. So, are the particular sounds that he desires color driven? Or does he think that African American musicians can produce these particular sounds? I don’t know.

TheRip said: Prince used to be all about diversity, and now is less so, some fans may be lead to believe that Prince has a problem with white people to some degree. And I know being "pro black" is supposed to be a positive, and not anti-white, but would the term "pro-white be just as accepted by any other race?

As we all know, words have meaning but only in context. A term like “pro-black” exists and gets its contextual meaning from an American history where “black,” the word and the people, for whom that word was used to identify, was deemed as innately bad or inferior. The word black in most languages not indigenous to Africa is usually a negative term. Thus, the coining of the phrase “pro-black” was as much a socio-political act as much as it was a linguistic act, much like the phrase “black power,” which was first uttered in Greenwood, Mississippi by Stokely Carmichael to mean/assert that integration may not be the best solution for African Americans because as Martin Luther King, the great champion for integration said, most times African Americans are integrated out of power and not into power. Therefore, a term like “pro-black” can be seen as an act of linguistic liberation—a literary term of the Black Arts Movement—whereby African Americans, usually artists, attempt to address the self hatred of African Americans by having them face/acknowledge their own self hatred and by re-presenting in a positive light those things that the American Eurocentric structure has deemed or painted as negative or inferior merely because they are of African or African American origins. So, in America where everything is already “pro white” or where whites are the people of power, which includes the culture and people of beauty, there is no need to be “pro white” because most things and people are. For instance, I understand that when I watch CBS, NBC, or ABC, I’m going to see programming that caters to the larger white audience. I know that most things in America are going to cater to the larger white audience. That’s as much about business as it is about race. However, when I also understand that America has historically limited education to African Americans, which limits their economic opportunities, and that limited education is limited not just with exposure to math, science, and business development but also with a limited understanding of African American history and culture, then I know that the American public school systems are “pro white.” All I must do is look at the curriculum of most of the school systems. As Carter G. Woodson states in his book, The Miseducation of the Negro, which I had read long before Lauren Hill’s album, by the eleventh grade black children are taught to love everybody else except themselves. Now, I don’t want to change the way that white children are educated, but I do think that I, as an African American, do have the right for an education that exposes me to the elements that I need to employ myself as well as the elements that give me an understanding of my people’s positive contribution to this civilization, and that exposure must be longer than one month. So, there is no need for a white American to say that they are “pro white” or that they desire to be “pro white” because there has never been a time in American history when white people were taught not to love their history and culture by the government funded school systems and by the national media whereas from the inception of slavery until today, most African Americans are given curriculums and media coverage that overwhelmingly paints them as inferior. Here are two examples. First, I am old enough to remember that in the American South, state history books taught the Civil War, not as the Civil War, but as the War of Northern Aggression, adding that slaves and whites had happy and productive relationships until the North created the animosity between the two. So, the official history book was teaching that slaves were happy to be slaves until the North told them not to be. This is a "pro white" curriculum. Second, African Americans commit about sixteen percent of the crime in America, which is our quota since our population is fourteen percent, yet stories about African Americans and crime equate to about sixty percent of the news coverage, according to several news media centers/institutions. So, America is “pro white.” There is no need for an individual to announce it or for CBS to say it is “pro white.” I can tell by the nature of the programming. To call your channel/network Black Entertainment Television serves to roles. One, it makes it clear to your target audience, which, at the point of BET’s inception, had never had a network cater to it, that you are designing programming for them. (Now, of course, African Americans are not a monolith for whom one type of programming will satisfy all of their artistic and journalistic needs, but in the early eighties they were so deprived and starved for some type of artistic (television) acknowledgement of themselves that BET would do. As Eddie Murphy said, when you haven’t eaten in a long time, a regular cracker will taste like a Ritz.) Two, using the term “black” in a positive sense or to say that African Americans are in control of this station is an act of cultural propaganda, signifying to African Americans all over the country that change can arrive and that African Americans can be intelligent, beautiful, and in control. Unfortunately, BET founder Bob Johnson was more of a capitalist than a revolutionary, which allowed BET to develop programming that a good deal of African Americans deemed as being as negative as the other white networks. However, I will add that in its first ten years or so there was some excellent programming, such as Teen Summit, a couple of great political and economic talk shows, and an excellent news department. But that was all supplanted by the all mighty dollar, or white advertising. So, once again, African Americans were turning tricks for white dollars because the leadership did not have the courage or love of his people to know that a gold record that allows you to keep your dignity is more valuable than a platinum record for which you must loose your soul to gain.

TheRip said: I have every right to express my views about ANYTHING. I find pleasure in expressing these views and having various discussions and debates with others who have opinions on these topics. Having been a huge Prince fan for may years, I am disappointed by many of the choices Prince has made, though occasionally he does do something I like. For this reason, I still hang on from time to time.

Now who’s being “vague and cryptic”? Okay, so you are actually being evasive by creating a straw-man, stick-figure argument because I never said that you don’t have the right to express your views about Prince’s religious views or how he expresses them. I was simply pointing out that when you state “what the hell happened to just being spiritual” you are not making room for or allowing for the notion that “just being spiritual” does not work for all people, which then infers, even if you didn’t mean to do so, that “just being spiritual” must work for all people. If I also remember correctly, you stated that Larry Graham has messed up Prince’s head with the Jehovah Witness ideology. Again, connecting that to your earlier statement about “just being spiritual,” you are inferring if not asserting that Prince’s ideology is wrong or flawed because it is not like yours. (I’m commenting on your language, which may not have been your intent.) I would not have responded to this point if you would have just said, I don’t like Prince’s work or ideology since he has become a Jehovah’s Witness. But, when you add the “what the hell happened to just being spiritual,” that adds an element of “Prince is wrong just because he does not see it my way,” whether you meant that or not. Also, since I don’t know how many of your posts articulate the sentiment “Prince’s music after [add any year] suck,” and how many of your post articulate the sentiment “I still like some or a good deal of Prince’s music after [add any year],” then I will not lump you into those who have not been moved by Prince since 2000 and use this site to complain about it. But, your posts on this particular thread seemed to imply that you have not enjoyed or been moved by Prince’s work since he became a Jehovah’s Witness. If this is the case, it does not make sense to me why those people continue to frequent the site, but if that’s not you then I will not lump you into that group.

TheRip Said: You're all over the place here. I really don't know how to respond because one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other and you're being extremely vague and cryptic.

I have presented specific events and connected those events. So, I have not been vague or cryptic. Again, we’ll agree to disagree because I see them all as being inextricably connected.

[Edited 7/1/10 19:18pm]

1725topp said:

I am definitely enjoying this also.

Spinlight said: Doesn't this sort of relate right to the part where I talked about militant separatism? I didn't mean for the term "militant" backed with "arrogant" to sound offensive, honestly. What I think I don't understand is the shift of swagger. I almost sense indignation in some of Prince's records. When I first heard "Dear Mr. Man" I was really put off. Not necessarily because what he said was untrue, but because it continued to paint an Us vs Them picture. As you can probably tell from my past responses, I have a bit of an idealistic approach to racism and would rather people just surrender their arms and get along. I know, this will sound cheesy, but a white person in the USA (or a Chinese person in China, a Palestinian or Jew near Gaza, etc) could grow up and exist completely independent of their race/country's social issues and still be painted with the same brush. How often are "Americans" deemed fat, stupid, and war-hungry when... Really only 1 of those things is predominantly true? I find placing "white guilt" or harboring "colorism" are both fruitless endeavors. Am I wrong?

The term, “The Man” is a colloquial if not generational metaphor. It simply means, “the powers that be,” and in this case the powers that be are usually white, especially if Prince is commenting on the power that has limited or arrested the development of African Americans. Accordingly, if an individual has never acted or worked to limit or arrest the development of African Americans, then they should not be offended. In the case of the “Us vs. Them,” at some point the oppressed must be able to identify the specific issues and people (individuals) who are helping to perpetuate their oppression. So, in the case of African Americans, racism by whites must be discussed. Additionally, the poor decisions by African Americans themselves must also be discussed, which as a poet, short story writer, and essayist I do also. In fact, since someone in this thread invoked Farrakhan, I find it interesting, if not hypocritical, that most people comment on and are angered when Farrakhan discusses white racism, but almost no one comments that he spends more than sixty percent of his speeches discussing the poor decisions of African people that perpetuate their own oppression and second-class citizenship. So, the complexity of racism or solving racism for African Americans is addressing simultaneously white oppression and poor African American decision making. And, I hope that I would not have an issue with Prince writing a song about African Americans needing to take more accountability of our own poor behavior and decisions. However, I’ll admit that he probably will not do that because of his often fragile relationship with hip hop and other members of the African American community because he might be charged as a sellout or Tom by people who would not know his history of The Rainbow Children or “Dear Mr. Man,” or “We March,” in much the same way that Bill Cosby was attacked by many African Americans for saying that African Americans need to be more accountable.

As for how the international community views white Americans, putting aside, for a moment, that much of the international world has a similar view of African people as inferior (At least that is what a great number of African Americans perceive when we interact with other races or nationalities who have come to America for their various reasons.), you are right about white Americans often being lumped into the category of being the “fat” or “arrogant” or “ignorant” Americans. (And even as an African American I often say that when it comes to soccer, I’m an ignorant American because I respect the skill and beauty of soccer, but I just don’t enjoy it like American sports.) However, white Americans do not lose or have their power limited because of these names or notions being cast upon them whereas for hundreds of years African people had their very humanity (intelligence and morality) scandalized by words and films, such as Birth of a Nation. And based on this history and circumstance, for African Americans it is not just a choice of “harboring” colorism. From birth we are inundated with “white is right,” “white is more beautiful,” and “white is the power,” and many of our parents and grandparents were forced to embrace/accept these notions as a form of survival, which means that they passed or disseminated this to their children. As a way as to seem not rebellious or dangerous, African Americans had to find ways, historically, to acquiesce to the white power structure and never to seem as a threat or a challenge to that structure. Even with a name like Barack Obama, it was his demeanor that allowed him to appear to be safe (as well as mulatto), like the characters of the novels from the Harlem Renaissance. Survival for African Americans is not just about acting like their oppressor but convincing the oppressor that one would never pose or attempt a challenge to the status quo of the power structure. Thus, much to the disappointment of many so-called white liberals (because most African Americans understood this, if they were to be completely honest) President Obama is not the President of fundamentally changing the structure of America; he could not have been elected if that were the case. He is the President of improving the American economy, which means to keep as much of the status quo as possible while marginally lessening Wall Street corruption. So, I am not surprised that he has been, so far, a slow to act, weak president because his agenda, given his socio-economic background, is to try to appease as many white people as possible. But, when America is as divided as it has ever been along the issues of race and economics, which are inextricably tied, trying to appease as many white people as possible makes you a fence sitter. Thus, President Obama, as it looks now, will meet the fate of those “tragic mulatto” figures of Harlem Renaissance literature who also tried to straddle the fence. So, for all the people who say that art is not “that” important, President Obama, it seems, will meet a fate that he could avoid if he had read more African American literature rather than, as it seems, exclusively the curriculum of the white power structure. Thus, African Americans do not choose to “harbor” colorism. It is a naturally produced toxin of the American infrastructure. It is in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the movies and television programs we view, the billboards we view, the magazines we read, and the news we watch. And any time an African American tries to break that cycle he or she is deemed a militant. (I’m not saying that you were doing this, but this is what happens.) Once I was in a Wal-Mart, and my grandniece wanted a Tinker Bell doll. I would get the doll of Tinker Bell’s black friend, but not a blonde haired, blued-eyed white doll for her to fantasize with as the supreme object of beauty. A white lady was on the isle with us, and her face was twisted into a raison. She finally said, “You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to make that child a racist like you.” To which I said, “Okay, lady, you get the little black doll for your child, and I’ll get the Tinker Bell for mine, and we’ll go to the checkout counter and begin the new Civil Rights Movement.” She just turned and left the isle—with no black doll! So what does that tell you about the schizophrenic mentality of American racism? This white lady expected me to purchase a white doll for my grandniece when should could not even fathom the idea of purchasing a black doll for her child. Being infected with colorism is not a choice. It is a mental birth defect that must be fought from the womb to the tomb.

As for white guilt, I’m not interested in making anyone feel guilty or in getting something based on guilt because that is also demeaning to me. I agree with James Brown. “I don’t want anybody to give me nothing. Just open up the door; I’ll get it myself.” However, I do take a more nationalistic stance than Brown. I don’t even want the door opened by anyone. I want African people to build their own buildings with their own doors that they can control. As long as African people don’t control when and how they are educated and employed, they can be nothing more than second-class citizens. Now, this may sound militant, but why is it acceptable for all other races to control their education and employment but not African people? In fact, I only care about white racism because most African Americans must be either educated or employed by whites. If the majority of African Americans were educated by and employed by African Americans, we would not be having this discussion because African Americans would be in control of their own destiny. Prince having a diverse band did not change the socio-economic condition of African Americans. White guilt has not changed the socio-economic condition of African Americans. Only when African Americans have been able to seize control of their educational and economic situation have they been able to improve their socio-economic condition.

You and I both know that it is damn near useless to attempt to guess what is on Prince’s mind. Yet, it is also fun to do so. Until Prince decides that he wants to have some forthcoming interviews with probing and thought-provoking questions that he desires to answer honestly and not cryptically, your guess is as good as mine why, at this moment, he has mostly African American musicians in his band. Yet, for those who do not enjoy his current output, I don’t think that the color of the musicians has anything to do with that. And just because I enjoy his current output, I don’t think that the musicians’ color is the cause of that. It does seem that he chooses musicians based on a particular sound he likes, which seems to be affirmed by having two different bands: the Cora and Josh group and the Sonny T. and Michael B. group. So, are the particular sounds that he desires color driven? Or does he think that African American musicians can produce these particular sounds? I don’t know.

I am enjoying your posts to no end. i wish you would post your views on American racism in the P&R forum because some of your comments touched on some of the topics being discussed there, for the past couple of days. You should have a blog or website, some would enjoying reading. Your input is too interesting and informative to just be posted here. You have made some excellent points on how race issues are viewed in America, along with your take on African-Americans in America Fascinating comments. I have much respect for you at this point.

[Edited 7/1/10 19:50pm]

1725topp said:

So, are the particular sounds that he desires color driven? Or does he think that African American musicians can produce these particular sounds? I don’t know.

I think Prince assumes they are color-driven because he didn't really ever expand into those genres much with his white bandmembers. I think Fink and Tommy B are the only mainstays who got to play Afro-centric music styles with him to any real degree (barring the James Brown brand of chicken grease/funk he displayed on the PR tour). But take the SOTT version of "If I Was Your Girlfriend"... I don't think Prince ever thought the Revolution would hit notes like that. There's been comments before about the fact that the Revolution, even towards the end of its steam, was not a very improvisational band and their sound was a lot less organic than of the bands that came after them.

But I don't think it had to do with their race. I do, however, think Prince believed it did. It's the same thing as when Miles Davis made the comments about white musicians always being off the beat. Kind of insulting, but I think that's a pretty wide-spread belief.

It was brought up earlier in the thread by someone in agreement, but I cannot stand the lyric: "You never woulda bought my coffee if I had never served you cream." I think it's not only patently untrue, but it's naive of Prince (and I think Prince, while gifted and intelligent, is pretty naive on racial affairs). He had a solid career with afro-centric albums from For You to Controversy. It wasn't until 1999 that he actually pushed the white people in his band to the fore (even moreso during PR) and his popularity shot way up, but he had also changed his music style drastically.

Would he be as popular as he is today had he kept doing albums like Controversy and maybe then transitioned into other playstyles he seemed more comfortable with like stuff off SOTT or Diamonds and Pearls? I don't know. I know there are black musicians out there who see great, huge, amazing success while still doing afro-centric music. And by the way, I don't think many people at all would be buying his coffee if his coffee tasted like LotusFlower/MPLS Sound, the NPGMC stuff, NewPower Soul, etc regardless of how much cream he dumps into it.

Some observations:

1) A lot of times, a band's lineup depends on the type of gig at the moment. If you have a big performer with a core of musicians at his/her disposal, expect to see the lineup change depending on the nature of the gig. Sometimes you get the call, sometimes you don't. That's the biz.

2) The older a star gets, the less interested he is in doing new things. Consider Prince avante-garde if you want. But at his soul, he has some fairly concrete musical concepts that represent home base for him. He's not going to be changing up nearly as much as he did heading into the mid-1990s. So, to return briefly to my first point, he's going to hit up Mr. Hayes for a gig with a lot of soul organ needs, as opposed to Renato (whom he'd best call if some killer jazz piano is in order for the gig). Likewise, power-trio blues will find Bland & Sonny doing their thing. Jazz set, you'll probably see Blackwell & the ever-lovely Rhonda holding it down.

At this point, it's not about proving a point. You'll find white musicans and singers like Candy or Elisa popping in every now and then. It's about Prince feeling comfortable with folks whose talents, strengths and ranges he knows really well by now.

3) Some of the funkiest people I've played with or have seen play have been white. Some of the people I'd expect to be able to kill blues/soul/funk/gospel/jazz because they're black and from some hallowed musical town have let me down time and time again. It's all about a particular cat using his/her particular gift in the way God blessed them to. All other stuff is immaterial.

blowhard edit.

[Edited 7/2/10 3:07am]

Spinlight said:

1725topp said:

So, are the particular sounds that he desires color driven? Or does he think that African American musicians can produce these particular sounds? I don’t know.

1.)I think Prince assumes they are color-driven because he didn't really ever expand into those genres much with his white bandmembers. I think Fink and Tommy B are the only mainstays who got to play Afro-centric music styles with him to any real degree (barring the James Brown brand of chicken grease/funk he displayed on the PR tour). 2.)But take the SOTT version of "If I Was Your Girlfriend"... I don't think Prince ever thought the Revolution would hit notes like that. There's been comments before about the fact that the Revolution, even towards the end of its steam, 3.)was not a very improvisational band and their sound was a lot less organic than of the bands that came after them.

But I don't think it had to do with their race. I do, however, think Prince believed it did. It's the same thing as when Miles Davis made the comments about white musicians always being off the beat. Kind of insulting, but I think that's a pretty wide-spread belief.

It was brought up earlier in the thread by someone in agreement, but I cannot stand the lyric: "You never woulda bought my coffee if I had never served you cream." I think it's not only patently untrue, but it's naive of Prince (and I think Prince, while gifted and intelligent, is pretty naive on racial affairs). He had a solid career with afro-centric albums from For You to Controversy. 4.)It wasn't until 1999 that he actually pushed the white people in his band to the fore (even moreso during PR) and his popularity shot way up, but he had also changed his music style drastically.

Would he be as popular as he is today had he kept doing albums like Controversy and maybe then transitioned into other playstyles he seemed more 5.)comfortable with like stuff off SOTT or Diamonds and Pearls? I don't know. I know there are black musicians out there who see great, huge, amazing success while still doing afro-centric music. And by the way, I don't think many people at all would be buying his coffee if his coffee tasted like LotusFlower/MPLS Sound, the NPGMC stuff, NewPower Soul, etc regardless of how much cream he dumps into it.

1.) Are you saying For U Prince Dirty Mind Controversy 1999 Purple Rain did not have 'black music'? Hardly they included rnb ballads, FUNK(black music) Head Party Up I Wanna Be Ur Lover Still Waiting Let's Work Do Me Baby DMSR Lady Cab Driver Erotic City 17 Days etc etc etc the only thing the 1990's bands included was Rap

I've heard too many of those early shows that went from rock to new wave rnb folk ballads almost metal soul & funk and this was Bobby Z Dr Fink Lisa Coleman BrownMark/Andre Dez - Wendy

Wendy's playing was always stronger in folk funk rhythm

2.) That sound was not new to Prince's prior bands, that sound is very simple and not even as complex as Still Waiting Erotic City Let's Work is very similar is style to If I Was Ur Girlfriend and the pre-Revolution executed that music 2 a T

A Love Bizarre is a very funky song and the live video of that song the Revolution moved in on Sheila's band and funked that up just like the album cut

Kiss have u never heard that live by the Revolution, they even executed the long version on a few shows that was very close to the album cut

3.) It always depends on the show, Prince was for a long time very rehearsed it wasn't the band, it was always Prince's decision to be in control of the show. To this day the 'concerts' are always lacking improvision, it's the aftershows and off night shows that were very loose. Did you not see the America live video (no improvision?) Also the sound Prince wanted during Controversy - Purple Rain was the sound Prince wanted it was electric and cold dark... the Parade shows were very much organic, jazzier, free, more extended renditions of songs like Kiss, Love or Money... both very funky songs

4.) Totally disagree, the white band members were not pushed to the front, where did you see this? up till 1999 Andre-Brown Mark, Prince & Dez were always upfront and Dez(black) was the one that amped up the shows with his totally hard punk-rock background. Dez was not soul-rnb Dez was rock n roll also the sound of Dirty Mind & Controversy was stronly New Wave not RnB especially in the live shows.

5.) the music of SOTT was not Prince alone, you must be a fan and know the history of that album correct? most of that music was Dream Factory ie Revolution collaboration So to say that was not something the Revolution could do doesn't factor since they had a lot to do with SOTT via Dream Factory-Camille Project

1725topp your posts need to be broadcast on every available medium because that was the best rebuttal to this neo-racist concept of a post-racial America.

This whole thread boils down to this concept.

The quality of Prince's music declined when he stopped having White musicians in his band.

Spinlight said:

1725topp said:

So, are the particular sounds that he desires color driven? Or does he think that African American musicians can produce these particular sounds? I don’t know.

I think Prince assumes they are color-driven because he didn't really ever expand into those genres much with his white bandmembers. I think Fink and Tommy B are the only mainstays who got to play Afro-centric music styles with him to any real degree (barring the James Brown brand of chicken grease/funk he displayed on the PR tour). But take the SOTT version of "If I Was Your Girlfriend"... I don't think Prince ever thought the Revolution would hit notes like that. There's been comments before about the fact that the Revolution, even towards the end of its steam, was not a very improvisational band and their sound was a lot less organic than of the bands that came after them.

But I don't think it had to do with their race. I do, however, think Prince believed it did. It's the same thing as when Miles Davis made the comments about white musicians always being off the beat. Kind of insulting, but I think that's a pretty wide-spread belief.

It was brought up earlier in the thread by someone in agreement, but I cannot stand the lyric: "You never woulda bought my coffee if I had never served you cream." I think it's not only patently untrue, but it's naive of Prince (and I think Prince, while gifted and intelligent, is pretty naive on racial affairs). He had a solid career with afro-centric albums from For You to Controversy. It wasn't until 1999 that he actually pushed the white people in his band to the fore (even moreso during PR) and his popularity shot way up, but he had also changed his music style drastically.

Would he be as popular as he is today had he kept doing albums like Controversy and maybe then transitioned into other playstyles he seemed more comfortable with like stuff off SOTT or Diamonds and Pearls? I don't know. I know there are black musicians out there who see great, huge, amazing success while still doing afro-centric music. And by the way, I don't think many people at all would be buying his coffee if his coffee tasted like LotusFlower/MPLS Sound, the NPGMC stuff, NewPower Soul, etc regardless of how much cream he dumps into it.

How can you say that Prince is "naive" on racial affairs?

The man is 52 years old and lived through the Civil Rights era and the systemic murder of just about every Black political leader that Black people had. That experence alone gives you the insight to speak on whatever racial issue that you want.

We also don't know who Prince talks with off stage. Prince has had Tavis Smiley and Cornell West at his home. Who else has been there to have discussions? I will guess that Prince has been in the presence of different forms of Black leadership from time to time.

muleFunk said:

1725topp your posts need to be broadcast on every available medium because that was the best rebuttal to this neo-racist concept of a post-racial America.

This whole thread boils down to this concept.

The quality of Prince's music declined when he stopped having White musicians in his band.

Yeah sure it did?

oh yeah white musicians created rock, soul, jazz, funk, modern pop (beatles), dance, hip-hop, reggae, blues, rap, disco etc....

why is the org full of people who know nothing about music and have no idea about HIStory ....

I think this is the reason Prince keeps playing Come Together at his show's

muleFunk said:

1725topp your posts need to be broadcast on every available medium because that was the best rebuttal to this neo-racist concept of a post-racial America.

This whole thread boils down to this concept.

The quality of Prince's music declined when he stopped having White musicians in his band.

This qualifies as thee single dumbest SHIT I've EVER read on the org.

Graycap23 said:

This qualifies as thee single dumbest SHIT I've EVER read on the org.

It is because this is one of the dumbest threads ever on the org.

muleFunk said:

Graycap23 said:

This qualifies as thee single dumbest SHIT I've EVER read on the org.

It is because this is one of the dumbest threads ever on the org.

4 sho.

Some folks actually believe this nonsense.

muleFunk said:

Spinlight said:

I think Prince assumes they are color-driven because he didn't really ever expand into those genres much with his white bandmembers. I think Fink and Tommy B are the only mainstays who got to play Afro-centric music styles with him to any real degree (barring the James Brown brand of chicken grease/funk he displayed on the PR tour). But take the SOTT version of "If I Was Your Girlfriend"... I don't think Prince ever thought the Revolution would hit notes like that. There's been comments before about the fact that the Revolution, even towards the end of its steam, was not a very improvisational band and their sound was a lot less organic than of the bands that came after them.

But I don't think it had to do with their race. I do, however, think Prince believed it did. It's the same thing as when Miles Davis made the comments about white musicians always being off the beat. Kind of insulting, but I think that's a pretty wide-spread belief.

It was brought up earlier in the thread by someone in agreement, but I cannot stand the lyric: "You never woulda bought my coffee if I had never served you cream." I think it's not only patently untrue, but it's naive of Prince (and I think Prince, while gifted and intelligent, is pretty naive on racial affairs). He had a solid career with afro-centric albums from For You to Controversy. It wasn't until 1999 that he actually pushed the white people in his band to the fore (even moreso during PR) and his popularity shot way up, but he had also changed his music style drastically.

Would he be as popular as he is today had he kept doing albums like Controversy and maybe then transitioned into other playstyles he seemed more comfortable with like stuff off SOTT or Diamonds and Pearls? I don't know. I know there are black musicians out there who see great, huge, amazing success while still doing afro-centric music. And by the way, I don't think many people at all would be buying his coffee if his coffee tasted like LotusFlower/MPLS Sound, the NPGMC stuff, NewPower Soul, etc regardless of how much cream he dumps into it.

How can you say that Prince is "naive" on racial affairs?

The man is 52 years old and lived through the Civil Rights era and the systemic murder of just about every Black political leader that Black people had. That experence alone gives you the insight to speak on whatever racial issue that you want.

We also don't know who Prince talks with off stage. Prince has had Tavis Smiley and Cornell West at his home. Who else has been there to have discussions? I will guess that Prince has been in the presence of different forms of Black leadership from time to time.

You have a point. Tavis did mention to the audience at the opening of the State of the Black Union (SOBU) Conference in 2008, that was televised on CSPAN, that over the years, after the conferences were over, he and Prince talked on the phone for hours, discussing the issues raised at these conferences, such as the social and economic conditions/concerns within the black community.

It is also no secret that some of the lyrics in Prince's rock track "Dreamer" was inspired by his friend, Dick Gregory, where a portion of the lyrics referenced comments made by Dick Gregory at the 2004 SOBU conference.

[Edited 7/2/10 8:31am]

ThreadBare said:

Some observations:

1) A lot of times, a band's lineup depends on the type of gig at the moment. If you have a big performer with a core of musicians at his/her disposal, expect to see the lineup change depending on the nature of the gig. Sometimes you get the call, sometimes you don't. That's the biz.

2) The older a star gets, the less interested he is in doing new things. Consider Prince avante-garde if you want. But at his soul, he has some fairly concrete musical concepts that represent home base for him. He's not going to be changing up nearly as much as he did heading into the mid-1990s. So, to return briefly to my first point, he's going to hit up Mr. Hayes for a gig with a lot of soul organ needs, as opposed to Renato (whom he'd best call if some killer jazz piano is in order for the gig). Likewise, power-trio blues will find Bland & Sonny doing their thing. Jazz set, you'll probably see Blackwell & the ever-lovely Rhonda holding it down.

At this point, it's not about proving a point. You'll find white musicans and singers like Candy or Elisa popping in every now and then. It's about Prince feeling comfortable with folks whose talents, strengths and ranges he knows really well by now.

3) Some of the funkiest people I've played with or have seen play have been white. Some of the people I'd expect to be able to kill blues/soul/funk/gospel/jazz because they're black and from some hallowed musical town have let me down time and time again. It's all about a particular cat using his/her particular gift in the way God blessed them to. All other stuff is immaterial.

blowhard edit.

[Edited 7/2/10 3:07am]

I'd be interested to one day see white guys on bass and guitar. In all of his years, he's never tried that.

muleFunk said:

1725topp your posts need to be broadcast on every available medium because that was the best rebuttal to this neo-racist concept of a post-racial America.

This whole thread boils down to this concept.

The quality of Prince's music declined when he stopped having White musicians in his band.

What a load of shit.

Prince's music declined when he ran out of fresh ideas and altered his style in a way that was no longer appealing to many fans.

muleFunk said:

How can you say that Prince is "naive" on racial affairs?

The man is 52 years old and lived through the Civil Rights era and the systemic murder of just about every Black political leader that Black people had. That experence alone gives you the insight to speak on whatever racial issue that you want.

We also don't know who Prince talks with off stage. Prince has had Tavis Smiley and Cornell West at his home. Who else has been there to have discussions? I will guess that Prince has been in the presence of different forms of Black leadership from time to time.

Perhaps I should've qualified that and said Prince came to the issue of racial affairs late in life. For all of his posturing and attempts at likening himself to his African American roots from 1990 on, black people didn't relate to Prince like they related to the culture of legitimate hip hop (which, through hip hop, is how he tried to relate).

I don't get the indignation in this thread. You've got people making these passive aggressive shit-talk comments when the discussion in this thread has largely remained between 3 people and has been as civil and eye opening as you can get. Then you have people sneaking in with a post here and there making these comments that, if I were to use the same level of presumption and insinuation, are suggesting white people are dumb to even hint at discussing the shift in Prince's swagger. That's bullshit. Nobody is sitting here making racial slurs or anything of the sort yet some people gotta come up in here with their 'GIMME GIMME HE'S MINE' stuff. Why? I don't care if some black posters on this board have a chip on their shoulder. If he weren't catering to the white audience at some point in his career, "Purple Rain" and other classics wouldn't exist. I can only assume they're trolling (not saying you are doing this, but I see 3 instances of it on this 8th page of the thread alone).

Spinlight said:

muleFunk said:

How can you say that Prince is "naive" on racial affairs?

The man is 52 years old and lived through the Civil Rights era and the systemic murder of just about every Black political leader that Black people had. That experence alone gives you the insight to speak on whatever racial issue that you want.

We also don't know who Prince talks with off stage. Prince has had Tavis Smiley and Cornell West at his home. Who else has been there to have discussions? I will guess that Prince has been in the presence of different forms of Black leadership from time to time.

Perhaps I should've qualified that and said Prince came to the issue of racial affairs late in life. For all of his posturing and attempts at likening himself to his African American roots from 1990 on, black people didn't relate to Prince like they related to the culture of legitimate hip hop (which, through hip hop, is how he tried to relate).

Dude...............u have no idea what u are talking about.

Graycap23 said:

Spinlight said:

Perhaps I should've qualified that and said Prince came to the issue of racial affairs late in life. For all of his posturing and attempts at likening himself to his African American roots from 1990 on, black people didn't relate to Prince like they related to the culture of legitimate hip hop (which, through hip hop, is how he tried to relate).

Dude...............u have no idea what u are talking about.

I'm glad you took the time to reply. Hopefully, next time you spend less time abusing an ellipsis and actually type out a response that indicates you have something to say. Otherwise, don't bother.

Spinlight said:

Graycap23 said:

Dude...............u have no idea what u are talking about.

I'm glad you took the time to reply. Hopefully, next time you spend less time abusing an ellipsis and actually type out a response that indicates you have something to say. Otherwise, don't bother.

See reply #225.

Graycap23 said:

Spinlight said:

I'm glad you took the time to reply. Hopefully, next time you spend less time abusing an ellipsis and actually type out a response that indicates you have something to say. Otherwise, don't bother.

See reply #225.

Again, I'm going to ask that if you choose to join this discussion you actually come to the table with valid comments and constructive words. Otherwise, I just consider you to be a troll with a chip on your shoulder and you offer no input that is worth my time or attention. Thanks.

Spinlight said:

Graycap23 said:

See reply #225.

Again, I'm going to ask that if you choose to join this discussion you actually come to the table with valid comments and constructive words. Otherwise, I just consider you to be a troll with a chip on your shoulder and you offer no input that is worth my time or attention. Thanks.

See reply #225.

1725topp said:

RIP said: I don't think his music sucking has anything to do with race, but with his lack of new ideas. I don't think he should try to pander to any racial group. Many people of many races put a lot of money in his pockets, so he should respect us all

We’ll agree to disagree about his state of music post 2000. I think that “Colonized Mind” as well as many the majority of tracks released after 2000 are excellent. So, on that we just disagree. So, since they don’t “suck” to me, I can’ t comment on that. However, I don’t think that being an African American who wants to explore or engage African American culture is “pandering.” Just because you or someone else may have been able to erase that he is an African American does not actually erase the fact that he is an African American. People should be free to explore all aspects of themselves. I find it interesting, if not hypocritical, that as long as Prince was exploring artistic elements and styles that are more popular among a high number of white listeners that he was cool. However, when he explores or engages artistic elements and styles that are more popular among a high number of African American listeners then he is “pandering” or being “fake.” I hope that you don’t mean your assertion in this way, but your words seem to infer that African Americans care so little about themselves, their history, and their culture because it is inferior to European history and culture that any time an African American seeks to engage and explore their own history and culture then they must be lying or pandering. Finally, just because an African American desires to engage, explore, and show respect for his culture does not mean that he does not respect the culture of others. To be pro-Black is not tantamount to being simultaneously anti-white. Additionally, if we understand that “truth” is a philosophical thing and fact is a scientific empirical thing, then of course two people from two different backgrounds can view an event or even a fact and have differing interpretations. However, just because Prince has chosen to say things and write songs, such as “Avalanche,” does not mean that he disrespects other races just because he wants to discuss what he sees as the truth about the history of African people in America. And to extend this thought to its full extent, just because I purchase art from someone in the past does not mean that he owes me anything when he creates new art. Purchasing someone’s art only means that you liked that particular art. After that purchase, that artist owes me nothing.

RIP said: It is sad. Larry Graham got inside his head and he allowed him and the JW religion to mess with his mind in a negative way. What the hell ever happened to just being spiritual?

So you have a right to dictate how Prince should define and seek spiritual information and enlightenment, but he does not have the right to share his ideas on spirituality with you or express them in his songs? For some people just being spiritual isn’t enough; for some it is. But it is hypocritical of you to put forth or infer (in the passive aggressive manner) a definition that Prince should follow if you are also going to complain about how he chooses to seek spiritual knowledge and share it with others. Wouldn’t it just be better to stop listening to Prince and frequenting a website developed to study and celebrate his work rather that just to be pissed about his new work? I’m not saying that you don’t have a right to express your opinions, but if his current art and the ideology expressed by that art is such an affront to your sensibilities, then why waste the time following or commenting on him? I would rather spend time engaging artists that move me rather than engaging artists whose whole way of life is anti my whole way of life.

RIP said: You seriously gonna bring Reagan into this? He had absolutely nothing to do with the state of music. Rock and hip hop was around before and well after him. It's comments like yours that are polarizing and divisive.

Elected officials are symbols of the times. As the old saying goes, people don’t elect the politicians they need; they elect the ones they deserve. Now, we don’t have time to get into why Reagan’s first speech when he began his campaign for the presidency was in Mississippi and what was said in that speech and how it symbolized and manifested the white conservative reaction to what they perceived as a Civil Rights onslaught. Yet, the Regan administration, as the apex and symbol of this growing tide, helped to propel often by providing the language for people to code words that couched their racism in a “so-called” conservative agenda. Thus, by the time we are mid-way through the nineties, the rise of Grunge has some—not all—of the same driving elements that late Seventies Rock had in his reaction to and its overthrow of Disco, which culminated with tens of thousands of white Rock fans burning Disco records at a major league baseball field. So, the Reagan administration (its policies) is the symbol of a growing tide of white musicians and listeners who grew tired of a music chart dominated by Michael Jackson, Prince, and, later, hip hop. I can’t remember the actual Grunge band, but I remember the fans and other bands being as happy about the song removing Jackson from the number one spot as it was for the success of the Grunge genre.

And that same tired ass rhetoric keeps popping it's head up here.

People forget that for all intent and purposes Reagan was a racist bastard that tricked the working class White population into voting for him and as a result sold the country to every foreign corporation that he could.

muleFunk said:

1725topp said:

RIP said: I don't think his music sucking has anything to do with race, but with his lack of new ideas. I don't think he should try to pander to any racial group. Many people of many races put a lot of money in his pockets, so he should respect us all

We’ll agree to disagree about his state of music post 2000. I think that “Colonized Mind” as well as many the majority of tracks released after 2000 are excellent. So, on that we just disagree. So, since they don’t “suck” to me, I can’ t comment on that. However, I don’t think that being an African American who wants to explore or engage African American culture is “pandering.” Just because you or someone else may have been able to erase that he is an African American does not actually erase the fact that he is an African American. People should be free to explore all aspects of themselves. I find it interesting, if not hypocritical, that as long as Prince was exploring artistic elements and styles that are more popular among a high number of white listeners that he was cool. However, when he explores or engages artistic elements and styles that are more popular among a high number of African American listeners then he is “pandering” or being “fake.” I hope that you don’t mean your assertion in this way, but your words seem to infer that African Americans care so little about themselves, their history, and their culture because it is inferior to European history and culture that any time an African American seeks to engage and explore their own history and culture then they must be lying or pandering. Finally, just because an African American desires to engage, explore, and show respect for his culture does not mean that he does not respect the culture of others. To be pro-Black is not tantamount to being simultaneously anti-white. Additionally, if we understand that “truth” is a philosophical thing and fact is a scientific empirical thing, then of course two people from two different backgrounds can view an event or even a fact and have differing interpretations. However, just because Prince has chosen to say things and write songs, such as “Avalanche,” does not mean that he disrespects other races just because he wants to discuss what he sees as the truth about the history of African people in America. And to extend this thought to its full extent, just because I purchase art from someone in the past does not mean that he owes me anything when he creates new art. Purchasing someone’s art only means that you liked that particular art. After that purchase, that artist owes me nothing.

RIP said: It is sad. Larry Graham got inside his head and he allowed him and the JW religion to mess with his mind in a negative way. What the hell ever happened to just being spiritual?

So you have a right to dictate how Prince should define and seek spiritual information and enlightenment, but he does not have the right to share his ideas on spirituality with you or express them in his songs? For some people just being spiritual isn’t enough; for some it is. But it is hypocritical of you to put forth or infer (in the passive aggressive manner) a definition that Prince should follow if you are also going to complain about how he chooses to seek spiritual knowledge and share it with others. Wouldn’t it just be better to stop listening to Prince and frequenting a website developed to study and celebrate his work rather that just to be pissed about his new work? I’m not saying that you don’t have a right to express your opinions, but if his current art and the ideology expressed by that art is such an affront to your sensibilities, then why waste the time following or commenting on him? I would rather spend time engaging artists that move me rather than engaging artists whose whole way of life is anti my whole way of life.

RIP said: You seriously gonna bring Reagan into this? He had absolutely nothing to do with the state of music. Rock and hip hop was around before and well after him. It's comments like yours that are polarizing and divisive.

Elected officials are symbols of the times. As the old saying goes, people don’t elect the politicians they need; they elect the ones they deserve. Now, we don’t have time to get into why Reagan’s first speech when he began his campaign for the presidency was in Mississippi and what was said in that speech and how it symbolized and manifested the white conservative reaction to what they perceived as a Civil Rights onslaught. Yet, the Regan administration, as the apex and symbol of this growing tide, helped to propel often by providing the language for people to code words that couched their racism in a “so-called” conservative agenda. Thus, by the time we are mid-way through the nineties, the rise of Grunge has some—not all—of the same driving elements that late Seventies Rock had in his reaction to and its overthrow of Disco, which culminated with tens of thousands of white Rock fans burning Disco records at a major league baseball field. So, the Reagan administration (its policies) is the symbol of a growing tide of white musicians and listeners who grew tired of a music chart dominated by Michael Jackson, Prince, and, later, hip hop. I can’t remember the actual Grunge band, but I remember the fans and other bands being as happy about the song removing Jackson from the number one spot as it was for the success of the Grunge genre.

And that same tired ass rhetoric keeps popping it's head up here.

People forget that for all intent and purposes Reagan was a racist bastard that tricked the working class White population into voting for him and as a result sold the country to every foreign corporation that he could.

It's easy to slander someone this way. Can you prove he was a "racist bastard."

TheRIP said:

muleFunk said:

And that same tired ass rhetoric keeps popping it's head up here.

People forget that for all intent and purposes Reagan was a racist bastard that tricked the working class White population into voting for him and as a result sold the country to every foreign corporation that he could.

It's easy to slander someone this way. Can you prove he was a "racist bastard."

Sort of, in the same way that most Republicans are racist.

The speech 1725 referred to was given by Reagan in Philadelphia, Mississippi (the site of the 1964 death of 3 civil rights workers) and remarked about believing in state's rights which was perceived as being generally against the plight of African Americans.

In addition, Reagan opposed MLK Day as a national holiday which is, for obvious reasons, a slap in the face of every person who ever worked for Civil Rights - black or white.

While Reagan's actual beliefs on race relations went largely untold, it didn't and does not matter one way or the other given he took such strong stances against Afro-centric issues. Reagan reawakened an undercurrent of racism that had been percolating since the early 70s after Civil Rights took a slight bow in national interest to things like Abortion, War, and Political Unrest (which are all predominately white-affirmed issues).

Spinlight said:

TheRIP said:

It's easy to slander someone this way. Can you prove he was a "racist bastard."

Sort of, in the same way that most Republicans are racist.

The speech 1725 referred to was given by Reagan in Philadelphia, Mississippi (the site of the 1964 death of 3 civil rights workers) and remarked about believing in state's rights which was perceived as being generally against the plight of African Americans.

In addition, Reagan opposed MLK Day as a national holiday which is, for obvious reasons, a slap in the face of every person who ever worked for Civil Rights - black or white.

While Reagan's actual beliefs on race relations went largely untold, it didn't and does not matter one way or the other given he took such strong stances against Afro-centric issues. Reagan reawakened an undercurrent of racism that had been percolating since the early 70s after Civil Rights took a slight bow in national interest to things like Abortion, War, and Political Unrest (which are all predominately white-affirmed issues).

I disagree with that. And most Republicans certainly are no more racist than Democrats. I think playing the race card against Reagan is just a tool that's used because he was as popular as he was.

Anyway, getting off topic.

TheRIP said:

Spinlight said:

Sort of, in the same way that most Republicans are racist.

The speech 1725 referred to was given by Reagan in Philadelphia, Mississippi (the site of the 1964 death of 3 civil rights workers) and remarked about believing in state's rights which was perceived as being generally against the plight of African Americans.

In addition, Reagan opposed MLK Day as a national holiday which is, for obvious reasons, a slap in the face of every person who ever worked for Civil Rights - black or white.

While Reagan's actual beliefs on race relations went largely untold, it didn't and does not matter one way or the other given he took such strong stances against Afro-centric issues. Reagan reawakened an undercurrent of racism that had been percolating since the early 70s after Civil Rights took a slight bow in national interest to things like Abortion, War, and Political Unrest (which are all predominately white-affirmed issues).

I disagree with that. And most Republicans certainly are no more racist than Democrats. I think playing the race card against Reagan is just a tool that's used because he was as popular as he was.

Anyway, getting off topic.

You disagree with what? These are facts. You can't disagree with the fact he made the speech, took stances that were directly against civil rights on his campaign trail and in the office, and that his personal beliefs were never disclosed.

You can say Republicans aren't more racist than Democrats, but you don't need to look too far to see where the lines are drawn in relation to certain minorities and Republicans of the Now. It is fair to say that most Republicans do not agree with Abortion because of the stances they have taken on the issue. It is also equally fair to say that most Republicans do not agree with minority rights based on their stances taken on the issues. This is not some kind of grand reinterpretation of actual events. These ARE actual events.

How does this relate to Prince?

Because it is integral to examine the shift in Prince's swagger from 1987 on and what happened to push him in this direction*. There was a direct change that took its most dramatic showing in 1990 with an all-black band (save 1 keyboardist) that existed - unmitigated except by guest-starring horn players - for the better part of 20 years. Prince has, in his career, had only 1 band with more than 1 white person in it and that was the Revolution (he had been calling his band the Revolution prior to the 1999 sessions and mentioned "Revolutionary Rock and Roll" in the track "Partyup").

*I know, people are going to ask - why bother examining why he went in that direction. Save yourselves the time by reading the topic of the thread and either agreeing to contribute something worthwhile rather than co-signing or insulting.

TheRIP said:

I'm certainly not endorsing affirmative action as far as Princes band goes, but I'm curious as to why Prince went from having extremely racially diverse bands (Revolution, Lovesexy) to very little diversity. I know this is nothing new, being that he's only had one one white dude, going as far back as 1990, but I wonder why this is. Is it simply because he prefers a black band or because there aren't many white musicians who play his style of music?

[Edited 6/29/10 11:14am]

Like most things Prince has done in his career having a multi-cultural band early in his career was a caculated move for more exposure. Don't assume that Prince was doing it because he "loves" white people, or because he dated White women. It was business, plain and simple. And after his departure from Wendy and Lisa (because that's what it was....it was a break-up with them) he did what all people do- he surrounded himself with comfortable, um, surroundings! (lol) Prince is a Black man the grew up in a Black neighborhood who hung out with Black musicians so in his later years he reverted back to what he always knew. Is it just a coincidence that his "whitest" music came when he was working creatively with White musicians? If you think it is then you are fooling yourself.

TheRIP said:

BlackandRising said:

Someone has probably already stated the obvious, but regarding his past multi-racial bands, especially in the early days, Prince quite accurately stated that "you never would have drank my coffee, if I had never served you cream".

Since you've all tasted his coffee, lightened with a little cream way back when, he's been slowly going back to just plain-old strong black coffee.

His coffee tastes like shit.

You just told on yourself....

paulludvig said:

xlr8r said:

Because yall want to give credit to Princes greatest works to white people or that he needed 'white help.'

Now don't get mad that I said that.

Yes, there is sometimes a nasty undercurrent in the post made here on the org. Unfortunately.

[Edited 6/29/10 17:51pm]

I kinda suspect the OP is in that camp

TheRIP said:

muleFunk said:

And that same tired ass rhetoric keeps popping it's head up here.

People forget that for all intent and purposes Reagan was a racist bastard that tricked the working class White population into voting for him and as a result sold the country to every foreign corporation that he could.

It's easy to slander someone this way. Can you prove he was a "racist bastard."

Go back to when he was the Governor of California and passed strict gun legislation when the Black Panther Party started showing up packing on the streets of Oakland to stop police brutality.

The joker coined the phrase "Welfare queens" as code speak for Black women in the projects at a time when the vast majority of welfare recipients were White.

It was also at this time that the Atlanta Child Murders were going on and he pressed the FBI to get "someone" before the lid blew in Atlanta. The Feds had knowledge that the crazy wing of the Klan had started killing Black kids to ignite a Race War which was also some of another famous Californian named Manson was trying to do in the 1960s.

We won't even discuss the appearance of AIDS( which he called God's judgement) and Cocaine and Crack on the streets of inner city America during his watch.

Reagan made racism cool and acceptable in America.