Paris9748430 said:

Nothinbutjoy said:

Oh I saw that. He realized how lame it was and stopped it with the relative quickness.

He didn't drag it out for a decade.

He only stopped because he was fired from the G.M. position.

He was stopped.

Paris9748430 said:

Nobody puts out music when their older that's anywhere near as good as what they put out in their prime from their mid-20's to 30's.

You're making it sound like this is a scientific fact, and that scares me a little bit.

FunkiestOne said:

Yes this is on topic...people here seem so disappointed in Prince because he can't write like he used to, but you guys have to understand the hard sad truths about getting older. The body and mind decays.

Just be glad he is still relatively healthy and sharing some music with us...most every artist/scientist etc does their best work in their 20s and 30s...Prince is no different...accept it and just try to enjoy the music. He is doing the best he can and still writing a few catchy melodies.

This attitude stinks. Basically you're saying "Prince is old, so don't expect anything good. Just be happy that a terrible album is better than him being dead or retired".

Awful attitude.

RealMusician said:

So Prince makes music that doesn't sound like the music he made 25 years ago. Well, I'm certain he wants it to sound exactly the way it does. I have no reason to assume that he actually meant to do something else but failed. (If he wasn't satisfied, he wouldn't release it, right?)

Then why doesn't he promote the albums? Play the music in concert? "Rave" was barely in stores and Prince proclaimed that he'll release the "proper" version of the album to fans independently. C&D and The Vault are obviously contract filler, thrown together quickly to finish out his WB contract. What does he say in the interviews for this album: "Im already three albums ahead".

When I look at his recent output, I don't see any pride in his work. The deal is made, the money's in the bank, the check has cleared, and Prince has already stopped caring -- if he ever cared. They aren't works of art, they're product that serve a purpose.

Neither do I have any reason to believe he does no longer have the ability to do what he did 25 years ago, just because he chooses not to.

So he's just on a bad streak?

This thread is just wrong!

BartVanHemelen said:

RealMusician said:

So Prince makes music that doesn't sound like the music he made 25 years ago. Well, I'm certain he wants it to sound exactly the way it does. I have no reason to assume that he actually meant to do something else but failed. (If he wasn't satisfied, he wouldn't release it, right?)

Then why doesn't he promote the albums? Play the music in concert? "Rave" was barely in stores and Prince proclaimed that he'll release the "proper" version of the album to fans independently. C&D and The Vault are obviously contract filler, thrown together quickly to finish out his WB contract. What does he say in the interviews for this album: "Im already three albums ahead".

When I look at his recent output, I don't see any pride in his work. The deal is made, the money's in the bank, the check has cleared, and Prince has already stopped caring -- if he ever cared. They aren't works of art, they're product that serve a purpose.

Promotion and other business-related issues usually have very little to do with artistic values and decisions. This is especially true for Prince, since he is not controlled by any major company.

Again - unless he has told us himself, we don't know Prince's artistic intentions and motivations. Anyone is of course entitled to speculate - personally, I choose not to, since I don't see how my listening experience would benefit from that.

If you believe that artists create their art specifically to satisfy your personal expectations, you will be frequently disappointed. Whenever there's a discrepancy between what you hoped for and what you get, unexperienced people tend to see that as a flaw. "I don't like this song, there must be something wrong with it!"

I'm not saying I like everything Prince does, but I would never say that "Compassion" is a bad song because it doesn't sound enough like "Let's Go Crazy" (or like "Hotel California", or like the Russian national anthem, or whatever). Why should I assume it's meant to?

Paris9748430 said:

I think Stevie Wonder's the greatest, but his work over the past 25 years is far from stellar.

Nobody puts out music when their older that's anywhere near as good as what they put out in their prime from their mid-20's to 30's.

Yes Stevie Wonder is another example and there are many.

FunkiestOne said:

Yes this is on topic...people here seem so disappointed in Prince because he can't write like he used to, but you guys have to understand the hard sad truths about getting older. The body and mind decays.

Just be glad he is still relatively healthy and sharing some music with us...most every artist/scientist etc does their best work in their 20s and 30s...Prince is no different...accept it and just try to enjoy the music. He is doing the best he can and still writing a few catchy melodies.

Okay, I had to log in and comment on this post. This is quite a GRIM outlook on life and kind of scares me. You guys are using words like "decay" and "deteriorate" when referring to the human body. With this logic, you are saying after 30 or 40 years old you're creative peak has passed.

Good lord. I am 35 and I play and write music. Should I stop? Because, surely I can't get any better from here on out. My mind and body are surely about to start decaying.

So, to sum things up... You are born, go through 12 years of grade school, then maybe 4-8 years of college. Then you are about 23. Unless you took a few years off before college (my situation)... So then you are 30. You have built up all this knowledge in your brain and specialized skills. But for what? You're going to start deteriorating.

Really, this thought process scares me. I mean, sure, it might be TRUE! A person's creative peak MIGHT BE 20-30! It might just be the way it is. It sucks, but it might be true.

However! I am 35, but I plan to live for at least 65 more years. I want to make it to a healthy 100 at LEAST. So, can I assume for the next 65 years I can expect to be lame, slowly decaying and deteriorating?

Maybe I will be. It's scary. You guys are scaring me.

Should I quit making music now so I don't embarrass myself? What's the point in living if all this is true?

[Edited 7/11/10 23:55pm]

berniejobs said:

FunkiestOne said:

Yes this is on topic...people here seem so disappointed in Prince because he can't write like he used to, but you guys have to understand the hard sad truths about getting older. The body and mind decays.

Just be glad he is still relatively healthy and sharing some music with us...most every artist/scientist etc does their best work in their 20s and 30s...Prince is no different...accept it and just try to enjoy the music. He is doing the best he can and still writing a few catchy melodies.

Okay, I had to log in and comment on this post. This is quite a GRIM outlook on life and kind of scares me. You guys are using words like "decay" and "deteriorate" when referring to the human body. With this logic, you are saying after 30 or 40 years old you're creative peak has passed.

Good lord. I am 35 and I play and write music. Should I stop? Because, surely I can't get any better from here on out. My mind and body are surely about to start decaying.

So, to sum things up... You are born, go through 12 years of grade school, then maybe 4-8 years of college. Then you are about 23. Unless you took a few years off before college (my situation)... So then you are 30. You have built up all this knowledge in your brain and specialized skills. But for what? You're going to start deteriorating.

Really, this thought process scares me. I mean, sure, it might be TRUE! A person's creative peak MIGHT BE 20-30! It might just be the way it is. It sucks, but it might be true.

However! I am 35, but I plan to live for at least 65 more years. I want to make it to a healthy 100 at LEAST. So, can I assume for the next 65 years I can expect to be lame, slowly decaying and deteriorating?

Maybe I will be. It's scary. You guys are scaring me.

Should I quit making music now so I don't embarrass myself? What's the point in living if all this is true?

[Edited 7/11/10 23:55pm]

Name a pop artist that has had a long career that made better music in the latter half of their career than they did in the first half. I'm not saying that you can't but it's very rare. Outside of the blues very few genres are kind to their elder statesmen.

Now, does this mean that anyone of a certain age should not create music? Of course not. But it does seem to be true that as popular musicians age they simply do not create music that is as compelling as the music they made when they were younger.

BUT, there may be hope for you! Most singers/musicians/songwriters et cetera start at a young age but those that do not may escape this curse. If you look at it another way you could argue that most musicians have a peak that is roughly equal to ten years. Sometimes more, sometimes less. So, if you are 35 and just starting out you can hope to stave off your decline until your mid forties, your mid fifties if you are lucky.

rialb said:

Name a pop artist that has had a long career that made better music in the latter half of their career than they did in the first half. I'm not saying that you can't but it's very rare.

But who decides what is "better music"?

Suppose I actually think that description applies to Prince (or Elvis Presley, Miles Davis, whoever) - would you say that I was wrong? If so, what would your arguments be?

OK...I'll bite...what late-era Bowie album was listenable, let alone strong enough to stand alongside his best work?!

NoVideo said:

Not so.

Many of the greatest artists in rock/pop history, who have lasted just as long as Prince if not longer, have recorded late-era albums that stand strong alongside their best works.

For instance - Bob Dylan and David Bowie, just to name a couple.

RealMusician said:

rialb said:

Name a pop artist that has had a long career that made better music in the latter half of their career than they did in the first half. I'm not saying that you can't but it's very rare.

But who decides what is "better music"?

Suppose I actually think that description applies to Prince (or Elvis Presley, Miles Davis, whoever) - would you say that I was wrong? If so, what would your arguments be?

That's easy. Popular critical consensus.

Sure, anyone can disagree about what a great song is but when you have many, many people who can agree on what an artists best work is I think that's an acceptable way to gauge what their best era was.

If you would care to give me some examples I would be happy to tell you why you are wrong.

Why is it that the most ridiculous, fucked up threads regarding Prince, always seem to be started by someone calling themselves defending his honor?

rialb said:

RealMusician said:

But who decides what is "better music"?

Suppose I actually think that description applies to Prince (or Elvis Presley, Miles Davis, whoever) - would you say that I was wrong? If so, what would your arguments be?

That's easy. Popular critical consensus.

Sure, anyone can disagree about what a great song is but when you have many, many people who can agree on what an artists best work is I think that's an acceptable way to gauge what their best era was.

If you would care to give me some examples I would be happy to tell you why you are wrong.

Well I'm sorry, but that's not how it works.

I guess Prince was right when he said:

"How can a non-musician discuss music from other than a consumer's point of view?"

RealMusician said:

rialb said:

That's easy. Popular critical consensus.

Sure, anyone can disagree about what a great song is but when you have many, many people who can agree on what an artists best work is I think that's an acceptable way to gauge what their best era was.

If you would care to give me some examples I would be happy to tell you why you are wrong.

Well I'm sorry, but that's not how it works.

I guess Prince was right when he said:

"How can a non-musician discuss music from other than a consumer's point of view?"

We're just going to have to disagree on this one.

For me appreciating music comes down to how it makes me feel. Surely one does not have to be a musician to be moved by music? I think Prince was lashing out against "the suits" when he said that.

Do you have any specific examples you would like to share to refute my claim about musicians producing better work earlier in their careers than they do towards the end?

rialb said:

For me appreciating music comes down to how it makes me feel.

That's exactly what I mean.

That's also why there can never be an absolute answer as to what is "better" - no matter how many people prefer record A over record B. Even if you're the only person in the world who thinks that "Wedding Feast" is the best song ever made, you're not less "right" than all the people who think differently.

"Right" and "wrong" simply can't be applied here. And what's "better" or "worse" will always be subjective. It's like trying to decide who can have the world's nicest orgasm...I mean, how do you objectively compare individual experiences?

People who are not artists themselves are consumers, and consumers tend to look for measureable qualities, even when there aren't any. "The larger number of people who like something, the better it must be" - well, in that case MC Hammer is a "better" artist than Charlie Parker, and Shrek 2 is a "better" movie than, say, the whole Godfather trilogy.

RealMusician said:

rialb said:

For me appreciating music comes down to how it makes me feel.

That's exactly what I mean.

That's also why there can never be an absolute answer as to what is "better" - no matter how many people prefer record A over record B. Even if you're the only person in the world who thinks that "Wedding Feast" is the best song ever made, you're not less "right" than all the people who think differently.

"Right" and "wrong" simply can't be applied here. And what's "better" or "worse" will always be subjective. It's like trying to decide who can have the world's nicest orgasm...I mean, how do you objectively compare individual experiences?

People who are not artists themselves are consumers, and consumers tend to look for measureable qualities, even when there aren't any. "The larger number of people who like something, the better it must be" - well, in that case MC Hammer is a "better" artist than Charlie Parker, and Shrek 2 is a "better" movie than, say, the whole Godfather trilogy.

I completely agree with you in the sense that if you like something then it is good and if you don't like something then it is bad. I also completely agree that just bacause people say something is bad does not make it so. A lot of folks don't have a high opinion of Chaos and Disorder but for me it is one of my favourite Prince albums.

However, I think you may be missing my point. Instead of comparing MC Hammer to Charlie Parker I am talking about comparing MC Hammer to MC Hammer. (bad example because he has a fairly small body of work) If you are judging a single artist I do think that it is possible to get a consensus on what their better work is. Again, that doesn't mean that you have to agree but I do think the will of the majority is a good way to rate an artists work.

rialb said:

RealMusician said:

That's exactly what I mean.

That's also why there can never be an absolute answer as to what is "better" - no matter how many people prefer record A over record B. Even if you're the only person in the world who thinks that "Wedding Feast" is the best song ever made, you're not less "right" than all the people who think differently.

"Right" and "wrong" simply can't be applied here. And what's "better" or "worse" will always be subjective. It's like trying to decide who can have the world's nicest orgasm...I mean, how do you objectively compare individual experiences?

People who are not artists themselves are consumers, and consumers tend to look for measureable qualities, even when there aren't any. "The larger number of people who like something, the better it must be" - well, in that case MC Hammer is a "better" artist than Charlie Parker, and Shrek 2 is a "better" movie than, say, the whole Godfather trilogy.

I completely agree with you in the sense that if you like something then it is good and if you don't like something then it is bad. I also completely agree that just bacause people say something is bad does not make it so. A lot of folks don't have a high opinion of Chaos and Disorder but for me it is one of my favourite Prince albums.

However, I think you may be missing my point. Instead of comparing MC Hammer to Charlie Parker I am talking about comparing MC Hammer to MC Hammer. (bad example because he has a fairly small body of work) If you are judging a single artist I do think that it is possible to get a consensus on what their better work is. Again, that doesn't mean that you have to agree but I do think the will of the majority is a good way to rate an artists work.

I don't think there's any difference really, whether you're comparing an artist to another artist, or an artist to himself.

In either case, I don't really believe in the "subjectivity x majority = objectivity" equation.

I think it's perfectly possible to objectively determine an artist's most popular work (simply the one that's sold the most, being played the most, etc). It might also be possible - albeit much harder - to decide what's the most influential work (or historically important, etc). But the best work...for me, that would be like voting on what's the most beautiful color in the universe.

Actually, if we're talking about opinions, I would generally have more trust in a small group of experts than a large majority of "regular people", since I think experts - in any field - would be more able to separate objective analysis from their own emotional response.

I never gave a damn about Michael Jordon when he was in his prime. I don't get enjoyment out of watching men play with plastic balls. I'd rather see them play with the real thing.

vainandy said:

I never gave a damn about Michael Jordon when he was in his prime. I don't get enjoyment out of watching men play with plastic balls. I'd rather see them play with the real thing.

I get it. You are old school and prefer the classic leather balls.

"......then give me the electric chair, for all my future songs...."----Prince

Amen rialb!

This is one of the most idiotic threads ever.

Its so interesting when people throw artists like David Bowie and Bob Dylan in the mix when talking about older artists and Prince. Their career paths are so different IMO. One thing we have to acknowledge about Prince is that he has never fit into being a strictly commercial artist yet he will not allow himself to make music without the fanfare like an underground artist either. By straddling that fence all these years he just makes it so easy for us to want to compare the "then" and "now". I believe in some way he still wants to be that "mega" star from "Purple Rain" when he temporarily ruled the music world and some of us need to admit we want that too so we are never going to be satisfied EVER. Perhaps its time he takes the pressure off himself to still "prove" something that he has already proven years ago.

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

Why is it that the most ridiculous, fucked up threads regarding Prince, always seem to be started by someone calling themselves defending his honor?

Well they've learned from the best.

FunkiestOne said:

Yes this is on topic...people here seem so disappointed in Prince because he can't write like he used to, but you guys have to understand the hard sad truths about getting older. The body and mind decays.

Just be glad he is still relatively healthy and sharing some music with us...most every artist/scientist etc does their best work in their 20s and 30s...Prince is no different...accept it and just try to enjoy the music. He is doing the best he can and still writing a few catchy melodies.

But Jordan isn't still trying;)

Sports is a WHOLE different animal than playing music.

Game...blouses.

dreaminaboutu said:

Its so interesting when people throw artists like David Bowie and Bob Dylan in the mix when talking about older artists and Prince. Their career paths are so different IMO. One thing we have to acknowledge about Prince is that he has never fit into being a strictly commercial artist yet he will not allow himself to make music without the fanfare like an underground artist either. By straddling that fence all these years he just makes it so easy for us to want to compare the "then" and "now". I believe in some way he still wants to be that "mega" star from "Purple Rain" when he temporarily ruled the music world and some of us need to admit we want that too so we are never going to be satisfied EVER. Perhaps its time he takes the pressure off himself to still "prove" something that he has already proven years ago.

How has Prince's career differed greatly from Dylan's? Neither seem that interested in a chart-topping album, both switch band members at the drop of a hat, both went through a stage where only the hardest of the hard core fans could stomach their newest release, both went through a religious conversion that severely impacted their music, and both seem hell bent on recreating their legacy as that of a performer, rather than a songwriter.

I wish a lot of you out there would stop bitching about how lame or crap Prince's albums are nowadays.

Prince is no longer hungry for fame or being cutting edge, he spent from 1980 till 1996 pushing the envelope, that's a longer period of time than any other artist i can think of before the "o.k- so so" albums come along.

Look at what he's turning out now for his age, he's still in a league of his own compared to all the other artists of his age or older. His worst is still better than their best and better than most of the Rap crap that dominates the charts.

Prince simply doesn't need to move millions of albums any more, he no longer needs to prove himself. He's simply enjoying making chilled out albums.

Listen to a recent Phil Collins, McCartney, Wonder or Springsteen album and then you'll relise how cutting edge Prince still is by comparison.

por69 said:

I wish a lot of you out there would stop bitching about how lame or crap Prince's albums are nowadays.

Prince is no longer hungry for fame or being cutting edge, he spent from 1980 till 1996 pushing the envelope, that's a longer period of time than any other artist i can think of before the "o.k- so so" albums come along.

Look at what he's turning out now for his age, he's still in a league of his own compared to all the other artists of his age or older. His worst is still better than their best and better than most of the Rap crap that dominates the charts.

Prince simply doesn't need to move millions of albums any more, he no longer needs to prove himself. He's simply enjoying making chilled out albums.

Listen to a recent Phil Collins, McCartney, Wonder or Springsteen album and then you'll relise how cutting edge Prince still is by comparison.

I'm not a huge Springsteen fan but I would argue that his fans enjoy his recent music more than Prince fans enjoy his recent music. Springsteen is also still selling a lot more than Prince.