...does his back catalogue / legacy pale into insignificance when compared to theirs?.

funkyhead said:

...does his back catalogue / legacy pale into insignificance when compared to theirs?.

don't know about insignificance, but the impact will not be the same. It will be less.

Of course not. Prince's 80s albums, arguably his best work, have already been on iTunes. He'd need to remaster them and offer them to iTunes exclusively to get any kind of bump, at all.

no.

funkyhead said:

...does his back catalogue / legacy pale into insignificance when compared to theirs?.

Is this a serious question? Prince's impact/legacy is no where near that of The Beatles. And before the freaks yell at me, that's not a judgement on the quality of his music, but it is pretty much fact. Don't embarass yourself by arguing otherwise.

Could anyone? regardless of critique or taste the Beatles are the POP group of the 20Century. If you mean should people regard Prince as superior to the betales then YES. That ain't gonna happen

no. never. not even close. please maybe someday someone or some group will eclipse them but not prince. (one reason being that he has too damn many albums and too many of them are not well known. not that success is the same as quality but it is important for long term interest)

TwiliteKid said:

funkyhead said:

...does his back catalogue / legacy pale into insignificance when compared to theirs?.

Is this a serious question? Prince's impact/legacy is no where near that of The Beatles. And before the freaks yell at me, that's not a judgement on the quality of his music, but it is pretty much fact. Don't embarass yourself by arguing otherwise.

yep, well said.

now one reason why the Beatles are making so much impact now is that they wait longer than most others would.

People have been wanting the to put them on itunes for years. like when they first put their albums on CD it was crazy. and then just last year they put out new remasters and again it was big news (and the guitar game). but this is just good timing and a band that eons beyond anything prince ever accomplished.

EDIT: and I am not a fan and as far as I know I have never had a single Beatles song. if i did it was on some soundtrack or a sampler cd. (I have only one Micheal Jackson song from one of the guitar games)

[Edited 11/24/10 10:27am]

jcurley said:

Could anyone? regardless of critique or taste the Beatles are the POP group of the 20Century. If you mean should people regard Prince as superior to the betales then YES. That ain't gonna happen

maybe if you take into accout prince did or could have done all (well most) of it on his own... but the fab 4 vs prince not even close.

Isn't he already on there?

Hell No.

the beatles started a musical revolution. Prince well he just had a band called the revolution. There is nothing even close to comparison. I love both prince and the beatles but come on, really

Not YET but in time it will have an impact , of that I am quite sure

The difference is that The Beatles never did anything that hurt them commercially. Strawberry Fields was the moment where people thought there might be a crack in their armor, because that song only went to #2 in the UK!

The Beatles never really lost their audience (something U2 & Springsteen seem to be able to do, too). The Beatles are amazing for how creative they were able to be without ever being hard to listen to.

Prince, as we all know, has a really hard time pleasing the public and even pleasing his hardcore fans. Maybe if he'd stopped making albums like the Beatles did, his legacy would be more intact. BUt even as a superstar in the 80's the bulk of his fans fell off and got back on depending on the material.

The Beatles stuff is pure gold. Not a single bad album, and very few bad songs.

[Edited 11/24/10 10:58am]

the beatles were a overrated boy bands. music was shit b4 ozzy,led zepp,the who, the stones,the doors...

purplemookiebut said:

the beatles were a overrated boy bands. music was shit b4 ozzy,led zepp,the who, the stones,the doors...

yet all these years later they are still the top rated band/act in the last 50 years.

but if i was to rate thoes it would be (1 to 3 *s based on how well i know thier music)

1 beatles *

2 Led Zep ***

3 Doors **

4 Prince ***

5 who *

6 Ozzy *

purplemookiebut said:

the beatles were a overrated boy bands. music was shit b4 ozzy,led zepp,the who, the stones,the doors...

Ozzy said he only started singing because of the Beatles and said that Paul McCartney was his idol. There were no such thing as a "boy band" then anyway. That's a 1990's term.

NDRU said:

The difference is that The Beatles never did anything that hurt them commercially. Strawberry Fields was the moment where people thought there might be a crack in their armor, because that song only went to #2 in the UK!

The Beatles never really lost their audience (something U2 & Springsteen seem to be able to do, too). The Beatles are amazing for how creative they were able to be without ever being hard to listen to.

Prince, as we all know, has a really hard time pleasing the public and even pleasing his hardcore fans. Maybe if he'd stopped making albums like the Beatles did, his legacy would be more intact. BUt even as a superstar in the 80's the bulk of his fans fell off and got back on depending on the material.

The Beatles stuff is pure gold. Not a single bad album, and very few bad songs.

[Edited 11/24/10 10:58am]

Can't really compare a band to a single artist... I mean, if the Beatles were just McCartney or Lennon then we could compare because they both dropped off seriously in quality of songwriting and musical impact after the breakup of the Beatles. Although maybe he's more comparable to Lennon, because they both pissed off elements of their fan base and the public at large at certain points, while McCartney could make an album of himself yawning for 60 min and it'd still have gone platinum.

why would even the Beatles have an "impact" on itunes? their music is already available on cd. Anyone who has a cd can rip it to their mp3 player, so why bother with itunes? It's not as though their music isn't commercially available through other legitimate means, and it's been available since forever. iTunes doesn't change that game at all.

as a solo artist, his carrear is more impressive then any of their solo carrears. But yes you can't compare a band to an artist. Besides anyone who likes the beatles already has their music, so this whole "impact on itunes" is silly.

hhhhdmt said:

as a solo artist, his carrear is more impressive then any of their solo carrears. But yes you can't compare a band to an artist. Besides anyone who likes the beatles already has their music, so this whole "impact on itunes" is silly.

Prince playing Arnhem, The Netherlands certainly had an impact: Sometimes it snows in april is suddenly in the itunes top 100. He's on #81 this week, the Beatles are on #44 (and 56, 83 and 93).

purplemookiebut said:

the beatles were a overrated boy bands.

how embarrassing for you

errant said:

purplemookiebut said:

the beatles were a overrated boy bands.

how embarrassing for you

They did, kind of, invent the pop boy band. And they invented pop music.

Prince just took every type of music and swept into a little pile, pulled out random bits and made it work as a cohesive whole.

So comparable in a way, but The Beatles were bigger than Jesus. Come on, you can't top that

btw. Paul McCartney? As one of the richest people in the world, do you really need to be allowing your music to be used on adverts and to be sold on iTunes? Times, surely, aren't hard for you!!

harveya said:

errant said:

how embarrassing for you

They did, kind of, invent the pop boy band. And they invented pop music.

Prince just took every type of music and swept into a little pile, pulled out random bits and made it work as a cohesive whole.

So comparable in a way, but The Beatles were bigger than Jesus. Come on, you can't top that

btw. Paul McCartney? As one of the richest people in the world, do you really need to be allowing your music to be used on adverts and to be sold on iTunes? Times, surely, aren't hard for you!!

The beatles themelves acknowledged that they took alot of stuff from american musicians. People on prince's own fansite try to attack him but the fact is that everyone has their own influences. Prince wrote his own lyrics, came up with his own melodies so he doesnt need to apologize for anything, he's a genius. The beatles were a great band but their fans blow everything out of propotion and pretend as if the beatles had no influences, that they invented everything. They repeat garbage like " without the beatles, there would be no mj, no prince" etc etc which is complete nonsense

prince is an incredibly versatile musician, so he has a wide range of influences, big deal. Haters on this site pretend as if he has never written a song in his life, that he took all his lyrics, melodies etc from otther artists and is incapable of doing anything on his own. Fact is every musician has his/her influences, including the beatles, james brown etc. There's no reason why prince should get bashed for having his influences. I understand constructive criticism but prince haters should kindly leave and join some other artists fansite.

[Edited 11/25/10 3:48am]

one2vibe said:

Hell No.

the beatles started a musical revolution. Prince well he just had a band called the revolution. There is nothing even close to comparison. I love both prince and the beatles but come on, really

its a little unfair to compare one musician to four, isnt it? Prince himself was an incredibly talented and groundbreaking musician. A better comparison would be comparing him to other solo artists

errant said:

purplemookiebut said:

the beatles were a overrated boy bands.

how embarrassing for you

NDRU said:

The Beatles stuff is pure gold. Not a single bad album, and very few bad songs.

[Edited 11/24/10 10:58am]

It would have been interesting to see if this would still be the case, had they remained a band for 30 years.

Prince's work would need to be offered in lossless before i even lifted an eyelid.

some great replies. I think the main observation for me is how the global love of the 'beatles legacy' across many generations has translated in a big commercial gain all pushed through I-Tunes in 1 quick hit. Likewise I suspect there will be a consistent level of sales via I-Tunes over the years. P does have a lot already on there but I guess a big relaunch of remasters etc would have an impact BUT nowhere near that made by the Beatles IMHO.

Someone made a great point that the Beatles only did 12 albums and quit at their peak so all albums are essential and manageable due to their low quantity. Perhaps P could do an essential collection of remasters - lets be honest here - it will essentially be the 80's stuff!.

On a side note it will be interesting to see how AC-DC fare in the future who as far I know don't have anything on i-tunes!!.

hhhhdmt said:

NDRU said:

The Beatles stuff is pure gold. Not a single bad album, and very few bad songs.

[Edited 11/24/10 10:58am]

It would have been interesting to see if this would still be the case, had they remained a band for 30 years.

As I recall it, a few of them didn't do too bad as individuals when they struck out on their own.