OnlyNDaUsa said:

xlr8r said:

They can ban me all they want. It needed to be said.

say what you like baby cakes! but do you think that he had improved his over all image or hurt his over all image since the late 80s? (HINT: look at the songs he dose in concert, how many are from the 80s? or 90s or 00s)

@ "babycakes" (I like that). I think in the 90's for some reasons he hurt his image but he recouped big time in the 00's to the time of now in FULL recovery. Almost like the ass pants, name change did not happen.

i would say his 3 albums from the 70s (i count 1980 as the last year of the 70s as there was no year 0) make a better legacy than all his 00s and most of his 90s stuff combined.

keep in mind i have been listing to prince for (cough cough) years (that is A LOT) so I know his music well. I do not know how old you are, but, I would argue that as I grew up on Prince that (to be fair) his new music will never stand a chance to make the same impact on me that his songs did when I was younger. Like prince said his only competition is himself in the past. He just said that he makes music for the hardcore fans and the shows *in which he does the hits* are more for the casual fans.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

i would say his 3 albums from the 70s (i count 1980 as the last year of the 70s as there was no year 0) make a better legacy than all his 00s and most of his 90s stuff combined.

keep in mind i have been listing to prince for (cough cough) years (that is A LOT) so I know his music well. I do not know how old you are, but, I would argue that as I grew up on Prince that (to be fair) his new music will never stand a chance to make the same impact on me that his songs did when I was younger. Like prince said his only competition is himself in the past. He just said that he makes music for the hardcore fans and the shows *in which he does the hits* are more for the casual fans.

yes we all get that his earlier stuff was better, but every artist has their musical peak. And everyone falls off at some point.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

his new music will never stand a chance to make the same impact on me that his songs did when I was younger.

Do you tink you are spitting knowledge here? Ground control to Captain Obvious.....please take your protein pills and put U2, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Aerosmith, Michale Jackson et al. after 25 years in the business on.

hhhhdmt said:

TwiliteKid said:

No one's attacking Prince here, and I don't see any suggestion that he has anything to apologize for. That said, there's still no question that the Beatles' influence and innovations trump Prince's. Again, that's not an insult or an attack: It's just the way it is.

i see plenty of people who attack prince on this site and accusing him of "stealing" when the man has written 99 percent of his music, plays most of his instruments and forms his own melodies. All i was saying was the beatles too had their influences, they didnt make everything from scratch like some of their fans often claim. Everyone has their influences. I dont mean to be rude towards you or anything but i have seen plenty of comments on this site(from other posters, not you) accusing prince of "stealing" when all he has done is have influences which everyone else does too.

[Edited 11/25/10 5:52am]

[Edited 11/25/10 6:04am]

That may be, but it doesn't have much to do with this thread, does it?

lezama said:

Pentacle said:

Man, I've been waiting for him to die for years now!

Thats a pretty horrible thing to say...

isn't it just. Really no need for that.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

lezama said:

Thats a pretty horrible thing to say...

yeah but it is true if he would have died in 87 or 88 he would be much more important.

Ok. But 1) this is life, not your fantasies. And where I come from wishing death on someone (in some alternate history or not) isn't a respectable thing to do; and 2) Many artists (writers, painters, musicians) have had up and down careers and after their deaths came to be seen and respected in a light they didn't achieve while alive. Just because YOU may not appreciate post-88 Prince much doesn't mean future generations most see it in a different light. Most people who lived through the 83-87 high point will never stop comparing what came after that to that moment, but Prince is gaining a new audience every day that didn't and who don't and wont see his catelogue in the same way as you. So, it makes no sense to judge a man's legacy before his time is up. You are not the maker of it (fortunately).

Most of his back catalogue is already on ITunes, so I guess that's a 'no.'

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.

yeah no doubt they could not have had such an un-blemished track record if they stayed together.

Their breaking up is like some stars who died young. They never got the chance to be bad or get old. But that doesn't lessen what they actually did

If he did..............I'd stop listening. The Beatles are so over rated that it is NOT worth a discussion.

Graycap23 said:

If he did..............I'd stop listening. The Beatles are so over rated that it is NOT worth a discussion.

it doesn't even matter who's better, The Beatles are more popular, and that pretty much answers the original question.

NDRU said:

Graycap23 said:

If he did..............I'd stop listening. The Beatles are so over rated that it is NOT worth a discussion.

it doesn't even matter who's better, The Beatles are more popular, and that pretty much answers the original question.

Agreed.

xlr8r said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

say what you like baby cakes! but do you think that he had improved his over all image or hurt his over all image since the late 80s? (HINT: look at the songs he dose in concert, how many are from the 80s? or 90s or 00s)

@ "babycakes" (I like that). I think in the 90's for some reasons he hurt his image but he recouped big time in the 00's to the time of now in FULL recovery. Almost like the ass pants, name change did not happen.

You are dreaming.

Even though Prince is perhaps a more talented musician in many ways than the Beatles, I cannot see him surpass the Beatles legacy.

I am not saying Prince is more talented than Paul and John as far as song writing. But as far as musicianship. I have never seen the Beatles perform live, but I would also bet Prince is a better performer. Beatles also were part of the 60's movement. Prince is known for bringing sex into music. He paved the way for Lady Ga Ga.

That said, Prince seemed like he was on his way to be bigger than the Beatles starting with Around the world, SOTT. But things became different. He spent the next few years going commercial...>Batman, D & P etc.

It became more about the money and the way he looked that it did his music.

John Lennon who died at 40, will always be more universal that Prince. In part because he was chastise by the US government and fought for world peace through his music. He disconnected himself from the music business to spend time with his wife. John will be remembered as a human who really cared. Prince right now is in question as to who does he care about more? He is what most will believe. The causes Prince has been involved with were all about getting paid.

Prince has become so obsessed with getting paid that most threads on this forum talk about how much Prince was paid (re. Mc Hammer Pray thread) than if a song is good or not).

I think with Wend and Lisa, Prince could have become like the Beatles...but without them, he does not always have that magic they brought to his music. The little nuances that are no longer there.

The closest Prince has ever come to a song like “A Day in a Life” is probably Sign of the Times (perhaps there are others?). A Day in A Life is timeless…. SOTT is not as.

Beatles were part of a revolution, Prince wanted to be a revolution. And to some extent he was a main part of a sexual revolution and internet revolution for musicians…which turned out to be poor PR. But that does not outweigh the contributions of the Beatles in their social consciousness

And yes, I am a Prince fan. Just honest about how I see this particular thread.

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]

The Beatles did tons of shit that hurt them commercially! They had people burning their albums after the "bigger than Jesus" comment. They shed off a great part of their teenage audience when they went artsy and hyper creative in the studio and stopped touring (but also gained many other fans and critical acclaim). They released their tv movie Magical Mystery Tour which was a worse project then Prince's Under the Cherry Moon by far and was just clowned by critics...

But The Beatles were and are still the greatest and most influential and populafr musical force so far. It's cuz they made so many damn perfectly good songs that all sound different!

ufoclub said:

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]

The Beatles did tons of shit that hurt them commercially! They had people burning their albums after the "bigger than Jesus" comment. They shed off a great part of their teenage audience when they went artsy and hyper creative in the studio and stopped touring (but also gained many other fans and critical acclaim). They released their tv movie Magical Mystery Tour which was a worse project then Prince's Under the Cherry Moon by far and was just clowned by critics...

But The Beatles were and are still the greatest and most influential and populafr musical force so far. It's cuz they made so many damn perfectly good songs that all sound different!

I agree, there was Yoko and Two Virgins and Revolution #9 and drug admissions and let's not forget they alienated their original fans by firing Pete Best, but none of it really hurt their popularity.

That's because of the quality of the music, as you say. It always had commercial appeal despite their antics or the occasional weird track.

muskiediver said:

Even though Prince is perhaps a more talented musician in many ways than the Beatles, I cannot see him surpass the Beatles legacy.

I am not saying Prince is more talented than Paul and John as far as song writing. But as far as musicianship. I have never seen the Beatles perform live, but I would also bet Prince is a better performer. Beatles also were part of the 60's movement. Prince is known for bringing sex into music. He paved the way for Lady Ga Ga.

That said, Prince seemed like he was on his way to be bigger than the Beatles starting with Around the world, SOTT. But things became different. He spent the next few years going commercial...>Batman, D & P etc.

It became more about the money and the way he looked that it did his music.

John Lennon who died at 40, will always be more universal that Prince. In part because he was chastise by the US government and fought for world peace through his music. He disconnected himself from the music business to spend time with his wife. John will be remembered as a human who really cared. Prince right now is in question as to who does he care about more? He is what most will believe. The causes Prince has been involved with were all about getting paid.

Prince has become so obsessed with getting paid that most threads on this forum talk about how much Prince was paid (re. Mc Hammer Pray thread) than if a song is good or not).

I think with Wend and Lisa, Prince could have become like the Beatles...but without them, he does not always have that magic they brought to his music. The little nuances that are no longer there.

The closest Prince has ever come to a song like “A Day in a Life” is probably Sign of the Times (perhaps there are others?). A Day in A Life is timeless…. SOTT is not as.

Beatles were part of a revolution, Prince wanted to be a revolution. And to some extent he was a main part of a sexual revolution and internet revolution for musicians…which turned out to be poor PR. But that does not outweigh the contributions of the Beatles in their social consciousness

And yes, I am a Prince fan. Just honest about how I see this particular thread.

and with that excellent reply I think it's case closed. W or L alluded to the fact years ago that if they'd been allowed to stick around the 3 of them could have been as great as the Beatles - I have to say that I agree!. The flip side though is that I am sure that P has the ability to add the exta icing and frills to give his trax that extra sophistication BUT he chooses to rush innstead of putting in the effort.

It's these kinds of threads that remind me how deluded some people are on the org.

Like someone else posted above, his beloved 80s work is on iTunes.

From what I can see, here's what's available on US iTunes now:

Prince (1979)

Dirty Mind (1980)

Controversy (1981)

1999 (1982)

Purple Rain (1984)

ATWIAD (1985)

Parade (1986)

SOTT (1987)

Lovesexy (1988)

Batman (1989)

Graffiti Bridge (1990)

The Hits/B-Sides (1993)

Come (1994)

The Vault (1999)

Ultimate (2006)

Planet Earth (2007)

As well as various singles and EPs.

Now, the ones in bold are arguably his best work - ever (the notable exceptions being D&P Gold). His widely-accepted golden years of 1980-1988 are already here, so whatever impact he was gonna make on iTunes, odds are he's already made it.

Here's my opinion on the itunes thing, as far as The Beatles go:

This was delayed for so long because of the Apple vs Apple pissing contest, that when they finally cut through the red tape and put it up on Itunes, everyone in Pepperland was surprised, because normally they take a few months to promote it, so people can get it in the stores for the holidays.

Itunes and The Beatles announced that they were releasing the downloads THAT DAY. And then they threw together a Beatles ad and put it out on TV. They wasted no time in getting it out.

This was actually supposed to have happened when the box sets came out, but for whatever reason, didn't. Huge promotion between Rock Band and the Remasters. This year it was all about Lennon's 70th birthday, LennoNYC, and the 30th of his passing.

The Beatles are sort of this time capsule for baby boomers and the time they grew up in. There's a beginning and an end to their catalog.People like Prince, Neil Young, Tom Waits, Springsteen.... they're in their 60s and getting around to doing some sort of retrospective, by choice. In Waits' case, he didn't put a "hits" together, he put together all these odd and end collaborations and soundtracks and called it "Orphans", which is more like Prince's "Crystal Ball" meets "B-Sides".

dalsh327 said:

Here's my opinion on the itunes thing, as far as The Beatles go:

This was delayed for so long because of the Apple vs Apple pissing contest, that when they finally cut through the red tape and put it up on Itunes, everyone in Pepperland was surprised, because normally they take a few months to promote it, so people can get it in the stores for the holidays.

Itunes and The Beatles announced that they were releasing the downloads THAT DAY. And then they threw together a Beatles ad and put it out on TV. They wasted no time in getting it out.

This was actually supposed to have happened when the box sets came out, but for whatever reason, didn't. Huge promotion between Rock Band and the Remasters. This year it was all about Lennon's 70th birthday, LennoNYC, and the 30th of his passing.

The Beatles are sort of this time capsule for baby boomers and the time they grew up in. There's a beginning and an end to their catalog.People like Prince, Neil Young, Tom Waits, Springsteen.... they're in their 60s and getting around to doing some sort of retrospective, by choice. In Waits' case, he didn't put a "hits" together, he put together all these odd and end collaborations and soundtracks and called it "Orphans", which is more like Prince's "Crystal Ball" meets "B-Sides".

If you think they "threw together" ANYTHING regarding The Beatles then you are wrong. You can bet that every word and every image was thoroughly combed over and painstakingly scrutinized by the Beatles and family members before everything was approved. This just all happened before the release date.

The "illusion" of it being instant is just that - an illusion. They had everything ready and waiting for the final go-ahead . . . from there, it was almost literally like flicking a light switch.

hhhhdmt said:

i honestly feel like the love symbol album and the gold experience are among princes best work and can favourably compare to any of his 80's albums. I know 80's was his "golden era" but after repetedly listening to those two albums for the past few weeks, i am convinced that they stand among his best work. Ok the love symbol album has a few filler or unnecessary tracks, but the best ones are truly outstanding.

Love Symbol is a gem - the songs are all very well-written and performed, and Tony M. (aside from My Name Is Prince) is more subdued. I don't think there are any filler songs on here, actually.

Gold Experience: one of Prince's finest. My only "complaint" is not what's on the album, it's what was removed (Days Of Wild, Ripopgodazippa, Acknowledge Me, Interactive).

I'm pretty sure Love Symbol was available on iTunes at one point, but Gold Experience never was.

purplemookiebut said:

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

Amen, the Beatles are the most overrated band in history.

I have yet to hear anything I liked or could tolerate from them. I mean no disrespect to them or to those who listen to them but c’mon, people act like they were some kind of saviors to music. There were a many that were far more important to music well before them.

rapper said:

purplemookiebut said:

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

Amen, the Beatles are the most overrated band in history.

I have yet to hear anything I liked or could tolerate from them. I mean no disrespect to them or to those who listen to them but c’mon, people act like they were some kind of saviors to music. There were a many that were far more important to music well before them.

They were not only the saviours of pop music (dealing the deathblow to the type of pop music molds of Elvis, Chuck Berry, etc, but they did this by being the strongest pioneers of pop music as art. They started inclusion of elements of music far beyond their contemporary pop genre. And supporting the experimentation, their songs still hit hard throughout every dramatic evolution of their career. "Live and Let Die" was on last night, and even post Beatles, they put out songs that just cut through, like the title track of that movie.

I get that you don't hear it, and, well, everyone has a different perception of what music is.

ufoclub said:

rapper said:

Amen, the Beatles are the most overrated band in history.

I have yet to hear anything I liked or could tolerate from them. I mean no disrespect to them or to those who listen to them but c’mon, people act like they were some kind of saviors to music. There were a many that were far more important to music well before them.

They were not only the saviours of pop music (dealing the deathblow to the type of pop music molds of Elvis, Chuck Berry, etc, but they did this by being the strongest pioneers of pop music as art. They started inclusion of elements of music far beyond their contemporary pop genre. And supporting the experimentation, their songs still hit hard throughout every dramatic evolution of their career. "Live and Let Die" was on last night, and even post Beatles, they put out songs that just cut through, like the title track of that movie.

I get that you don't hear it, and, well, everyone has a different perception of what music is.

Pop needed saving?

Graycap23 said:

ufoclub said:

They were not only the saviours of pop music (dealing the deathblow to the type of pop music molds of Elvis, Chuck Berry, etc, but they did this by being the strongest pioneers of pop music as art. They started inclusion of elements of music far beyond their contemporary pop genre. And supporting the experimentation, their songs still hit hard throughout every dramatic evolution of their career. "Live and Let Die" was on last night, and even post Beatles, they put out songs that just cut through, like the title track of that movie.

I get that you don't hear it, and, well, everyone has a different perception of what music is.

Pop needed saving?

from continuing only in the type of pop music molds of Elvis, Chuck Berry, dance themes, etc which were limited in concept and sound.

ufoclub said:

Graycap23 said:

Pop needed saving?

from continuing only in the type of pop music molds of Elvis, Chuck Berry, dance themes, etc which were limited in concept and sound.

Buddy Holly was doiing a good job of that long before the Beatles came on the scene.

.....the forgotten mold breaker.

TyphoonTip said:

ufoclub said:

from continuing only in the type of pop music molds of Elvis, Chuck Berry, dance themes, etc which were limited in concept and sound.

Buddy Holly was doiing a good job of that long before the Beatles came on the scene.

.....the forgotten mold breaker.

Not forgotten by the Beatles Their first recording was That'll Be The Day

The Everly Brothers were another huge influence on them, not given nearly as much credit as Elvis, Little Richard, but bringing harmony & melody to rock (if they were rock)

It's not like the Beatles invented anything, they just did what they did really well and seemed to know no boundaries, going from Love Me Do to Revolutuon 9 and everything in-between.