TwiliteKid said:

JoeTyler said:

Can't you just establish the difference between subjectivity (or, as andy has said, pure projection) and objectivity??? Do I need subjectivity and/or projection in a "professional" article?? NO, I DON'T

"Prince used to mess with his audience's expectations so flagrantly, it verged on self-sabotage" (pure subjectivity)

"he can't dance like he used to" (he can't, OR he doesn't want to?, is Jem his doctor/personal trainer??? WTF, of course he can't, he's 52)

"He played the first half of the show wearing a shirt with his own face on it" ( So? Big deal? what a shitty article)

"He gave hits like "Nothing Compares 2 U" and "Manic Monday" to other artists" (So? was that something bad or that tainted his career?? omg is this article a joke??)

"And he's still weird" (pure subjectiveness )

"hurried them off the stage after they joined him for "A Love Bizarre." + "prompting evil glares from their boss" (Really? Really, Jem? what a bitter, harsh as*h*le)

Anyway, I think I wasting my time here, anyway; what a cul-de-sac thread...so obvious that it's painful...

fuck you Jem, not because you diss Prince, but because YOU ARE A BAD "journalist"...

God you're tiresome.

and you're just a twit, really

threads like this remind me that the Prince.forum is not a serious site, just some asylum to visit from time to time, to have some fun

thank God for the musicNonPrince forum I guess

Gohi said:

JoeTyler said:

Can't you just establish the difference between subjectivity (or, as andy has said, pure projection) and objectivity??? Do I need subjectivity and/or projection in a "professional" article?? NO, I DON'T

"Prince used to mess with his audience's expectations so flagrantly, it verged on self-sabotage" (pure subjectivity)

"he can't dance like he used to" (he can't, OR he doesn't want to?, is Jem his doctor/personal trainer??? WTF, of course he can't, he's 52)

"He played the first half of the show wearing a shirt with his own face on it" ( So? Big deal? what a shitty article)

"He gave hits like "Nothing Compares 2 U" and "Manic Monday" to other artists" (So? was that something bad or that tainted his career?? omg is this article a joke??)

"And he's still weird" (pure subjectiveness )

"hurried them off the stage after they joined him for "A Love Bizarre." + "prompting evil glares from their boss" (Really? Really, Jem? what a bitter, harsh as*h*le)

Anyway, I think I wasting my time here, anyway; what a cul-de-sac thread...so obvious that it's painful...

fuck you Jem, not because you diss Prince, but because YOU ARE A BAD "journalist"...

Holy crap, you're raging. Everything this article said is either true or a wel-founded opinion (which is what reviews are about). Calm down. You're being completely embarrassing. :/

you guys are truly sad, really, truly sad

losers...

or do you work for MTV?

[Edited 1/19/11 14:35pm]

The problem with this article is not that they are telling lies, the problem is they are leaving stuff out. Surely the reviewer can point out Prince doesn't dance like he used to do, but he ignores the fact that Prince still does dance, and probably a lot better than the reviewer ever will

The reviewer also ignores that Prince is still pulling off a better show than most folks his age. He states Prince didn't play much from the past 15 years, but doesn't mention that Prince played even less songs from the past 15 years in Europe. And Jem may feel Prince mistreated the other celebs and the opening acts, but he doesn't point out that Prince has always had a hard time collaborating and that he at least tries. And please don't forget he sold out the concerts even before the opening acts were known, so he didn't use their fame for his own bucks.

A reviewer is entitled to his or her opinion, but when he doesn't mention both sides of the story I can't say it's good journalism. And even though Prince didn't play his game very smart with MTV, throwing mud at Prince with a biased review doesn't really show that MTV cares about good journalism at all in my opinion.

funkyandy said:

JoeTyler said:

^THIS^

As you can see errant...it's quite plain for some to see...but each to their own.

.

I was there last night I did have some issues with Jan. concert compared to Dec 18ths.

in Jan he song more of the songs REAL fans know. But I still think something was missing. maby it was the band. If it wasn't for Prince being the star i would have had major issues. I gonna still get more Tix for Feb.

mblevels said:

The problem with this article is not that they are telling lies, the problem is they are leaving stuff out. Surely the reviewer can point out Prince doesn't dance like he used to do, but he ignores the fact that Prince still does dance, and probably a lot better than the reviewer ever will

The reviewer also ignores that Prince is still pulling off a better show than most folks his age. He states Prince didn't play much from the past 15 years, but doesn't mention that Prince played even less songs from the past 15 years in Europe. And Jem may feel Prince mistreated the other celebs and the opening acts, but he doesn't point out that Prince has always had a hard time collaborating and that he at least tries. And please don't forget he sold out the concerts even before the opening acts were known, so he didn't use their fame for his own bucks.

A reviewer is entitled to his or her opinion, but when he doesn't mention both sides of the story I can't say it's good journalism. And even though Prince didn't play his game very smart with MTV, throwing mud at Prince with a biased review doesn't really show that MTV cares about good journalism at all in my opinion.

WATCH OUT!! some orgers will call you tiresome or will say that you're embarrassing!!

but, do you actually care?

I agree 100% with your post anyway...

JoeTyler said:

Gohi said:

Holy crap, you're raging. Everything this article said is either true or a wel-founded opinion (which is what reviews are about). Calm down. You're being completely embarrassing. :/

you guys are truly sad, really, truly sad

losers...

or do you work for MTV?

[Edited 1/19/11 14:35pm]

You're the loser freaking out about an article. Calm down For the love of all that is holy. It's just Prince. I'm sure you had a great time last night... don't let some journalist who you don't agree with get you this upset (and snarky and ignorant etc).

mblevels said:

The problem with this article is not that they are telling lies, the problem is they are leaving stuff out. Surely the reviewer can point out Prince doesn't dance like he used to do, but he ignores the fact that Prince still does dance, and probably a lot better than the reviewer ever will

The reviewer also ignores that Prince is still pulling off a better show than most folks his age. He states Prince didn't play much from the past 15 years, but doesn't mention that Prince played even less songs from the past 15 years in Europe. And Jem may feel Prince mistreated the other celebs and the opening acts, but he doesn't point out that Prince has always had a hard time collaborating and that he at least tries. And please don't forget he sold out the concerts even before the opening acts were known, so he didn't use their fame for his own bucks.

A reviewer is entitled to his or her opinion, but when he doesn't mention both sides of the story I can't say it's good journalism. And even though Prince didn't play his game very smart with MTV, throwing mud at Prince with a biased review doesn't really show that MTV cares about good journalism at all in my opinion.

What REVIEW of anything have you ever seen that went the way you are saying this review should have gone?

What restaurant review have you seen that went..."The steak was tough, the potatoes were cold and lumpy. I wanted broccoli and they gave me lima beans but hey, at least it's not McDonalds?"

I would totally get the animosity that's being displayed towards the article, if there was something that was false, inaccurate, untruthful, misleading, or dishonest about it but there isn't.

The reviewer just described what happened, in his view. Was his view tainted by Prince's cpmments about MTV? Perhaps but who's fault is that? Really?

mblevels said:

The problem with this article is not that they are telling lies, the problem is they are leaving stuff out. Surely the reviewer can point out Prince doesn't dance like he used to do, but he ignores the fact that Prince still does dance, and probably a lot better than the reviewer ever will

The reviewer also ignores that Prince is still pulling off a better show than most folks his age. He states Prince didn't play much from the past 15 years, but doesn't mention that Prince played even less songs from the past 15 years in Europe. And Jem may feel Prince mistreated the other celebs and the opening acts, but he doesn't point out that Prince has always had a hard time collaborating and that he at least tries.

This is hilarious. So we should cut Prince some slack for being a narrow-minded control freak when it comes to collaboration? Come on.

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

mblevels said:

The problem with this article is not that they are telling lies, the problem is they are leaving stuff out. Surely the reviewer can point out Prince doesn't dance like he used to do, but he ignores the fact that Prince still does dance, and probably a lot better than the reviewer ever will

The reviewer also ignores that Prince is still pulling off a better show than most folks his age. He states Prince didn't play much from the past 15 years, but doesn't mention that Prince played even less songs from the past 15 years in Europe. And Jem may feel Prince mistreated the other celebs and the opening acts, but he doesn't point out that Prince has always had a hard time collaborating and that he at least tries. And please don't forget he sold out the concerts even before the opening acts were known, so he didn't use their fame for his own bucks.

A reviewer is entitled to his or her opinion, but when he doesn't mention both sides of the story I can't say it's good journalism. And even though Prince didn't play his game very smart with MTV, throwing mud at Prince with a biased review doesn't really show that MTV cares about good journalism at all in my opinion.

What REVIEW of anything have you ever seen that went the way you are saying this review should have gone?

What restaurant review have you seen that went..."The steak was tough, the potatoes were cold and lumpy. I wanted broccoli and they gave me lima beans but hey, at least it's not McDonalds?"

I would totally get the animosity that's being displayed towards the article, if there was something that was false, inaccurate, untruthful, misleading, or dishonest about it but there isn't.

The reviewer just described what happened, in his view. Was his view tainted by Prince's cpmments about MTV? Perhaps but who's fault is that? Really?

Exactly. Freaking Prince fams.

Gohi said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

What REVIEW of anything have you ever seen that went the way you are saying this review should have gone?

What restaurant review have you seen that went..."The steak was tough, the potatoes were cold and lumpy. I wanted broccoli and they gave me lima beans but hey, at least it's not McDonalds?"

I would totally get the animosity that's being displayed towards the article, if there was something that was false, inaccurate, untruthful, misleading, or dishonest about it but there isn't.

The reviewer just described what happened, in his view. Was his view tainted by Prince's cpmments about MTV? Perhaps but who's fault is that? Really?

Exactly. Freaking Prince fams.

Three Words: BACK-TO-SCHOOL

you need it

and you're the one who called "ignorant"

Freaking Prince Non fams or bitter ex-hardcore fans

JoeTyler said:

Can't you just establish the difference between subjectivity (or, as andy has said, pure projection) and objectivity??? Do I need subjectivity and/or projection in a "professional" article?? NO, I DON'T

"Prince used to mess with his audience's expectations so flagrantly, it verged on self-sabotage" (pure subjectivity)

"he can't dance like he used to" (he can't, OR he doesn't want to?, is Jem his doctor/personal trainer??? WTF, of course he can't, he's 52)

"He played the first half of the show wearing a shirt with his own face on it" ( So? Big deal? what a shitty article)

"He gave hits like "Nothing Compares 2 U" and "Manic Monday" to other artists" (So? was that something bad or that tainted his career?? omg is this article a joke??)

"And he's still weird" (pure subjectiveness )

"hurried them off the stage after they joined him for "A Love Bizarre." + "prompting evil glares from their boss" (Really? Really, Jem? what a bitter, harsh as*h*le)

Anyway, I think I wasting my time here, anyway; what a cul-de-sac thread...so obvious that it's painful...

fuck you Jem, not because you diss Prince, but because YOU ARE A BAD "journalist"...

where is the part that is factually inaccurate about the selections you noted? were you there?

errant said:

JoeTyler said:

Can't you just establish the difference between subjectivity (or, as andy has said, pure projection) and objectivity??? Do I need subjectivity and/or projection in a "professional" article?? NO, I DON'T

"Prince used to mess with his audience's expectations so flagrantly, it verged on self-sabotage" (pure subjectivity)

"he can't dance like he used to" (he can't, OR he doesn't want to?, is Jem his doctor/personal trainer??? WTF, of course he can't, he's 52)

"He played the first half of the show wearing a shirt with his own face on it" ( So? Big deal? what a shitty article)

"He gave hits like "Nothing Compares 2 U" and "Manic Monday" to other artists" (So? was that something bad or that tainted his career?? omg is this article a joke??)

"And he's still weird" (pure subjectiveness )

"hurried them off the stage after they joined him for "A Love Bizarre." + "prompting evil glares from their boss" (Really? Really, Jem? what a bitter, harsh as*h*le)

Anyway, I think I wasting my time here, anyway; what a cul-de-sac thread...so obvious that it's painful...

fuck you Jem, not because you diss Prince, but because YOU ARE A BAD "journalist"...

where is the part that is factually inaccurate about the selections you noted? were you there?

not all the "selections" are about the gig. right??

JoeTyler said:

errant said:

where is the part that is factually inaccurate about the selections you noted? were you there?

not all the "selections" are about the gig. right??

but what is inaccurate about them?

errant said:

JoeTyler said:

not all the "selections" are about the gig. right??

but what is inaccurate about them?

ok, back to school, I guess

SUBJETIVITY + RANDOM, PICKY, PERSONAL COMMENTS THAT ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE QUALITY OF THE GIG

some of you are crackin' me up, the OP is surely flipping as well...

Dont see NOTHING wrong with the article.

JoeTyler said:

errant said:

but what is inaccurate about them?

ok, back to school, I guess

SUBJETIVITY + RANDOM, PICKY, PERSONAL COMMENTS THAT ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE QUALITY OF THE GIG

some of you are crackin' me up, the OP is surely flipping as well...

well it is a review, of course, which is subjective by nature. you've chosen to pull the least subjective parts from it.

errant said:

JoeTyler said:

ok, back to school, I guess

SUBJETIVITY + RANDOM, PICKY, PERSONAL COMMENTS THAT ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE QUALITY OF THE GIG

some of you are crackin' me up, the OP is surely flipping as well...

well it is a review, of course, which is subjective by nature. you've chosen to pull the least subjective parts from it.

hahahaaha haaaaa

don't worry, it's alright anyway, THIS IS a dead end...

[Edited 1/19/11 16:21pm]

JoeTyler said:

errant said:

well it is a review, of course, which is subjective by nature. you've chosen to pull the least subjective parts from it.

hahahaaha haaaaa

don't worry, it's alright anyway, THIS IS a dead end...

[Edited 1/19/11 16:21pm]

hush, child. you're embarrassing yourself.

errant said:

JoeTyler said:

hahahaaha haaaaa

don't worry, it's alright anyway, THIS IS a dead end...

[Edited 1/19/11 16:21pm]

hush, child. you're embarrassing yourself.

No, you are. Really. The ability to type doesn't give you the absolute truth, I thought you'd know that by now. How wrong I was...

"you're embarrassing yourself"?? Really, what a shitty way to argue. I had such high hopes for you. (not really)

I'm wasting, waaaaaaasting my time (not really, I'm working at the same time)

I don't see anything wrong with the article. It's the writer's opinion. Just a little something for the broken down battered Prince fans to indulge in Everyone that I know who went last night including friends of mine, who are not die hards and it was their first time, said it was amazing...so..whatever.

Maybe what he's trying to say is, maybe this has become Prince's day job. The cutting edge Prince we once knew is gone. Now all we have left is a clone that is only good for performing the hits of yesteryear. Very well, I might add.

It's a positive review of a Prince concert. GTF over it and stop crying because the reviewer didn't give Prince the printed version of fellatio in it. Not everyone is as obsessed with blowing sunshine up his ass on a daily basis as a lot of the people on a website dedicated to him are.

I'm still getting over the fact that the reviewer didn't call him a 'diminutive singer' or a 'pint-sized pop star'. That alone makes for a tolerable review, in my book.

The article is factually correct. I think people on this thread object to someone shitting on Prince who ain't on prince.org. It's the ole "No one can beat up my little brother but me" thing. And yeah, I think MTV has a beef with Prince, he's dissed them over the years, and isn't their demographic anymore. I don't even know why they would even review a Prince show. At the end of the day, Prince got paid a whole lot of money for those shows, and earned a spot in music history, despite bad reviews from music and concert critics. Jem Asswad got $100 for writing the article and saw a Prince show for free. Which one you think is sleeping better tonight?

JoeTyler said:

errant said:

hush, child. you're embarrassing yourself.

No, you are. Really. The ability to type doesn't give you the absolute truth, I thought you'd know that by now. How wrong I was...

"you're embarrassing yourself"?? Really, what a shitty way to argue. I had such high hopes for you. (not really)

I'm wasting, waaaaaaasting my time (not really, I'm working at the same time)

I'm going to say this as nice as possible, how do you criticize someone else style of debating, but your is twice as childish. There is nothing wrong with having your opinion, but not the whole world shares it. If you feel that the writer seems ignorant, its your opinion and some will agree with you. I believe that it's perspective, and his is a little distorted. Just saying. He could be right, he could be wrong, but because of freedom of speech like you have as well, he can express that opinion it's ok.

Sorry but it sounds like this writer is a long time fan and knows what he's talking about.

Wouldnt be surprised if he was one of us orgers.

Anybody wanna fess up?

StonedImmaculate said:

Sorry but it sounds like this writer is a long time fan and knows what he's talking about.

Wouldnt be surprised if he was one of us orgers.

Anybody wanna fess up?

Whoa, extremely biased. No time to read b.s.

Jem or Prince who will be remembered in 20 years?