Anji said:

"There's a rebelliousness in this specificity: if the Prince of the early eighties could shock fans by singing about oral sex and incest, the Prince of the new millennium shocks by singing about faith and politics."
--Ben Greenman, THE NEW YORKER (December 10, 2001)

justanotherasshole said:

PAY FUCKIN ATTENTION! thats already been discussed..read it and comprehend it pulease. Is that so damn difficult?

NuPwrSoul said:

" ha ha " from Nelson to all the controversy naysayers


.
[This message was edited Wed Feb 5 21:48:54 PST 2003 by rdhull]

Anji said:

Yes, at the time. During the early eighties, singing about incest and masturbating was extremely controversial. Not so much now, though (thanks in part to Prince).



Yes, because if Purple Rain had been a flop, and Tipper Gore never heard the lyrics, she would not have been inspired to create the PMRC (at least not at that time).

End.

PeterJL121 said:

that doesnt make the content more controversial! damn yall!

This isnt about what got the more sales or more publicity..goddamn...pay fucking attention and THINK.

rdhull said:

Are you saying I could record a CD detailing all of my unorthodox beliefs and bizarre sexual fantasies and call it controversial even if I only played it for a handful of other people?

End.

PeterJL121 said:

well you most certainly would not need it to sell one million or Tipper Gores friggin public stamp of controversial approval to make it so..I mean damn.

rdhull said:

All right, we're obviously talking about different levels of "controversy" here. For you controversy is sparking lengthy discussions among the fans. For me controversy is provoking a vehement response from the public. Fair enough...

End.

rdhull said:

I've always thought the term controversy only applicable in situations where an idea or piece of work is so provocative that it draws large sections of the community into a debate. Surely the scale of the response is important to the term. The debate we are having is one of semantics as PeterJL121 just said.
[This message was edited Wed Feb 5 23:06:32 PST 2003 by fairmoan]

fairmoan said:

thats why I didnt say anyting else..because yes it semantics that is causing disagreement etc.

even though something does not have to draw a large section of the community (even though TRC did) to be controversial. In other words folks heard about it and discussed it and were peeved, inquisitive, against etc it and did not buy it but the issues were discussed and bandied about voila...controversial without sales. Simple.

I'm with mistermaxxx. Dirty Mind just flipped people out. TRC is controversial amongst fans, but not much of the general public has heard it.

I agree that you can have controversy without sales. The Black Album generated some of the biggest controversy of his career without even being released.

End.

Most of you seem do be denying the fact that it's controversial because you didn't enjoy it.

Keep in mind, being controversial doesn't have to equate to being good, and vice versa.

As for the amount of people who have heard it, that is also irrelevant.

During the beat movement, Ginsburg's "Howl" was appallingly controversial and anti-american values. Lines like "Who let themselves be fucked in the ass by saintly motorcyclists, and screamed with joy, who blew and were blown by those human seraphim, the sailors, caresses of Atlantic and Caribbean love" were not heard everyday in the 50s. The publisher was arrested for even publishing this piece of work, because it was too controversial. If he didn't publish it, the work would still be a controversial piece, only nobody would know about it.

Naturalist and Realist playwrights such as Strindbergh, Ibsen and Chekhov often didn't see their own plays produced in their lifetime, because they were too controversial at the time. In other words, things can be controversial despite the fact nobody knows about them. As a matter of fact, many people don't know about things because they're controversial.

Most of society is content to rest on their laurels than examine various perspectives. TRC is still controversial, extremely controversial. It's just a religious controversy, rather than a sexual/political/violent controversy, that many percieve controversy to be.

Ok, did I use the word controversy enough? Sorry, I'm tired.

I, myself donnot like TRC, but some people donot realize that in the slave days there actually was White jail bait.

In my opinion, this wasnot a smart move on Prince's part.
The voice at the beginning of every song, instead of maybe just the first song, was to many people a big turn off.

I absolutely hate it and downloaded it, but will never buy it and Iam a huge Prince fan.

To alienate his biggest majority audience, which is white, was really dumb on his part.

I know some white fans that really changed their opinion of him and will never patronize him again,

Second, A lot of African Americans are prejudiced against him and willnot even attend his concert.

When I attended his show in my hometown, I asked 5 of my African American friends if they would like to go with me and all but one said no that he was a high yellow.

(I made sure that I let them know what a good show they missed because of their hatred and ignorance)
So, I think Prince lost more ground than he gained on this one.

Another thing, if your smart, you don't let your prejudices be known.I found out that he has some prejudices that I didn't want to know about.

And the JW religious part, who is happy about a JW coming to their door? Only another JW.So the religious part of it turned some others off.(not me.)

But the biggest turn off was the voice at the beginning of every song because it is just plain ugly.

I was hurt by the cover, because he didnot represent the whites at all. (His biggest supporters, hello?)

But, I do love the ONA shows, I think he was totally brilliant here.

I wish he would hurry with some new material, though, it has been too long.

lovebird said:

Prince is not about making smart moves. He tried that with Rave Un2 The Joy Fantastic. Did it work? The Prince that knows better is about saying whatever the fuck is on his mind, and letting the music spread that message. In the case of The Rainbow Children, many people heard the most passionate music he has mustered for a long time. That is what the JW's faith means to him.

The shows were fantastic because Prince got his attitude back, and the groove always follows. Many people do not like what he is saying, but that doesn't matter to him. It is not a politically, socially or economically smart thing to do. But as for artistic appeal? For me, it is the most attractive quality because the music shines through his new found beliefs.

As for your hate of his Bob George Style voice, have you heard Bob George? That there is the funk, and uncompromised.

"With the accurate understanding of God and His law they went about the work of building a new nation: The Rainbow Children"

I agree. One thing that I find fascinating about Prince, is that often (and surely with TRC) he let's nothing come in his way when he got something to say. People say that it wasn't a smart move because of alienating fans what causes declining sales, less people at concerts...
I do think that Prince is aware of that. And sometimes he tries to go mainstream (see Rave), but more often nowadays, it's all about what he wants to say, without any compromises.
I don't agree with or understand everything on TRC either, but I really respect Prince for making an album he way HE wanted to.
You know, TRC just screams 'freedom'.

This below is another case of TRC being controversial with somebody not even having to buy the record.

lovebird said:

savoirfaire said:

It's not "just" a religious controversy. Sexually and politically, even perhabs violently, it is controversial as well.
sexually: because of the contrast between the way he views the woman of "muse2thepharao" and "1+1+1=3" and how he used to view a woman, in his older work.
politically: because of the criticism of man made government and the references to slavery, jewish names, and the holocaust.
violently: perhabs one could read some violent aspects in it as well, since Prince uses "the Lord" and his law that will "come like a thief in the night, leave nothing but ashes to the left and dust to the right".
I am not saying that it is violent, I'm saying that some could read that into it.

I grant you tho' much of this further controversy is coming from the religious doctrines he applies and expresses in this album. so, in principal TRC is religiously controversial, but it sparks more controversy, in the sense of sexual, political and perhabs even violent controversy.

-
[This message was edited Thu Feb 6 12:29:25 PST 2003 by Abrazo]

I don't play The Rainbow Children just like i dont play Xpectation. To me they are examples of Prince showing his audience another string to his bow. I would like him to incorporate this into something more palatable, something that is just as much for his audience as it is for him. I would take those albums though over the lacks of NPS and Emancipation any day because they are delivered by the Prince we all love. The Prince who's always trying to do something different. I don't enjoy The Rainbow Children i respect it though.

WildheartXXX said:

I thought One Nite Alone Live struck this balance very well. Musically, that is.

rdhull said:

My statement was only aimed at the fact that it was easily ignored by the majority of the living populace. I don't care how much his album sells, unless we are discussing whether it is being ignored or listened to, which was part of your statement.

but in regards to it being controversial, not enough people listened to it or even cared to to even formulate an opinion on it, so controversial is a bit of a far fetched a description of it.

in fairness to you, yes the album raised a conflict of opinion among its few listeners, so yes, in that regards it is controversial. but a small one. it is a controversy more comperable to an argument between two back wood yocals diputing who owns rights to the local watering hole rather than the large controversy that has surrounded his music in the past. that is to say, it was barely a controversy at all.
[This message was edited Thu Feb 6 15:24:25 PST 2003 by dumbass]

Since less people know about its existence than probably any prince album since 4u ... i wouldnt say controversial...

It's also an example of someone who insists that the narration voice is at the beginning of "every" song, when in fact it's not.

Outside of that; some folks need to look up the word "controversy."

rdhull said:

Jehovah's Witnesses are controversial, period...

Prince's worst album next to NPS

EvilWhiteMale said:

nps and emancipation...

rdhull said:

I dont read these bloody threads and all the shit that goes with it. I dont give a shit about all your arguing bullshit. I usually only comment on the first messgae in a thread , that is the topic, I dont care about all the other bullshit you throw in there.

and yes it IS difficult, unlike you - I seem to have a life.
I dont have time to sit here and read every stupid little retarded message you feel the need to type out.