skywalker said:

Spinlight said:

No, I googled the most popular African American names. Was Prince being funny or ironic by using names like Rosenbloom and Goldstruck?

I think he was trying to be ironic and failed in the attempt. Instead, he left his message mixed and up for mis-interpretation.

I don't think he attempted to be ironic. I think he attempted to use an example (situation of black people being similar to the situation of Jewish people) that was not very well-chosen because he did not understand the sensitivity of the topic.

EmancipationLover said:

SagsWay2low said:

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Look, the hatred of the jews in P&R forum is something promoted by a group of people who don't bother coming into this forum, and a small group they are at that. It's not relevant to Prince.

Prince's hatred of the jews isn't political--he hates Jews because of their last names. Completely different types of hate.

O.k., so you're using the same website that some anti-semites use to spill their hate in a certain sub-forum, but since you don't use that sub-forum and it's not that popular, it doesn't matter to you. On the other hand, some stupid song lyrics on an album by an aging popstar wearing too much makeup, which might eventually be prone to mis-interpretation, require a 150-post discussion with people getting upset because of the song lyrics. Mkaaay...

And it's a really interesting logic that you think there is a political hatred of the Jews (does that make it o.k.?) and a non-political one, and that there is the need to differentiate between the two. So if Prince just had written some anti-Israelian lyrics, that would make it acceptable???

Besides, where in the song is it mentioned that he hates Jews because of their last names??? "Nice to meet you, Mr. xxx" - that is hatred? The political or the non-political one? The P&R forum or the M&M forum one?

Huh? Examples? Isn't that against the rules and if so shouldn't such posts be deleted?

Sensitive topics will never be resolved if they're hidden so it's always best to bring them out into the open.

OFFS - so you see the song as insulting because you think it tries to measure whose pain was worse. You are missing some important facts in your post which I won't add because I don't think it's about the measuring.

Prince knew that the anti-religionists would dislike this album for the lyrics and also that they would blame his JW religion, which interestingly is also a minority group.

I just hope that the ones accusing Prince of being insulting, are not the ones insulting groups or individuals on this board, for their religions, beliefs or ideals.

EmancipationLover said:

skywalker said:

I think he was trying to be ironic and failed in the attempt. Instead, he left his message mixed and up for mis-interpretation.

I don't think he attempted to be ironic. I think he attempted to use an example (situation of black people being similar to the situation of Jewish people) that was not very well-chosen because he did not understand the sensitivity of the topic.

Sure he did.

rialb said:

EmancipationLover said:

O.k., so you're using the same website that some anti-semites use to spill their hate in a certain sub-forum, but since you don't use that sub-forum and it's not that popular, it doesn't matter to you. On the other hand, some stupid song lyrics on an album by an aging popstar wearing too much makeup, which might eventually be prone to mis-interpretation, require a 150-post discussion with people getting upset because of the song lyrics. Mkaaay...

And it's a really interesting logic that you think there is a political hatred of the Jews (does that make it o.k.?) and a non-political one, and that there is the need to differentiate between the two. So if Prince just had written some anti-Israelian lyrics, that would make it acceptable???

Besides, where in the song is it mentioned that he hates Jews because of their last names??? "Nice to meet you, Mr. xxx" - that is hatred? The political or the non-political one? The P&R forum or the M&M forum one?

Huh? Examples? Isn't that against the rules and if so shouldn't such posts be deleted?

Yeah, what's with this "hatred against the Jews" in PR?

I don't see it.

Oh well, look who is saying it.

Quite possibly my least favorite Prince album. Musically I don't find it all that interesting. Lyrically, as has been widely determined, it's at the very least borderline bigoted and anti-semitic, and the worst part is, the entire album is viewed through this tiny cultish, sect-of-a-religion lens. Coming from the person who (before and thankfully since) generally much more open minded and tolerant makes it worse. Throw me in with the other poster that mentioned they like to pretend this album doesn't exist. Even "N.E.W.S" gets more play from me than this does, and I'm not generally into instrumental stuff.

EmancipationLover said:

skywalker said:

I think he was trying to be ironic and failed in the attempt. Instead, he left his message mixed and up for mis-interpretation.

I don't think he attempted to be ironic. I think he attempted to use an example (situation of black people being similar to the situation of Jewish people) that was not very well-chosen because he did not understand the sensitivity of the topic.

P writes a lot of his music just to see the response he gets from places like prince.org and what not. He knows EXACTLY what he's sayin' and doing ... LoL

& he doesn't care who he pisses of, that's the mark of a TRUE artist, I would think ...

Tremolina said:

Efan said:

I don't mind debating it. However, I did just open up a bottle of wine, so I may not debate coherently.

Regarding the "theocratic order" part: I think the interesting thing about that (and again, it shows some of the nuance of the lyrics, much more so than most of his lyrics) is that it seems to me to have a dual meaning. One is the "God, then men, then women" part. The other, in the context of "1+1+1 Is 3," is that there's God/Jehovah and NOT a trinity.

The album is making clear that he's making a firm break from not only his sexualized past but also his religious past. So while a song like "I Would Die 4 U" celebrated the trinity, The Rainbow Children says that's not what he believes in anymore.

Don't worry, I know how you feel lol

I can follow you on the first, but not the latter.

1+1+1=3 SEEMS about the trinity at first sight. However, there is NOTHING in the lyrics suggesting this notion really.

Indeed, it is SOLELY about the "theocratic order" of woman, man, god.

All that happens next in the song, is the banished ones knocking on his door

-

[Edited 4/12/11 17:37pm]

i think 1+1+1=3 is definitely about the trinity. prince is disputing the trinitarian view, i.e 1+1+1=1. jehovah is the 1 and anything else (including jesus and the holy spirit) are separate entities. jw teaching strongly discourages marriage to other faiths so prince is basically saying "my way, or the highway"! the theocratic order is jehovah, jesus, then the 144,000 witnesses appointed by jehovah. i can't believe that the man who wrote "sexuality is all you'll ever need" believes all this shite.

Bohemian67 said:

Sensitive topics will never be resolved if they're hidden so it's always best to bring them out into the open.

OFFS - so you see the song as insulting because you think it tries to measure whose pain was worse. You are missing some important facts in your post which I won't add because I don't think it's about the measuring.

Prince knew that the anti-religionists would dislike this album for the lyrics and also that they would blame his JW religion, which interestingly is also a minority group.

I just hope that the ones accusing Prince of being insulting, are not the ones insulting groups or individuals on this board, for their religions, beliefs or ideals.

No, I said before that I need to listen/read the lyrics a bit more. I've never paid 2 much attention to the lyrics as much as 2 the music. I love the music and this album. I heard of the controversy before I bought it. It's my favorite of his 1990's & 2000's

I like the song, I was just talking about that piece that phrase. Neither of us really know what his motive is behind it. So we can both only speculate. I think the song is saying some interesting things, BUT if he is measuring 1 groups persecution over another then I think it is. But 4 me that goes 4 anyone.

Efan said:

Tremolina said:

I guess the only argument I can give you is this: There's no notion that the man and the woman are equals. The man is clearlly superior to the woman in his mind. So saying "1+1+1" implies a parity that he doesn't believe in (witness such previous lines as "She surrendered her discerning of it into his care and keeping 4 she trusted he would lead in the right way").

Also, it seems unfair to look at this only on a song-by-song basis, because it's clearly a cohesive album and storyline he's building. Immediately after 1+1+1 Is 3, he goes right into Deconstruction, which refers back to Digital Garden. I see it as her (the muse who is now the queen) accepting the knowledge given to her in 1+1+1 Is 3, which then leads to the Deconstruction of the Digital Garden and its "lies, lies, lies." After that, he knows she is the one he can marry (Wedding Feast is not an actual wedding, but instead it's a call for a wedding). In She Loves Me 4 Me, he celebrates the love he has found and brings her back to meet his mother. But as he prepares for the wedding, he realizes that the name he will give his bride is not his own (Family Name, obviously).

the theocratic order is NOT god, man, woman. it's god, jesus, then the 144000 annointed witnesses. he's saying that god created jesus as his son (a separate entity). he's disputing the christian view that 1+1+1=1 and telling his intended that if that's what she believes then they can't be together, as dictated by jw dogma.

Just one quick question, mainly to satisfy a fans curiosity...

How in the FUCK did this get turned into a Jew/JW bunch of bull?

skywalker said:

Spinlight said:

No, I googled the most popular African American names. Was Prince being funny or ironic by using names like Rosenbloom and Goldstruck?

Maybe I am just dense. Is Prince singling out names that are typically Jewish, or is he simply choosing names that are have symbolic wealth/beauty in them?

Pearl-man

Rose-in-bloom

Gold-struck (some one mentioned isn't even a real name).

hallefuckinglujah! i thought i was the only one who saw this, to me it's always been obvious. i don't buy the anti-semitic viewpoint for a second! the names are to symbolise those who have gained wealth and prospered from the slave trade.

[Edited 4/18/11 16:08pm]

robertgeorgeakabob said:

skywalker said:

Maybe I am just dense. Is Prince singling out names that are typically Jewish, or is he simply choosing names that are have symbolic wealth/beauty in them?

Pearl-man

Rose-in-bloom

Gold-struck (some one mentioned isn't even a real name).

hallefuckinglujah! i thought i was the only one who saw this, to me it's always been obvious. i don't buy the anti-semetic viewpoint for a second! the names are to symbolise those who have gained wealth and prospered from the slave trade.

Take that shit outta here. It's not only false, it's laughable.

robertgeorgeakabob said:

Efan said:

I guess the only argument I can give you is this: There's no notion that the man and the woman are equals. The man is clearlly superior to the woman in his mind. So saying "1+1+1" implies a parity that he doesn't believe in (witness such previous lines as "She surrendered her discerning of it into his care and keeping 4 she trusted he would lead in the right way").

Also, it seems unfair to look at this only on a song-by-song basis, because it's clearly a cohesive album and storyline he's building. Immediately after 1+1+1 Is 3, he goes right into Deconstruction, which refers back to Digital Garden. I see it as her (the muse who is now the queen) accepting the knowledge given to her in 1+1+1 Is 3, which then leads to the Deconstruction of the Digital Garden and its "lies, lies, lies." After that, he knows she is the one he can marry (Wedding Feast is not an actual wedding, but instead it's a call for a wedding). In She Loves Me 4 Me, he celebrates the love he has found and brings her back to meet his mother. But as he prepares for the wedding, he realizes that the name he will give his bride is not his own (Family Name, obviously).

the theocratic order is NOT god, man, woman. it's god, jesus, then the 144000 annointed witnesses. he's saying that god created jesus as his son (a separate entity). he's disputing the christian view that 1+1+1=1 and telling his intended that if that's what she believes then they can't be together, as dictated by jw dogma.

I know. Are you agreeing with me? Because that's exactly what I was saying. Well, except for the 144,000 part, because I've never had any idea what that nonsense was about.

Spinlight said:

robertgeorgeakabob said:

hallefuckinglujah! i thought i was the only one who saw this, to me it's always been obvious. i don't buy the anti-semetic viewpoint for a second! the names are to symbolise those who have gained wealth and prospered from the slave trade.

Take that shit outta here. It's not only false, it's laughable.

who made u the authority? ain't only prince who believes "ain't no room to disagree"!!!!

Efan said:

robertgeorgeakabob said:

the theocratic order is NOT god, man, woman. it's god, jesus, then the 144000 annointed witnesses. he's saying that god created jesus as his son (a separate entity). he's disputing the christian view that 1+1+1=1 and telling his intended that if that's what she believes then they can't be together, as dictated by jw dogma.

I know. Are you agreeing with me? Because that's exactly what I was saying. Well, except for the 144,000 part, because I've never had any idea what that nonsense was about.

you have a different idea of what the theocratic order is. its got nothing to do with whether man is superior to woman. check jw dogma to fully understand the theocratic order and the 144000 etc. IT'S ALL NONSENSE!!!

robertgeorgeakabob said:

Spinlight said:

Take that shit outta here. It's not only false, it's laughable.

who made u the authority? ain't only prince who believes "ain't no room to disagree"!!!!

Oh? Grats to you for believing in a theocratic order. I laugh at people like you because your delusion is so strong.

But regardless of your own calamities, the lyric is questionable at best and it has nothing to do with vibrant imagery. You and Prince don't "get" something everyone else doesn't so stop insinuating it.

robertgeorgeakabob said:

Efan said:

I know. Are you agreeing with me? Because that's exactly what I was saying. Well, except for the 144,000 part, because I've never had any idea what that nonsense was about.

you have a different idea of what the theocratic order is. its got nothing to do with whether man is superior to woman. check jw dogma to fully understand the theocratic order and the 144000 etc. IT'S ALL NONSENSE!!!

What different idea? I said a bunch of times that the song is talking about there not being a trinity.

Tremolina said:

Period.

Despite some of its controversial lyrical elements and its nonsensical weddding feast and destruction, it's simply excellent.

AGREED!!!!!

I have just recently discovered this album (I bypassed it when it first came out) and I have it on constant loop at my house!

Tremolina said:

Period.

Despite some of its controversial lyrical elements and its nonsensical weddding feast and destruction, it's simply excellent.

I love it but I was wondering if anyone else noticed (sure you have) that there are just a few dirty lines in there? Which surprised me as it such a Jehovah's witness-y album. The dirty stuff just surprised me a bit, did it anyone else?

DJFreelan said:

Just one quick question, mainly to satisfy a fans curiosity...

How in the FUCK did this get turned into a Jew/JW bunch of bull?

Have you ever listened to The Rainbow Children?

Genesia said:

DJFreelan said:

Just one quick question, mainly to satisfy a fans curiosity...

How in the FUCK did this get turned into a Jew/JW bunch of bull?

Have you ever listened to The Rainbow Children?

Are you familiar with what adults sound like in Peanuts cartoons? (wahn wahn wahn wah) Well, that's how I hear the lyrics on this album. Maybe they are anti-semetic, I don't know because it sounds like gibberish to me.

rialb said:

Genesia said:

Have you ever listened to The Rainbow Children?

Are you familiar with what adults sound like in Peanuts cartoons? (wahn wahn wahn wah) Well, that's how I hear the lyrics on this album. Maybe they are anti-semetic, I don't know because it sounds like gibberish to me.

Here ya go...

[img:$uid]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TrUMxhjHGoc/TDdc6WbiU7I/AAAAAAAAF0I/joJsqcH8auY/s1600/qtip.jpg[/img:$uid]

If The Rainbow Children was released with the Kirky J. era production, you would all think it's the worst album ever.

Militant said:

Quite possibly my least favorite Prince album. Musically I don't find it all that interesting. Lyrically, as has been widely determined, it's at the very least borderline bigoted and anti-semitic, and the worst part is, the entire album is viewed through this tiny cultish, sect-of-a-religion lens. Coming from the person who (before and thankfully since) generally much more open minded and tolerant makes it worse. Throw me in with the other poster that mentioned they like to pretend this album doesn't exist. Even "N.E.W.S" gets more play from me than this does, and I'm not generally into instrumental stuff.

802 said:

If The Rainbow Children was released with the Kirky J. era production, you would all think it's the worst album ever.

That's quite possible, but I don't see how a comment like that could be used against the merits of TRC. The reason why the record sounds so good is that Prince ditched the production style he had been favouring for too long at that point and went for a fresh sound with plenty of live-instrumentation and electronic experimentation thrown into the mix. The new approach got a very good reaction from the fans at the time. You can hear his own enthusiasm on the record as well.

EmancipationLover said:

SagsWay2low said:

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Look, the hatred of the jews in P&R forum is something promoted by a group of people who don't bother coming into this forum, and a small group they are at that. It's not relevant to Prince.

Prince's hatred of the jews isn't political--he hates Jews because of their last names. Completely different types of hate.

O.k., so you're using the same website that some anti-semites use to spill their hate in a certain sub-forum, but since you don't use that sub-forum and it's not that popular, it doesn't matter to you. On the other hand, some stupid song lyrics on an album by an aging popstar wearing too much makeup, which might eventually be prone to mis-interpretation, require a 150-post discussion with people getting upset because of the song lyrics. Mkaaay...

And it's a really interesting logic that you think there is a political hatred of the Jews (does that make it o.k.?) and a non-political one, and that there is the need to differentiate between the two. So if Prince just had written some anti-Israelian lyrics, that would make it acceptable???

Besides, where in the song is it mentioned that he hates Jews because of their last names??? "Nice to meet you, Mr. xxx" - that is hatred? The political or the non-political one? The P&R forum or the M&M forum one?

Oh please, nobody is saying that it makes it ok.

I'm saying it doesn't have anything to do with this thread.

Prince is the one that wrote those lyrics. This is a discussion of them and completely irrelevant to what folks are doing in that other forum.

We're not hear to discuss whether he hates the jews or not at this point, but how much he hates them, and whether smooth jazz should ever be allowed to be narrated by darth vador. Please keep up.

novabrkr said:

802 said:

If The Rainbow Children was released with the Kirky J. era production, you would all think it's the worst album ever.

That's quite possible, but I don't see how a comment like that could be used against the merits of TRC. The reason why the record sounds so good is that Prince ditched the production style he had been favouring for too long at that point and went for a fresh sound with plenty of live-instrumentation and electronic experimentation thrown into the mix. The new approach got a very good reaction from the fans at the time. You can hear his own enthusiasm on the record as well.

The use of live/real instruments made it seem better than it was, at first listen.

Your line of argumentation is terribly sketchy.

If your intention is to imply that the songwriting wasn't very good then you are missing the point. Most of the tracks on TRC do not rely on pop songwriting even if there are aspects of pop songwriting involved throughout the record. I don't know how you could even do e.g. the title track with "Kirky J. era production", because that piece relies on the sounds and the freer form of the performance. The same applies to the tracks that have a stricter song structure. Why would "The Work pt.1" have "Kirky J. era production" on it when it's intended as a JB-esque piece? Provoking the thought of some sort of an imaginary version of the record and using that as an argument against the actual record is a moot point. I'm pretty sure SOTT wouldn't have been as good with "Kirky J. era production" either.

If your intention is to imply that you liked it on the first listen due to the live instrumentation and then lost interest in it due to the lack of songwriting then that's just your own preference.

novabrkr said:

If your intention is to imply that you liked it on the first listen due to the live instrumentation and then lost interest in it due to the lack of songwriting then that's just your own preference.

Yes, it's just my opinion.