EmancipationLover said:

Efan said:

For people who think all he's doing is just some innocent comparing and contrasting, I'm curious: Why do you think he's doing that only with Jews (not in just one song, but in two on the album) and not with any other particular group?

Because, to the very best of my knowledge, there are only two minority groups who had their family names stolen at some stage: African-American and Jewish people. Who else should he come up with? Also, I don't see the contrasting. "Just the same" is not exactly a phrase to emphasize a contrast, is it? Furthermore, wasn't there the attempt of some African-American activists to sort of "join forces" with Jewish groups during the days of the civil rights movement (I'm just asking, the Americans on this board will know better)?

As for the second song with lyrics in question: I would like to ask to discuss that after we've gone through the case of "Family Name", because the whole context and meaning of the "Holocaust aside" phrase in "Muse" is completely different imo. It's not that I'm unwilling to discuss it, it's just that I don't see the benefit in adding a second topic while the first one is still completely unclear.

It's not completely unclear in the least. The lyrics in Family Name do NOT celebrate solidarity with another culture whose names were taken. "You may ask what you mad about but you still got your family name. How you doin, Mr GoldSTRUCK." That doesn't seem like Prince has the slightest -fucking- clue as to anything ABOUT Jewish heritage, but he sees fit to mock it anyway.

And the comment w/ the holocaust is relevant for context. He is NOT referring to a black holocaust as someone else mentioned. The line SPECIFICALLY states that it is better to be sold than to die. The oft-used, bigoted, and ignorant claim that Jews in the holocaust were merely "killed" as opposed to they were starved to death, gassed, genetically warped/mutated, abused, raped, etc. You know, most of the same shit happened to African slaves minus all the technology.

I don't even get why this is hard for people to grasp. It's clear cut. He says the words directly. He even offers context FOR the comments.

[Edited 4/19/11 11:31am]

Efan said:

1) I don't think he's saying that Jewish people had their names stolen in Family Name. Just the opposite is how I take it. And 2) I do think TRC has to be considered as a whole, not on a song-by-song basis. To me anyway, the album, both its good and bad parts, are a complete concept.

ad 1) Can you explain that to me? Because I really cannot derive this conclusion from the lyrics.

ad 2) While that is true, it should not keep us from clarifying a specific question without getting lost in x further questions. The specific question I have here is: how does one derive anti-semitism from the song lyrics of "Family Name"?

Spinlight said:

The lyrics in Family Name do NOT celebrate solidarity with another culture whose names were taken. "You may ask what you mad about but you still got your family name. How you doin, Mr GoldSTRUCK." That doesn't seem like Prince has the slightest -fucking- clue as to anything ABOUT Jewish heritage, but he sees fit to mock it anyway.

That conclusion would require that the "you" addressed in the first line of the chorus already is Mr. Goldstruck and not we (as the general public). I don't think that it makes sense to assume that he's already talking to Mr. Goldstruck as a (virtual) person with that first line, because he only says hallo to him in the second line. Why should he address him before that?

Let's just look at all the three sections in question:

U might say, "what u mad about?"/But u still got ur Family Name
Pleased 2 meet u, Mr. Rosenbloom/I'll b John Blackwell just the same
What's ur Family Name?

U might say, "what u mad about?/But u still got ur Family Name
Pleased 2 meet u, Mr. Pearlman/U can call me Clay. can I play?

U might say "what u mad about?"/But u still got ur Family name
Pleased 2 meet u Mr. Goldstruck.

Always the same structure. He tells the "you" person that they still got their family name. Then he subsequently says hallo to a (most likely) Jewish person, who he addresses with their typical Jewish name, just to politely introduce himself with a typical African-American name (originating from the slavery era). This pattern is only interrupted in the third case by the whole "We found this tape" section, but from the context, it's obvious that the third chorus would otherwise have a similar ending as the previous two. So from the sheer structure of the lyrics, I think it is very obvious that the first lines are not directly related to the second lines, where he meets a Jewish person. There is even a contrast between the two lines imo, because he associates with the Jewish person to team up "against" the rest of us who still have their family names.

90% of this album really gets on my tits and not in a good way

skywalker said:

I still wonder if Prince was specifically using names that are typically Jewish because they are Jewish, or simply because of the etymology. Gold, Rose, Pearl, etc.

Prince has a career long history of word play and toying with sounds and vocab. Remember the 1994 VIBE interview: Nel-son "son of Nel" and all that?

I think both, and interesting research there Skywalker. I'm joining the club and am also waiting for evidence from the contenders to the alleged "crime" in the lyrics. "You still got your family name" is hardly hatred as EL pointed out. The song ends as pointed out a few times, with everyone joining hands.

Instead from the contenders we've heard, "the moment I hear the song I shut done and won't listen, Prince is anti-semitic, Prince is lazy, Prince paints everything with the same brush, Prince is border-line bigoted".

We've had someone say they don't believe in the Theocratic Order, but someone pipes in afterwards to say the poster is deluded because he DOES believe in it???? There have been implications when listeners don't hear the anti-semiticness and they've been handed earbuds as if their ears need cleaning.

Someone has said "the entire album is viewed through this tiny cultish, sect-of-a-religion lens" and another who has asked "gee haven't you heard the sexy lyrics." i.e. "Shall I shed my attire, shower my flower?"

A link to a Rabbi's view about the Jewish involvement in the slave trade and question asking if he is anti-semetic, received not one reply from any contender of the "FN is anti-semetic."

So they can't define "anti-semitism" and so far they can't show it in the lyrics. An earlier good question was asked too. "If you say something that is not pro-Jewish is that anti-semetic?" This too received silence for an answer.

Yet they're pleading that 1. Even though histories are similar they may not be compared. 2. Even if there are facts in history that are a bit dark, they must not be shared.

Yet in the same breath everyone on here yells out loud 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH'. I can guess this means it only applies to them but not Prince. Interesting.

I think Prince knew damn well that fans were going to hate his religion (a minority group) and he chose two more groups that were also persecuted to throw into the mix. With the ammunition, he proves that favouring one group will eventually lead to the persecution of another. And that's exactly what happened.

The whole RC album is always blamed on Prince's faith JW. Just one E missing.

EmancipationLover said:

Efan said:

For people who think all he's doing is just some innocent comparing and contrasting, I'm curious: Why do you think he's doing that only with Jews (not in just one song, but in two on the album) and not with any other particular group?

Because, to the very best of my knowledge, there are only two minority groups who had their family names stolen at some stage: African-American and Jewish people. Who else should he come up with? Also, I don't see the contrasting. "Just the same" is not exactly a phrase to emphasize a contrast, is it? Furthermore, wasn't there the attempt of some African-American activists to sort of "join forces" with Jewish groups during the days of the civil rights movement (I'm just asking, the Americans on this board will know better)?

As for the second song with lyrics in question: I would like to ask to discuss that after we've gone through the case of "Family Name", because the whole context and meaning of the "Holocaust aside" phrase in "Muse" is completely different imo. It's not that I'm unwilling to discuss it, it's just that I don't see the benefit in adding a second topic while the first one is still completely unclear.

Yes members of the Jewish Community, as well as other non-Black Americans, joined the civil rights fight during that time.

Also, regarding "Family Names" of Black/African-Americans, well, the Africans who were captured/sold and put on the ships, outside of Africa, and sent to this country, Caribbean or other parts of the world, those are the ones whose names, identities were stolen/changed by their slave owner(s), once they arrived to their destination (out of Africa) and became property of their slave owner(s). Once in captivity, any child, born from two enslaved Africans, Slave owner(s)/African slave women, at that time in America, Europe or the Caribbean, when the transatlantic slave trade was in full force, were given the surnames of their slaveowners, even if they were offspring of the slave owner and the African slave girl/woman or two African parents. The surname served as "ownership" of the enslaved.

There were also many name changes to individual slaves, as many were sold from owner to owner, distancing them further from immediate relatives, as they were sold/traded from place to place. I won't compare any holocausts to one another, because all were terrible, heinous, historical events, but just wanted to give you some insight into the "Family name" situation of many Africans who were forced to change their name, once they were enslaved during the transatlantic slave trade, and even those born into slavery during the transatlantic slave trade, who were "given" their surnames through the slaveowner who owned them and/or their families.

The majority of Modern-day Black Americans and Black Caribbeans have surnames through the slave owners, who owned their ancestors. After slavery was abolished, I'm sure many changed their names, but it seems many kept their surnames, because that surname became part of their "identity" and at the time slavery was abolished, many were searching desperately for their children, mothers, fathers, siblings, by the surnames of the slave owners who owned their relatives. Remember, during the transatlantic slavery era, many born from a slave, didn't really have the freedom to choose their surname, let alone their first names. They were "given" the surnames of the slave owner(s) who participated in the transatlantic slave trade;those surnames mostly being of a "European" background, which had no connection to an African ethnic group. So they were forced to take on "European" names/surnames as their identity, many from birth, but couldn't have names related to a part of their own African heritage, not even partially, and were not treated as equal human beings, by the people who forced them to identify themselves through their owners' European names/surnames.

I'm sure not too long after post-slavery days, many have changed their surnames legally, even in present day, as only one of my brothers did, and some friends, but many keep their surnames, although one cannot say there isn't some "silent" bittersweet feel about it for some. Some may see it as a slave-owner's "permanent branding" on their identity, and some may not blink an eye about it. Their surnames surely acts as evidence to that part of pre-America and American history. Depends on the individual. As far as Black Americans, tracking their family background/history today, there are many records that are now being made available, and some still being discovered through geneology research. Not everyone of course will be successful in their search, and that also doesn't justify or excuse the crimes committed against their distant ancestors, many of whose identities they'll never know, unless through an extensive, geneology search. But, there's the not-so-distant ancestors who lived through post-slavery crimes and laws (i.e, civil rights era, jim crow/segregation/black codes, etc), whose histories are not too far removed from present day America, where present-day, Black Americans may be able to find their records a lot easier, and bring some answers/closure to their own identities, from those who carried the same surname they walk with today, despite the "bittersweet" way in which those names were obtained. Hope this info helps your curiosity and answered your inquiry.

[Edited 4/19/11 15:31pm]

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.

You could very well be right and I stand corrected. I am not exaclty well versed in JW dogma or anything. Theocratic order also seems to me to point to a form of government headed by God. But it's not explicitly saying anything about government or the trinity. It's all a bit confusing, since he is singing this song to his muse and on other songs like on TRC, it is made clear that the muse in subjection to the wise one, who is in subjection tot he only begotten one, all - forever in subjection to God.

Tremolina 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.

You could very well be right and I stand corrected. I am not exaclty well versed in JW dogma or anything. Theocratic order also seems to me to point to a form of government headed by God. But it's not explicitly saying anything about government or the trinity. It's all a bit confusing, since he is singing this song to his muse and on other songs like on TRC, it is made clear that the muse in subjection to the wise one, who is in subjection tot he only begotten one, all - forever in subjection to God.

you're right it's not explicitly clear and is a very duplicitous song. jw dogma is very confusing, you're right about the subjection of woman to man but i would consider that a biblical interpretation, similar to how they view blood transfusions etc. i agree it's a very cohesive narrative running throughout but to me as an antitheist it makes me feel uneasy. where lovesexy felt uplifting and inclusive this feels divisive and forced. musically it flits from excellent, muse 2 the pharoah, mellow, to abysmal, she loves me 4 me, everywhere.

robertgeorgeakabob said:

Tremolina said:

You could very well be right and I stand corrected. I am not exaclty well versed in JW dogma or anything. Theocratic order also seems to me to point to a form of government headed by God. But it's not explicitly saying anything about government or the trinity. It's all a bit confusing, since he is singing this song to his muse and on other songs like on TRC, it is made clear that the muse in subjection to the wise one, who is in subjection tot he only begotten one, all - forever in subjection to God.

you're right it's not explicitly clear and is a very duplicitous song. jw dogma is very confusing, you're right about the subjection of woman to man but i would consider that a biblical interpretation, similar to how they view blood transfusions etc. i agree it's a very cohesive narrative running throughout but to me as an antitheist it makes me feel uneasy. where lovesexy felt uplifting and inclusive this feels divisive and forced. musically it flits from excellent, muse 2 the pharoah, mellow, to abysmal, she loves me 4 me, everywhere.

haha I like those songs exactly the other way around, but all the real songs on it are extremely good really. The performances are near perfect and the recording sounds perhabs the best he has ever had one of his records sound.

Lyrically it's exactly as he promoted the album: 'controversial'. I can follow most of the criticism on it. On the one hand it IS a rather dark, divisive and exclusive album, yet at other points it is also uplifting, heartfelt and inclusive.

And because of the way he wrote the most controversial lyrics, it's not possible to really pinpoint him on anything truly extreme or outrageous, because the words and intentions remain ambiguous at best. Pretty clever crafted lyrics really.

But not a really great idea. Like you, I also much prefer the inclusiveness, playfullness and positivity of Lovesexy.

It's looked down on by a lot of folks but I personally love it. 1 of my faves from his catalog.

SagsWay2low said:

PurpleLove7 said:

Umm ... Are you jewish ???

fucking hell.

Do you want to check my penis?

Nah sun ... I just asked a simple question, why the fucc would I have to check your fuccin' penis. We're discussing the supposed anti-semetic lyrics of an album.

802 said:

m3taverse said:

TRC is my favorite Prince album, and i believe that if Prince is to be remembered by future generations, this is the album that will have a lot to do with that.

Is this a joke? He would be remembered for his Warner Bros era work.

Not a joke.

Prince made some awesome albums in the 80's, only one of which was an actual huge hit, although it still performed relatively poorly when compared to other chart topping albums of that era. The public at large only remembers Prince from a small handfull of songs (PR, Kiss, 1999, 2 or 3 other tracks), which judging by the airplay they are receiving compared to his contemporaries, aren't aging very well. So in my mind, it won't be individual songs that will earn Prince cross generational recognition, but rather the epic body of work that he has produced, spanning multiple decades. Within that body of work, TRC stands as his best album, by far. Let me put it another way... in 1994 i wasn't listening to Purple Rain anymore, at all. In 2011, i'm still playing TRC frequently and it still sounds as fresh and amazing as it did 10 years ago.

rialb said:

m3taverse said:

TRC is my favorite Prince album, and i believe that if Prince is to be remembered by future generations, this is the album that will have a lot to do with that.

That seems extremely unlikely. The album is ten years old and it has already been forgotten by everyone but hardcore fans. I don't think it has broad appeal outside of us hardcore fans.

Well.. most people don't even know this album exists, as it was one of the few albums Prince released entirely on his own, without a big label on board to market or distribute the album. So really, only we know about TRC. Clearly we haven't forgotten about it, cos yeh, here we are, 10 years and a zillion threads later, still generating 100's of responses on every TRC thread.

When i say i believe that this is an album that has the potential to make Prince immortal, it is because i believe this album is yet to be discovered, a lot of hardcore fans included.

I agree with the OP, TRC is one of the best he ever delivered. Love the organic flow of the album. It's a very uplifting and positive album. The narrative voice doesn't disturb me. I loved the ONA tour and wished he'd made more music like this, however my dreams where shattered with the commercial Musicology... Luckily Lotus Flow3r had some nice songs on it...

m3taverse said:

rialb said:

That seems extremely unlikely. The album is ten years old and it has already been forgotten by everyone but hardcore fans. I don't think it has broad appeal outside of us hardcore fans.

Well.. most people don't even know this album exists, as it was one of the few albums Prince released entirely on his own, without a big label on board to market or distribute the album. So really, only we know about TRC. Clearly we haven't forgotten about it, cos yeh, here we are, 10 years and a zillion threads later, still generating 100's of responses on every TRC thread.

When i say i believe that this is an album that has the potential to make Prince immortal, it is because i believe this album is yet to be discovered, a lot of hardcore fans included.

Sure, we (the hardcore fan) are still discussing The Rainbow Children but we're also still discussing other "divisive" albums like Around the World in a Day, Come, Chaos and Disorder and Newpower Soul. We are hardcore fans, creating threads like this one is what we do. As far as the general public goes if they haven't "discovered" The Rainbow Children by now, nearly ten years after it was released, I don't think they ever will. The sad reality is that most people will never explore his post WB recordings.

m3taverse said:

802 said:

Is this a joke? He would be remembered for his Warner Bros era work.

Not a joke.

Prince made some awesome albums in the 80's, only one of which was an actual huge hit, although it still performed relatively poorly when compared to other chart topping albums of that era. The public at large only remembers Prince from a small handfull of songs (PR, Kiss, 1999, 2 or 3 other tracks), which judging by the airplay they are receiving compared to his contemporaries, aren't aging very well. So in my mind, it won't be individual songs that will earn Prince cross generational recognition, but rather the epic body of work that he has produced, spanning multiple decades. Within that body of work, TRC stands as his best album, by far. Let me put it another way... in 1994 i wasn't listening to Purple Rain anymore, at all. In 2011, i'm still playing TRC frequently and it still sounds as fresh and amazing as it did 10 years ago.

That may be the case for you but I don't think it's true for most Prince fans. I have only been a fan since 1996 so I don't have the history that a lot of people do but I still listen to both Purple Rain and The Rainbow Children. Sure, there are albums I listen to more than others but I try to listen to everything a fair bit, even the albums that I don't particularly enjoy.

I will agree with you that The Rainbow Children is one of his best produced and best sounding albums. It does have a timeless sound to it but for me I don't particularly enjoy large portions of it, not because of the lyrics but because of the lite/smooth jazz sound of many of the tracks, especially the keyboards and horns. It would be great if he revisited this production style with a different/better set of songs.

rialb said:

the lite/smooth jazz sound of many of the tracks

But then you haven't really listened to the album yet.

There is nothing "lite" about its sound and the only "jazz track" on the album is the title song, but that isn't even real jazz. It starts jazzy, but then it goes to soul, funk, rock and even gospel, while it ends with an instrumental latin rock part, with some very fine Prince guitar playing.

The rest? No jazz whatsoever. Let alone "lite" jazz.

[Edited 4/21/11 11:10am]

Tremolina said:

rialb said:

the lite/smooth jazz sound of many of the tracks

But then you haven't really listened to the album yet.

There is nothing "lite" about its sound and the only "jazz track" on the album is the title song, but that isn't even real jazz. It starts jazzy, but then it goes to soul, funk, rock and even gospel, while it ends with an instrumental latin rock part, with some very fine Prince guitar playing.

The rest? No jazz whatsoever. Let alone "lite" jazz.

[Edited 4/21/11 11:10am]

Eh, I would argue that many of the keyboard sounds and some of the horns on the album sound like lite/smooth jazz. I listen to the album a fair bit, there are parts of it that I really enjoy (the last four songs) but overall I am turned off by the sound of a lot of the album.

To my ears tracks like "Muse 2 the Pharaoh," "The Sensual Everafter" and "Mellow" have a lite/smooth jazz sound to them.

One of my fave albums. Great production and sound. Some very funky tunes, classy ballads, etc. Prince was definitely putting some passion on it.

rialb said:

Tremolina said:

But then you haven't really listened to the album yet.

There is nothing "lite" about its sound and the only "jazz track" on the album is the title song, but that isn't even real jazz. It starts jazzy, but then it goes to soul, funk, rock and even gospel, while it ends with an instrumental latin rock part, with some very fine Prince guitar playing.

The rest? No jazz whatsoever. Let alone "lite" jazz.

[Edited 4/21/11 11:10am]

Eh, I would argue that many of the keyboard sounds and some of the horns on the album sound like lite/smooth jazz. I listen to the album a fair bit, there are parts of it that I really enjoy (the last four songs) but overall I am turned off by the sound of a lot of the album.

To my ears tracks like "Muse 2 the Pharaoh," "The Sensual Everafter" and "Mellow" have a lite/smooth jazz sound to them.

I see what you are saying but it's really no "lite jazz" lol. I agree with you that the album has its own particular sound to it. To me it sounds warm and very clear, still very strong after 10 years. And this sound makes it an unique album too.

Tremolina said:

rialb said:

Eh, I would argue that many of the keyboard sounds and some of the horns on the album sound like lite/smooth jazz. I listen to the album a fair bit, there are parts of it that I really enjoy (the last four songs) but overall I am turned off by the sound of a lot of the album.

To my ears tracks like "Muse 2 the Pharaoh," "The Sensual Everafter" and "Mellow" have a lite/smooth jazz sound to them.

I see what you are saying but it's really no "lite jazz" lol. I agree with you that the album has its own particular sound to it. To me it sounds warm and very clear, still very strong after 10 years. And this sound makes it an unique album too.

Oh, I agree that it definitely has a unique sound and the production is fantastic, in particular the drums sound amazing, but I'm just not happy with a lot of the songs. I would love it if he recorded another album with a similar sound but with a stronger batch of songs. I quite enjoy most of his albums and songs circa 2004-present but I do kind of miss the adventureousness and exprimentation of an album like The Rainbow Children. In a perfect world I would love to see him alternate between "commercial" and "experimental" albums with the odd instrumental album, ideally it would be fantastic if he could somehow combine the two.

rialb said:

Tremolina said:

I see what you are saying but it's really no "lite jazz" lol. I agree with you that the album has its own particular sound to it. To me it sounds warm and very clear, still very strong after 10 years. And this sound makes it an unique album too.

Oh, I agree that it definitely has a unique sound and the production is fantastic, in particular the drums sound amazing, but I'm just not happy with a lot of the songs. I would love it if he recorded another album with a similar sound but with a stronger batch of songs. I quite enjoy most of his albums and songs circa 2004-present but I do kind of miss the adventureousness and exprimentation of an album like The Rainbow Children. In a perfect world I would love to see him alternate between "commercial" and "experimental" albums with the odd instrumental album, ideally it would be fantastic if he could somehow combine the two.

You know, I just saw your post on the best of the 90's thread that you kinda like 'Push' and 'Jughead'on D&P but that Walk dont walk, Gett off and Willing and Able are terrible lol. I guess our musical preferences simply differ too much to be able to agree with eachother on the sheer quality and adventure of the songs on TRC.

Some people complain about the ´smooth jazz´ vibe of some songs, but, at least, Prince wasnt in the ´Do me baby´ formula of writing ballads. And ´Family Name´ and ´Everlasting Now´ are some of his funkiest tunes ever. And ´Everywhere´ would fit on a Revolution album.