Period.

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

Musically, yes.

It surpassed "Sign O the Times" as my favorite album.

Tremolina said:

Period.

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

V10LETBLUES said:

Tremolina said:

Period.

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

Man I even like the R&B type tracks Muse 2 the Pharoah and Mellow. Those are some of the best songs he has EVER done in that genre. And seriously, those songs represent the WEAK part of the album!

StonedImmaculate said:

Musically, yes.

When you approach it solely in a lyrical sense, the album could definetely turn you off (a bit), depending where you are 'coming from' and what you are up for.

Hence the note "controversial lyrics"

But musically?

There should be an indepth, academical musical dissertation written about this album

[Edited 4/12/11 16:49pm]

chocolate1 said:

It surpassed "Sign O the Times" as my favorite album.

To me, when it's excellent, it can't beat another excellent album. It's just excellent the same, in its own way.

Musically, it's amazing.

Lyrically, it's frustrating. On the one hand, it's one of his most (if not THE most) thought-out and inspired albums in a lyrical sense. He was definitely saying something, rather than writing throwaway songs. There's nothing throwaway on there...even "Wedding Feast," which I think adds a perfect whimsy to the otherwise serious album. On the other hand, of course, the lyrics are incredibly dreadful and disappointing in several places. It made me sad when I first heard it to think that an artist I liked so much had fallen into such a backward way of thinking about so many, many things.

But again, musically, it's amazing.

Prince plays the guitar so fine, so hard, so smooth, so rough, so cool, so funky...

On EACH song!

Excellent doesn't even equal the qualification that it deserves.

Same goes for LG's and JB's work.

SIMPLY OUTSTANDING

SOUL MOVING

Wait!

Tell me now, how does he SING?!

Lawd...

And say, do tell me also, somebodyplease...

Who managed to to make it all SOUND SO GREAT?

Efan said:

On the one hand, it's one of his most (if not THE most) thought-out and inspired albums in a lyrical sense.

Leave at that and you have a jewel in your hands

Tremolina said:

Efan said:

On the one hand, it's one of his most (if not THE most) thought-out and inspired albums in a lyrical sense.

Leave at that and you have a jewel in your hands

Sure, but when the inspiration is sexism and anti-Semitism, it's pretty difficult to just leave it at that.

Efan said:

Tremolina said:

Leave at that and you have a jewel in your hands

Sure, but when the inspiration is sexism and anti-Semitism, it's pretty difficult to just leave it at that.

But is it really?

That's the "controversial" thing about it.

As for the music, the compositions, at this moment I am just wondering...

Did he save up all those beauties just for this release?

Or did they come up 'out of the blue'?

Tremolina said:

Efan said:

Sure, but when the inspiration is sexism and anti-Semitism, it's pretty difficult to just leave it at that.

But is it really?

That's the "controversial" thing about it.

The anti-Semitism? People argue about that on here ad nauseum. I'm on the it's anti-Semetic side, but I can respect that some people don't think "Holocaust aside" is all that bad. Still, I think if anyone had really been paying attention to Prince and his music at the time (his fans aside), then Prince would have had a scandal similar to what Michael Jackson had when he used an anti-Semetic slur.

The sexism is very clear and explicitly stated at the very beginning: The man serves God/Jehovah. The woman serves the man. Period. Ain't no room for disagree.

Efan said:

Tremolina said:

But is it really?

That's the "controversial" thing about it.

The anti-Semitism? People argue about that on here ad nauseum. I'm on the it's anti-Semetic side, but I can respect that some people don't think "Holocaust aside" is all that bad. Still, I think if anyone had really been paying attention to Prince and his music at the time (his fans aside), then Prince would have had a scandal similar to what Michael Jackson had when he used an anti-Semetic slur.

The sexism is very clear and explicitly stated at the very beginning: The man serves God/Jehovah. The woman serves the man. Period. Ain't no room for disagree.

I can follow that for sure. However, if you come from a different place, "Holocaust aside" could simply mean: "notwithstanding" and "Ain't no room for disagree" could simply mean "The bible is the law and the law is the law".

Tremolina said:

As for the music, the compositions, at this moment I am just wondering...

Did he save up all those beauties just for this release?

Or did they come up 'out of the blue'?

I've always thought that "1+1+1 Is 3" was an old song about having a threesome. He dug it out, changed the words to deny the Trinity, and stuck it on there.

I can't prove that, of course. It's just a theory.

Tremolina said:

Efan said:

The anti-Semitism? People argue about that on here ad nauseum. I'm on the it's anti-Semetic side, but I can respect that some people don't think "Holocaust aside" is all that bad. Still, I think if anyone had really been paying attention to Prince and his music at the time (his fans aside), then Prince would have had a scandal similar to what Michael Jackson had when he used an anti-Semetic slur.

The sexism is very clear and explicitly stated at the very beginning: The man serves God/Jehovah. The woman serves the man. Period. Ain't no room for disagree.

I can follow that for sure. However, if you come from a different place, "Holocaust aside" could simply mean: "notwithstanding" and "Ain't no room for disagree" could simply mean "The bible is the law and the law is the law".

Whether he's being sexist or just reflecting the Bible's sexism, he's still exhibiting sexism either way.

Efan said:

Tremolina said:

I can follow that for sure. However, if you come from a different place, "Holocaust aside" could simply mean: "notwithstanding" and "Ain't no room for disagree" could simply mean "The bible is the law and the law is the law".

Whether he's being sexist or just reflecting the Bible's sexism, he's still exhibiting sexism either way.

I see you are not up for a debate on it, and I don't feel the need either, but I would have to refer to the fact that he is not talking about a "sexist order" but about a "theocratic order". Of course this is sexist in its essence, since it places the woman "in subjection" to the man, but seen from the point of view of the believer, there is a an higher authority than man, that he has to obey and answer to as well, and then even an higher one too.

As I understand it...

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

Efan said:

Tremolina said:

As for the music, the compositions, at this moment I am just wondering...

Did he save up all those beauties just for this release?

Or did they come up 'out of the blue'?

I've always thought that "1+1+1 Is 3" was an old song about having a threesome. He dug it out, changed the words to deny the Trinity, and stuck it on there.

I can't prove that, of course. It's just a theory.

It's a good one!

I hate Hate HATE that album. The melodies sound really forced, and the narration brings any momentum it has to a screeching halt every time he opens his gob. I could care less about lyrics, but I think this was one of those "well, it sounded better in my head" albums.

^ yes, the narration. Also a part of the album "not easy to swallow"

BUT it's one of those Prince things you need to listen to several times with an open mind before you get it.

The "darth vader voice" actually goes very well with the rhythm and flow of the songs.

It's slowed down a great deal, yet it's still straight on the beat, while it "binds" the songs together as "one".

Remarkable really when you hear it...

[Edited 4/12/11 18:19pm]

Tremolina said:

Efan said:

Whether he's being sexist or just reflecting the Bible's sexism, he's still exhibiting sexism either way.

I see you are not up for a debate on it, and I don't feel the need either, but I would have to refer to the fact that he is not talking about a "sexist order" but about a "theocratic order". Of course this is sexist in its essence, since it places the woman "in subjection" to the man, but seen from the point of view of the believer, there is a an higher authority than man, that he has to obey and answer to as well, and then even an higher one too.

As I understand it...

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

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.

Efan said:

Tremolina said:

I see you are not up for a debate on it, and I don't feel the need either, but I would have to refer to the fact that he is not talking about a "sexist order" but about a "theocratic order". Of course this is sexist in its essence, since it places the woman "in subjection" to the man, but seen from the point of view of the believer, there is a an higher authority than man, that he has to obey and answer to as well, and then even an higher one too.

As I understand it...

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

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]

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]

It's part of the journey of the album, though. The whole album is leading up to Everlasting Now ("accurate knowledge of Christ and the Father") and Last December ("In the name of the Father/In the name of the Son"). I think it all fits in in context.

Efan said:

Tremolina said:

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]

It's part of the journey of the album, though. The whole album is leading up to Everlasting Now ("accurate knowledge of Christ and the Father") and Last December ("In the name of the Father/In the name of the Son"). I think it all fits in in context.

It fits because it's a concept that fits into the NWT message of he album. But the SONG ITSELF doesn't refer to it.

And the album isn't solely about religion either...

Tremolina said:

Efan said:

It's part of the journey of the album, though. The whole album is leading up to Everlasting Now ("accurate knowledge of Christ and the Father") and Last December ("In the name of the Father/In the name of the Son"). I think it all fits in in context.

It fits because it's a concept that fits into the NWT message of he album. But the SONG ITSELF doesn't refer to it.

And the album isn't solely about religion either...

But what else could be talking about? The title of the song is 1+1+1 Is 3. I don't think there's anything else he could be addressing in the lyrics.

This is just my interpretation, but I think he's saying in the album that the Banished Ones are those who spread misinformation about the "accurate knowledge." And this to him is one of the inaccuracies. But once the woman he's seducing agrees to it all, then he can go on with the rest of the album's themes.

The groove and the latin jazz part in The Everlasting Now

The hunting beat, fierce guitar and raging end of Family Name

The gospel rock opera Last December

The build up of the jazz funk gospel soul rock of the title track

I could talk/write for hours on it....

Efan said:

Tremolina said:

It fits because it's a concept that fits into the NWT message of he album. But the SONG ITSELF doesn't refer to it.

And the album isn't solely about religion either...

But what else could be talking about? The title of the song is 1+1+1 Is 3. I don't think there's anything else he could be addressing in the lyrics.

I understand what you are saying here, but seriously, show me one word in the lyrics of THIS SONG, one single word, that even remotely refers to the concept of the trinity. This concept is there in Last December, for sure, (in the name of the father and the son, but not the holy spirit) yet it's not there in 1+1+1=3.

All there really is to make this song about the trinity, is the title of the song, which however also perfectly applies to the "theocratic order" of woman, man, god, that the songs lyrics are apparantly all about. And which could be seen as sexist, but not necessarily when you look at it from a bible point of view.

"Controversial" indeed, I would say.

This is just my interpretation, but I think he's saying in the album that the Banished Ones are those who spread misinformation about the "accurate knowledge." And this to him is one of the inaccuracies. But once the woman he's seducing agrees to it all, then he can go on with the rest of the album's themes.

I don't see it that way. After 1+1+1=3 there is still some destruction of the digital garden and courting of the muse to do on "Deconstruction" and "She loves me 4 me", but then it goes all universal, political and religious on the last three tracks.

To me, the end theme on Last December seems to be that: "we need to come together as one"

"In the name of the father and the son" only, obviously, but still as "one".

[Edited 4/12/11 18:15pm]