sosgemini said:

purplekat said:

So, Prince is getting ready to embark on a European tour that actually kicks off with dates in Canada this weekend.

Oh my God, did he actually print that?!

[img:$uid]http://th74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/TheMadDJ/th_everybodyfacepalm.gif[/img:$uid]

electricberet said:

Timmy84 said:

I'm American, I definitely don't think it was a small leap.

I'm American too. There are about a million ways he could have answered that question without referring to burqas.

But you probably dont travel anywhere near as much as he does either...

[img:$uid]http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/7321/michaeljacksonabaya.jpg[/img:$uid]

Micky dug the look too

[Edited 6/28/11 6:26am]

While everyone is talking about the controversial things (which he largely says just to get people talking about him), this is the part that stood out to me.

Are you nostalgic for that time?

"Sometimes yes. Sometimes I see the shirts/clothes that I was wearing. But musically, no. I play more guitar, I sing better, I am a better arranger."

While this part is true, there's more to it than that.

First of all, I think his post WB catalog gets way over criticized by some on here. There is quite a bit of very good and even brilliant music in his post WB catalog. And while there are some things that don't quite work out as well as intended, the same can be said for his WB catalog.

Vocally he's better than he was in the 80s and 90s. And it does seem he plays guitar, his best instrument, more than he did 20 years ago. I remember my initial reaction while listening to Sign Of the Times was "where is the guitar".

However, there's a bit more to it that that. Even with the songs I consider brilliant, the big difference in Prince musically isn't so much the quality of the output, it's that he used to challenge his fans musically. Whenever you thought you knew what to expect, he'd some out with something quite different. Purple Rain was different than 1999, Around the World in a Day was different than either of them when it would have been quite easy (and profitable) to release a Purple Rain 2. The brilliant Sign o The Times was different than any of them.

This trend changed a bit when he started trying to split with WB. He still made music unlike his prior work, but also started trying to make new songs to replace the old ones - i.e. Gold as a replacement for Purple Rain. Even with some of that mixed in, there was still hunger and fresh new sounds.

Aside from a few exceptions like the brilliant Rainbow Children, his recent work misses that aspect. Is he playing it safe and largely staying in his now established comfort zone, something he really didn't do his first 20 years. While a song like Call My Name is brilliant, and while On The Couch is also quite good, the sequence The Marrying Kind/If I was the man in your life/On The Couch gets repetitive. Both in sequence and in the context of his larger career. Musicology would be a much better album if he cut out the first two and put something completely different in their place.

The hunger and attitude he had earlier in his career gave him the nickname "His Royal Badness" - something I never hear him called anymore. While I'm largely satisfied with the quality of his output the past decade, I sometimes wonder what we'd get if you took the hunger and daringness of "His Royal Badness" and combined it with the current prince, who is a better musician and singer than he was then. Push his boundaries again. The result should be something quite a bit better than 20ten or MPLSOUND.

lezama said:

electricberet said:

I'm American too. There are about a million ways he could have answered that question without referring to burqas.

But you probably dont travel anywhere near as much as he does either...

No, I bet I don't, especially since he makes his living by traveling from one city to another playing concerts. He knows the world is a diverse place. Which is all the more reason why he should be hesitant to make assumptions about an entire civilization based on one or two visits to particular countries.

[Edited 6/28/11 7:46am]

all7even said:

Jut read on drfunkenberry's site that the interviewer may have misheard prince.

Which one? Seems like the French journalist things wrong.

all7even said:

Jut read on drfunkenberry's site that the interviewer may have misheard prince.

Or you can actually READ what the reporter and his editor wrote, and learn that the burqa quote is correct. Oh, and that the French interview contains several mistakes.

But hey, don't let that bother you while you're spreading propaganda to whitewash Prince.

dJJ said:

I like the fact that he never allows any recording. When he get's recorded, they can do anything with the tape they want. Mix it into some song, if they like

And he can never be pinpointed to his words.

I agree with a few of his comments.

I also apreciate Muslim culture. However, Muslim strict religious interpretation, I don't value at all. I don't like how men abuse the Koran in order to dominate and imprison women to their houses.

I like it that Prince distincts Muslim strict religion with Muslim culture, with all it's great art, habits, myths, stories, architecture etcetera.

And I strongly agree that anybody should be free to wear what they want.

If a Muslim woman doesn't want to wear a veal, she should be able to. There should not be (the threat) of violence by her family or husband to wear it. The same for women who want to be vealed. Thy should be free in any coutry to dress the way they feel comfortable and good.

Nobody, and especially no Sharia, nor government should tell a women what to wear and what not to wear.

I understand his statement about recording. It's a shame he can't come up with a way to make it a fair business.

not all muslims practice "strict" interpretation. there are moderate muslims, many of whom denounce the radical muslim interpretations.

the same applies to judaism. the radical orthodox jews shun all other jews...

same with christianity...there are radical christians..very strict catholics...

people need to believe in what they need to believe in to get through life. it is not our right to criticize them. we don't have to agree with them, but I support their rights to believe in what they choose to, with the exception of radicalism which preaches killing for the cause, or abuse.

BartVanHemelen said:

all7even said:

Jut read on drfunkenberry's site that the interviewer may have misheard prince.

Or you can actually READ what the reporter and his editor wrote, and learn that the burqa quote is correct. Oh, and that the French interview contains several mistakes.

But hey, don't let that bother you while you're spreading propaganda to whitewash Prince.

Which reporter? There are two from the same interview.

Prince hasn't fully denied he said that comment the way The Guardian printed it. The Drfunkenberry "side" doesn't clarify much but trying to excuse it. If he meant what was going on in France considering the burqas, why didn't he say it in the Drfunkenberry one then?

BartVanHemelen said:

all7even said:

Jut read on drfunkenberry's site that the interviewer may have misheard prince.

Or you can actually READ what the reporter and his editor wrote, and learn that the burqa quote is correct. Oh, and that the French interview contains several mistakes.

But hey, don't let that bother you while you're spreading propaganda to whitewash Prince.

It's not about Prince. It's about how blindly bandwagon jumping people get with forming conclusions from edited, entertaiment media. There have been so many cases of skewed, incomplete, misinformation leading to outrageous conclusions and judgement. Mostly it's important when it concerns politics and health/medicine reporting.

Seems like only an actual recorded interview with the actual sequence of questions and answers would be worthy of judgement or conclusions.

It's amazing how people will complain about Prince's pushing of JW doctrine (how many years is it going for now?) and then completely forget that context to gullibly believe from a "non" interview fragment that he is now pro Muslim. Is that logical looking at his pseudo Christian beiliefs the whole way through until his adoption of the JW way?

I heard the actual transcript on the bootleg iphone recording:

Prince said, "I think the French are wrong, they shouldn't ban the burka, just as much as they shouldn't ban the miniskirt. I mean, I think burka's are just as cool to these women. I even had my ex-wife wear one in a video (even though she's Puerto Rican and loves the bacon). All these people aren't evil or reprehensible. Let them be free! Free to change their mind. Have you heard my song called 'free'? I've been to Muslim countries. They were cool by me (although they looked at my face and made me wear a burka). I think they should do what they want. Of course they will not be allowed to enter New Jerusalem. Unless they're free change the their mind. Most anytime. Can I talk to you about something? Can I give you this Watchtower magazine? Wigga please, can't I get a witness?"

ufoclub said:

BartVanHemelen said:

Or you can actually READ what the reporter and his editor wrote, and learn that the burqa quote is correct. Oh, and that the French interview contains several mistakes.

But hey, don't let that bother you while you're spreading propaganda to whitewash Prince.

It's not about Prince. It's about how blindly bandwagon jumping people get with forming conclusions from edited, entertaiment media. There have been so many cases of skewed, incomplete, misinformation leading to outrageous conclusions and judgement. Mostly it's important when it concerns politics and health/medicine reporting.

Seems like only an actual recorded interview with the actual sequence of questions and answers would be worthy of judgement or conclusions.

It's amazing how people will complain about Prince's pushing of JW doctrine (how many years is it going for now?) and then completely forget that context to gullibly believe from a "non" interview fragment that he is now pro Muslim. Is that logical looking at his pseudo Christian beiliefs the whole way through until his adoption of the JW way?

I heard the actual transcript on the bootleg iphone recording:

Prince said, "I think the French are wrong, they shouldn't ban the burka, just as much as they shouldn't ban the miniskirt. I mean, I think burka's are just as cool to these women. I even had my ex-wife wear one in a video (even though she's Puerto Rican and loves the bacon). All these people aren't evil or reprehensible. Let them be free! Free to change their mind. Have you heard my song called 'free'? I've been to Muslim countries. They were cool by me (although they looked at my face and made me wear a burka). I think they should do what they want. Of course they will not be allowed to enter New Jerusalem. Unless they're free change the their mind. Most anytime. Can I talk to you about something? Can I give you this Watchtower magazine? Wigga please, can't I get a witness?"

I must be losing it - I got about 60% into that transcript before I realised it wasn't real.

lezama said:

BartVanHemelen said:

Or you can actually READ what the reporter and his editor wrote, and learn that the burqa quote is correct. Oh, and that the French interview contains several mistakes.

But hey, don't let that bother you while you're spreading propaganda to whitewash Prince.

Which reporter? There are two from the same interview.

No, there's one reporter and his editor. The other reporter hasn't spoken up. It's crystal clear that the French interview contains mistakes -- which is no surprise, I've seen this plenty of times when I've read French articles and it's because the French reporter probably hasn't got that great a grasp of English.

It's hilarious that you lot put your faith in the words of a French reporter who probably misunderstood plenty of what he heard, and then managed to write it down incorrectly in shorthand because he has to translate it first, and then he has to reconstruct the quote when he writes out his article. There are numerous points where this could go wrong.

BlackAdder7 said:

dJJ said:

I like the fact that he never allows any recording. When he get's recorded, they can do anything with the tape they want. Mix it into some song, if they like

And he can never be pinpointed to his words.

I agree with a few of his comments.

I also apreciate Muslim culture. However, Muslim strict religious interpretation, I don't value at all. I don't like how men abuse the Koran in order to dominate and imprison women to their houses.

I like it that Prince distincts Muslim strict religion with Muslim culture, with all it's great art, habits, myths, stories, architecture etcetera.

And I strongly agree that anybody should be free to wear what they want.

If a Muslim woman doesn't want to wear a veal, she should be able to. There should not be (the threat) of violence by her family or husband to wear it. The same for women who want to be vealed. Thy should be free in any coutry to dress the way they feel comfortable and good.

Nobody, and especially no Sharia, nor government should tell a women what to wear and what not to wear.

I understand his statement about recording. It's a shame he can't come up with a way to make it a fair business.

not all muslims practice "strict" interpretation. there are moderate muslims, many of whom denounce the radical muslim interpretations.

the same applies to judaism. the radical orthodox jews shun all other jews...

same with christianity...there are radical christians..very strict catholics...

people need to believe in what they need to believe in to get through life. it is not our right to criticize them. we don't have to agree with them, but I support their rights to believe in what they choose to, with the exception of radicalism which preaches killing for the cause, or abuse.

That is why I made the distinction by adding strict interpretation.

I'm in favor of freedom of religion. However, Muslima's oftentimes are under scrutiny of stric religious interpretation by men. And, obey social pressure of Muslim (extensive) families and social surroundings, therefore wearing veils.

It's not about the veils. It's about the restriction of individuals by means of religion.