thisisit said:

Chiquetet said:

Sigh. Thanks for the valuable reminder about something I too often forget around here.

and what would that be? manners and respect? you and Michael Hann have something in common then.

Apparently he doesnt like sensationalism when the tables are turned.

It's interesting how people react when the same thing is done to them.

Prince's 'interview' ?: people have no boundaries. think they can do and say whatever they like

including disrespecting a man who has achieved more in his life than any editor, or anyone on these boards.

I'd say tell Prince to shut up then if he doesn't want people to take offense at what he says. Prince is the one who said it , not a fan, or a newspaper. To have an opinion on what someone said who doesn't think before they speak is hardly disrespect. It's the opposite of not using your brain. Or being brainwashed to think an individual is somehow beyond being responsible for their own words. It's called fanaticism, and you my friend are a fanatic.

Zannaloaf said:

I'd say tell Prince to shut up then if he doesn't want people to take offense at what he says.

ok. prince can u please silence ur own voice in this world because there's too many of us who dont understand what you mean and rather than ask you, we feel it more appropriate to sensationalise and verbally condemn you.

basically if you cant say it right the first time, you're better off not saying anything at all, because there's too many of us who dont have the depth of character, patience and introspection it takes to tune in.

prince it doesnt really matter if you have anything important to say that we might learn something from or cause us to think about things, the main thing is that you dont challenge us in any way or otherwise we will get upset.

causing this kind of unrest really isnt fair on us, but its totally fair for most here to foam at the mouth over every tiny little thing you do, and we know exactly what u said because we believe everything we read about you especially if it is controversial.

even when the publication admits to sensationalism we cant help but keep finding someone, anyone, to vent our frustrations on. its hard being wrong and we're not very good at accepting that.

so please can u be quiet now. we've all suffered enough.

know what i'm sayin?

thisisit said:

Zannaloaf said:

I'd say tell Prince to shut up then if he doesn't want people to take offense at what he says.

ok. prince can u please silence ur own voice in this world because there's too many of us who dont understand what you mean and rather than ask you, we feel it more appropriate to sensationalise and verbally condemn you.

basically if you cant say it right the first time, you're better off not saying anything at all, because there's too many of us who dont have the depth of character, patience and introspection it takes to tune in.

prince it doesnt really matter if you have anything important to say that we might learn something from or cause us to think about things, the main thing is that you dont challenge us in any way or otherwise we will get upset.

causing this kind of unrest really isnt fair on us, but its totally fair for most here to foam at the mouth over every tiny little thing you do, and we know exactly what u said because we believe everything we read about you especially if it is controversial.

even when the publication admits to sensationalism we cant help but keep finding someone, anyone, to vent our frustrations on. its hard being wrong and we're not very good at accepting that.

so please can u be quiet now. we've all suffered enough.

know what i'm sayin?

See you STILL haven't answered any of the logical arguments pointed at you. Thought you were all for having respectful debate... Obviously not!!

Why are you taking everything so literally and SENSATIONALIZING everything that anyone says against Prince.

What is the point that you are trying to make? That because we have come on these message boards and have left our opinions then somehow we are in the wrong? What is that??!!

Are you annoyed that people: a) disagree with Prince's comments b) are annoyed by Prince's comments or c) think Prince should shut up because of his comments?

As far as I can see you are taking things to some sort of major extreme. This forum is FOR discussions on Prince, incase you hadn't noticed.

Would you like us to run things past you so that we can get things approved before posting, because that's what it feels like you want.

You haven't answered one of these posts sympathetically OR compassionately, which is the same consideration that you are telling us we are lacking towards Prince.

You think we should be compassionate and understanding, but not you? Is that it?

You call it venting our anger and frustration - we call it having a conversation. See the difference.. Lol I doubt you do.

I doubt anything will change your point of view though judging from your posts you seem to just be on the attack yourself.

You come across as pompous and condescending, though I doubt you would even know what those words mean.. (See I can be consescending too!)

Instead of telling us to get off these message boards why don't you get off this thread if you dislike it so much.

[Edited 7/1/11 6:30am]

Strikes me Funkenberry has scored an own goal with this.

His quotes from La Parisien simply prove the point that Lynskey and Hann are making:

(FB's bold, my italics)

"I no longer records songs."

So Prince now talks to journalists like a lolcat?

"I do not want to record as long as the crisis in the music industry will not be resolved. No one earns money. I'll go to the White House to discuss with the government the issues on copyright. It's the Wild West. Everything must be clean."

Everything must be clean? What!? Also the tenses are jumbled in the first sentence.

"....there is such an overflow of energy it takes at least a stadium/stage to greet it."

This doesn't make sense. It's a direct quote and yet we're to believe Prince actually said: "...stadium slash stage to greet it"? Come on.

There are more examples but to conclude Funkenberry writes:

"2 interviews. Done at the same time. Yet, one has more fuller answers and more attention to detail. Very interesting. Was there an agenda?"

Well I would venture there is very little attention to detail.

Evidently the translation and subsequent re-translation invalidates much of the article.

How can FB suggest the La Parisien article is reliable when these quotes don't even make sense? This is an argument over accuracy in reporting Prince's words and yet we're expected to believe he actually said this nonsense?

Perhaps it's clearer in French but that isn't the text that FB is using.

Yes, much of the UK press is in the gutter but not The Guardian. It's one of the few quality dailies that can be relied on for accuracy and honesty

This strange debate reflects poorly on Funkenberry.

There's no agenda from The Guardian. It's not the first time and it won't be the last time that Prince says ridiculous things, this time about islam. His music is very good, his personal opinions are rather often the opposite.

lezama said:

MHann said:

Hi,

I'm Michael Hann, the editor of the Guardian's Film&Music section – been waiting five days since registering to be able to post.

The main point – about the perils of translating and retranslating – was made on Dr Funkenberry's board. The second part of my post there looks a bit odd at the top of this thread, and I see some people upthread are querying it. It was, specifically, a response to someone on the other board who suggested the Guardian had deliberately taken the agenda of another board, presumably this one.No insult to the members of this board was intended when I said the Guardian's editorial line is not taken from messageboards. For the record, I am not suggesting Le Parisien's interview is necessarily inaccurate; I suspect most of the differences will have come from the translation back into English.

Some general points:

1/ Did the Guardian make a sensation of the interview? Well, yes: but only because Prince said sensational things. Had he not ventured, of his own free will, on to controversial subjects, then there would have been no sensation.

2/ Is the Guardian prone to lying and manipulation? No. Well, I would say that, wouldn't I? But the Guardian is not a paper that makes things up. We have an editorial code of conduct which you can view on our website, and we correct errors promptly because of the existence of our readers' editor, an ombudsman for our journalism.

3/ Did the Guardian take the "craziest" things for the interview? I gave Dorian no instruction on what to write, confident that a writer of his trustworthiness and diligence would deliver the best possible piece. I had agreed to a list of subjects that Prince would and would not talk about beforehand, but Prince's management – astonishingly – did not send anyone in to babysit Prince during the interview (which, sadly, is standard practice in big star interviews) to make sure he kept to the point. He did not keep to the point. That is the responsibility of Prince and his management: it is not for an interviewer to tell him he's not meant to talk about something. We didn't take the craziest things, we took the most interesting things. That's what newspapers do and always have done and always will. Everything Prince said to us was on the record.

I am happy to answer any points to which I can give an answer.

[Edited 6/30/11 3:16am]

My only question is with this quote "Prince said: "It's fun being in Islamic countries, to know there's only one religion. There's order. You wear a burqa. There's no choice. People are happy with that." When asked about the fate of those unhappy with having no choice, he replied: "There are people who are unhappy with everything. There's a dark side to everything."

Does that quote as its written make sense to you? You leave out the portion about returning to Morocco, so already the statement appears without context... But knowing that thats where the statement comes from it becomes completely contradictory because there is ZERO obligation to wear the hijab in countries like Morocco, and MOST women don't wear it. So, is this a case where Prince is simply talking off the top of his head and makes an infactual claim or is this quote real? Because it doesn't add up.

Thanks

Lezema: the quote is real. That it might not fully reflect the reality of life in all Islamic countries is probably down to Prince's idea of life in Islamic countries not being wholly accurate. I'm not saying I could tell you the differences between life in, say, Yemen and Morocco – but I would probably refrain from offering an opinion about it to someone who was taking notes.

MHann said:

lezama said:

My only question is with this quote "Prince said: "It's fun being in Islamic countries, to know there's only one religion. There's order. You wear a burqa. There's no choice. People are happy with that." When asked about the fate of those unhappy with having no choice, he replied: "There are people who are unhappy with everything. There's a dark side to everything."

Does that quote as its written make sense to you? You leave out the portion about returning to Morocco, so already the statement appears without context... But knowing that thats where the statement comes from it becomes completely contradictory because there is ZERO obligation to wear the hijab in countries like Morocco, and MOST women don't wear it. So, is this a case where Prince is simply talking off the top of his head and makes an infactual claim or is this quote real? Because it doesn't add up.

Thanks

Lezema: the quote is real. That it might not fully reflect the reality of life in all Islamic countries is probably down to Prince's idea of life in Islamic countries not being wholly accurate. I'm not saying I could tell you the differences between life in, say, Yemen and Morocco – but I would probably refrain from offering an opinion about it to someone who was taking notes.

Makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Its appreciated!

Blimey, a lot of people on here lacking self awareness. The only difference between Prince and the people on this thread is that his shitty opinions get put in print for the world to see whilst theirs don't.

thisisit said:

Zannaloaf said:

I'd say tell Prince to shut up then if he doesn't want people to take offense at what he says.

ok. prince can u please silence ur own voice in this world because there's too many of us who dont understand what you mean and rather than ask you, we feel it more appropriate to sensationalise and verbally condemn you.

basically if you cant say it right the first time, you're better off not saying anything at all, because there's too many of us who dont have the depth of character, patience and introspection it takes to tune in.

prince it doesnt really matter if you have anything important to say that we might learn something from or cause us to think about things, the main thing is that you dont challenge us in any way or otherwise we will get upset.

causing this kind of unrest really isnt fair on us, but its totally fair for most here to foam at the mouth over every tiny little thing you do, and we know exactly what u said because we believe everything we read about you especially if it is controversial.

even when the publication admits to sensationalism we cant help but keep finding someone, anyone, to vent our frustrations on. its hard being wrong and we're not very good at accepting that.

so please can u be quiet now. we've all suffered enough.

know what i'm sayin?

The difference is he is putting it out there in a large forum as a public person. You or I could have this discussion and no one would likely care or report it. My point is that if he worries about misquoting he should stay silent (or allow recording device). He has AGREED to the sensationalism by playing into the whole media game. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't. It's a gamble, pure and simple.

Zannaloaf said:

The difference is he is putting it out there in a large forum as a public person. You or I could have this discussion and no one would likely care or report it. My point is that if he worries about misquoting he should stay silent (or allow recording device). He has AGREED to the sensationalism by playing into the whole media game. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't. It's a gamble, pure and simple.

zannaloaf in my opinion the people who win are those who exhibit ethical conduct.

sensationalism is unethical. every day the press do this to people.

in my simple mind, that is wrong.

why should anyone have to stay quiet just because there are people out there who will misunderstand, misinterpret and sensationalise what they hear and read?

i mentioned in another thread that in my opinion i dont understand why prince needs to speak to any of these people.

someone said it's promotion. interestingly, prince sold out a lot of shows before he talked to the press.

so what purpose do these interviews serve? i guess i just dont see it.

please note, i'm not saying people should stay naive and expect others to understand them, i'm saying that even if they do, it is still wrong for the press to sensationalise their words purely for their own gain.

to me that's an obvious conclusion.

djfine said:

Strikes me Funkenberry has scored an own goal with this.

His quotes from La Parisien simply prove the point that Lynskey and Hann are making:

(FB's bold, my italics)

"I no longer records songs."

So Prince now talks to journalists like a lolcat?

"I do not want to record as long as the crisis in the music industry will not be resolved. No one earns money. I'll go to the White House to discuss with the government the issues on copyright. It's the Wild West. Everything must be clean."

Everything must be clean? What!? Also the tenses are jumbled in the first sentence.

"....there is such an overflow of energy it takes at least a stadium/stage to greet it."

This doesn't make sense. It's a direct quote and yet we're to believe Prince actually said: "...stadium slash stage to greet it"? Come on.

There are more examples but to conclude Funkenberry writes:

"2 interviews. Done at the same time. Yet, one has more fuller answers and more attention to detail. Very interesting. Was there an agenda?"

Well I would venture there is very little attention to detail.

Evidently the translation and subsequent re-translation invalidates much of the article.

How can FB suggest the La Parisien article is reliable when these quotes don't even make sense? This is an argument over accuracy in reporting Prince's words and yet we're expected to believe he actually said this nonsense?

Perhaps it's clearer in French but that isn't the text that FB is using.

Yes, much of the UK press is in the gutter but not The Guardian. It's one of the few quality dailies that can be relied on for accuracy and honesty

This strange debate reflects poorly on Funkenberry.

And it also further proves how really reliable Funkenberry is...which is not really.

thisisit said:

sigers1 said:

There is no conspiracy amongst the press, my god this is sounding like a MJ website, what Prince said was ignorant and in itself sensational, however the facts are no one really cares about Prince anymore, his views just like his shows are cabaret. Send in the clown!

they slap a headline in your face that will generate the most emotional reaction from you.

they re-work the content of their previews to maximise dramatic effect.

they feed off collective energy like vampires sucking on your drama.

they sit back salivating at all the attention they get.

they may have you fooled, but they dont fool me.

thisisit said:

OMG! Can SO understand why Prince mostly stick to music and avoid doing interviews...his spoken words can cause WARS...

Ravens, your stuff is totally hilarious!

thisisit said:

OK, agreed, Prince says some REALLY STUPID things at times, and goes on about shite that no-one cares about. Even the relegion thing, U can hear audiances at concerts almost groan when he starts going on about it. We go to gigs to hear the music and the odd funny outburst from Prince. He's a MUSICAL genius, not a politician or a preacher. He should just stick to what he is good at...MUSIC and making albums, which he will do, he never keeps his word, i.e "21 nights will be the last time I play the hits" *PLEASE*!!!???

Prince...Play Music...B Funky...just do what u do. Larry Graham was probably the worst thing to happen to Prince, I know several fans who agree. I want to hear 'Head' and 'Sexy MF' live!

Also, I take it Prince won't be playing Glastonbury any time soon? lol

Hutchi said:

thisisit said:

sigers1 said:

they slap a headline in your face that will generate the most emotional reaction from you.

they re-work the content of their previews to maximise dramatic effect.

they feed off collective energy like vampires sucking on your drama.

they sit back salivating at all the attention they get.

they may have you fooled, but they dont fool me.

is this the first verse from a new prince song or something????

"The Guardian" responds: "she's blonde and she's bisexual"

my work here is done. over n out y'all.

The Guardian responds: Penny dropped!!!

thisisit said:

lezama said:

EmancipationLover said:

I'm not trying to defend Prince, but would like to add a bit of logic here.

Two journalists talk to one pop star, both of them are not allowed to record anything. Both have to write up what they've heard from memory. Result: they can both equally be wrong. The only difference is that one of them is a native speaker of the pop star's language while the other one isn't. That doesn't have to mean anything (the French guy might have a brilliant command of English - we don't know him, do we?), but it could indicate that the probablilty of the French dude to get things wrong is per se slightly higher. However, this is complete speculation. Without having been there and without a recorded tape, we don't know exactly what has been said. That's the whole point of Prince denying recorded interviews, isn't it? That he can correct himself afterwards as he wants. That doesn't take away the simple fact though that we don't know what exactly has been said.

The argument of the editor of The Guardian is ridiculous though. I guess The Sun also has a huge readership, but how reliable is it? He has to trust his coworker just as we have to. The only difference is that he knows the guy, and he might thus know him to be a reliable person - in general. Anyway, even a reliable person isn't right all of the time.

Good points. But don't expect people here on the org to take it to heart. Its easier for people to go on tyrades and only half listen.

I agree good points.

thisisit said:

no thats me. you can call me 'shamon'. my data indicates that you shall be referred to as 'the clown'.

end transmission.

EmancipationLover said:

The argument of the editor of The Guardian is ridiculous though. I guess The Sun also has a huge readership, but how reliable is it? He has to trust his coworker just as we have to. The only difference is that he knows the guy, and he might thus know him to be a reliable person - in general. Anyway, even a reliable person isn't right all of the time.

There's a lot more evidence than that to support The Guardian's argument.

Sure The Sun has a huge readership but it sells on showbiz scoops, naked breasts and comedy headlines. As a Murdoch owned publication it has a huge political bias and further more is a red top tabloid. I wonder how many people read The Sun for it's factual accuracy. And how often has it been sued?

The Guardian is the opposite. For one thing the paper won newspaper of the year at the British Press Awards this year with many of it's journalists taking home awards too.

It's recent expose on the News Of The World scandal is surely evidence that this is a publication that takes integrity and truth very seriously.

It also covers 'the arts' in greater depth than most UK dailies with many of it's music journalists having coming from NME or the old Melody Maker etc so they know their stuff.

Many people look to the Guardian for serious, even handed coverage I would trust them over anything a blogger might choose to write.

This argument shows how Dr FB, Perez etc are capapble of an abdication of responsibility. They can print whatever they like and are answerable to no one, casing these (minor) arguments to blow up.

Since everybody knows Prince says crazy things on occasion why is Dr FB quick to blame a paper with almost 200 years of trust behind it?

Why didn't this happen when Prince said those 'misunderstood comments' about gay rights to the New Yorker in 2008?

One of the most famous examples where The Guardian was accused of lying was the Jonathan Aitken case. He was sent to jail for 18 months for the crimes The Guardian exposed.

End transmission indeed.

Well said.

MHann said:

lezama said:

My only question is with this quote "Prince said: "It's fun being in Islamic countries, to know there's only one religion. There's order. You wear a burqa. There's no choice. People are happy with that." When asked about the fate of those unhappy with having no choice, he replied: "There are people who are unhappy with everything. There's a dark side to everything."

Does that quote as its written make sense to you? You leave out the portion about returning to Morocco, so already the statement appears without context... But knowing that thats where the statement comes from it becomes completely contradictory because there is ZERO obligation to wear the hijab in countries like Morocco, and MOST women don't wear it. So, is this a case where Prince is simply talking off the top of his head and makes an infactual claim or is this quote real? Because it doesn't add up.

Thanks

Lezema: the quote is real. That it might not fully reflect the reality of life in all Islamic countries is probably down to Prince's idea of life in Islamic countries not being wholly accurate. I'm not saying I could tell you the differences between life in, say, Yemen and Morocco – but I would probably refrain from offering an opinion about it to someone who was taking notes.

I believe the quote to be real, why should a quality newspaper consider a false quote from Prince? A very short peak of attention from Prince fans, would not be worth the damage to their reputation.

It seems a naive response by Prince. He may have felt comfortable and friendly toward the journalists. They probably treated him a friendly manner. He forgot about their motivation: They are not there to protect him. They are there because they have a career in journalism. And a good scoop enhances the journalist his/her career.

Prince does travel the world, that broadens his vision on many topics,

however, he onlys travels as a star.

Therefore the people he meets, the luxurious places (with limited acces) he visits,

all the information he receives and perceives, is filtered by that selection.

Most people can realize, there is a vast difference between being a woman in Yemen or in Morocco. And there is a vast difference between being a woman in Morocco and in the US. Allthough many Muslim women may confince you that wearing a veil is volunteerly, it is an interesting discussion what is perceived as volunteerly, when no man would want to marry you, you would not be hired for a job and your family would abandon you.

There are many more topics about veils, burquas, sharia, religion ruling a country, and women who have to obey men, to be interesting for debate.

Prince his short comments seems a naive way to look at society. As if he can't relate to living in a society.As if he is not a member of societal structures himself. He hasn't been able to be a member of society the way most of us are. He is famous and chose to life like a star. Many famous people, with more effort then most people, are capable of living a 'normal' life. He didn't.

His view seems simplistic and naive. Probably reflecting the view of many men, who will not admit that they had the same thoughts. Prince should not do interviews without somebody guarding him against these kind of incidents. He could have known that by now. As the interviewers probably assumed he was fully competent to stand trial the interview.

funksterr said:

thisisit said:

i dont do things for gain. maybe thats the way u think, but thats not me. my point was, the editor wasnt there, so he doesnt know what prince said. only dorian does.

what do u and most other people here have to gain by creating hatefest international? based on what? 2 conflicting articles?

how would you know what prince's intentions were by having 2 interviewers present at the same time? what makes u think he had any 'intentions' at all except to answer some questions?

seriously, why do you guys even come here if you can no longer stand his music or anything about him?

do you enjoy all the negativity and fighting? all the arguing? being constantly disappointed by his every move?

some of us still have respect for him. if you dont, then bounce.

Read any interview with Prince of the last 20 years, listen to any album and you will find Prince himself on a fault finding mission with literally everyone on the planet except himself (and Larry Graham, lol). Prince blamed WB for his problems, then the industry as a whole, and after that the US government, then the governments of all the world, before settling now on the very fans who support his half-azzed albums.

Prince is abolutely total narcissict who's ego is still reeling from the post- Purple Rain backlash and the subsequent 20 years of COMMERCIAL FAILURE. He knows the majority of us can't stand his 90's music, and straight-up ignore his so-boring-it's-not-even-comical Jehovah's Witness infused releases of the last decade. Play us Purple Rain, bytch. That's all we care about and he is frustrated as hell that he can't light a fire through his music anymore, so he plays games with music critics and reporters. They are to Prince what paparazzi was to MJ. "Prince will call you in 5 min are you ready?" "HE will see you now." "You may be allowed to take notes" Blah blah blah. Reporters have nothing to lose. They go through his bullshyt and play his game and he feels like he's SOMEBODY, by f*cking with them. A lot of his ex-girlfriends describe the same sort of power gamesmanship and negativity. Why would you respect any of that?

Yet here we are on a website bearing his name and dissecting his every move. So now ask yourself, "who's the mack?"