OldFriends4Sale said:

You could be right about people thinking the same. I think the real difference between now and then is the media. I think back then it took a lot more hard work and talent to achieve the column inches needed to push the artist to the top. Now a pretty face and generic singing voice is all that is needed and the next big thing is promised so frequently, that no one ever gets to reach the heights of super stardom like they did years ago, simply because of over saturation of the market of similar performers.

electricberet said:

I find this discussion hard to reconcile with my personal experience. I was 10 when Purple Rain came out and I remember lots of kids listening to it, playing "Let's Go Crazy" on the juke box (yes, they still had those) at a pizza place we used to go to. But it didn't interest me at the time because I wasn't that into music other kids liked, being a contrarian. When "Raspberry Beret" came out, though, I loved it. I loved the B-side even more ("She's Always In My Hair"). Both songs reminded me of the Beatles, and I'd been listening to a lot of Beatles music the previous year. When I bought the album, I loved it as well. I don't know how many other kids fell into my category, but ATWIAD definitely made him one new fan. Later on I came to love Purple Rain and all the earlier albums, but it was "Raspberry Beret" that hooked me on Prince. SOTT, by contrast, took a few listends before I really "got" it.

I always have loved the SOTT era

But the album always made me feel like there was something missing

& I think the story behind it is why

+ it's always a bittersweet experience because of he changes in the Prince camp

- the Revolution - the proteges ie Sheila E & Jill Jones

SOTT as an era compared to the 1982-1986 years was disappointing. Jill was absent from the Prince scene, Sheila E(the album) was dropped and of course that 2nd level of Purple Music became missing, Prince's Paisley Park shrunk.

OldFriends4Sale said:

fusk said:

The masses probably weren't ever concerned with musical talent. In the old days having talent was more of a requirement to be a musician than it is now, probably, but that's not the same as saying that the masses were concerned with talent. The best thing talent can bring an artist isn't record sales, it's a lasting legacy and influence with other musicians. Which is why Prince doesn't need another Purple Rain - dude's set for life anyway based on his reputation of being an extremely talented guy.

Generally I think that the way people think is constant, regardless of place or time.

Around the World in a Day is very different in sound than Parade

are u talking about Parade's reception in Europe?

I actually don't know how ATWIAD was received. But Europes love affair with Parade

probably also has a lot to do with the fact that Prince was quickly in Europe and ready to

make a new movie there.

I bet if the same happened in the states, mini concert, Prince & band & Sheila E making appearances everywhere, and the stirring of a new movie, America might have had a different level of excitement. Higher than it was.

Bottom line the movie would have shown the music in a different light. Seeing the music performed on film with band would have given it a PR level of interest

i think historically europe's relationship with art has been different than america. alot of critically acclaimed music in uk emerges from art colleges, prince fitted that genre perfectly. i don't think americans are inherently narrow-minded, after all prince is american.

whilst purple rain definitely made an impact i agree it wasn't the phenomenon that conquered the states. however prince developed a small, loyal following pre-1999. he played the lyceum to promote dirty mind and his albums were always reviewed in nme and melody maker (uk's 2 leading music journals). i can see why parade would baffle an american audience, alot of it has that south of france vibe. between 86-88 prince seemed to appreciate the reception he received in europe and catered to it, so whilst i can appreciate cdogs analysis of atwiad's impact (or non-impact) on america, it's his critique that it's a shit album i take umbrage with.

OldFriends4Sale said:

electricberet said:

I find this discussion hard to reconcile with my personal experience. I was 10 when Purple Rain came out and I remember lots of kids listening to it, playing "Let's Go Crazy" on the juke box (yes, they still had those) at a pizza place we used to go to. But it didn't interest me at the time because I wasn't that into music other kids liked, being a contrarian. When "Raspberry Beret" came out, though, I loved it. I loved the B-side even more ("She's Always In My Hair"). Both songs reminded me of the Beatles, and I'd been listening to a lot of Beatles music the previous year. When I bought the album, I loved it as well. I don't know how many other kids fell into my category, but ATWIAD definitely made him one new fan. Later on I came to love Purple Rain and all the earlier albums, but it was "Raspberry Beret" that hooked me on Prince. SOTT, by contrast, took a few listends before I really "got" it.

I always have loved the SOTT era

But the album always made me feel like there was something missing

& I think the story behind it is why

+ it's always a bittersweet experience because of the changes in the Prince camp

- the Revolution - the proteges ie Sheila E & Jill Jones

SOTT as an era compared to the 1982-1986 years was disappointing. Jill was absent from the Prince scene, Sheila E(the album) was dropped and of course that 2nd level of Purple Music became missing, Prince's Paisley Park shrunk.

posts like these are the reason i come to the .org!!!! cheers