independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Thu 12th Dec 2019 1:32am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Prince the most critically lauded artist ever?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 12/17/11 9:51pm

jonylawson

Prince the most critically lauded artist ever?

I mean...almost if not all Prince's reviews refer to his genius,to his statrtling gift,his live performances can write themselves

many reviews cram in as many superlatives as their word count will allow

i mean its fairly hard to find a negative review overall

Infact i have NEVER heard of or read a negative review of him live

(except on this site)

on wax his album reviews are mostly superlative..SOTT,PURPLE RAIN,ATWIAD,PARADE,1999, etc etc

any examples of negative reviews they truly are few and far between

(luckily most of the world didnt know NPS and karmasutra were ever released hoho)

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 12/17/11 10:02pm

RRA

Just shooting in the dark, I would guess the most critically lauded "music artist(s)" ever would be the Beatles by default.

Of the Big 3 superstars of the 80s (Prince, Madge, & MJ), Prince was the most critically respected overall I suppose. But I'm guessing here. Help folks?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 12/17/11 10:21pm

kenkamken

avatar

A good project for someone would be to collect quotes from rave reviews, from reviewers/critics, other artists/celebs.
"So fierce U look 2night, the brightest star pales 2 Ur sex..."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 12/17/11 10:22pm

artist76

avatar

I read The New York Times movie review of Purple Rain, which gave it a very negative review. That's not of the music per se. Siskel & Ebert gave the movie two big thumbs UP, though - Siskel said the film ought to studied and Ebert was all "hubba hubba" over Apollonia.

I also read negative reviews of 20Ten online, but don't remember if it was just a blog or an official newspaper or magazine; it wasn't a lone-guy-on-his-laptop type of a blog, though, either. I think his other 2000s albums were given positive reviews on balance, but not slamdunks like his glory days, of course.

But yes, everyone in the know cannot deny he's unbelievably talented. I've found, however, that lots of people don't know about him and/or underrate him tremendously.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 12/17/11 11:35pm

Romeoblu

The reviews of his albums since diamonds and pearls have all been pretty similar. Most albums getting 3/4 stars, not as good as his 1980's output with some great tracks mixed in.

I do remember Q giving The Vault ...Old Freinds for Sale 1 star.

And I can't remember 20ten getting any good reviews, which surprised me because I think it's a cracking album.

The best review I can remember since the 1980's was from Mojo for Chaos and disorder. I remember it really praising I rock therefore I am.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 12/18/11 3:06am

bobbyperu

Until the Sign o the Times/Lovesexy tour almost all critix were raving about Prince, but in the 90s he lost some of his magic. The Nude and D&P tours got a lukewarm responce from the critics and his short 1995 tour of the British Isles, Holand and Belgium where he only played songs from the not-yet-released Gold Experience got some of the worst reviews ever.
It's not until the recent years that P has regained his reputation as a stunning live performer and these days most reviewers are indeed positive. guitar reading thumbs up!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 12/18/11 4:13am

blackbob

avatar

one of the best guides to what has been critically acclaimed music wise is the site www.acclaimedmusic.net .....it takes music critics reviews and best of lists from around the world and i have always found some good music with it..

.

your right..prince is one of the most acclaimed artists of all time...in the top ten but no surprise that the beatles are number one...

.

The Top 50 Artists of All Time

Albums Songs 1900-49 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s
1 The Beatles
1 1 1 104
2 The Rolling Stones
3 2 3 3 130
3 Bob Dylan
2 6 2 15 159 47 41
4 David Bowie
4 7 100 1 44
5 Radiohead
5 20 2 1
6 Led Zeppelin
8 11 15 6
7 Bruce Springsteen
7 18 10 5 153 89
8 Prince
13 8 1 173
9 The Who
10 9 8 19
10 Jimi Hendrix
11 13 4 133
11 Elvis Presley
35 3 1 18 251
12 The Beach Boys
24 4 5 109
13 The Velvet Underground
9 30 6 49 209
14 Neil Young
6 78 52 5 92 41
15 R.E.M.
14 24 4 3 245
16 Marvin Gaye
27 5 40 8 79
17 U2
17 19 3 18 74
18 The Clash
21 16 7 35
19 Nirvana
22 17 112 1
20 Stevie Wonder
18 33 133 2 251
Albums Songs 1900-49 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s
21 Pink Floyd
12 65 31 9
22 Bob Marley and The Wailers
20 40 242 4 163
23 Elvis Costello
16 61 14 14 200
24 The Smiths
25 22 2
25 Talking Heads
23 59 27 10
26 Van Morrison
19 67 20 26 110 459
27 Aretha Franklin
50 12 9 102
28 The Byrds
28 41 7
29 Public Enemy
31 37 6 33
30 Miles Davis
15 348 2 26 42 291
31 James Brown
62 15 47 13 56
32 The Doors
38 55 14 63
33 The Kinks
54 21 11 130
34 Beastie Boys
32 60 18 13
35 Johnny Cash
53 27 14 34 95 40
36 Pixies
40 58 7 79
37 Michael Jackson
51 38 62 12 438
38 Sly and the Family Stone
57 31 21 33
39 John Lennon
59 32 199 13 175
40 Sex Pistols
93 14 11
Albums Songs 1900-49 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s
41 Beck
39 72 5 67
42 Otis Redding
61 35 10 253
43 Creedence Clearwater Revival
73 25 17 72
44 Lou Reed
37 89 20 68 136
45 Sonic Youth
30 115 13 39 98
46 Joni Mitchell
26 151 12
47 Roxy Music
36 100 17 87
48 Madonna
82 23 9 34 80
49 Joy Division
56 51 59 16
50 Kraftwerk
41 99 18 111



[Edited 12/18/11 4:14am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 12/18/11 6:46am

Milty

avatar

blackbob said:

one of the best guides to what has been critically acclaimed music wise is the site www.acclaimedmusic.net .....it takes music critics reviews and best of lists from around the world and i have always found some good music with it..

.

your right..prince is one of the most acclaimed artists of all time...in the top ten but no surprise that the beatles are number one...

.

The Top 50 Artists of All Time

Albums Songs 1900-49 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s
1 The Beatles
1 1 1 104
2 The Rolling Stones
3 2 3 3 130
3 Bob Dylan
2 6 2 15 159 47 41
4 David Bowie
4 7 100 1 44
5 Radiohead
5 20 2 1
6 Led Zeppelin
8 11 15 6
7 Bruce Springsteen
7 18 10 5 153 89
8 Prince
13 8 1 173
9 The Who
10 9 8 19
10 Jimi Hendrix
11 13 4 133
11 Elvis Presley
35 3 1 18 251
12 The Beach Boys
24 4 5 109
13 The Velvet Underground
9 30 6 49 209
14 Neil Young
6 78 52 5 92 41
15 R.E.M.
14 24 4 3 245
16 Marvin Gaye
27 5 40 8 79
17 U2
17 19 3 18 74
18 The Clash
21 16 7 35
19 Nirvana
22 17 112 1
20 Stevie Wonder
18 33 133 2 251
Albums Songs 1900-49 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s
21 Pink Floyd
12 65 31 9
22 Bob Marley and The Wailers
20 40 242 4 163
23 Elvis Costello
16 61 14 14 200
24 The Smiths
25 22 2
25 Talking Heads
23 59 27 10
26 Van Morrison
19 67 20 26 110 459
27 Aretha Franklin
50 12 9 102
28 The Byrds
28 41 7
29 Public Enemy
31 37 6 33
30 Miles Davis
15 348 2 26 42 291
31 James Brown
62 15 47 13 56
32 The Doors
38 55 14 63
33 The Kinks
54 21 11 130
34 Beastie Boys
32 60 18 13
35 Johnny Cash
53 27 14 34 95 40
36 Pixies
40 58 7 79
37 Michael Jackson
51 38 62 12 438
38 Sly and the Family Stone
57 31 21 33
39 John Lennon
59 32 199 13 175
40 Sex Pistols
93 14 11
Albums Songs 1900-49 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s
41 Beck
39 72 5 67
42 Otis Redding
61 35 10 253
43 Creedence Clearwater Revival
73 25 17 72
44 Lou Reed
37 89 20 68 136
45 Sonic Youth
30 115 13 39 98
46 Joni Mitchell
26 151 12
47 Roxy Music
36 100 17 87
48 Madonna
82 23 9 34 80
49 Joy Division
56 51 59 16
50 Kraftwerk
41 99 18 111



[Edited 12/18/11 4:14am]

I don't understand how this is tabulated. Does it just count positive reviews?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 12/18/11 8:06am

Free2BMe

Just wondering why Elvis Presley is rated so high on the list when he didn't write a SINGLE NOTE of his own music. Is the prerequsite playing a guitar? It seems that most of these list are complied or made by "rock" critics.

[Edited 12/18/11 8:08am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 12/18/11 11:26am

Javi

RRA said:

Just shooting in the dark, I would guess the most critically lauded "music artist(s)" ever would be the Beatles by default.

Of the Big 3 superstars of the 80s (Prince, Madge, & MJ), Prince was the most critically respected overall I suppose. But I'm guessing here. Help folks?

Indeed. Prince was always the critics' choice. I like Madonna and, especially, Michael Jackson, but, in my opinion, they play in a different league.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 12/18/11 4:57pm

Free2BMe

Javi said:

RRA said:

Just shooting in the dark, I would guess the most critically lauded "music artist(s)" ever would be the Beatles by default.

Of the Big 3 superstars of the 80s (Prince, Madge, & MJ), Prince was the most critically respected overall I suppose. But I'm guessing here. Help folks?

Indeed. Prince was always the critics' choice. I like Madonna and, especially, Michael Jackson, but, in my opinion, they play in a different league.

IMO, because of Michael's intricate songwriting skills, I would put him in a different league even from Madonna. They are both singer/dancer/entertainers; however, that is where the simililarities end. Michael is more of a creative genius in his songwriting, producing skills than Madonna and that puts him in a different league. A lot of critics are NOW( since Michael's death) recognizing Michael's gift and genius for songwriting. It's about fucking time.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 12/18/11 7:19pm

ManlyMoose

Free2BMe said:

Just wondering why Elvis Presley is rated so high on the list when he didn't write a SINGLE NOTE of his own music. Is the prerequsite playing a guitar? It seems that most of these list are complied or made by "rock" critics.

[Edited 12/18/11 8:08am]

This is a list based on critical reviews on albums, who plays what doesnt affect these lists at all.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 12/18/11 10:02pm

jonylawson

bobbyperu said:

Until the Sign o the Times/Lovesexy tour almost all critix were raving about Prince, but in the 90s he lost some of his magic. The Nude and D&P tours got a lukewarm responce from the critics and his short 1995 tour of the British Isles, Holand and Belgium where he only played songs from the not-yet-released Gold Experience got some of the worst reviews ever. It's not until the recent years that P has regained his reputation as a stunning live performer and these days most reviewers are indeed positive. guitar reading thumbs up!

The press went FUCKING NUTS for the diamonds and pearls and nude tour

"luke warm"??

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 12/18/11 10:03pm

jonylawson

check out the australian reviews for diamonds and pearls live shows

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 12/18/11 11:18pm

jonylawson

gold experience? fucking nuts as were the reviews for the cd

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 12/18/11 11:27pm

kewlschool

avatar

I don't know if he is the most but he is among the top. I do however, have plenty of reviews from the 1980's where he gets mixed reviews on ATWIAD,Parade, SOTT, and Lovesexy albums.

99.9% of everything I say is strictly for my own entertainment
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 12/19/11 4:12am

blackbob

avatar

Milty said:

blackbob said:

one of the best guides to what has been critically acclaimed music wise is the site www.acclaimedmusic.net .....it takes music critics reviews and best of lists from around the world and i have always found some good music with it..

.

your right..prince is one of the most acclaimed artists of all time...in the top ten but no surprise that the beatles are number one...

.

The Top 50 Artists of All Time

Albums Songs 1900-49 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s
1 The Beatles
1 1 1 104
2 The Rolling Stones
3 2 3 3 130
3 Bob Dylan
2 6 2 15 159 47 41
4 David Bowie
4 7 100 1 44
5 Radiohead
5 20 2 1
6 Led Zeppelin
8 11 15 6
7 Bruce Springsteen
7 18 10 5 153 89
8 Prince
13 8 1 173
9 The Who
10 9 8 19
10 Jimi Hendrix
11 13 4 133
11 Elvis Presley
35 3 1 18 251
12 The Beach Boys
24 4 5 109
13 The Velvet Underground
9 30 6 49 209
14 Neil Young
6 78 52 5 92 41
15 R.E.M.
14 24 4 3 245
16 Marvin Gaye
27 5 40 8 79
17 U2
17 19 3 18 74
18 The Clash
21 16 7 35
19 Nirvana
22 17 112 1
20 Stevie Wonder
18 33 133 2 251
Albums Songs 1900-49 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s
21 Pink Floyd
12 65 31 9
22 Bob Marley and The Wailers
20 40 242 4 163
23 Elvis Costello
16 61 14 14 200
24 The Smiths
25 22 2
25 Talking Heads
23 59 27 10
26 Van Morrison
19 67 20 26 110 459
27 Aretha Franklin
50 12 9 102
28 The Byrds
28 41 7
29 Public Enemy
31 37 6 33
30 Miles Davis
15 348 2 26 42 291
31 James Brown
62 15 47 13 56
32 The Doors
38 55 14 63
33 The Kinks
54 21 11 130
34 Beastie Boys
32 60 18 13
35 Johnny Cash
53 27 14 34 95 40
36 Pixies
40 58 7 79
37 Michael Jackson
51 38 62 12 438
38 Sly and the Family Stone
57 31 21 33
39 John Lennon
59 32 199 13 175
40 Sex Pistols
93 14 11
Albums Songs 1900-49 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s
41 Beck
39 72 5 67
42 Otis Redding
61 35 10 253
43 Creedence Clearwater Revival
73 25 17 72
44 Lou Reed
37 89 20 68 136
45 Sonic Youth
30 115 13 39 98
46 Joni Mitchell
26 151 12
47 Roxy Music
36 100 17 87
48 Madonna
82 23 9 34 80
49 Joy Division
56 51 59 16
50 Kraftwerk
41 99 18 111



[Edited 12/18/11 4:14am]

I don't understand how this is tabulated. Does it just count positive reviews?

...

...

...

How have the lists been compiled?

This is really not simple to explain. Please do not despair if you do not fully understand...

I have written a program which computes the lists. The basic idea is that I match all records against each other in pairs. In a match, each critics list is weighted depending on
* the number of lists I have from different parts of world (USA, UK or the rest of the world)
** when the list was presented (newer lists are weighted more heavily)
*** how many matches the list is a part of (a list which only embraces a few years is not part of many matches and is therefore weighted heavily in the matches where it is included).

To be able to compare new records (which only exist on best-of-year-lists) with older records, I have put together best-of-year-list from the same magazine, e.g. the #1 record on NME's best-of-year-list of 2001 beats not only the other records from year 2001, but also #2, #3... from older NME's best-of-year-lists. Of course with less weight in each match (see *** above).

The weight of a list when one of the records is outside the list depends on which records that are included in the list. The more records that are included among my pick of 30 recordings from each year, the heavier weight.

If a record is preferred over the opponent in at least 75% of all critics lists (after weighting each list) where at least one of the two records have been listed, the record gets a maximum match point and the opponent gets no match point. If the 2 records are preferred in 25-75% of the critics lists, the maximum match point is shared between the 2 records.

I thereafter weight all matches due to the number of lists that are included in each match (it is more important to have a high match point in a match based on many lists). All records get a score between 0 and 1000 (a record with maximum match point in each match would get the score 1000). The score is then corrected due which opponents a record has been matched against. This is because the critical acclaim of rock music differs between years (in most of the all-time-lists the majority of the records are from the 70's or earlier). If the mean score of the opponents is above average, the corrected sum score becomes slightly greater and vice versa.

...

...

...

well you did ask smile

[Edited 12/19/11 4:13am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 12/19/11 12:12pm

bobbyperu

jonylawson said:

check out the australian reviews for diamonds and pearls live shows




U're right about that. But in Europe some critics were impressed by the shows and some weren't. That's all...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 12/19/11 12:49pm

jonylawson

bobbyperu said:

jonylawson said:

check out the australian reviews for diamonds and pearls live shows

U're right about that. But in Europe some critics were impressed by the shows and some weren't. That's all...

back in ninety one i was obsessed and when prince had a new cd or tour i bought every single newspaper and magazine and popped them all in my little scrapbook!

i have ten (ten!!) scrapbooks with reviews from eighty seven thru to ninety eight

so a negative review foor pprince was almost unheard of and pre 96 the only negative review i ever read out of literally hundreds was the melody maker review of graffiti bridge

caun yo actually post a 2uropean review which doesnt exhaust any and every superlative

when im back in england i should scan them all

unless me mam has chucked them out

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 12/21/11 5:04pm

ronaldo999

Free2BMe said:

Javi said:

Indeed. Prince was always the critics' choice. I like Madonna and, especially, Michael Jackson, but, in my opinion, they play in a different league.

IMO, because of Michael's intricate songwriting skills, I would put him in a different league even from Madonna. They are both singer/dancer/entertainers; however, that is where the simililarities end. Michael is more of a creative genius in his songwriting, producing skills than Madonna and that puts him in a different league. A lot of critics are NOW( since Michael's death) recognizing Michael's gift and genius for songwriting. It's about fucking time.

Lol Michael Jackson? Creative genius in songwriting and producing? Really?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 12/21/11 11:36pm

jonylawson

Free2BMe said:

Javi said:

Indeed. Prince was always the critics' choice. I like Madonna and, especially, Michael Jackson, but, in my opinion, they play in a different league.

IMO, because of Michael's intricate songwriting skills, I would put him in a different league even from Madonna. They are both singer/dancer/entertainers; however, that is where the simililarities end. Michael is more of a creative genius in his songwriting, producing skills than Madonna and that puts him in a different league. A lot of critics are NOW( since Michael's death) recognizing Michael's gift and genius for songwriting. It's about fucking time.

lol lol

Mike in a "diffrent league"?? lol lol

genius songwriting?? lol lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Prince the most critically lauded artist ever?