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)

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?

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.

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...

.

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

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?

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"luke warm"??

check out the australian reviews for diamonds and pearls live shows

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

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.

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

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

jonylawson said:

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

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?

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.

Mike in a "diffrent league"??

genius songwriting??