I am writing an article discussing how Einstein and Newton's peers and later scientists criticized them for the amount of time they spent, especially in their later years, engaging religion, and I'd like to use Prince as an example, but I can't find any published articles where writers attribute the decline in Prince's musical and lyrical ability/productivity to his conversion to the Jehovah's Witness faith. I know that a lot of people on this site have asserted this, and I would love to use those assertions, but for this article I must quote published articles. Any assistance provided will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

I've never read any professional article or review stating that. They may be some, though, but I'm quite sure very few pro writers (if any) would make such a ridiculous assumption.

artist76 said:

I am not understanding how you plan to use Prince as an example in an article about Einstein and Newton. Einstein and Newton were scientists; Prince is as musician, an artist. Whether his creations are "in decline" or not is a matter of taste, aesthetics. Whether scientists are clouded in their profession by religious faith, now that I can see as a legitimate debate. Their profession is about uncovering how the physical universe operates and why, which may clash with official religious teachings. An artist's profession is to, well, make art that hopefully pleases some people. Many highly regarded artists were religious, and created religious art that inspires and pleases. It would be pretty impossible (or ridiculous, as databank said) to link the artist's "religiousness" with his/her success or decline in the endeavor of art. At most, you may find articles that note that Prince music is less explicit and salacious since JW.

...........adding to Artist76's comments, how woud u separate his decline from music in general? The increased popularity of hiphop? The impact of free downloading?.............etc.

Graycap23 said:

artist76 said:

I am not understanding how you plan to use Prince as an example in an article about Einstein and Newton. Einstein and Newton were scientists; Prince is as musician, an artist. Whether his creations are "in decline" or not is a matter of taste, aesthetics. Whether scientists are clouded in their profession by religious faith, now that I can see as a legitimate debate. Their profession is about uncovering how the physical universe operates and why, which may clash with official religious teachings. An artist's profession is to, well, make art that hopefully pleases some people. Many highly regarded artists were religious, and created religious art that inspires and pleases. It would be pretty impossible (or ridiculous, as databank said) to link the artist's "religiousness" with his/her success or decline in the endeavor of art. At most, you may find articles that note that Prince music is less explicit and salacious since JW.

...........adding to Artist76's comments, how woud u separate his decline from music in general? The increased popularity of hiphop? The impact of free downloading?.............etc.

Actually, you all are making the assumption that I have "made up my mind" or have decided on an angle or position that Prince’s work is in decline due to his faith. In fact, I am one of the few people on this cite who continues to celebrate Prince's post 2000 work.

*

As for comparing Prince to Einstein and Newton, if you are familiar with the debate over reality between Plato (Republic) and Aristotle (Poetics) or C. P. Snow's wonderful essay "The Two Cultures Debate" or thousands of other great books and articles, you would realize that many classes, such as literature of science and world literature, often explore the relationship between the scientist and the artist, especially the debate--which is the core of Plato and Aristotle's discourse--as to which one (the scientist or the artist) most fulfills the role of philosopher. So, my goal in comparing the three, especially their desire to engage the ontological aspect or nature of the universe, is not to show that Prince’s work is in decline due to his faith but to show the similarity between the scientist and the artist, which is made clear when Einstein asserts that "imagination is more important than knowledge" and in Jacob Bronowski's article, "The Nature of Scientific Reasoning," when he shows that most of the major scientific discoveries were driven by creativity and imagination and not just the collection of data. Finally, in showing the similarity of the scientist and the artist, my point is to show how, often, science limits itself or becomes as myopic as those criticized by science, as shown in Stephen Jay Gould's essay, "The Evolution of Life, Itself," when Gould, a noted scientist, states that scientists may consider no longer using the term, evolution, and simply focus on studying the changes and adaptations of nature because the term, evolution, has become so corrupted with subjectivity that even scientists are becoming guilty of being led by their subjective notions rather than their objective findings. So, again, the point of my article is to show how science and art intersect at the ontological study of the universe and how this meeting at the ontological intersection is often forbidden by science, proving Aristotle’s point that while science can answer the “how” of the universe, art is better equipped to answer the “why” of the universe, but this answering of “why” can and should be improved by allowing minds like Einstein and Newton to engage the question of “why” as well as the question of “how”.

*

Of course, I did not add all of the above in my original post because I didn't think that y'all would jump to such erroneous conclusions or make such poor assumptions about the direction of my article. All I asked is if anyone had knowledge of any published articles that connect Prince's decline (sells or artistic quality) to his faith. It is a simple yes or no question. Those who have not been exposed to these types of articles would voice their "no" by not responding. Those who have seen/read these articles would be able to tell me that they have and, hopefully, can provide the journal or magazine where they have read them.

Um, I don't think that Prince would be a very good example, considering your subject matter... Is this for a class? I wouldn't advise using Prince at all, if this is the case. And any article you find, regarding Prince, is going to be a matter of the writer's opinion (and/or the opinions of the people interviewed) and not based on fact...unless you can find an article with direct quotes from Prince.

purplethunder3121 said:

Um, I don't think that Prince would be a very good example, considering your subject matter... Is this for a class? I wouldn't advise using Prince at all, if this is the case. And any article you find, regarding Prince, is going to be a matter of the writer's opinion (and/or the opinions of the people interviewed) and not based on fact...unless you can find an article with direct quotes from Prince.

No, it's not for a class; it's for one of the many journals in which I have been published in the past. And the fact that it will be the writer's "opinion" works perfectly. One of my points is to show that, often, people use subjective positions when trying to present an objective argument, which is the same thing that happened to both Einstein and Newton when others criticized them for embracing religion in their ontological exploration of the universe. So, I know that it will just be that writer's “opinion” as it was just the “opinion” of those who criticized Einstein and Newton for the same thing. That's one of the points of my essay. It would be easier to use the comments from this site, but, of course, the journal to which I have proposed this paper wants me to find published "opinions" to compare to the critiques of Einstein and Newton.

1725topp said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Um, I don't think that Prince would be a very good example, considering your subject matter... Is this for a class? I wouldn't advise using Prince at all, if this is the case. And any article you find, regarding Prince, is going to be a matter of the writer's opinion (and/or the opinions of the people interviewed) and not based on fact...unless you can find an article with direct quotes from Prince.

No, it's not for a class; it's for one of the many journals in which I have been published in the past. And the fact that it will be the writer's "opinion" works perfectly. One of my points is to show that, often, people use subjective positions when trying to present an objective argument, which is the same thing that happened to both Einstein and Newton when others criticized them for embracing religion in their ontological exploration of the universe. So, I know that it will just be that writer's “opinion” as it was just the “opinion” of those who criticized Einstein and Newton for the same thing. That's one of the points of my essay. It would be easier to use the comments from this site, but, of course, the journal to which I have proposed this paper wants me to find published "opinions" to compare to the critiques of Einstein and Newton.

Ah, that makes sense in the context that you put it...but why would you decide to use Prince as an example in comparison to iconic scientists such as Einstein and Newton? Is it a "genius to genius" comparison rather than people in the same field?

purplethunder3121 said:

Ah, that makes sense in the context that you put it...but why would you decide to use Prince as an example in comparison to iconic scientists such as Einstein and Newton? Is it a "genius to genius" comparison rather than people in the same field?

It is part of an ongoing discussion debating the similarity between the scientist and the artist that has been ongoing since Plato first debated Aristotle over this issue. See my earlier explanation below.

===========================================================

As for comparing Prince to Einstein and Newton, if you are familiar with the debate over reality between Plato (Republic) and Aristotle (Poetics) or C. P. Snow's wonderful essay "The Two Cultures Debate" or thousands of other great books and articles, you would realize that many classes, such as literature of science and world literature, often explore the relationship between the scientist and the artist, especially the debate--which is the core of Plato and Aristotle's discourse--as to which one (the scientist or the artist) most fulfills the role of philosopher. So, my goal in comparing the three, especially their desire to engage the ontological aspect or nature of the universe, is not to show that Prince’s work is in decline due to his faith but to show the similarity between the scientist and the artist, which is made clear when Einstein asserts that "imagination is more important than knowledge" and in Jacob Bronowski's article, "The Nature of Scientific Reasoning," when he shows that most of the major scientific discoveries were driven by creativity and imagination and not just the collection of data. Finally, in showing the similarity of the scientist and the artist, my point is to show how, often, science limits itself or becomes as myopic as those criticized by science, as shown in Stephen Jay Gould's essay, "The Evolution of Life, Itself," when Gould, a noted scientist, states that scientists may consider no longer using the term, evolution, and simply focus on studying the changes and adaptations of nature because the term, evolution, has become so corrupted with subjectivity that even scientists are becoming guilty of being led by their subjective notions rather than their objective findings. So, again, the point of my article is to show how science and art intersect at the ontological study of the universe and how this meeting at the ontological intersection is often forbidden by science, proving Aristotle’s point that while science can answer the “how” of the universe, art is better equipped to answer the “why” of the universe, but this answering of “why” can and should be improved by allowing minds like Einstein and Newton to engage the question of “why” as well as the question of “how”.

1725topp said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Ah, that makes sense in the context that you put it...but why would you decide to use Prince as an example in comparison to iconic scientists such as Einstein and Newton? Is it a "genius to genius" comparison rather than people in the same field?

It is part of an ongoing discussion debating the similarity between the scientist and the artist that has been ongoing since Plato first debated Aristotle over this issue. See my earlier explanation below.

===========================================================

As for comparing Prince to Einstein and Newton, if you are familiar with the debate over reality between Plato (Republic) and Aristotle (Poetics) or C. P. Snow's wonderful essay "The Two Cultures Debate" or thousands of other great books and articles, you would realize that many classes, such as literature of science and world literature, often explore the relationship between the scientist and the artist, especially the debate--which is the core of Plato and Aristotle's discourse--as to which one (the scientist or the artist) most fulfills the role of philosopher. So, my goal in comparing the three, especially their desire to engage the ontological aspect or nature of the universe, is not to show that Prince’s work is in decline due to his faith but to show the similarity between the scientist and the artist, which is made clear when Einstein asserts that "imagination is more important than knowledge" and in Jacob Bronowski's article, "The Nature of Scientific Reasoning," when he shows that most of the major scientific discoveries were driven by creativity and imagination and not just the collection of data. Finally, in showing the similarity of the scientist and the artist, my point is to show how, often, science limits itself or becomes as myopic as those criticized by science, as shown in Stephen Jay Gould's essay, "The Evolution of Life, Itself," when Gould, a noted scientist, states that scientists may consider no longer using the term, evolution, and simply focus on studying the changes and adaptations of nature because the term, evolution, has become so corrupted with subjectivity that even scientists are becoming guilty of being led by their subjective notions rather than their objective findings. So, again, the point of my article is to show how science and art intersect at the ontological study of the universe and how this meeting at the ontological intersection is often forbidden by science, proving Aristotle’s point that while science can answer the “how” of the universe, art is better equipped to answer the “why” of the universe, but this answering of “why” can and should be improved by allowing minds like Einstein and Newton to engage the question of “why” as well as the question of “how”.

Terrific subject matter for your article and now I can totally see how Prince, as well as other artists, could fit into your argument. I've actually been taking some philosophy classes the last couple of semesters, so I am extremely interested in your article, what research you come up with, and how you develop your argument. I wish I could help you with Prince research, but I only started getting back into Prince three years ago after a fifteen year hiatus... I hope you can provide a link so I can read your articles on-line.

Prince always wrote lyrics about God and spirituality. Prince IMO always had faith in a higher power, so he always sought out some sort of religous understanding of an afterlife his entire career.

Now Prince is in a more rigorous religion that seems more dogmatic than others, but the soul searching always remains the same.

Prince was always about religion, sex, and music. It set him apart from the other funk acts because his lyrics caused controversy. It made people pay attention and want more. He became famous because of his views and his sound. It was all new... and interesting, until it wasn't.

He still makes the same good music, about God, religion, and sex... its just that we are not interested anymore since it isn't "new" and "daring" to us.

Prince has remained the same... we changed.

paintedlady said:

Prince always wrote lyrics about God and spirituality. Prince IMO always had faith in a higher power, so he always sought out some sort of religous understanding of an afterlife his entire career.

Now Prince is in a more rigorous religion that seems more dogmatic than others, but the soul searching always remains the same.

Prince was always about religion, sex, and music. It set him apart from the other funk acts because his lyrics caused controversy. It made people pay attention and want more. He became famous because of his views and his sound. It was all new... and interesting, until it wasn't.

He still makes the same good music, about God, religion, and sex... its just that we are not interested anymore since it isn't "new" and "daring" to us.

Prince has remained the same... we changed.

This, too, is true.

paintedlady said:

Prince always wrote lyrics about God and spirituality. Prince IMO always had faith in a higher power, so he always sought out some sort of religous understanding of an afterlife his entire career.

Now Prince is in a more rigorous religion that seems more dogmatic than others, but the soul searching always remains the same.

Prince was always about religion, sex, and music. It set him apart from the other funk acts because his lyrics caused controversy. It made people pay attention and want more. He became famous because of his views and his sound. It was all new... and interesting, until it wasn't.

He still makes the same good music, about God, religion, and sex... its just that we are not interested anymore since it isn't "new" and "daring" to us.

Prince has remained the same... we changed.

I agree with most of what you've said because I've been saying this for years on this site and elsewhere. And, his new music is still interesting to me. However, for my article I need published writers that disagree with what you've said.

paintedlady said:

since it isn't "new" and "daring" to us.

New and daring or boring, forced, lazy and just plain lacking in imagination?

purplethunder3121 said:

Terrific subject matter for your article and now I can totally see how Prince, as well as other artists, could fit into your argument. I've actually been taking some philosophy classes the last couple of semesters, so I am extremely interested in your article, what research you come up with, and how you develop your argument. I wish I could help you with Prince research, but I only started getting back into Prince three years ago after a fifteen year hiatus... I hope you can provide a link so I can read your articles on-line.

Thanks for the interest and encouragement. Getting the research that I need seems to be the last hurdle to getting the essay published. The editor likes the rest of the essay, but to prove that my comparison has merit I must show that "authorities," which is what we call almost anyone who can get published, criticized Prince in the same manner as Einstein and Newton were criticized. What's really funny is that some of the people on this site are knowledgeable enough to write articles and books about Prince on a wide variety of topics, and it is a shame that more don't because we are stuck with the hacks and misinformed who create the bulk of published sources on Prince. Not that all of the published work on Prince is bad, but it could be so much better if the people who have actually lived and breathed Prince’s legacy would produce something on him.

Faulkner was out of print, but one man decided that Faulkner was so great that he dedicated his life to writing articles and books about Faulkner. Now, it is almost impossible to get a degree in English because one man thought that Faulkner was important and decided to do something about it.

Graycap23 said:

paintedlady said:

since it isn't "new" and "daring" to us.

New and daring or boring, forced, lazy and just plain lacking in imagination?

Okay, but can you save that for another thread. All I need are yes and no answers. I promise there will be thousands more threads where you can tell us, for the one millionth time, how Prince has lost it and is no longer moving to you.

Graycap23 said:

paintedlady said:

since it isn't "new" and "daring" to us.

New and daring or boring, forced, lazy and just plain lacking in imagination?

Well... Prince isn't shocking us anymore like he used to. We can not expect Prince to shock us well after 30+ years now can we?

So we heard/saw what Prince is about and his shock value has faded.... onto the next artist to "shock" us and make us pay attention.

Its not a reflection on Prince so much as it is a reflection of the high demand listeners want.

This article makes somewhat of a connection although it doesnt mention JW specifically...

http://www.slantmagazine....ildren/156

babynoz said:

This article makes somewhat of a connection although it doesnt mention JW specifically...

http://www.slantmagazine....ildren/156

Bless you my child. Seriously, thanks much for this, every bit counts.

1725topp said:

babynoz said:

This article makes somewhat of a connection although it doesnt mention JW specifically...

http://www.slantmagazine....ildren/156

Bless you my child. Seriously, thanks much for this, every bit counts.

No prob,

1725topp said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Terrific subject matter for your article and now I can totally see how Prince, as well as other artists, could fit into your argument. I've actually been taking some philosophy classes the last couple of semesters, so I am extremely interested in your article, what research you come up with, and how you develop your argument. I wish I could help you with Prince research, but I only started getting back into Prince three years ago after a fifteen year hiatus... I hope you can provide a link so I can read your articles on-line.

Thanks for the interest and encouragement. Getting the research that I need seems to be the last hurdle to getting the essay published. The editor likes the rest of the essay, but to prove that my comparison has merit I must show that "authorities," which is what we call almost anyone who can get published, criticized Prince in the same manner as Einstein and Newton were criticized. What's really funny is that some of the people on this site are knowledgeable enough to write articles and books about Prince on a wide variety of topics, and it is a shame that more don't because we are stuck with the hacks and misinformed who create the bulk of published sources on Prince. Not that all of the published work on Prince is bad, but it could be so much better if the people who have actually lived and breathed Prince’s legacy would produce something on him.

Faulkner was out of print, but one man decided that Faulkner was so great that he dedicated his life to writing articles and books about Faulkner. Now, it is almost impossible to get a degree in English because one man thought that Faulkner was important and decided to do something about it.

Well, not quite... I have a degree in English and I never studied Faulkner. Maybe in recent history and in certain schools of thought... But, I hope that you can glean some needed research on this site or others and keep us up-to-date on your article.

I can see how religion and science may conflict(i.e. On the 7th day versus The Big Bang) but religion doesn't conflict with music. It may enhance it or influence it but the decline or lack thereof is in the ear of the listener. Even then for proper context the listener would have to have a deep knowledge of Prince's body of work prior to becoming a JW and the material released after his conversion. the average listener wouldn't probably see any vast change or have a basis for a judgement.

Good luck with your paper.

purplethunder3121 said:

Well, not quite... I have a degree in English and I never studied Faulkner. Maybe in recent history and in certain schools of thought... But, I hope that you can glean some needed research on this site or others and keep us up-to-date on your article.

That's why I said almost impossible, but, of course, you get my point that Faulkner's acceptance in most literary circles as a major writer is due as much to the work of one fan/theorist as it is to Faulkner's work. And, thanks again, for the encouragement.

HonestMan13 said:

I can see how religion and science may conflict(i.e. On the 7th day versus The Big Bang) but religion doesn't conflict with music. It may enhance it or influence it but the decline or lack thereof is in the ear of the listener. Even then for proper context the listener would have to have a deep knowledge of Prince's body of work prior to becoming a JW and the material released after his conversion. the average listener wouldn't probably see any vast change or have a basis for a judgement.

Good luck with your paper.

There are, of course, obvious conflicts between religion and science, but the division or adversarial relationship between religion and science is fairly new and has existed only about six hundred and sixty-two years, being caused by the Black Plague of 1348 - 1350. Prior to that, most people who studied at a university studied both science and theology. And in most cases they can work in tandem as science can prove about seventy-five percent of the Bible's dates and occurrences so they are not innately exclusive or adversarial. As Galileo stated, the Bible tells you how to get to heaven; it does not care if we study the structure of the heavens. And, you are also correct that a writer must have some knowledge about Prince's past to comment on how becoming a JW affected his later material, but I will not be surprised to find writers making erroneous assessments regarding his work based on knee-jerk reactions to the material. But, in truth, at this point, I just need to find any writer discussing this issue. Thanks for the well wishes. Take care.

You won't find many if any. Main reason for that is his supposed decline started way before he became a JW.

Peaks and valleys. That's Prince's career.

People should accept not everything is going to be awesome and stop moaning.

.

[Edited 9/5/12 3:40am]

Marrk said: You won't find many if any. Main reason for that is his supposed decline started way before he became a JW.

That's what I've always said, but many on this site have argued or proposed that becoming a JW has been the death nail in Prince's creativity, and I just want to see if there have been published articles that assert this.

Marrk said: Peaks and valleys. That's Prince's career. People should accept not everything is going to be awesome and stop moaning.

I also agree, but, again, my point of this thread is to find research.

Interesting perspectives but I think it will be difficult to near impossible to find anything on Prince in that regard. Firstly, because a decline is relatively subjective, and even if a decline was accepted as 'fact' attributing it to such a cause would also be purely subjective, thus warranting it, an article that would never hold ground in terms of published 'truth.'

Is there not another artist you can find?

Bohemian67 said:

Interesting perspectives but I think it will be difficult to near impossible to find anything on Prince in that regard. Firstly, because a decline is relatively subjective, and even if a decline was accepted as 'fact' attributing it to such a cause would also be purely subjective, thus warranting it, an article that would never hold ground in terms of published 'truth.'

Is there not another artist you can find?

All reviews and analyses of art are, at some level, subjective. Even if the reviewer has criteria, that criteria will be mostly subjective. So any review of anybody's art, even reviews and analyses published in journals, will have a level of subjectivity. Therefore, what will make it difficult to find articles that connect Prince's decline (commercial and artistic) to his becoming a Jehovah's Witness is that his commercial decline began years before he became a Jehovah's Witness so most writers of established or mainstream magazines will not connect the decline to his new faith. I am sure that I can use someone like Cat Stevens who converted to Islam and became Yusef Islam, but my interest is Prince. And, the thousands of threads and posts on this site clearly show that much of Prince's core audience feel that his becoming a Jehovah's Witness has negatively affected his artistic productivity. My job is to research whether or not published writers have made the connection, echoing the sentiment of many of his core fans. If I am unable to find published articles, it makes it difficult to argue that the so-call authorities have made this connection, but I can still show that much of his fan base has made this connection. And as a sub-point to my larger goal that allows me to continue my comparison of the scientist and the artist, especially when engaging an ontological discussion of the universe.

You're kinda quoting me and Graycap, but it's only SuperSoulFighter who said you "made up your mind." My post says I don't understand your plan. You have since explained much better/ fuller and I understand better. Thanks. Sounds interesting, and I totally get the whole intersection b/t science, art, religion. My daughter just took a class at Caltech this summer "The Art of Science" (she's 9 y.o.), and we've talked about how the early mathematicians (yes, Plato) were philosophers - all knowledge and education were connected, not compartmentalized. Compartmentalization of knowledge and learning was propelled by industrialism. She finds mathematics and science much more engrossing with this "new" (re-newed?) integrated approach.

As to Prince, I think it's only a handful of vociferous (and I'd say, illogical) fans on here who claim his work has suffered because of Larry Graham & JW; the casual lay fandom would say he's always been religious ("The Ladder," "The Cross," etc.), and he's always been off-putting (he never tried to be the boy-next-door), so it'd be very difficult to say that his "decline" is now attributable to his faith.

1725topp said:

Graycap23 said:

...........adding to Artist76's comments, how woud u separate his decline from music in general? The increased popularity of hiphop? The impact of free downloading?.............etc.

Actually, you all are making the assumption that I have "made up my mind" or have decided on an angle or position that Prince’s work is in decline due to his faith. In fact, I am one of the few people on this cite who continues to celebrate Prince's post 2000 work.

*

----