This discussion will continue until the end of our times, but it's an interresting one. But the discussion is often very divided in it's views, much like politics and the election of a new president. It's either or. Or is it? Prince was maybe not the greatest innovator, nor was he the most ecclectic. Was his skills mainly at copying the greats, rather than changing the rules?

On the one like James Brown. He really did change the way we thought about music along with bands like The Meters. I'm very interrested in views based on historical observation as well as analyzing the elements in music and production.

- ecclectic copycat with ability of putting together collages/puzzles that seem to fit together, as well as perfecting urban styles into a pop format that was attractive to a wider audience
- innovator that changed how people think about music, created new styles, and made music that nobody had heard anything similar to.

A combination of both, or more of one than the other?

I really don't agree with the views that Prince just put together different styles and that's what he is. This view seems to have become rather dominant during the last ten years or so. Before that people used to emphasize more how unique and eccentric he was.

He has a sound of his own, he has used production techniques that he himself pioneered and he has used pretty far out themes and plain weird arrangements. If you combine Sly Stone, Jimi Hendrix, James Brown and whatever name has been usually connected to him you really wouldn't end up with records that sound like Parade, SOTT or Lovesexy.

Just take something that we'd fans consider a fairly straightforward Prince party track - "Partyman" for example - which artists is he supposedly "mixing together" on it?

Replica said:

- ecclectic copycat with ability of putting together collages/puzzles that seem to fit together, as well as perfecting urban styles into a pop format that was attractive to a wider audience

- innovator that changed how people think about music, created new styles, and made music that nobody had heard anything similar to.

A combination of both, or more of one than the other?

Definitely a combination of both:

As far as eclectic. He has put together a combination of various music styles from rock/rockabilly/r&b/soul/pop/jazz/rockabilly/gospel-spiritual, of many artists, and many of his influences, Ike Turner, Little Richard, Betty Mabry-Davis, Miles Davis, Chuck Berry, Joni Mitchell, Joan Baez, sounds of many soul/romance groups of the mid/late 60-70s, etc., (with the inclusion of some of the artists already mentioned in Novabrkr's post), and has turned it into a style he can claim and own.

Innovator; pretty much introduced the Minneapolis style to a larger market;also just to add, his shock and awe/bold image/stage presence appeared 'different' to many, which made him stand out, so-to-speak, among other artists. His image made people pay attention whether they wanted to or not. At the same time, many of his songs boldly touch(ed) on real-life and taboo situations, many in society were/are not at comfort to discuss openly, i.e. sex, gender, race, incest, troubled relationships, societal ills, etc., although many of his fans from various racial/social backgrounds, have and still are able, to relate to many of the topics inclusive in his songs, which have led to many discussions throughout the years to present day.

(2nd paragraph edit)

[Edited 10/9/12 11:01am]

I agree that he's definitely a combination of the two. His influences are quite obvious in his music, but unlike someone like Lenny Kravitz (whose music I dig) for instance, he's taken it elsewhere. As Novabrkr poited out, there's stuff on Parade, SOTT and "When Doves Cry" in particular that sounds like no one else.