For use old timers... do you ever forget why you became a fan? I do... then I happen across something, maybe just a line in one song. Maybe some forgotten jam.... and it all comes back.

Now I fit in the category many call hater. That is the new songs (say the last 10 years) do little for me. But I am OLD... and something NEW has to do 2 things: compete with the 500+ other songs and touch some part of ME... of my core... to even have a chance.

But then again: when I am open to it... the new songs do sometimes succeed.

Take '17 days' I used that track to help me throung more than one broken heart... so Screw Driver has a hard time standing against that....

OnlyNDaUsa said:

For use old timers... do you ever forget why you became a fan? I do... then I happen across something, maybe just a line in one song. Maybe some forgotten jam.... and it all comes back.

Now I fit in the category many call hater. That is the new songs (say the last 10 years) do little for me. But I am OLD... and something NEW has to do 2 things: compete with the 500+ other songs and touch some part of ME... of my core... to even have a chance.

But then again: when I am open to it... the new songs do sometimes succeed.

Take '17 days' I used that track to help me throung more than one broken heart... so Screw Driver has a hard time standing against that....

Man..dont u ever..eva eva..fo neva..put 17 Days in the same sentence of Screwdriver.

I dont think many of yall realize how sacred 17 Days is

rdhull said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

For use old timers... do you ever forget why you became a fan? I do... then I happen across something, maybe just a line in one song. Maybe some forgotten jam.... and it all comes back.

Now I fit in the category many call hater. That is the new songs (say the last 10 years) do little for me. But I am OLD... and something NEW has to do 2 things: compete with the 500+ other songs and touch some part of ME... of my core... to even have a chance.

But then again: when I am open to it... the new songs do sometimes succeed.

Take '17 days' I used that track to help me throung more than one broken heart... so Screw Driver has a hard time standing against that....

Man..dont u ever..eva eva..fo neva..put 17 Days in the same sentence of Screwdriver.

I dont think many of yall realize how sacred 17 Days is

that was the point...

OnlyNDaUsa said:

rdhull said:

Man..dont u ever..eva eva..fo neva..put 17 Days in the same sentence of Screwdriver.

I dont think many of yall realize how sacred 17 Days is

that was the point...

Well make your point using another song example..dont sully 17 like that lol.

I have nothing left to live for other than be an enity on a goupie site.

We can't compare Prince NOW to Prince THEN.....there will never be songs like those again. He created so many masterpieces that sometimes its hard to move forward. I'm a Prince fan from the beginning and I just take things in phases.

NOpe, I never forget, even though in this era it's hard to maintain the awe and inspiration.

But I always relive those old memories and listen to the classic albums.

An artist does exactly what it is trained to do from it's climax. A painter, a sculptor, a musician, if your eyes are open - you see that its the same through and through. Its the eye of the painter, sculptor, musician that sets that one apart from the rest, or could it be that persons, mmm - supporters who are backing the artist. Picasso was a commercial artist. Gio Ponti was an italian nationalist to put it lightly. Who are the people backing these artist. Prince can always be compared to the Prince now and the Prince then, because an artist remains the same, consistent though idea and philosphy. The formula is the same reguardless if you/ get it or not. - just heard three different versions of Screwdriver. If you hear, then you know. Dali out of all people was absolutley consistent. Anyone can pick up on something they do well and do it to death. Many people come out of school of thought, but who gets backed to represent that idea. Fassbinder, a light from Germanys dark recent past.

Black Sweat, before it came out on a cd sounded like some southern backwoods cut, and a good one. The cd product sounded nothing like that. If you don't see, I guess you can't know, its the same guy through and through. how should it be dressed for you?

I first heard soft and wet in my aunts album collection. She took me to the rick and prince concert in cleveland .. was hooked ever since. Not that I like everything he does because I dont, however, for 35 years he has been an active particpant in the music game. He is a doer. For better or worse, if he has a vision, he executes on it. Kristen Scott Thomas recently commented that it is refreshing to see someone jst as passionate about their art in the late stages of their career as they were in the beginning.. That carries more than maybe the music.

As witnessd last night, he is the celebrities celebrity and inspiration.

Cuddles said:

An artist does exactly what it is trained to do from it's climax. A painter, a sculptor, a musician, if your eyes are open - you see that its the same through and through. Its the eye of the painter, sculptor, musician that sets that one apart from the rest, or could it be that persons, mmm - supporters who are backing the artist. Picasso was a commercial artist. Gio Ponti was an italian nationalist to put it lightly. Who are the people backing these artist. Prince can always be compared to the Prince now and the Prince then, because an artist remains the same, consistent though idea and philosphy. The formula is the same reguardless if you/ get it or not. - just heard three different versions of Screwdriver. If you hear, then you know. Dali out of all people was absolutley consistent. Anyone can pick up on something they do well and do it to death. Many people come out of school of thought, but who gets backed to represent that idea. Fassbinder, a light from Germanys dark recent past.

Black Sweat, before it came out on a cd sounded like some southern backwoods cut, and a good one. The cd product sounded nothing like that. If you don't see, I guess you can't know, its the same guy through and through. how should it be dressed for you?

Wow. Trained? Formula? REmains the same? This sounds like a robotic school of art.

I dont' agree with these ideas/opinions and I doubt most true artists would agree or the psychologists who have studied artists (see the book "Art & Artist"). For most true artists, creation is a journey and they are constantly changing, sometimes reinforcing beliefs and ideas and other times rejecting them.

No true artist would ever let "supporters backing the artist" decide the path of their growth. Even those who relied on benefactors still did their own work according to their own desires after getting paid and, if possible, in relation to the paid project.

SynthiaRose said:

Cuddles said:

An artist does exactly what it is trained to do from it's climax. A painter, a sculptor, a musician, if your eyes are open - you see that its the same through and through. Its the eye of the painter, sculptor, musician that sets that one apart from the rest, or could it be that persons, mmm - supporters who are backing the artist. Picasso was a commercial artist. Gio Ponti was an italian nationalist to put it lightly. Who are the people backing these artist. Prince can always be compared to the Prince now and the Prince then, because an artist remains the same, consistent though idea and philosphy. The formula is the same reguardless if you/ get it or not. - just heard three different versions of Screwdriver. If you hear, then you know. Dali out of all people was absolutley consistent. Anyone can pick up on something they do well and do it to death. Many people come out of school of thought, but who gets backed to represent that idea. Fassbinder, a light from Germanys dark recent past.

Black Sweat, before it came out on a cd sounded like some southern backwoods cut, and a good one. The cd product sounded nothing like that. If you don't see, I guess you can't know, its the same guy through and through. how should it be dressed for you?

Wow. Trained? Formula? REmains the same? This sounds like a robotic school of art.

I dont' agree with these ideas/opinions and I doubt most true artists would agree or the psychologists who have studied artists (see the book "Art & Artist"). For most true artists, creation is a journey and they are constantly changing, sometimes reinforcing beliefs and ideas and other times rejecting them.

No true artist would ever let "supporters backing the artist" decide the path of their growth. Even those who relied on benefactors still did their own work according to their own desires after getting paid and, if possible, in relation to the paid project.

artist don't change, that is a myth. a drawn line, a brush stroke, the formula/technique is the same. the ones who go somewhere are the ones who have a patricular outlook or eye that is appealing to someone with power or the power of the masses. you have a romanticized version of an artist. an artist can 'change' by toying with outside out looks, but its never in its right form until its stripped of trying to be new and just being what it is. what screwdriver the live version, is what it is. not trying to be something that it's not. underneath it all, its the same. I guess you think this isn't fine to be who you are and always need to change and worry about what the latest trend is. Jack White.

Cuddles said:

SynthiaRose said:

Wow. Trained? Formula? REmains the same? This sounds like a robotic school of art.

I dont' agree with these ideas/opinions and I doubt most true artists would agree or the psychologists who have studied artists (see the book "Art & Artist"). For most true artists, creation is a journey and they are constantly changing, sometimes reinforcing beliefs and ideas and other times rejecting them.

No true artist would ever let "supporters backing the artist" decide the path of their growth. Even those who relied on benefactors still did their own work according to their own desires after getting paid and, if possible, in relation to the paid project.

artist don't change, that is a myth. a drawn line, a brush stroke, the formula/technique is the same. the ones who go somewhere are the ones who have a patricular outlook or eye that is appealing to someone with power or the power of the masses. you have a romanticized version of an artist. an artist can 'change' by toying with outside out looks, but its never in its right form until its stripped of trying to be new and just being what it is. what screwdriver the live version, is what it is. not trying to be something that it's not. underneath it all, its the same. I guess you think this isn't fine to be who you are and always need to change and worry about what the latest trend is. Jack White.

Cuddles I know you believe that. I said I don't agree with the OPINION. So...

But the conversation is interesting.

For me, people who create through formula and technique are technicians, not artists.

Yes, I"m from the romantic school of thought, have a romanticized view of the artist, interact with many artists, consider myself an artist (not musically).

For you to suggest an artist's change or growth has to do with "toying with outside or looks"(!!!!! wow , wow wow.) is just astonishing to me. IT's so superficial, weak, and suggests a feeble interpretation of the motor that drives the artist. I am not there with you; that's not where my mind is ... on the veneer.

I don't mean to offend, Cuddles, but I personally think you're writing complete bullshyt about "artistry" and you likely think the same about me. . ... And using screwdriver and "trends" in a conversation about artisty I don't thik is a good demonstration....

But since you don't believe in the romantic view of the artist and likely don't believe in romanticism as a school of art then you wouldn't have an idealistic view or transcendent view of artistry and artist, so perhaps veneer, trends, and technique is all that's left to you. I think what you call artistry I would call entertainment or technique, but OK.

Everyone isn't an artist, but if one is (yes, like Prince) they can create art, execute masterful technique or simply entertain; and these are three separate things. It's up to them and their whims and the audience, hopefully, can discern the difference.

** now, these are my opinions. I don't expect you to agree and I'm not out to convert ya!

[Edited 2/11/13 19:24pm]

SynthiaRose said:

Cuddles said:

artist don't change, that is a myth. a drawn line, a brush stroke, the formula/technique is the same. the ones who go somewhere are the ones who have a patricular outlook or eye that is appealing to someone with power or the power of the masses. you have a romanticized version of an artist. an artist can 'change' by toying with outside out looks, but its never in its right form until its stripped of trying to be new and just being what it is. what screwdriver the live version, is what it is. not trying to be something that it's not. underneath it all, its the same. I guess you think this isn't fine to be who you are and always need to change and worry about what the latest trend is. Jack White.

Cuddles I know you believe that. I said I don't agree with the OPINION. So...

But the conversation is interesting.

For me, people who create through formula and technique are technicians, not artists.

Yes, I"m from the romantic school of thought, have a romanticized view of the artist, interact with many artists, consider myself an artist (not musically).

For you to suggest an artist's change or growth has to do with "toying with outside or looks"(!!!!! wow , wow wow.) is just astonishing to me. IT's so superficial, weak, and suggests a feeble interpretation of the motor that drives the artist. I am not there with you; that's not where my mind is ... on the veneer.

I don't mean to offend, Cuddles, but I personally think you're writing complete bullshyt about "artistry" and you likely think the same about me. . ... And using screwdriver and "trends" in a conversation about artisty I don't thik is a good demonstration....

But since you don't believe in the romantic view of the artist and likely don't believe in romanticism as a school of art then you wouldn't have an idealistic view or transcendent view of artistry and artist, so perhaps veneer, trends, and technique is all that's left to you. I think what you call artistry I would call entertainment or technique, but OK.

Everyone isn't an artist, but if one is (yes, like Prince) they can create art, execute masterful technique or simply entertain; and these are three separate things. It's up to them and their whims and the audience, hopefully, can discern the different.

** now, these are my opinions. I don't expect you to agree and I'm not out to convert ya!

I just firmly believe there is a right and wrong way of doing things, once you have that down then one is able to expand upon what is established. Otheriwise it's pretty much a waste of time and materials. It will be about another decade before people are on this same page. Right now most are feeling out this idea of free wheeling. For me on screwdriver there are two versions that are trend and one that is real. The real one sounds like the real tone of the artist who has always been floating around and conscioulsy not always revealing itsself. I think most of us here who complain it doesnt sound like back in the day actually know in the back of their mind when they hear a new track that the real version is floating around somewhere and it pisses them off. - the artist never loses it's roots, it's soul. When it's right it's consistent through it's entire body of work. Its not much of an evolution change but an improvement upon what's already established. Look at the bodies of work of any architect musician or painter, any artist. It's the same Prince. And it's a good thing.

Cuddles said:

SynthiaRose said:

Cuddles I know you believe that. I said I don't agree with the OPINION. So...

But the conversation is interesting.

For me, people who create through formula and technique are technicians, not artists.

Yes, I"m from the romantic school of thought, have a romanticized view of the artist, interact with many artists, consider myself an artist (not musically).

For you to suggest an artist's change or growth has to do with "toying with outside or looks"(!!!!! wow , wow wow.) is just astonishing to me. IT's so superficial, weak, and suggests a feeble interpretation of the motor that drives the artist. I am not there with you; that's not where my mind is ... on the veneer.

I don't mean to offend, Cuddles, but I personally think you're writing complete bullshyt about "artistry" and you likely think the same about me. . ... And using screwdriver and "trends" in a conversation about artisty I don't thik is a good demonstration....

But since you don't believe in the romantic view of the artist and likely don't believe in romanticism as a school of art then you wouldn't have an idealistic view or transcendent view of artistry and artist, so perhaps veneer, trends, and technique is all that's left to you. I think what you call artistry I would call entertainment or technique, but OK.

Everyone isn't an artist, but if one is (yes, like Prince) they can create art, execute masterful technique or simply entertain; and these are three separate things. It's up to them and their whims and the audience, hopefully, can discern the different.

** now, these are my opinions. I don't expect you to agree and I'm not out to convert ya!

I just firmly believe there is a right and wrong way of doing things, once you have that down then one is able to expand upon what is established. Otheriwise it's pretty much a waste of time and materials. It will be about another decade before people are on this same page. Right now most are feeling out this idea of free wheeling. For me on screwdriver there are two versions that are trend and one that is real. The real one sounds like the real tone of the artist who has always been floating around and conscioulsy not always revealing itsself. I think most of us here who complain it doesnt sound like back in the day actually know in the back of their mind when they hear a new track that the real version is floating around somewhere and it pisses them off. - the artist never loses it's roots, it's soul. When it's right it's consistent through it's entire body of work. Its not much of an evolution change but an improvement upon what's already established. Look at the bodies of work of any architect musician or painter, any artist. It's the same Prince. And it's a good thing.

and I'm a little sick and tired of how the title artist gets tossed around these days. people have pretty much drained the soul of the word to the point of it meaning nothing at all.

[Edited 2/11/13 19:55pm]

I'll never forget "why" I became a fan. I have many memory joggers stored away...just in case.

What I'm having difficulties reconciling with myself, is why I still want so very much to be a fan. When for the last several years, it's been made more than apparent to me, that I shouldn't be.

When it comes to Prince fandom, I have two sides and they ain't friends!

Cuddles said:

SynthiaRose said:

Cuddles I know you believe that. I said I don't agree with the OPINION. So...

But the conversation is interesting.

For me, people who create through formula and technique are technicians, not artists.

Yes, I"m from the romantic school of thought, have a romanticized view of the artist, interact with many artists, consider myself an artist (not musically).

For you to suggest an artist's change or growth has to do with "toying with outside or looks"(!!!!! wow , wow wow.) is just astonishing to me. IT's so superficial, weak, and suggests a feeble interpretation of the motor that drives the artist. I am not there with you; that's not where my mind is ... on the veneer.

I don't mean to offend, Cuddles, but I personally think you're writing complete bullshyt about "artistry" and you likely think the same about me. . ... And using screwdriver and "trends" in a conversation about artisty I don't thik is a good demonstration....

But since you don't believe in the romantic view of the artist and likely don't believe in romanticism as a school of art then you wouldn't have an idealistic view or transcendent view of artistry and artist, so perhaps veneer, trends, and technique is all that's left to you. I think what you call artistry I would call entertainment or technique, but OK.

Everyone isn't an artist, but if one is (yes, like Prince) they can create art, execute masterful technique or simply entertain; and these are three separate things. It's up to them and their whims and the audience, hopefully, can discern the different.

** now, these are my opinions. I don't expect you to agree and I'm not out to convert ya!

I just firmly believe there is a right and wrong way of doing things, once you have that down then one is able to expand upon what is established. Otheriwise it's pretty much a waste of time and materials. It will be about another decade before people are on this same page. Right now most are feeling out this idea of free wheeling. For me on screwdriver there are two versions that are trend and one that is real. The real one sounds like the real tone of the artist who has always been floating around and conscioulsy not always revealing itsself. I think most of us here who complain it doesnt sound like back in the day actually know in the back of their mind when they hear a new track that the real version is floating around somewhere and it pisses them off. - the artist never loses it's roots, it's soul. When it's right it's consistent through it's entire body of work. Its not much of an evolution change but an improvement upon what's already established. Look at the bodies of work of any architect musician or painter, any artist. It's the same Prince. And it's a good thing.

I think I'm seeing where you're coming from; it's not a philosophy that I haven't heard before.

I'm quite aware of thinkers who wish to demystify artistry, kill the Muse, prove art is not as elusive and ethereal as people think and that it can be reduced to nuts and bolts, patterns, etc.

I am firmly NOT in that in camp.

However, I can understand the point of view even if I'm opposed to it.

So, entertaining the theory of creation being mostly technique ... I don't know if I would say there's a "right and wrong" way universally... maybe for a particular artist. There are artists who originated certain styles and techniques and then they became the pattern for others, but for the artist, it was simply a signature style. Not right or wrong, but his way....

You don't allow for the originator in your comments...you speak of artists like trained seals...taking on formulas outside themselves. Or that's the notion I got from reading it ... and that's why I used the term "robotic art."

I understand that you will say ... that once that artist originates or establishes his style, then the repetition of it will become the anchor of his works, becomes the core of the art itself...but see that skeleton of creation would not be the art to me.

And anyway, stylistic elements coined by artists I would not reduce to formula.... but OK... you can make an argument they become that over time... although i think this strips away the spontaneity and essence of creation which is always there even in the midst of what one might call basic formula.

I just firmly believe there is a right and wrong way of doing things, once you have that down then one is able to expand upon what is established.

More: I can understand and perhaps even agree that for every function one can argue there is a perfect form, an efficient form, a from that allows the function or, in this case, the creation, to reach it's perfect pitch/height. And that is BEAUTIFUL to discover and it takes some great skill and a great eye/discernment and I don't dismiss this act of finding, learning, perfecting form. I don't. I think an artits must have masterful technique as a foundation. But you know I'm what I'm going to say ... technique and art are different, even if art can't exist without technique.

the real version is floating around somewhere and it pisses them off. - the artist never loses it's roots, it's soul. When it's right it's consistent through it's entire body of work. Its not much of an evolution change but an improvement upon what's already established. Look at the bodies of work of any architect musician or painter, any artist. It's the same Prince. And it's a good thing.

Your last part about the "the artist never loses it's roots, it's soul" ... I don't think the artists loses it either, but I do think they can become disconnected from it. And yes, I would characterize Prince as being disconnected from some artistic core. You view art and artist as more concrete than I do; I think artistry is more mercurial, volatile, elusive. I do think technique is concrete.

That thing that is consistent from work to work is, for me, the artist's stylistic technique and it's like their DNA and, if original, may be in its own way a stroke of genius ... but still this is a foundation of art, not itself the art. IMO.

(can't believe I'm having this convo on the org. I love discussing the philosophy of artistry. This should have been it's own thread. )

goodnite

[Edited 2/11/13 21:37pm]

I became a fan back in 78 because he was a bad ass musician and why do I love him today? Because he's a bad ass musician. The holy years from 78 to 88 is what keeps me believing that deep down there is a genius, even if he don't show that as much studio wise.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

For use old timers... do you ever forget why you became a fan? I do... then I happen across something, maybe just a line in one song. Maybe some forgotten jam.... and it all comes back.

Now I fit in the category many call hater. That is the new songs (say the last 10 years) do little for me. But I am OLD... and something NEW has to do 2 things: compete with the 500+ other songs and touch some part of ME... of my core... to even have a chance.

But then again: when I am open to it... the new songs do sometimes succeed.

Take '17 days' I used that track to help me throung more than one broken heart... so Screw Driver has a hard time standing against that....

I was a huge fan of everything from '78 to '98, bought all 16 albums and 5 soundtracks and all compilation albums and virtually every single/remix/EP. Then things started to change for me with The Vault, I was very disappointed and simply was not a fan of all the mellow jazz. I hoped for better with Rave, didn't like that either for the same reason. So I decided to give him one more chance and bought Rainbow Children. That was it for me, I basically checked out for the N.E.W.S. and Musicology period.

Then 3121 started bringing me back, I bought it and liked it. I came all the way back in 2010, attending the 2nd performance of the Welcome 2 America tour. Through it all, from 1999 thru today, I never lost touch with what made me such a huge fan of his. In fact that's why I lost interest during that 7 year period of 1999 thru 2005, because I remembered the greatness from the first 20 years and the newer music just didn't compare.

17 Days and She's Always In My Hair, those two songs go hand-in-hand and both had a major impact on me. It's great to see In My Hair performed so often of late, hopefully he starts doing the same with 17 Days.

I doubt I'll ever be a fan of Prince the person ever again (he just says and does far too many stupid things), but any time I hear a song from SOTT I remember what a powerful artist he can be.

Cuddles said:

SynthiaRose said:

Wow. Trained? Formula? REmains the same? This sounds like a robotic school of art.

I dont' agree with these ideas/opinions and I doubt most true artists would agree or the psychologists who have studied artists (see the book "Art & Artist"). For most true artists, creation is a journey and they are constantly changing, sometimes reinforcing beliefs and ideas and other times rejecting them.

No true artist would ever let "supporters backing the artist" decide the path of their growth. Even those who relied on benefactors still did their own work according to their own desires after getting paid and, if possible, in relation to the paid project.

artist don't change, that is a myth. a drawn line, a brush stroke, the formula/technique is the same. the ones who go somewhere are the ones who have a patricular outlook or eye that is appealing to someone with power or the power of the masses. you have a romanticized version of an artist. an artist can 'change' by toying with outside out looks, but its never in its right form until its stripped of trying to be new and just being what it is. what screwdriver the live version, is what it is. not trying to be something that it's not. underneath it all, its the same. I guess you think this isn't fine to be who you are and always need to change and worry about what the latest trend is. Jack White.

I have two words for you; Miles Davis.

Fan since '83. I don't ever forget why I became a fan. I just know that I'm not a fan of most of his output since sometimes in the 90s. Sure, I like a song here and there, but nothing can touch those glory years. The kind of music I like has changed, matured, I guess. I really liked what was done with Andy Allo's album, but how much of that was him and how much was her? The demo she put out recently called U Will Be With Me, was very beautiful and I would love to hear that in a better format. This 3rdeyegirl mess is crap to me. I am not a fan of anybody trying to look/act younger than they are.

I never forget, and Prince music will forever be the soundtrack to my life.

That said, I miss the glory days of the 80's and early 90s.

The day I felt the most disappointment was when he released 'Musicology'. That marks the

moment for me that Prince stopped innovating. (Even though I think 3121 is a great Prince album - very good - there is nothing innovative there, just re-affirming his classic sound.)

I literally didn't LOVE any song on Musicology. That was a first, and such a disappointment for me. It sounded like everything he'd already done before, only the songs weren't as good. And to me, that NEVER happened with a Prince album. There was always incredible anticipation with each album release. A feeling of 'What's he gonna do now??"

There was always growth from album to album. A new look. New hairstyle.

New production sound. An exciting new song or 3.

Now when he releases new stuff I still look forward to it, but the songs so lack the creativity of his early material. R&R Love Affair? That track is so boring I can't even believe he released it. It's worse than most of the B-sides he used to put out. Screwdriver? Fun but it's "Peach" all over again.

I do enjoy some songs of his recent output. A song here and there. I put those tracks into a playlist and enjoy those. But I sure wish he would blow us away again with an innovative creative album.

SynthiaRose said:

Cuddles said:

More: I can understand and perhaps even agree that for every function one can argue there is a perfect form, an efficient form, a from that allows the function or, in this case, the creation, to reach it's perfect pitch/height. And that is BEAUTIFUL to discover and it takes some great skill and a great eye/discernment and I don't dismiss this act of finding, learning, perfecting form. I don't. I think an artits must have masterful technique as a foundation. But you know I'm what I'm going to say ... technique and art are different, even if art can't exist without technique.

the real version is floating around somewhere and it pisses them off. - the artist never loses it's roots, it's soul. When it's right it's consistent through it's entire body of work. Its not much of an evolution change but an improvement upon what's already established. Look at the bodies of work of any architect musician or painter, any artist. It's the same Prince. And it's a good thing.

Your last part about the "the artist never loses it's roots, it's soul" ... I don't think the artists loses it either, but I do think they can become disconnected from it. And yes, I would characterize Prince as being disconnected from some artistic core. You view art and artist as more concrete than I do; I think artistry is more mercurial, volatile, elusive. I do think technique is concrete.

That thing that is consistent from work to work is, for me, the artist's stylistic technique and it's like their DNA and, if original, may be in its own way a stroke of genius ... but still this is a foundation of art, not itself the art. IMO.

(can't believe I'm having this convo on the org. I love discussing the philosophy of artistry. This should have been it's own thread. )

goodnite

[Edited 2/11/13 21:37pm]

Just wanted to say it's been really interesting the back and forth between you two. Good food for thought. A few things:

Do we know (or need to know) what Prince's creative technique is? How can know what his method/anchor/starting and stopping point is?

And yes, I would characterize Prince as being disconnected from some artistic core.

What leads you to this characterization? What barometer do you use? Your opinion on his work? Chart success? Radio play? Minutes a day you spend (or don't) dancing to "screwdriver" ?

I remember going to the movie for the first time with my friends ,cant remember what we went to see, across the way was a big commotion some movie.....PURPLE RAIN .I had no idea who prince was,I was only 13 so we went in, and here I am 30 years later.....His music now is like an old friend ,you pop in to check on them,or call on when you having a bad day.Or show the young folks how should be done......

I have never forgotten why I became a fan. It is what keeps me a fan even when I'm not picking up what Prince is putting down.

It is very easy 4 me !!I went 2 a 1999 Tour show in Providence RI 1983 something HIT me hard that nite i came home put all the prince music i had at the time in front of me.Then the next day I went out and bought every NOTE i did not have! I have been doing that now for the past 30 years!what a ride!

Over 112 live showes aftershows .That nite change my life 4ever!

paisleypark4 said:

Well my youngest brother only started liking him after hearing "Guitar" My other brother only started to like him after hearing The Ballad Of Dorthy Parker... So really imo there is no way to justify.

Yeah it happens.

And honestly I don't forget because I'm still a fan of Prince no matter what music he does. If it sounds good to me, it sounds good.