Pentacle said:

Although there aren't many new McCartney songs that excite me, at least 90% of his output isn't embarrassing. Unlike Prince's....

I hear ya. This is what is so infuriating. Either we are to believe he has totally lost it and is incapable of not embarassing himself or is the worst judge of what sort of songs to release.

[Edited 8/28/14 5:35am]

Did you notice?

Old white rockers/folkers that put out new records don't chart but their stuff is described as "solid", "in the best tradition of" or "poignant old master" updated take of their style/sound. As long as they play good old rock and roll/folk/country and can evoke their musical laurels credibly, they are a class act.

People like Stevie Wonder get a different reception. Funk/soul/rnb acts are not supposed to bore their audiences with their new stuff, they're welcome to play their old hits because their new stuff doesn't have any classic cachet, since we consider that sound to be part of our past, whereas rock/folk/country are considered "classic", not retro.

Prince says he aint gonna miss u when y'alls gone....

Pentacle said:

funkaholic1972 said:

Dude obviously still has the drive to write and produce new music, an outlet for his creativity. He has been doing this for so long, he might not even really know what else to do with his time. Fact is when you are an artist and create stuff you would like to share it with the world. I agree that Prince still feels his new creations are worth sharing with the general public. Otherwise why would he take the effort to write and release new songs?

Yes, he should have taken the time to find other fulfilling hobbies, beside fucking and preening.

And I think releasing mediocre after mediocre album can indeed damage his reputation. I mean, his '78'-95 reputation is secure, but after that it's a Syd Barrett trainwreck. And sometimes that makes it hard to remember that he indeed once was at the top of his/the game...

I think this might have surely helped him write more interesting songs, locking yourself away in your studio with sycophant staff like he seems to do surely will not help a man grow as a songwriter and as a person.

I don't think his post '95 output will damage his legacy as 99% of the general public have not heard much or any of the music he has put out since the WB years. Dude had many solid hits that will cement his reputation forever IMO.

Aerogram said:

Did you notice?

Old white rockers/folkers that put out new records don't chart but their stuff is described as "solid", "in the best tradition of" or "poignant old master" updated take of their style/sound. As long as they play good old rock and roll/folk/country and can evoke their musical laurels credibly, they are a class act.

People like Stevie Wonder get a different reception. Funk/soul/rnb acts are not supposed to bore their audiences with their new stuff, they're welcome to play their old hits because their new stuff doesn't have any classic cachet, since we consider that sound to be part of our past, whereas rock/folk/country are considered "classic", not retro.

I doubt that.

In fact, most old bands, whether they have reformed or kept going all that time, mostly play the hits. They put themselves in that position - as most of them I think have enough money to do whatever they please.

They should announce, like our own Prince did back in '94, that this time they will play little to no hits, but will focus on their new material. One tour like that, and then back to the Greatest Hits Package.

Another hurdle for Prince might be that singing the lyrics to Head when you're almost sixty might be a little off-putting for both him and the audience. Where the 'rockers' like Bruce Springsteen have always had very different lyrics, which they can still sing. And Paul can still sing Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Di. It might be silly now, it was silly then, and it's still great...

Pentacle said:

Aerogram said:

Did you notice?

Old white rockers/folkers that put out new records don't chart but their stuff is described as "solid", "in the best tradition of" or "poignant old master" updated take of their style/sound. As long as they play good old rock and roll/folk/country and can evoke their musical laurels credibly, they are a class act.

People like Stevie Wonder get a different reception. Funk/soul/rnb acts are not supposed to bore their audiences with their new stuff, they're welcome to play their old hits because their new stuff doesn't have any classic cachet, since we consider that sound to be part of our past, whereas rock/folk/country are considered "classic", not retro.

I doubt that.

In fact, most old bands, whether they have reformed or kept going all that time, mostly play the hits. They put themselves in that position - as most of them I think have enough money to do whatever they please.

They should announce, like our own Prince did back in '94, that this time they will play little to no hits, but will focus on their new material. One tour like that, and then back to the Greatest Hits Package.

Another hurdle for Prince might be that singing the lyrics to Head when you're almost sixty might be a little off-putting for both him and the audience. Where the 'rockers' like Bruce Springsteen have always had very different lyrics, which they can still sing. And Paul can still sing Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Di. It might be silly now, it was silly then, and it's still great...

I'm perfectly aware that older acts mostly play greatest hits, but I'm saying fans and critics don't treat their new music as coming from a retro act. Often in their case, it's "the old master is at it again -- while this ain't no (insert record names), (insert all the charming qualities it has, mention you could do worse than play this record next time you have friends over)".

It's tough to get played when you're an older act, but I feel black artists have been held back by a marked tendency to apply the "he was great then but now he's a pony that can't learn a new trick" label. Over the years, we had Aretha Franklyn, Prince and sometimes Stevie being praised for their new records "all things considered", but I don't think their new material stands the same chances of being heard with the same pensive consideration as a new record from Sir Paul, Bob Dylan or Bruce Sprinsteen.

Despite all the progress black artists have made in the music business these past couple of decades, I think the fact music so segregated for so long impacts on what we consider "classic" or "retro"/"dated". It still impacts how we feel about what's timeless and what's dated as more of our collective musical jukebox and more of our idea of what consstitues worthy music was forged by these forces.

Aerogram said:

Pentacle said:

I doubt that.

In fact, most old bands, whether they have reformed or kept going all that time, mostly play the hits. They put themselves in that position - as most of them I think have enough money to do whatever they please.

They should announce, like our own Prince did back in '94, that this time they will play little to no hits, but will focus on their new material. One tour like that, and then back to the Greatest Hits Package.

Another hurdle for Prince might be that singing the lyrics to Head when you're almost sixty might be a little off-putting for both him and the audience. Where the 'rockers' like Bruce Springsteen have always had very different lyrics, which they can still sing. And Paul can still sing Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Di. It might be silly now, it was silly then, and it's still great...

I'm perfectly aware that older acts mostly play greatest hits, but I'm saying fans and critics don't treat their new music as coming from a retro act. Often in their case, it's "the old master is at it again -- while this ain't no (insert record names), (insert all the charming qualities it has, mention you could do worse than play this record next time you have friends over)".

It's tough to get played when you're an older act, but I feel black artists have been held back by a marked tendency to apply the "he was great then but now he's a pony that can't learn a new trick" label. Over the years, we had Aretha Franklyn, Prince and sometimes Stevie being praised for their new records "all things considered", but I don't think their new material stands the same chances of being heard with the same pensive consideration as a new record from Sir Paul, Bob Dylan or Bruce Sprinsteen.

Despite all the progress black artists have made in the music business these past couple of decades, I think the fact music so segregated for so long impacts on what we consider "classic" or "retro"/"dated". It still impacts how we feel about what's timeless and what's dated as more of our collective musical jukebox and more of our idea of what consstitues worthy music was forged by these forces.

You may be right, I find it difficutl to comment on that. Maybe it's also a difference between America and Europe (where I'm from)?

For instance, the North Sea Jazz Festival in The Netherlands features a lot of 'black acts' (if not most) and they are reviewed in a respectful manner.

Aerogram said:

I'm perfectly aware that older acts mostly play greatest hits, but I'm saying fans and critics don't treat their new music as coming from a retro act. Often in their case, it's "the old master is at it again -- while this ain't no (insert record names), (insert all the charming qualities it has, mention you could do worse than play this record next time you have friends over)".

It's tough to get played when you're an older act, but I feel black artists have been held back by a marked tendency to apply the "he was great then but now he's a pony that can't learn a new trick" label. Over the years, we had Aretha Franklyn, Prince and sometimes Stevie being praised for their new records "all things considered", but I don't think their new material stands the same chances of being heard with the same pensive consideration as a new record from Sir Paul, Bob Dylan or Bruce Sprinsteen.

Despite all the progress black artists have made in the music business these past couple of decades, I think the fact music so segregated for so long impacts on what we consider "classic" or "retro"/"dated". It still impacts how we feel about what's timeless and what's dated as more of our collective musical jukebox and more of our idea of what consstitues worthy music was forged by these forces.

I'm not sure I agree with your black/white double standard but cant say I followed Stevie's or Arthea's later career. But if you compare Prince's output with say old Bruce (The Rising, Wrecking Ball) or old Bowie (The Next Day, Reality, Heathen), there seems to be a more serious and focused effort in Bowie's and Bruce's albums from conception through execution. The Prince releases often seem hastely put together and quickly abandoned.

Which is a shame cause there are many great moments but these albums often get ruined by real clunkers that slip in and often even showcased within them (eg Guitar, (There'll Never B) Another Like Me" . Life o the Party, Mr. Goodnight, Lion of Judah, Cinnammon Girl)

Aerogram said:

Pentacle said:

I doubt that.

In fact, most old bands, whether they have reformed or kept going all that time, mostly play the hits. They put themselves in that position - as most of them I think have enough money to do whatever they please.

They should announce, like our own Prince did back in '94, that this time they will play little to no hits, but will focus on their new material. One tour like that, and then back to the Greatest Hits Package.

Another hurdle for Prince might be that singing the lyrics to Head when you're almost sixty might be a little off-putting for both him and the audience. Where the 'rockers' like Bruce Springsteen have always had very different lyrics, which they can still sing. And Paul can still sing Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Di. It might be silly now, it was silly then, and it's still great...

I'm perfectly aware that older acts mostly play greatest hits, but I'm saying fans and critics don't treat their new music as coming from a retro act. Often in their case, it's "the old master is at it again -- while this ain't no (insert record names), (insert all the charming qualities it has, mention you could do worse than play this record next time you have friends over)".

It's tough to get played when you're an older act, but I feel black artists have been held back by a marked tendency to apply the "he was great then but now he's a pony that can't learn a new trick" label. Over the years, we had Aretha Franklyn, Prince and sometimes Stevie being praised for their new records "all things considered", but I don't think their new material stands the same chances of being heard with the same pensive consideration as a new record from Sir Paul, Bob Dylan or Bruce Sprinsteen.

Despite all the progress black artists have made in the music business these past couple of decades, I think the fact music so segregated for so long impacts on what we consider "classic" or "retro"/"dated". It still impacts how we feel about what's timeless and what's dated as more of our collective musical jukebox and more of our idea of what consstitues worthy music was forged by these forces.

Stevie Wonder is listened to by 'non-Blacks' they way Jimi is.

And Prince is a subject entirely seperate from the issue of 'black artists' in that Prince wasn't some regular music of African ancestry. Prince was a HUGE superstar and I really do believe his issues of the 1990s and how to actually market him maybe still an issue. But as a performing act, I don't believe at all that the 'black' issue is an issue as far as Prince is concerned.

I think there are whole lot of other issues. But I do believe people give the same consideration to Prince the do to those other 3 you mentioned. But again I think other issues are at cause. He's consistently put out music, but he doesn't consistently showcase that music.

databank said:

^Regarding the husband/wife metaphor for what it's worth (funnily enough I've made it before reading the other replies and once it was posted realized that we'd all done it ) I'd say that while 's music may not have a body as sexy and a behavior as wild as it used to, deep down what made me love it in the first place is still there, in every song, and it has a maturity it lacked back then. The shape has changed, the behavior has changed, but the deep soul of it is the same, and therefore it's not unlike a partner: the shape and behavior change but as long as the deepest elements, the ones that made u love this person in the first place, are still there, then all is fine

Or maybe he's the husband who takes his wife for granted - and loses her to someone else because he isn't giving her what she needs.

Pentacle said:

udo said:

Yes.

You changed, you're not 14 anymore.

Prince changed, he's over 50 now.

Sure, but crap is still crap.

Crap = anything you don't like. The elements of his music for which you have a preference those of Prince himself are very presumably different matters indeed.

funkaholic1972 said:

hopefularranger said:

I believe he absolutely does think they're worth his time. His legacy is secure. He doesn't need to release anything from here on out in order for his "pop culture icon" status to remain as it is. I, for one, am therefore left to believe that if he's releasing something, it's because he deems it worthy of release.

I'm sure the fact that the fans dislike much of it is not lost on him. But that's very different from him not liking and releasing it anyway...which doesn't make sense to me.

[Edited 8/27/14 22:30pm]

Dude obviously still has the drive to write and produce new music, an outlet for his creativity. He has been doing this for so long, he might not even really know what else to do with his time. Fact is when you are an artist and create stuff you would like to share it with the world. I agree that Prince still feels his new creations are worth sharing with the general public. Otherwise why would he take the effort to write and release new songs?

That's precisely what I was getting at.

BobGeorge909 said:

I think most of it is the music we hear in adolesence is all tied to a time when we r creating and finding our identity, have new experiences, coming out of a parental shadow. Those experiences leave heavy and thick emotional layers on our psychie as they create who we are...and the soundtracks to those experience are equally as tied up. Those songs playing as u had your first this that and the other will tug on your emotions like no other will. The vast majority of today's kisses will pale in comparison to the emotional stamp your brain placed on your first kiss. To get out of music or compare the music of today with the music of your adolesence is ultimately a loosing battle as your brain...and not necessarily facts will weigh in VERY heavily on what u like more. Edit: The o(+> album to the gold album were contemporary prince albums at the time of my adolesence and is the music that gets my adrenaline pumping the most as well as, to a very close degree, much of his catalog up to that point. As awesome as some of those PR and ATWIAD b-sides r, some of my initial, though some may say less creative, those initial prince experiences barely edge those out on an emotional level. Today, VERY occasionally I'll have a listening experience that BLOWS MY MIND like P.F.U.N.K or the Dawn's days of wild(didn't catch this till 3 years ago). But...like kisses...most of my prince music experiences r great and enjoyable. But none leave that stamp on me as music did when I was younger. I've come to terms with that fact that...like kisses...most music won't hit me like it once did. So I focus on its effect on me now and don't regularly relate it to my younger experiences. I would give a BILLION dollars to be 13 today so as to build that kind of emotional tie to his catalog of today vs. his catalog of '95. I can only imagine hearing a riff like plectrumelectrum in 1994... But people knock it...I think largely cuz they ain't 13 no mo'. Not becuz there's less talent involved. [Edited 8/28/14 8:55am] [Edited 8/28/14 8:57am]

Some of us were already grown-ups when Prince started doing his thing - and had heard a lot of great music before he showed up. Trust our frame of reference. Most of today's output is lacking.

Genesia said:

Some of us were already grown-ups when Prince started doing his thing - and had heard a lot of great music before he showed up. Trust our frame of reference. Most of today's output is lacking.

You're correct. Some were indeed adults. Still, one can't remove subjectivity from the equation. One person - adult, adolescent, child or whatever - not enjoying something for any subjective reason does not mean that those who do enjoy for their own reasons are incorrect or 'missing something'.

Genesia said:

You can want what you want and wish for what you wish for but as far as that fulfilling you I don't know what kind of luck you're gonna have. People change and grow. It'd be weird for this dude at 55 or 56 to be the same dude as when he was 21. If he changed as a person....why would'nt we expect his music to reflect that?

Pentacle said:

Se7en said:

It's hard not to compare Prince now to Prince then (or vice versa), but really it's not a fair comparison. Just a few examples below, there are undoubtedly countless more that would convey the same concept:

.

The Beatles vs. Paul McCartney now.

Stevie Wonder then vs. now

Madonna then vs. now

Even MJ's final efforts while he was alive were not THRILLER.

.

The beauty of recorded music is that you can enjoy whichever era you love the most - over and over. Just disregard the rest if you're not into it.

.

I was 12 years old when Purple Rain came out. That was the summer between 7th and 8th grade, and Purple Rain was my world at that age (I was already hooked with 1999, but PR really did it). Now I am 42, a grown man with a wife, child, home, dog, career. . . I still enjoy Purple Rain as much as I did then, but I'm not expecting Art Official Age to recapture that feeling.

Although there aren't many new McCartney songs that excite me, at least 90% of his output isn't embarrassing. Unlike Prince's....

Actually, some of the recent stuff with The Fireman is not only great, but unique and refreshing too. That speaks volumes for working with outside producers . . . something that Prince won't fully commit to.

Se7en said:

Pentacle said:

Although there aren't many new McCartney songs that excite me, at least 90% of his output isn't embarrassing. Unlike Prince's....

Actually, some of the recent stuff with The Fireman is not only great, but unique and refreshing too. That speaks volumes for working with outside producers . . . something that Prince won't fully commit to.

Since the 1980s McCartney more often than not works with outside producers. In case of the Fireman, he has a collaborator: Youth is a lot more than a 'producer'.

And then, despite the Hype, and despite my initial respect, 'Electric Arguments', to me sounds as a bit of a dip: ultimately very simple, nothing too outrageous, and ultimately boring. So, didn't stand the test of time for me.

But in the end: beauty is in the ears of the beholder, and those who choose to label Prince's recent output as shit have no respect for that. (They also chose a nasty, or at least provocative, hyperbole to express that sentiment - whuch says more about them than about the music).

Ymaginatif said:

Se7en said:

Actually, some of the recent stuff with The Fireman is not only great, but unique and refreshing too. That speaks volumes for working with outside producers . . . something that Prince won't fully commit to.

Since the 1980s McCartney more often than not works with outside producers. In case of the Fireman, he has a collaborator: Youth is a lot more than a 'producer'.

And then, despite the Hype, and despite my initial respect, 'Electric Arguments', to me sounds as a bit of a dip: ultimately very simple, nothing too outrageous, and ultimately boring. So, didn't stand the test of time for me.

But in the end: beauty is in the ears of the beholder, and those who choose to label Prince's recent output as shit have no respect for that. (They also chose a nasty, or at least provocative, hyperbole to express that sentiment - whuch says more about them than about the music).

Even if Electric Arguments was a short-lived project or a "one-off", it's still a high-quality effort made by two consumate musical professionals. Both well-respected, they got together and made something great. In fact, you've inspired me to listen to it today.

.

I guess my point is, Prince has an mental block or emotional aversion to working with someone else -- an equal -- at a "project" level. Sure, he might have guests on his album but they are all on his terms. You probably won't see a Prince/Trent Reznor album.

.

Not saying that's good, or that's bad - just saying it probably won't happen regardless with Prince.

Genesia said:

BobGeorge909 said:

I think most of it is the music we hear in adolesence is all tied to a time when we r creating and finding our identity, have new experiences, coming out of a parental shadow. Those experiences leave heavy and thick emotional layers on our psychie as they create who we are...and the soundtracks to those experience are equally as tied up. Those songs playing as u had your first this that and the other will tug on your emotions like no other will. The vast majority of today's kisses will pale in comparison to the emotional stamp your brain placed on your first kiss. To get out of music or compare the music of today with the music of your adolesence is ultimately a loosing battle as your brain...and not necessarily facts will weigh in VERY heavily on what u like more. Edit: The o(+> album to the gold album were contemporary prince albums at the time of my adolesence and is the music that gets my adrenaline pumping the most as well as, to a very close degree, much of his catalog up to that point. As awesome as some of those PR and ATWIAD b-sides r, some of my initial, though some may say less creative, those initial prince experiences barely edge those out on an emotional level. Today, VERY occasionally I'll have a listening experience that BLOWS MY MIND like P.F.U.N.K or the Dawn's days of wild(didn't catch this till 3 years ago). But...like kisses...most of my prince music experiences r great and enjoyable. But none leave that stamp on me as music did when I was younger. I've come to terms with that fact that...like kisses...most music won't hit me like it once did. So I focus on its effect on me now and don't regularly relate it to my younger experiences. I would give a BILLION dollars to be 13 today so as to build that kind of emotional tie to his catalog of today vs. his catalog of '95. I can only imagine hearing a riff like plectrumelectrum in 1994... But people knock it...I think largely cuz they ain't 13 no mo'. Not becuz there's less talent involved. [Edited 8/28/14 8:55am] [Edited 8/28/14 8:57am]

Some of us were already grown-ups when Prince started doing his thing - and had heard a lot of great music before he showed up. Trust our frame of reference. Most of today's output is lacking.

Jesus! How old can u be??? That means an easy 65 years old

Se7en said:

.

I guess my point is, Prince has an mental block or emotional aversion to working with someone else -- an equal -- at a "project" level. Sure, he might have guests on his album but they are all on his terms. You probably won't see a Prince/Trent Reznor album.

.

Not saying that's good, or that's bad - just saying it probably won't happen regardless with Prince.

I always thought that a Prince/TTD/Lenny project would have been so awesome. And I would kill to hear Prince produced by Cody Chesnutt.

databank said:

Genesia said:

Some of us were already grown-ups when Prince started doing his thing - and had heard a lot of great music before he showed up. Trust our frame of reference. Most of today's output is lacking.

Jesus! How old can u be??? That means an easy 65 years old

Uhhhh...Prince, himself, was a grown-up in the 80s.

Genesia said:

databank said:

Genesia said:

databank said:

Jesus! How old can u be??? That means an easy 65 years old

Uhhhh...Prince, himself, was a grown-up in the 80s.

Nooooooo waaaaaaaaay! One's not a grown up before they're 30, 35 even!

databank said:

Genesia said:

Uhhhh...Prince, himself, was a grown-up in the 80s.

Nooooooo waaaaaaaaay! One's not a grown up before they're 30, 35 even!

Y'know what's really disgusting? The infantilizing of people who should (and used to) be considered adults. People a good 10 years younger than you just cited. My parents owned a home and had four children by the ages of 30 (my mom) and 35 (my dad).

OldFriends4Sale said:

Aerogram said:

I'm perfectly aware that older acts mostly play greatest hits, but I'm saying fans and critics don't treat their new music as coming from a retro act. Often in their case, it's "the old master is at it again -- while this ain't no (insert record names), (insert all the charming qualities it has, mention you could do worse than play this record next time you have friends over)".

It's tough to get played when you're an older act, but I feel black artists have been held back by a marked tendency to apply the "he was great then but now he's a pony that can't learn a new trick" label. Over the years, we had Aretha Franklyn, Prince and sometimes Stevie being praised for their new records "all things considered", but I don't think their new material stands the same chances of being heard with the same pensive consideration as a new record from Sir Paul, Bob Dylan or Bruce Sprinsteen.

Despite all the progress black artists have made in the music business these past couple of decades, I think the fact music so segregated for so long impacts on what we consider "classic" or "retro"/"dated". It still impacts how we feel about what's timeless and what's dated as more of our collective musical jukebox and more of our idea of what consstitues worthy music was forged by these forces.

Stevie Wonder is listened to by 'non-Blacks' they way Jimi is.

And Prince is a subject entirely seperate from the issue of 'black artists' in that Prince wasn't some regular music of African ancestry. Prince was a HUGE superstar and I really do believe his issues of the 1990s and how to actually market him maybe still an issue. But as a performing act, I don't believe at all that the 'black' issue is an issue as far as Prince is concerned.

I think there are whole lot of other issues. But I do believe people give the same consideration to Prince the do to those other 3 you mentioned. But again I think other issues are at cause. He's consistently put out music, but he doesn't consistently showcase that music.

I was talking about new recorded material. Aging white rockers, country singers or folk artists get more reverence and careful consideration, they are the keepers of the flame and their respective legendary sound(s) and I think critics are more indulgent.

I think it was some guy who wrote a book about Prince that said that all Prince has to do to regain his proper place is to release an album that "will blow everyone away". That's his opinion but it matches the attitude of many fans: they expect nothing short of a series of masterpieces otherwise he's lazy and creatively dead.

But he's lucky compared to most other black artists. Personally, I'd love it if we had a Sir George (Clinton), if the guys from the Gap Band or Kool & the Gang were interviewed by the BBC as part of a lavish documentary or playing together at Carnegie Hall, their new record being played at Starbuck, etc. know what I'm saying?

Aerogram said:

Did you notice?

Old white rockers/folkers that put out new records don't chart but their stuff is described as "solid", "in the best tradition of" or "poignant old master" updated take of their style/sound. As long as they play good old rock and roll/folk/country and can evoke their musical laurels credibly, they are a class act.

People like Stevie Wonder get a different reception. Funk/soul/rnb acts are not supposed to bore their audiences with their new stuff, they're welcome to play their old hits because their new stuff doesn't have any classic cachet, since we consider that sound to be part of our past, whereas rock/folk/country are considered "classic", not retro.

^^^^^^^^