Genesia said:

duccichucka said:

One of the reasons why Prince has hit a brick wall is because he does not know music theory.

As a musician who learned to play by ear but had a classical training, I'm tired of musicians

acting as if not knowing how to read music is "cooler" than learning how to do so. One of
the reasons why jazz musicians and classical composers got better as they aged is because

most of them had a strong foundation in music theory.

At some point, your ear will begin to fail you, and you'll start repeating the same musical ideas

over and over again. This is the case for pop musicians who do not know music theory (McCartney,
Stevie Wonder, Prince).

Think about it: if you don't learn new words to express yourself and widen your vocabulary, you'll reach a point where your verbal skills will become limited, despite how talented you may be at "speaking." You have to learn English and read dictionaries and understand how the language works in order to increase your knowledge so that when your natural abilities begin to fail you, you can start to rely upon the fundamentals. Pop musicians will always run out of things
to say unless they learn theory. One of the reasons why Miles Davis, Beethoven, John Coltrane,
and Stravinsky were able to continue to challenge musical conventions as they progressed in their
career is because they simply knew music theory.

It is clear to me that Prince has a rudimentary knowledge of music theory, if any at all, and this
explains why he's run out of new things to say musically. He obviously peaked in 1987 and since
then, has mostly been repeating and rehashing musical ideas of his youth, which is when his ear
was optimal.

This is a bad analogy. Widening one's vocabulary and learning the fundamentals of grammar is essential as one learns to read and write, but there is no point at which "your natural abilities begin to fail you." This implies that you can "unlearn" how to read or write which (barring some catastrophic event like a brain injury) simply does not happen. And if you did suddenly become illiterate, having read the dictionary wouldn't do a damn thing for you. You can't just randomly insert "luminiferous" when you mean to say "automobile."

I'm a writer by trade. I know googobs of words (including a specialized vocabulary for my job) but I can honestly say that I use only a small fraction of them in any day, week or month. And I am not unusual in that way.

Now, if you mean to say that writing a symphony is like writing a novel in that both have a story line that must be developed and that certain rules apply (music theory or grammar, as the case may be), then I'm with you. But thinking that learning more words makes you a better writer is just incorrect. After all, all musicians work with a very limited set of notes (A-G, plus sharps and flats). It's what a person (writer or composer) does with them that makes them middling or magnificent.

[Edited 12/29/14 8:03am]

It's not a bad analogy. Writing is a skill. It takes talent (which is innate) but it also takes skill,

which is learned. Talented writers who are skillful write everyday, learn all they can about
writing (reading other luminary works, attending workshops, getting college degrees, etc) and
treat their craft as if it was something that was ever evolving. My favorite writers (Kierkegaard,
McCarthy, Ellison) approach writing as if it is something to devote one's life to not only because

they are talented, but because they wish to obtain a level of mastery that only comes with
learning the trade through skill.

Prince has not done all of these things, from what I gather. He relied mostly on his supreme
gifts but never learned the ins and outs of the art form. So, in my opinion, this is why he's hit

a wall musically and is rehasing ideas.

The analogy works, then, in this regard. Good luck with the writing, dude!

databank said:

duccichucka said:

As far as Jarrett, Hancock, Shorter, and Duke are concerned, sure, they have albums that repeat
themselves or remain entrenched in a certain sub-genre. But they also have albums that are
explorative, sophisticated, and stretch beyond the borders of whatever genre they are affiliated
with.

And Prince, wondrously talented as he is, does not have the musical vocabulary that the above
have. He could if he just sat his tiny ass down to learn music theory. He'd be much more in-

teresting then, in my opinion. I'm not saying that learning music theory will automatically make

one an amazing musician. There is something to be said for imagination, creativity, feeling,

and intrepidness (rebelliousness?) that can assist a musician in pushing the boundaries of their

genre further. Prince appears to have been blessed with these things, but sadly, did not learn

the science of music, and therefore, his imagination, creativity, feeling, and intrepidness have
reached their limits of expression.

I may have missed something, I'll admit it, but save his neoclassical suite, I didn't really hear anything by Duke that was really new for the last 30 years. Same with Herbie once he got past his electronic trilogy with Laswell. Same with Jarrett, I mean of course his improvisations are mindblowing and maybe with a trained musicians' ear (which I ain't got) you can hear stuff he ain't ever done before in them but for me they all sound like more of the same (which doesn't mean I don't like 'em, I like 'em a lot). Shorter I don't know his whole body of work so I may have missed some stuff. Davis, whom you quoted earlier I don't even know, I mean past the electric era he more or less relied on pop music and newly created synth sounds to evolve, not musical theory. Coltrane died too young IMHO for us to really know what could have happened past the experiments he started to toy with at the end of his life. Once again though I think your analysis may be really insightful so I ain't trying to say you are wrong in the idea that musical theory may have allowed P to do many more things (I guess that's pretty obvious at least with Kamasutra, which sounds like a cheap caricature of outdated classical music and ignores the whole body of work of 20th century contemporary music composers), but in the end I don't know that many musicians/composers who really remained truly innovative past the first one or two phases of their careers, or when they did it was more thanks to followings new trends and/or adopting newly created sounds (Davis, Bowie) than to a new theorical thinking of their music. But I may be wrong, for I myself don't master music theory and there may be things that I don't "hear" or realize.

Data, this is an interesting post. But your lack of knowledge concerning Miles Davis means you
can't grasp how he's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

All you have to do is read his Wiki page, if you don't have an opportunity to read his autobio-

graphy. He approached music not only as a talented horn player, but as an art form that has

rules. And he attended music lessons and read, and studied music theory as a player his entire

life! The results were mind blowing! He claims (and it's true) that he changed the face of jazz/

music three or four times! You only do that if you've some type of music theory pushing your

talent to the extreme! He had a hand in developing bop, cool jazz, modal jazz, nevermind his
experimental pieces (On The Corner, Bitches Brew, etc). His gargantuan musical imagination and
herculean talent was matched equally with his knowledge of music theory. Miles Davis is the

perfect example of a musician taking his gifts and honoring God with them by doing all he can to
chase perfection. Oh man, if you only knew what I was talking about!

Miles played with Prince - this is no surprise. Prince is equally talented as a musician. But Prince

can never achieve the artistic heights that Miles Davis did simply because he doesn't have the

musical vocabulary to do so.

Can you imagine what Prince could've done if he had the same training that Miles Davis did?!
Jeezus fucking Christ!

duccichucka said:

databank said:

I may have missed something, I'll admit it, but save his neoclassical suite, I didn't really hear anything by Duke that was really new for the last 30 years. Same with Herbie once he got past his electronic trilogy with Laswell. Same with Jarrett, I mean of course his improvisations are mindblowing and maybe with a trained musicians' ear (which I ain't got) you can hear stuff he ain't ever done before in them but for me they all sound like more of the same (which doesn't mean I don't like 'em, I like 'em a lot). Shorter I don't know his whole body of work so I may have missed some stuff. Davis, whom you quoted earlier I don't even know, I mean past the electric era he more or less relied on pop music and newly created synth sounds to evolve, not musical theory. Coltrane died too young IMHO for us to really know what could have happened past the experiments he started to toy with at the end of his life. Once again though I think your analysis may be really insightful so I ain't trying to say you are wrong in the idea that musical theory may have allowed P to do many more things (I guess that's pretty obvious at least with Kamasutra, which sounds like a cheap caricature of outdated classical music and ignores the whole body of work of 20th century contemporary music composers), but in the end I don't know that many musicians/composers who really remained truly innovative past the first one or two phases of their careers, or when they did it was more thanks to followings new trends and/or adopting newly created sounds (Davis, Bowie) than to a new theorical thinking of their music. But I may be wrong, for I myself don't master music theory and there may be things that I don't "hear" or realize.

Data, this is an interesting post. But your lack of knowledge concerning Miles Davis means you
can't grasp how he's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

All you have to do is read his Wiki page, if you don't have an opportunity to read his autobio-

graphy. He approached music not only as a talented horn player, but as an art form that has

rules. And he attended music lessons and read, and studied music theory as a player his entire

life! The results were mind blowing! He claims (and it's true) that he changed the face of jazz/

music three or four times! You only do that if you've some type of music theory pushing your

talent to the extreme! He had a hand in developing bop, cool jazz, modal jazz, nevermind his
experimental pieces (On The Corner, Bitches Brew, etc). His gargantuan musical imagination and
herculean talent was matched equally with his knowledge of music theory. Miles Davis is the

perfect example of a musician taking his gifts and honoring God with them by doing all he can to
chase perfection. Oh man, if you only knew what I was talking about!

Miles played with Prince - this is no surprise. Prince is equally talented as a musician. But Prince

can never achieve the artistic heights that Miles Davis did simply because he doesn't have the

musical vocabulary to do so.

Can you imagine what Prince could've done if he had the same training that Miles Davis did?!
Jeezus fucking Christ!

Fair enough

duccichucka said:

databank said:

I may have missed something, I'll admit it, but save his neoclassical suite, I didn't really hear anything by Duke that was really new for the last 30 years. Same with Herbie once he got past his electronic trilogy with Laswell. Same with Jarrett, I mean of course his improvisations are mindblowing and maybe with a trained musicians' ear (which I ain't got) you can hear stuff he ain't ever done before in them but for me they all sound like more of the same (which doesn't mean I don't like 'em, I like 'em a lot). Shorter I don't know his whole body of work so I may have missed some stuff. Davis, whom you quoted earlier I don't even know, I mean past the electric era he more or less relied on pop music and newly created synth sounds to evolve, not musical theory. Coltrane died too young IMHO for us to really know what could have happened past the experiments he started to toy with at the end of his life. Once again though I think your analysis may be really insightful so I ain't trying to say you are wrong in the idea that musical theory may have allowed P to do many more things (I guess that's pretty obvious at least with Kamasutra, which sounds like a cheap caricature of outdated classical music and ignores the whole body of work of 20th century contemporary music composers), but in the end I don't know that many musicians/composers who really remained truly innovative past the first one or two phases of their careers, or when they did it was more thanks to followings new trends and/or adopting newly created sounds (Davis, Bowie) than to a new theorical thinking of their music. But I may be wrong, for I myself don't master music theory and there may be things that I don't "hear" or realize.

Data, this is an interesting post. But your lack of knowledge concerning Miles Davis means you
can't grasp how he's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

All you have to do is read his Wiki page, if you don't have an opportunity to read his autobio-

graphy. He approached music not only as a talented horn player, but as an art form that has

rules. And he attended music lessons and read, and studied music theory as a player his entire

life! The results were mind blowing! He claims (and it's true) that he changed the face of jazz/

music three or four times! You only do that if you've some type of music theory pushing your

talent to the extreme! He had a hand in developing bop, cool jazz, modal jazz, nevermind his
experimental pieces (On The Corner, Bitches Brew, etc). His gargantuan musical imagination and
herculean talent was matched equally with his knowledge of music theory. Miles Davis is the

perfect example of a musician taking his gifts and honoring God with them by doing all he can to
chase perfection. Oh man, if you only knew what I was talking about!

Miles played with Prince - this is no surprise. Prince is equally talented as a musician. But Prince

can never achieve the artistic heights that Miles Davis did simply because he doesn't have the

musical vocabulary to do so.

Can you imagine what Prince could've done if he had the same training that Miles Davis did?!
Jeezus fucking Christ!

Well, I have a big ass picture of Miles Davis on the wall staring at me right now, I know his music very well and I don't think you should be using him as an example for the purpose of discrediting Prince's understanding of the "internal rules" of music. Miles states several times in his autobiography that academic music education tends to be counterproductive. He was one of those musicians that were about breaking the rules and not sticking to them.

This thread is about Prince's ability on reading sheet music and what his grasp on music theory really is like. The truth is that for all the theory on harmony, scales, different voicings etc. just taking a look at the piano keys is perfectly sufficient for offering you the visual cues needed. You don't need to be able to read sheet music that well for understanding those concepts. For me, it's pretty clear that Prince is a master on coming up with interesting harmonies in the context of pop, rock, funk and soul music styles.

For that matter, if I listen to the Parade / SOTT / Lovesexy era stuff I can hear far more similarities in regards with Miles' approach than I can hear with most academically trained jazz musicians of today. I think most of those guys simply miss the point when they try to play like the idols they claim to be the followers of. 99% of the modern jazz stuff sounds nothing like Miles, but a lot of Prince's stuff actually does. The SOTT era stuff does, TRC does.

Prince must be doing fucking something right.

A bit out of topic but not unrelated, once someone told me "no one can innovate in music without a true knowledge of European classical music". I called BS and I stick to it because if anything the statement basically ignores the existence of any other classical musical tradition (Indian, Chinese, Middle-Eastern, etc.) and also because I could think of some counter-examples in pop music. What do y'all think about that person's statement?

novabrkr said:

duccichucka said:

Data, this is an interesting post. But your lack of knowledge concerning Miles Davis means you
can't grasp how he's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

All you have to do is read his Wiki page, if you don't have an opportunity to read his autobio-

graphy. He approached music not only as a talented horn player, but as an art form that has

rules. And he attended music lessons and read, and studied music theory as a player his entire

life! The results were mind blowing! He claims (and it's true) that he changed the face of jazz/

music three or four times! You only do that if you've some type of music theory pushing your

talent to the extreme! He had a hand in developing bop, cool jazz, modal jazz, nevermind his
experimental pieces (On The Corner, Bitches Brew, etc). His gargantuan musical imagination and
herculean talent was matched equally with his knowledge of music theory. Miles Davis is the

perfect example of a musician taking his gifts and honoring God with them by doing all he can to
chase perfection. Oh man, if you only knew what I was talking about!

Miles played with Prince - this is no surprise. Prince is equally talented as a musician. But Prince

can never achieve the artistic heights that Miles Davis did simply because he doesn't have the

musical vocabulary to do so.

Can you imagine what Prince could've done if he had the same training that Miles Davis did?!
Jeezus fucking Christ!

Well, I have a big ass picture of Miles Davis on the wall staring at me right now, I know his music very well and I don't think you should be using him as an example for the purpose of discrediting Prince's understanding of the "internal rules" of music. Miles states several times in his autobiography that academic music education tends to be counterproductive. He was one of those musicians that were about breaking the rules and not sticking to them.

This thread is about Prince's ability on reading sheet music and what his grasp on music theory really is like. The truth is that for all the theory on harmony, scales, different voicings etc. just taking a look at the piano keys is perfectly sufficient for offering you the visual cues needed. You don't need to be able to read sheet music that well for understanding those concepts. For me, it's pretty clear that Prince is a master on coming up with interesting harmonies in the context of pop, rock, funk and soul music styles.

For that matter, if I listen to the Parade / SOTT / Lovesexy era stuff I can hear far more similarities in regards with Miles' approach than I can hear with most academically trained jazz musicians of today. I think most of those guys simply miss the point when they try to play like the idols they claim to be the followers of. 99% of the modern jazz stuff sounds nothing like Miles, but a lot of Prince's stuff actually does. The SOTT era stuff does, TRC does.

Prince must be doing fucking something right.

I think you need to know the rules in order to break them

Also, while I agree that P took very daring routes on some occasions, particularly in the 80's, I don't see how TRC could be considered anything like that, it's a great record but it's totally neoclassical soul/funk, absolutely nothing new under the sun either in terms of Prince music or R&B in general, it's basically just a homage to 70's R&B.

I think Ducci's point above is that my (our?) mistake is to take Miles' synth phase and his short-lived hip-hop phase as examples of Miles failing to truly innovate from a musical theory standpoint, because his main innovations date from before that, from his early works to his electric era, and each of those were serious leaps musically speaking.

Very good discussion here. I really enjoyed the comments. From yet another musicians perspective, reading music is not that hard. They teach it to grade school kids. Prince music has never been about complicated arrangements, it has always been about a strong vocal melody and clever lyrics. If you are a decent musican and you put on a new Prince song, you have it figured out by the time it gets to the end. It sounds a lot more complicated than it is, and that is the beauty of it. I think more than creative limitations are the technical restrictions he has placed on himself. By using the same instruments, same studio, same patches, same line in recording, everything sounds like it was recorded at the same session. Be it good music or bad, it has the same feel to it. I don't know if that would have become a different situation with a more sophisticated musical apporach, after all, this is pop music.

databank said:

SuperSoulFighter said:

databank said:

A bit out of topic but not unrelated, once someone told me "no one can innovate in music without a true knowledge of European classical music". I called BS and I stick to it because if anything the statement basically ignores the existence of any other classical musical tradition (Indian, Chinese, Middle-Eastern, etc.) and also because I could think of some counter-examples in pop music. What do y'all think about that person's statement?

I agree with you, it sounds ver prejudiced. But I think it's very hard to use Eastern influences in Western music, because they're so different.

A masterful exemple of hybridation between Western contemporary (the continuation of classical) and classical Indian is the collaboration between Ravi Shankar and Philip Glass

databank said:

novabrkr said:

Well, I have a big ass picture of Miles Davis on the wall staring at me right now, I know his music very well and I don't think you should be using him as an example for the purpose of discrediting Prince's understanding of the "internal rules" of music. Miles states several times in his autobiography that academic music education tends to be counterproductive. He was one of those musicians that were about breaking the rules and not sticking to them.

This thread is about Prince's ability on reading sheet music and what his grasp on music theory really is like. The truth is that for all the theory on harmony, scales, different voicings etc. just taking a look at the piano keys is perfectly sufficient for offering you the visual cues needed. You don't need to be able to read sheet music that well for understanding those concepts. For me, it's pretty clear that Prince is a master on coming up with interesting harmonies in the context of pop, rock, funk and soul music styles.

For that matter, if I listen to the Parade / SOTT / Lovesexy era stuff I can hear far more similarities in regards with Miles' approach than I can hear with most academically trained jazz musicians of today. I think most of those guys simply miss the point when they try to play like the idols they claim to be the followers of. 99% of the modern jazz stuff sounds nothing like Miles, but a lot of Prince's stuff actually does. The SOTT era stuff does, TRC does.

Prince must be doing fucking something right.

I think you need to know the rules in order to break them

Also, while I agree that P took very daring routes on some occasions, particularly in the 80's, I don't see how TRC could be considered anything like that, it's a great record but it's totally neoclassical soul/funk, absolutely nothing new under the sun either in terms of Prince music or R&B in general, it's basically just a homage to 70's R&B.

I think Ducci's point above is that my (our?) mistake is to take Miles' synth phase and his short-lived hip-hop phase as examples of Miles failing to truly innovate from a musical theory standpoint, because his main innovations date from before that, from his early works to his electric era, and each of those were serious leaps musically speaking.

Sorry, but you don't seem to know what you are commenting on.

There's a strong 70s "R&B" influence there, sure, but there are plenty of sections on the album that are the same type of stuff that Miles and other people that did jazz fusion in the 1970s used to do. The title track is the most obvious example. For that matter, that "absolutely nothing new under the sun" comment is an exaggeration as well. As an album, as a string of musical sequences put together, there's hardly anything like it out there.

For that matter, Prince sure as hell "knows the rules" that he's breaking when he does it. It's not like he doesn't understand the concepts of major and minor keys, typical pop / rock / blues / jazz chord progressions and how dissonances are resolved in various ways. Trying to argue otherwise is just absurd and I don't know why some people on this thread continue to do so. There's his entire discography that proves he knows his shit.

[Edited 12/30/14 6:42am]

leonche64 said:

Very good discussion here. I really enjoyed the comments. From yet another musicians perspective, reading music is not that hard. They teach it to grade school kids. Prince music has never been about complicated arrangements, it has always been about a strong vocal melody and clever lyrics. If you are a decent musican and you put on a new Prince song, you have it figured out by the time it gets to the end. It sounds a lot more complicated than it is, and that is the beauty of it. I think more than creative limitations are the technical restrictions he has placed on himself. By using the same instruments, same studio, same patches, same line in recording, everything sounds like it was recorded at the same session. Be it good music or bad, it has the same feel to it. I don't know if that would have become a different situation with a more sophisticated musical apporach, after all, this is pop music.

"Prince('s) music has never been about complicated arrangements".

Are you sure about that?

No, I can't agree with that.

[Edited 12/30/14 6:48am]

this is a fascinating discussion.... i wish i had enough knowledge to contribute to it....please keep talking you guys...i'm enjoying this immensely!

Does it matter?

novabrkr said:

leonche64 said:

Very good discussion here. I really enjoyed the comments. From yet another musicians perspective, reading music is not that hard. They teach it to grade school kids. Prince music has never been about complicated arrangements, it has always been about a strong vocal melody and clever lyrics. If you are a decent musican and you put on a new Prince song, you have it figured out by the time it gets to the end. It sounds a lot more complicated than it is, and that is the beauty of it. I think more than creative limitations are the technical restrictions he has placed on himself. By using the same instruments, same studio, same patches, same line in recording, everything sounds like it was recorded at the same session. Be it good music or bad, it has the same feel to it. I don't know if that would have become a different situation with a more sophisticated musical apporach, after all, this is pop music.

"Prince('s) music has never been about complicated arrangements".

Are you sure about that?

No, I can't agree with that.

[Edited 12/30/14 6:48am]

I meant to say "Prince" music. It is a style all it's own.

I am positive.

You don't have to agree. Listen to ANY song and I challege you to go four measures without a turn around.

leonche64 said:

novabrkr said:

"Prince('s) music has never been about complicated arrangements".

Are you sure about that?

No, I can't agree with that.

[Edited 12/30/14 6:48am]

I meant to say "Prince" music. It is a style all it's own.

I am positive.

You don't have to agree. Listen to ANY song and I challege you to go four measures without a turn around.

That really has nothing to do with the complexity of his arrangements.

I'm not sure what you are referring to with the term "turn around", but if you are referring to chord progressions I can assure you that Prince has plenty of songs that break away from the pattern of repeating the same chords over and over again.

You sound like you've never listened to the Parade album, just to pick one album as an example.

databank said:

A bit out of topic but not unrelated, once someone told me "no one can innovate in music without a true knowledge of European classical music". I called BS and I stick to it because if anything the statement basically ignores the existence of any other classical musical tradition (Indian, Chinese, Middle-Eastern, etc.) and also because I could think of some counter-examples in pop music. What do y'all think about that person's statement?

I'd guess what they're really saying is that without knowledge of the innovations of European classical music, how would you even know if you're being innovative?

Most large innovations came from rejecting rules, and other works, but an awareness of the rules is important as a starting place.

novabrkr said:

databank said:

I think you need to know the rules in order to break them

Also, while I agree that P took very daring routes on some occasions, particularly in the 80's, I don't see how TRC could be considered anything like that, it's a great record but it's totally neoclassical soul/funk, absolutely nothing new under the sun either in terms of Prince music or R&B in general, it's basically just a homage to 70's R&B.

I think Ducci's point above is that my (our?) mistake is to take Miles' synth phase and his short-lived hip-hop phase as examples of Miles failing to truly innovate from a musical theory standpoint, because his main innovations date from before that, from his early works to his electric era, and each of those were serious leaps musically speaking.

Sorry, but you don't seem to know what you are commenting on.

There's a strong 70s "R&B" influence there, sure, but there are plenty of sections on the album that are the same type of stuff that Miles and other people that did jazz fusion in the 1970s used to do. The title track is the most obvious example. For that matter, that "absolutely nothing new under the sun" comment is an exaggeration as well. As an album, as a string of musical sequences put together, there's hardly anything like it out there.

For that matter, Prince sure as hell "knows the rules" that he's breaking when he does it. It's not like he doesn't understand the concepts of major and minor keys, typical pop / rock / blues / jazz chord progressions and how dissonances are resolved in various ways. Trying to argue otherwise is just absurd and I don't know why some people on this thread continue to do so. There's his entire discography that proves he knows his shit.

[Edited 12/30/14 6:42am]

U r right about the jazz-fusion Miles/Santana/Herbie/etc. influences as well, I included them in the "R&B" umbrella since 70's jazz was basically about making jazz over rock, funk and soul structures. I respect your position but I stand to mine, sure TRC mixes infuences but none that hasn't been mixed before: nothing new under the sun on that album. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE it, but I remember being shocked with how retro it was when released and now, 13 years later, with all I know I didn't knew then, I stick to this opinion. Even the title track PRECISELY: I remember a few months after release I heard, well... the title track played at some friends' except that it wasn't the title track, just another track with the EXACT same drum beat and bass line and comparable guitar solos over it. I asked my friedns what the fuck is that and I don't remember the name but it was Muddy Waters or some other big blues name like that and it predated TRC by a good 30 or 40 years and I was like "oh, OK... so TRC is even more neoclassical R&B than I thought".

Now once again I don't have the knowledge to argue over the musical theory aspects and I'd like to remind you that I'm one of the very few voices to object against any notion of artistic decline when it comes to P's body of work, up to this very day, but I know my math when it comes to what's been done before and what hasn't at least when it comes to post mid-60's music. There was nothing on TRC that I'd never heard before in one way or another, including the merging of influences

treehouse said:

databank said:

A bit out of topic but not unrelated, once someone told me "no one can innovate in music without a true knowledge of European classical music". I called BS and I stick to it because if anything the statement basically ignores the existence of any other classical musical tradition (Indian, Chinese, Middle-Eastern, etc.) and also because I could think of some counter-examples in pop music. What do y'all think about that person's statement?

I'd guess what they're really saying is that without knowledge of the innovations of European classical music, how would you even know if you're being innovative?

Most large innovations came from rejecting rules, and other works, but an awareness of the rules is important as a starting place.

Maybe. From what I understood it was more literal, like them people who says contemporary art ain't art because it isn't "beautiful", that kind of outdated 19th century conservative right wing theory of art, but maybe I misunderstood. Where IMHO it is biased in the first place is maybe in the fact that there isn't just ONE set of rules in music in the first place because music theory wasn't an European privilege and even though it pushed the shit really far in terms of harmony, there were other sets of rules that could be followed or broken over the world, and IDK anyway where electroacoustic or breakbeat or glitch would fit in the world of music theory if not in yet another realm than the "classical" ones that depended on harmony and/or melody. Unfortunately I didn't have an opportunity to debate it with that person so IDK what they really meant

databank said:

novabrkr said:

[...]

U r right about the jazz-fusion Miles/Santana/Herbie/etc. influences as well, I included them in the "R&B" umbrella since 70's jazz was basically about making jazz over rock, funk and soul structures. I respect your position but I stand to mine, sure TRC mixes infuences but none that hasn't been mixed before: nothing new under the sun on that album. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE it, but I remember being shocked with how retro it was when released and now, 13 years later, with all I know I didn't knew then, I stick to this opinion. Even the title track PRECISELY: I remember a few months after release I heard, well... the title track played at some friends' except that it wasn't the title track, just another track with the EXACT same drum beat and bass line and comparable guitar solos over it. I asked my friedns what the fuck is that and I don't remember the name but it was Muddy Waters or some other big blues name like that and it predated TRC by a good 30 or 40 years and I was like "oh, OK... so TRC is even more neoclassical R&B than I thought".

Now once again I don't have the knowledge to argue over the musical theory aspects and I'd like to remind you that I'm one of the very few voices to object against any notion of artistic decline when it comes to P's body of work, up to this very day, but I know my math when it comes to what's been done before and what hasn't at least when it comes to post mid-60's music. There was nothing on TRC that I'd never heard before in one way or another, including the merging of influences

You know, you really shouldn't call 1970s jazz fusion "R&B".

The stuff from the latter half of the decade was softer and TRC sounds pretty soft at many parts too, but there's plenty of chromatic and dissonant stuff on it in any case. If you know records like Bitches Brew or Headhunters you shouldn't have too many problems associating many of the ideas Prince uses on TRC / NEWS with those records. Some later fusion stuff too, of course.

Just put on the title track from TRC. What type of "R&B" is all that ringmodulated guitar and dissonant Rhodes cluster chord stuff supposed to be anyway?

databank said:

NuPwrSoul said:

Prince may not know music theory in any formalized way, in terms of what to call things, how they are named, or how they are classified. But he absolutely has demonstrated his knowledge of how music works (the practice of theory), and it is quite possible to practice something without having to or being able to theorize about it.

That said, I would agree with duccichucka that Prince's musical vocabulary seems to have reached certain limits. One of the reasons why many of us became die hard fans, was that we witnessed the expansion of Prince's vocabulary right along with him. Every new album/project had something different or more complex than the previous. More developed. More sophisticated.

I don't think it's so much that Prince needs to learn music theory, as much as it is that he needs to expose himself to more diverse musical influences. Writers become better writers the more that they read. There was a time (that we know of) when people would bring him things to listen to. The Leeds brothers, the Melvoin & Coleman clan, they introduced Prince to music that he had not paid much attention to prior. I don't know who is around him now. Who is introducing him to new music.

I agree a lot with that. When you read/hear what new artists P seems to be exposed thru his interviews, covers or the stuff he links on social medias, it's obvious that he is almost only exposed to American R&B and mainstream American pop and folk music. He obviously knows very little about the electronic music scene of the last 25 years, which has most of its roots in Europe, for example, and just because of that he totally missed the last train because I don't know, even if you won't do that kind of music it seems to me that you can't ignore who people such as Aphex Twin are and what they did if you're to stay up to date. He obviously never heard much world music either. Kamasutra shows his ignorance of contemporary "neoclassical" composers and their work: it's like P had no idea of what had happened after 1920 or so. And I could go on like that, etc., etc.

My second fave artist after P is Bill Laswell. When you check out the astounding diversity of his body of work, there you can see a guy who managed to expose himself to virtually every possible kind of music and incorporated those influences in his work (even though for the past decade even he started to repeat himself a lot). I mean when I read young fans here writing that P has done every musical genre I can't help but laughing and thinking how little those youngsters know about music: P's body of work is really limited to the most mainstream types of American popular music. He sure is more diverse than most other musicians but there are so many genres he's never even touched at all. IDK maybe he's just not interested anymore but in the 80's it seems he was open to discover new things, he allowed Eric to expose him to some jazz he wasn't familiar with, W&L obviously exposed him to some pop-rock, André to new wave, Dez to hard rock, somehow he got a lot into Kate Bush and classical music at some point, too, then in the early 90's it seems he started to hear just basically what was on the radio and given how what was on the radio became less diverse and more commercial over the years...

...

Now I'm not one to tell an artist what they should do or not, and unlike many here I'm really happy with P's post WB's music, all of it, but when I first heard stuff like The War or N.E.W.S. I was just so happy to hear P going out of his comfort zone (and brilliantly!), so I can't help wondering how far he could have gone if he'd kept exposing himself to lots of musical genres instead of having no clue of what was going on and taking ultracommercial and radio-friendly Josh Welton for an advisor regarding what he should do to sound like 2014!

I'm kind of glad Prince has bypassed EDM music

But I hear what you're saying... I do think though that the R&B he seems to have been paying attention to is less mainstream/pop R&B. His latest work, AOA, seeems more in conversation with The Dream, The Weeknd, Janelle Monae. Lianne Las Havas--which while popular in their own ways are not really representative of mainstream R&B. He also seems to be paying attention to FKA Twigs. I think these are great artists to be in conversation with because they are more on the edge of R&B, pushing boundaries. It's why I personally liked AOA.

But to your broader point, yes, I too was excited by The War & N.E.W.S. as indicative of Prince's explorations. I wish he would do more of this.

novabrkr said:

databank said:

U r right about the jazz-fusion Miles/Santana/Herbie/etc. influences as well, I included them in the "R&B" umbrella since 70's jazz was basically about making jazz over rock, funk and soul structures. I respect your position but I stand to mine, sure TRC mixes infuences but none that hasn't been mixed before: nothing new under the sun on that album. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE it, but I remember being shocked with how retro it was when released and now, 13 years later, with all I know I didn't knew then, I stick to this opinion. Even the title track PRECISELY: I remember a few months after release I heard, well... the title track played at some friends' except that it wasn't the title track, just another track with the EXACT same drum beat and bass line and comparable guitar solos over it. I asked my friedns what the fuck is that and I don't remember the name but it was Muddy Waters or some other big blues name like that and it predated TRC by a good 30 or 40 years and I was like "oh, OK... so TRC is even more neoclassical R&B than I thought".

Now once again I don't have the knowledge to argue over the musical theory aspects and I'd like to remind you that I'm one of the very few voices to object against any notion of artistic decline when it comes to P's body of work, up to this very day, but I know my math when it comes to what's been done before and what hasn't at least when it comes to post mid-60's music. There was nothing on TRC that I'd never heard before in one way or another, including the merging of influences

You know, you really shouldn't call 1970s jazz fusion "R&B".

The stuff from the latter half of the decade was softer and TRC sounds pretty soft at many parts too, but there's plenty of chromatic and dissonant stuff on it in any case. If you know records like Bitches Brew or Headhunters you shouldn't have too many problems associating many of the ideas Prince uses on TRC / NEWS with those records. Some later fusion stuff too, of course.

Just put on the title track from TRC. What type of "R&B" is all that ringmodulated guitar and dissonant Rhodes cluster chord stuff supposed to be anyway?

I see music as a continuous flow and even more Faro-American music: jazz and R&B merged in the 70's in many regards, chromatic or dissonant or not, RéB gained in sophistication because it borrowed from jazz and jazz renewed itself by borrowing from R&B. I mean even without quoting Miles and Herbie look at The Crusaders, Patrice Rushen, George Duke: they totally built their musical identities on those convergences.

P used complex musical ideas (both in terms of musical theory of genres convergences) similar to Miles' or Herbie's in the 70's in the 2000's but was he always pushing his own limits? Well, I don't know that he did with TRC. I might be wrong but from me it's mostly a big homage to Black (let's call it Black if not R&B) music from old blues to D'Angelo. It's true there were some new elements in P's own musical world: John's drum playing, the dissonant guitar solos, but nothing truly unexpected.

Now yeah, if you ask me, in terms of Prince's personal musical universe, N.E.W.S was a BLOODY REVOLUTION! I was listening to it again today and it's probably one of the most unprincely thing Prince had ever done despite all the typical P elements in it. East alone, particularly the first few minutes, is Prince being out of his mind just as much as he was when he recorded 1999 or Lovesexy, Prince going where he'd never been before, actually everytime I hear it after 11 years I'm still damn amazed that it's Prince doing that and totally frustrated that he never pushed that further ever since (or went just as wild in another direction). Same can be said about some other records, The War notably, as well as 16 or Xpectation to some extent, and depite its flaws, Kamasutra as well.

But TRC? IDK. Yeah alright, it was P experimenting INSIDE of his usual frame of reference, but not Prince totally blowing it away. It paved the way to ONA which itself paved the way to Xpectation which paved the way to C-Note which finally paved the way to N.E.W.S., alright.

[Edited 12/30/14 11:12am]

x

[Edited 12/30/14 11:12am]

databank said:

Now yeah, if you ask me, in terms of Prince's personal musical universe, N.E.W.S was a BLOODY REVOLUTION! I was listening to it again today and it's probably one of the most unprincely thing Prince had ever done despite all the typical P elements in it. East alone, particularly the first few minutes, is Prince being out of his mind just as much as he was when he recorded 1999 or Lovesexy, Prince going where he'd never been before, actually everytime I hear it after 11 years I'm still damn amazed that it's Prince doing that and totally frustrated that he never pushed that further ever since (or went just as wild in another direction).

Don't mean to jack the convo here, but I want to co-sign this on N.E.W.S. I know it's not a lot of fans' cup of tea, but I completely agree with what you've stated. I am aware that Universal's backing helped get this in a lot of Grammy voters' hands, but I think that the nomination it received was well-deserved.

NuPwrSoul said:

databank said:

Now yeah, if you ask me, in terms of Prince's personal musical universe, N.E.W.S was a BLOODY REVOLUTION! I was listening to it again today and it's probably one of the most unprincely thing Prince had ever done despite all the typical P elements in it. East alone, particularly the first few minutes, is Prince being out of his mind just as much as he was when he recorded 1999 or Lovesexy, Prince going where he'd never been before, actually everytime I hear it after 11 years I'm still damn amazed that it's Prince doing that and totally frustrated that he never pushed that further ever since (or went just as wild in another direction).

Don't mean to jack the convo here, but I want to co-sign this on N.E.W.S. I know it's not a lot of fans' cup of tea, but I completely agree with what you've stated. I am aware that Universal's backing helped get this in a lot of Grammy voters' hands, but I think that the nomination it received was well-deserved.

It's an open coversation, anyone can join

I'm confused at what Universal's role may have been in the Grammy thing, though, unless maybe they were already doing the publishing rights administration thing at that point? Because N.E.W.S. was totally indie with a small label as far as I know, and Musicology right after was Sony. I don't mean to doubt what you say, just trying to figure out what it means. Besides I'd totally forgotten that the album had gotten a grammy

duccichucka said:

Genesia said:

This is a bad analogy. Widening one's vocabulary and learning the fundamentals of grammar is essential as one learns to read and write, but there is no point at which "your natural abilities begin to fail you." This implies that you can "unlearn" how to read or write which (barring some catastrophic event like a brain injury) simply does not happen. And if you did suddenly become illiterate, having read the dictionary wouldn't do a damn thing for you. You can't just randomly insert "luminiferous" when you mean to say "automobile."

I'm a writer by trade. I know googobs of words (including a specialized vocabulary for my job) but I can honestly say that I use only a small fraction of them in any day, week or month. And I am not unusual in that way.

Now, if you mean to say that writing a symphony is like writing a novel in that both have a story line that must be developed and that certain rules apply (music theory or grammar, as the case may be), then I'm with you. But thinking that learning more words makes you a better writer is just incorrect. After all, all musicians work with a very limited set of notes (A-G, plus sharps and flats). It's what a person (writer or composer) does with them that makes them middling or magnificent.

[Edited 12/29/14 8:03am]

It's not a bad analogy. Writing is a skill. It takes talent (which is innate) but it also takes skill,

which is learned. Talented writers who are skillful write everyday, learn all they can about
writing (reading other luminary works, attending workshops, getting college degrees, etc) and
treat their craft as if it was something that was ever evolving. My favorite writers (Kierkegaard,
McCarthy, Ellison) approach writing as if it is something to devote one's life to not only because

they are talented, but because they wish to obtain a level of mastery that only comes with
learning the trade through skill.

Prince has not done all of these things, from what I gather. He relied mostly on his supreme
gifts but never learned the ins and outs of the art form. So, in my opinion, this is why he's hit

a wall musically and is rehasing ideas.

The analogy works, then, in this regard. Good luck with the writing, dude!

^ Written like a Class A pedant.

If Prince had gone to college and studied composition and music theory, we never would have had Head, Purple Rain, Empty Room, Joy in Petition, the Just My Imagination guitar solo, or any number of other amazing works, because he would have been studying with people like you. People who think sitting in a classroom is good enough to make you whatever you want to be. People who are the best argument ever against doing it that way.

You don't have to attend workshops or graduate from college to be a good writer - and to think so is nuts. Writing workshops are filled (by and large) with people who think they are writers but who never publish a word - much less get paid to do it. I'd love to see you peddle your "workshop theory of good writing" to the ghosts of Hemingway, Eliot, Twain, Steinbeck, and any number of other reknowned scribes. They'd laugh in your face before they buried you.

Genesia said:

(1) If Prince had gone to college and studied composition and music theory, we never would have had Head, Purple Rain, Empty Room, Joy in Petition, the Just My Imagination guitar solo, or any number of other amazing works,

(2) You don't have to attend workshops or graduate from college to be a good writer - and to think so is nuts. Writing workshops are filled (by and large) with people who think they are writers but who never publish a word - much less get paid to do it. I'd love to see you peddle your "workshop theory of good writing" to the ghosts of Hemingway, Eliot, Twain, Steinbeck, and any number of other reknowned scribes. They'd laugh in your face before they buried you.

1. You don't know what Prince would've done had he obtained musical training in theory, so the

rest of your argument does not require a response.

2. I never said that in order to be a good writer, you had to do those things I suggested (reading
other great works, studying the art form, learning the ins and outs of the art form, attending
workshops, etc). Don't put words in my mouth, dude! I said those things can help you become
a better writer who doesn't rely solely upon talent. I then suggested that writers (or any creative
artist) who are interested in honoring their talent completely, ought to learn their craft completely.
Why you're ready to pillory me because of this opinion, I don't know! It's kinda amusing.

I don't know why you are debating me on the accuracy of my analogy as opposed to discussing

the finer points of my argument: if Prince had learned music theory, his musical vocabulary
would be much richer with more depth.


And before I forget...calm down. You're acting butt hurt as if I personally attacked you by
suggesting that Prince has hit a wall because he's exhausted his musical vocabulary on account
of not knowing music theory. Relax, dude: no need to get personal!

novabrkr said:

duccichucka said:

Data, this is an interesting post. But your lack of knowledge concerning Miles Davis means you
can't grasp how he's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

All you have to do is read his Wiki page, if you don't have an opportunity to read his autobio-

graphy. He approached music not only as a talented horn player, but as an art form that has

rules. And he attended music lessons and read, and studied music theory as a player his entire

life! The results were mind blowing! He claims (and it's true) that he changed the face of jazz/

music three or four times! You only do that if you've some type of music theory pushing your

talent to the extreme! He had a hand in developing bop, cool jazz, modal jazz, nevermind his
experimental pieces (On The Corner, Bitches Brew, etc). His gargantuan musical imagination and
herculean talent was matched equally with his knowledge of music theory. Miles Davis is the

perfect example of a musician taking his gifts and honoring God with them by doing all he can to
chase perfection. Oh man, if you only knew what I was talking about!

Miles played with Prince - this is no surprise. Prince is equally talented as a musician. But Prince

can never achieve the artistic heights that Miles Davis did simply because he doesn't have the

musical vocabulary to do so.

Can you imagine what Prince could've done if he had the same training that Miles Davis did?!
Jeezus fucking Christ!

Well, I have a big ass picture of Miles Davis on the wall staring at me right now, I know his music very well and I don't think you should be using him as an example for the purpose of discrediting Prince's understanding of the "internal rules" of music. Miles states several times in his autobiography that academic music education tends to be counterproductive. He was one of those musicians that were about breaking the rules and not sticking to them.

This thread is about Prince's ability on reading sheet music and what his grasp on music theory really is like. The truth is that for all the theory on harmony, scales, different voicings etc. just taking a look at the piano keys is perfectly sufficient for offering you the visual cues needed. You don't need to be able to read sheet music that well for understanding those concepts. For me, it's pretty clear that Prince is a master on coming up with interesting harmonies in the context of pop, rock, funk and soul music styles.

For that matter, if I listen to the Parade / SOTT / Lovesexy era stuff I can hear far more similarities in regards with Miles' approach than I can hear with most academically trained jazz musicians of today. I think most of those guys simply miss the point when they try to play like the idols they claim to be the followers of. 99% of the modern jazz stuff sounds nothing like Miles, but a lot of Prince's stuff actually does. The SOTT era stuff does, TRC does.

Prince must be doing fucking something right.

I don't remember Davis saying that, but it sounds like something he said. Well, guess what?

He's bullshitting.

I know for a fact that he read music theory: George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept of
Tonal Organization, in order to help create modal jazz. In my opinion, Davis downplayed his

classical/Juilliard training simply because he wanted to move away from any European rules of
writing and/or approach music. You. can. not. discount. his. dependence. on. theory. at. all.

You don't believe me? Read it an' weep!

Music theory is not just about reading music. How many times do I have to say that? Music
theory is about understanding the rules of music and how the pieces fit together in a western

context, of course. It's not just knowing where middle C is on a piano. It's about how middle
C relates to the other keys and why that relationship is aurally acceptable or unacceptable,
again, according to western ideals.

Prince does not come up with interesting harmonies. His harmonic approach is pretty typical and
standard. He's not doing jazz, fer chrissakes, nor is he re-writing The Rite of Spring. He's doing
pop music and using standard pop harmonies, for the most part. But you're right: his ear is
fucking amazing and he is a master at it.

I kinda don't know what you're getting at when you mention Parade, et al., and how it compares
to other jazz musicians. I will say this, though: Parade is the height of Prince's musicality, in my
opinion. It is his most musically interesting album. Never again was he as expressive musically
and/or interesting, in my opinion. Check out the progression for "Do U Lie?" for example. But

now that I think about it...guess who was Prince's secret weapon on that album?

This guy. Classically trained.

In other words, Prince did something right during the 80s. What he's doing now is rehashing
what he did about 30 years ago when his ear and musical imagination was still hot and heavy.
I see it all the time: pop sensations are young but flame out when they get older. My stab at it
is that they don't learn theory like jazzers and classical musicians who seem to get stronger.

By the way, thank you for engaging with me without being a douche bag. 'Preciate it.

Prince does not read music. Prince knows scales and modes. In an interview he discussed how he found it terrible that Beyonce did not know scales when they were rehearsing for the Grammy Awards. Also, he spoke of using the mixolydian scale on a piece a music during the ONA era. Also, he has stated that as for the guitar: "Once I knew where the notes were, learning was easy." Prince took a music business class that centered on copyrights work.

Prince did not have the time or desire to learn to read music, he wanted to play and found the shortest distance to get to that goal and then he expanded his knowledge by using effects and recording tricks. It is well documented that 1.Prince would enter the studio with only a lyric sheet and tape it to a music stand and begin to record and then do a million overdubs, 2. It has been stated that prince would record some idea onto a boom box, bring it into the studio and ask the NPG to flesh it out.

Lastly, Prince has surrounded himself with very capable musicians who can read music and he relied on their knowledge. He would have parts written out and copied and put away until a new member needed to learn mainly horn parts. The closest that he comes to reading or writing music is using a program that prints out the score.

Ps. There are enough rehearsals floating around in which he says things like: "make it a 7th. Or make it a minor." As a pop musician you are only a limited as you allow your world to become.

databank said:

NuPwrSoul said:

Don't mean to jack the convo here, but I want to co-sign this on N.E.W.S. I know it's not a lot of fans' cup of tea, but I completely agree with what you've stated. I am aware that Universal's backing helped get this in a lot of Grammy voters' hands, but I think that the nomination it received was well-deserved.

It's an open coversation, anyone can join

I'm confused at what Universal's role may have been in the Grammy thing, though, unless maybe they were already doing the publishing rights administration thing at that point? Because N.E.W.S. was totally indie with a small label as far as I know, and Musicology right after was Sony. I don't mean to doubt what you say, just trying to figure out what it means. Besides I'd totally forgotten that the album had gotten a grammy

Yeah scratch my comment... I got labels and years mixed up.

I guess my sense back then, when hearing it got the nomination (though it didn't win), was that it was a sign that Prince was willing to re-enter the industry (on his own terms of course); and that his doing so made even his indie work more accessible to critics, peers, voters, etc.