duccichucka said:

ashynevermind said:

He has most definitely hit a brickwall since he shot his load with all the unrealeased music from 84-87. He truly does revisit the same old styles ad infinitum because he doesn't know how to expand his abilities. Some of you fans on this site are obseessed with him in an unhealthy way. He is a very gifted musician...{but}We all agree his quality has stagnated...

Ashy, I agree with these parts of your post.

The push back I'm getting in this thread is from stans wanting to defend Prince's musical legacy
and abilities. I'm the biggest Prince fan in the world. Like I said, for about five years in the 80s,
he was doing only what Paul McCartney could do when he was with the Beatles: writing,
producing, playing, singing, and arranging as if possessed by Euterpe.

But he's hit a brick wall because he's not expanded his musical vocabulary. He truly does revisit
the same pop formulas over and over again. Sure, he stretched out a bit with N.E.W.S. But he
doesn't have the chops to play straight jazz; and he doesn't have the musical wherewithal to
stretch pass what he knows innately in order to write something entirely different.

He's fucking boring the shit outta me. And he's boring me because he hasn't said anything new
since 1987! He's relaxing on a legacy he created thirty years ago; but I'm no stan. I want new
art. Not Art Official Age, or whatever the fuck.

Again, Miles Davis the perfect example of a gifted musician whose knowledge of music theory,
in addition to his innate talent, work ethic and musical imagination played a part in helping him
to be a major player at the advent of four modes of jazz.

2 each his own. Miles has one project that I would even bother 2 listen 2. Your argument is fairly weak.

duccichucka said:

ashynevermind said:

He has most definitely hit a brickwall since he shot his load with all the unrealeased music from 84-87. He truly does revisit the same old styles ad infinitum because he doesn't know how to expand his abilities. Some of you fans on this site are obseessed with him in an unhealthy way. He is a very gifted musician...{but}We all agree his quality has stagnated...

Ashy, I agree with these parts of your post.

The push back I'm getting in this thread is from stans wanting to defend Prince's musical legacy
and abilities. I'm the biggest Prince fan in the world. Like I said, for about five years in the 80s,
he was doing only what Paul McCartney could do when he was with the Beatles: writing,
producing, playing, singing, and arranging as if possessed by Euterpe.

But he's hit a brick wall because he's not expanded his musical vocabulary. He truly does revisit
the same pop formulas over and over again. Sure, he stretched out a bit with N.E.W.S. But he
doesn't have the chops to play straight jazz; and he doesn't have the musical wherewithal to
stretch pass what he knows innately in order to write something entirely different.

He's fucking boring the shit outta me. And he's boring me because he hasn't said anything new
since 1987! He's relaxing on a legacy he created thirty years ago; but I'm no stan. I want new
art. Not Art Official Age, or whatever the fuck.

Again, Miles Davis the perfect example of a gifted musician whose knowledge of music theory,
in addition to his innate talent, work ethic and musical imagination played a part in helping him
to be a major player at the advent of four modes of jazz.

No, Miles stated repeatedly formal musical training was not the key to writing great jazz music.

Just remember what happened to progressive rock, you will have your answer.

Aerogram said:

duccichucka said:

Ashy, I agree with these parts of your post.

The push back I'm getting in this thread is from stans wanting to defend Prince's musical legacy
and abilities. I'm the biggest Prince fan in the world. Like I said, for about five years in the 80s,
he was doing only what Paul McCartney could do when he was with the Beatles: writing,
producing, playing, singing, and arranging as if possessed by Euterpe.

But he's hit a brick wall because he's not expanded his musical vocabulary. He truly does revisit
the same pop formulas over and over again. Sure, he stretched out a bit with N.E.W.S. But he
doesn't have the chops to play straight jazz; and he doesn't have the musical wherewithal to
stretch pass what he knows innately in order to write something entirely different.

He's fucking boring the shit outta me. And he's boring me because he hasn't said anything new
since 1987! He's relaxing on a legacy he created thirty years ago; but I'm no stan. I want new
art. Not Art Official Age, or whatever the fuck.

Again, Miles Davis the perfect example of a gifted musician whose knowledge of music theory,
in addition to his innate talent, work ethic and musical imagination played a part in helping him
to be a major player at the advent of four modes of jazz.

No, Miles stated repeatedly formal musical training was not the key to writing great jazz music.

Just remember what happened to progressive rock, you will have your answer.

Yes, Miles said that. But duccichucka already explained that Miles wasn't telling the truth when he said that. Unlike Prince, who said that he couldn't read music and who obviously was telling the truth (he couldn't possibly be playing the same sort of games duccichucka thinks Miiles was playing, could he)? If he doesn't read, he's far from alone in that--Paul McCartney used to make a big out of his inability, Paul Simon couldn't read as of 1970 according to reports. All three might have developed the skill since then, though. But it's useful to pop performers to seem "primitive" or "non-academic" even if they're not--and they can play a role, just as Miles might have been doing in his statements.

.

I have no idea whether some music theory might help Prince or not--and ducci doesn't know either. If Prince had "more training" (and none of us really know how much he knows--if he doesn't know squat, it wouldn't surprise me--and if he knows quite a bit, it wouldn't surprise me), he still might not have anything to say other than what he's saying now.

.

I do know that I know nothing about jazz (the strongest response I've ever had to any thing in the genre is "oh, that's alright) but I would like (since Prince is a pop musican, not a jazz musician) to know who in the pop world has continued to remain creative due to their theoretical knowledge. That would help me figure out whether there's any real meaning to this discussion.

EddieC said:

ashynevermind said:

duccichucka said:

But he's hit a brick wall because he's not expanded his musical vocabulary. He truly does revisit
the same pop formulas over and over again.

I don't get this. Why is Prince supposed to be anything but Prince...and why are we comparing his career trajectory to Miles Davis?

Sly Stone could record a zillion variations of his hits until the end of time, and I'd be thrilled. There's richness left in that vocabulary and music nobody else can say. Same with Prince. I was reminded of that in a department store yesterday, when that Puff Daddy song trying to rip off Prince came on.

Why should Prince attempt to become a second-rate Stockhausen, Ligeti, Davis or Coltrane (etc.), when he can just simply be a first-rate Prince?

duccichucka said:

And the reason why you're talking about Neneh Cherry, as opposed to her father, who definitely

knew music theory, I have no earthly idea! Don Cherry is just another example of how a
musician who knows theory can stretch genre boundaries in order to bend their musical imagi-
nation towards the unheard.

Not opposed to her (step) father. My point was: last year Neneh created new, brilliant music WITHOUT having a classically trained background. Just like Don did in the 60s, 70s and 80s WITH such a background. You said, as a talented pop musician stuck on old ideas you HAVE TO or at least SHOULD study classical music and composition to progress. I would say: You don't necessariliy have to. I somehow agree with you on Prince's musical peak in the 80s and the part on him being stuck. But to progress, I would rather advice P to LISTEN to contemporary ambitous POP music or to be more radical in what he's known and loved for. Because that's what he is: a pop musician. Still the best, in my eyes. So P: You don't have to study theory to be brilliant. we all know you can be without. Simply be experimental again. But if you want to study - go ahead. I'm curious.

duccichucka said:

leonche64 said:

Oh my, how do I respond to this? Seems I have struck a pretentious nerve. Once again you seem to think you know the working of an individuals mind and abilities. All you have is what has been put out for public consumption, same as everyone else. You can suppose and theorize all you want, but the fact remains that you are just guessing as I said. There is a multitude of classically trained musicians making a living in pop music. They are not writing classical music to be released as a download. That is not what they are paid for, nor what the public wants. There is an infinite amount of expert "musical theorist" that have not said a fraction of what Prince has said musically, nor had any impact whatsoever upon any musical landscape. To say he would have more to say musically if he "played it this way" misses the entire point of his career. If you think it allows you to have some type of parity or musical superiority in your mind, you are mistaken.

Now, that is a mighty fine looking high horse you have, but you might want to hop off for a while and give him a rest.

But of course you struck a nerve, Leon, for whoever told you that I suffer fools gladly was lying
to you.

I'm going by what Prince has said in interviews. And you continue to miss my point judging by
the content of your post. Of course all I have is what's "public consumption" - Prince has said
in interviews that he doesn't know how to read music. You say there are classically trained
musicians working in pop - what is that in response to? I never said the two were mutually
exclusive. You guess that there are an infinite amount of expert musical theorists who have not
said anything that Prince has said. Okay, now whose the one guessing?! But even if I grant you
the veracity of this argument, so the fuck what? It still does not speak to the point I'm making:
if you learn music theory, that will enable to you to carry on musically once your ear has
uttered everything it could possibly say as a musician if you haven't learned theory.

Furthermore, I never said Prince had to "play it this way." Never did I say Prince had to learn
jazz or classical music. I never said there was a "wrong" way to doing music or a "right" way to
doing music. I simply said if Prince wants to widen his musical vocabulary, he should learn
music theory, similar to jazz musicians and classical composers/musicians who appear to age
better than pop musicians. But who are these infinite musical theorists that have not said a
fraction of what Prince has said that you speak of? What are their names? What has Prince said
musically that hasn't been said before? Does he use otherworldly harmonic inventions that the
West has never heard? And just because one is a music theorist does not mean one has to be a
composer or songwriter in order to even utter something musically. Your argument here ist nicht
so gut.

And finally, no, I don't think there is a superior music. But I think there is a more sophisticated
type of music that involves the learnedness of classical/jazz training that pop music does not
subsist upon. This does not mean that pop music can't be sophisticated. It just means that good
pop music doesn't necessarily have to be the result of a musical theorist. But good classical
music and jazz music requires some type of music theory. All I'm saying is that someone with
Prince's talent could stand to learn how to read music and learn some theory in an effort to stop
rehashing old ideas. But you're right, Leon. My assumption could be misplaced because maybe
Prince doesn't want to grow as a musician. Maybe he's content with his present amount of musical
knowledge and has deemed it more than necessary in order to continue to put out albums that
absolutely suck and are cringe-worthy when compared to what he released from 1982 - 1987.

By the way, I'm staying on my high horse, otherwise who's gonna be the one to let people know
when their posts are retardo? Sigh, it's my duty, Leon; it's my duty.

Whoa, Lady, take it easy. Pump your brakes, you are about to cross some lines. This is the interwebs, not real life. My name is leonche64. If you have to reply in every post that people are missing your point, re-evaluate that point or at the very least check your presentation. For the crux of the discussion, find the response from Polo1026, he pretty much nails it. All that interview stuff, throw it away. That is for image creation. We now have inside dope.

"You say there are classically trained
musicians working in pop - what is that in response to?"
That was in response to your saying that a classical training would lead to different musical arrangements. I offer that it has not.

" I simply said if Prince wants to widen his musical vocabulary, he should learn music theory, similar to jazz musicians and classical composers/musicians who appear to age better than pop musicians."
That may be what you were thinking, but that is not what you said. In counter, a performer plays to his audience. An audience chooses a performer that reflects themselves. That is why the fight to stay young and pop music is filled with kids and a Bruce Springsteen concert is filled with 40 somethings as opposed to teenagers. When I sat second chair at the Savannah Symphony, I swear there was not an audience member under the age of 84. Now that I live in Hong Kong, it is the same thing. The young folks go to the concerts, the old folks go to the jazz clubs. It is two distinctly different experiences, two different musical approaches. I don't think they necessarily translate.

"But who are these infinite musical theorists that have not said a fraction of what Prince has said that you speak of?"
Those that obtain PHD level musical theory and then teach elementary music, or then go to law school, or go to work in the family business, or take a job with Gulf Oil, get posted in China, and then show up at the after gig spots frequented by the local bands and drone on about his musical background until you just say "to hell with it" and just go home after the gig rather than have to deal with him. THAT guy.
"Your argument here ist nichtso gut".
I speak English, Mandarin, and a touch of Danish. My Nazi is not so good. What does that mean?

You are making an argument about what it could be, I am making an argument about what it is. Lay me down some examples of some sophisticated pop music as you see it. As one develops a diverse musical ear, we tend to enjoy all types of music, regardless of its structure. It is easy to forget that in that respect, you are in the minority. Your mp3 player may hold every genre imaginable, but that is not the way the industry works. In the end it is about money. Prince fans want to hear Prince music. They ain't showing up to watch him conduct an orchestra.

Now get off that horse, you get down here and walk like the rest of us.

i can put prince to shame!

Polo1026 said:

Man sometimes the things said on this forum about Prince is so out of left field that I don't really understand where this shit comes from. Music theory is basic fundementals. Pitch, form, harmony, tonal scales, consonants, dissonants, rhythm and mixing it all together. So anyone claiming that Prince has no working knowledge of THE BASICS of music is either grasping for an argument or completely lacking any knowledge of music or Prince music because Prince attacked every aspect of music theory in his songs and sometimes redefined it and often toyed with it. There is no one that will ever say that Prince's chord progressions or melody structure doesn't make sense. What song is a jumbled mess? Put it out there, what songs are you calling Prince out on based on poor music theory? Is every song in the same key? NO! As far as Prince reading music, lucky for me that I attend a church and learned from two musicians that know Prince associates very well. Producer/Organist Stanley Brown, who worked with Morris Day and drummer Jeff Davis who is tight with Former Prince drummer Michael Bland. After much embarrassing laughter and prodding they reached out to Morris and Bland and only Bland has responded so far and his first response was......and I quote 'LOL.' So from an actual band member I can tell you that sometimes they'd come in and have sheet music written by Prince to record and sometimes he'd play the song on piano or guitar and let the band flesh it out together. Often Prince would change the tones, pitches, rhythms on the fly of various instuments{music theory in practice}. The same would apply to the NPG horn section, which would either have parts already written for them or Prince would let Dave and Kathy Jensen for the most part create parts. The point here is Prince wrote parts for different instruments and therefore would know how to read music. Now we know he didn't start out knowing how to read music but when you play music for a living for multiple decades you're bound to learn. BTW when I asked Stanley and Jeff about this they looked at me like I was stupid because I play piano and am a longtime musician and should know better. I think that people attribute hit records and albums sales to actual knowledge of music. Because Prince hasn't written another Purple Rain doesn't mean his talent of playing and composing has regressed, it means his ear for popular music has regressed. I really don't know how people com up with this stuff, if your "knowledge' of 'music theory' surpasses Prince on guitar then you'd better be the fucking man somewhere and how about putting yourself out there for all to see and judge for ourselves. Link me to a youtube or a soundcloud of your songs. Put Prince to shame by comparing the lack of 'music theory' in Prince's songs to the brilliance in yours. Show and prove!

Graycap23 said:

duccichucka said:

Ashy, I agree with these parts of your post.

The push back I'm getting in this thread is from stans wanting to defend Prince's musical legacy
and abilities. I'm the biggest Prince fan in the world. Like I said, for about five years in the 80s,
he was doing only what Paul McCartney could do when he was with the Beatles: writing,
producing, playing, singing, and arranging as if possessed by Euterpe.

But he's hit a brick wall because he's not expanded his musical vocabulary. He truly does revisit
the same pop formulas over and over again. Sure, he stretched out a bit with N.E.W.S. But he
doesn't have the chops to play straight jazz; and he doesn't have the musical wherewithal to
stretch pass what he knows innately in order to write something entirely different.

He's fucking boring the shit outta me. And he's boring me because he hasn't said anything new
since 1987! He's relaxing on a legacy he created thirty years ago; but I'm no stan. I want new
art. Not Art Official Age, or whatever the fuck.

Again, Miles Davis the perfect example of a gifted musician whose knowledge of music theory,
in addition to his innate talent, work ethic and musical imagination played a part in helping him
to be a major player at the advent of four modes of jazz.

2 each his own. Miles has one project that I would even bother 2 listen 2. Your argument is fairly weak.

What a disastrous post on your part, Gray.

Just because you only like one piece of work in Miles Davis' ouevre doesn't mean that the work
he did wasn't legendary and/or transcendent when pertaining to his genre. The fact still remains
that he was at the forefront of four major shifts in music, regardless of whether you like his work
or not. And my contention is that he was at the forefront of four major shifts in music because
he studied music theory. That is just one example of how learning music theory helps a player/
composer hear new sounds and work with new templates. So yeah, dude, to each his own: but
history indicates that music theory played an integral part in Miles Davis' career as that article I
provide suggests.

And never in the history of Prince.org have I offered a weak argument, friend.

Aerogram said:

duccichucka said:

Ashy, I agree with these parts of your post.

The push back I'm getting in this thread is from stans wanting to defend Prince's musical legacy
and abilities. I'm the biggest Prince fan in the world. Like I said, for about five years in the 80s,
he was doing only what Paul McCartney could do when he was with the Beatles: writing,
producing, playing, singing, and arranging as if possessed by Euterpe.

But he's hit a brick wall because he's not expanded his musical vocabulary. He truly does revisit
the same pop formulas over and over again. Sure, he stretched out a bit with N.E.W.S. But he
doesn't have the chops to play straight jazz; and he doesn't have the musical wherewithal to
stretch pass what he knows innately in order to write something entirely different.

He's fucking boring the shit outta me. And he's boring me because he hasn't said anything new
since 1987! He's relaxing on a legacy he created thirty years ago; but I'm no stan. I want new
art. Not Art Official Age, or whatever the fuck.

Again, Miles Davis the perfect example of a gifted musician whose knowledge of music theory,
in addition to his innate talent, work ethic and musical imagination played a part in helping him
to be a major player at the advent of four modes of jazz.

No, Miles stated repeatedly formal musical training was not the key to writing great jazz music.

Just remember what happened to progressive rock, you will have your answer.

I don't care what Miles Davis said. The fact of the matter is that he studied music theory, which
undoubtedly placed him at the forefront of four major movements in music. For example, as I
have stated earlier in this thread, Miles Davis read George Russell's work on the Lydian mode
before composing/writing Kind of Blue.

And we all know how seminal that album is, thanks, in no small part, to music theory. Someone
said that I'm providing weak arguments. So far, I'm the only one backing up his claims with
research.

Anyways, you're putting words in my mouth: I have never suggested that formal music training
was the key to writing great jazz music. I've only claimed that my favorite jazz musicians and
classical composers all had a few things in common, and that was they had a grasp of music
theory which enabled them to push the boundaries of their genre outward as being explorative
artists. My chief contention is that because Prince does not have a great grasp of music theory,
his musical vocabulary is thereby limited, unlike Miles Davis, who studied music theory, and
appeared to have an expansive musical vocabulary.

EddieC said:

Aerogram said:

No, Miles stated repeatedly formal musical training was not the key to writing great jazz music.

Just remember what happened to progressive rock, you will have your answer.

Yes, Miles said that. But duccichucka already explained that Miles wasn't telling the truth when he said that. Unlike Prince, who said that he couldn't read music and who obviously was telling the truth (he couldn't possibly be playing the same sort of games duccichucka thinks Miiles was playing, could he)? If he doesn't read, he's far from alone in that--Paul McCartney used to make a big out of his inability, Paul Simon couldn't read as of 1970 according to reports. All three might have developed the skill since then, though. But it's useful to pop performers to seem "primitive" or "non-academic" even if they're not--and they can play a role, just as Miles might have been doing in his statements.

.

I have no idea whether some music theory might help Prince or not--and ducci doesn't know either. If Prince had "more training" (and none of us really know how much he knows--if he doesn't know squat, it wouldn't surprise me--and if he knows quite a bit, it wouldn't surprise me), he still might not have anything to say other than what he's saying now.

.

I do know that I know nothing about jazz (the strongest response I've ever had to any thing in the genre is "oh, that's alright) but I would like (since Prince is a pop musican, not a jazz musician) to know who in the pop world has continued to remain creative due to their theoretical knowledge. That would help me figure out whether there's any real meaning to this discussion.

When Miles Davis downplays his formal education, what he is essentially doing is downplaying
the white European tradition associated with western music. Miles Davis was clearly an adamant
pro-Black musician whose training in that white European tradition provided him with the
musical foundation to be exploratory, inventive, knowledgable, and creative. That being said,
jazz music is based, in part, upon western music ideals (White ideals), and I believe
that rubbed him the wrong way as he prided himself on being a part of a Black American ex-
perience viz. jazz music.

I'm not saying that jazz training would increase Prince's musical vocabulary. I'm stating that
music theory on the whole would be that catalyst.

If you want some readings about whether or not my argument flies, read the following:

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/...t=notabene

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ganization

http://www.nytimes.com/20....html?_r=0


The book these pieces reference is a music theory book. Miles Davis used music theory to
help him write the best selling and most influential jazz album of all time. I wonder what
Prince would be able to write if he knew what Miles Davis knew of the science of music?!

HenkL said:

duccichucka said:

And the reason why you're talking about Neneh Cherry, as opposed to her father, who definitely

knew music theory, I have no earthly idea! Don Cherry is just another example of how a
musician who knows theory can stretch genre boundaries in order to bend their musical imagi-
nation towards the unheard.

Not opposed to her (step) father. My point was: last year Neneh created new, brilliant music WITHOUT having a classically trained background. Just like Don did in the 60s, 70s and 80s WITH such a background. You said, as a talented pop musician stuck on old ideas you HAVE TO or at least SHOULD study classical music and composition to progress. I would say: You don't necessariliy have to. I somehow agree with you on Prince's musical peak in the 80s and the part on him being stuck. But to progress, I would rather advice P to LISTEN to contemporary ambitous POP music or to be more radical in what he's known and loved for. Because that's what he is: a pop musician. Still the best, in my eyes. So P: You don't have to study theory to be brilliant. we all know you can be without. Simply be experimental again. But if you want to study - go ahead. I'm curious.

Um, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on your assessment of Neneh Cherry, friend.

And again, I did not say you should study classical music/composition to progress:

ATTENTION ALL YOU MUTHERFUCKERS!

ATTENTION!

I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO STUDY JAZZ OR CLASSICAL MUSIC TO BE A GREAT
SONGWRITER. I AM ONLY CLAIMING THAT LEARNING MUSIC THEORY WILL INCREASE YOUR
MUSICAL VOCABULARY SO THAT YOU DO NOT RUN OUT OF FRESH, NEW IDEAS, WHICH I
CONTEND HAS HAPPENED TO PRINCE. MY EXAMPLE OF A MUSICIAN LEARNING MUSIC THEORY
AND COMING UP WITH FRESH, NEW IDEAS IS MILES DAVIS. I AM NOT COMPARING THEIR
MUSIC. I AM COMPARING THEIR MUSIC EDUCATION.

THANK YOU.

treehouse said:

duccichucka said:

But he's hit a brick wall because he's not expanded his musical vocabulary. He truly does revisit
the same pop formulas over and over again.

I don't get this. Why is Prince supposed to be anything but Prince...and why are we comparing his career trajectory to Miles Davis?

Sly Stone could record a zillion variations of his hits until the end of time, and I'd be thrilled. There's richness left in that vocabulary and music nobody else can say. Same with Prince. I was reminded of that in a department store yesterday, when that Puff Daddy song trying to rip off Prince came on.

I'm comparing Prince's career to Miles Davis' career because Miles Davis is an example of a
musician who learned music theory and did not run out of new musical ideas, while Prince, who
does not have the same grasp of music theory, appears to be repeating the same musical ideas.
Therefore, my contention is that Prince's inability to read music could be indicative of his lack of
music theory training and probably the cause of his lack of musical imagination, as I regard his
work after 1987 to be lackluster and without the verve seen/heard in his youth, which is when his
ear did not require music theory training. If you go back and check my posts, I argue that my
favorite jazzers (Davis, Monk, Coltrane) and classical composers (Beethoven, Mozart) appeared
to get better as they aged because they had a grasp of music theory and did not have to face
the sorrow of running out of new musical ideas. Prince appears to be regressing as he is without
the aforementioned.

If you don't get that comparison, you will continue to not "get this."

leonche64 said:

duccichucka said:

But of course you struck a nerve, Leon, for whoever told you that I suffer fools gladly was lying
to you.

I'm going by what Prince has said in interviews. And you continue to miss my point judging by
the content of your post. Of course all I have is what's "public consumption" - Prince has said
in interviews that he doesn't know how to read music. You say there are classically trained
musicians working in pop - what is that in response to? I never said the two were mutually
exclusive. You guess that there are an infinite amount of expert musical theorists who have not
said anything that Prince has said. Okay, now whose the one guessing?! But even if I grant you
the veracity of this argument, so the fuck what? It still does not speak to the point I'm making:
if you learn music theory, that will enable to you to carry on musically once your ear has
uttered everything it could possibly say as a musician if you haven't learned theory.

Furthermore, I never said Prince had to "play it this way." Never did I say Prince had to learn
jazz or classical music. I never said there was a "wrong" way to doing music or a "right" way to
doing music. I simply said if Prince wants to widen his musical vocabulary, he should learn
music theory, similar to jazz musicians and classical composers/musicians who appear to age
better than pop musicians. But who are these infinite musical theorists that have not said a
fraction of what Prince has said that you speak of? What are their names? What has Prince said
musically that hasn't been said before? Does he use otherworldly harmonic inventions that the
West has never heard? And just because one is a music theorist does not mean one has to be a
composer or songwriter in order to even utter something musically. Your argument here ist nicht
so gut.

And finally, no, I don't think there is a superior music. But I think there is a more sophisticated
type of music that involves the learnedness of classical/jazz training that pop music does not
subsist upon. This does not mean that pop music can't be sophisticated. It just means that good
pop music doesn't necessarily have to be the result of a musical theorist. But good classical
music and jazz music requires some type of music theory. All I'm saying is that someone with
Prince's talent could stand to learn how to read music and learn some theory in an effort to stop
rehashing old ideas. But you're right, Leon. My assumption could be misplaced because maybe
Prince doesn't want to grow as a musician. Maybe he's content with his present amount of musical
knowledge and has deemed it more than necessary in order to continue to put out albums that
absolutely suck and are cringe-worthy when compared to what he released from 1982 - 1987.

By the way, I'm staying on my high horse, otherwise who's gonna be the one to let people know
when their posts are retardo? Sigh, it's my duty, Leon; it's my duty.

Whoa, Lady, take it easy. Pump your brakes, you are about to cross some lines. This is the interwebs, not real life. My name is leonche64. If you have to reply in every post that people are missing your point, re-evaluate that point or at the very least check your presentation. For the crux of the discussion, find the response from Polo1026, he pretty much nails it. All that interview stuff, throw it away. That is for image creation. We now have inside dope.

"You say there are classically trained
musicians working in pop - what is that in response to?"
That was in response to your saying that a classical training would lead to different musical arrangements. I offer that it has not.

" I simply said if Prince wants to widen his musical vocabulary, he should learn music theory, similar to jazz musicians and classical composers/musicians who appear to age better than pop musicians."
That may be what you were thinking, but that is not what you said. In counter, a performer plays to his audience. An audience chooses a performer that reflects themselves. That is why the fight to stay young and pop music is filled with kids and a Bruce Springsteen concert is filled with 40 somethings as opposed to teenagers. When I sat second chair at the Savannah Symphony, I swear there was not an audience member under the age of 84. Now that I live in Hong Kong, it is the same thing. The young folks go to the concerts, the old folks go to the jazz clubs. It is two distinctly different experiences, two different musical approaches. I don't think they necessarily translate.

"But who are these infinite musical theorists that have not said a fraction of what Prince has said that you speak of?"
Those that obtain PHD level musical theory and then teach elementary music, or then go to law school, or go to work in the family business, or take a job with Gulf Oil, get posted in China, and then show up at the after gig spots frequented by the local bands and drone on about his musical background until you just say "to hell with it" and just go home after the gig rather than have to deal with him. THAT guy.
"Your argument here ist nichtso gut".
I speak English, Mandarin, and a touch of Danish. My Nazi is not so good. What does that mean?

You are making an argument about what it could be, I am making an argument about what it is. Lay me down some examples of some sophisticated pop music as you see it. As one develops a diverse musical ear, we tend to enjoy all types of music, regardless of its structure. It is easy to forget that in that respect, you are in the minority. Your mp3 player may hold every genre imaginable, but that is not the way the industry works. In the end it is about money. Prince fans want to hear Prince music. They ain't showing up to watch him conduct an orchestra.

Now get off that horse, you get down here and walk like the rest of us.

Whew! I'm knocking these posts the fuck out!.....

Oh, gimme a break, Leon. There ain't no "line" I'm about to cross. Stop being so dramatic.
And fix your post - it's hard to read. PM if you wanna know how to format a reply properly
so that it's readable.

As for your responses, the piece about classically trained musicians working in pop music is

neither here nor there. I don't even know the context in which you stated that, hence my
question in the first place.

As for your second response in this reply, don't tell me what I've said. Go back and read all of
my posts. All I've stated in this thread is that:

A. Prince has hit a brick wall

B. The hitting of said brick wall is because he lacks music theory training

C. If he wants to stop hitting that brick wall, he should learn music theory training...
D. ...similar to my favorite jazzers and classical composers who did have music theory training
but appeared to age gracefully as they never ran out of fresh, new ideas
E. I then give examples of Miles Davis learning music theory to write Kind of Blue that support
my claim that learning music theory can afford one with fresh, new ideas

I asked you to name the music theorists who have not said a fraction of what Prince has said
musically, which is a claim you made, and you obfuscated by talking about nameless and
theoretical PhD students. In other words: you were talking outta yer arsehole.

I told you your argument was not so good in German, yet you said that your "Nazi" wasn't good.
How did you know it was German, then? Something tells me you looked it up, friend.

My argument has nothing to do with sophisticated pop music: you have constructed a strawman
argument. My argument has to do with Prince's apparent lack of a newly conceived approach to
pop music due to exhausting his limited musical vocabulary due to a lack of music theory
training. I then offer that Miles Davis' is the perfect example of a musician who apparent did not
run out of newly conceived approaches to music because he did have music theory training.

SuperSoulFighter said:

Okay! We get it! Miles Davis was great for what he did and he couldn't have done it without his education! And Prince, who has hit a wall musically, could have benefitted from obtaining a similar music education, especially one in music theory. Thanks for pointing that out 100 times as I've noticed that people in this thread either do not understand the nuance of your argument, do not read with comprehension, put words in your mouth and misappropriate your argument, or have such a hard on for Prince, they can't read or think straight when seeing someone criticize him!

My work here is finally done.

duccichucka said:

duccichucka said:

SuperSoulFighter said:

Okay! We get it! Miles Davis was great for what he did and he couldn't have done it without his education! And Prince, who has hit a wall musically, could have benefitted from obtaining a similar music education, especially one in music theory. Thanks for pointing that out 100 times as I've noticed that people in this thread either do not understand the nuance of your argument, do not read with comprehension, put words in your mouth and misappropriate your argument, or have such a hard on for Prince, they can't read or think straight when seeing someone criticize him!

My work here is finally done.

Except you have yet to name a couple of people in pop, rock, soul, rnb, funk, disco, EDM, country, etc. who changed their music by learning music theory after learning "by ear". All you have is Miles Davis (who did not really get better and better with age, sorry), Mozart (who died at 37) and Beethoven... oh what he hell I'll give you Ludwig, my first musical crush, and wow thank you for even comparing him to those. Your approach would work in theory but it just doesn't seem to matter in practice outside of jazz or classical compositions.

duccichucka said:

I'm comparing Prince's career to Miles Davis' career because Miles Davis is an example of a
musician who learned music theory and did not run out of new musical ideas, while Prince, who
does not have the same grasp of music theory, appears to be repeating the same musical ideas.
Therefore, my contention is that Prince's inability to read music could be indicative of his lack of
music theory training and probably the cause of his lack of musical imagination, as I regard his
work after 1987 to be lackluster and without the verve seen/heard in his youth, which is when his
ear did not require music theory training. If you go back and check my posts, I argue that my
favorite jazzers (Davis, Monk, Coltrane) and classical composers (Beethoven, Mozart) appeared
to get better as they aged because they had a grasp of music theory and did not have to face
the sorrow of running out of new musical ideas. Prince appears to be regressing as he is without
the aforementioned.

If you don't get that comparison, you will continue to not "get this."

.

There is something you obviously don't get though.

.

Of course, Prince could start to study counterpoint, dodecaphony, serialism, spectral compositions, microtonality etc. right now, and of course, all of this would probably represent new techniques to him.

.

However, he writes and performs POP music. I cannot imagine how any of the aforementioned techniques can help a POP musician to write POP music. Just look at the history of pop music from the 1950s onwards: there is a pronounced development in musical genres, but this is driven mainly by different styles, i.e., arrangements, instrumentation etc., and only very limitedly by a development in parameters such as harmony, modes etc.

.

That is also why your comparison to classical music is quite pointless. If you compare one of Beethoven's late string quartets or his Great Fugue to, let's say, a Mozart concerto, the development in harmonic structure is enormous! Go 35 years further in music history to Wagner's Tristan, and the difference is even more striking! The change in instrumentation is rather limited (Wagner's orchestra was bigger than Mozart's, but it mainly had the same instruments in it), but the harmonic structure shows a dramatic development.

.

Having said that, the relevance of certain musical parameters for pop music is obviously quite different from the relevance of the same musical parameters for classical music or jazz. Or, more simply put: a musical training which is essential for classical music or jazz is not necessarily of major help for writing a good pop song.

.

A good friend of mine is a classical composer. He is absolutely brilliant in what he does and would wipe the floor with Prince when it comes to music theory or a composition in the classical tradition. However, my friend could never write a pop song as good as "When doves cry". It's as simple as that.

Aerogram said:

duccichucka said:

My work here is finally done.

Except you have yet to name a couple of people in pop, rock, soul, rnb, funk, disco, EDM, country, etc. who changed their music by learning music theory after learning "by ear". All you have is Miles Davis (who did not really get better and better with age, sorry), Mozart (who died at 37) and Beethoven... oh what he hell I'll give you Ludwig, my first musical crush, and wow thank you for even comparing him to those. Your approach would work in theory but it just doesn't seem to matter in practice outside of jazz or classical compositions.

Aero, go back and read my posts. My claim is that pop songwriters, who do not have the same
musical training that jazz musicians and classical composers, aren't able to write music that
has the same sophistication of the aforementioned on a consistent basis. So asking me to name
a couple of people in pop genres who changed their music by learning music theory after learning
by ear is unnecessary and doesn't speak to my point.

And guess what? Miles Davis getting better with age? That's subjective. What's objective is that
music theory had a major impact on his career which involved being the progenitor of several
modes of music.

You've said the smartest thing I've read in this thread: maybe music theory doesn't matter as
much as I want it to outside of jazz and classical contexts. That's a great point I didn't con-
sider, although it is still my contention that Prince has fallen off because he doesn't know theory.
So yeah, good point and well taken.

duccichucka said: