so the point of this thread is that he should be ashamed because bruno mars is considered more popular and made a hit with his song?

now isnt that utterly ridiculous?

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

V10LETBLUES said:

dbpdexter said: Nonsense

Come on, you don't really believe that songs become hits because of the quality of the music?? Where have you been??

jasminejoey said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

Come on, you don't really believe that songs become hits because of the quality of the music?? Where have you been??

Of course not. I thought the "nonsense" part was in reply to: "If Bruno Mars put out AOA with his vocals instead of Prince it would have been album of the year".

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

2funkE said:

I agree the R&B chart meant more, but if it does not even crack the top 100 can we call it mass appeal. And that was one song. AOA was #1 on the R&B chart and had almost zero mass appeal.

To further illustrate my point, how big was Atomic Dog (Who Am I) when it was released by a young Snoop? #8 on the Billboard 100. Sure thre are lots of variables, bottom line there is little to no examples of any consistent pop chart success by anyone over 45. One hit out of the blue, sure, but nothing more than that. Happy to eat crow if I am missing someone. U2 maybe? They had Beautiful Day and then Vertigo which charted well, but I think that's it.

[Edited 2/2/15 8:31am]

How about Tina Turner? "Private Dancer" was released in 1984 when she was 45. She had mad success with that album and consistently had single hits over the next decade.

She famously rebooted her career at that late age, hit it big with Private Dancer, followed that with two or three smaller smaller albums with smaller hits, then semi-retired to Switzerland.

A lone exception that proves the general rule. She had great talent and was experienced in front of a camera, which made her a natural for the initial MTV age.

We could throw in Susan Boyle if you want. Still wouldn't invalidate age as an important factor.

lezama said:

V10LETBLUES said:

lezama said: The music industry has changed. The internet has to a large extent democratized music. The music industry cannot control music distribution anymore. If someone like Prince, with name recognition, cache of genius status, the full backing of a major music industry mover and every major site on the internet and tv network pushing his music and still no one wants it, vs a nobody with none of that making it big is huge. The industry machine a lot of people here blame does not work anymore. People are becoming Youtube stars all on their own. New opportunities are cropping up without the need of the entrenched players. But regardless, you an artist and his work still has to resonate to rise to the top. There is more competition than ever before. Prince was jetted to the front of the line via his name alone. Given so much preferential treatment. Maybe you think his new album is great, well good for you, but the masses do not agree. [Edited 2/1/15 13:22pm]

This sounds very nice but with democratization of the production of music came a high oversaturation of the market, for which the genius of Google as been to provide a way to mass access of those that pay to the top. Everything is available, however no one has the time or interest to filter through all that's available. Things no longer work via pay to exist, today things are more like those that pay get to be seen through the oversaturation. Those that pay are those that get pushed. If I as a record producer see that a new star has potential to sell and make a lot of money for me I will invest what I can to get them to be seen and heard as much as possible. Before that artist has the time to renegotiate any terms of any contracts I have twith him or her (in which my share of the profit becomes less exciting to me ) I will have made my fortune and will leave it to them to continue to push themselves or negotiate with another label for the attention I gave them in the beginning. And by that point I will have cultivated 5-10 other artists I will hedge my bets with for the next generation. Your perception of the way things work don't fit reality.

.

I would recommend some books though that could open your eyes:

.

e.g. : Cowboys and Indies: The E...d Industry

What They'll Never Tell Y...w Truths)

you are discussing the past. that doesnt work anymore. the story and the books for the internet age of music is in flux and yet to be witten. We all know how the music industry used to "work"

As to quality rising to the top. first let's make clear. We know a Mozart won't make it, that's not the market a hit song caters to. There is great music in Jazz, Soundtracks, Classical , Country etc. Are top ten hits better? Better as pop hits yes. There is a market you enter when you submit singles and video and court pop radio, social media outlets, popular culture. Purpously trying to fit and sell in that market. That particular market.
Is a three piece suit better than an Lego set? Depends what market you are going after.

And this goes back full circle to my initial question way back when AOA was released. Who the fuck is this amatuerish cheesefest aimed at? I still cannot answer that.

V10LETBLUES said:

lezama said:

This sounds very nice but with democratization of the production of music came a high oversaturation of the market, for which the genius of Google as been to provide a way to mass access of those that pay to the top. Everything is available, however no one has the time or interest to filter through all that's available. Things no longer work via pay to exist, today things are more like those that pay get to be seen through the oversaturation. Those that pay are those that get pushed. If I as a record producer see that a new star has potential to sell and make a lot of money for me I will invest what I can to get them to be seen and heard as much as possible. Before that artist has the time to renegotiate any terms of any contracts I have twith him or her (in which my share of the profit becomes less exciting to me ) I will have made my fortune and will leave it to them to continue to push themselves or negotiate with another label for the attention I gave them in the beginning. And by that point I will have cultivated 5-10 other artists I will hedge my bets with for the next generation. Your perception of the way things work don't fit reality.

.

I would recommend some books though that could open your eyes:

.

e.g. : Cowboys and Indies: The E...d Industry

What They'll Never Tell Y...w Truths)

you are discussing the past. that doesnt work anymore. the story and the books for the internet age of music is in flux and yet to be witten. We all know how the music industry used to "work"

As to quality rising to the top. first let's make clear. We know a Mozart won't make it, that's not the market a hit song caters to. There is great music in Jazz, Soundtracks, Classical , Country etc. Are top ten hits better? Better as pop hits yes. There is a market you enter when you submit singles and video and court pop radio, social media outlets, popular culture. Purpously trying to fit and sell in that market. That particular market.
Is a three piece suit better than an Lego set? Depends what market you are going after.

And this goes back full circle to my initial question way back when AOA was released. Who the fuck is this amatuerish cheesefest aimed at? I still cannot answer that.

He's talking about the present, you're just dismissing by pretending you have more current knowledge but you don't. The only thing you know well is your own taste, but you can't go beyond it, which is very limiting and boring. Buy a Katy Perry album.

V10LETBLUES said:

lezama said:

This sounds very nice but with democratization of the production of music came a high oversaturation of the market, for which the genius of Google as been to provide a way to mass access of those that pay to the top. Everything is available, however no one has the time or interest to filter through all that's available. Things no longer work via pay to exist, today things are more like those that pay get to be seen through the oversaturation. Those that pay are those that get pushed. If I as a record producer see that a new star has potential to sell and make a lot of money for me I will invest what I can to get them to be seen and heard as much as possible. Before that artist has the time to renegotiate any terms of any contracts I have twith him or her (in which my share of the profit becomes less exciting to me ) I will have made my fortune and will leave it to them to continue to push themselves or negotiate with another label for the attention I gave them in the beginning. And by that point I will have cultivated 5-10 other artists I will hedge my bets with for the next generation. Your perception of the way things work don't fit reality.

.

I would recommend some books though that could open your eyes:

.

e.g. : Cowboys and Indies: The E...d Industry

What They'll Never Tell Y...w Truths)

you are discussing the past. that doesnt work anymore. the story and the books for the internet age of music is in flux and yet to be witten. We all know how the music industry used to "work"

As to quality rising to the top. first let's make clear. We know a Mozart won't make it, that's not the market a hit song caters to. There is great music in Jazz, Soundtracks, Classical , Country etc. Are top ten hits better? Better as pop hits yes. There is a market you enter when you submit singles and video and court pop radio, social media outlets, popular culture. Purpously trying to fit and sell in that market. That particular market.
Is a three piece suit better than an Lego set? Depends what market you are going after.

And this goes back full circle to my initial question way back when AOA was released. Who the fuck is this amatuerish cheesefest aimed at? I still cannot answer that.

Actually, no. I'm talking about the present. The first book gives a great overall history and closes with the present (approx 2013). I didn't post books that discuss the past. They both address the change in landscape with the internet age and the passage in the US of anti-payola laws, and document very clearly and authoritatively how the industry has evolved. Anyhow, I don't need to convince you of anything, I'm merely repeating documented facts that others have researched. If you have research that contradicts what I'm saying beyond anectdote from your personal judgment I'd be glad to see it.

Thanks

lezama said:

V10LETBLUES said:

lezama said:

Actually, no. I'm talking about the present. The first book gives a great overall history and closes with the present (approx 2013). I didn't post books that discuss the past. They both address the change in landscape with the internet age and the passage in the US of anti-payola laws, and document very clearly and authoritatively how the industry has evolved. Anyhow, I don't need to convince you of anything, I'm merely repeating documented facts that others have researched. If you have research that contradicts what I'm saying beyond anectdote from your personal judgment I'd be glad to see it.

Thanks

Lol, yes a book about something the industry itself is scrambling to understand and get in front of. Maybe email a link to them. I'm sure they would all love to know the answer.

Do you even know what you're talking about? Because you're not making any sense. Try being specific about who and what you're talking about instead of talking to generalities as if you're making sense. Labels are certainly still trying to figure out how to maximize their profits given new entrants into and the rupting the distribution space (via new ways to access music without pay), but sponsored promotion and the concentration of radio access into the hands of the few hasn't disappeared. So either you're saying something different that undercuts the relevance of that point or you need to sit down and reevaluate what it is that you're trying to say.

[Edited 2/2/15 13:47pm]

lezama said:

V10LETBLUES said:

lezama said:

Actually, no. I'm talking about the present. The first book gives a great overall history and closes with the present (approx 2013). I didn't post books that discuss the past. They both address the change in landscape with the internet age and the passage in the US of anti-payola laws, and document very clearly and authoritatively how the industry has evolved. Anyhow, I don't need to convince you of anything, I'm merely repeating documented facts that others have researched. If you have research that contradicts what I'm saying beyond anectdote from your personal judgment I'd be glad to see it.

Thanks

Lol, yes a book about something the industry itself is scrambling to understand and get in front of. Maybe email a link to them. I'm sure they would all love to know the answer.

LOL...LOL... LOL

So instead of quoting another book or proposing another link in support of your own view, you pretentiously put down the person as if your intellect towered over all.

The problem is that you're only fooling one person and that's you.

Aerogram said:

V10LETBLUES said:

lezama said:

Do you even know what you're talking about? Because you're not making any sense. Try being specific about who and what you're talking about instead of talking to generalities as if you're making sense. Labels are certainly still trying to figure out how to maximize their profits given new entrants into and the rupting the distribution space (via new ways to access music without pay), but sponsored promotion and the concentration of radio access into the hands of the few hasn't disappeared. So either you're saying something different that undercuts the relevance of that point or you need to sit down and reevaluate what it is that you're trying to say.

[Edited 2/2/15 13:47pm]

Of course you know much better. You read a book. Now, what's your point in relation to AOA? That great music like AOA is being snubbed because consumers have bad taste? Unlike you. The ONLY valid opinion is yours of course, and that book that foretells of course. But if you want to talk about facts and figures hit up the Billboard charts, sales numbers and bank accounts.

He's read at least one book. You should try that, helps to expand your horizons.

Right now, all you have it "I'm Violet, I'm smart, I check Billboard sometimes, that should be enough for you little people."

V10LETBLUES said:

lezama said:

Do you even know what you're talking about? Because you're not making any sense. Try being specific about who and what you're talking about instead of talking to generalities as if you're making sense. Labels are certainly still trying to figure out how to maximize their profits given new entrants into and the rupting the distribution space (via new ways to access music without pay), but sponsored promotion and the concentration of radio access into the hands of the few hasn't disappeared. So either you're saying something different that undercuts the relevance of that point or you need to sit down and reevaluate what it is that you're trying to say.

[Edited 2/2/15 13:47pm]

Of course you know much better. You read a book. Now, what's your point in relation to AOA? That great music like AOA is being snubbed because consumers have bad taste? Unlike you. The ONLY valid opinion is yours of course, and that book that foretells of course. But if you want to talk about facts and figures hit up the Billboard charts, sales numbers and bank accounts.

So you're dodging my request for you to specify what you're addressing? Is that because you don't actually know what you're talking about? And no, its not just reading a book. Its called not making authoritative statements about things one doesnt know about. You should try it sometime so you dont end up looking dumb.

.

You want another book you can ignore? Try this one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/D...623560012

V10LETBLUES said:

Aerogram said:

LOL...LOL... LOL

So instead of quoting another book or proposing another link in support of your own view, you pretentiously put down the person as if your intellect towered over all.

The problem is that you're only fooling one person and that's you.

Well not just me. Consumers and hit artists are apparently fooled to. The only ones not fooled are you two. The tin foil spared you from our fate.

I'm still waiting for you to provide a counter-argument to the experts: http://factor-tech.com/co...-industry/

lezama said:

redundant post - sorry

[Edited 2/2/15 14:51pm]

Aerogram said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

How about Tina Turner? "Private Dancer" was released in 1984 when she was 45. She had mad success with that album and consistently had single hits over the next decade.

She famously rebooted her career at that late age, hit it big with Private Dancer, followed that with two or three smaller smaller albums with smaller hits, then semi-retired to Switzerland.

A lone exception that proves the general rule. She had great talent and was experienced in front of a camera, which made her a natural for the initial MTV age.

We could throw in Susan Boyle if you want. Still wouldn't invalidate age as an important factor.

Home Before Dark is the twenty-seventh studio album by American singer-songwriter Neil Diamond. Released on May 5, 2008; it was the artist's second album for American Recordings.

Home Before Dark received generally positive reviews from critics upon its release and topped the national albums charts in the United States,^[6] the United Kingdom,^[7] and New Zealand.^[8] It has since been accredited with album certifications in several regions.

In May 2008, at the age of 67, Neil Diamond was the oldest performer to have a number one record. This mark was previously held by Bob Dylan in 2006 with his Modern Times album, released when he was 65. However, Bob Dylan's recent album, Together Through Life, earned Dylan that position again since Dylan released his most recent work at 67 years and 11 months unlike Diamond releasing Home Before Dark at 67 years and 3 months.

V10LETBLUES said:

Aerogram said:

LOL...LOL... LOL

So instead of quoting another book or proposing another link in support of your own view, you pretentiously put down the person as if your intellect towered over all.

The problem is that you're only fooling one person and that's you.

Well not just me. Consumers and hit artists are apparently fooled to. The only ones not fooled are you two. The tin foil spared you from our fate.

Keep the hat Violet, you're the deuce who is not noticing that year-end award nominations, best of lists and such don't generally list something that reads like the sales/tickets figures -- that's why we have the American Music Awards, People's Choice Awards and other events planned around your simplistic theory.

Currently, Iron Man 3 is the the fifth or sixth biggest selling movie of all times. By your theory, it should be one of the best movies of all time. Do you think it belongs somewhere in the top 10 of a popular international critic poll?

1. Vertigo (1958)
2. Citizen Kane (1941)
3. Tokyo Story (1953)
4. The Rules of the Game (1939)
5. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
7. The Searchers (1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)
10. 8½ (1963)

Do you think it belongs in the top 50? Top 100? Top 1000? I don't. Just happened to be perfect for a large audience of people looking for entertaining entertainment that doesn't require rubbing too many brain cells together -- nothing wrong with that, I watched all of Iron Man 3 it was fun but I didn't stagger out of the theatre like I'd just witnessed Stravinsky's Rites of Spring in its original, scandalous performance, no.

So, to be clear: most music, cinema, art or literature university programs will teach their first year students that great art and great commerce don't always go hand in hand, far from it and especially in the short term. Even the dumbest student in the class who learns that will be from that point on more insightful that you'll ever be if you ignorantly continue to claim great art or music is inevitably embraced by the greatest number of consumers.

Aerogram said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

How about Tina Turner? "Private Dancer" was released in 1984 when she was 45. She had mad success with that album and consistently had single hits over the next decade.

She famously rebooted her career at that late age, hit it big with Private Dancer, followed that with two or three smaller smaller albums with smaller hits, then semi-retired to Switzerland.

A lone exception that proves the general rule. She had great talent and was experienced in front of a camera, which made her a natural for the initial MTV age.

We could throw in Susan Boyle if you want. Still wouldn't invalidate age as an important factor.

I can't even lie, I'd have never remembered what Susan Boyle accomplished without a reminder. But it is what it is and there is no disputing it. However, in being that, the particular state of the music industry as a whole must be considered because Susan's beginning, started from entirely, previously uncharted territory. The significance in that is massive and cannot be denied because had it not been for those in the realm of Richard, James, Sam, Ray, Muddy, Walter, Ella, Aretha, Smokey, Tina, Stevie, Marvin, Diana, Elvis, John, Michael, Prince, Madonna, Janet...ETC. There'd have NEVER been a Susan Boyle based purely on talented ability.

[Edited 2/2/15 15:30pm]

Zannaloaf said:

Aerogram said:

She famously rebooted her career at that late age, hit it big with Private Dancer, followed that with two or three smaller smaller albums with smaller hits, then semi-retired to Switzerland.

A lone exception that proves the general rule. She had great talent and was experienced in front of a camera, which made her a natural for the initial MTV age.

We could throw in Susan Boyle if you want. Still wouldn't invalidate age as an important factor.

Home Before Dark is the twenty-seventh studio album by American singer-songwriter Neil Diamond. Released on May 5, 2008; it was the artist's second album for American Recordings.

Home Before Dark received generally positive reviews from critics upon its release and topped the national albums charts in the United States,^[6] the United Kingdom,^[7] and New Zealand.^[8] It has since been accredited with album certifications in several regions.

In May 2008, at the age of 67, Neil Diamond was the oldest performer to have a number one record. This mark was previously held by Bob Dylan in 2006 with his Modern Times album, released when he was 65. However, Bob Dylan's recent album, Together Through Life, earned Dylan that position again since Dylan released his most recent work at 67 years and 11 months unlike Diamond releasing Home Before Dark at 67 years and 3 months.

A couple thoughts on this thread:

-

1. I think people are talking about Top 40 teeny bopper "hits." Of course artists over 40 have massive success later in their careers. Prince is in that group.

-

2. Tina Turner "came back" in MTV in the 80's. Age wasn't a factor back then as much as now. Billy Ocean, Phil Collins, Peter Gabriel, would all be considered ancient by today's Top 40 pop standards, but back in the 80's the pop world and MTV had a lot less restrictions and borders for who could get played/paid.

-

3. How old are we all here? Did you give a shit about Prince's chart success with "Dirty Mind" "Controversy"? Did you care that "Purple Rain" (the song) never hit #1? Did you cry when "Mountains" only reached #23? Only if you were a faker or a punk. Save the chart watch for Batdance...chart position doesn't mean a song is cool.

-

That said, "Uptown Funk" is kinda cool. In a totally unoriginal way.

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

Aerogram said:

She famously rebooted her career at that late age, hit it big with Private Dancer, followed that with two or three smaller smaller albums with smaller hits, then semi-retired to Switzerland.

A lone exception that proves the general rule. She had great talent and was experienced in front of a camera, which made her a natural for the initial MTV age.

We could throw in Susan Boyle if you want. Still wouldn't invalidate age as an important factor.

I can't even lie, I'd have never remembered what Susan Boyle accomplished without a reminder. But it is what it is and there is no disputing it. However, in being that, the particular state of the music industry as a whole must be considered because Susan's beginning, started from entirely, previously uncharted territory. The significance in that is massive and cannot be denied because had it not been for those in the realm of Richard, James, Sam, Ray, Muddy, Walter, Ella, Aretha, Smokey, Tina, Stevie, Marvin, Diana, Elvis, John, Michael, Prince, Madonna, Janet...ETC. There'd have NEVER been a Susan Boyle based purely on talented ability.

[Edited 2/2/15 15:30pm]

You won't see me not salute Susan Boyle and her accomplishments. If sheer talent always won the day, that would be wonderful. Unfortunately, it remains an exception otherwise talent like Boyle would come up regularly

V10LETBLUES said:

Dear lord Aero, I hope you aren't comparing AOA to that list of classic movies. I am a huge film lover. My favorite movie this past year was Grand Budapest Hotel. I love indie movies and love Wes Anderson. Movies like his and Woody Allen are made for minuscule budgets with many of the stars working for scale. These are passion projects. It goes back once again to who the work is aimed at. Studios know the return on movies like Grand Budapest are not going to make a lot of money and work accordinglngly. Market it accordingly. And even if it only makes a small amount of money it is still considered a great success and will also be rewarded with Oscar nominations and be in that list you made above. Again, who the hell is the target audience for AOA? Certainly isn't a serious art project like 2001. ...Well ok maybe Stanley should have used chipmunks instead of apes for the opening scene.

If you're such a huge film buff, then maybe you know that It's a Wonderful Life, Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, The Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club. The Big Lebowski, Blade Runner, Vertigo, Brazil, Buster Keanton's The General and countless others were not initially rewarded by consumers. In fact, before his later resurgence as a master of comedy, Buster Keaton's highest grossing film was Sidewalks of New York, a film he didn't direct and in which he acted like he was told.

These movies flew right over the heads of millions of people like you because they were a bit more challenging and didn't merely aim to please the crowds. I contend that Art Official Age was not made with the goal of scoring one no 1 hit after the other, otherwise it would not be filled with melancholy material, but more optimistic, uptempo stuff. Prince rightfully chose to make the pop record he wanted to make, which is better for his legacy in the long term than trying to compete with Taylor, Katy or One Direction, and please conventional folks who only know what they know now and have no plans to learn more.

[Edited 2/2/15 16:12pm]

Aerogram said:

V10LETBLUES said:

Dear lord Aero, I hope you aren't comparing AOA to that list of classic movies. I am a huge film lover. My favorite movie this past year was Grand Budapest Hotel. I love indie movies and love Wes Anderson. Movies like his and Woody Allen are made for minuscule budgets with many of the stars working for scale. These are passion projects. It goes back once again to who the work is aimed at. Studios know the return on movies like Grand Budapest are not going to make a lot of money and work accordinglngly. Market it accordingly. And even if it only makes a small amount of money it is still considered a great success and will also be rewarded with Oscar nominations and be in that list you made above. Again, who the hell is the target audience for AOA? Certainly isn't a serious art project like 2001. ...Well ok maybe Stanley should have used chipmunks instead of apes for the opening scene.

If you're such a huge film buff, then maybe you know that It's a Wonderful Life, Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, The Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club. The Big Lebowski, Blade Runner, Vertigo, Brazil, Buster Keanton's The General and countless others were not initially rewarded by consumers. In fact, before his later resurgence as a master of comedy, Buster Keaton's highest grossing film was Sidewalks of New York, a film he didn't direct and in which he acted like he was told.

These movies flew right over the heads of millions of people like you because they were a bit more challenging and didn't merely aim to please the crowds. I contend that Art Official Age was not made with the goal of scoring one no 1 hit after the other, otherwise it would not be filled with melancholy material, but more optimistic, uptempo stuff. Prince rightfully chose to make the pop record he wanted to make, which is better for his legacy in the long term than trying to compete with Taylor, Katy or One Direction, and please conventional folks who only know what they know now and have no plans to learn more.

[Edited 2/2/15 16:12pm]

Those movies never flew over my head. But lets recap, are you saying AOA is as good as Citizen Kane, or something less sensationalist like the silly album is better than Katy Perry. Let's zero in oon what we are saying here.

Aerogram said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

I can't even lie, I'd have never remembered what Susan Boyle accomplished without a reminder. But it is what it is and there is no disputing it. However, in being that, the particular state of the music industry as a whole must be considered because Susan's beginning, started from entirely, previously uncharted territory. The significance in that is massive and cannot be denied because had it not been for those in the realm of Richard, James, Sam, Ray, Muddy, Walter, Ella, Aretha, Smokey, Tina, Stevie, Marvin, Diana, Elvis, John, Michael, Prince, Madonna, Janet...ETC. There'd have NEVER been a Susan Boyle based purely on talented ability.

[Edited 2/2/15 15:30pm]

You won't see me not salute Susan Boyle and her accomplishments. If sheer talent always won the day, that would be wonderful. Unfortunately, it remains an exception otherwise talent like Boyle would come up regularly

Okay, if you insist. But if sheer talent always won the day, we'd need way more than this lifetime to merely get to the point of where we could even begin discussing her. I was just saying.

V10LETBLUES said:

Aerogram said:

If you're such a huge film buff, then maybe you know that It's a Wonderful Life, Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, The Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club. The Big Lebowski, Blade Runner, Vertigo, Brazil, Buster Keanton's The General and countless others were not initially rewarded by consumers. In fact, before his later resurgence as a master of comedy, Buster Keaton's highest grossing film was Sidewalks of New York, a film he didn't direct and in which he acted like he was told.

These movies flew right over the heads of millions of people like you because they were a bit more challenging and didn't merely aim to please the crowds. I contend that Art Official Age was not made with the goal of scoring one no 1 hit after the other, otherwise it would not be filled with melancholy material, but more optimistic, uptempo stuff. Prince rightfully chose to make the pop record he wanted to make, which is better for his legacy in the long term than trying to compete with Taylor, Katy or One Direction, and please conventional folks who only know what they know now and have no plans to learn more.

[Edited 2/2/15 16:12pm]

Those movies never flew over my head. But lets recap, are you saying AOA is as good as Citizen Kane, or something less sensationalist like the silly album is better than Katy Perry. Let's zero in oon what we are saying here.

These examples are provided to you as a way of pointing out consumers don't always reward quality.

You know this, but because you're so opinionated, you're asking if I think AOA is like Citizen Kane. Just another way of pretending you're winning a debate you lost from the start.

The height of pure, unadulterated stupidity is expecting the foremost musical genius of our time to keep doing something that he defined and mastered over 3 decades ago while NO ONE has even come close to surpassing it in all that time.