Never been into Bowie, I like some of his stuff and the stuff that I do I really like. But that's not a great deal of his catalogue.

TheEnglishGent said:

I was a massive Bowie fan from 1975-84. Then he started making less interesting music (his 80s were not that great). At the same time, Prince appeared and he was a tremendous breath of fresh air. An amazing talent, as a musician and performer. I followed Prince closely 1984-early nineties; then he started chasing trends rather than continuing with the experimentation. Bowie slowly came back and started making amazing albums and interesting career moves again (although not quite comparable to his 1969-80 output).

Bowie's impact on me has been far stronger. He has been able to handle his career and legacy much better than Prince. In essence, Bowie was a highly intelligent artist, as many have testified. Prince is a fantastic musician, but has not been the visionary genious that Bowie was. Prince has also not been able to "function" well with recording companies or the biz. He seems distrusting.

Prince seems to have ended up quite bitter. Bowie was infinitely smarter. Note that Bowie also experienced huge problems with managers who robbed him off money, record companies that didn't promote his albums, etc - but he never made these problems so public and he seemed to be able to navigate around the problems and gain control. Prince is devaluing his legacy by so blatantly talking about the dollars and the evils of the music biz - instead of coming up with strategies (and collaborators) to help him navigate through the mess.

As for musical inventiveness, they both borrow liberally and come up with their own versions. Both have been truly innovative and daring. But Bowie has challenged himself more as a songwriter, whereas Prince has focused on his musicianship. Prince has duplicated/repeated himself much more than Bowie, suggesting that Prince has been reluctant to work with "outside" producers and musicians who could have challenged him; he basically works with "yes" people who are amazed by his talent but who do not challenge him (the way George Martin did with the Beatles, or even Paul did w. John and vice versa).

P

SeventeenDayze said:

It's terrible how some of you are using this thread to spew even more venom about Prince. Why are you on this FAN SITE if you hate Prince so much? Leave already!

Isn't it time for you to start your 27th thread about your "racist" co-workers or your guy of the week in GD?

MotownSubdivision said:

I think some of y'all are taking @thedance's "Prince owned the 80s and early 90s" comment a little too seriously I honestly just think he meant Prince was making groundbreaking, amazing music at the time far beyond any of his peers (similar to Bowie in his own time period), they were his golden years.

Scratch that, I'm sure that's what he meant, because Bowie also did not technically 'own' the 70s and early 80s -- but artistically, he did.

Prince had/has a bigger impact on me, but I can't overstate my Bowie love..

I still can't believe he's gone. I was a fan of his work (not too deep) and I really liked the guy, I didn't hear about his cancer so it was an immense shock hearing of his sudden death 2 days after he dropped an amazing album. That was supernatural... Not surprising, considering his own supernatural life. May he rest in peace.

Graycap23 said:

CharismaDove said:

I'd say Prince originally, but Bowie progressed much further - and better IMO as he kept really wrking hard on each release even into the 2000s and especailly this last one. I have had Darkstar on heavy rotation since the day it came out. I cant say that about any Prince album in the last 10 years at least, and sad as I feel saying it I dont see any likely change. Look who Bowie worked with and collaboated with. It really is another level.

MotownSubdivision said:

Graycap23 said:

Keep laughing. Judging by the look of my record collection, Prince has dominated the record business since 1978. I could care less what other people say about it. I can only hear with my EARS.

Your record collection doesn't speak for the world like you seem to think.

My record collection only speaks for me.....I thought that was pretty clear in my original comment. I don't care what others are listening to.

V10LETBLUES said:

Prince never owned any part of the 90's. None of it. He was a joke in the 90's to everyone but 6 people here in the org. Bowie has never been a joke. He has always been an artist that people respected whether he sold records or not. He was an artist through and through. Prince began to pander and try to hock a cartoonish version of himself as a ploy to make money that didn't work. True artist don't dumb themselves down and exploit themselves without regard to themselves or their fans. That's called prostitution. Bowie never prostituted himself like that.

sadly this is so true.

it's the dumbing down,the self imposed restrictions on his art.

Bowie was always real and Blackstar is a killer album.

pernil said:

I was a massive Bowie fan from 1975-84. Then he started making less interesting music (his 80s were not that great). At the same time, Prince appeared and he was a tremendous breath of fresh air. An amazing talent, as a musician and performer. I followed Prince closely 1984-early nineties; then he started chasing trends rather than continuing with the experimentation. Bowie slowly came back and started making amazing albums and interesting career moves again (although not quite comparable to his 1969-80 output).

Bowie's impact on me has been far stronger. He has been able to handle his career and legacy much better than Prince. In essence, Bowie was a highly intelligent artist, as many have testified. Prince is a fantastic musician, but has not been the visionary genious that Bowie was. Prince has also not been able to "function" well with recording companies or the biz. He seems distrusting.

Prince seems to have ended up quite bitter. Bowie was infinitely smarter. Note that Bowie also experienced huge problems with managers who robbed him off money, record companies that didn't promote his albums, etc - but he never made these problems so public and he seemed to be able to navigate around the problems and gain control. Prince is devaluing his legacy by so blatantly talking about the dollars and the evils of the music biz - instead of coming up with strategies (and collaborators) to help him navigate through the mess.

As for musical inventiveness, they both borrow liberally and come up with their own versions. Both have been truly innovative and daring. But Bowie has challenged himself more as a songwriter, whereas Prince has focused on his musicianship. Prince has duplicated/repeated himself much more than Bowie, suggesting that Prince has been reluctant to work with "outside" producers and musicians who could have challenged him; he basically works with "yes" people who are amazed by his talent but who do not challenge him (the way George Martin did with the Beatles, or even Paul did w. John and vice versa).

P

Well stated, as always. I always wished that you would do a continuing history on Prince, but I know your life has taken a different route. Is it possible or in the works, that someone of your choosing can access your research and continue what you have done so well? Bowie is well covered...

CharismaDove said:

I think some of y'all are taking @thedance's "Prince owned the 80s and early 90s" comment a little too seriously I honestly just think he meant Prince was making groundbreaking, amazing music at the time far beyond any of his peers (similar to Bowie in his own time period), they were his golden years.

^ right, thanks..

after all I am danish and non-english, my english language may not be exact.....

But what you wrote above (CharismaDove) was what I meant.. thanks... again..

[Edited 1/12/16 22:11pm]

Graycap23 said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Graycap23 said: Your record collection doesn't speak for the world like you seem to think.

My record collection only speaks for me.....I thought that was pretty clear in my original comment. I don't care what others are listening to.

Exactly, now shut up about your record collection Graycap, I only care about mine.

jaawwnn said:

Graycap23 said:

My record collection only speaks for me.....I thought that was pretty clear in my original comment. I don't care what others are listening to.

Exactly, now shut up about your record collection Graycap, I only care about mine.

Lol......

This thread is whack.

"Owned"? In both cases, that's a competition-oriented word that is so reductive, not only when comparing the two of them, but in regards to other of their contemporaries.

They are both great artists. Bowie had a lot going for him because of when he came to prominence, that great era. He had the support of radio when it was still segregated to death, and therefore his reputation was established in more favourable conditions. Prince had to break some systemic barriers and he still has to, the way music culture still works.

In any case I just don't feel it's such a great idea to have a Bowie versus Prince thread, too reductive and I thought we were all about the art, not the dumb competition.

SignOthetimes1987 said:

V10LETBLUES said:

Prince never owned any part of the 90's. None of it. He was a joke in the 90's to everyone but 6 people here in the org. Bowie has never been a joke. He has always been an artist that people respected whether he sold records or not. He was an artist through and through. Prince began to pander and try to hock a cartoonish version of himself as a ploy to make money that didn't work. True artist don't dumb themselves down and exploit themselves without regard to themselves or their fans. That's called prostitution. Bowie never prostituted himself like that.

sadly this is so true.

it's the dumbing down,the self imposed restrictions on his art.

Bowie was always real and Blackstar is a killer album.

Have the two of you ever even heard of his 80s records like "Tonight" or "Never Let Me Down"? Are you seriously that unaware of what type of commercial dross Bowie did in the 80s?

He's even stated himself that they were awful and that he should have never done them.

As for the 90s - Bowie returned to making more interesting stuff, but got just as mixed reviews for his albums and tours in the 90s as Prince did. The reviews were often dismissive and plain mean-spirited. No trace of "respect" in many of them at all.

[Edited 1/13/16 11:09am]

jaawwnn said:

Prince didn't own the 80's or early 90's don't be ridiculous. Maybe he owned 1984 but that's about it. To answer your question, I'm a member of prince.org, not Bowie.org

First of all, the Bee Gees owned the 70s, not Bowie. Secondly, Prince absolutely owned the 80s. He spent more weeks on the charts (378) and had more hits (26) than anyone,

https://rateyourmusic.com/list/abyss89/who_ruled_the_80s_the_200_biggest_artists_of_the_decade_in_the_usa/2/

alandail said:

jaawwnn said:

Prince didn't own the 80's or early 90's don't be ridiculous. Maybe he owned 1984 but that's about it. To answer your question, I'm a member of prince.org, not Bowie.org

First of all, the Bee Gees owned the 70s, not Bowie. Secondly, Prince absolutely owned the 80s. He spent more weeks on the charts (378) and had more hits (26) than anyone,

https://rateyourmusic.com/list/abyss89/who_ruled_the_80s_the_200_biggest_artists_of_the_decade_in_the_usa/2/

So Prince did own the 80's. Am just so used to people here dumbing down his achievements.

[Edited 1/13/16 9:07am]

alandail said:

jaawwnn said:

Prince didn't own the 80's or early 90's don't be ridiculous. Maybe he owned 1984 but that's about it. To answer your question, I'm a member of prince.org, not Bowie.org

First of all, the Bee Gees owned the 70s, not Bowie. Secondly, Prince absolutely owned the 80s. He spent more weeks on the charts (378) and had more hits (26) than anyone,

https://rateyourmusic.com/list/abyss89/who_ruled_the_80s_the_200_biggest_artists_of_the_decade_in_the_usa/2/

ha! wow. Now that is an interesting way of adding up influence. I stand corrected! He's right up there with Flock of Seagulls and Dan Fogelberg

[Edited 1/13/16 9:03am]

I doubt there'd have been Purple Rain without Ziggy Stardust.

Bowie led the way for New Romantics and a whole 80s pop scene.

That doesn't make Bowie better though. There wouldn't be Bowie if it wasn't for Bob Dylan

thedance said:

CharismaDove said:

I think some of y'all are taking @thedance's "Prince owned the 80s and early 90s" comment a little too seriously I honestly just think he meant Prince was making groundbreaking, amazing music at the time far beyond any of his peers (similar to Bowie in his own time period), they were his golden years.

^ right, thanks..

after all I am danish and non-english, my english language may not be exact.....

But what you wrote above (CharismaDove) was what I meant.. thanks... again..

[Edited 1/12/16 22:11pm]

No problem

Guitarhero said:

alandail said:

First of all, the Bee Gees owned the 70s, not Bowie. Secondly, Prince absolutely owned the 80s. He spent more weeks on the charts (378) and had more hits (26) than anyone,

https://rateyourmusic.com/list/abyss89/who_ruled_the_80s_the_200_biggest_artists_of_the_decade_in_the_usa/2/

So Prince did own the 80's. Am just so used to people here dumbing down his achievements.

[Edited 1/13/16 9:07am]

LOL while I know a few people on the org hype Prince up as if he was the best-selling act of all time, there seems to be far more who like to act like 'Purple Rain' was his only achievement and he was never THAT successful/popular. I agree with you about people dumbing down his achievements.

james said:

I doubt there'd have been Purple Rain without Ziggy Stardust.

Bowie led the way for New Romantics and a whole 80s pop scene.

excellent post. I totally agree.

Aerogram said:

This thread is whack.

"Owned"? In both cases, that's a competition-oriented word that is so reductive, not only when comparing the two of them, but in regards to other of their contemporaries.

They are both great artists. Bowie had a lot going for him because of when he came to prominence, that great era. He had the support of radio when it was still segregated to death, and therefore his reputation was established in more favourable conditions. Prince had to break some systemic barriers and he still has to, the way music culture still works.

In any case I just don't feel it's such a great idea to have a Bowie versus Prince thread, too reductive and I thought we were all about the art, not the dumb competition.

jaawwnn said:

alandail said:

First of all, the Bee Gees owned the 70s, not Bowie. Secondly, Prince absolutely owned the 80s. He spent more weeks on the charts (378) and had more hits (26) than anyone,

https://rateyourmusic.com/list/abyss89/who_ruled_the_80s_the_200_biggest_artists_of_the_decade_in_the_usa/2/

ha! wow. Now that is an interesting way of adding up influence. I stand corrected! He's right up there with Flock of Seagulls and Dan Fogelberg

[Edited 1/13/16 9:03am]

Flock of Seagulls was #200. How does listing them invalidate Prince being #1 with a decade best 26 hits and 378 weeks on the chart.

Prince was also #18 in the 90s with 19 hits and 216 weeks on the charts.