independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Reconciling with Prince's The Rainbow Children
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 5 of 6 <123456>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #120 posted 05/11/16 7:37am

emesem

Dont feed the trolls.

KoolEaze said:

keenly said:

Prince is wrong about those Jewish sounding family names like Rosenbloom and Goldberg. They may sound nice but they were actually meant to discriminate against Jews.

When you say the tribe does not have a history of persecution, are you trying to say Jews have never been discriminated against?

What makes you say that? Jews have been persecuted for a very long time, from the Middle Ages to Nazi Germany. They found some peace under Muslim rule under the Moors in Spain and the Ottoman Turks (though that tolerance later changed) but to say that they have never been persecuted is incorrect. I´m actually surprised to see you write what you wrote.

Or are you comparing it to black people and their persecution and saying that blacks had it worse?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #121 posted 05/11/16 7:44am

KoolEaze

avatar

I like most of the music on TRC and I really like the songs Everywhere, She Loves Me 4 Me, and Last December. Family Name is also a great tune with deep lyrics but some parts of it are very questionable. But I always liked the live renditions of it and I appreciated Prince´s new afrocentric approach after his relatively mainstream and conservative views in the 1980s.

The few lyrics that make me cringe are 1+1+1=3 and its sexism (huge turnoff, no matter how funky it sounds....unlistenable to me) and the conspiracy theory laden Muse 2 the Pharaoh.

And I still don´t get the inclusion of Wedding Feast, or the lyrics to Digital Garden, or the title song.

I read in that alleged book excerpt from "Xtraloveable-My year with an icon" that the Rainbow Children was Prince´s eulogoy for his deceased son but I have absolutely no idea how this album is supposed to be for or about his dead son.

I does contain some questionable lyrics and dogma but then again, mid 80s Prince was also very dogmatic when it comes to politics and religion ( supported the Republicans for a while, made some silly comments, was very patriotic and on the verge of nationalistic, and was very religious.....songs like God and the Lovesexy tour were really in your face and very similar to his preaching during TRC and the ONA tour...but neither of them bothered me since I would not consider myself a religious perosn. ).

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #122 posted 05/11/16 7:44am

1725topp

SchlomoThaHomo said:

*

Well, this particular situation was divisive because he issued those proposals as a part of the requirements to get the Revolution back together. Wendy basically said, "Fuck you," to the terms, and the reunion never happened. She didn't hook back up with him for another 4 years.

*

I disagree. I think it's absolute his most preachy work.

*

I disagree. Most people in the Judeo-Christian framework do not end up a Jehovah's Witness.

*

Unless the artist comes out and explains exactly what he or she was trying to say in their work, we can only interpret it. You don't know that it wasn't racist, just as others don't know that it was. We're not in Prince's head. The point is that it was received that way by some.



*

Given the fact that Prince never seemed serious about the Revolution ever reuniting, and I, for one as a fan, never wanted to see a Revolution reunion, I'm not sure that Wendy's sexual orientation or her religion were the reasons why Prince didn't engage a reunion. Around the late 80s or early 90s Prince once stated that he had the notion of the Revolution taking a break and then one day uniting to accomplish even bigger things. But, other than that one statement, all his other statements seemed to imply that he had no real interest in reuniting the Revolution. I may be wrong, but there just isn't enough evidence to support that the only things that kept the Revolution from reuniting were Wendy's sexual orientation and her faith. And, regardless of the time frame, they did work together again with Prince seemingly not changing his views. Sure, as all people grow and learn "to be wise and gentle in our counsel" when dealing with people of different views and faiths, as Paul instructs, Prince learned how to stand for his views and beliefs while maintaining working relationships with anyone, Wendy included, who has different views and beliefs. Yet, it's difficult to judge with Wendy since they weren't "hanging out" and "making music together" and "talking about a reunion" before Prince became a JW. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall Prince ever discussing a real possibility of the Revolution reuniting.

*

We'll just have to agree to disagree to TRC being more preachy than "Annie Christian" or "Party Up" or "Controversy" or "New Power Generation" or any song that has Prince's signature righteous indignation of "I'm right and you oppressors are wrong." That's what I loved about Prince--his notion or passion to say "Eff the world--it's my way or the highway." This attitude or mentality didn't change; it just morphed or embraced orthodox Christian ideas. The same righteous indignation of "I'm right and y'all are wrong" that's found on TRC is the same righteous indignation that's found in "Uptown," "Sexuality," and "Ronnie Talk to Russia." It's the same dude with the same attitude or approach but with a more detailed Judeo-Christian message. He's not apologetic at all for his stances in any of the songs that I mentioned, and he's real clear that he's on the "right" side of the issue. Even with "Race," which presents a juvenile/myopic understanding of history, he's not apologetic at all about his position, and he's working/preaching to convert those who don't see it his way. As such, TRC is no more preachy than anything that Prince has done. It's just that some don't like what he's preaching/promoting on TRC. Further, it's cool if people don't like what he's preaching or promoting on TRC, but they should not act like this is Prince's first time preaching or promoting a particular position while asserting that he's right and everyone else is wrong. This has been Prince's nature for his entire career, before and after TRC.

*

It's not a question of whether or not most in the Judeo-Christian framework become Jehovah's Witnesses, but that there isn't that much difference in the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses as there is for "traditional" Christians. The notion about the afterlife on Earth or Heaven, the question of Hell, the question of blood transfusions, and the slight variation on how Jesus is defined are all that separates JW's from "traditional" Christians. And of these four, the notion of the existence of Hell, with JW's believing that there is no Hell, is the only one in which the two different interpretations aren't just "splitting hairs." Notions about sin, be it homosexuality or fornication, lying, stealing, etc., are all the same. As such, it is not "shocking" that someone working within the Judeo-Christian framework would become a JW. Other than the position on Hell, there's just not that much difference between "traditional" Christians and JWs. In fact, I would add that probably Protestants have more in common with JWs than they do with Catholics, and this is not to disparage either doctrine or denomination but merely to show that the differences between "traditional" Christians and JWs is minimal. I know people who were raised as JWs who became "traditional" Christians, and I know people who were raised as "traditional" Christians who became JWs. It's a revolving door at best, with each person converting for various reasons with the notion that belief in Jesus as the Messiah is primary for either doctrine.

*

As for someone "receiving" something as racist, I'll ask again to name one thing that I cited in the lyrics that is racist. How is Prince asking/insinuating that American slavery is equal to the Holocaust racist? Please explain this to me. I'm not being rhetorical; I really want someone to explain to me how asserting that American slavery is equal to the Holocaust is a racist statement? Also, how is it racist that Prince discusses that African people had their names forcibly changed? How is that racist? How is it racist that Prince merely recounts history to show that many Africans and African Americans chose death over slavery? Or, how is Prince racist for using Abraham Lincoln's own words to show Lincoln's racism? You are right, people can perceive anything they want, but that doesn't make their perception correct, especially when none of these people have been able to answer the four questions above. So, I'll ask again. How is it racist for a black man merely to provide the facts of American history as it relates to the horrors of American slavery? Until someone can answer these four questions, I can only "perceive" or "receive" the comments of people calling TRC racist as the feelings of people who don't want Prince to be a black person and address the "real" historical issues of racism that continue to exist in American society.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #123 posted 05/11/16 7:44am

KoolEaze

avatar

I like most of the music on TRC and I really like the songs Everywhere, She Loves Me 4 Me, and Last December. Family Name is also a great tune with deep lyrics but some parts of it are very questionable. But I always liked the live renditions of it and I appreciated Prince´s new afrocentric approach after his relatively mainstream and conservative views in the 1980s.

The few lyrics that make me cringe are 1+1+1=3 and its sexism (huge turnoff, no matter how funky it sounds....unlistenable to me) and the conspiracy theory laden Muse 2 the Pharaoh.

And I still don´t get the inclusion of Wedding Feast, or the lyrics to Digital Garden, or the title song.

I read in that alleged book excerpt from "Xtraloveable-My year with an icon" that the Rainbow Children was Prince´s eulogoy for his deceased son but I have absolutely no idea how this album is supposed to be for or about his dead son.

I does contain some questionable lyrics and dogma but then again, mid 80s Prince was also very dogmatic when it comes to politics and religion ( supported the Republicans for a while, made some silly comments, was very patriotic and on the verge of nationalistic, and was very religious.....songs like God and the Lovesexy tour were really in your face and very similar to his preaching during TRC and the ONA tour...but neither of them bothered me since I would not consider myself a religious perosn. ).

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #124 posted 05/11/16 7:47am

leadline

avatar

Nothing to reconcile at all, Prince's best work usually takes place when he is truly inspired, and for this album, he certaintly was. It is one of my favorites. The lyrics dont bother me, I am proud of him for choosing a path and sticking with it. The only change I would make on this is to lose the darth vader voice, it would have been so much better with his regular voice speaking those intro's before the songs.

"You always get the dream that you deserve, from what you value the most" -Prince 2013
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #125 posted 05/11/16 7:49am

KoolEaze

avatar

emesem said:

SNIP

KoolEaze said:

Prince is wrong about those Jewish sounding family names like Rosenbloom and Goldberg. They may sound nice but they were actually meant to discriminate against Jews.

When you say the tribe does not have a history of persecution, are you trying to say Jews have never been discriminated against?

What makes you say that? Jews have been persecuted for a very long time, from the Middle Ages to Nazi Germany. They found some peace under Muslim rule under the Moors in Spain and the Ottoman Turks (though that tolerance later changed) but to say that they have never been persecuted is incorrect. I´m actually surprised to see you write what you wrote.

Or are you comparing it to black people and their persecution and saying that blacks had it worse?


SNIP

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #126 posted 05/11/16 7:55am

1725topp

KoolEaze said:

I like most of the music on TRC and I really like the songs Everywhere, She Loves Me 4 Me, and Last December. Family Name is also a great tune with deep lyrics but some parts of it are very questionable. But I always liked the live renditions of it and I appreciated Prince´s new afrocentric approach after his relatively mainstream and conservative views in the 1980s.

The few lyrics that make me cringe are 1+1+1=3 and its sexism (huge turnoff, no matter how funky it sounds....unlistenable to me) and the conspiracy theory laden Muse 2 the Pharaoh.

And I still don´t get the inclusion of Wedding Feast, or the lyrics to Digital Garden, or the title song.

I read in that alleged book excerpt from "Xtraloveable-My year with an icon" that the Rainbow Children was Prince´s eulogoy for his deceased son but I have absolutely no idea how this album is supposed to be for or about his dead son.

I does contain some questionable lyrics and dogma but then again, mid 80s Prince was also very dogmatic when it comes to politics and religion ( supported the Republicans for a while, made some silly comments, was very patriotic and on the verge of nationalistic, and was very religious.....songs like God and the Lovesexy tour were really in your face and very similar to his preaching during TRC and the ONA tour...but neither of them bothered me since I would not consider myself a religious perosn. ).

*

This bolded part is my biggest issue that people will not admit that Prince was just as dogmatic about politics and religion during the 80s as he was on TRC.

*

Also, could you explain the sexism of "1+1+1=3" because when he states "There's a theocratic order...ain't no room to disagree," I understood it as the speaker saying that he wanted to be in a relationship with someone of the same faith, with that order being all things fall under God. I've looked at the lyrics several times, and I'm just missing the sexism. Please advise. Thanks.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #127 posted 05/11/16 7:59am

Rebeljuice

Whatever the meaning behind the album I think the one thing that would make Prince happy is the discussion that it has provoked in this, and the many other threads over the years. If his intention was to create discussion, good and bad, about the albums meaning, I would say he pulled it off successfully.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #128 posted 05/11/16 8:02am

terrig

OldFriends4Sale said:

Reproduction of the New Breed

Menda City, we R the Banished Ones we have come 2 dance, the Digital Garden,

the Rainbow Children, the Wise One, the Muse,

electronica organic, finger cymbals, electric guitar, harmony, deep bass,

the Truth?, curious story line, play on words, swirl of color, kaleidoscope reactions,

Controversy, Egyptology, Gnostic references, Jehovahs Witnesses,

indecipherable twists and turns, religion, lust,

Did U bring yourself 2 joy?

As prophesied, the Wise One and his woman were tempted by the Resistor. He,
knowing full well the Wise One's love 4 God, assimilated the woman first and
only. Quite naturally, chaos ensued and she and 5 others were banished from
the rainbow.4ever.

.
The Wise One who understood the law that was handed down from God long ago,
held fast in his belief that the Lord would bring him another one who loved him so.

.

The Banished Ones approaching the palace shouted obscenities. They tried 2
confuse the Rainbow Children and dethron their king. Using the lies promoted
by the whosepapers, hellavisions, and scagazines- The Banished Ones
constructed a Digital Garden around the palace that extended throughout the
world. Furthermore they demanded compensation 4 their time spent in the
palace b4 the exile. This was noise! "So be it," said the Wise One, and
gladly obliged with an INVISIBLE DEED. The Banished Ones accepted and
returned to their place of birth in MendaCity. As 4 the Rainbow Children,
they began deconstructing the Digital Garden. Door to door they went in
search of those willing to do The Work

.

From all over, the people came 2 do The Work. And with every phase of the
deconstruction the Everlasting Now became evermore reality. Everywhere the
people were witnessing a change, but the alchemy occurred most in the Muse.

.

To all his good brothers
The Wise One spoke highly of his Muse,
Because her love for the one true God
Was growing with every passing day.
So he said, "to all a good night",
Sent them to bed early and invited his Muse to join him in
The sensual ever after

.
As she fell in2 the Sensual Everafter, out of bodyout of mind,
she stroked her hair a hundred times.
And as she fell deeper in2 the hypnotic unwind, he counted his way in2 the suggestive mind.
Planting a seed that bears fruit on the tree,
he said, repeat after me.repeat after me.repeat after me.1+1+1 is 3

.

One after the other, the Banished Ones fled
As they watched from the distance
The destruction of the Digital Garden

With no more fruit to bear from its trees
The Haze was finally broken
With the rains came the awareness that never again
Would anyone ever lay claim to the treasures of the Rainbow Children

As though awakened from a dream
The Muse opened her eyes
This time as Queen

File:Theworkpt1 single.jpg



I think Prince fell in love with converting Mani - not Mani herself.

Prince throughout his life demanded obedience from women, even when he was promoting them, or lifting them up. I dont believe he saw women as his equal but he did see and use their power to be cultivated and shaped and controlled.

He looked at them as untapped resources.

I happen to love TRC and it is a masterwork filtered through his conversion and his desire to convert others as he felt he found all the answers - I believe it does express where he was at the time, he also softened with time and the reality of the world he actually lived in...

It's some of the most passionate and focused work he's ever done and it's extreme, but I believe that kind of extreme can manifest in great art.

In fact 'extreme' is what made Prince, PRINCE. He wrung himself out in every record.


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #129 posted 05/11/16 8:12am

KoolEaze

avatar

1725topp said:

KoolEaze said:

I like most of the music on TRC and I really like the songs Everywhere, She Loves Me 4 Me, and Last December. Family Name is also a great tune with deep lyrics but some parts of it are very questionable. But I always liked the live renditions of it and I appreciated Prince´s new afrocentric approach after his relatively mainstream and conservative views in the 1980s.

The few lyrics that make me cringe are 1+1+1=3 and its sexism (huge turnoff, no matter how funky it sounds....unlistenable to me) and the conspiracy theory laden Muse 2 the Pharaoh.

And I still don´t get the inclusion of Wedding Feast, or the lyrics to Digital Garden, or the title song.

I read in that alleged book excerpt from "Xtraloveable-My year with an icon" that the Rainbow Children was Prince´s eulogoy for his deceased son but I have absolutely no idea how this album is supposed to be for or about his dead son.

I does contain some questionable lyrics and dogma but then again, mid 80s Prince was also very dogmatic when it comes to politics and religion ( supported the Republicans for a while, made some silly comments, was very patriotic and on the verge of nationalistic, and was very religious.....songs like God and the Lovesexy tour were really in your face and very similar to his preaching during TRC and the ONA tour...but neither of them bothered me since I would not consider myself a religious perosn. ).

*

This bolded part is my biggest issue that people will not admit that Prince was just as dogmatic about politics and religion during the 80s as he was on TRC.

*

Also, could you explain the sexism of "1+1+1=3" because when he states "There's a theocratic order...ain't no room to disagree," I understood it as the speaker saying that he wanted to be in a relationship with someone of the same faith, with that order being all things fall under God. I've looked at the lyrics several times, and I'm just missing the sexism. Please advise. Thanks.

It is in the nature of a theocratic order to be sexist and misogynistic, isn´t it? So if you interpret it as wanting to be with someone who shares the same faith, it is still a sexist lyric because it expects the partner to agree on religious issues, doesn´t it? And the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam and all their offsprings) are deeply sexist and misogynistic when fully practiced.

-

.

The fact that socalled "Christian" societies and Jews in America and elsewhere, and to some extent Muslims all over the world, are not a bunch of sexists is rooted in the fact that they simply don´t take their respective religions very seriously anymore. They were all influenced by the effects of the enlightenment period and religion taking a backseat, and of course people losing their religion to some extent (though not fully).

-

I have a Turkish Muslim background but I don´t practice the religion, nor do I agree with many of its teachings and rules but I can tell that in the case of the Turkish Republic, a theocratic order was not a good thing for women and things improved drastically when Mustafa Kemal abolished the caliphate and monarchy and founded the secular Turkish Republic. Women were given the right to vote, even earlier than in many European countries.

And these days, with an egomaniac like Pres. Erdogan and his Islamist agenda, things are getting worse for women because he still has the mindset of someone living in the pre-republic era.

If people practiced their religions like they did a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago, things would be quite different.

A theocratic order is sexist by its very nature. Also keep in mind that Prince made some controversial statements regarding veiled women in Islamic countries, and the theocratic order in such countries.

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #130 posted 05/11/16 8:17am

joelmarable

GirlBrother said:

weirdozmedia said:

I have to admit this era of Prince I pretty much know nothing about, what was the unacceptable lyrics and such?

There's a lyric about black mixing with white being acceptable on a piano keyboard, but not in the real world. There's another song where the lyric infers that all present-day white people should face an uprising by people of colour, for their enslaving of Africans a couple of centuries ago. And the lyric continues, "Goddam Catholics, Protestants, Jews"... or something like that. There's more - just Google the album's lyrics. And on top of the crazy lyrics, it all sounds creepy as fuck. His voice is super slowed down in parts, like Darth Vader in a K-Hole. It's unpleasant.

GB u must be feeling racial overtones in the lyrics, is that why u no like? i understand but the music is outstanding she loves me for me, one of his best ballads. and everywhere and the sensual everafter are spot on dude. its a concept album not a bunch of songs thrown to gether.some lyrics i agree with some i dont. family name lyrics r very true.

stickman
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #131 posted 05/11/16 8:21am

joelmarable

GirlBrother said:

weirdozmedia said:

I have to admit this era of Prince I pretty much know nothing about, what was the unacceptable lyrics and such?

There's a lyric about black mixing with white being acceptable on a piano keyboard, but not in the real world. There's another song where the lyric infers that all present-day white people should face an uprising by people of colour, for their enslaving of Africans a couple of centuries ago. And the lyric continues, "Goddam Catholics, Protestants, Jews"... or something like that. There's more - just Google the album's lyrics. And on top of the crazy lyrics, it all sounds creepy as fuck. His voice is super slowed down in parts, like Darth Vader in a K-Hole. It's unpleasant.

GB U MUST be feeling racial overtones on this cd, i understand but the music is the bomb, she loves me for me is one of his better ballads. everywhere and the sensual instrumental is crazy good. its a concept album not random songs thrown together. some of the lyrics one may find offensive if u r cacasian, i dont agree with all of them. but the lyrics to family name ring true. one of his best cd to me, but i c how it turned some off.

stickman
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #132 posted 05/11/16 8:39am

Genesia

avatar

When listening to this album, I almost wish I didn't understand English. That way, I could just listen to the music.


We don’t mourn artists because we knew them. We mourn them because they helped us know ourselves.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #133 posted 05/11/16 8:58am

thx185

avatar

KingSausage said:

AnonymousFan said:

That's the thing. People's feelings about the album are ILLEGITIMATE when the album wasn't meant to please you in the first place. Your feelings are hurt by lyrics? Fine, get over it. You have no right to try and act like Prince needed to seek your approval and kowtow to your feelings over TRC. He wrote what he liked and what he believed. If you don't like that, then it sucks for you. But, when we're talking about your opinion of someone's art - especially if it's negative, then yes, the opinion is irrelevant and right to be dismissed.

Your view of the world appears to be myopic and stupid. Are you willfully misunderstanding what people are saying? Nobody's feelings about art are illegitimate. What is wrong with you?

I understand the point AnonymousFan is making, and I think you're being too hard on him/her.

.

I think some people do come across as feeling entitled to have all their Prince music (and anything else they consume) be non-challenging and fit past norms. When an artist breaks those past norms, some love it, some hate it, but the real difference for the negative reaction is whether you take it in stride (accepting the artist where they are and their right to produce that work you hate/dislike/find offensive) or get it twisted and feel robbed/cheated/scandalized/affronted because some artist dared to put something out that didn't fit your subjective past norms of that artist.

.

It's a lot of words to describe the simple situation we've all been in every time a beloved artist puts out a record we initially don't understand / dig / enjoy / love. Whether we love it or not is indeed irrelevant in the broadest sense to the artist. I think Prince exemplified this more than any other artist I can think of.

"..free to change your mind"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #134 posted 05/11/16 9:03am

Genesia

avatar

thx185 said:

KingSausage said:

AnonymousFan said: Your view of the world appears to be myopic and stupid. Are you willfully misunderstanding what people are saying? Nobody's feelings about art are illegitimate. What is wrong with you?

I understand the point AnonymousFan is making, and I think you're being too hard on him/her.

.

I think some people do come across as feeling entitled to have all their Prince music (and anything else they consume) be non-challenging and fit past norms. When an artist breaks those past norms, some love it, some hate it, but the real difference for the negative reaction is whether you take it in stride (accepting the artist where they are and their right to produce that work you hate/dislike/find offensive) or get it twisted and feel robbed/cheated/scandalized/affronted because some artist dared to put something out that didn't fit your subjective past norms of that artist.

.

It's a lot of words to describe the simple situation we've all been in every time a beloved artist puts out a record we initially don't understand / dig / enjoy / love. Whether we love it or not is indeed irrelevant in the broadest sense to the artist. I think Prince exemplified this more than any other artist I can think of.


I, too, understand the point AnonymousFan is making, and I think you're being too generous with him/her.

We don’t mourn artists because we knew them. We mourn them because they helped us know ourselves.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #135 posted 05/11/16 9:10am

cardinal

avatar

the thing about loving the idea of converting mani more than mani, and the obedient thing.....i always wondered why it seemed that his gf's and wives were so much younger than him. i saw a quote the other day about mayte...the person said she met him so young that she didn't even know yet what she thought about the world...

he seemed to like (or need) women to be the clay with him shaping them, and if and when they spoke their own minds, things unraveled. in recent years, he spoke about learning from women and their female energy, but even then he surrounded himself with younger people (and i understand he wanted to teach them about music, too).

but what about the women of strong spirit and intellect, close to his age, who could go toe to toe with him on his theories and ideas, where were they in his life?

still love the guy, always will, but i always found this particular aspect of him interesting. a hidden insecurity perhaps, of being bested by a real female peer?

i wonder sometimes....


"do i have a friend tonight?" --prince at his last concert in atlanta bawl
[Edited 5/11/16 9:12am]
"If u love somebody, your life won't be in vain
And there's always a rainbow, at the end of every rain."--peace and love, dear prince.....
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #136 posted 05/11/16 9:22am

keenly

KoolEaze said:

keenly said:

Never question the tribe. God's chosen people are above the Goyim.

I love that Prince mentioned the tribe still having their names. Of course they do, they have no history of persuction like black people do.

JW is a cult, created by a WHITE FREEMASON.

Prince is wrong about those Jewish sounding family names like Rosenbloom and Goldberg. They may sound nice but they were actually meant to discriminate against Jews.

When you say the tribe does not have a history of persecution, are you trying to say Jews have never been discriminated against?

What makes you say that? Jews have been persecuted for a very long time, from the Middle Ages to Nazi Germany. They found some peace under Muslim rule under the Moors in Spain and the Ottoman Turks (though that tolerance later changed) but to say that they have never been persecuted is incorrect. I´m actually surprised to see you write what you wrote.

Or are you comparing it to black people and their persecution and saying that blacks had it worse?

SNIP -OF4S
-the P&R forum will open again, until then let's just keep the discussion around The Rainbow Children

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #137 posted 05/11/16 9:23am

KingSausage

avatar

Genesia said:



thx185 said:




KingSausage said:


AnonymousFan said: Your view of the world appears to be myopic and stupid. Are you willfully misunderstanding what people are saying? Nobody's feelings about art are illegitimate. What is wrong with you?


I understand the point AnonymousFan is making, and I think you're being too hard on him/her.


.


I think some people do come across as feeling entitled to have all their Prince music (and anything else they consume) be non-challenging and fit past norms. When an artist breaks those past norms, some love it, some hate it, but the real difference for the negative reaction is whether you take it in stride (accepting the artist where they are and their right to produce that work you hate/dislike/find offensive) or get it twisted and feel robbed/cheated/scandalized/affronted because some artist dared to put something out that didn't fit your subjective past norms of that artist.


.


It's a lot of words to describe the simple situation we've all been in every time a beloved artist puts out a record we initially don't understand / dig / enjoy / love. Whether we love it or not is indeed irrelevant in the broadest sense to the artist. I think Prince exemplified this more than any other artist I can think of.






I, too, understand the point AnonymousFan is making, and I think you're being too generous with him/her.




Totally.

It's funny that people's individual feelings and opinions toward art are only irrelevant, illegitimate, entitled, and whatnot when they're negative opinions or even those that are cautious and questioning. If they're positive, oh boy, then those feelings are totally relevant, legitimate, etc.

People have every right to react to art however they want. Just as Prince had every right to make whatever art he wanted. I don't think anyone here is saying Prince had no right to make TRC or had to reshape its content to make them comfortable. He made the art he did and fans reacted the way they did. And now we are discussing it. Clearly the album still provoked strong feelings, even 15 years later. That's pretty amazing!
"Drop that stereo before I blow your Goddamn nuts off, asshole!"
-Eugene Tackleberry
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #138 posted 05/11/16 9:25am

KingSausage

avatar

keenly said:



KoolEaze said:




keenly said:


Never question the tribe. God's chosen people are above the Goyim.



I love that Prince mentioned the tribe still having their names. Of course they do, they have no history of persuction like black people do.



JW is a cult, created by a WHITE FREEMASON.



Prince is wrong about those Jewish sounding family names like Rosenbloom and Goldberg. They may sound nice but they were actually meant to discriminate against Jews.


When you say the tribe does not have a history of persecution, are you trying to say Jews have never been discriminated against?


What makes you say that? Jews have been persecuted for a very long time, from the Middle Ages to Nazi Germany. They found some peace under Muslim rule under the Moors in Spain and the Ottoman Turks (though that tolerance later changed) but to say that they have never been persecuted is incorrect. I´m actually surprised to see you write what you wrote.


Or are you comparing it to black people and their persecution and saying that blacks had it worse?




Nazi Germany? I suggest you watch the documentary 'the Greatest story never told'.



SNIP




Hmm. The Org is being taken over by Holocaust deniers now? Great...fucking great...
"Drop that stereo before I blow your Goddamn nuts off, asshole!"
-Eugene Tackleberry
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #139 posted 05/11/16 9:36am

Uhope

avatar

TRC was the first Prince album I ever bought (apart from the Hits). I could never connect to his earlier, more explicit lyrics - even though the music I did hear was fantastic; the radio cuts.

I can understand why some would be put off by Prince's change in direction... but it was his direction to change, wasn't it? He didn't need anyone's permission. I don't see the difference from some being put off by his earlier work than those being put off by more recent work. He's made a living off offending *somebody*... everyone gets a turn! cool Something for everyone, right? None of us owned him.

[Edited 5/11/16 9:36am]

Go to the source: http://www.jw.org/en

Thanks! biggrin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #140 posted 05/11/16 9:37am

keenly

KingSausage said:

keenly said:

SNIP

Hmm. The Org is being taken over by Holocaust deniers now? Great...fucking great...

SNIP -OF4S

Do not post racist or 'hateful' material.
This means no racist/homophobic comments, period. Discussions of racism itself in the proper forum are OK. Making hateful comments, directed at a person or group, may get your account immediately suspended. We are extremely serious about this. prince.org is not a place for racial bigotry or hateful speech.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #141 posted 05/11/16 9:40am

MarcelS67

leecaldon said:



weirdozmedia said:




GirlBrother said:


weirdozmedia said: There's a lyric about black mixing with white being acceptable on a piano keyboard, but not in the real world. There's another song where the lyric infers that all present-day white people should face an uprising by people of colour, for their enslaving of Africans a couple of centuries ago. And the lyric continues, "Goddam Catholics, Protestants, Jews"... or something like that. There's more - just Google the album's lyrics. And on top of the crazy lyrics, it all sounds creepy as fuck. His voice is super slowed down in parts, like Darth Vader in a K-Hole. It's unpleasant.


What the f---?! So I guess he turned his back on that whole "black, white, Puerto Rican everybody just a freakin'" utopia, or was this supposed to be some type of Spooky Electric character spouting nonsense?



It might be best that I just continue pretending this album doesn't exist, lol.




I seriously don't recall that being there. There is a bit of a Martin Luther King speech though - "Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last..."


Exactly, and the other frase was an impersonation Thomas Jefferson and what he could have said:"If there's a just God we're gonna pay for this". Well should be some truth in that don't you think?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #142 posted 05/11/16 9:41am

keenly

KoolEaze said:

emesem said:

SNIP

SNIP

SNIP -OF4S
-the P&R forum will open again, until then let's just keep the discussion around The Rainbow Children

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #143 posted 05/11/16 9:44am

terrig

cardinal said:

the thing about loving the idea of converting mani more than mani, and the obedient thing.....i always wondered why it seemed that his gf's and wives were so much younger than him. i saw a quote the other day about mayte...the person said she met him so young that she didn't even know yet what she thought about the world... he seemed to like (or need) women to be the clay with him shaping them, and if and when they spoke their own minds, things unraveled. in recent years, he spoke about learning from women and their female energy, but even then he surrounded himself with younger people (and i understand he wanted to teach them about music, too). but what about the women of strong spirit and intellect, close to his age, who could go toe to toe with him on his theories and ideas, where were they in his life? still love the guy, always will, but i always found this particular aspect of him interesting. a hidden insecurity perhaps, of being bested by a real female peer? i wonder sometimes.... "do i have a friend tonight?" --prince at his last concert in atlanta bawl [Edited 5/11/16 9:12am]




He couldnt control a woman like that...and having worked with celebrities like Prince - it's not easy for them to have long term relationships with an 'equal' partner. Equal partners also have very active lives that need attention outside of Princes needs. Princes life had a 'spot' for an object of his obsession, it wasn't a spot for an equal 'partner'. Many men like Prince are like that....thierwives don't even have free access to the accountant or the workings of their life together.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #144 posted 05/11/16 10:24am

cardinal

avatar

terrig said:



cardinal said:


the thing about loving the idea of converting mani more than mani, and the obedient thing.....i always wondered why it seemed that his gf's and wives were so much younger than him. i saw a quote the other day about mayte...the person said she met him so young that she didn't even know yet what she thought about the world... he seemed to like (or need) women to be the clay with him shaping them, and if and when they spoke their own minds, things unraveled. in recent years, he spoke about learning from women and their female energy, but even then he surrounded himself with younger people (and i understand he wanted to teach them about music, too). but what about the women of strong spirit and intellect, close to his age, who could go toe to toe with him on his theories and ideas, where were they in his life? still love the guy, always will, but i always found this particular aspect of him interesting. a hidden insecurity perhaps, of being bested by a real female peer? i wonder sometimes.... "do i have a friend tonight?" --prince at his last concert in atlanta bawl [Edited 5/11/16 9:12am]




He couldnt control a woman like that...and having worked with celebrities like Prince - it's not easy for them to have long term relationships with an 'equal' partner. Equal partners also have very active lives that need attention outside of Princes needs. Princes life had a 'spot' for an object of his obsession, it wasn't a spot for an equal 'partner'. Many men like Prince are like that....thierwives don't even have free access to the accountant or the workings of their life together.



i always wondered why he never found the "right person" he seemed to be open to meeting during the past ten years, at least he suggested as much in recent interviews. being a workaholic and a recluse did not help either, as well as having somewhat uncommon and strict religious views and baggage from two marriages that ended. all that would be enough to make it hard for anyone. add to that worldwide fame and fears (justifiable i am sure) about someone's motivations for wanting to be with him, and he all but had the deck stacked against him.

except for his equal. she would not be wowed by fame, insecure about his need to create, or threatened by his success. and she would have stood strong by his side and fought for him as he fought for his life. but if your analysis is correct, and he wasn't able to be with someone like that, then how sad is that. he often said himself that sometimes we get when we need not necessarily what we want. if he had been open to what he needed, maybe he would have realized it was in the end what he wanted. and he might still be with us, too.


"do i have a friend tonight?" --prince at his last concert in atlanta bawl
"If u love somebody, your life won't be in vain
And there's always a rainbow, at the end of every rain."--peace and love, dear prince.....
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #145 posted 05/11/16 11:06am

1725topp

KoolEaze said:

1725topp said:

*

This bolded part is my biggest issue that people will not admit that Prince was just as dogmatic about politics and religion during the 80s as he was on TRC.

*

Also, could you explain the sexism of "1+1+1=3" because when he states "There's a theocratic order...ain't no room to disagree," I understood it as the speaker saying that he wanted to be in a relationship with someone of the same faith, with that order being all things fall under God. I've looked at the lyrics several times, and I'm just missing the sexism. Please advise. Thanks.

It is in the nature of a theocratic order to be sexist and misogynistic, isn´t it? So if you interpret it as wanting to be with someone who shares the same faith, it is still a sexist lyric because it expects the partner to agree on religious issues, doesn´t it? And the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam and all their offsprings) are deeply sexist and misogynistic when fully practiced.

-

.

The fact that socalled "Christian" societies and Jews in America and elsewhere, and to some extent Muslims all over the world, are not a bunch of sexists is rooted in the fact that they simply don´t take their respective religions very seriously anymore. They were all influenced by the effects of the enlightenment period and religion taking a backseat, and of course people losing their religion to some extent (though not fully).

-

I have a Turkish Muslim background but I don´t practice the religion, nor do I agree with many of its teachings and rules but I can tell that in the case of the Turkish Republic, a theocratic order was not a good thing for women and things improved drastically when Mustafa Kemal abolished the caliphate and monarchy and founded the secular Turkish Republic. Women were given the right to vote, even earlier than in many European countries.

And these days, with an egomaniac like Pres. Erdogan and his Islamist agenda, things are getting worse for women because he still has the mindset of someone living in the pre-republic era.

If people practiced their religions like they did a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago, things would be quite different.

A theocratic order is sexist by its very nature. Also keep in mind that Prince made some controversial statements regarding veiled women in Islamic countries, and the theocratic order in such countries.

*

First, thanks for the response. I would disagree slightly when you state that the practitioners of the Abrahamic religions are not as sexist today as in the past mostly due to the effects of Enlightenment. But, of course this would mean that we would have to discuss the difference between Christianity and Christendom or Islam and Cultural Islam or Judaism and Cultural Islam. Now, while I have studied and completely read the Holy Quran, the Tanakh, and the Holy Bible, the last five years or so I've mostly studied the Holy Bible. So, regarding our discussion of the sexist nature of Abrahamic religions, most of my comments will be based on Christian doctrine, but I'll try to remember my Islamic and Jewish readings as well. As such, I assert that much of the cultural oppression of women that exists in countries populated by men that practice one of the Abrahamic religions is based on man's ability to interpret or misquote anything to justify one's evil and not based on the actual scriptures. For instance, whenever one is using Christian scripture to justify the oppression and abuse of women, they often quote Ephesians 5:22, which reads, "Wives submit to your husbands." Yet, they never seem to make it to verse 25, which states "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and sacrificed himself/died for her." Even further, verse 28 reads "In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body as Christ does for the church--we are all members of His body." This is one example that much of the abuse and oppression of women does not come from the text or doctrines of Abrahamic religions but from man's purposeful misinterpretation of it to justify their own evils. Therefore, based on scriptural text, Christian theocratic order is not innately sexist and does not teach men to abuse or oppress women.

*

Furthermore, even if we go to the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, where folks often point to various double standards of what men are allowed to do versus what women are allowed to do, I notice that they never mention the story of Hosea, whom God commands to marry a prostitute so that Hosea can serve as an example of God's longsuffering and forgiveness. The story presents a man, who is instructed by his God to marry a woman who is an active prostitute--meaning she will still be working as a prostitute after they marry--and to show her forgiveness and love as a way to win her heart and teach her to love herself. This passage is a direct refutation of the notion that women are property and that men have the right to harm or kill an unfaithful woman. Then, if we connect this with Jesus' response to the Pharisees regarding the prostitute, telling them that "he without sin cast the first stone," this is another example that women are to be treated equally or that God views them as equal souls to men. However, again, the problem is not with the texts but with people's--men's--misquoting or misteaching of the texts to justify their own evil. So, again, it seems that the theocratic order of Christianity, rather than Christendom, is that of love and not dominance between men and women.

*

Finally, I want to address two misquoted terms, which are actually misquoted, not by readers, but by those who edited the King James Version of the Bible. Paul is often quoted as having said that a woman should never be allowed to rule over/supervise a man in an official work capacity. Yet, that's not true. Paul never said that. In the original Greek version, whenever Paul discussed official (church or secular) power, supervision, or authority, he used the word "exosuia." In fact the word, "exosuia," appears over 100 times in the New Testament. However, in the often misrepresented passage to show that women should never have rule or leadership over men, the word that Paul uses is "authentein," which until the middle ages meant "violent sexual domination." As such, Paul never said that a woman should never be hired or never placed in a leadership position over a man. He, in his discussion of the problems that were existing in a particular church, were advising women not to use their sexual abilities to control or dominate men. And, to complete this discussion, a few versus earlier (All of this is in 1 Timothy 2.) Paul had already admonished the men about creating chaos in the church with loud and angry praying. So, again, when Prince is referring to theocratic order, the question becomes to which order is he referring. Is he referring to the theocratic order that you cite, which is man's perversion of the text to abuse and oppress women, or is he referring to the theocratic order that seems to command men to love and respect women?

*

As for Prince's silly statement about women wearing veils, it seems that while he was trying to make a point about people being able to create harmony in a society by being on one accord, he was clearly, and foolishly, making a statement as someone from the outside of a culture not realizing that those veils represent man's perversion of a text to justify their evil.

*

Now, relating all of this to the actual lyric of the song, I can understand your concern and even interpretation of theocratic order including sexism, but, based on the evidence of actual Christian text, I can also see that this is merely a statement about the importance of two people being equally yoked in a marriage. I don't think it's sexist for anyone to desire that one's mate have the same or similar notions about life. My marriage almost ended because I never wanted children and my wife decided to adopt her niece's children because her niece is a crack addict. While I don't think that either of us was wrong in our position--she wanted to save her niece's children and I didn't want to be a parent--I don't think that I was sexist for desiring a woman who felt the same way about having children as I did, especially when I had stated twenty years earlier that I never wanted children and she agreed. However, this circumstance arose, and we had someone else's children in our house. Because of this, my advice to all people who plan to get married is to know for certain what you believe and desire and what your potential mate believes and desires so that y'all can be on one accord. So, if desiring for my household to be on one accord is sexist, then I'd have to plead guilty to that. By the way, I relented and allowed the children to live with us, not because I changed my mind and wanted to be a parent, but because of Jesus' words in James 2: "If a brother or sister is naked and hunger, and someone says to them 'depart in peace and be warm and filled,' but you give them neither of the things they need, where is your faith?" And these words were informed by what Jesus said in Matthew 25: "What you do for the least of these you do for me." So, according to the text, to reject the "hungry" and the "orphaned" is to reject Jesus. As such, I had no choice but to allow the children to live with us if I was going to be a man of my faith. This is the theocratic order that I know.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #146 posted 05/11/16 1:22pm

jtfolden

avatar

morningsong said:

When the cd came out people were raving about it. Then as time passed people started shunning it. Something happened in the interim. I still play it. But I didn't hear it the same way as some are claiming they heard it so it never ecame a problem. It was just different.

Not quite. Yes, it's true that some loved it upon release but the concern about the album was immediate and was made worse by the Celebration events at PP.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #147 posted 05/11/16 1:26pm

jtfolden

avatar

AnonymousFan said:

KingSausage said:

No need to get into any of that. I was just pointing out the legitimacy of people's feelings who were hurt by TRC, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with their rationale. I thought Anonymous's post was dismissive and shortsighted.

That's the thing. People's feelings about the album are ILLEGITIMATE when the album wasn't meant to please you in the first place. Your feelings are hurt by lyrics? Fine, get over it. You have no right to try and act like Prince needed to seek your approval and kowtow to your feelings over TRC. He wrote what he liked and what he believed. If you don't like that, then it sucks for you. But, when we're talking about your opinion of someone's art - especially if it's negative, then yes, the opinion is irrelevant and right to be dismissed.

I'm sorry but that was just a bunch of nonsense you just spouted right there. Everyone's opinion on art is legitimate whether positive or negative. Technically, it's all subjective to a degree.

However, the idea that people's feelings about the album are illegitimate is something I don't think even Prince would have agreed with. You are obviously too young and uninformed to remember that he organized listening and discussion events with fans at PP for this specific album. LOL

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #148 posted 05/11/16 2:46pm

GirlBrother

avatar

joelmarable said:

GB U MUST be feeling racial overtones on this cd, i understand but the music is the bomb, she loves me for me is one of his better ballads. everywhere and the sensual instrumental is crazy good. its a concept album not random songs thrown together. some of the lyrics one may find offensive if u r cacasian, i dont agree with all of them. but the lyrics to family name ring true. one of his best cd to me, but i c how it turned some off.


Yeah. I was definitely turned-off by the lyrical themes of the album, and yes I'm white. I'm English too, so there's a level of culture-shock too, when it comes to matters of race in the U.S.A.

You know, racial segregation was still legal in many U.S. citizens' lifetimes. That's almost too bizarre for my mind to comprehend.

On one hand you have Motown, and on the other you have separate bathrooms for "coloreds", still existing in the same timespace.

I can fully understand why Americans of colour, still feel unsettled - in every sense of the word.

Someone said earlier in the thread that Prince was spouting "reverse racism" which is a phrase that I dislike. Racism is just racism; there's no "reverse" dependant upon whom is being racist. It's almost slightly racist to label racist views from a minority member as being a different kind of racism... It's a minefield really. Words can wound, and most lacerations are from unintentional ignorance.

It's a Prince album from 2001; a point when he was at best a cult artist when it came to selling records, and the only people buying his new albums were Prince fans.

From Dirty Mind onwards he'd extolled the joys of integration. Uptown was a mythical utopia where you could be anything you wanted to be if you set your mind free.

Whether he privately cared whether people thought of him as being black, white, straight, or gay (as he sang on Controversy), didn't matter. He never said otherwise in interviews for years after, to burst that bubble.

Well, around the time of The Rainbow Children he did start talking. And that's where the problems started...

The more he talked in public about his beliefs, the more it tainted my listening of his music.

It's not so much that I'm a white Englishman, as I am gay. The Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine is anti-gay. He started saying questionable things about gay people, and to gay people.

So, when you're angry at someone already, and mistrustful of what they say, you hear the worst in anything they say. That's especially the case if someone continuously talks in riddles.

It's almost like being in a relationship with a narcissist... They start to make you feel like you're the crazy person by never giving you a clear true answer. You begin to doubt yourself; hating yourself for assuming the worst - when that's exactly what they want you to do. They want you to assume, so they can later tell you you're wrong!

And that's what happened with The Rainbow Children and me.

I was so exasperated with Prince's anti-gay mumblings at the time, that I dismissed the whole TRC album as having a dubious lyrical undercurrent of racial segregation, and religious superiority.

I've listened to the album in its entirety, once.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #149 posted 05/11/16 4:57pm

cardinal

avatar

GirlBrother said:

joelmarable said:

GB U MUST be feeling racial overtones on this cd, i understand but the music is the bomb, she loves me for me is one of his better ballads. everywhere and the sensual instrumental is crazy good. its a concept album not random songs thrown together. some of the lyrics one may find offensive if u r cacasian, i dont agree with all of them. but the lyrics to family name ring true. one of his best cd to me, but i c how it turned some off.


Yeah. I was definitely turned-off by the lyrical themes of the album, and yes I'm white. I'm English too, so there's a level of culture-shock too, when it comes to matters of race in the U.S.A.

You know, racial segregation was still legal in many U.S. citizens' lifetimes. That's almost too bizarre for my mind to comprehend.

On one hand you have Motown, and on the other you have separate bathrooms for "coloreds", still existing in the same timespace.

I can fully understand why Americans of colour, still feel unsettled - in every sense of the word.

Someone said earlier in the thread that Prince was spouting "reverse racism" which is a phrase that I dislike. Racism is just racism; there's no "reverse" dependant upon whom is being racist. It's almost slightly racist to label racist views from a minority member as being a different kind of racism... It's a minefield really. Words can wound, and most lacerations are from unintentional ignorance.

It's a Prince album from 2001; a point when he was at best a cult artist when it came to selling records, and the only people buying his new albums were Prince fans.

From Dirty Mind onwards he'd extolled the joys of integration. Uptown was a mythical utopia where you could be anything you wanted to be if you set your mind free.

Whether he privately cared whether people thought of him as being black, white, straight, or gay (as he sang on Controversy), didn't matter. He never said otherwise in interviews for years after, to burst that bubble.

Well, around the time of The Rainbow Children he did start talking. And that's where the problems started...

The more he talked in public about his beliefs, the more it tainted my listening of his music.

It's not so much that I'm a white Englishman, as I am gay. The Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine is anti-gay. He started saying questionable things about gay people, and to gay people.

So, when you're angry at someone already, and mistrustful of what they say, you hear the worst in anything they say. That's especially the case if someone continuously talks in riddles.

It's almost like being in a relationship with a narcissist... They start to make you feel like you're the crazy person by never giving you a clear true answer. You begin to doubt yourself; hating yourself for assuming the worst - when that's exactly what they want you to do. They want you to assume, so they can later tell you you're wrong!

And that's what happened with The Rainbow Children and me.

I was so exasperated with Prince's anti-gay mumblings at the time, that I dismissed the whole TRC album as having a dubious lyrical undercurrent of racial segregation, and religious superiority.

I've listened to the album in its entirety, once.


thank you for sharing your pov. i think many of us at one time or another have had difficulty reconciling his religious pov with his musical gift. i know the hard part for me is the early to mid 2000s when he started hard on the jw conservatism...as if if you don't agree with him, you are simply wrong. and the stuff about women having a role and muslim countries being ok with the veils...will always love the guy, but some of this was definitely hard to take. i can honestly say that even if i had the chance to have a personal relationship with him, i am not sure what i would have wanted it to be (if anything).


"do i have a friend tonight?" --prince at his last concert in atlanta bawl
"If u love somebody, your life won't be in vain
And there's always a rainbow, at the end of every rain."--peace and love, dear prince.....
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 5 of 6 <123456>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Reconciling with Prince's The Rainbow Children