.

.

i know what you guys are gonna say but for me it's alot closer.

.

each were brilliant, before their time, meaning they influenced the way music sounded years later.

.

dead heat for me, i love them all. nah, prince has the edge.

.

i wish, wish, wish prince had done a cover of bowie's best song - sweet thing-candidate-sweet thing(reprise). that song would have been interesting with prince controlling it. he could of worked girls into it instead of boys. can't believe they both left us the same year.

.

.

Prince . Am biased too.

Forgot where you are, did you?

Genesia said:

Forgot where you are, did you?

IKR

U can add Bowie and Jimi togther multiply it by 6,

and not get close 2 Prince. Does that answer your question?

monkeytennis said:

Good question. I would say that Bowie and Prince were both equal in their influence over music at their peaks. But if my life depended on it, and hope it doesn't I'd have to score Prince 10, and Bowie 11. With that said, and realising where I am, I think I shall go hide, as I bruise easily.

here is your hiding place

Guitarhero said:

monkeytennis said:

Good question. I would say that Bowie and Prince were both equal in their influence over music at their peaks. But if my life depended on it, and hope it doesn't I'd have to score Prince 10, and Bowie 11. With that said, and realising where I am, I think I shall go hide, as I bruise easily.

here is your hiding place

For me, The Beatles are #1 and Bowie and Prince have always shared the #2 spot. I believe Bowie has been more influential, even though he had been absent for most of the dozen or so years leading up to his death. Prince, IMO, because of his stance on safeguarding his assets, essentially locked himself away from the internet, YouTube, the media, etc., after the early 90s. Young kids don't know his music, except in households where the adults played it. It will take something like The Beatles Anthology - but the Prince version - to bring his musical/artistic life to the younger world.

Prince --> Bowie --> Jimi

It's really only close between Prince and Bowie, however. Both were extremely prolific in those respective decades. W/o question, Prince has always been my favorite, but there are not too many solo musicians who owned a decade the way he and Bowie did. Respect.

jeez, who cares.

antonb said:

jeez, who cares.

Right? They're all equal now, at any rate.

This seems like a bit of an arbitrary comparison - they were all (relatively speaking) solo artists (hence no Beatles) at the vanguard in the decades mentioned. But then, so was Stevie Wonder in the 70s, and in most respects he's as comparable to Prince as Bowie.

Despite everything Prince picked up from Hendrix and Jimi standing for a kind of tipping point between blues, rock, psychedelia and what eventually became metal (with some funk/jazz fusion/folk thrown in), I don't think Jimi loomed as large over the sixties music scene as Bowie did the 70s or Prince did the 80s. And maybe I'm wrong, but the latter two seem to have acquired some of their stature in retrospect (Bowie sold less than Elton, Prince less than Michael). If you want to pick a solo artist from the 60s, the major cultural force was Dylan. But Jimi's run of albums - an amazing run, no doubt - tops out at what, five or six, counting a live record and 1 1/2 posthumous releases? Bowie's run of great albums lasted a decade, minus a cover album (and some people don't like, say, Young Americans, or Lodger [never my favorite] but I think that's more an issue of individual taste rather than the quality of the music the way some people might take umbrage with The Black Album). Along the way, Bowie epitomized one genre (glam rock), led a generational transition toward a new genre (new wave), resisted selling out to disco like, say, KISS, by making only the most outlandish disco records going, and together with Brian Eno seemingly invented a new musical mode (whatever you call the second halves of "Low" and "Heroes"). Along the way there was relentless studio and lyrical experimentation.

And of course, Prince, from Dirty Mind to Lovesexy, was Prince. I'm tempted to say Bowie's 70s (into the 80s) run had more great albums (I'd put it at 11, Bowie fans would argue over this just like the Org would argue over some of Prince's early work or missteps), but two of Prince's were double-discs and we're looking at a dead heat. Prince definitely had more unreleased material, Bowie definitely influenced the kind of live settings Prince would cultivate. To me it's not about who's better, but I would like to see a travelling Prince museum/art gallery exhibition similar to David Bowie Is, which gives a broader understanding of his impact in various cultural forms than any album could alone.

PliablyPurple said:

Prince --> Bowie --> Jimi

It's really only close between Prince and Bowie, however. Both were extremely prolific in those respective decades. W/o question, Prince has always been my favorite, but there are not too many solo musicians who owned a decade the way he and Bowie did. Respect.

This would probably be my order too.

Jimi was amazing, but he was not nearly as varied as Prince or Bowie. Jimi was excellent as what Jimi did, which was Blues and Rock. Prince and Bowie blurred the lines between genres (and genders) so much that they were almost a category onto themselves.

Jimi's early death makes him the biggest question mark here. In his final days--he was talking about moving away from Rock & Roll and more towards Jazz and bigger band arrangements. He was talking about working with Gil Evans, Miles, etc. We just don't know how far his imagination and talent could have taken him.

For my money--Prince and Bowie as ARTISTS were equals. (Prince had the leg up over Bowie as far as musicianship.) Both artists created their own universe of music, their own physics, etc. They both have that 'alien/otherworldly' quality to their genius. And they both kept reinventing themselves--again and again.

Prince's greatest work was in the 80's. Bowie created created great work in the 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's. So there's an argument there to be made in Bowie's favor. IMO--Prince NEVER NEVER lost it as a live performer. He was ALWAYS one of the greatest on the planet at any given time. However, his studio/compositional creativity lost some of his fire and visionary quality after the mid 90's or so.

Now--let's remember that Miles Davis created innovative music in the 40's (with Parker & Gillespie, etc.), in the 50's (Cool era), 60's (the GREAT quintents and then into his amazing fusion innovations), 70's (continuing to push the boundaries--integrating jazz, funk, rock and European classical/experimental music) and then continued his innovative work in the 80's. He released a hip-hop album at the end--not his best work. I wish he had worked with Public Enemy and the Bomb squad.

Anyway--in terms of longevity and unceasing innovation over a LONG period of time--few (if any) 20th/21st century artists can hang with Miles Davis. But the artists we have discussed here are amongst the greatest and most influential of our time.

I would also put Bob Dylan, Kraftwerk and Velvet Underground in the discussion--specifically in terms of long term influence. But that's a whole other thread...

speakeasy said:

Jimi's early death makes him the biggest question mark here. In his final days--he was talking about moving away from Rock & Roll and more towards Jazz and bigger band arrangements. He was talking about working with Gil Evans, Miles, etc. We just don't know how far his imagination and talent could have taken him.

For my money--Prince and Bowie as ARTISTS were equals. (Prince had the leg up over Bowie as far as musicianship.) Both artists created their own universe of music, their own physics, etc. They both have that 'alien/otherworldly' quality to their genius. And they both kept reinventing themselves--again and again.

Prince's greatest work was in the 80's. Bowie created created great work in the 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's. So there's an argument there to be made in Bowie's favor. IMO--Prince NEVER NEVER lost it as a live performer. He was ALWAYS one of the greatest on the planet at any given time. However, his studio/compositional creativity lost some of his fire and visionary quality after the mid 90's or so.

Now--let's remember that Miles Davis created innovative music in the 40's (with Parker & Gillespie, etc.), in the 50's (Cool era), 60's (the GREAT quintents and then into his amazing fusion innovations), 70's (continuing to push the boundaries--integrating jazz, funk, rock and European classical/experimental music) and then continued his innovative work in the 80's. He released a hip-hop album at the end--not his best work. I wish he had worked with Public Enemy and the Bomb squad.

Anyway--in terms of longevity and unceasing innovation over a LONG period of time--few (if any) 20th/21st century artists can hang with Miles Davis. But the artists we have discussed here are amongst the greatest and most influential of our time.

I would also put Bob Dylan, Kraftwerk and Velvet Underground in the discussion--specifically in terms of long term influence. But that's a whole other thread...

But again, are we talking about solo artists or just whatever? How about JB for "long-term influence?" This is all still arbitrary (Miles' impact is humungous, but then why not bring some classical composers into the discussion?) What about Frank Zappa? Never as accessible as any of the artists listed in this thread (in fact deliberately off-putting), but his music - which he insisted wasn't pop or rock&roll but consumed by that audience - is just as genre bending at Prince's, his output in the same prolific ballbark (and divided among varying media), his contribution to the cultural discussion as "controversial," his guitar playing virtuosic, his proteges also numbered. Was he as versatile on as many instruments? No. Did he have compositional chops that outmatched Prince's? Zappa left a large legacy in classical music. I haven't heard of any orchestras rushing out to pay homage to Kamasutra, though there is a symphonic tribute to Prince's hits and the Purple Rain album. Yet the American public never embraced him the way it did Bowie or Prince (and Hendrix was bigger in death); as Zappa once put it, "the more mediocre your music is, the more accessible it is to a larger number of people in the United States." Prince and Bowie seem exceptions to that, but there is some truth here: "Cream" (which I like) could top the charts as a T.Rex retread, but "Condition of the Heart" wouldn't get airplay.

NorthC said:

Come on guys, we can't have a discussion like this without somebody offering a different point of view. There really wasn't much that Prince did that Jimi Hendrix (and Sly Stone and James Brown) didn't do before. Jimi was a black man who played with white musicians and beat the white rock gods (Clapton is God?! Not after Jimi came to England any more!) at their own game. He was the first black performer that white women found sexy. He was incredibly important in breaking down barriers between soul and rock, black and white. He built his own studio. He was a pioneer. He laid the foundations. Prince simply built on them.

Oh yeah, there were a lot of predecessors in black music who had achievements similar to Prince: Sly's diverse band and genre blending, Jimi's guitar playing, both their cross-racial appeal, etc, etc. Prince had more of a total package than any of them, though (Stevie's multi-hyphenate virtuosity, moves to match JB, etc), and a lot more staying power than Sly and Jimi (it would be interesting to see what happened to Jimi, because as great as he was, most of his contemporaries turned really cheezmo in the era of Prince). And I'm guessing a bigger output than the others (haven't done the background work on Ray Charles and JB).

"Better" is an ENTIRELY subjective concept--But we can objectively talk about innovation and influence...

I bring up Kraftwerk and VU because I've been having some discussions with folks about bands/artists with the smallest mainstream popularity and the biggest long term influence. (If you take both of those bands away from history, a lot of other music disappears.)

Prince and Bowie (and Miles) were obviously in the category of big popularlity AND big influence.

speakeasy said:

"Better" is an ENTIRELY subjective concept--But we can objectively talk about innovation and influence...

I bring up Kraftwerk and VU because I've been having some discussions with folks about bands/artists with the smallest mainstream popularity and the biggest long term influence. (If you take both of those bands away from history, a lot of other music disappears.)

Prince and Bowie (and Miles) were obviously in the category of big popularlity AND big influence.

True. What's that saying about VU? They only sold a few thousand albums, but everyone who bought one started a band.

Something that puts a smirk on my face is that for every artist Prince influenced, like Zappa, they usually only mimic a few small elements of his aesthetic (probably because that's all they can pull off). I'm including myself here: I make electrobeats and electrofunk, and so much of Prince's musicianship is unimitable for me.

NorthC said:

Prince had more of a total package because he had role models to learn from: James Brown (showmanship, bandleader), Stevie Wonder (multi-instrumentalist), Sly Stone, Larry Graham (multi-racial band), Jimi Hendrix, Santana (guitar), Bowie, Jagger (image). All of these men were already established acts showing how it's done when Prince was young. When they were young, rock & roll was young as well. They were just making up as they went along. And Prince had more staying power because he never fell victim to cocaine or heroine. [Edited 6/14/16 12:01pm]

I agree. Everyone has their influences (ie. you mention Jagger who drew a lot of his persona from R&B artists, also taking inspiration at times from Dylan, Lennonn [prefer Jagger to both], and the gender bending owed a bit to Tina). The flip side of the coin is that Prince gets less love (at least from radio stations) than a lot of the above artists because, like you said, they came around when rock was young and boomers were young, and boomer culture still dominates a lot of "classic" or "retro" radio programming. And Prince had more staying power than Sly because of drugs, sure, but not more staying power than the Stones, who are still selling out stadiums (I'm not saying Prince wouldn't have been, just that he didn't outmatch them in this regard) or Bowie, who could have if heart surgery hadn't slowed him down. Really, either of those acts could have retired completely and left as large of a cultural legacy. But Hendrix? I don't mean to knock him as a musician at all, his albums were fantastic and his guitar playing, nuff said. BUT I do think an early death had benefits for his legacy. Compare to Sly: both were major acts of the same era, with the same crossover appeal, both played Woodstock, both were musical innovators, but Sly had way more hits, and more albums. Not too many kids with Sly posters. What was that Neil Young lyric about burning out and fading away?

I'm blowing really hard on this thread today.

I love Prince, but I would never put Prince in the same category of Jimi Hendrix, ever.

Prince would not even put himself into Jimi Hendrix's category, at all. Jimi was in a completely different league from Prnce, and David Bowie.

Jimi Hendrix was one of Prince's heroes, so it's very weird to even see a "better" in the same sentence. For me, this is akin to Stevie Wonder vs Prince (Who is better?), they're incomparable because one paved the way for the other as a musician and fan. In otherwords, Prince was a student of a man like Jimi Hendrix, and Stevie. (Many others as well)

That being said, I think all three were in a league of their own. Jimi was not given a shot at superstardom until after his untimely death at such a young age of 27. People knew he was brilliant, but in death that soared. It's not a fair comparison. So, I'll answer like this for more realistic purposes because Jimi Hendrix isn't really an option in my opinion on this matter. Prince vs Bowie? Prince.

Yes, Prince learned from Hendrix and Wonder, but in other respects, Prince had talents the others didn't possess. In a way, your argument is like saying Hendrix couldn't possibly play guitar better or make the same cultural impact as Buddy Guy. Hendrix left a solid body of music but checked out early and never produced the catalogue of Prince or Bowie. He impacted some of the most popular genres of the late sixties and, of course, electric guitar (why do people act like guitar is THE monolithic instrument to end all instruments? Do magazines come out every year giving Stevie Wonder the same credit as a synth player?). But I'd say Prince and Bowie, musically and beyond, had a bigger cultural reach. And I still don't see why there's much need to compare these three specific figures. Hendrix and Bowie have little in common next to Hendrix and Prince and Prince and Bowie.

And back that up... why is Hendrix in a completely different league? Guitar innovation? I'm guessing that's where you're going here, because as a songwriter, vocalist, producer, multiinstrumentalist, dancer/performance artist, Hendrix comes up short in every other category next to Prince and Bowie. And like I said, smaller catalogue, fewer hits, fewer major albums. I think Hendrix blew Cream off the map, but in terms of "inventing" a new form, Cream did heavy "psychedelic" blues-rock first. But Bowie's (very influential) experiments on Low and Heroes were what Sly would call "a whole new thing". As was whatever the fuck Lovesexy was supposed to be.

I think especially when you take into consideration the amount of music both Bowie and Prince wrote for/gave to other people + their own catalogue that it is an apt comparison. I think that point gets lost in the argument sometimes. And I really don't care who came first, it's about what you did once you arrived.