I know I am obsessed with this topic. IMO, Prince's genius wasn't a fluke or the result of the right collaborations.

Since i want to like everything he does, maybe I lack objectivity. I guess it is all subjective anyhow. {I am not saying I like all his songs; I am saying I am inclined to go into the listening experience expecting to hear something of merit.} But i guess my real question is "Do people judge P's music for its intrinsive value?" Is it possible to listen to each song as if it is the first song you have ever heard a from Prince?" I try to do it that way but am I correct in doing so?

In literary analysis college courses, we are taught about intrinsic value--which is reading a work of literature for its inherent value first. Only later after evaluating it on its own terms, were we encouraged to place the literary work in the context of its times or in juxtaposition against previous work.

Should P songs receive an 'intrinsic' grade and then a 'contextual' one?

[Edited 2/5/17 15:44pm]

[Edited 2/5/17 16:00pm]

There is no intrinsic grade or objective view and i'll fight anyone who says there is!

I am not saying there is an 'objective' view necessarily. I clarified in my paragraph. I am saying that maybe people should listen to each piece of music with an open mind, attempting to find its merit without comparing it to work from 30 years ago or letting his personal life interfere with their evaluation with what he is doing in the song (unless he making that connection painfully obvious in the song itself). Something like someone saying that they would like a particular sensual song better if he had inserted an F bomb in the song like he would have 25 years ago--that to me is not an open minded view of the song.

jaawwnn said:

There is no intrinsic grade or objective view and i'll fight anyone who says there is!

It is not possible to listen to a song without the knowledge of whatever he has done in the past being in your mind. We can't just forget.

That said, if people can't tell the difference between now and then that's a problem they have. No one should expect prince of 1983 or whenever to appear the same in any other year, but they are allowed say they preferred a previous album/look/era. It's also possible that someone can find no merit in a song and you might have to accept that.

The problem with the 'mainstream' (and even more knowledgable fans, like us) appreciating Prince's later work is 1982-1987, and most specifically 1984. In those years, he made his best music but also in 1984-85 hit commercial peaks that were actually far beyond what his music in itself would likely have engendered without a movie tie-in and serendipitous historical accident.

What I'm saying is, if the 1982-1987 period hadn't been quite as good and if there's been no Purple Rain movie to fix the era into everyone's memories permanently, it would thereafter have been 'easier' to judge fairly and correctly Prince's 1988 to 200s' work. Naturally, we 'judge' someone's career work against their best stuff... (commercially and musically).

I personally, however, don't think Prince's music after 1987 (or, live, in 1988) was ever completely essential or vital again. Even at its best, it lacked a certain something that had been there from 1980 to 1988. It's just the way it is with any great artist with a huge prime period -- there is only a limited period of time during which you can exemplify the spirit of the age (the zeitgeist, if you're German) and also transcend it.

In Prince's case, however, the commercial fall-off from the 1999 tour/Purple Rain/1985-1986 down to the 90s and 2000s is very severe -- more severe than for more other mega-famous artists. Even though Michael Jackson, for example, just kept repeating himself with music / videos / plastic-surgeries after 1983, he did so with infrequent albums that still sold millions each. Prince just wasn't arsed enough about career management to try to maximize his own commercial potential after it started to dip, and as a result it dipped more and more. But that does color our perception of his later work.

purplerabbithole said:

I know I am obsessed with this topic. IMO, Prince's genius wasn't a fluke or the result of the right collaborations.

Since i want to like everything he does, maybe I lack objectivity. I guess it is all subjective anyhow. {I am not saying I like all his songs; I am saying I am inclined to go into the listening experience expecting to hear something of merit.} But i guess my real question is "Do people judge P's music for its intrinsive value?" Is it possible to listen to each song as if it is the first song you have ever heard a from Prince?" I try to do it that way but am I correct in doing so?

In literary analysis college courses, we are taught about intrinsic value--which is reading a work of literature for its inherent value first. Only later after evaluating it on its own terms, were we encouraged to place the literary work in the context of its times or in juxtaposition against previous work.

Should P songs receive an 'intrinsic' grade and then a 'contextual' one?

[Edited 2/5/17 15:44pm]

[Edited 2/5/17 16:00pm]

I always liked his music, I think the naysayers are just trying to setup a dramatic narrative where the great artist tragically declines. It happened with Elvis, McCartney also got brutal reviews. I think what happens is people start taking a guy for granted Elvis did some shitty songs but he always did some good ones in their somewhere, right up until his death. Some of my favorite Elvis songs are the last ones but of course no one really cares about those or listens to those because he was "ruined" by the drugs and the colonel and hollywood and his own bad taste, bullshit! If people start losing interest and not paying attention anymore, the artist is only partly to blame for that. It's kind of of like falling in love, it's just a stage, the real relationship takes both parties to maintain and i assert that most fans are lazy listeners. Prince never fell off in my mind and he even got better in so many ways and he never got discouraged or dissuaded by his own so called fans bitching about his tragic decline. I can tell you, it's hard as hell to be creative when you face indifference, how do you go through the process when you know there is no reward? How did he do it? I don't know. Maybe because he just had to.

PeteSilas said:

purplerabbithole said:

I know I am obsessed with this topic. IMO, Prince's genius wasn't a fluke or the result of the right collaborations.

Since i want to like everything he does, maybe I lack objectivity. I guess it is all subjective anyhow. {I am not saying I like all his songs; I am saying I am inclined to go into the listening experience expecting to hear something of merit.} But i guess my real question is "Do people judge P's music for its intrinsive value?" Is it possible to listen to each song as if it is the first song you have ever heard a from Prince?" I try to do it that way but am I correct in doing so?

In literary analysis college courses, we are taught about intrinsic value--which is reading a work of literature for its inherent value first. Only later after evaluating it on its own terms, were we encouraged to place the literary work in the context of its times or in juxtaposition against previous work.

Should P songs receive an 'intrinsic' grade and then a 'contextual' one?

[Edited 2/5/17 15:44pm]

[Edited 2/5/17 16:00pm]

I always liked his music, I think the naysayers are just trying to setup a dramatic narrative where the great artist tragically declines. It happened with Elvis, McCartney also got brutal reviews. I think what happens is people start taking a guy for granted Elvis did some shitty songs but he always did some good ones in their somewhere, right up until his death. Some of my favorite Elvis songs are the last ones but of course no one really cares about those or listens to those because he was "ruined" by the drugs and the colonel and hollywood and his own bad taste, bullshit! If people start losing interest and not paying attention anymore, the artist is only partly to blame for that. It's kind of of like falling in love, it's just a stage, the real relationship takes both parties to maintain and i assert that most fans are lazy listeners. Prince never fell off in my mind and he even got better in so many ways and he never got discouraged or dissuaded by his own so called fans bitching about his tragic decline. I can tell you, it's hard as hell to be creative when you face indifference, how do you go through the process when you know there is no reward? How did he do it? I don't know. Maybe because he just had to.

Well said. Thank God, Prince was not paralyzed by the cruelty of many in his fan base. My admiration for him grows more intense daily.

i completed one album ONE! and no one took an interest, I haven't even thought about doing another one so I know how discouraging it is. As far as the fans here, they were brutal when he was alive, I don't know how prince took it, but I just ignored it. I make up my own mind whether it's Elvis or Prince or whoever, if it's great it's great and Prince did plenty of great stuff that has been completely overlooked.

It lacked a certain something? What would that be? NO offense, I think you made a lot of good points (especially in reference to later MJ and being able to maximize people's interest by making each album more of an event). But how do we know that 'certain something' isn't just the elusive combination of acclaim, album sales, a large record company's backing, youthfulness that often is equated to being hip, and well-thought out compilations of songs. In other words, innovative albums are only innovative when enough people hear them. Some of Prince's bravest music came later in life. I know not everyone loves the Truth album on this site, but i find it to be a truely intimate affair and I wonder what would have happened if it had been sold as an event...PRINCE GOES ACCOUSTIC AND SPILLS HIS SOUL>>NOT LET"S DO MTV UNPLUGGED and release proper videos. He became less 'vital' when he left WB..which is a fact that can not be ignored. Its hard to measure the vitality of someone's music when their work is not promoted and its packaged badly. PEople often say Prince's later albums lacked cohesiveness but IMO Sign of the Times didn't have cohesiveness either..it is just that it was the first album to really be a hodgepodge of styles (therefore it felt new). SOTT is my favorite prince album but in my opinion not the last great one. I don't know; maybe i have untrained ears but I don't find his later music to be nearly as derivative or unoriginal as some people are contending and I find that his older music has throw backs and repetition in it as well.

ThePanther said:

The problem with the 'mainstream' (and even more knowledgable fans, like us) appreciating Prince's later work is 1982-1987, and most specifically 1984. In those years, he made his best music but also in 1984-85 hit commercial peaks that were actually far beyond what his music in itself would likely have engendered without a movie tie-in and serendipitous historical accident.

What I'm saying is, if the 1982-1987 period hadn't been quite as good and if there's been no Purple Rain movie to fix the era into everyone's memories permanently, it would thereafter have been 'easier' to judge fairly and correctly Prince's 1988 to 200s' work. Naturally, we 'judge' someone's career work against their best stuff... (commercially and musically).

I personally, however, don't think Prince's music after 1987 (or, live, in 1988) was ever completely essential or vital again. Even at its best, it lacked a certain something that had been there from 1980 to 1988. It's just the way it is with any great artist with a huge prime period -- there is only a limited period of time during which you can exemplify the spirit of the age (the zeitgeist, if you're German) and also transcend it.

In Prince's case, however, the commercial fall-off from the 1999 tour/Purple Rain/1985-1986 down to the 90s and 2000s is very severe -- more severe than for more other mega-famous artists. Even though Michael Jackson, for example, just kept repeating himself with music / videos / plastic-surgeries after 1983, he did so with infrequent albums that still sold millions each. Prince just wasn't arsed enough about career management to try to maximize his own commercial potential after it started to dip, and as a result it dipped more and more. But that does color our perception of his later work.

[Edited 2/5/17 17:57pm]

[Edited 2/5/17 18:00pm]

Amen. I don't know --maybe, I appreciate later gems more because he had to do it so thanklessly. And because he was up against his own past and the set-in-stone musical trends/movements of the later years. Hard to complete with hip hop. I read somewhere that Timberlake's Lovesounds was kind of derivative of 3121 (maybe I read that wrong) but 3121 came out several months before Timberlake's album. Now, of course, Timberlake sold much more singles and LP's. Kind of hard not to think ageism and lack of promotion had something to do with that. I like Lovesounds by the way but Prince's music is much more convincely sexy IMO.

PeteSilas said:

i completed one album ONE! and no one took an interest, I haven't even thought about doing another one so I know how discouraging it is. As far as the fans here, they were brutal when he was alive, I don't know how prince took it, but I just ignored it. I make up my own mind whether it's Elvis or Prince or whoever, if it's great it's great and Prince did plenty of great stuff that has been completely overlooked.

Prince said it well himself in a song on The Truth: "my only competition is me in the past". If Emancipation, Newpower Soul or Rave had been D'Angelo's second album or Maxwell's first album, or if Mplsound had been Calvin Harris' or Bruno Mars' first or second album, everyone would still be raving about them today. The problem is that Prince's music was so significantly relevant, influential and innovative in the 80's that people can't help but judging his later works in comparison, as proven not only here but also with every positive critic about any possible later album stating "his best album since Sign O The Times" (making each of his later albums "his best since 1987" depending on whom you're asking, which shows the vanity of such evaluations).

Another problem IMHO is that Prince's crossover played against him: Prince's music is by essence rooted in both African-American music, synthpop and electronic dance music, even his rock records owe more to Hendrix and Funkadelic than to Led Zep or Dylan, but when you see that a great majority of Prince fans seem to be into rock and folk, it's no wonder they have a hard time getting into his later works.

And finally a great number of people who believe they are Prince fans are not. They have a extremely strong relationship with a certain era of Prince's music but IMHO not a deep understanding of, or empathic connexion with Prince's music as a whole. The deep essence of Prince's work has never changed throughout his career, but people who do not connect to this very essence cannot but fail to adhere to later works.

In the end I believe the appreciation of works of art often says more about the people than about the works of art themselves.

Prince's "golden age", as awesome as it may have been, only represent a decade out of a career that spanned 4 decades. It's likely that future generations, those people who weren't there to experience the glory of what was Prince's career in the 80's, will evaluate his whole body of work from a more neutral perspective, and that his later works will be rediscovered with more enthusiasm over the years.

databank said:

Prince said it well himself in a song on The Truth: "my only competition is me in the past". If Emancipation, Newpower Soul or Rave had been D'Angelo's second album or Maxwell's first album, or if Mplsound had been Calvin Harris' or Bruno Mars' first or second album, everyone would still be raving about them today. The problem is that Prince's music was so significantly relevant, influential and innovative in the 80's that people can't help but judging his later works in comparison, as proven not only here but also with every positive critic about any possible later album stating "his best album since Sign O The Times" (making each of his later albums "his best since 1987" depending on whom you're asking, which shows the vanity of such evaluations).

Another problem IMHO is that Prince's crossover played against him: Prince's music is by essence rooted in both African-American music, synthpop and electronic dance music, even his rock records owe more to Hendrix and Funkadelic than to Led Zep or Dylan, but when you see that a great majority of Prince fans seem to be into rock and folk, it's no wonder they have a hard time getting into his later works.

And finally a great number of people who believe they are Prince fans are not. They have a extremely strong relationship with a certain era of Prince's music but IMHO not a deep understanding of, or empathic connexion with Prince's music as a whole. The deep essence of Prince's work has never changed throughout his career, but people who do not connect to this very essence cannot but fail to adhere to later works.

In the end I believe the appreciation of works of art often says more about the people than about the works of art themselves.

Prince's "golden age", as awesome as it may have been, only represent a decade out of a career that spanned 4 decades. It's likely that future generations, those people who weren't there to experience the glory of what was Prince's career in the 80's, will evaluate his whole body of work from a more neutral perspective, and that his later works will be rediscovered with more enthusiasm over the years.

I hope you are right about later generations but unless the family loosens its grip, that won't happen. I came into appreciation of Prince later but I also have eclectic taste (but picky) tastes in music. I used to say that I wasn't picky about genre but extremely picky about which artists I love from each genre.

I always liked his music, I think the naysayers are just trying to setup a dramatic narrative where the great artist tragically declines. It happened with Elvis, McCartney also got brutal reviews. I think what happens is people start taking a guy for granted Elvis did some shitty songs but he always did some good ones in their somewhere, right up until his death. Some of my favorite Elvis songs are the last ones but of course no one really cares about those or listens to those because he was "ruined" by the drugs and the colonel and hollywood and his own bad taste, bullshit! If people start losing interest and not paying attention anymore, the artist is only partly to blame for that. It's kind of of like falling in love, it's just a stage, the real relationship takes both parties to maintain and i assert that most fans are lazy listeners. Prince never fell off in my mind and he even got better in so many ways and he never got discouraged or dissuaded by his own so called fans bitching about his tragic decline. I can tell you, it's hard as hell to be creative when you face indifference, how do you go through the process when you know there is no reward? How did he do it? I don't know. Maybe because he just had to.

databank said:

Prince said it well himself in a song on The Truth: "my only competition is me in the past". If Emancipation, Newpower Soul or Rave had been D'Angelo's second album or Maxwell's first album, or if Mplsound had been Calvin Harris' or Bruno Mars' first or second album, everyone would still be raving about them today. The problem is that Prince's music was so significantly relevant, influential and innovative in the 80's that people can't help but judging his later works in comparison, as proven not only here but also with every positive critic about any possible later album stating "his best album since Sign O The Times" (making each of his later albums "his best since 1987" depending on whom you're asking, which shows the vanity of such evaluations).

Another problem IMHO is that Prince's crossover played against him: Prince's music is by essence rooted in both African-American music, synthpop and electronic dance music, even his rock records owe more to Hendrix and Funkadelic than to Led Zep or Dylan, but when you see that a great majority of Prince fans seem to be into rock and folk, it's no wonder they have a hard time getting into his later works.

And finally a great number of people who believe they are Prince fans are not. They have a extremely strong relationship with a certain era of Prince's music but IMHO not a deep understanding of, or empathic connexion with Prince's music as a whole. The deep essence of Prince's work has never changed throughout his career, but people who do not connect to this very essence cannot but fail to adhere to later works.

In the end I believe the appreciation of works of art often says more about the people than about the works of art themselves.

Prince's "golden age", as awesome as it may have been, only represent a decade out of a career that spanned 4 decades. It's likely that future generations, those people who weren't there to experience the glory of what was Prince's career in the 80's, will evaluate his whole body of work from a more neutral perspective, and that his later works will be rediscovered with more enthusiasm over the years.

certainly, I think he did so many different styles that people were bound to be alienated. He lost most of the purple rain fans, or rather, ditched them with ATWIAD, and lots of people never followed up his "brilliant" albums after that one. They didn't sell very well and even the hit singles aside from kiss are really thought highly of. I recall u got the look took a lambasting here. prince wanted to crossover and he did, the effects of that and his further crossing back over into black music left fans from both sides being lost. The white folk here still pine for the days when wendy and lisa were there and some of prince's later music is so vintage R&B that I couldn't even concieve of the rock heads liking it. Of course prince heard accusations going way back that he'd deserted his black fan base. Elvis was similar in that he crossed just about all bounds of music and did most of them brilliantly, not all of his fans were ready to follow him into gospel or country or blues or...he did it anyway.

I too have read reviews for musicology, 3121, AOA and Hit and Run Phase II that called each respective album his best since SOTT. Proving two things-- that he has been doing good work since SOTT and that critics have short term memory problems.

databank said:

Prince said it well himself in a song on The Truth: "my only competition is me in the past". If Emancipation, Newpower Soul or Rave had been D'Angelo's second album or Maxwell's first album, or if Mplsound had been Calvin Harris' or Bruno Mars' first or second album, everyone would still be raving about them today. The problem is that Prince's music was so significantly relevant, influential and innovative in the 80's that people can't help but judging his later works in comparison, as proven not only here but also with every positive critic about any possible later album stating "his best album since Sign O The Times" (making each of his later albums "his best since 1987" depending on whom you're asking, which shows the vanity of such evaluations).

Another problem IMHO is that Prince's crossover played against him: Prince's music is by essence rooted in both African-American music, synthpop and electronic dance music, even his rock records owe more to Hendrix and Funkadelic than to Led Zep or Dylan, but when you see that a great majority of Prince fans seem to be into rock and folk, it's no wonder they have a hard time getting into his later works.

And finally a great number of people who believe they are Prince fans are not. They have a extremely strong relationship with a certain era of Prince's music but IMHO not a deep understanding of, or empathic connexion with Prince's music as a whole. The deep essence of Prince's work has never changed throughout his career, but people who do not connect to this very essence cannot but fail to adhere to later works.

In the end I believe the appreciation of works of art often says more about the people than about the works of art themselves.

Prince's "golden age", as awesome as it may have been, only represent a decade out of a career that spanned 4 decades. It's likely that future generations, those people who weren't there to experience the glory of what was Prince's career in the 80's, will evaluate his whole body of work from a more neutral perspective, and that his later works will be rediscovered with more enthusiasm over the years.

Its funny but Prince had classic R and B back in the 80's as well...How come you don't call me anymore? Its almost like the use of electric guitar and white band members made it okay to like Prince amongst white music fans. BTW, I am white but I do see your point.

PeteSilas said:

databank said:

Prince said it well himself in a song on The Truth: "my only competition is me in the past". If Emancipation, Newpower Soul or Rave had been D'Angelo's second album or Maxwell's first album, or if Mplsound had been Calvin Harris' or Bruno Mars' first or second album, everyone would still be raving about them today. The problem is that Prince's music was so significantly relevant, influential and innovative in the 80's that people can't help but judging his later works in comparison, as proven not only here but also with every positive critic about any possible later album stating "his best album since Sign O The Times" (making each of his later albums "his best since 1987" depending on whom you're asking, which shows the vanity of such evaluations).

Another problem IMHO is that Prince's crossover played against him: Prince's music is by essence rooted in both African-American music, synthpop and electronic dance music, even his rock records owe more to Hendrix and Funkadelic than to Led Zep or Dylan, but when you see that a great majority of Prince fans seem to be into rock and folk, it's no wonder they have a hard time getting into his later works.

And finally a great number of people who believe they are Prince fans are not. They have a extremely strong relationship with a certain era of Prince's music but IMHO not a deep understanding of, or empathic connexion with Prince's music as a whole. The deep essence of Prince's work has never changed throughout his career, but people who do not connect to this very essence cannot but fail to adhere to later works.

In the end I believe the appreciation of works of art often says more about the people than about the works of art themselves.

Prince's "golden age", as awesome as it may have been, only represent a decade out of a career that spanned 4 decades. It's likely that future generations, those people who weren't there to experience the glory of what was Prince's career in the 80's, will evaluate his whole body of work from a more neutral perspective, and that his later works will be rediscovered with more enthusiasm over the years.

certainly, I think he did so many different styles that people were bound to be alienated. He lost most of the purple rain fans, or rather, ditched them with ATWIAD, and lots of people never followed up his "brilliant" albums after that one. They didn't sell very well and even the hit singles aside from kiss are really thought highly of. I recall u got the look took a lambasting here. prince wanted to crossover and he did, the effects of that and his further crossing back over into black music left fans from both sides being lost. The white folk here still pine for the days when wendy and lisa were there and some of prince's later music is so vintage R&B that I couldn't even concieve of the rock heads liking it. Of course prince heard accusations going way back that he'd deserted his black fan base. Elvis was similar in that he crossed just about all bounds of music and did most of them brilliantly, not all of his fans were ready to follow him into gospel or country or blues or...he did it anyway.

purplerabbithole said:

Its funny but Prince had classic R and B back in the 80's as well...How come you don't call me anymore? Its almost like the use of electric guitar and white band members made it okay to like Prince amongst white music fans. BTW, I am white but I do see your point.

PeteSilas said:

certainly, I think he did so many different styles that people were bound to be alienated. He lost most of the purple rain fans, or rather, ditched them with ATWIAD, and lots of people never followed up his "brilliant" albums after that one. They didn't sell very well and even the hit singles aside from kiss are really thought highly of. I recall u got the look took a lambasting here. prince wanted to crossover and he did, the effects of that and his further crossing back over into black music left fans from both sides being lost. The white folk here still pine for the days when wendy and lisa were there and some of prince's later music is so vintage R&B that I couldn't even concieve of the rock heads liking it. Of course prince heard accusations going way back that he'd deserted his black fan base. Elvis was similar in that he crossed just about all bounds of music and did most of them brilliantly, not all of his fans were ready to follow him into gospel or country or blues or...he did it anyway.

ya, he did but I think there is a lot different a flavor between do me baby/international lover and songs like Man o'war, adore, I hate u, etc., he seemed to get more traditionally r&b as he went along. His early music was usually so sparse to though. One thing that he always had were the jazz chords that gave his music a distinctive sound for pop radio.

FlyOnTheWall said:

PeteSilas said:

I always liked his music, I think the naysayers are just trying to setup a dramatic narrative where the great artist tragically declines. It happened with Elvis, McCartney also got brutal reviews. I think what happens is people start taking a guy for granted Elvis did some shitty songs but he always did some good ones in their somewhere, right up until his death. Some of my favorite Elvis songs are the last ones but of course no one really cares about those or listens to those because he was "ruined" by the drugs and the colonel and hollywood and his own bad taste, bullshit! If people start losing interest and not paying attention anymore, the artist is only partly to blame for that. It's kind of of like falling in love, it's just a stage, the real relationship takes both parties to maintain and i assert that most fans are lazy listeners. Prince never fell off in my mind and he even got better in so many ways and he never got discouraged or dissuaded by his own so called fans bitching about his tragic decline. I can tell you, it's hard as hell to be creative when you face indifference, how do you go through the process when you know there is no reward? How did he do it? I don't know. Maybe because he just had to.

Well said. Thank God, Prince was not paralyzed by the cruelty of many in his fan base. My admiration for him grows more intense daily.

one more thing, i mentioned i did one album, it didn't sell anything but one thing it did do that prince's music does is that it got opinions from all over the spectrum, some people thought it was the work of a genius, other people would tell me to my face that it was "lame" or "what was that?" like Clint Eastwood said in one of his movies "opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one."

I can only speak from personal opinion but what I'll say:

- I really really want to like the later recorded work more than I do (because then I'd have more P to listen to)...and for me, I think a big part of it is the production. There are a lot of really fantastic songs, the live versions of which I love, but it is so damn overproduced, and shiny, elevator plinky plonky sounding I just can't. And I don't understand it. Because dude was a genuis and I'm just whhhhy. I think maybe it has something to do with lack of collaboration in the studio...there is an airlessness to it, which as soon as he gets on stage with other people disappears.

- I think the point about R and B is interesting...I'm not a great fan of R and B, and that is certainly part of my not liking some of the later work...but I am not sure it is quite as simple as 'white rock audiences don't like black music so when P returned to more black music we didn't like it.' I love funk. For me the returning moment after the 90s are the ONA aftershows, when he just plays a shit ton of funk and leaves it all on the floor. There's something too smooth in R and B for my taste, maybe that is to do with musical acculuration which is raced, but I wasn't brought up listening to much funk either.

- I'm also not sure about the post-WB explanation. For me the last unequivocally great album is SOTT, and that's also the majority opinion. Something happened in 87/88. And I think what happened has multiple causes...the rise of rap, the beginning of the fight with WB after they refused the 3 disc CB, and whatever happened to him personally during the legendary incident that led to the shelving of the Black Album. Maybe it is, as someone said above, just the fact that any artist has a period when they perfectly coincide with and determine the zeitgeist, and that moment had just passed for him...but there was also clearly a lot of personal stuff going on for him, and imo it really affected the work.

I hear ya. I do think that Emancipation and some of the songs on his 90's album feel overproduced. I am not an Emancipation fan. But many of his 2000's songs don't feel that way to me (at least not in a bad way.). they feel like pop and funk. There are r and B slow jams throughout his career however. I don't mind R and B as long as it doesn sound generic or sappy. Its not like Prince was doing later day Lionel Ritchie...LOL. P's r and b always had an old school vibe to it. In fact, I think some of it reminds me of 70's soul (kind of like his influences.)

jayseajay said:

I can only speak from personal opinion but what I'll say:

- I really really want to like the later recorded work more than I do (because then I'd have more P to listen to)...and for me, I think a big part of it is the production. There are a lot of really fantastic songs, the live versions of which I love, but it is so damn overproduced, and shiny, elevator plinky plonky sounding I just can't. And I don't understand it. Because dude was a genuis and I'm just whhhhy. I think maybe it has something to do with lack of collaboration in the studio...there is an airlessness to it, which as soon as he gets on stage with other people disappears.

- I think the point about R and B is interesting...I'm not a great fan of R and B, and that is certainly part of my not liking some of the later work...but I am not sure it is quite as simple as 'white rock audiences don't like black music so when P returned to more black music we didn't like it.' I love funk. For me the returning moment after the 90s are the ONA aftershows, when he just plays a shit ton of funk and leaves it all on the floor. There's something too smooth in R and B for my taste, maybe that is to do with musical acculuration which is raced, but I wasn't brought up listening to much funk either.

- I'm also not sure about the post-WB explanation. For me the last unequivocally great album is SOTT, and that's also the majority opinion. Something happened in 87/88. And I think what happened has multiple causes...the rise of rap, the beginning of the fight with WB after they refused the 3 disc CB, and whatever happened to him personally during the legendary incident that led to the shelving of the Black Album. Maybe it is, as someone said above, just the fact that any artist has a period when they perfectly coincide with and determine the zeitgeist, and that moment had just passed for him...but there was also clearly a lot of personal stuff going on for him, and imo it really affected the work.

I try to keep an open mind, but being a musician, it's kinda difficult to strongly adhere to compositions that became simpler and simpler in their structure, production aside.

The fun, the commitment, the incredible musicianship never left the building.
But the inventivity, the originality?

As others have stated, the problem with Prince is how much he pushed the envelope during the eighties, and it started with "Dirty Mind", even if "Prince" is a very strong album. The nineties offered more bold experiments, but little by little, the compositions became less complex, more accessible, and because of what came before, less exciting to some.

Now that we know how much was produced during this decade, it's incredible that Prince still felt compelled to record. His fight against the blank page is admirable.
But did it always produce memorable, interesting results?

By the end of the nineties, Prince's music and side projects became a universe in its own right, he could quote himself, grab a bridge from this and put it there, rework an outtake, the material was so vast...
It's fair to say that at this point, the Linn had been explored to death, the guitar style(s) had been perfected in every possible way, and the arrangements had covered pretty much every pop genre.

I have an open mind when it comes to music, and I thank Prince and my classical background for that.
But the more you expand your musical knowledge, the less tolerable you become to already-seen patterns.

There is nothing in Prince's later work that approaches the subtlety and the originality of, say, "Another Lonely Christmas" or "Old Friends 4 Sale" or "Moonbeam Levels" (and many more).
They expand the pop vocabulary: "Another" has a chord progression and a bass line that could stand as a melody of its own ; "Old Friends 4 Sale" is nothing but verses, until a single chorus followed by a coda closes it ; "Moonbeam Levels" verses sound like the Lydian mode was invented for it.

"Baltimore" brings nothing new to the table. Nor does "Strays Of The World". It's academic rock, so to speak. Chord changes that have already been used to death in pop music, since the Beatles.

But after having produced so much, Prince earned (and how) is right to just play music, without trying to be the revolutionary pop musician he once was. It's still enjoyable, because he's good at whatever he feels like playing. But from a musician standpoint, and without being too nitpicky and intellectual about it, it's blatant that "Something In The Water" or "She's Always in My Hair" are more interesting, more rich, more inventive than "Strange But True" or "Pheromone".

Again, the total commitment to the performance, the passion for music is always present, and that will always save a Prince song from total blandness. His personality is just too strong. There is always something that saves the song from being "just another song", be it a sonic idea or a heartfelt vocal performance. But often, the love we have for Prince's passion for his craft obfuscates our judgement.

Another problem, is that the moment you try to explain the weakness of a Prince's composition ("Adonis and Bat-Shit-Bleah" comes ot mind), you're accused of being negative, a naysayer, or not-a-true-fan.

What is admirable with Prince is that in the end, he always tried his best to leave his musical past behind him as much as humanly possible. That could result in songs that were simpler, unambitious in a good way. As a musician, I sometimes go "meh", but as a fan, there are very, very few songs that I consider a total waste of my listening time. I just enjoy them.

One thing for sure, Prince has never turned into a fake or a poser.
When you look at how boring, repetitive and pointless other rock legends have turned (Pink Floyd, Clapton, Peter Gabriel and counting), I'd rather trade a dozen "Planet Earth" for a single "Division Bell".

bonatoc said:

I try to keep an open mind, but being a musician, it's kinda difficult to strongly adhere to compositions that became simpler and simpler in their structure, production aside.

The fun, the commitment, the incredible musicianship never left the building.
But the inventivity, the originality?

As others have stated, the problem with Prince is how much he pushed the envelope during the eighties, and it started with "Dirty Mind", even if "Prince" is a very strong album. The nineties offered more bold experiments, but little by little, the compositions became less complex, more accessible, and because of what came before, less exciting to some.

Now that we know how much was produced during this decade, it's incredible that Prince still felt compelled to record. His fight against the blank page is admirable.
But did it always produce memorable, interesting results?

By the end of the nineties, Prince's music and side projects became a universe in its own right, he could quote himself, grab a bridge from this and put it there, rework an outtake, the material was so vast...
It's fair to say that at this point, the Linn had been explored to death, the guitar style(s) had been perfected in every possible way, and the arrangements had covered pretty much every pop genre.

I have an open mind when it comes to music, and I thank Prince and my classical background for that.
But the more you expand your musical knowledge, the less tolerable you become to already-seen patterns.

There is nothing in Prince's later work that approaches the subtlety and the originality of, say, "Another Lonely Christmas" or "Old Friends 4 Sale" or "Moonbeam Levels" (and many more).
They expand the pop vocabulary: "Another" has a chord progression and a bass line that could stand as a melody of its own ; "Old Friends 4 Sale" is nothing but verses, until a single chorus followed by a coda closes it ; "Moonbeam Levels" verses sound like the Lydian mode was invented for it.

"Baltimore" brings nothing new to the table. Nor does "Strays Of The World". It's academic rock, so to speak. Chord changes that have already been used to death in pop music, since the Beatles.

But after having produced so much, Prince earned (and how) is right to just play music, without trying to be the revolutionary pop musician he once was. It's still enjoyable, because he's good at whatever he feels like playing. But from a musician standpoint, and without being too nitpicky and intellectual about it, it's blatant that "Something In The Water" or "She's Always in My Hair" are more interesting, more rich, more inventive than "Strange But True" or "Pheromone".

Again, the total commitment to the performance, the passion for music is always present, and that will always save a Prince song from total blandness. His personality is just too strong. There is always something that saves the song from being "just another song", be it a sonic idea or a heartfelt vocal performance. But often, the love we have for Prince's passion for his craft obfuscates our judgement.

Another problem, is that the moment you try to explain the weakness of a Prince's composition ("Adonis and Bat-Shit-Bleah" comes ot mind), you're accused of being negative, a naysayer, or not-a-true-fan.

What is admirable with Prince is that in the end, he always tried his best to leave his musical past behind him as much as humanly possible. That could result in songs that were simpler, unambitious in a good way. As a musician, I sometimes go "meh", but as a fan, there are very, very few songs that I consider a total waste of my listening time. I just enjoy them.

One thing for sure, Prince has never turned into a fake or a poser.
When you look at how boring, repetitive and pointless other rock legends have turned (Pink Floyd, Clapton, Peter Gabriel and counting), I'd rather trade a dozen "Planet Earth" for a single "Division Bell".

This is gold.

I am not a musician and I do see your point. But don't you think comparing some of his best 80's work to Pheromone, Strays in teh World and strange but true is a bit unfair. No one is saying Prince was consistantly great later in life. I am saying he still had many gems. How about comparing his best 80's works to Revelation instead of Baltimore or to Beautiful Strange instead of Strange But True. Or better yet compare the simplistic sounds of Feel u up and I would die for u to And God Created Women and quirky the "Dionne" arrangement.. I noticed that his 80's music is allowed to be simplistic because it is more raw.

bonatoc said:

I try to keep an open mind, but being a musician, it's kinda difficult to strongly adhere to compositions that became simpler and simpler in their structure, production aside.

The fun, the commitment, the incredible musicianship never left the building.
But the inventivity, the originality?

As others have stated, the problem with Prince is how much he pushed the envelope during the eighties, and it started with "Dirty Mind", even if "Prince" is a very strong album. The nineties offered more bold experiments, but little by little, the compositions became less complex, more accessible, and because of what came before, less exciting to some.

Now that we know how much was produced during this decade, it's incredible that Prince still felt compelled to record. His fight against the blank page is admirable.
But did it always produce memorable, interesting results?

By the end of the nineties, Prince's music and side projects became a universe in its own right, he could quote himself, grab a bridge from this and put it there, rework an outtake, the material was so vast...
It's fair to say that at this point, the Linn had been explored to death, the guitar style(s) had been perfected in every possible way, and the arrangements had covered pretty much every pop genre.

I have an open mind when it comes to music, and I thank Prince and my classical background for that.
But the more you expand your musical knowledge, the less tolerable you become to already-seen patterns.

There is nothing in Prince's later work that approaches the subtlety and the originality of, say, "Another Lonely Christmas" or "Old Friends 4 Sale" or "Moonbeam Levels" (and many more).
They expand the pop vocabulary: "Another" has a chord progression and a bass line that could stand as a melody of its own ; "Old Friends 4 Sale" is nothing but verses, until a single chorus followed by a coda closes it ; "Moonbeam Levels" verses sound like the Lydian mode was invented for it.

"Baltimore" brings nothing new to the table. Nor does "Strays Of The World". It's academic rock, so to speak. Chord changes that have already been used to death in pop music, since the Beatles.

But after having produced so much, Prince earned (and how) is right to just play music, without trying to be the revolutionary pop musician he once was. It's still enjoyable, because he's good at whatever he feels like playing. But from a musician standpoint, and without being too nitpicky and intellectual about it, it's blatant that "Something In The Water" or "She's Always in My Hair" are more interesting, more rich, more inventive than "Strange But True" or "Pheromone".

Again, the total commitment to the performance, the passion for music is always present, and that will always save a Prince song from total blandness. His personality is just too strong. There is always something that saves the song from being "just another song", be it a sonic idea or a heartfelt vocal performance. But often, the love we have for Prince's passion for his craft obfuscates our judgement.

Another problem, is that the moment you try to explain the weakness of a Prince's composition ("Adonis and Bat-Shit-Bleah" comes ot mind), you're accused of being negative, a naysayer, or not-a-true-fan.

What is admirable with Prince is that in the end, he always tried his best to leave his musical past behind him as much as humanly possible. That could result in songs that were simpler, unambitious in a good way. As a musician, I sometimes go "meh", but as a fan, there are very, very few songs that I consider a total waste of my listening time. I just enjoy them.

One thing for sure, Prince has never turned into a fake or a poser.
When you look at how boring, repetitive and pointless other rock legends have turned (Pink Floyd, Clapton, Peter Gabriel and counting), I'd rather trade a dozen "Planet Earth" for a single "Division Bell".

[Edited 2/6/17 14:17pm]

You definitely need an open mind when evaluating P’s music. He produced music that he wanted and not formatted based on what a label would want. I enjoy the later music as much as his earlier work. I think you have to appreciate all genres of music though to really appreciate P’s collection
because he did everything and often intertwined genres together. I don’t think his later work (or even the 90s era) is of any less value than the earlier work. I think that idea is based on people’s perception because of the popularity of the earlier work.

bonatoc said:

I try to keep an open mind, but being a musician, it's kinda difficult to strongly adhere to compositions that became simpler and simpler in their structure, production aside.

The fun, the commitment, the incredible musicianship never left the building.
But the inventivity, the originality?

As others have stated, the problem with Prince is how much he pushed the envelope during the eighties, and it started with "Dirty Mind", even if "Prince" is a very strong album. The nineties offered more bold experiments, but little by little, the compositions became less complex, more accessible, and because of what came before, less exciting to some.

Now that we know how much was produced during this decade, it's incredible that Prince still felt compelled to record. His fight against the blank page is admirable.
But did it always produce memorable, interesting results?

By the end of the nineties, Prince's music and side projects became a universe in its own right, he could quote himself, grab a bridge from this and put it there, rework an outtake, the material was so vast...
It's fair to say that at this point, the Linn had been explored to death, the guitar style(s) had been perfected in every possible way, and the arrangements had covered pretty much every pop genre.

I have an open mind when it comes to music, and I thank Prince and my classical background for that.
But the more you expand your musical knowledge, the less tolerable you become to already-seen patterns.

There is nothing in Prince's later work that approaches the subtlety and the originality of, say, "Another Lonely Christmas" or "Old Friends 4 Sale" or "Moonbeam Levels" (and many more).
They expand the pop vocabulary: "Another" has a chord progression and a bass line that could stand as a melody of its own ; "Old Friends 4 Sale" is nothing but verses, until a single chorus followed by a coda closes it ; "Moonbeam Levels" verses sound like the Lydian mode was invented for it.

"Baltimore" brings nothing new to the table. Nor does "Strays Of The World". It's academic rock, so to speak. Chord changes that have already been used to death in pop music, since the Beatles.

But after having produced so much, Prince earned (and how) is right to just play music, without trying to be the revolutionary pop musician he once was. It's still enjoyable, because he's good at whatever he feels like playing. But from a musician standpoint, and without being too nitpicky and intellectual about it, it's blatant that "Something In The Water" or "She's Always in My Hair" are more interesting, more rich, more inventive than "Strange But True" or "Pheromone".

Again, the total commitment to the performance, the passion for music is always present, and that will always save a Prince song from total blandness. His personality is just too strong. There is always something that saves the song from being "just another song", be it a sonic idea or a heartfelt vocal performance. But often, the love we have for Prince's passion for his craft obfuscates our judgement.

Another problem, is that the moment you try to explain the weakness of a Prince's composition ("Adonis and Bat-Shit-Bleah" comes ot mind), you're accused of being negative, a naysayer, or not-a-true-fan.

What is admirable with Prince is that in the end, he always tried his best to leave his musical past behind him as much as humanly possible. That could result in songs that were simpler, unambitious in a good way. As a musician, I sometimes go "meh", but as a fan, there are very, very few songs that I consider a total waste of my listening time. I just enjoy them.

One thing for sure, Prince has never turned into a fake or a poser.
When you look at how boring, repetitive and pointless other rock legends have turned (Pink Floyd, Clapton, Peter Gabriel and counting), I'd rather trade a dozen "Planet Earth" for a single "Division Bell".

your choice of another lonely christmas as a song that exemplifies his "prime" pretty much nullifies your arguement with me. It was just a b side, lyrically needing revision and musically just copying Purple Rain. sounds like several Prince songs, particularly b-sides where they sound like he was just trying to complete them without correcting mistakes or poor lyricism.

Anyway, I was always impressed by the man. i remember when the symbol album came out I though "my god, he's only getting better". He was still doing things he hadn't done before, songs like God Created Woman is something I couldn't see the rude boy of dirty mind writing and his voice was only getting better.

As I've said, everything is subjective. I love Bruce Springsteen but I know that not a lot of people do. I was working for a guy the other day and he had a huge cd collection, so I asked him about bruce being that he was about the right age for Born To Run to have turned him out. He was completely unimpressed by anything that Bruce had done. So here is this guy that has every mediocre and great band under the sun and he doesn't like the Boss? Go figure. just the way it is. Bruce still puts out great music too but if people do not listen, they aren't going to know. It's common to see people say "he hasn't done anything in years". I think Wrecking Ball is an album as good as any of his other albums and was pleased to see from his autobiography that he thought so too and was dissapointed by the reception it recieved. Sales and acclaim is only one piece of the puzzle and probably the worst indicator of merit.

all of the Classic Prince LP's were analog recordings...

jayseajay said:

I can only speak from personal opinion but what I'll say:

- I really really want to like the later recorded work more than I do (because then I'd have more P to listen to)...and for me, I think a big part of it is the production. There are a lot of really fantastic songs, the live versions of which I love, but it is so damn overproduced, and shiny, elevator plinky plonky sounding I just can't. And I don't understand it. Because dude was a genuis and I'm just whhhhy. I think maybe it has something to do with lack of collaboration in the studio...there is an airlessness to it, which as soon as he gets on stage with other people disappears.

- I think the point about R and B is interesting...I'm not a great fan of R and B, and that is certainly part of my not liking some of the later work...but I am not sure it is quite as simple as 'white rock audiences don't like black music so when P returned to more black music we didn't like it.' I love funk. For me the returning moment after the 90s are the ONA aftershows, when he just plays a shit ton of funk and leaves it all on the floor. There's something too smooth in R and B for my taste, maybe that is to do with musical acculuration which is raced, but I wasn't brought up listening to much funk either.

- I'm also not sure about the post-WB explanation. For me the last unequivocally great album is SOTT, and that's also the majority opinion. Something happened in 87/88. And I think what happened has multiple causes...the rise of rap, the beginning of the fight with WB after they refused the 3 disc CB, and whatever happened to him personally during the legendary incident that led to the shelving of the Black Album. Maybe it is, as someone said above, just the fact that any artist has a period when they perfectly coincide with and determine the zeitgeist, and that moment had just passed for him...but there was also clearly a lot of personal stuff going on for him, and imo it really affected the work.

[Edited 2/6/17 17:04pm]

803 said:

I always liked his music, I think the naysayers are just trying to setup a dramatic narrative where the great artist tragically declines. It happened with Elvis, McCartney also got brutal reviews. I think what happens is people start taking a guy for granted Elvis did some shitty songs but he always did some good ones in their somewhere, right up until his death. Some of my favorite Elvis songs are the last ones but of course no one really cares about those or listens to those because he was "ruined" by the drugs and the colonel and hollywood and his own bad taste, bullshit! If people start losing interest and not paying attention anymore, the artist is only partly to blame for that. It's kind of of like falling in love, it's just a stage, the real relationship takes both parties to maintain and i assert that most fans are lazy listeners. Prince never fell off in my mind and he even got better in so many ways and he never got discouraged or dissuaded by his own so called fans bitching about his tragic decline. I can tell you, it's hard as hell to be creative when you face indifference, how do you go through the process when you know there is no reward? How did he do it? I don't know. Maybe because he just had to.

Cosign times 1000 (although i dont know many elvis songs from his last years)

The thing about Prince, he had endless well of sounds to draw from. I find it so tedious when people take the easy road & say "Prince's best work will always be Purple rain/SOTT/1999" blah blah And then they start riffing how "When doves cry is the greatest song he ever wrote" That's the cop out. Just admit to the fact "Look, there are so many, we have to go and experience it all as much as we can, there isn't one song, there isn't one album, there isn't one guitar solo...."

You want to know what I think prince's best work? My answer is:when he pressed the red button & rolled the tape, the tape never stopped flowing until the end of his life. Prince's best work is embodiment as a whole. Other than that, I have no effin clue how anyone can distinguish what his best work is, when we haven't even heard 70 percent of HIS remaining WORK. I think this is such a dumb question if someone has 1000's of pieces of music undiscovered. It's deceptive and it is kind of foolish when you think about it.

Even if we don't even hear any of those, when you revisit the other work I find the talk about "Prince's best band" I don't know what his best band is,tbh. Because Prince was always a solo entity even when it said "Revolution" or "NPG"

It's the same way I think people are full of shit who try to tell me who is the best band member. I can only tell you that Prince has such a phenomenonal ear for musicians, I can't point to anyone and say "Oh that guitarist was" I just think he was meant to play with who he was destined to play with.

The plethora of obsessions with musicians like Eric Leeds, Prince's NPG horn sections SCARED Leeds. He told you his thoughts on Horn heads in recent interviews, one of the greatest horn sections in recorded history. Just amazing shit and Prince with expanded horn section is a godsend we got to hear that. Atlanta Bliss/Leeds aren't somehow superior to NPG Horns. Equal levels of musicianship & performance energy.

I think all the incarnations of NPG will go toe to toe with any of the Revolution. Soooo many fans HATE to hear that, but I think Wendy & Lisa are full of it, NPG was as great as anything they did.

I don't think their evaluation of NPG holds any water.

One thing that makes me different than a lot of people, I don't have music nostalgia, i love what i love regardless of a year. I don't have any ERA for music, music is ever constant, there is no "golden years" for it. There's just too much to evaluate to make a blanket statement like that. Come back to me orgers, when you listen to every piece from A-Z that holds some kind of high standard to a particular audience. It isn't going to happen, therefore you or I don't know what the best fucking era for music is. We have no clue & it is okay to say that.

Now, there are Prince songs I skip because I just don't want to hear them ever again, but they are so far and few between.

I think Emancipation is as great & innovative as Purple Rain/SOTT/Lovesexy/1999/Dirty Mind. The greatest Prince works you can't pin down any album or era. These musicians who say this who worked with Prince, they likely were burnt out on being around him for hundreds & hundreds of hours. They don't know, we don't know & Prince didn't know. It was just too much to evaluate.

It's impossible, that's why he is

I really hope all the reviews & album acclaims go up in flames in the next few centuries. I think people will arguably enjoy mostly everything he did as an artist. I doubt without any critic interference, centuries from now, people will be acclaiming one meager album from the eighties. They will be in awe endlessly of his work & it will vary from country to country .

If someone was to ask me about my thoughts on Purple Rain, I think I would say this "his highest selling album, but clearly as time showed us, he had so much more in store for his listeners of innovation,pioneering & experimenting & amazing songwriting & musicianship"

I just don't know how anyone can honestly say with a straight face "I will tell you his best work" It's just so so so so much to assess. It is similar when people mention Miles "Oh, I love kind of Blue" Has that person listened to the majority of his work? How can you say it is his best if all you listened to were 2 fucking albums? How, Sway? (as the legendary Kanye said)

That's our NUMERO UNO problem. People who are saying "Prince's best work is", most of these people haven't listened to a goddamn prince album in it's entirety. That's hard cold facts for people who quote & reference a lot of the public's reaction.

Outside the Prince bubble, i doubt the majority who say the following "Prince would never top Purple Rain musically", havent listened or committed their time to his work. It is all bullshit & will always be bullshit.

Get back to me in 1000 years when these jokers have listened to everything in the vault more than once or twice. IT.AINT.GONNA.HAPPEN.