RJOrion said:

rdhull said:

So overall my pojnt is that yes, black people did listen to the Beatles. Regardless if you think it was for crossover, crossfit, or cross burnings. Those and other prominent black artists covering the songs meant that their black audience were also listening to the covers and sch. It wasnt as if they covered there ears when the artists covers of the Beatles songs were played.

are you black?...di you have Beatles records growing up?...did your Black parents?...did your Black friends?...

i completely understand that Black people were aware of the Beatles and even heard their songs on the radio...my point is, as a demographic, we were not consumers of, or fans of the Beatles, its cool that you found some acts who did record their songs, but thats not my point or counterpoint...

and just because Lakeside sang a Beatles song doesnt mean Lakeside fans were curling up in front of a fire listening to "Long & Winding Road".... not at all..

[Edited 5/27/17 19:08pm]

You said

RJOrion said:

alot of black people didnt listen to The Beatles... in spite of their popularity and overexposure, black folks (generally speaking) didnt buy Beatles records, and Black radio didnt play their music, so for Prince to have never been exposed to their albums, is completely normal in the Black experience ...

aka = that its a probable reality that its true, maybe Prince was never exposed to their albums aka not exoed to their music

btw good one on this line

just because Lakeside sang a Beatles song doesnt mean Lakeside fans were curling up in front of a fire listening to "Long & Winding Road"

RJOrion said:

The Beatles were inspired by Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Wilson Pickett and others. In fact, so were the Rolling Stones and other British bands. Prince may have been introduced to the Beatles Sgt. Pepper album by Bobby Z and Matt Fink but he most likely had heard Beatles music when he was growing up. Also, are they suggesting that Wendy and Lisa introduced Prince to Jazz? That is ridiculous. Prince's Dad John Nelson was a Jazz musician and his Mother was a Jazz singer. Prince and Andre Cymone grew up hearing Jazz music. Also, I am sure through Pepe Willie and Prince's older brother Alfred Prince probably heard a variety of music. Andre Cymone did a great interview in which he discussed the music that influenced him when he was growing up. I am sure Prince listened to a lot of the same music. I think there is some rewriting of history going on and it is not fair since Prince is not here to clear up such comments.


http://www.waxpoetics.com...nged-life/

rdhull said:

the thing that makes me doubt that the revolution were the ones who introduced him to the beatles is that from the very first time i started reading about Prince, they said he grew up on white rock, 60's and 70's top 40 and that minneapolis only had one black station. I've read this just about everywhere so I was always skeptical when i read that wendy and lisa introduced him to the beatles at least as a completely new listener. And as others have said, i don't think anyone could completely escape the Beatles. I didn't grow up on their music either but through tv and the culture you at least came across them, i want to hold your hand or whatever. Also, didn't prince reference "hippies" on the 1999 album? I always thought he saw himself as a throwback to that era and even said as much with the line on his last album "I should have been born on the woodstock stage".

as far as the beatles and whether people like them, it's just like any artist, prince included, there will always be people who just don't like their music.

"But that moment, I think he realized that the Beatles were more than he thought. He just kind of swallowed them up. You can tell that Around the World in a Day—I’m just assuming a lot, and he’d probably get mad—but I’m assuming that by swallowing up Magical Mystery Tour and Sgt. Pepper that Around the World in a Day is definitely influenced by it."

This was quite obvious to me back in 1985 because that was around when I first discovered The Beatles (and stopped listening actively only to orchestral scores for movies), and was scoffing at Prince being taken seriously on their level (despite loving much of Purple Rain), then Around the World in a Day came out and my music "dealer" friend had me listen to the record and read all the lyrics... just as he had done with many Beatles records.

I realized there was more to Prince... just as he must have realized there was more to The Beatles.

rogifan said:

RJOrion said:

alot of black people didnt listen to The Beatles... in spite of their popularity and overexposure, black folks (generally speaking) didnt buy Beatles records, and Black radio didnt play their music, so for Prince to have never been exposed to their albums, is completely normal in the Black experience ...

Except Minneapolis didn't play a lot of black music back then. Prince was a Fleetwood Mac fan. Most likely because that's what was played on local radio.

yeah,growing up,Prince was clearly exposed to more than just funk and soul music.He was a huge fan of Joni Mitchell,for example.

SoulAlive said:

rogifan said:

RJOrion said: Except Minneapolis didn't play a lot of black music back then. Prince was a Fleetwood Mac fan. Most likely because that's what was played on local radio.

yeah,growing up,Prince was clearly exposed to more than just funk and soul music.He was a huge fan of Joni Mitchell,for example.

Tokyo said:

Really sad to read so many people queuing up to bash the Beatles on this thread. Everyone can be a wise-ass from afar! I think Prince's view eventually is likely to have been that here were four guys from working class backgrounds who learned their craft and played their own instruments. To give them their due - and leave the radio aside - they changed the face of popular music forever. Their music may not be to your taste, but there's a reason that the song yesterday is one of, if not the most, covered song of all time. Their music has universal appeal across languages, faiths and cultural boundaries. It also encapsulates everything from folk music to hymns, rock and roll, vaudeville, gospel, rock, skiffle, musicals, RnB. Rather than lining up to say how sh*t they were maybe think about having something more intelligent to say about their influence on Prince during one of his most creative periods. I loved Prince's music, I just can't stand this worthy nonsense about him being superior to other great artists that people feel they can rubbish here. T

like i said, there are always people who don't care for an artist and that goes for Prince too. The Beatles have enough people who love their music that it really doesn't matter.

funny thing about prince, he denied outright the beatles influence in the 85 interview and said something like "the beatles were great but I don't see how that would work today". Same way he downplayed the Hendrix influence, Prince was a very bigheaded guy and you don't have to take what he says but rather what he does. I did read an article that supported his statement saying that ATWIAD was more influenced by other black psychedelia like the temptations great music at the time. Prince was right about one thing, ATWIAD was a funky album.

I honestly don't hear it. The supposed Beatles influence in Prince's work I mean. It seems a lazy comparison to me, primarily based on the psychedelic ATWIAD album art. Musically I don't hear much of a direct connection at all. Prince was obviously broadening his horizons musically in that period, but I don't hear much Beatles in that mix to any great extent.

Perhaps Beatles fans like to overstate their influence a bit? Prince fans do the same thing of course.

Personally, I recently revisited every Beatles studio album in sequence. Growing up in the 70s and 80s, everyone's parents were Beatles fans so it was a bit of a religion almost. It is interesting to just listen to their (relatively small) body of work now without expectations. I hear lot of overtly borrowed music from black US artists like Chuck Berry, a bunch of teeny bopper shit, I hear a handful of inspired (but twee) Lennon-McCartney pop-craft gems, a few hippy-dippy singalongs, and a fair amount of truly unmusical shit, featuring lyrics about drugs, fame, taxes, and other banal topics. I don't dispute their importance in popular culture, and I like George's solo stuff, but I think fans constantly over-rate their music and how influential it was.

Also I reckon Revolver and Rubber Soul are both better than Sgt Peppers, but then I guess "you had to be there" or something.

laurarichardson said:

PeteSilas said:

interesting, he denied the beatles influenced ATWIAD just like he denied the hendrix influence on his guitar playing in the 85 rs interview.

He always said he was Santana was his man.

I hear more Santana but when I listen to Hendrix I can also hear Prince.

I just think Prince was himself- influenced yes but he was himself in style of play.

RJOrion said:

MotownSubdivision said:

RJOrion said:

alot of black people didnt listen to The Beatles... in spite of their popularity and overexposure, black folks (generally speaking) didnt buy Beatles records, and Black radio didnt play their music, so for Prince to have never been exposed to their albums, is completely normal in the Black experience ...

What black radio was there in the 1960s?

i know my town had one black station when i was a kid, it was on am KYAC and that was it. I imagine that was fairly common then.

ian said:

I honestly don't hear it. The supposed Beatles influence in Prince's work I mean. It seems a lazy comparison to me, primarily based on the psychedelic ATWIAD album art. Musically I don't hear much of a direct connection at all. Prince was obviously broadening his horizons musically in that period, but I don't hear much Beatles in that mix to any great extent.

Perhaps Beatles fans like to overstate their influence a bit? Prince fans do the same thing of course.

Personally, I recently revisited every Beatles studio album in sequence. Growing up in the 70s and 80s, everyone's parents were Beatles fans so it was a bit of a religion almost. It is interesting to just listen to their (relatively small) body of work now without expectations. I hear lot of overtly borrowed music from black US artists like Chuck Berry, a bunch of teeny bopper shit, I hear a handful of inspired (but twee) Lennon-McCartney pop-craft gems, a few hippy-dippy singalongs, and a fair amount of truly unmusical shit, featuring lyrics about drugs, fame, taxes, and other banal topics. I don't dispute their importance in popular culture, and I like George's solo stuff, but I think fans constantly over-rate their music and how influential it was.

Also I reckon Revolver and Rubber Soul are both better than Sgt Peppers, but then I guess "you had to be there" or something.

The beatles have a lot of classics that i love at least. Atwiad, UTCM and SOTT had psychedelia on them but I don't know how much of that I hear and go "oh beatles" the critics pointed to paisley park, the song and Raspberry Beret as the main Beatles influenced songs. I guesss they are referring to the words too, the utopian or childlike lyrics like Penny Lane and strawberry fields but musically, i didn't hear a whole lot that reminded me of the beatles. I guess christopher tracy's parade is like songs like being for the benefit of mr kite, just the part where the organs are playing all together, but that song, i understand was written by wendy and lisa and not prince.

Vashtix said:

laurarichardson said:

PeteSilas said: He always said he was Santana was his man.

I hear more Santana but when I listen to Hendrix I can also hear Prince.

I just think Prince was himself- influenced yes but he was himself in style of play.

yeah, tonally more santana, but there is too much hendrix to ignore and even more in the mannerisms on stage. Prince really did have his own sound though, which,yes, was more santana than jimi. He mentioned led zeppelin also, in the RS interview which Wendy and lisa supposedly introduced him to but i never heard a whole lot of influence. It's funny but Prince took from all over, recently i've been watching adam ants vid 'strip" and there is a little move he does in there that prince cops for the movie version of "Darling Nikki", small thing that no one would really notice. Also, i think we should remember that Prince, in those days, made all kinds of claims of not listening to anyone's music at all besides his own, which obviously was not true. He liked to play with people's heads.

MotownSubdivision said:

Were Beatles songs played on the radio back then? I mean, could you hear the Beatles next to Santana on a rock station back then in the 70s? It just seems odd that he never encountered the Beatles, if he was listening to rock stations when he was younger.

datdude said:

I (with my non-musician self nothwithstanding), HAVE NEVER LISTENED TO A BEATLES ALBUM....and probably won't. There are lots more ppl like me. early 40s here btw. I've stated elsewhere on threads that to me they're highly overrated. And yes, I feel like i can base that on having never heard an album. Their ubiquity has exposed me enough to know I'm not pressed to hear a full album. I don't like their voices and no melody I've heard has compelled to explore more. So P having not heard them is not unbelievable at all. They're NOT universally loved as some might have u think.

yes they are overrated, but they were still great. Prince is probably overrated on Prince.org, but he was obviously incredible and a genius and his music is extraordinary. Overrated doesn't mean bad.

Anyway The Beatles are universally loved. That doesn't mean that every person on the planet likes them but most everyone does.

ian said:

I honestly don't hear it. The supposed Beatles influence in Prince's work I mean. It seems a lazy comparison to me, primarily based on the psychedelic ATWIAD album art. Musically I don't hear much of a direct connection at all. Prince was obviously broadening his horizons musically in that period, but I don't hear much Beatles in that mix to any great extent.

Perhaps Beatles fans like to overstate their influence a bit? Prince fans do the same thing of course.

Personally, I recently revisited every Beatles studio album in sequence. Growing up in the 70s and 80s, everyone's parents were Beatles fans so it was a bit of a religion almost. It is interesting to just listen to their (relatively small) body of work now without expectations. I hear lot of overtly borrowed music from black US artists like Chuck Berry, a bunch of teeny bopper shit, I hear a handful of inspired (but twee) Lennon-McCartney pop-craft gems, a few hippy-dippy singalongs, and a fair amount of truly unmusical shit, featuring lyrics about drugs, fame, taxes, and other banal topics. I don't dispute their importance in popular culture, and I like George's solo stuff, but I think fans constantly over-rate their music and how influential it was.

Also I reckon Revolver and Rubber Soul are both better than Sgt Peppers, but then I guess "you had to be there" or something.

The Beatles started both of their full on psychedlic albums with a call to check out the show straight to the listener, an opening song that actually functioned as in introduction like the carnival barker/band leader pulling you in and inviting you on a journey beyond your normal world.

The Beatles started incorporating world instruments like sitars and tablas to create an exotic feeling to their pop.

The Beatles also sought to create songs that seemed to completely jump genres, and also explicitly implied mind opening experiences and an escape from reality.

They also started to incorporate strings and full orchestra in a featured aggressive (even experimental dissonant way.)

They also started including sound effects and creative recording techniques to help create unique narratives and sounds. And that's a nother key word... narratives. They started the idea of an album being a conceptual experience like a movie.

They were the first to actually print the lyrics to the songs on the inside of the foldout album.

And for wardrobe and art, there was a shift to a variety of strong colors and patterns. Also mean to be vivid, exotic, and surreal.

As for evaluating Bealtes music:
Come on... listen to just the one song "Strawberry Fields Forever" carefully and think about the year it was actually recorded in 1967. No one popular has come close to this kind of breakthrough in creativity and mood and technique. No one. Except for Prince in my opinion. (if there was a band of 2-4 Prince type creatives, we would have another Beatles). And Strawberry Fields is just one song from so many hits they put out as a band (and as solo artists). No one has come up with a catalog of singles that sound so different, such crystal clear gems of composition and hook, and were so monumentally hard hitting that they each got covered by other big artists over and over and over. Again the thing that attracted me to Prince was that he seemed to be an artist approaching the talent of The Beatles.

I'm still waiting for something new to come out of the woodworks... band, artist... something.
__________________

Now think about "Around the World in a Day" with it's opening song, lyrics, narratives, and string interludes, strange sound effects break in "Pop Life", finger cymbals and eastern flavored sounds mixed with his brand funk, and almost slowed down in pace in certain places. Actually he literally slows down some of the instrument and vocal tracks on certain songs to create a surreal mood.

You must realize the "All My Dreams" is overtly Paul McCartney / Beatles influenced, right?

But if you can't see how Around the World in a Day was a Prince twist towards Sgt Peppers... and that The Beatles just made a mind bobbling catalog of exceptional influential work that has NEVER been matched....well... ha ha ha haha

datdude said:

I (with my non-musician self nothwithstanding), HAVE NEVER LISTENED TO A BEATLES ALBUM....and probably won't. There are lots more ppl like me. early 40s here btw. I've stated elsewhere on threads that to me they're highly overrated. And yes, I feel like i can base that on having never heard an album. Their ubiquity has exposed me enough to know I'm not pressed to hear a full album. I don't like their voices and no melody I've heard has compelled to explore more. So P having not heard them is not unbelievable at all. They're NOT universally loved as some might have u think.

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. I've many friends who think Prince is overrated yet have never heard one of his albums! They hate how he squeals on Kiss and think PR is melodramatic and overblown. This makes me so mad - take 1 hour out of life and LISTEN to something before you claim artists who have stood the test of time for 50 years are overrated!

[Edited 5/28/17 9:50am]

Harps said:

datdude said:

I (with my non-musician self nothwithstanding), HAVE NEVER LISTENED TO A BEATLES ALBUM....and probably won't. There are lots more ppl like me. early 40s here btw. I've stated elsewhere on threads that to me they're highly overrated. And yes, I feel like i can base that on having never heard an album. Their ubiquity has exposed me enough to know I'm not pressed to hear a full album. I don't like their voices and no melody I've heard has compelled to explore more. So P having not heard them is not unbelievable at all. They're NOT universally loved as some might have u think.

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. I've many friends who think Prince is overrated yet have never heard one of his albums! They hate how he squeals on Kiss and think PR is melodramatic and overblown. This makes me so mad - take 1 hour out of life and LISTEN to something before you claim artists who have stood the test of time for 50 years are overrated!

[Edited 5/28/17 9:50am]

maybe i've grown thickskinned because, as a musician, i've had to endure all the ridiculous tastes/distastes of musicians for years. If someone doesn't like a legend, no skin off my back. Will always be people who think Elvis is overrated because he stole black music, didn't play the guitar, MJ is overrated because Quincy Jones did everything for him, I can even remember during the mid 80's a musician actually had the nerve to say that Prince was a studio musician and not a live performer, that's damned near like saying Bruce Springsteen was a studio creation. Someone saying they don't like the Beatles doesn't bother me, I'll still be going back to their music again and again.

Harps said:

datdude said:

I (with my non-musician self nothwithstanding), HAVE NEVER LISTENED TO A BEATLES ALBUM....and probably won't. There are lots more ppl like me. early 40s here btw. I've stated elsewhere on threads that to me they're highly overrated. And yes, I feel like i can base that on having never heard an album. Their ubiquity has exposed me enough to know I'm not pressed to hear a full album. I don't like their voices and no melody I've heard has compelled to explore more. So P having not heard them is not unbelievable at all. They're NOT universally loved as some might have u think.

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous.

its worse

I love Elvis but he is overrated...(well, I kind of hate the word overrated since it implies that popular opinion is not valid, but he gets too much exposure at the expense of other rock artists who proceeded him. namely rock artists of color.)

What does SOUL mean? Its a broad term--not black, not white, not brash, not subtle.. It is genre of music but 'soul' in a broader sense doesn't belong to one genre.

This is the definition from an online dictionary--"emotional or intellectual energy or intensity, especially as revealed in a work of art or an artistic performance:". Going by that criteria, the intense screaming of Helter Skelter would have a lot of 'soul'.

The Beatles songs do sound like corny fairground melodies half the time..I agree but that is the point. They were the most tongue-in-cheek band in the world. Very very British, not overly derivative like the Rolling Stones (I love the Rolling Stones but they were still American blues wannabes). The Beatles were masters of simple catchy melodies and wildly experimental.

feeluupp said:

Beatles are the most over rated thing in music since ELVIS... Beatles songs sound like corny fairground melodies... Who would even buy a ticket to see them play live in concert, they stand in the same place without moving for 2 hours... Sorry, I like my artists to have some SOUL.

I interpret what they said as Prince having been exposed to the Beatles but not really taking to them. Listening to the full Sgt. Pepper's album probably changed his mind. Also, I believe that his earlier exposure was probably limited due to the fact that he grew up in the 70's and probably had to seek out variation of music the hard way. Finding black music on the radio in Minneapolis was probably hard enough.

As for the comments that W and L and Leeds exposed Prince to jazz. Well, they may have exposed him to certain types of jazz or specific jazz musicians but no, they didn't expose him to jazz. His dad probably did that. However, his dad's tastes were probably very idiosyncratic.

RJOrion said:

Beatles suck. The hire an Indian instrument player or whatever and that album is hailed as the most experimental album of all time... Hahaha over rated.

Only thing worse than listening to the Beatles is Laura Richardsons constant argueing over Prince's welfare and being everyday...