CAL3 said:

I think his later career, since Musicology, is pretty well respected, sales numbers just don't show it because the social media era began and Prince didn't play that game well. Prince would still drop a few gems, even really late in his career, and he garnered MUCH respect because people knew he could still drop a few gems. IMO it is pretty likely his [overall] career would have been more respected if he hadn't had the PUBLIC feud with WB. IMO the two things that brought Prince the most ridicule was the 'Slave' and the name change to 'Symbol'. Those two particular periods made Prince the butt of countless jokes and ushered in a period of him not being taken seriously for SEVERAL years, even though he spit more than a few gems during those periods and for several years thereafter. I don't think it was until Musicology gained so much momentum that Prince came out of the shadow of the 'Slave' and 'Symbol' eras. Working his way out of the shadows of those eras garnered, even more, respect later in his career. So in response to your question, OP, maybe, maybe not.

purplerabbithole said:

Warner Brothers might have gotten him to pick the best songs from the sessions that led to the over-inflated Emancipation album. There is a very good 11 or 12 song album in that box set. YOu are leaving out 94 and 95. Warner Brothers might have better backed the Gold Experience (with TMBGITW being on that album, I think GE could have been a hit equivalent to Diamonds and Pearls).

Rave for all its flaws still could have been a bit more of a hit if it had gotten proper promotion.

I see your point about the oddball release strategies but those strategies would have been probably avoided had he been on good terms with WB and listened to their suggestions to not flood the market. They might have encouraged him to pick the best songs from Crystal Ball and New Power Soul and put out just one album. They might have pegged The Truth and one nite alone as 'unplugged' albums worthy of real distribution. The songs in Chaos and Disorder and the Undertaker might have been more polished and the best of the lot might have been featured on one solid well promoted albums. The songs were there, in my opinion, to work with and the songs were there to be discarded or kept in the vault to be improved later on.

novabrkr said:

Most artists with long careers have switched labels. Nothing odd about that.

If you think about it, the vast majority of his 1996-2004 releases weren't the type of products that could have even been hits, realistically speaking. He released albums that were stated to be contract fillers even in the booklets, a 3CD set, a 5CD set, an album released under the name "New Power Generation", a sprawling jazz-funk opus with dogmatic, religious lyrics and a lot of Internet-only stuff.

The only record during that period of time that could be consider "a normal album release" was Rave and it was a flop. Basically, he kept putting out "side project" type of albums one after another for nearly a decade. No wonder his pop star status diminished.

[Edited 7/17/17 9:31am]

My post wasn't really a reply to the question the OP posed here, I realize that now.

I suppose what I was trying to articulate with my post was that Prince didn't seem to even have "the drive" to put out commercially successful products post-94/95. Continuing to work with WB would have just subjected him to the type of pressure of being "a pop superstar" that he was essentially trying to get rid of.

pdiddy2011 said:

I think his later career, since Musicology, is pretty well respected, sales numbers just don't show it because the social media era began and Prince didn't play that game well. Prince would still drop a few gems, even really late in his career, and he garnered MUCH respect because people knew he could still drop a few gems. IMO it is pretty likely his [overall] career would have been more respected if he hadn't had the PUBLIC feud with WB. IMO the two things that brought Prince the most ridicule was the 'Slave' and the name change to 'Symbol'. Those two particular periods made Prince the butt of countless jokes and ushered in a period of him not being taken seriously for SEVERAL years, even though he spit more than a few gems during those periods and for several years thereafter. I don't think it was until Musicology gained so much momentum that Prince came out of the shadow of the 'Slave' and 'Symbol' eras. Working his way out of the shadows of those eras garnered, even more, respect later in his career. So in response to your question, OP, maybe, maybe not.

I thought it was mostly the performer(live) Prince that was getting the respect, not the music.

novabrkr said:

purplerabbithole said:

Warner Brothers might have gotten him to pick the best songs from the sessions that led to the over-inflated Emancipation album. There is a very good 11 or 12 song album in that box set. YOu are leaving out 94 and 95. Warner Brothers might have better backed the Gold Experience (with TMBGITW being on that album, I think GE could have been a hit equivalent to Diamonds and Pearls).

Rave for all its flaws still could have been a bit more of a hit if it had gotten proper promotion.

I see your point about the oddball release strategies but those strategies would have been probably avoided had he been on good terms with WB and listened to their suggestions to not flood the market. They might have encouraged him to pick the best songs from Crystal Ball and New Power Soul and put out just one album. They might have pegged The Truth and one nite alone as 'unplugged' albums worthy of real distribution. The songs in Chaos and Disorder and the Undertaker might have been more polished and the best of the lot might have been featured on one solid well promoted albums. The songs were there, in my opinion, to work with and the songs were there to be discarded or kept in the vault to be improved later on.

[Edited 7/17/17 9:31am]

My post wasn't really a reply to the question the OP posed here, I realize that now.

I suppose what I was trying to articulate with my post was that Prince didn't seem to even have "the drive" to put out commercially successful products post-94/95. Continuing to work with WB would have just subjected him to the type of pressure of being "a pop superstar" that he was essentially trying to get rid of.

If U look at his career up to 1996 the Gold Experience... Prince always promote the new music fully along with other hits and such. After WB starting with Emancipation(the album he was born to make) he rarely promoted the new music. 3 discs of music from his 1997 album and he probably only did 5 songs at the most in the concerts. And after that it seemed he just relaxed on the 'hits'
.
By 1999/2000 he was doing the Paisley Park Celebrations and believe as a result we started hearing more covers following in his shows(I could be wrong on that) ONA/Rainbow Children was the one album he really promoted live. This is the album that showed Prince was really inspired. But after that again, not much promotion of the current album songs.

OldFriends4Sale said:

Strive said:

No.

He was outputting too much work, he was too ahead of the curve musically and he was out of sync with what the public wanted.

Prince swung for the fence with The Gold Experience and it did nothing. It's safe to assume that a single disc version of Emancipation, The Truth and Rave Un2 the Joy Fantastic would have landed with the same thud under Warner. With the way he was at war with them, they would have broken up eventually and WB being the one to drop Prince would've hurt him just as bad as the way he left.

You seem to forget why it did nothing.

OldFriends4Sale said:

novabrkr said:

My post wasn't really a reply to the question the OP posed here, I realize that now.

I suppose what I was trying to articulate with my post was that Prince didn't seem to even have "the drive" to put out commercially successful products post-94/95. Continuing to work with WB would have just subjected him to the type of pressure of being "a pop superstar" that he was essentially trying to get rid of.

If U look at his career up to 1996 the Gold Experience... Prince always promote the new music fully along with other hits and such. After WB starting with Emancipation(the album he was born to make) he rarely promoted the new music. 3 discs of music from his 1997 album and he probably only did 5 songs at the most in the concerts. And after that it seemed he just relaxed on the 'hits'
.
By 1999/2000 he was doing the Paisley Park Celebrations and believe as a result we started hearing more covers following in his shows(I could be wrong on that) ONA/Rainbow Children was the one album he really promoted live. This is the album that showed Prince was really inspired. But after that again, not much promotion of the current album songs.

We heard covers because he cut out the profane songs out of his show due to his religious beliefs.

laurarichardson said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

If U look at his career up to 1996 the Gold Experience... Prince always promote the new music fully along with other hits and such. After WB starting with Emancipation(the album he was born to make) he rarely promoted the new music. 3 discs of music from his 1997 album and he probably only did 5 songs at the most in the concerts. And after that it seemed he just relaxed on the 'hits'
.
By 1999/2000 he was doing the Paisley Park Celebrations and believe as a result we started hearing more covers following in his shows(I could be wrong on that) ONA/Rainbow Children was the one album he really promoted live. This is the album that showed Prince was really inspired. But after that again, not much promotion of the current album songs.

We heard covers because he cut out the profane songs out of his show due to his religious beliefs.

"Too many hits," but he resorted to covers...

"A song a day..." but he resorted to covers...

We heard covers during that period because his mouth was too busy sucking Larry Graham's dick. (Not literally.)

I get it. You dislike most of his later work. But your subjective opinion is not the point. The public sometimes likes work that others might deem patchy, subpar, slipshod and grabbag. Unless you prove without a doubt that everyone would think a majority of his later work just completely sucks, the public, if given the chance. might have taken the good with the bad more than they did if they knew the good even existed (even you admitted there were some good songs on Come).

I said it might have been ahead of its time because of the comments I read on youtube videos of songs from the Come album being compared to later work by Timberland, timberlake, Pharrell Williams and the Weekend. Come as an album actually has a solid fan base (unlike Rave.)

I don't disagree about his mistakes (not bothering to promote etc)>

laurarichardson said:

CAL3 said:

.

Underrated? It was a deliberately patchy, subpar, slipshod, grabbag of material.

.

Ahead of its time? In what way? Certainly not musically in any quantifiable way. It was a harbinger of things to come because it turned out not to be the last patchy, subpar, slipshod grabbag of material he would release.

.

Prince was his own worst enemy once the conflict with WB began. Seriously, he dumped 'Come' on them like it was a pile of trash - and didn't do much to promote it. He did himself no favors in those years.

.

Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with liking "Come" as an album, I like some of the songs on there too.

He was leaving the lable. Why would he promote anything if was not going to be around much longer?

I made a common assumption.

CAL3 said:

purplerabbithole said:

He always evolved an artist, maybe not in the way you would like (I am assuming with the Revolution) , but he did.

.

WTF?

.

What about what I said gave you THAT idea?

laurarichardson said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

If U look at his career up to 1996 the Gold Experience... Prince always promote the new music fully along with other hits and such. After WB starting with Emancipation(the album he was born to make) he rarely promoted the new music. 3 discs of music from his 1997 album and he probably only did 5 songs at the most in the concerts. And after that it seemed he just relaxed on the 'hits'
.
By 1999/2000 he was doing the Paisley Park Celebrations and believe as a result we started hearing more covers following in his shows(I could be wrong on that) ONA/Rainbow Children was the one album he really promoted live. This is the album that showed Prince was really inspired. But after that again, not much promotion of the current album songs.

We heard covers because he cut out the profane songs out of his show due to his religious beliefs.

that isn't the reason. He had so many songs what had no 'profanity' in them.
Like he almost NEVER performed anything from the spiritually awakened Lovesexy.

Recognizable songs hook new fans maybe. Casual fans are not going to recognize Positiivity. It is weird how much he neglects Lovesexy in later set lists though. He revisits Graffiti Bridge songs but not Lovesexy or Batman. Maybe it was for emotional reasons.

OldFriends4Sale said:

laurarichardson said:

We heard covers because he cut out the profane songs out of his show due to his religious beliefs.

that isn't the reason. He had so many songs what had no 'profanity' in them.
Like he almost NEVER performed anything from the spiritually awakened Lovesexy.

could be, I thought the 'emotional' angle too

But still. He was free, free to do what he wanted and still enslaved himself to doing 'recognizable stuff'

But I know he said something about playing the hits. But remember the Gold Experience was not recognizable stuff, yet he was playing the music all over Europe.

the audience was composed of 'casual' fans and hardcore fans. So exposing people to his music vs playing covers of other peoples music (who said people would know those covers) for the 'Artists' would have been the best thing in the long run.

purplerabbithole said:

Recognizable songs hook new fans maybe. Casual fans are not going to recognize Positiivity. It is weird how much he neglects Lovesexy in later set lists though. He revisits Graffiti Bridge songs but not Lovesexy or Batman. Maybe it was for emotional reasons.

OldFriends4Sale said:

that isn't the reason. He had so many songs what had no 'profanity' in them.
Like he almost NEVER performed anything from the spiritually awakened Lovesexy.

OldFriends4Sale said:

laurarichardson said:

We heard covers because he cut out the profane songs out of his show due to his religious beliefs.

that isn't the reason. He had so many songs what had no 'profanity' in them.
Like he almost NEVER performed anything from the spiritually awakened Lovesexy.

Actually it is the reason he even discussed it and it was discussed on this board not just profanity but songs with a heavy sexual content were cut. He stopped doing Head.

Hard to say. Maybe he had mixed feelings. Maybe he forgot some of his own songs. the concerts I have watched [on youtube obviously] often contain the hits (sometimes thrown into a quick little medley), songs from the last album he released, deeper cuts from a variety of albums (Gold Experience, 1999, 3121, and sometimes even "Prince") and sometimes even a non-released or limited-released song like Empty Room or the Ride). But for some reason, Lovesexy and Batman songs are hard to find. ANother thought, maybe he just had some ill feelings about the tours that originally featured those songs. You notice not many Musicology songs (other than the title song) are in later tour. Maybe he burned himself out on some of those songs from the Musicology tour.

OldFriends4Sale said:

could be, I thought the 'emotional' angle too

But still. He was free, free to do what he wanted and still enslaved himself to doing 'recognizable stuff'

But I know he said something about playing the hits. But remember the Gold Experience was not recognizable stuff, yet he was playing the music all over Europe.

the audience was composed of 'casual' fans and hardcore fans. So exposing people to his music vs playing covers of other peoples music (who said people would know those covers) for the 'Artists' would have been the best thing in the long run.

purplerabbithole said:

Recognizable songs hook new fans maybe. Casual fans are not going to recognize Positiivity. It is weird how much he neglects Lovesexy in later set lists though. He revisits Graffiti Bridge songs but not Lovesexy or Batman. Maybe it was for emotional reasons.

[Edited 7/18/17 9:28am]

[Edited 7/18/17 9:30am]

I think he wanted to respect himself and what he felt God's will was for him more than getting respect from others.

laurarichardson said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

that isn't the reason. He had so many songs what had no 'profanity' in them.
Like he almost NEVER performed anything from the spiritually awakened Lovesexy.

Actually it is the reason he even discussed it and it was discussed on this board not just profanity but songs with a heavy sexual content were cut. He stopped doing Head.

again, 'profane' we already know about

Even though he did songs like Cream and Little Red Corvette and continued to sample all those others he couldn't sing.
He still had way more songs that had nothing to do with heavy sexual content.

.

side Facts: Purple Rain contained no 'profanity' Parade contained no 'profanity' (spelling out very quietly P U S S Y) doesn't count. I don't think Around the World in a Day did either

I thought it was mostly the performer(live) Prince that was getting the respect, not the music.

If you actually read the reviews of his work and not just a writer following a narrative, the reaction to his work varies...

It all depends obviously. I, at one point, decided to read reviews of Prince's later work from rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, megacritic, and allmusic.com (as well as some from the very picky Pitchfork and Jon Beam.

Rolling Stone and Entertainnment Weekly were much kinder than Jon Beam or Pitchfork. Allmusic.com had a more moderate take on his work.

On average, Rolling Stone and EW generally gave him at least 3.5 out of 5 star reviews or 3 out 4 star reviews with some exceptions (EW didnt' really like D and P that much but they loved on hitnrun phase I and Rolling Stone didn't like Come)

Pitchfork averaged about 2.5 to 3 out of five for later work (with some albums ranking high and some quite low..much more mixed reviews) I didn't read them all however.

Allmusic.com ranks his later work on average about 3.5 out of 5 (with some tipping the scale at 4 and others as low as 2 or 2.5).

Jon Beam comes in at the most critical of his later work...with ridiculously low one star reviews for albums Rolling Stone rated at 3.5 stars. But he adored the Emancipation album (an album I have very mixed feelings about) so I really don't understand his taste entirely.

But I tend to think that mixed review albums can be the most interesting ones. Rolling Stone, I believe, didn't like Around the World in a Day when it first came out but they gave strong reviews to Graffiti Bridge as an album. Music needs to ruminate in the public and critical conscience. Also, occasionally some of the Prince reivews I read spent way too much time dissing him for calliing himself a symbol for me to take them seriously as authentic criitcism of the time.

I used to read a lot of film criticism. Its amazing how some critics change their mind after the public backs a work or art or after they rewatch the same film with a different mindset. The film There Will Be Blood was often re-evaluated by critics after they started discussing the film with each other.. resulting mostly in more favorable second reviews. The film Scarface was a critical bomb when it first came out; now it is more highly regarded due to its populist influence.. Its A wonderful life was a critical bomb when it first came out--now, its a very different story.

If an artist's work is difficult to come by or keep up with (or in Prince's case--both) , then these ruminations and re-evaluations I mentioned are almost impossible.

pdiddy2011 said:

I think his later career, since Musicology, is pretty well respected, sales numbers just don't show it because the social media era began and Prince didn't play that game well. Prince would still drop a few gems, even really late in his career, and he garnered MUCH respect because people knew he could still drop a few gems. IMO it is pretty likely his [overall] career would have been more respected if he hadn't had the PUBLIC feud with WB. IMO the two things that brought Prince the most ridicule was the 'Slave' and the name change to 'Symbol'. Those two particular periods made Prince the butt of countless jokes and ushered in a period of him not being taken seriously for SEVERAL years, even though he spit more than a few gems during those periods and for several years thereafter. I don't think it was until Musicology gained so much momentum that Prince came out of the shadow of the 'Slave' and 'Symbol' eras. Working his way out of the shadows of those eras garnered, even more, respect later in his career. So in response to your question, OP, maybe, maybe not.

I thought it was mostly the performer(live) Prince that was getting the respect, not the music.

[Edited 7/18/17 11:44am]

[Edited 7/18/17 11:48am]

C'mon.

The most likely explanation for why Prince started doing covers live was that he wanted to do them because he liked the songs.

Nothing forced him to perform 4-5 additional songs on hist 2-3 hour sets. He could have just as well left them out.

It's complete nonsense that he was somehow running out of songs to perform.

Look at miss information-less lol

I mean you weren't buying the albums for sure.

When Musicology came out it was called the 'return of Prince' and other phrases like that.

Prince as a music maker was kinda absent from the charts etc

.

His music and records were not selling in a way that was making him popular. Record sales was not it, and if it was then the excuse the 'people don't want to hear the new stuff' said by Prince is a contradiction. Like a lot of people they turn into very popular live shows to see over the albums.

purplerabbithole said:

I thought it was mostly the performer(live) Prince that was getting the respect, not the music.

If you actually read the reviews of his work and not just a writer following a narrative, the reaction to his work varies...

It all depends obviously. I, at one point, decided to read reviews of Prince's later work from rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, megacritic, and allmusic.com (as well as some from the very picky Pitchfork and Jon Beam.

Rolling Stone and Entertainnment Weekly were much kinder than Jon Beam or Pitchfork. Allmusic.com had a more moderate take on his work.

On average, Rolling Stone and EW generally gave him at least 3.5 out of 5 star reviews or 3 out 4 star reviews with some exceptions (EW didnt' really like D and P that much but they loved on hitnrun phase I and Rolling Stone didn't like Come)

Pitchfork averaged about 2.5 to 3 out of five for later work (with some albums ranking high and some quite low..much more mixed reviews) I didn't read them all however.

Allmusic.com ranks his later work on average about 3.5 out of 5 (with some tipping the scale at 4 and others as low as 2 or 2.5).

Jon Beam comes in at the most critical of his later work...with ridiculously low one star reviews for albums Rolling Stone rated at 3.5 stars. But he adored the Emancipation album (an album I have very mixed feelings about) so I really don't understand his taste entirely.

But I tend to think that mixed review albums can be the most interesting ones. Rolling Stone, I believe, didn't like Around the World in a Day when it first came out but they gave strong reviews to Graffiti Bridge as an album. Music needs to ruminate in the public and critical conscience. Also, occasionally some of the Prince reivews I read spent way too much time dissing him for calliing himself a symbol for me to take them seriously as authentic criitcism of the time.

I used to read a lot of film criticism. Its amazing how some critics change their mind after the public backs a work or art or after they rewatch the same film with a different mindset. The film There Will Be Blood was often re-evaluated by critics after they started discussing the film with each other.. resulting mostly in more favorable second reviews. The film Scarface was a critical bomb when it first came out; now it is more highly regarded due to its populist influence.. Its A wonderful life was a critical bomb when it first came out--now, its a very different story.

If an artist's work is difficult to come by or keep up with (or in Prince's case--both) , then these ruminations and re-evaluations I mentioned are almost impossible.

I thought it was mostly the performer(live) Prince that was getting the respect, not the music.

His records were not selling because many were releashed independtly .

OldFriends4Sale said:

Look at miss information-less lol

I mean you weren't buying the albums for sure.

When Musicology came out it was called the 'return of Prince' and other phrases like that.

Prince as a music maker was kinda absent from the charts etc

.

His music and records were not selling in a way that was making him popular. Record sales was not it, and if it was then the excuse the 'people don't want to hear the new stuff' said by Prince is a contradiction. Like a lot of people they turn into very popular live shows to see over the albums.

purplerabbithole said:

If you actually read the reviews of his work and not just a writer following a narrative, the reaction to his work varies...

It all depends obviously. I, at one point, decided to read reviews of Prince's later work from rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, megacritic, and allmusic.com (as well as some from the very picky Pitchfork and Jon Beam.

Rolling Stone and Entertainnment Weekly were much kinder than Jon Beam or Pitchfork. Allmusic.com had a more moderate take on his work.

On average, Rolling Stone and EW generally gave him at least 3.5 out of 5 star reviews or 3 out 4 star reviews with some exceptions (EW didnt' really like D and P that much but they loved on hitnrun phase I and Rolling Stone didn't like Come)

Pitchfork averaged about 2.5 to 3 out of five for later work (with some albums ranking high and some quite low..much more mixed reviews) I didn't read them all however.

Allmusic.com ranks his later work on average about 3.5 out of 5 (with some tipping the scale at 4 and others as low as 2 or 2.5).

Jon Beam comes in at the most critical of his later work...with ridiculously low one star reviews for albums Rolling Stone rated at 3.5 stars. But he adored the Emancipation album (an album I have very mixed feelings about) so I really don't understand his taste entirely.

But I tend to think that mixed review albums can be the most interesting ones. Rolling Stone, I believe, didn't like Around the World in a Day when it first came out but they gave strong reviews to Graffiti Bridge as an album. Music needs to ruminate in the public and critical conscience. Also, occasionally some of the Prince reivews I read spent way too much time dissing him for calliing himself a symbol for me to take them seriously as authentic criitcism of the time.

I used to read a lot of film criticism. Its amazing how some critics change their mind after the public backs a work or art or after they rewatch the same film with a different mindset. The film There Will Be Blood was often re-evaluated by critics after they started discussing the film with each other.. resulting mostly in more favorable second reviews. The film Scarface was a critical bomb when it first came out; now it is more highly regarded due to its populist influence.. Its A wonderful life was a critical bomb when it first came out--now, its a very different story.

If an artist's work is difficult to come by or keep up with (or in Prince's case--both) , then these ruminations and re-evaluations I mentioned are almost impossible.

I thought it was mostly the performer(live) Prince that was getting the respect, not the music.

Can we have a debate without rudeness, please??

Return of Prince doesn't mean his album was as promoted as you are making it out. The music industry drops videos and promotions all the time. But it takes a while for songs to become anything close to classics. Prince's lack of presense online and on youtube over the years and the way he independently released much of his work didn't help. I am not saying anyone (who was fortunate enough to see some of his videos) fell in love with the songs Musicology or Cinamon Girl when they heard them. But I am saying that the album as a whole was not one I was familar with at the time so it wasn't exactly getting the kind of attention Usher, Maroon 5, Black Eyed Peas and other musicians were getting at the time. Not to mention, if you look at the top 100 list of songs for 2004, there is no one over the age of 35 on the list except for a couple country music singers. (I just checked). His age didn't help either. But here's the deal, selling as well as Usher and Maroon 5 isn't the respect I am referring to. Having his music available and accessible to anyone who might want to revisit it is what a legacy artist needs.

I wasn't buying the albums for sure. Okay, if you want to go that route. Let's go there. I didn't buy Musicology partly because I didn't know about the damn album. I don't follow what concerts sold the most tickets. I do know now he was on the cover of EW but only after the fact.

I do however know now that part of the reason Musicology sold half way decently is because he sold it with his concert tickets.

I would appreciate you not accusing me of lying. I read the actual reviews I stated that I read. the averages I came up with are not exact sciences but I am not lying.

OldFriends4Sale said:

Look at miss information-less lol

I mean you weren't buying the albums for sure.

When Musicology came out it was called the 'return of Prince' and other phrases like that.

Prince as a music maker was kinda absent from the charts etc

.

His music and records were not selling in a way that was making him popular. Record sales was not it, and if it was then the excuse the 'people don't want to hear the new stuff' said by Prince is a contradiction. Like a lot of people they turn into very popular live shows to see over the albums.

purplerabbithole said:

If you actually read the reviews of his work and not just a writer following a narrative, the reaction to his work varies...

It all depends obviously. I, at one point, decided to read reviews of Prince's later work from rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, megacritic, and allmusic.com (as well as some from the very picky Pitchfork and Jon Beam.

Rolling Stone and Entertainnment Weekly were much kinder than Jon Beam or Pitchfork. Allmusic.com had a more moderate take on his work.

On average, Rolling Stone and EW generally gave him at least 3.5 out of 5 star reviews or 3 out 4 star reviews with some exceptions (EW didnt' really like D and P that much but they loved on hitnrun phase I and Rolling Stone didn't like Come)

Pitchfork averaged about 2.5 to 3 out of five for later work (with some albums ranking high and some quite low..much more mixed reviews) I didn't read them all however.

Allmusic.com ranks his later work on average about 3.5 out of 5 (with some tipping the scale at 4 and others as low as 2 or 2.5).

Jon Beam comes in at the most critical of his later work...with ridiculously low one star reviews for albums Rolling Stone rated at 3.5 stars. But he adored the Emancipation album (an album I have very mixed feelings about) so I really don't understand his taste entirely.

But I tend to think that mixed review albums can be the most interesting ones. Rolling Stone, I believe, didn't like Around the World in a Day when it first came out but they gave strong reviews to Graffiti Bridge as an album. Music needs to ruminate in the public and critical conscience. Also, occasionally some of the Prince reivews I read spent way too much time dissing him for calliing himself a symbol for me to take them seriously as authentic criitcism of the time.

I used to read a lot of film criticism. Its amazing how some critics change their mind after the public backs a work or art or after they rewatch the same film with a different mindset. The film There Will Be Blood was often re-evaluated by critics after they started discussing the film with each other.. resulting mostly in more favorable second reviews. The film Scarface was a critical bomb when it first came out; now it is more highly regarded due to its populist influence.. Its A wonderful life was a critical bomb when it first came out--now, its a very different story.

If an artist's work is difficult to come by or keep up with (or in Prince's case--both) , then these ruminations and re-evaluations I mentioned are almost impossible.

I thought it was mostly the performer(live) Prince that was getting the respect, not the music.

[Edited 7/18/17 13:12pm]

[Edited 7/18/17 13:17pm]

[Edited 7/18/17 13:22pm]

[Edited 7/18/17 13:27pm]

laurarichardson said:

Does anyone know when Prince's managers renegotiated his first contract with WB? That is a crucial question to this whole Prince vs WB-lamento. The smart ones did licensing deal even in those days, presumably the early 80's. He could have made a lot more money that way, which he could have put into producing the PR-movie, promotion etc. Most important: He could have released what, how and when he wanted to. But obviously he and his henchmen weren't that smart then. in order to be able to have complete artistic freedom, one must be smart enough to take care of his own business. As far as we all know, Prince made all kinds of stupid decisions which alianated quite a few of his former supporters busineas-wise.

It's all to easy to blame record companies for their "lack of creative thinking" when an artists makes hilarious decisions because he thinks that what he does is just wonderful. Do you good people remember the flop that was Under The Cherry Moon? That was the first sure sign of Prince's megalomania having gone terribly wrong. If I could have been swaping jobs with Mo Ostin at that time, I would have ecouraged Prince to produce whatever music he liked to produce and put it out there. But most importantly, I would have encouraged him to stay on the road for as long as possible. Prince had lost an enormous amount of followers in the US (and partially in Europe, too), because of his stupid schedules ( not taking Sign O The Times to the US / not taking Musicology to Europe), stating that he was never going to perform the hits again at a certain time (which, of course, turned out to be just another ludicrous blackout).

Go ahead, stone me, but Prince's enemy was never WB. His real enemy lived inside himself.

jaawwnn said:

Too much would have been different to even comprehend that question.

, I definitely agree with this. However, I will also offer the following perspective. I was born in 1986, so I was a kid when was feuding with WB. I thought he was a total weirdo because he changed his name to a symbol and had SLAVE on his face. I was too young to understand the whole conflict. (The only song of Prince's that I remember actually hearing from my childhood pre-high school, and knowing that it was a Prince song, was 1999.)

.

In the mid-to-late 90s, Wacko Jacko (MJ) and The Artist Formerly Known As Prince were these 2 really weird singers who weren't very popular anymore. I remember seeing the display for Rave Un2 the Joy Fantastic at my local music store in Seattle (Easy Street Records). The blue pleather suit and braids reinforced the schema I had of Prince---weirdo! I never heard any new music from Prince/ on the radio, and none of my friends or classmates were listening to him, so he wasn’t relevant to me. His look in the Rave era did not help him at all. If he had marketed himself the right way, he might have been able to connect with the younger generation and the public at large.

.

He and Madonna are the same age. Madonna was still relevant in the late 1990s with the Ray of Light album. didn’t market himself the right way in order to appeal to the general public in the mid-to-late 1990s, and it’s hard to market yourself when you are feuding with your record company, have named yourself , and have the word SLAVE on your face. So in the short-term, I think it cost him relevancy. I wonder if Musicology would have had broader appeal if he were signed to a major record company/WB at that time.

.

thank your for the perspective. Image, appearance and lack of good promotion did effect his career much more than the quality of his work. He was hit and miss and at times a trend chaser, but compared to whom. Many artists are like tht and still remain relevant. MJ, despite his image, had a strong and steady fanbase that was rather forgiving and his music remained easily available. After his death, he was one of the best selling dead artists ever. Prince career choices (strange distribution of his music (limited releases of better songs etc) , becoming an indepdendent artist, inconsistency, slave on his face, OTT clothes even as he got older, later aversion to youtube...(all of these things are factors in his career trajectory.) I sometimes wonder if Prince's image as MJ's competition hurt him as well. People not knowledable enough about Prince just assuming that he was a second rate MJ.

Good point about Madonna. I am not a big Madonna fan but Ray of LIght was a damn fine album. the only one other than maybe "Like A Prayer" that I think was a truely great album. Ray of LIght is one of the only albums of Madonna's that I owned I believe.

206Michelle said:

jaawwnn said:

Too much would have been different to even comprehend that question.

, I definitely agree with this. However, I will also offer the following perspective. I was born in 1986, so I was a kid when was feuding with WB. I thought he was a total weirdo because he changed his name to a symbol and had SLAVE on his face. I was too young to understand the whole conflict. (The only song of Prince's that I remember actually hearing from my childhood pre-high school, and knowing that it was a Prince song, was 1999.)

.

In the mid-to-late 90s, Wacko Jacko (MJ) and The Artist Formerly Known As Prince were these 2 really weird singers who weren't very popular anymore. I remember seeing the display for Rave Un2 the Joy Fantastic at my local music store in Seattle (Easy Street Records). The blue pleather suit and braids reinforced the schema I had of Prince---weirdo! I never heard any new music from Prince/ on the radio, and none of my friends or classmates were listening to him, so he wasn’t relevant to me. His look in the Rave era did not help him at all. If he had marketed himself the right way, he might have been able to connect with the younger generation and the public at large.

.

He and Madonna are the same age. Madonna was still relevant in the late 1990s with the Ray of Light album. didn’t market himself the right way in order to appeal to the general public in the mid-to-late 1990s, and it’s hard to market yourself when you are feuding with your record company, have named yourself , and have the word SLAVE on your face. So in the short-term, I think it cost him relevancy. I wonder if Musicology would have had broader appeal if he were signed to a major record company/WB at that time.

.

I noticed by the 90s what Prince was saying / directing did not pull me in anymore. It was just some cool music at times. I've said for a long time, after the 80s Prince did not direct or translate what was happening in society anymore. the 90s especially had a lot of social change and cultural restructuring happening. And he seemed really removed from it. By 1988/89-1990 Prince seemed to have taken on this 'my music is religion' idea. And I think that kind of thought pattern put his vision of out scope. That little back in forth between him and Susan Rogers in the 2000s is a good example.

.

Michael's saving grace was that he didn't change much. He style/look was sorta the same from Thriller to Bad to Dangerous etc he just added more stuff. The glove the jackets the shiny sox etc he continued using those imagery throught his career. So it was almost like what Prince did from 1980-1988. But just over longer periods of time. Also MJ wasn't 'over exposed'. But MJ also had the Motown legacy. He was working in the industry since he was a kid.

.

Madonna did a very good job of translating what was happening in the world throught most of her career. She probably LIVE more than MJ and Prince, who seemed to sequester themselves into their own hubble. Her 90s period was like a 2nd heightening of her superstardom from Justify My Love - Erotica - Evita - Ray of Light. And then in the 2000s her Confessions on the Dancefloor period was HUGE too. She again was in night clubs promoting her album and music, places like the Roxy, dancing 'with' the club goers all night etc And she was HUGE on promotion in a way Prince seriously lacked. I think being a woman also helped her in a way women are more easily open to hearing and feeling things in ways men have to fight to express.
.
Prince seemed to fight against himself for a long time.

purplerabbithole said:

thank your for the perspective. Image, appearance and lack of good promotion did effect his career much more than the quality of his work. He was hit and miss and at times a trend chaser, but compared to whom. Many artists are like tht and still remain relevant. MJ, despite his image, had a strong and steady fanbase that was rather forgiving and his music remained easily available. After his death, he was one of the best selling dead artists ever. Prince career choices (strange distribution of his music (limited releases of better songs etc) , becoming an indepdendent artist, inconsistency, slave on his face, OTT clothes even as he got older, later aversion to youtube...(all of these things are factors in his career trajectory.) I sometimes wonder if Prince's image as MJ's competition hurt him as well. People not knowledable enough about Prince just assuming that he was a second rate MJ.

Good point about Madonna. I am not a big Madonna fan but Ray of LIght was a damn fine album. the only one other than maybe "Like A Prayer" that I think was a truely great album. Ray of LIght is one of the only albums of Madonna's that I owned I believe.

206Michelle said:

, I definitely agree with this. However, I will also offer the following perspective. I was born in 1986, so I was a kid when was feuding with WB. I thought he was a total weirdo because he changed his name to a symbol and had SLAVE on his face. I was too young to understand the whole conflict. (The only song of Prince's that I remember actually hearing from my childhood pre-high school, and knowing that it was a Prince song, was 1999.)

.

In the mid-to-late 90s, Wacko Jacko (MJ) and The Artist Formerly Known As Prince were these 2 really weird singers who weren't very popular anymore. I remember seeing the display for Rave Un2 the Joy Fantastic at my local music store in Seattle (Easy Street Records). The blue pleather suit and braids reinforced the schema I had of Prince---weirdo! I never heard any new music from Prince/ on the radio, and none of my friends or classmates were listening to him, so he wasn’t relevant to me. His look in the Rave era did not help him at all. If he had marketed himself the right way, he might have been able to connect with the younger generation and the public at large.

.

He and Madonna are the same age. Madonna was still relevant in the late 1990s with the Ray of Light album. didn’t market himself the right way in order to appeal to the general public in the mid-to-late 1990s, and it’s hard to market yourself when you are feuding with your record company, have named yourself , and have the word SLAVE on your face. So in the short-term, I think it cost him relevancy. I wonder if Musicology would have had broader appeal if he were signed to a major record company/WB at that time.

.

annalizer said:

laurarichardson said:

His records were not selling because many were releashed independtly .

I agree, but also, by 86' music had drastically changed and this is when he started the fallout with WB. I think he was really hurt when the public didn't respond to ATWINAD after the success of PR and used WB as the scapegoat. So, whether or not he would've been better off with WB is a toss up. I would say the one thing he'll always be respected for is that he was a "true" all around artist and not just a performer.

I believe what Prince was doing and the level of maturity in the music and videos could have helped Prince traverse the changing scenes. I mean the music really jumped levels and time lanes by 1984 but the music coming out of the Parade Flesh Dream Factory period/sessions was serious 'grown folk' music.

.

The problem with both ATWIAD & Parade was not the quality of music, but the lack of proper promotion. Proper promotion for ATWIAD in that even thought it was seriously Purple Rains fraternal twin, it was a very new direction of sound. It needed good promotion. The Raspberry Beret video winning the award it did, showed it had the potential. Purple Rain being very strong songs also had the Purple Rain movie. If there were no videos connected, the movie was enough. But the PR album also had a full on tour, with many other shows/performances. Around the World in a Day just need an album focused Europe America Canada (not tour but series of 'small club like' shows) I could see Prince & the Revolution @ a Music Hall / Carnegie or such doing Condition of the Heart. Showcasing the look they are known for. Prince sitting at a grand piano, full band with Susannah Jill BrownMark or St Paul on vocals. Suzi Katyama Novi Novog David Coleman on added strings, Jonathan Melvoin Sheila E/Juan Escovedo on added percussions. and then Old Friends 4 Sale

.

The Masquerade Ball Birthday show 6.7.1985 should have been bigger more publicized, and with more songs from the ATWIAD Romance 1600 the Family albums promoting all 3

.

I could see shows that consisted of a set list like
.
1. America

2. Ronnie Talk 2 Russia

3. Paisley Park

4. She's Always In My Hair

5. Temptation

6. God the Love theme

7. the Dance Electric

.

or

.

1. Uptown

2. Erotic City

3. Paisley Park

4. Around the World in a Day

5. Baby I'm a Star

6. Pop Life

7. maybe preview Strange Relationships

.

or do a show that consists of the Family Sheila E followed by Prince & the Revolution doing about 3song from the new album along with 1 or 2 from previous

.

Show the new videos by each prior to the show Screams of Passion, Sister Fate, Raspberry Beret

.

more photoshoots from 1985

the Nice 1985 show televised etc

.

the album(s) just needed the right promotion to help people grasp the music

.

Parade the music was perfect. The problem was the movie. Prince wasn't an actor to hold the movie. It needed band performances (Who did not expect to see performance scenes). And I'm not talking about in similar fashion to Purple Rain. Prince as a struggling artist among France bourgeois, with his band of musicians... the fringe groups. @ Mary Sharons birthday party Day & Night. Jill Jones w/the Revolution performing Mia Bocca, while Christopher worked the floor, then takes the stage for New Position. the Family during the Day party doing High Fashion.

Christopher taking Mary to the other side of town to a club where Sheila E and band are doing A Love Bizarre, the Girls & Boys video actually being a part of the movie, the Revolution in the background doing Alexis de Paris etc

.

Parade could have been on a similar level of Purple Rain. It was very mature timeless music that has stood the tests of time. People like DeAngelo and Jill Scott just to name a few who were students of the Parade music.

laurarichardson said: