You know Prince is dead when his namesake site starts to regularly produce threads like these. We've definitely crossed a threshold. That moment when Prince.org turned from being a lively news site--albeit dominated by a small group of obsessed twats--to a purely self-involved memorial one (still dominated by said twats). Truly sad. I give this place two more years. Mark my words.

rogifan said:

PeteSilas said:

ya, there are a few favorite punching bags on the org, larry is one, tony m is another. I never liked rap period so i never had a valid opinion on how good/bad tony was. I'll say this, i love his recent interviews, he's a very articulate guy who had a lot of interesting things to say.

You forgot Kirk, probably the biggest punching bag of all.

oh yeah, he's a good whipping boy too.

pricetag said:

lemoncrush19 said:

It says they're old school?

jaawwnn said:

pricetag said:

You know Prince is dead when his namesake site starts to regularly produce threads like these. We've definitely crossed a threshold. That moment when Prince.org turned from being a lively news site--albeit dominated by a small group of obsessed twats--to a purely self-involved memorial one (still dominated by said twats). Truly sad. I give this place two more years. Mark my words.

My heart bleeds for you pricetag

an accountant, i'd have never guessed. after listening to some of the podcasts, I was wondering how rosie had a problem with him, if it was indeed him when she complained about the bandmembers not treating her right.

Adorecream said:

PeteSilas said:

ya, there are a few favorite punching bags on the org, larry is one, tony m is another. I never liked rap period so i never had a valid opinion on how good/bad tony was. I'll say this, i love his recent interviews, he's a very articulate guy who had a lot of interesting things to say.

Exactly, he is deep and remembered well, there is a great interview with Peach and Black from late 2016 and Tony remembered it all, even when Prince docked him $500 for going skydiving on a tour day off "He asked if it was fun, and said was it worth $500 worth of fun?".

.

He is like an accountant now and kind of mentioned the rap was just a alternate way of making some money. He knew that there was a lot of hatred as well, and was a decent guy.

Adorecream said:

and was a decent guy.

.

Decent enough to not have his house in order w.r.t. having a testament, a ctaalogoued vault, etc.

Also decent when it comes to opioids, just like the average californian as it appears: http://www.zerohedge.com/...ber-people

I.e.: americans have more than one problem.

udo said:

Adorecream said:

and was a decent guy.

.

Decent enough to not have his house in order w.r.t. having a testament, a ctaalogoued vault, etc.

Also decent when it comes to opioids, just like the average californian as it appears: http://www.zerohedge.com/...ber-people

I.e.: americans have more than one problem.

udo, FYI: the comment you respond to is directed toward Toney Mosley.

udo said:

Adorecream said:

and was a decent guy.

.

Decent enough to not have his house in order w.r.t. having a testament, a ctaalogoued vault, etc.

Also decent when it comes to opioids, just like the average californian as it appears: http://www.zerohedge.com/...ber-people

I.e.: americans have more than one problem.

SNIP - OF4$

udo said:

Adorecream said:

and was a decent guy.

.

Decent enough to not have his house in order w.r.t. having a testament, a ctaalogoued vault, etc.

Also decent when it comes to opioids, just like the average californian as it appears: http://www.zerohedge.com/...ber-people

I.e.: americans have more than one problem.

what does not having a will have to do with being "decent"? The guy left us volumes of work, gave his talent selflessly away, sacrificed;for himself? sure, but we benefitted from it all. Just like great athletes put their lives and bodies on the line for a chance at greatness, to make money but yes, also for us, the observers, he did it more generously than anyone else, got more done than anyone else and that's why i have a hard time with some of his so called fans.

PeteSilas said:

udo said:

.

Decent enough to not have his house in order w.r.t. having a testament, a ctaalogoued vault, etc.

Also decent when it comes to opioids, just like the average californian as it appears: http://www.zerohedge.com/...ber-people

I.e.: americans have more than one problem.

what does not having a will have to do with being "decent"? The guy left us volumes of work, gave his talent selflessly away, sacrificed;for himself? sure, but we benefitted from it all. Just like great athletes put their lives and bodies on the line for a chance at greatness, to make money but yes, also for us, the observers, he did it more generously than anyone else, got more done than anyone else and that's why i have a hard time with some of his so called fans.

co sign

Germanegro said:

udo said:

.

Decent enough to not have his house in order w.r.t. having a testament, a catalogoued vault, etc.

Also decent when it comes to opioids, just like the average californian as it appears: http://www.zerohedge.com/...ber-people

I.e.: americans have more than one problem.

udo, FYI: the comment you respond to is directed toward Toney Mosley.

.

Whahaa.

oops.

My bad.

PeteSilas said:

udo said:

.

Decent enough to not have his house in order w.r.t. having a testament, a ctaalogoued vault, etc.

Also decent when it comes to opioids, just like the average californian as it appears: http://www.zerohedge.com/...ber-people

I.e.: americans have more than one problem.

what does not having a will have to do with being "decent"?

.

As if one could not foresee any issues with departing from here without them leaving a testament?

So it would have been decent if he had arranged stuff a bit.

Not just the coporate side but the things that heirs have to deal with.

This is important as the curent situation leaves fans with uncertainty about what will happen and how long this will take.

Having a fortune comes with responsibilities and acting responsible makes one look decent.

.

i have a hard time with some of his so called fans.

.

You may have a hard time with anybody, that is your prerogative.

It is not so much about what you do, but in this case about what he didn't do.

It is not about listening to him singing about getting your house in order (yes, context may vary) but about what he does about getting his house in order.

udo said:

Adorecream said:

and was a decent guy.

.

Decent enough to not have his house in order w.r.t. having a testament, a ctaalogoued vault, etc.

Also decent when it comes to opioids, just like the average californian as it appears: http://www.zerohedge.com/...ber-people

I.e.: americans have more than one problem.

I meant Tony M was a decent guy, read the whole post please.

Adorecream said:

udo said:

.

Decent enough to not have his house in order w.r.t. having a testament, a ctaalogoued vault, etc.

Also decent when it comes to opioids, just like the average californian as it appears: http://www.zerohedge.com/...ber-people

I.e.: americans have more than one problem.

I meant Tony M was a decent guy, read the whole post please.

oh, ya, how could i miss that, hes referring to something incorrectly in the first place.

udo says:

As if one could not foresee any issues with departing from here without them leaving a testament?

So it would have been decent if he had arranged stuff a bit.

Not just the coporate side but the things that heirs have to deal with.

This is important as the curent situation leaves fans with uncertainty about what will happen and how long this will take.

Having a fortune comes with responsibilities and acting responsible makes one look decent.

OK--I agree that picking through the particulars of the various contract rights to recordings is a daunting heap of a problem, but that would be the case whether or not Prince made pre-arrangments toward assets disbursement after his passing. His multifaceted efforts executed to move his enterprises beyond the corprate plantation simply made that a given.

>

He (and misc. band associates) happened to make a multitude of recordings while under contract that his label would not ever be able to handle in his lifetime--so the nerve of that guy to foment our lives with ambiguous anticipations toward future postmortem releases, and how unthoughtful of him to have conducted such an overflowing wealth of creativity without doting on the arcane legalities of those rights appropriations. I wish there were a statue of limitation or restriction toward the amount of that stuff that WB could lay claim to; that would certainly leave circumstances less complicated than they are, but it is what it is due to the man's industriousness, and at the end of the day it is not for the rest of us to dwell upon beyond casual musing, lest your name fall into that of Prince's clan.

>

You could say that he might have done better at managing his physical store of archives but in choosing between maintaining those racks of tape reels, maintaining his bands and personnel, and the maintenance expense of his studio complex, you've got to prioritize. So again, shame on him for having the ambition to push ahead with yet further musical creations and touring in his time, instead of moving forth with an archive preservation project and not managing his back catalogue and unreleased material-- what a lout that guy was; can't believe his irresponsibility.

>

And his secret problems with addictions that ultimately pushed him under, borne from his desire to move with the vigor of a younger age and present us all with dynamic performances night after night--WTH, he shouldn't have done all those opioids. How effing reckless and undisciplined that guy was. Shame on him for being a druggie, right? He shoulda' known better and conducted himself more carefully and respectably without all that shocking hypocrisy, trying to maintain a drug-free public image.

>

The type of comments that I've bolded convey the ungrateful, disrespectul, self-entitled manner in which some fans sound while addressing such perceived shortcomings and failings of the man. Anyone else would have done better to conduct themselves differently, they say. He had the nerve to sue some fan sites and threaten Youtube posters, and he jerked us around with some of his distribution projects, so we can take our gloves off now, seems to be the way of thought in this mode. Such comments as yours--directed toward a comment that had NOTHING to do with Prince in the first place--makes yours exhibit no. 8,345,227,983 of the nasty things Orgers say about Prince.

We need to spread this around to set people Straight Germangro

I mean some People are actually grateful to this unthoughtful, undisciplined Lout...

Germanegro said:

udo says:

As if one could not foresee any issues with departing from here without them leaving a testament?

So it would have been decent if he had arranged stuff a bit.

Not just the coporate side but the things that heirs have to deal with.

This is important as the curent situation leaves fans with uncertainty about what will happen and how long this will take.

Having a fortune comes with responsibilities and acting responsible makes one look decent.

OK--I agree that picking through the particulars of the various contract rights to recordings is a daunting heap of a problem, but that would be the case whether or not Prince made pre-arrangments toward assets disbursement after his passing. His multifaceted efforts executed to move his enterprises beyond the corprate plantation simply made that a given.

>

He (and misc. band associates) happened to make a multitude of recordings while under contract that his label would not ever be able to handle in his lifetime--so the nerve of that guy to foment our lives with ambiguous anticipations toward future postmortem releases, and how unthoughtful of him to have conducted such an overflowing wealth of creativity without doting on the arcane legalities of those rights appropriations. I wish there were a statue of limitation or restriction toward the amount of that stuff that WB could lay claim to; that would certainly leave circumstances less complicated than they are, but it is what it is due to the man's industriousness, and at the end of the day it is not for the rest of us to dwell upon beyond casual musing, lest your name fall into that of Prince's clan.

>

You could say that he might have done better at managing his physical store of archives but in choosing between maintaining those racks of tape reels, maintaining his bands and personnel, and the maintenance expense of his studio complex, you've got to prioritize. So again, shame on him for having the ambition to push ahead with yet further musical creations and touring in his time, instead of moving forth with an archive preservation project and not managing his back catalogue and unreleased material-- what a lout that guy was; can't believe his irresponsibility.

>

And his secret problems with addictions that ultimately pushed him under, borne from his desire to move with the vigor of a younger age and present us all with dynamic performances night after night--WTH, he shouldn't have done all those opioids. How effing reckless and undisciplined that guy was. Shame on him for being a druggie, right? He shoulda' known better and conducted himself more carefully and respectably without all that shocking hypocrisy, trying to maintain a drug-free public image.

>

The type of comments that I've bolded convey the ungrateful, disrespectul, self-entitled manner in which some fans sound while addressing such perceived shortcomings and failings of the man. Anyone else would have done better to conduct themselves differently, they say. He had the nerve to sue some fan sites and threaten Youtube posters, and he jerked us around with some of his distribution projects, so we can take our gloves off now, seems to be the way of thought in this mode. Such comments as yours--directed toward a comment that had NOTHING to do with Prince in the first place--makes yours exhibit no. 8,345,227,983 of the nasty things Orgers say about Prince.

1725topp said:

rogifan said:

daKotaGeNesis said: At least it’s not as bad as lipstick alley where people bagged on Prince for not having enough dark skinned band members or dating a dark skinned woman.

*

First, thanks so much for your kind response to my comment. The only thing I'll add about folks, mostly African Americans, complaining about Prince not dating or showcasing dark skinned women throughout his career is that comes from centuries of African Americans seeing their image/bodies, history, and culture marginalized and lampooned by American media. Often, the history of African-American entertainers was a history/process of trying to make white owners and patrons/audiences feel comfortable with blackness. (Even Prince, himself, once stated in a Rolling Stone article that “Wendy makes me more acceptable. When I sneer, she smiles.”) As such, lighter skinned blacks, regardless of talent, were always more accepted/patronized than dark skinned blacks. That's not an opinion. Just do some research on the "Brown Paper Bag" Theory. Unfortunately, after centuries of living under white supremacy, many African Americans began to internalize this notion, which evolved into black self-hatred in which African Americans, themselves, perpetuated the "Brown Paper Bag" theory as a way to ingratiate themselves to the white power structure. Thus, whenever an African American who knows/understands this history sees someone like Prince who is obviously a product of the genius of the black community/black culture exclusively dating and highlighting lighter skinned women, they, for the sake of history and racial progress, must wonder, if not ask aloud, what is the reasoning for this. Is it because he just so happened to find women with whom he is intellectually, emotionally, and artistically compatible who also just happen to be of a lighter skin tone? Or, is it that he, himself, is color struck--which is merely a way of saying that he has embraced/accepted the European aesthetic of beauty--and dates these lighter skinned women as a way to make himself feel better about himself or merely as some sort of status/class symbol?

*

To be clear, I don't know if I've ever heard someone say that Prince doesn't have the right to date women of any complexion. However, when one understands the history of centuries of psychological warfare that African people have endured, especially in America, then one realizes that the question of Prince's dating tastes/patterns must be examined as a way to understand/measure where society is in this course/journey of race relations.

*

Finally, you should find a thread that was created when the "Black Sweat" video was released. There was a white member who basically called the model "ugly" as well as some other names. As such, we must ask ourselves, in light of that comment, how would Prince's white fans have reacted or embraced him had he dated mostly or exclusively dark skinned women? Of course, it's difficult to answer a hypothetical as we all feel/hope that the best of ourselves would be divulged in any situation. But, given the way many white fans reacted to The Rainbow Children, "We March," "Dear Mr. Man," many other songs, and when Prince stated during the Baltimore benefit concert that "The next time I come to Baltimore I want to play in a theatre owned by you and stay in a hotel owned by you," it is safe to say that a good number of Prince's white fans could only love him as long as he was their little racially ambiguous erotic nymph child. Yet, the moment that he, as an African-American man, began engaging issues specific to the African-American community, all hell broke loose. And, we have the threads on this site as proof.

*

Ultimately, all of us come to Prince for various reasons, and, at any moment/movement throughout Prince’s career, some of his fans have felt betrayed as when one white gay member of the org, Spinlight, who I greatly respect and like, said that he felt betrayed by “Dear Mr. Man” and the entire Rainbow Children album. While I understand his position, as an African-American man I also wonder why so many white fans had problems with or didn’t understand Prince’s need to address issues directly/specifically related to African Americans. As I said in my earlier post, even though The Rainbow Children is considered the racial linchpin, issues of race have always simmered just beneath the surface of Prince fandom.

An interesting post, and I do sympathise with your position. I agree that it’s important for any oppressed group to establish a sense of collective identity and to carefully critique the subtle and often internalised manifestations of power (I’m guessing that you’ve read Franz Fanon). That said, I also believe that the end-game of all liberatory struggles must be individualism.

How we judge Prince in this regard depends upon his motivations. Was it a cynical strategy to gain broad cultural appeal or, as an individual in the purest sense, was his instinct to reject any agender other than his own? If the latter was true, would he not be leading by example? When does healthy cross-pollination between various social groups become damaging cultural appropriation? Would Sly Stone be subject to the same criticism, Miles even? To me, his being a “racially ambiguous erotic nymph child” was interesting because he illustrated the potential fluidity of these externally applied and restrictive social signifiers. Nobody seems particular eager to admit this, but race is a social designation, not a biological one, albeit one with very real material consequences. Personally, while I don’t believe that Prince had a particularly rigorous intellectual philosophy, I think that his instincts where always profoundly individualistic, and that he was simply too impatient to allow himself to be annexed by any of these limiting forces. That said, he was certainly capable of somewhat cold strategic thinking at times, so I don’t have any definitive answers.

With regard to his dating habits, again I agree that we need to be mindful of racist notions of beauty, but I don’t think it’s fair to accuse Prince of having internalised them. As individuals, the qualities that we find beautiful or physically attractive are often quite specific. Speaking personally as a white man, I find all races and complexions attractive, but I’ve always been particularly attracted to darker women. Does that make me guilty of some kind of sordid racial fetishism, exoticism etc? (it doesn’t feel that way, it’s more immediate and carnal than that) No one would question my choice of partner, unless it was motivated by simple racism or some archaic notion of racial loyalty. As I said above, our individual genetic heritage is so varied as to render concrete biological notions of race nonsensical. My point is that as a white man, I’m not subject to the same claims of ownership or responsibility, and I don’t feel the need to represent anything other than myself, my desires and my values. Of course, such demands are a consequence of the oppressive social structures that you mention and are necessary to a degree, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the individual in our desire to liberate the group.

[Edited 9/10/17 20:14pm]

fen said:

1725topp said:

*

First, thanks so much for your kind response to my comment. The only thing I'll add about folks, mostly African Americans, complaining about Prince not dating or showcasing dark skinned women throughout his career is that comes from centuries of African Americans seeing their image/bodies, history, and culture marginalized and lampooned by American media. Often, the history of African-American entertainers was a history/process of trying to make white owners and patrons/audiences feel comfortable with blackness. (Even Prince, himself, once stated in a Rolling Stone article that “Wendy makes me more acceptable. When I sneer, she smiles.”) As such, lighter skinned blacks, regardless of talent, were always more accepted/patronized than dark skinned blacks. That's not an opinion. Just do some research on the "Brown Paper Bag" Theory. Unfortunately, after centuries of living under white supremacy, many African Americans began to internalize this notion, which evolved into black self-hatred in which African Americans, themselves, perpetuated the "Brown Paper Bag" theory as a way to ingratiate themselves to the white power structure. Thus, whenever an African American who knows/understands this history sees someone like Prince who is obviously a product of the genius of the black community/black culture exclusively dating and highlighting lighter skinned women, they, for the sake of history and racial progress, must wonder, if not ask aloud, what is the reasoning for this. Is it because he just so happened to find women with whom he is intellectually, emotionally, and artistically compatible who also just happen to be of a lighter skin tone? Or, is it that he, himself, is color struck--which is merely a way of saying that he has embraced/accepted the European aesthetic of beauty--and dates these lighter skinned women as a way to make himself feel better about himself or merely as some sort of status/class symbol?

*

To be clear, I don't know if I've ever heard someone say that Prince doesn't have the right to date women of any complexion. However, when one understands the history of centuries of psychological warfare that African people have endured, especially in America, then one realizes that the question of Prince's dating tastes/patterns must be examined as a way to understand/measure where society is in this course/journey of race relations.

*

Finally, you should find a thread that was created when the "Black Sweat" video was released. There was a white member who basically called the model "ugly" as well as some other names. As such, we must ask ourselves, in light of that comment, how would Prince's white fans have reacted or embraced him had he dated mostly or exclusively dark skinned women? Of course, it's difficult to answer a hypothetical as we all feel/hope that the best of ourselves would be divulged in any situation. But, given the way many white fans reacted to The Rainbow Children, "We March," "Dear Mr. Man," many other songs, and when Prince stated during the Baltimore benefit concert that "The next time I come to Baltimore I want to play in a theatre owned by you and stay in a hotel owned by you," it is safe to say that a good number of Prince's white fans could only love him as long as he was their little racially ambiguous erotic nymph child. Yet, the moment that he, as an African-American man, began engaging issues specific to the African-American community, all hell broke loose. And, we have the threads on this site as proof.

*

Ultimately, all of us come to Prince for various reasons, and, at any moment/movement throughout Prince’s career, some of his fans have felt betrayed as when one white gay member of the org, Spinlight, who I greatly respect and like, said that he felt betrayed by “Dear Mr. Man” and the entire Rainbow Children album. While I understand his position, as an African-American man I also wonder why so many white fans had problems with or didn’t understand Prince’s need to address issues directly/specifically related to African Americans. As I said in my earlier post, even though The Rainbow Children is considered the racial linchpin, issues of race have always simmered just beneath the surface of Prince fandom.

An interesting post, and I do sympathise with your position. I agree that it’s important for any oppressed group to establish a sense of collective identity and to carefully critique the subtle and often internalised manifestations of power (I’m guessing that you’ve read Franz Fanon). That said, I also believe that the end-game of all liberatory struggles must be individualism.

How we judge Prince in this regard depends upon his motivations. Was it a cynical strategy to gain broad cultural appeal or, as an individual in the purest sense, was his instinct to reject any agender other than his own? If the latter was true, would he not be leading by example? When does healthy cross-pollination between various social groups become damaging cultural appropriation? Would Sly Stone be subject to the same criticism, Miles even? To me, his being a “racially ambiguous erotic nymph child” was interesting because he illustrated the potential fluidity of these externally applied and restrictive social signifiers. Nobody seems particular eager to admit this, but race is a social designation, not a biological one, albeit one with very real material consequences. Personally, while I don’t believe that Prince had a particularly rigorous intellectual philosophy, I think that his instincts where always profoundly individualistic, and that he was simply too impatient to allow himself to be annexed by any of these limiting forces. That said, he was certainly capable of somewhat cold strategic thinking at times, so I don’t have any definitive answers.

With regard to his dating habits, again I agree that we need to be mindful of racist notions of beauty, but I don’t think it’s fair to accuse Prince of having internalised them. As individuals, the qualities that we find beautiful or physically attractive are often quite specific. Speaking personally as a white man, I find all races and complexions attractive, but I’ve always been particularly attracted to darker women. Does that make me guilty of some kind of sordid racial fetishism, exoticism etc? (it doesn’t feel that way, it’s more immediate and carnal than that) No one would question my choice of partner, unless it was motivated by simple racism or some archaic notion of racial loyalty. As I said above, our individual genetic heritage is so varied as to render concrete biological notions of race nonsensical. My point is that as a white man, I’m not subject to the same claims of ownership or responsibility, and I don’t feel the need to represent anything other than myself, my desires and my values. Of course, such demands are a consequence of the oppressive social structures that you mention and are necessary to a degree, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the individual in our desire to liberate the group.

[Edited 9/10/17 20:14pm]

*

Yes, I've read Fanon extensively.

*

If you read Dave Hill's Prince: A Pop Life and C. Liegh McInnis' The Lyrics of Prince and view Prince Unauthorized, all three works interview folks who were close to Prince from the beginning who say that Prince specifically wanted a white drummer partly because of his love and fascination for Sly Stone and partly because of the cross-over effect. For instance, both Owen Husney and Pepe Willie state that Bobby Z is a good drummer, but he wasn't the best drummer in Minneapolis. Thus, Z was chosen as much for being white as for being good. That point/fact does not diminish Z's talent or contribution, but it shows that Prince was--from the beginning--calculating about the nature of race as it related to the type of artist he wanted to be and how he wanted to be perceived. I agree that it was partly because he didn't want to be limited by his skin color, but I also agree that it was partly because African Americans have been indoctrinated to ingratiate themselves to the white power structure. As Husney states in McInnis' The Lyrics of Prince, what separates Prince from Sly is that, while Sly was more devastated when his art didn't change the fundamental landscape of American racism, Prince could be comforted by the size of his bank account if his desire to create a racial utopia failed.

*

I'm not opposed to acknowledging individual or collective/group notions and reasons for why people or groups do what they do, including dating/romance. But, I also understand that each of those collective and individual actions and notions must be evaluated based on the historical landscape and evidence. That being said, my comments are more about what women Prince choose to highlight moreso than what women he choose to date. And, while, with Prince, the women he choose to highlight were, more often than not, the women he choose to date, I'm making a point about how Prince's early desire to cross-over or ingratiate himself to the white power structure impacted the women he choose to highlight. So, as for your specific choice of female or what you find attractive, that would be impossible for me to address here without a full range of things. Yet, with Prince, while we don't have all the factors, again, using the research we do have as well as the history of race in America, the questioning of or discussion of the types of women Prince chose to highlight cannot be ruled as absurd. As such, I don't think that anything that I said loses sight of Prince as an individual but moreso enables one, if one so chooses, to understand/analyze the actions and art of the that individual in a more holistic manner or through a historical (socio-political) lens without diminishing him as an individual.

*

And, yes, race is as much a socio-political construct as it is a biological reality, but it is also clear that Prince understood race as a powerful "aspect" with which Americans are concerned and worked to use/manipulate that "aspect" for a certain desired effect--early in his career positioning himself as a racially ambiguous erotic nymph child and later in his career as an African American concerned with issues specific to African Americans. In either case, I don't think that Prince was neglecting one group for the other but being his natural creative and unbound self. Yet, while I agree that "liberatory struggles must [include] individualism," I also understand that it is meaningless for me to be a free individual when others who look like me and come from where I come are oppressed simply because they look like me and come from where I come. In fact, how is that freedom for me at all?

fen said:

206Michelle said:

lemoncrush19 said:

I mean he obviously did something right because he sold 100 million + records during his lifetime and performed arguably the greatest Super Bowl halftime show ever while it was pouring rain and over 100 million people watched live on TV. And those 2 accomplishments that I just mentioned are barely scratching the surface of his greatness.

U name it. and that's why his legacy will live 4ever, his music will always change people who are open to it and millions love him endlessly. it was part of his own learning and evolving on this planet to stay on his path no matter what people are talking ... well, they will always be talking ... so what?

NewpowerScarfo said:

lemoncrush19 said:

It says they're old school?

... so much more ...

TrevorAyer said:

GREAT, THOUGHTFUL, POSTS...THANKS TO ALL.

purplefam99 said:

fen said:

An interesting post, and I do sympathise with your position. I agree that it’s important for any oppressed group to establish a sense of collective identity and to carefully critique the subtle and often internalised manifestations of power (I’m guessing that you’ve read Franz Fanon). That said, I also believe that the end-game of all liberatory struggles must be individualism.

How we judge Prince in this regard depends upon his motivations. Was it a cynical strategy to gain broad cultural appeal or, as an individual in the purest sense, was his instinct to reject any agender other than his own? If the latter was true, would he not be leading by example? When does healthy cross-pollination between various social groups become damaging cultural appropriation? Would Sly Stone be subject to the same criticism, Miles even? To me, his being a “racially ambiguous erotic nymph child” was interesting because he illustrated the potential fluidity of these externally applied and restrictive social signifiers. Nobody seems particular eager to admit this, but race is a social designation, not a biological one, albeit one with very real material consequences. Personally, while I don’t believe that Prince had a particularly rigorous intellectual philosophy, I think that his instincts where always profoundly individualistic, and that he was simply too impatient to allow himself to be annexed by any of these limiting forces. That said, he was certainly capable of somewhat cold strategic thinking at times, so I don’t have any definitive answers.

With regard to his dating habits, again I agree that we need to be mindful of racist notions of beauty, but I don’t think it’s fair to accuse Prince of having internalised them. As individuals, the qualities that we find beautiful or physically attractive are often quite specific. Speaking personally as a white man, I find all races and complexions attractive, but I’ve always been particularly attracted to darker women. Does that make me guilty of some kind of sordid racial fetishism, exoticism etc? (it doesn’t feel that way, it’s more immediate and carnal than that) No one would question my choice of partner, unless it was motivated by simple racism or some archaic notion of racial loyalty. As I said above, our individual genetic heritage is so varied as to render concrete biological notions of race nonsensical. My point is that as a white man, I’m not subject to the same claims of ownership or responsibility, and I don’t feel the need to represent anything other than myself, my desires and my values. Of course, such demands are a consequence of the oppressive social structures that you mention and are necessary to a degree, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the individual in our desire to liberate the group.

[Edited 9/10/17 20:14pm]

Hummmm that is a bit of a legal document in terms of reading ease. Perhaps you could common man it just a hair next time. In terms of dating I'm not sure women who aren't of certain ethnic groups know what it is like to be routinely not chosen based on body type and facial structure.( and almost positive a man would likely not know). I know that they have been told what it is like but I don't know that you really can understand the historical consequence of not being chosen as the ideal. Your saying you have always been attracted to darker skin unfortunaly doesn't erase the damage. please if you can find me one common looking fair skinned person who would trade places with an indigo skinned person. Things are lifting, but I don't think you could find one who would do it. But when you do, I'll ease up on my current position and perhaps try to decipher yours and put effort into perhaps somewhat self centered Individualism. [Edited 9/10/17 22:05pm]

purplefam99 said:

fen said:

Hummmm that is a bit of a legal document in terms of reading ease. Perhaps you could common man it just a hair next time. In terms of dating I'm not sure women who aren't of certain ethnic groups know what it is like to be routinely not chosen based on body type and facial structure.( and almost positive a man would likely not know). I know that they have been told what it is like but I don't know that you really can understand the historical consequence of not being chosen as the ideal. Your saying you have always been attracted to darker skin unfortunaly doesn't erase the damage. please if you can find me one common looking fair skinned person who would trade places with an indigo skinned person. Things are lifting, but I don't think you could find one who would do it. But when you do, I'll ease up on my current position and perhaps try to decipher yours and put effort into perhaps somewhat self centered Individualism. [Edited 9/10/17 22:05pm]

Yes, sorry, I do tend to be unnecessarily verbose. I’m not questioning the historical damage that these notions of beauty have caused, or that they continue to function and influence people’s sense of self-worth. I agree entirely.

TrevorAyer said:

coldasice said:

TrevorAyer said:

Eye am sure prince preferred honesty to ass kissing .. at his pay grade and fame level, honesty was a rarity

No he preferred ass kissing, or he would be alive

.

coldasice said:

TrevorAyer said:

Eye am sure prince preferred honesty to ass kissing .. at his pay grade and fame level, honesty was a rarity

No he preferred ass kissing, or he would be alive

coldasice said:

TrevorAyer said:

Eye am sure prince preferred honesty to ass kissing .. at his pay grade and fame level, honesty was a rarity

No he preferred ass kissing, or he would be alive

no. he didn't. but he preferred people minding their own business.