pdiddy2011 said:

mediumdry --

"I am certain of the fact that you are African-American (a misnomer of a name on more than one count) has had no influence on what Prince ever did whatsoever. Prince's cultural background has had a huge influence on who he was and how he presented himself. He struggled against being classified as "black" for years (inventing mixed ancestry in the process) and later on spent years trying to emphasize his "blackness" and trying to re-establish credibility.

.

Back to what we were actually talking about, I think the cultural background of a writer isn't very important in trying to write about someone that shared some but not all of that cultural background. Especially since, while a cultural background shapes you and influences you, it's only part of what we are and, as far as I'm concerned, does not define a person."

See underlined...

I believe that is completely out of context. I don't believe Prince had ANY struggle against being classified as black, as a black man. He wanted to perform music not limited to the "black" music genre [scene]. That is light years different from what you stated above.

Also, the author's [possible] lack of understanding of the intricacies and nuances of the black culture could be very important (significant) in how they frame the subject. And while you may feel your cultural background doesn't define you, Prince might have felt it defined him. He wouldn't be alone in that feeling.

.

I understand the difference between black music and being black, but if you look at what he did in the early years of his career:

-he told the boss of Warner Brother when he got signed:"don't make me black"

-he said, in interviews, that his mother was Italian

-he kept saying that he didn't want to be judged by the colour of his skin

-"white, black, puerto rican, everybody just a-freakin'"

.

He definitely tried to make sure he wasn't seen as "black", but some kind of mix of any and everything. Both culturally (mixed gender and race in his band played a role there too) and in music (with the british ska related rude boy button and new wave and punk stylings). He may not have struggled internally with being black and having black heritage, but he definitely distanced himself from it in the public eye. (see also the insistance of The Time that they weren't a funk band)

.

As such, I don't think my statement was out of context. You don't feel Prince tried to place himself outside of black culture?

.

As to the second part, I agree that a possible lack of understanding of certain aspects can (and probably will) influence how they frame something. However, that may not be a bad thing. Most writers are not musicians and therefore miss a huge chunk of what Prince was about. There is precious little about Prince's instruments and how he altered them, how he programmed, how and where he influenced the signal path, what effects he used... The musicians culture, of which Prince was a part is generally ignored by most writers. (yes, I hope somebody will write about this while most of the musicians and techs he worked and recorded with are still alive)

.

It might not be a bad thing to not be part of a particular culture, as you can then have an outsiders view and see things that you are blind to inside the culture itself. And the different viewpoints, although they might contradict eachother, can be equally valid.

.

When I say that to me a cultural background does not define a person, I mean that to apply to everyone. You may feel that whatever cultural background you have defines you. I disagree. You are you and you have many facets. For instance, Prince was a black american. He was also just an american. (see the silly texts in Free, America and Ronny Talk To Russia for examples of things that only an American could write) He was also a musician. (would have loved to talk to him about flatwounds vs roundwounds vs groundwounds) He was many things. He was also someone that was seriously wounded in childhood and seemed to never have outgrown that. He was also a religionist and sadly never outgrew that either.

.

Basically, while it is interesting to know how you define you, it is possible for others to see you from more angles and have a more complete picture of you. And so it goes for writers. And even if a writer doesn't have a well rounded picture of his or her subject, it might still add to a readers understanding, if they know what angle the writer has. (you need to know about Toure to be able to read his book on Prince, for instance)

pdiddy2011 said:

Pdiddy, thank you. How many ways do we have to say it for it to be understood???
Bless you for yet another way. Anyone else out there????

purplefam99 said:

Pdiddy, thank you. How many ways do we have to say it for it to be understood??? Bless you for yet another way. Anyone else out there????

How many different ways does it have to be said, that it doesn't make a difference what color the author is? Laura doesn't like the book, (that she skimmed over) and she doesn't like the authors mainly because they are white and she doesn't think they 'get' Prince...sounds pretty racist to me. Only people of color know the real Prince...huh?

SSMDH

Laura brought color into this, and it has nothing to do with the color of the authors, she just hates everybody who's white and who writes a book about Prince. If it's something Laura doesn't like, she throws skin color in the convo.

You can't tell them anything...they understand nothing.

mediumdry said:

.

I understand the difference between black music and being black, but if you look at what he did in the early years of his career:

-he told the boss of Warner Brother when he got signed:"don't make me black"

-he said, in interviews, that his mother was Italian

-he kept saying that he didn't want to be judged by the colour of his skin

-"white, black, puerto rican, everybody just a-freakin'"

.

He definitely tried to make sure he wasn't seen as "black", but some kind of mix of any and everything. Both culturally (mixed gender and race in his band played a role there too) and in music (with the british ska related rude boy button and new wave and punk stylings). He may not have struggled internally with being black and having black heritage, but he definitely distanced himself from it in the public eye. (see also the insistance of The Time that they weren't a funk band)

.

As such, I don't think my statement was out of context. You don't feel Prince tried to place himself outside of black culture?

.

As to the second part, I agree that a possible lack of understanding of certain aspects can (and probably will) influence how they frame something. However, that may not be a bad thing. Most writers are not musicians and therefore miss a huge chunk of what Prince was about. There is precious little about Prince's instruments and how he altered them, how he programmed, how and where he influenced the signal path, what effects he used... The musicians culture, of which Prince was a part is generally ignored by most writers. (yes, I hope somebody will write about this while most of the musicians and techs he worked and recorded with are still alive)

.

It might not be a bad thing to not be part of a particular culture, as you can then have an outsiders view and see things that you are blind to inside the culture itself. And the different viewpoints, although they might contradict eachother, can be equally valid.

.

When I say that to me a cultural background does not define a person, I mean that to apply to everyone. You may feel that whatever cultural background you have defines you. I disagree. You are you and you have many facets. For instance, Prince was a black american. He was also just an american. (see the silly texts in Free, America and Ronny Talk To Russia for examples of things that only an American could write) He was also a musician. (would have loved to talk to him about flatwounds vs roundwounds vs groundwounds) He was many things. He was also someone that was seriously wounded in childhood and seemed to never have outgrown that. He was also a religionist and sadly never outgrew that either.

.

Basically, while it is interesting to know how you define you, it is possible for others to see you from more angles and have a more complete picture of you. And so it goes for writers. And even if a writer doesn't have a well rounded picture of his or her subject, it might still add to a readers understanding, if they know what angle the writer has. (you need to know about Toure to be able to read his book on Prince, for instance)

mediumdry said:

pdiddy2011 said:

See underlined...

I believe that is completely out of context. I don't believe Prince had ANY struggle against being classified as black, as a black man. He wanted to perform music not limited to the "black" music genre [scene]. That is light years different from what you stated above.

Also, the author's [possible] lack of understanding of the intricacies and nuances of the black culture could be very important (significant) in how they frame the subject. And while you may feel your cultural background doesn't define you, Prince might have felt it defined him. He wouldn't be alone in that feeling.

.

I understand the difference between black music and being black, but if you look at what he did in the early years of his career:

-he told the boss of Warner Brother when he got signed:"don't make me black"

-he said, in interviews, that his mother was Italian

-he kept saying that he didn't want to be judged by the colour of his skin

-"white, black, puerto rican, everybody just a-freakin'"

.

He definitely tried to make sure he wasn't seen as "black", but some kind of mix of any and everything. Both culturally (mixed gender and race in his band played a role there too) and in music (with the british ska related rude boy button and new wave and punk stylings). He may not have struggled internally with being black and having black heritage, but he definitely distanced himself from it in the public eye. (see also the insistance of The Time that they weren't a funk band)

.

As such, I don't think my statement was out of context. You don't feel Prince tried to place himself outside of black culture?

.

As to the second part, I agree that a possible lack of understanding of certain aspects can (and probably will) influence how they frame something. However, that may not be a bad thing. Most writers are not musicians and therefore miss a huge chunk of what Prince was about. There is precious little about Prince's instruments and how he altered them, how he programmed, how and where he influenced the signal path, what effects he used... The musicians culture, of which Prince was a part is generally ignored by most writers. (yes, I hope somebody will write about this while most of the musicians and techs he worked and recorded with are still alive)

.

It might not be a bad thing to not be part of a particular culture, as you can then have an outsiders view and see things that you are blind to inside the culture itself. And the different viewpoints, although they might contradict eachother, can be equally valid.

.

When I say that to me a cultural background does not define a person, I mean that to apply to everyone. You may feel that whatever cultural background you have defines you. I disagree. You are you and you have many facets. For instance, Prince was a black american. He was also just an american. (see the silly texts in Free, America and Ronny Talk To Russia for examples of things that only an American could write) He was also a musician. (would have loved to talk to him about flatwounds vs roundwounds vs groundwounds) He was many things. He was also someone that was seriously wounded in childhood and seemed to never have outgrown that. He was also a religionist and sadly never outgrew that either.

.

Basically, while it is interesting to know how you define you, it is possible for others to see you from more angles and have a more complete picture of you. And so it goes for writers. And even if a writer doesn't have a well rounded picture of his or her subject, it might still add to a readers understanding, if they know what angle the writer has. (you need to know about Toure to be able to read his book on Prince, for instance)

I appreciate your explanation but I still disagree with several of your points. FYI - I didn't personally know Prince, so take this with a grain of salt.

IMHO all of your first 3 paragraphs were a facade pertaining to his musical tastes and/or him having crossover appeal. His bands were multicultural, he dated multiculturally, and he projected an international/ambiguous flair largely for the sake of not being pidgeonholed as an "R&B" (read Black only) artist, not for the sake of placing himself outside the black culture. I don't see any proof that Prince summarily tried to distance himself bfrom being "black", as a nationality.

I don't believe "the less you know the better" in any area of life, so I don't agree with your outside view theory concerning the authors. If being black was a large part of who he was, WHICH IT WAS, it would make sense for them to have a very good understanding of his cultural background to have a better understanding of the decisions he made.

"For instance, Prince was a black american. He was also just an american." I would argue that only people who aren't black or who aren't very aware of the significant struggles of blacks in America would really make the distinction between black american and american as if the "black" HAS EVER BEEN a non-factor. Prince couldn't separate himself from being black American to just American if he wanted to.

And finally, you don't know how I define me. I never said.

PennyPurple said:

I'm not lying to anybody, and don't call me a liar. We all bleed the same color. And I'll say it again, skin color has nothing to do with this book nor should it have been brought into this thread, but the same one who brought it into this thread, always brings color up.

I'm all for a realistic discussion, but it doesn't belong on this thread.

I treat all people the same, I don't care what color of skin they have or what religion or non religion they practice. How about you?

pdiddy2011 said:

See underlined above...

IMO, a large part of race relation problems have to do with people who make the claim they don't see color. It shows a complete lack of wanting to have a realistic discussion. Unless you're actually color blind, OF COURSE you see color. If you don't treat people any differently based on their color, then that is commendable, and that is a reasonable defense.

Simply put, if you tell someone you don't see color, you're lying to them, and why should they take seriously anything that you have to say on the matter? IE of course their defenses are going to automatically be raised because you are clearly lying.

[Edited 9/11/17 11:26am]

Are you color blind? No? Then you lied. Anybody that lied is rightly known as a liar. Own it.


For whatever reason race was brought up, it was brought up and some things have been said that I don't agree with that I have addressed.


At least those people who admit to seeing color have a foundation of truth to start a conversation.

pdiddy2011 said:

I appreciate your explanation but I still disagree with several of your points. FYI - I didn't personally know Prince, so take this with a grain of salt.

IMHO all of your first 3 paragraphs were a facade pertaining to his musical tastes and/or him having crossover appeal. His bands were multicultural, he dated multiculturally, and he projected an international/ambiguous flair largely for the sake of not being pidgeonholed as an "R&B" (read Black only) artist, not for the sake of placing himself outside the black culture. I don't see any proof that Prince summarily tried to distance himself bfrom being "black", as a nationality.

I don't believe "the less you know the better" in any area of life, so I don't agree with your outside view theory concerning the authors. If being black was a large part of who he was, WHICH IT WAS, it would make sense for them to have a very good understanding of his cultural background to have a better understanding of the decisions he made.

"For instance, Prince was a black american. He was also just an american." I would argue that only people who aren't black or who aren't very aware of the significant struggles of blacks in America would really make the distinction between black american and american as if the "black" HAS EVER BEEN a non-factor. Prince couldn't separate himself from being black American to just American if he wanted to.

And finally, you don't know how I define me. I never said.

.

pdiddy, thanks for your message. I think we agree more than we disagree. At the very least, we both didn't know Prince personally.

.

I agree with you that it was a facade. That's my argument. To the outside world, he was portraying himself in a particular way. Wether it was because of commercial, cultural or identity reasons, I don't know. I'm just saying that to the outside world it seemed like he did not want to be/was not black. At the same time, up until 1999, his following was predominantly black, so I'm putting it stronger than it was, or the black community didn't buy/see it/saw through it.

.

And I agree that "the less you know the better" is not a policy I agree with. My argument was (and is) that an outsiders view can sometimes be enlightning in a way that an insiders view cannot. Having both views available to you as a reader can give you a deeper understanding, as nobody is ever just one thing. For instance, black american and american are not mutually exclusive. Prince was both at the same time. The songs I mentioned show an american perspective, not necesarily black american. Other songs show more of a black american perspective. And other songs show his well developed libido.

.

People are rarely just one thing and one thing only, are they?

.

Lastly, I know bugger all about you. (you might like Prince's music though, I've a feeling) I did not even mentioned how I thought you define you. I just said that however you define yourself, that is just one way of looking at you. Others may see different sides that you might not even realize you have yourself. (and the same is true for me, laurarichardson or whoever else)

Prince has always said he was a black man. I have never seen him as wanting to be anything else.

Too sexy for his own sake. Maybe he was too sexy?

If someone want to discuss the issues raised above in relation to Prince, then a thread about that subject can be started.

Please stay on topic.

langebleu said:

If someone want to discuss the issues raised above in relation to Prince, then a thread about that subject can be started.

Please stay on topic.

Thank you.

http://prince.org/msg/7/61566.

http://prince.org/msg/7/48210

muleFunk said:

Ooofff wow the book took a beating back in '03 even.

thanks for that, Mulefunk. You've shown that there are people with an axe to grind against Alex Hahn. (and I'm not sure why) They're repeating the same tired arguments that simply don't hold true if you read what's actually written.

.

I guess its nice to have something to rant against.

I have read the BOOKS .

I bought Possessed in 2003.

I was also personally contacted by Mr. Hahn while he was writing Possessed which led me to believe that many of the sources in this book were not properly vetted by the author. I also thought that the tone of the book was biased given the fact that he was a lawyer for Uptown Magazine.

Now the motive for Mr. Hahn was laid bare when he announces out the clear blue that he's writing an update days after the man's death.

I have also read Rise which didn't impress me.

So after reading the books and about 20 other Prince books Hahn is actually in the bottom end of the spectrum in my opinion. He's not the best Prince author and he's not the worst.

muleFunk said:

Thank you for the clarity.