Phishanga said:

PeteSilas said:

production wise it's fantastic, i can only speak for myself but I always felt the songs weren't there, and boy did he fix that by the next album. He was growing so fast in those years. For You might have been the glossiest and best production he did for years to come, but the songs weren't there.

I almost think it's the other way around. "I'm Yours" for example is a good song but the production is absolutely horrible. I wonder how some of the songs would have sounded in the 80s.

he went way overbudget on the production, it's why he scaled way back on the next album, recorded it in like a few weeks or something, instead of 6 mos. He said himself how proud he was of the production, the songs weren't there, and maybe it's personal pref, i always liked real instruments over synths which is one of the reasons i like Off the wall more than thriller and Bad.

For You is one of my favs. The falsetto, the harmonies are unmatched though on someog their tracks D'angelo and Maxwell come awfully close but Baby. For You, Crazy U, So Blue are hard to do vocally.

Imo the track For You alone kills any other debut Ive ever heard by any artist.

bonatoc said:

Yes, there have been other 19 year olds that made what I would say are better (or at least more realised) albums but the sheer range of Prince, not to mention the self production, really puts him out on his own.

jaawwnn said:

bonatoc said:

Oh come on. Husney couldn't have promote him any other way.
Prince was actually a multi-instrumentist on top of a versatile composer on top of an excellent singer, on top of etc.

Even WB stepped back with their Maurice White suggestion as a producer when Prince proved them he was able to handle his recordings from start to finish.
No matter the manager, no matter the record company, it was pretty obvious the kid was a genius, and Stevie was the only obvious reference.
Simply because there were no other artists covering so many roles at once.

Yes, there have been other 19 year olds that made what I would say are better (or at least more realised) albums but the sheer range of Prince, not to mention the self production, really puts him out on his own.

ya, as i've said, music is a talent that manifests young. some people still believe, actually many people, that elvis never did music better than he did when he was a 19 year old unknown recording for an independent, underfunded label with basic equipement.

PeteSilas said:

husney deserves props, he really does, he had to fight like hell to get prince all that he wanted, any record company who would sign someone unproven to those terms is unheard of and it doesn't happen for good reason. talent is only one factor, too many other factors that aren't controllable, what if the artist goes crazy? gets hooked on drugs and squanders their talent? What if there is no audience for the artist. Prince was very lucky, very, very lucky as well as very talented and driven. there are millions of talented people, i'm a musician, i watch the best of the best barely make a living. these days it's different of course, but really, it was never easy. I was just listening to springsteen in the kindle audio version of his bio describe the hell he had to go through before he even got a real break, and even then, he had a pushy manager who helped him out but then turned on him and tried to destroy him as well as leave him broke. Springsteen was lucky too, can't leave out luck. the only thing i can think of in regards to my failed "career" that i might have over any of these guys is that the rough times they bitch about, i've dealt with way longer, about 25-30 years longer. I'm not the only one. some of us are obsessed with music.

True.
Even the Beatles got screwed, their initial royalties were miserable.
Led Zep owe their career in large parts to Peter Grant.
The Rolling Stones were kickstarted by Lennon and Macca.

Husney got Prince an incredible deal. I'm only saying there was substance, and Prince would have get a job in music no matter what. Session musician, arranger... But with such singing abilities and good looks, it was obvious he had a chance at being on stage. I think "luck" in this case was having these aesthetic, unpalpable elements such as charisma and photogenics on top of musical abilities.

I agree that you cannot get luck out of the equation. But drive and perseverance as well. Remember the "meh" reviews about his first Capri Theatre? Remember the episode when all the gear was stolen from his rehearsal place? Most of us would have fallen into some kind of depression: Prince's lasted a few days, maybe just one. Then he went back to work.

Also, living the Rolling Stone fiasco and come up with an album like "1999", it takes titanium balls. Prince had a pair (I apologize to the Ladies for the macho imagery).

PeteSilas said:

jaawwnn said:

bonatoc said: Yes, there have been other 19 year olds that made what I would say are better (or at least more realised) albums but the sheer range of Prince, not to mention the self production, really puts him out on his own.

ya, as i've said, music is a talent that manifests young. some people still believe, actually many people, that elvis never did music better than he did when he was a 19 year old unknown recording for an independent, underfunded label with basic equipement.

Because when stripped down to the bone, music cannot lie.
Either the musical intent goes through, or it doesn't. Without the whistles and bells (overdubs, orchestration, reverb and other effects), there's only the pulse and the voice.

That is why the early rock pionners still sound so great: you couldn't fool the microphone, you couldn't fool the mixing board (if we can we call it that), there was just your guts.

Funny to think that Prince went kind of the other way around. Starting from a "oh-wait-we-still-have-some-tracks-left" approach, overdubs overdose, über-sleek production, he went back to just eight tracks, and almost no reverb or make-up tricks on Dirty Mind.
It sounds so dry, so raw. There lies the tru ethics of the serious rock'n'roll musician: your shit must work even when reduced at just a voice and a guitar and no amp. All of our fifties heroes went through this hard, no bullshit way of working. Not to mention the bluesmen that paved the way before.

Ditch the SSLs, ditch the Lexicons, let's go back to mono and ping-pong!
How did pop get so surgical?

[Edited 12/30/17 11:55am]

gotta agree with you there. technology is overrated but, if you're an artist, you still have to come with some. by that i mean, i was trying to get into film, i have 15 year old cameras, good cameras but people are so brainwashed they'll still think "that's too old". In my case, i just have to get newer ones just so i don't have to hear that.

bonatoc said:

PeteSilas said:

ya, as i've said, music is a talent that manifests young. some people still believe, actually many people, that elvis never did music better than he did when he was a 19 year old unknown recording for an independent, underfunded label with basic equipement.

Because when stripped down to the bone, music cannot lie.
Either the musical intent goes through, or it doesn't. Without the whistles and bells (overdubs, orchestration, reverb and other effects), there's only the pulse and the voice.

That is why the early rock pionners still sound so great: you couldn't fool the microphone, you couldn't fool the mixing board (if we can we call it that), there was just your guts.

Funny to think that Prince went kind of the other way around. Starting from a "oh-wait-we-still-have-some-tracks-left" approach, overdubs overdose, über-sleek production, he went back to just eight tracks, and almost no reverb or make-up tricks on Dirty Mind.
It sounds so dry, so raw. There lies the tru ethics of the serious rock'n'roll musician: your shit must work even when reduced at just a voice and a guitar and no amp. All of our fifties heroes went through this hard, no bullshit way of working. Not to mention the bluesmen that paved the way before.

Ditch the SSLs, ditch the Lexicons, let's go back to mono and ping-pong!
How did pop get so chirurgical?

*googles "chirurgical" definition*

RJOrion said:

*googles "chirurgical" definition*

Whoopsy. I googled it too, it told me it was a word!
I need my frenchisms removed.

bonatoc said:

Remove them like a surgeon.

NorthC said:

bonatoc said:

Whoopsy. I googled it too, it told me it was a word!
I need my frenchisms removed.

Remove them like a surgeon.

Yep. That's what I was thinking about. Inspired by a few threads on the non-Prince forum.