Ostensibly a review of Mayte's book as well as Jason Draper's, it is in reality a lengthy analysis of Prince's life and his work. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41...stion-of-u A stunningly great text, a worthwile read. Approx. 8,000 words, so not a quicky.

Wow, what a great read. What an in-depth analysis of not just his career but also his music and his life.

Thanks for posting.

[Edited 6/12/19 17:42pm]

Thanks for the link.

Interesting take on Prince. Thanks for sharing.

interesting, warts-and-all article.

BartVanHemelen said:

Ostensibly a review of Mayte's book as well as Jason Draper's, it is in reality a lengthy analysis of Prince's life and his work. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41...stion-of-u A stunningly great text, a worthwile read. Approx. 8,000 words, so not a quicky.

.

I disagree. It's a rather shallow article, regardless of its length, written by someone who apparently doesn't know much about him or about music.

.

And I must say I am absolutely sick and tired of the argument that Prince's artistic peak period ended in 1988. Nonsense. He continued to grow and continued to be a true artist and has greatly expanded his horizons. The fact that for the average music consumer it was getting to become too deep, complicated and varied, way beyond the world of pop hits, is not his fault. The fact that he couldn't remain relevant for the new generations of kids is not his fault, that's just the way of life. That says nothing about the artistic value of his work.

.

[Edited 6/14/19 0:42am]

I kind of had that argument with a friend earlier when I pointed out that while Prince might not have as much detail on wikipedia as Van Halen, he more than makes up for it with the entire Princevault wiki-site devoted to him!

My conclusion is that the first half is a very well written summary of the current critical consensus on Prince, a few incorrect details here and there irked me to one degree or another but it would be a useful primer for someone coming in blind. The second half, where he was no longer summarizing Prince's career, I found more interesting. There's lots in it I disagree with overall, and lots that needs complicating where that article made it seem simple, but it's up to us to write the better articles.

[Edited 6/14/19 6:35am]

Kares said:

Came back from my hols yesterday, and was intrigued to find this waiting for me in the LRB. A good article, albeit a bit hit and miss. I thought the points about his shutting himself away in Paisley Park, in the seamless fantasy of Princeland, and choosing to work with competent but compliant musicians, during his post-peak career, as an ultimately unstimulating quirk of ego were well observed. Likewise, the bits referring to Mayte's book.

Some of it felt a bit more influenced by the kind of speculative psychoanalytic theory 'literary' writers often draw on. And it seemed to have been squeezed into a narrative of ego-led anomie leading into creative decline after 1988, then grief, addiction and death, where the reality seemed to fluctuate a bit more to me. (I put the real decline after 1996, but, even then, there were creative high points - despite an overall secular decline.) I also wasn't convinced that framing the piano and microphone concerts as his reconnection with his emotional self wasn't a bit of a narrative fiat. (They still sounded 'over-polished' in the way that he never seemed to break free of in his late career to me. And didn't he say to one of those around him that he was totally bored on stage?)

Interesting read, though, overall. Odd that they didn't wait for his own book to come out, then work material from that into the review.

deebee said:

Came back from my hols yesterday, and was intrigued to find this waiting for me in the LRB. A good article, albeit a bit hit and miss. I thought the points about his shutting himself away in Paisley Park, in the seamless fantasy of Princeland, and choosing to work with competent but compliant musicians, during his post-peak career, as an ultimately unstimulating quirk of ego were well observed. Likewise, the bits referring to Mayte's book.

Some of it felt a bit more influenced by the kind of speculative psychoanalytic theory 'literary' writers often draw on. And it seemed to have been squeezed into a narrative of ego-led anomie leading into creative decline after 1988, then grief, addiction and death, where the reality seemed to fluctuate a bit more to me. (I put the real decline after 1996, but, even then, there were creative high points - despite an overall secular decline.) I also wasn't convinced that framing the piano and microphone concerts as his reconnection with his emotional self wasn't a bit of a narrative fiat. (They still sounded 'over-polished' in the way that he never seemed to break free of in his late career to me. And didn't he say to one of those around him that he was totally bored on stage?)

Interesting read, though, overall. Odd that they didn't wait for his own book to come out, then work material from that into the review.

Dude, don't make me list 5 thousand 'literary' writers who aren't that interested in psychoanalytic theory.



Otherwise, yes

Kares said:

BartVanHemelen said:

Ostensibly a review of Mayte's book as well as Jason Draper's, it is in reality a lengthy analysis of Prince's life and his work. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41...stion-of-u A stunningly great text, a worthwile read. Approx. 8,000 words, so not a quicky.

.

I disagree. It's a rather shallow article, regardless of its length, written by someone who apparently doesn't know much about him or about music.

.

And I must say I am absolutely sick and tired of the argument that Prince's artistic peak period ended in 1988. Nonsense. He continued to grow and continued to be a true artist and has greatly expanded his horizons. The fact that for the average music consumer it was getting to become too deep, complicated and varied, way beyond the world of pop hits, is not his fault. The fact that he couldn't remain relevant for the new generations of kids is not his fault, that's just the way of life. That says nothing about the artistic value of his work.

.

[Edited 6/14/19 0:42am]

not sure shallow is the correct term. When you evaluate why in some cases articles focus on certain periods its helpful to consider the author also. IIRC this chap was at NME in the 80s and beyond. However Ps relevance to the British music press was in the 80s.

He didnt decline as much as the game changed .. things are only new once . Many examples of how he innovated in other areas in the 90s and beyond but not much musically.

jaawwnn said:

deebee said:

Came back from my hols yesterday, and was intrigued to find this waiting for me in the LRB. A good article, albeit a bit hit and miss. I thought the points about his shutting himself away in Paisley Park, in the seamless fantasy of Princeland, and choosing to work with competent but compliant musicians, during his post-peak career, as an ultimately unstimulating quirk of ego were well observed. Likewise, the bits referring to Mayte's book.

Some of it felt a bit more influenced by the kind of speculative psychoanalytic theory 'literary' writers often draw on. And it seemed to have been squeezed into a narrative of ego-led anomie leading into creative decline after 1988, then grief, addiction and death, where the reality seemed to fluctuate a bit more to me. (I put the real decline after 1996, but, even then, there were creative high points - despite an overall secular decline.) I also wasn't convinced that framing the piano and microphone concerts as his reconnection with his emotional self wasn't a bit of a narrative fiat. (They still sounded 'over-polished' in the way that he never seemed to break free of in his late career to me. And didn't he say to one of those around him that he was totally bored on stage?)

Interesting read, though, overall. Odd that they didn't wait for his own book to come out, then work material from that into the review.

Dude, don't make me list 5 thousand 'literary' writers who aren't that interested in psychoanalytic theory.



Otherwise, yes

Gawd bless 'em all....

Good write up

Always fascinating to me the blatant homophiobia of the Stones incident given that Jagger was no stranger to androgyny, wore a lot of make up and had famously tongue kissed his rythym guitar a few years prior on SNL. They'd also dabbled in disco (Miss You, Emotional Rescue) and there's not a huge world of difference betweent the material on Some Girls from that of Dirty Mind, so the only real discernabe sticking point would be race.

But that doesn't check out either given how many black musicians the Stones played and toured with (Billy Preston comes to mind)

I've heard it offered that ANYONE would have gotten booed off the stage that day since it was so hot and fans waited so long but I dunno. Details seem to conflict.

I did know a lot of Stones fans who were homophobic but somehow gave Jagger (and Bowie) a pass.

One of the more interesting reads on him I've seen in a while but I disagree with the writer on a few things (his later output, the Love Symbol album and the idea that the Stones are mainly an "Arena Guitar Anthem Band", or however that was worded).

Plus the writer made a clear error by saying that Tipper and the PMRC were solely provoked by Prince and that they had no issues with metal. Motley Crew, WASP, Ac/Dc, Judas Priest, Twisted Sister, Def Leppard and Black Sabbath - all metal acts - were listed in "The Filthy Fifteen" that was the center of the discussion and 9 of the 15 were metal acts to one degree or another.

Prince, Darling Nikki (along with proteges Vanity and Sheena Easton) were just the most popular and biggest selling thing at the time (plus, arguably, the most overtly sexual) so they got the most attention. Nikki may indeed have been the springboard that set it off but metal acts were far from ignored there.

I would have been very interested to see Prince show up to the hearings but, as I understand it, he didn't have an issue with the warning labels*. John Denver, Frank Zappa and Dee Snider did such a fantastic job skewering and exposing the ignorance and hypocricy of these "very concerened" senators pretending to give a shit about childern, public morality and decency and really won the day for the "freaks" throughout the entire debacle by exhibiting surprisingly articulate arguments that clearly caught the senate off guard. They expected a bunch of wasted, drugged out morons talking stupid shit and got intelligent, well reasoned, nuanced and composed debate.

John Denver was the icing on the cake since he was perceived as a born again goody two shoes and I'm certain the commitee expected him to side with them. Surprise. For anyone who hasn't watched the entire hearing, I recommend finding it on YouTube.

Watching Prince speak his mind on sexual liberation, freedom and artistry - things we know he cared deeply about - would have been fascinating to witness.

* citation needed

Nice putting into my pile for laters. Always love those pics with the Blue Telecaster

I read this article a few weeks ago, a pretty fair summary I suppose. That stuff about Mayte's pregnancy though. Crikey.

Kares said:

BartVanHemelen said:

Ostensibly a review of Mayte's book as well as Jason Draper's, it is in reality a lengthy analysis of Prince's life and his work. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41...stion-of-u A stunningly great text, a worthwile read. Approx. 8,000 words, so not a quicky.

.

I disagree. It's a rather shallow article, regardless of its length, written by someone who apparently doesn't know much about him or about music.

.

And I must say I am absolutely sick and tired of the argument that Prince's artistic peak period ended in 1988. Nonsense. He continued to grow and continued to be a true artist and has greatly expanded his horizons. The fact that for the average music consumer it was getting to become too deep, complicated and varied, way beyond the world of pop hits, is not his fault. The fact that he couldn't remain relevant for the new generations of kids is not his fault, that's just the way of life. That says nothing about the artistic value of his work.

.

[Edited 6/14/19 0:42am]

Prince's music didn't become "too deep" in the 90s. Not only is it objectively false, but implying that you are somehow superior in your deepness detecting abilities shows an arrogance that is only granted to those suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. His songwriting evolved at a very slow pace and the major difference between the 80s and 90s was him following rather than leading when it came to production values, sounds, and arrangements. He may have had some heavy life experiences in the 90s, but the skill with which he turned them into song was much the same.

Really masterfully written - not the kind of thing you find online much these days. The opinions are strong but well justified, agree or not. What makes it hard to read and nod along as you do is that there is meaningful and credible insight into Prince as a person, which was the kind of thing that he focused so hard on keeping to himself.

Flaws are what make characters so great - and Prince was great despite hiding nearly every flaw.