Genesia said:

Genesia said:

LoveGalore said:

[Snip - luv4u]

[Snip - luv4u]

[Snip - luv4u]

[Snip - luv4u]

[Snip - luv4u]

[Snip - luv4u]

[Snip - luv4u]

Genesia said:

robertgeorge said:

I think the thread is perfectly fine. Critiquing his career is perfectly valid. Don't listen to those people who certainly seem to misunderstand the word morbid or are being deliberately obtuse in their interpretation of your post. I think morbid would suggest that this thread was coming from a hateful or negative place which I do not believe it does.

To answer your question, I think that Prince did feel that at times, his artistry was of more concern than selling out, and people weren't ready for some of his ideas. For example he said that critics had not got the Wizard of Oz at first and he was proud of Graffiti Bridge because it was a positive story that was not full of violence or curse words.

But, I do think that as a Gemini Prince was also compelled by traditional success as well and held this dichotymy within himself. He wanted to have the most albums under his name in the record stop. He liked the prestiege of the 100 million dollar contract, and would have loved to have beaten Purple Rain as much as Michael Jackson always wanted to beat Thrilller. As such aside from the amazing artistic strides he made, he was hurt by the relative lack of success of Around the World in a Day, the lack of success particularly in the US of his albums, the lack of Grammy recognition for Sign O the times when U2 cleaned up, the fact the Lovesexy tour could not sustain itself, the lack of ability to follow on the momentum for albums post Diamonds and Pearls, the lack of success of Emancipation and caving to the pressure to play the hits in concerts.

That being said, his championing of Ingrid Chavez, Mavis Staples, etc in his Paisley Park label, his releasing of albums such as NEWS and triple cd sets, the variety of risks he took which I will not elucidate showed that Prince certainly did not wantonly cave to the pressure to be the top of the pops, but when he did make efforts to reach the top such as Rave and it did not pay off, I feel it stung. Stung like a son of a biscuit eater.

Of course, it is. But that's not what the thread is about. The OP specifically asked for people to speculate as what Prince's critique would be of his own career. See the difference?

Of course I do. This is why I answered the question as the OP SPECIFICALLY requested. I see the difference, and I am beginning to think reading comprehension and reading beyond one sentence is a rare gift. The critique of Prince's music focuses on how he personally evaluated it and critiqued his accomplishments. I answered as requested with the hypothesis that Prince loved his artistic achievements but was still driven by popular success, as that was an important part that defined him. I have listed examples and everything. For every Rainbow Children he wanted a success like musicology (by which I mean in particular the success of the tour that year).

robertgeorge said:

Genesia said:

Of course, it is. But that's not what the thread is about. The OP specifically asked for people to speculate as what Prince's critique would be of his own career. See the difference?

Of course I do. This is why I answered the question as the OP SPECIFICALLY requested. I see the difference, and I am beginning to think reading comprehension and reading beyond one sentence is a rare gift. The critique of Prince's music focuses on how he personally evaluated it and critiqued his accomplishments. I answered as requested with the hypothesis that Prince loved his artistic achievements but was still driven by popular success, as that was an important part that defined him. I have listed examples and everything. For every Rainbow Children he wanted a success like musicology (by which I mean in particular the success of the tour that year).

I mean, he probably could've stopped releasing new music sometime around 2001 and relied solely on the tours. I think that part is a bit puzzling because at some point he didn't make music that was going to ever really sell many copies and he stopped caring about that in favor of the payday around 1998.

.

I actually think that the release from WB had tons of unforeseen effects - not the least of which was it made it much less compelling for him to challenge himself in the studio. Coupled with the so-called slowing of his writing and recording inspired by his marriage to Mayte, you have this schism happen where his manifested talent and his income are kind of at odds with each other when it comes to his albums.

.

He was already considering the record a success by just making it, he no longer cared about critical reviews, he was already getting paid a grip whether or not he sold many copies, and the tour would always be successful. In Prince's mind, I am not so sure he ever considered times where he might have failed later in his career.

LoveGalore said:

robertgeorge said:

Of course I do. This is why I answered the question as the OP SPECIFICALLY requested. I see the difference, and I am beginning to think reading comprehension and reading beyond one sentence is a rare gift. The critique of Prince's music focuses on how he personally evaluated it and critiqued his accomplishments. I answered as requested with the hypothesis that Prince loved his artistic achievements but was still driven by popular success, as that was an important part that defined him. I have listed examples and everything. For every Rainbow Children he wanted a success like musicology (by which I mean in particular the success of the tour that year).

I mean, he probably could've stopped releasing new music sometime around 2001 and relied solely on the tours. I think that part is a bit puzzling because at some point he didn't make music that was going to ever really sell many copies and he stopped caring about that in favor of the payday around 1998.

.

I actually think that the release from WB had tons of unforeseen effects - not the least of which was it made it much less compelling for him to challenge himself in the studio. Coupled with the so-called slowing of his writing and recording inspired by his marriage to Mayte, you have this schism happen where his manifested talent and his income are kind of at odds with each other when it comes to his albums.

.

He was already considering the record a success by just making it, he no longer cared about critical reviews, he was already getting paid a grip whether or not he sold many copies, and the tour would always be successful. In Prince's mind, I am not so sure he ever considered times where he might have failed later in his career.

Now trying to guess his mindset is interesting.

You have to put into the equation this: at the end of the eighties, let's stretch to Diamonds and Pearls, he had a back catalog that he probably knew would feed him until the end of time.

Maybe not in gazillions, but with a dozen solid hits that play every day on hundreds of radios across the globe, consider Prince cashed in much more than the average pop artist because he cumulated every share (performer, arranger, composer, producer) on almost everyone of his records.

So the question of challenging himself was probably influenced by that.
And he was still forced by contract to let the lion's share to the wrecka corporations.

People who consider he failed this part of his carreer don't seem to understand that his battle wasn't just selfish, he raised a very valid question of the person producing the art being robbed of his creation.
Which only happened in music.


Sure, mass distribution and diffusion of pop music come at a price, but very famous painters or sculptors just leave a 10 percent here to the agent, and a five percent there to the galleries.

Andy Warhol made a fortune because he was in total control of his production, and we're talking serigraphies, so in a way an industrialisation of some sort.

But what kind of alternative did Prince have? The blank page problem would have happened anyway, whether staying with a corporation or try to restore some balance.
And by diving into this balance restoring, his artistic expression became political, and renewed his drive.

What's extraordinary is, aside for a few songs here and there, he never turned bitter about it.
He just repeated the obvious, interview after interview, until digital stealing became massive and forced every pop artist to suddenly praise him for his foreseeing.


By putting his "carreer" aside, the term itself implying a mental submission to capitalism, as if art, even popular, should bend to some scale of success or income, he proved he was a real artist.
When an artist starts to ponder his own canvas, the value of his art, he becomes metaphysical, he questions the whole system of values.

A guy like Banksy does precisely that, while Jeff Koons is just another bitch of the wealthy.

By giving the finger to Warner and the cocained coasts, Prince proved what side he was from, stayed in Uptown, gave parties at home, and funked much harder than he ever would have, had he stayed the Bros servant.

[Edited 12/18/19 15:27pm]

jdcxc said:

robertgeorge said:

I think the thread is perfectly fine. Critiquing his career is perfectly valid. Don't listen to those people who certainly seem to misunderstand the word morbid or are being deliberately obtuse in their interpretation of your post. I think morbid would suggest that this thread was coming from a hateful or negative place which I do not believe it does.

To answer your question, I think that Prince did feel that at times, his artistry was of more concern than selling out, and people weren't ready for some of his ideas. For example he said that critics had not got the Wizard of Oz at first and he was proud of Graffiti Bridge because it was a positive story that was not full of violence or curse words.

But, I do think that as a Gemini Prince was also compelled by traditional success as well and held this dichotymy within himself. He wanted to have the most albums under his name in the record stop. He liked the prestiege of the 100 million dollar contract, and would have loved to have beaten Purple Rain as much as Michael Jackson always wanted to beat Thrilller. As such aside from the amazing artistic strides he made, he was hurt by the relative lack of success of Around the World in a Day, the lack of success particularly in the US of his albums, the lack of Grammy recognition for Sign O the times when U2 cleaned up, the fact the Lovesexy tour could not sustain itself, the lack of ability to follow on the momentum for albums post Diamonds and Pearls, the lack of success of Emancipation and caving to the pressure to play the hits in concerts.

That being said, his championing of Ingrid Chavez, Mavis Staples, etc in his Paisley Park label, his releasing of albums such as NEWS and triple cd sets, the variety of risks he took which I will not elucidate showed that Prince certainly did not wantonly cave to the pressure to be the top of the pops, but when he did make efforts to reach the top such as Rave and it did not pay off, I feel it stung. Stung like a son of a biscuit eater.

Well Put. How can you examine any complex ARTIST without examining the highs/lows, artistic peaks/valleys and commercial success/failure? If the Estate Documentary does him justice, a great director would also dig into these subjects.

I agree with both of you and especially appreciate your ability to communicate without being

'snarky'

PeggyO said:

He stopped releasing records for a period, or planned on it. Maybe he was relieved, but one can sense dissapointment in the direction the recording industry went. Things like the subscription service and website didn't totally pan out and there were obviously songs you can just tell he wrote thinking they woud rise to the stature of his hits, but never got attention outside his hardcore fans...one can guess that didn't feel like success. The Kevin Smith documentary, and other unfinished projects that people surrounding him didn't really understand couldn't have felt validating, even if he was on his own planet. Feeling that ahead of your time has to be full of disappointment.

Didn't Prince at one time say he didn't like anything on Parade except Kiss?

I doubt he was serious though.

noobman said:

SoulAlive said:

noobman said:

Didn't Prince at one time say he didn't like anything on Parade except Kiss?

I doubt he was serious though.

He told a journalist,“Apart from “Kiss”,there isn’t anything on Parade that I’m particularly proud of.I think I made the album too soon after ‘Around The World In A Day’ and I didn’t have enough great songs ready.I’m not gonna make that mistake again”.

Was this before SOTT was released?

noobman said:

SoulAlive said:

bonatoc said:

LoveGalore said:

People who consider he failed this part of his carreer don't seem to understand that his battle wasn't just selfish, he raised a very valid question of the person producing the art being robbed of his creation.
Which only happened in music.

This not really true. It happens in plenty of other fields too, unfortunately.

Designers who make logos that belong to the ad agency, animators who create famous cartoon characters and such that belong to the studios, comic artists who invent superheros that belong to DC or Marvel, coders and software developers whose creations and innovations belong to Apple or Microsoft, chemists who invent medicines that belong to Phizer, as well as countless other inventors that have their patents claimed by the corporation they work for.

The person that created the Nike logo got paid $35 for it.

herb4 said:

herb4 said:

bonatoc said:

People who consider he failed this part of his carreer don't seem to understand that his battle wasn't just selfish, he raised a very valid question of the person producing the art being robbed of his creation.
Which only happened in music.

This not really true. It happens in plenty of other fields too, unfortunately.

Designers who make logos that belong to the ad agency, animators who create famous cartoon characters and such that belong to the studios, comic artists who invent superheros that belong to DC or Marvel, coders and software developers whose creations and innovations belong to Apple or Microsoft, chemists who invent medicines that belong to Phizer, as well as countless other inventors that have their patents claimed by the corporation they work for.

The person that created the Nike logo got paid $35 for it.

35 times more than 0. just sayin

jdcxc said:

herb4 said:

This not really true. It happens in plenty of other fields too, unfortunately.

Designers who make logos that belong to the ad agency, animators who create famous cartoon characters and such that belong to the studios, comic artists who invent superheros that belong to DC or Marvel, coders and software developers whose creations and innovations belong to Apple or Microsoft, chemists who invent medicines that belong to Phizer, as well as countless other inventors that have their patents claimed by the corporation they work for.

The person that created the Nike logo got paid $35 for it.

IMO...Logos, software and inventions are pure business transactions. Art encompasses a different realm. But u are right about the exploitation of big business against creators.

Logos are art. So are animation and comic book creation.

jdcxc said:

Prince had one of the most remarkable and lengthy creative runs of any Pop Star ever. But of course there were low points... *The artistic and audience failure of Under the Cherry Moon? *The financial and box office struggles of the LoveSexy tour and album? *Emancipation, following his personal family tragedy? What do you think were his personal career low points...from his perspective?

His Minnesota Vikings fight song "Purple and Gold" was probably one of them.

bonatoc said:

jdcxc said:

Prince had one of the most remarkable and lengthy creative runs of any Pop Star ever. But of course there were low points...

1. The artistic and audience failure of Under the Cherry Moon?
2. The financial and box office struggles of the LoveSexy tour and album?
3. Emancipation, following his personal family tragedy?

What do you think were his personal career low points...from his perspective?

1. Nonsense. Artistically it was brilliant. Camera placement and editing can be questionable.
But no one in the Nay aisle gets how much it was a slapstick comedy in the first place.
They would like to have another movie, but it is what it is, and the artistic direction is flawless.

2. You put Lovesexy in the list? How about Graffiti Bridge, a much stronger contender for disappointment?
Lovesexy was a critical success, made every record of the year top ten list, and the tour as well.
Now it cost a fortune, and that's another subject. It was sold out all over Europe.
Only the U.S. leg was disappointing.

3. Emancipation is packed with classics. It may run too long, but I don't understand people needing just peaks. Every good album has peaks and valleys. And I think you got your chronology wrong.
The tragedy happened as he was starting to promote the album, and a good portion of the material was recorded way before the definitive track list.

.

With you on points 1 and 2...

.

Point 3, "packed with classics?" That one I'd say is a bit of a stretch! Subjective of course...

Chico said:

When he didn't take the SOTTs tour to the States.

I was waiting patiently for that show after hearing my friends in Europe raving about it. At the time I figued it would make its way to Chicago eventually...then the movie came out. Is this it? I mean LOVE the movie, but it was totally disappointing at the time.

Poplife88 said:

rusty1 said:

no emoticon can describe the amount of wrong in those 5 words

bonatoc said:

Emancipation is packed with classics.

TheFman said: