OldFriends4Sale said:

RJOrion said:

rdhull said:

Ok, so its not 'dense.' Maybe I should have stated you expressing arhaic beliefs in these days and time. Thats your right, yes. But that's the hill you choose to die on in 2020? smh

"dying on a hill in 2020" is a lil bit dramatic no?... ive been freely, peacefully and honestly expressing my views and beliefs since 1963 ...its what most human beings are designed to do...im not the slightest bit concerned about "dying on a hill" (figuratively or literally) over a comment box on a Prince fansite about my past or present opinions, beliefs or feelings...its not that serious..

It certainly is a hill you need to climb a lot, considering your many posts on many threads about it.

RJOrion said:

LMAO!...god Forbid if i didnt like Prince at first, and grew to respect him and love his music later on...some of you people really need to get over yourselves...Prince was a man, not a deity...he did his share of evil, too...the real homophobes are the ones who take offense to Prince being called or implied gay...if there is no problem being gay, and Prince had no problem acting "sissified", why do some of his socalled fans get so upset when someone implies he might be gay?...its like youre the ones who have the REAL problem with gayness [Edited 1/29/20 10:52am]

"Every man who is any kind of artist has a great deal of female in him. I act and give of myself as a man, but I register and receive with the soul of a woman. The only really good artists are feminine. I can't admit the existence of an artist whose dominant personality is masculine."
Orson Welles

noobman said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

RJOrion said:

LMAO!...god Forbid if i didnt like Prince at first, and grew to respect him and love his music later on...some of you people really need to get over yourselves...Prince was a man, not a deity...he did his share of evil, too...the real homophobes are the ones who take offense to Prince being called or implied gay...if there is no problem being gay, and Prince had no problem acting "sissified", why do some of his socalled fans get so upset when someone implies he might be gay?...its like youre the ones who have the REAL problem with gayness [Edited 1/29/20 10:52am]

"Every man who is any kind of artist has a great deal of female in him. I act and give of myself as a man, but I register and receive with the soul of a woman. The only really good artists are feminine. I can't admit the existence of an artist whose dominant personality is masculine."
Orson Welles

to amswer orson welles question ....jim morrison

Artists tend to be less constrained by the conventional; they seem to be more open to experiences.

RJOrion said:

poppys said:

You can say all of that about Mick Jagger too, except he's not black. Everybody doesn't have the unisex clothing hang up you had/have either, even back then.

i dont have/had any so-called "hangups"...im just firm in my beliefs that men should dress and behave like men and ladies should dres and behave as ladies...

Sounds like a hang up to me but OK, hey, you do you.

...

People chimiing in with drive by posts saying "he's black" are either being lazy, knee jerk or haven't read the thread. I'm sure it didn't help matters once the crowd turned and, obviously, I wasn't there but it's totally about rebutting disco and being homophobic. Not sure why Jagger mostly got a pass for his antics but I'm old enough to remember the time period and even Stones fans were rather "meh" on Jagger's sexuality and it WAS a sticking point for a lot of them.

Many rock fans disliked the Stones in part for this reason and turned to more "masculine" bands.

You know, like Judas Priest

But back to "he was black" just doesn't fly. The Stones had countless black opening acts and supporting band members over the years and I posted several of them. Their gigs with Billy Preston were legendary so it's just not that simple to say "well, duh, racism". Here's Mick tongue kissing his guitar player on national TV in 1978.

https://www.youtube.com/w...uoYW-SPKg0


It's not about being gay as "hip" or "cool" or "edgy" now either, as someone else posted.

It's about us growing as a society and beginning to stop being fucking assholes about people's sexuality and becoming more aware of human biology and history. Being uncomfortable about gender roles or sexual preference and finding yourself unable to get over yourself about it is YOUR problem. Not the people who like something different than you do and feel no reason to feel ashamed of it.

What Prince and his bad did was brave and took a tremendous amount of courage, especailly to soldier on and do it the second show.

RJOrion said:

the troubling thing about the whole LGBT movement/agenda is that the people who dont support or live that lifestyle, and people that openly proclaim heterosexuality, or support hetersexual relationships and dont believe in homosexuality as a choice, are the ones being mocked and villified, and/or even losing their jobs...

Because it's not a choice and bigotry has no place in a civililized society.

And no one cares if you proclaim your heterosexuality, except that's usually an excuse to try to paint yourself as a victim. No straight people are being dragged behind trucks, beaten to death in the street, disqualified from holding elected office or, in many countries, being treated as criminals and jailed or stoned or what have you.

I shouldn't have to tell you this in 2020 but here we are. Sorry you feel like a persecuted minority for being a member of 90% of the population. Fucking get over yourself and evolve.

And I'm bi. What's my "agenda" and what about my sexuality do you not "support'? Be specific.

Oh wait. I'm wasting my time arguing with a person that thinks The SImpsons can predict the future.

Swiped from the Kobe Bryant thread lol

Dude, seek help and please post less.

RJOrion said:

an episode of the simpsons predicts Prince will be assassinated...Prince dies mysteriously years later...a 2006 episode of Legend Of Chamberlain Heights features Kobe Bryant dying in a HELICOPTER CRASH...go ahead and keep thinking these are random coincidences...predictive programming...hiding in plain sight... [Edited 1/31/20 10:06am]

[Edited 1/31/20 13:08pm]

[Edited 1/31/20 13:13pm]

herb4 said:

RJOrion said:

the troubling thing about the whole LGBT movement/agenda is that the people who dont support or live that lifestyle, and people that openly proclaim heterosexuality, or support hetersexual relationships and dont believe in homosexuality as a choice, are the ones being mocked and villified, and/or even losing their jobs...

Because it's not a choice and bigotry has no place in a civililized society.

And no one cares if you proclaim your heterosexuality, except that's usually an excuse to try to paint yourself as a victim. No straight people are being dragged behind trucks, beaten to death in the street, disqualified from holding elected office or, in many countries, being treated as criminals and jailed or stoned or what have you.

I shouldn't have to tell you this in 2020 but here we are. Sorry you feel like a persecuted minority for being a member of 90% of the population. Fucking get over yourself and evolve.

And I'm bi. What's my "agenda" and what about my sexuality do you not "support'? Be specific.

To clarify, I did not say Prince got booed at the Stones concert because he was black, nor do I think that was the overwhelming reason. My comment was specifically responding to what RJOrion posted:

back then, i liked a couple Prince songs from 1979-1981, but it WASNT a Prince fan at all yet...as a teenager, i was disgusted by his effeminate posturing...i didnt become a "fan" until after Purple Rain when he started to put some clothes on and add some machismo to his persona...and whether you think its homophobic (dumb word) or not, in 1979 any black man wearing processed and feathered hair, girly panties, legwarmers, high heeled boots and eyeliner was almost universally called a sissy, or sissified or a homo...it may be trendy and "cool" to be gay now, but it wasnt always that way

You can say all of that about Mick Jagger too, except he's not black. Everybody doesn't have the unisex clothing hang up you had/have either, even back then.

[Edited 1/31/20 13:25pm]

RJOrion said:

phobia literally means fear of.. i have never been afraid of anything gay...pick another word to misuse

"Ignorant"
"Misguided"
"Uninformed"
"Antiquated"
"Silly"
"Confused"

I'll be polite and say

"Traditional"
"Old Fashioned"
"Stubborn"

Sorry you don't like people who challenge traditional gender roles, dude. Assuming you're male.

Should I go on?

...

Prince wasn't even gay but certainly projected the possibility. I didn't care then and I care even less now. I dug it at the time and still do. I doubt most of Prince's fans cared much (unlike a lot of Stones fans at the time) and I think he was one of several people that drug some of us kicking and screaming into the 21st century on the topic. Glad you reluctantly finally got dragged.

And you're the one acting like you're being persecuted while whining about people rightfully calling you out for your antiquated and uninformed hot takes on traditional gender roles and what it means to be a man or a woman. If you don't uinderstand the concept of people being out and proud and refusing to be ashamed (or persecuted or betaen and killed) in TYOOL 2020, I don't know what to tell you but, again, you do you and call my beliefs "an agenda" if it makes you feel better.

I've read most of the thread and the only one with much of a problem here appears to be yourself (plus several obnoxious, mean and disatisfied Rolling Stones fans from 1981 or whenever it was). From what I can ascertain, Prince was more of a man than you'll ever be, no matter how much you can bench press or play linebacker. Me too for that matter since he had more balls than I'll ever possess.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go lift some weights, play some football, hit the heavy bag and watch some manly movies that show muscle bound men killing each other to get my testosterone levels pumping before I have some gay sex should the mood strike me.

Of just kindly fuck off and stop posting and stop posting this stupid bullshit.

Continuously amazed and struck at how many conservative Prince fans there seem to be.

poppys said:

herb4 said:

To clarify, I did not say Prince got booed at the Stones concert because he was black, nor do I think that was the overwhelming reason. My comment was specifically responding to what RJOrion posted:

back then, i liked a couple Prince songs from 1979-1981, but it WASNT a Prince fan at all yet...as a teenager, i was disgusted by his effeminate posturing...i didnt become a "fan" until after Purple Rain when he started to put some clothes on and add some machismo to his persona...and whether you think its homophobic (dumb word) or not, in 1979 any black man wearing processed and feathered hair, girly panties, legwarmers, high heeled boots and eyeliner was almost universally called a sissy, or sissified or a homo...it may be trendy and "cool" to be gay now, but it wasnt always that way

You can say all of that about Mick Jagger too, except he's not black. Everybody doesn't have the unisex clothing hang up you had/have either, even back then.

[Edited 1/31/20 13:25pm]

My bad, dude. I wasn't directing that at you specifically. You may have gotten caught up in my text/quote chain or else assumed I was calling you out.

Speaking of quite chains...how come this site locks me into a quote box on occasion (like this) and doesn't let me post outside the box? ANd why, if I go to edit someone's quote sometimes for space, does it turn the text into little tiny fonts?

Bolding and itilacizing to separate my post FROM WHERE I AM TRYING TO CLUCK AND WRITE

OldFriends4Sale said:

RJOrion said:

the troubling thing about the whole LGBT movement/agenda is that the people who dont support or live that lifestyle, and people that openly proclaim heterosexuality, or support hetersexual relationships and dont believe in homosexuality as a choice, are the ones being mocked and villified, and/or even losing their jobs...

Create a thread in P&R

Yo...


https://prince.org/msg/105/462177

herb4 said:

RJOrion said:

poppys said: i dont have/had any so-called "hangups"...im just firm in my beliefs that men should dress and behave like men and ladies should dres and behave as ladies...

Sounds like a hang up to me but OK, hey, you do you.

...

People chimiing in with drive by posts saying "he's black" are either being lazy, knee jerk or haven't read the thread. I'm sure it didn't help matters once the crowd turned and, obviously, I wasn't there but it's totally about rebutting disco and being homophobic. Not sure why Jagger mostly got a pass for his antics but I'm old enough to remember the time period and even Stones fans were rather "meh" on Jagger's sexuality and it WAS a sticking point for a lot of them.

Many rock fans disliked the Stones in part for this reason and turned to more "masculine" bands.

You know, like Judas Priest

But back to "he was black" just doesn't fly. The Stones had countless black opening acts and supporting band members over the years and I posted several of them. Their gigs with Billy Preston were legendary so it's just not that simple to say "well, duh, racism". Here's Mick tongue kissing his guitar player on national TV in 1978.

https://www.youtube.com/w...uoYW-SPKg0


It's not about being gay as "hip" or "cool" or "edgy" now either, as someone else posted.

It's about us growing as a society and beginning to stop being fucking assholes about people's sexuality and becoming more aware of human biology and history. Being uncomfortable about gender roles or sexual preference and finding yourself unable to get over yourself about it is YOUR problem. Not the people who like something different than you do and feel no reason to feel ashamed of it.

What Prince and his bad did was brave and took a tremendous amount of courage, especailly to soldier on and do it the second show.

I think you're missing what a disconnect there was with some fans during that era and artists they were fans of....the media wasn't like today, and you could count large fan bases that didn't know if a singer was gay, and it wasn't even that they gave them a pass, they literally didn't think it plausible, in an Archie Bunker sort of way. People didn't know Queen has a LGBQT singer for a long time, even after he was out. It's hard to fathom.


Rolling Stones did not perform with a lot of black artists during that time period, and Billy Preston was considered safe, because of his associations with the Beatles.

You can't shrug away the race angle just like you can't separate the working class rock and roll divide from disco.

lavendardrummachine said:

herb4 said:

Sounds like a hang up to me but OK, hey, you do you.

...

People chimiing in with drive by posts saying "he's black" are either being lazy, knee jerk or haven't read the thread. I'm sure it didn't help matters once the crowd turned and, obviously, I wasn't there but it's totally about rebutting disco and being homophobic. Not sure why Jagger mostly got a pass for his antics but I'm old enough to remember the time period and even Stones fans were rather "meh" on Jagger's sexuality and it WAS a sticking point for a lot of them.

Many rock fans disliked the Stones in part for this reason and turned to more "masculine" bands.

You know, like Judas Priest

But back to "he was black" just doesn't fly. The Stones had countless black opening acts and supporting band members over the years and I posted several of them. Their gigs with Billy Preston were legendary so it's just not that simple to say "well, duh, racism". Here's Mick tongue kissing his guitar player on national TV in 1978.

https://www.youtube.com/w...uoYW-SPKg0


It's not about being gay as "hip" or "cool" or "edgy" now either, as someone else posted.

It's about us growing as a society and beginning to stop being fucking assholes about people's sexuality and becoming more aware of human biology and history. Being uncomfortable about gender roles or sexual preference and finding yourself unable to get over yourself about it is YOUR problem. Not the people who like something different than you do and feel no reason to feel ashamed of it.

What Prince and his bad did was brave and took a tremendous amount of courage, especailly to soldier on and do it the second show.

I think you're missing what a disconnect there was with some fans during that era and artists they were fans of....the media wasn't like today, and you could count large fan bases that didn't know if a singer was gay, and it wasn't even that they gave them a pass, they literally didn't think it plausible, in an Archie Bunker sort of way. People didn't know Queen has a LGBQT singer for a long time, even after he was out. It's hard to fathom.


Rolling Stones did not perform with a lot of black artists during that time period, and Billy Preston was considered safe, because of his associations with the Beatles.

You can't shrug away the race angle just like you can't separate the working class rock and roll divide from disco.

True. Yet, Stevie Wonder opened for the Rolling Stones at the Akron Ohio Rubber Bowl in 1972. One of my first major teenage concerts. Both acts were mind blowing, no booing whatsoever.

poppys said:

lavendardrummachine said:

I think you're missing what a disconnect there was with some fans during that era and artists they were fans of....the media wasn't like today, and you could count large fan bases that didn't know if a singer was gay, and it wasn't even that they gave them a pass, they literally didn't think it plausible, in an Archie Bunker sort of way. People didn't know Queen has a LGBQT singer for a long time, even after he was out. It's hard to fathom.


Rolling Stones did not perform with a lot of black artists during that time period, and Billy Preston was considered safe, because of his associations with the Beatles.

You can't shrug away the race angle just like you can't separate the working class rock and roll divide from disco.

True. Yet, Stevie Wonder opened for the Rolling Stones at the Akron Ohio Rubber Bowl in 1972. One of my first major teenage concerts. Both acts were mind blowing, no booing whatsoever.

And as explained before, that era was way different from the 1981 era audience-wise.

rdhull said:

rdhull said:

poppys said:

True. Yet, Stevie Wonder opened for the Rolling Stones at the Akron Ohio Rubber Bowl in 1972. One of my first major teenage concerts. Both acts were mind blowing, no booing whatsoever.

And as explained before, that era was way different from the 1981 era audience-wise.

How? I missed the explanation. You mean the media tipping people off? Nah, people knew stuff back then before the machine. In some ways the coconut vine was better info.

I was in my 20s in 1981 so I remember that too. Living in NYC and saw P at the Mudd Club. No hype ultra cool.

[Edited 1/31/20 18:22pm]

RJOrion said:

rdhull said:

And as explained before, that era was way different from the 1981 era audience-wise.

and Stevie Wonder 😎 wasnt singin about jackin people off either.

Nobody asked me, but I think it was multiple reasons, some just totally organic like heat, booze and a massive wall of people waiting for the Stones through multiple bands (noted in this thread). Toss in everything else already mentioned.

poppys said:

rdhull said:

And as explained before, that era was way different from the 1981 era audience-wise.

How? I missed the explanation. I was in my 20s in 1981 so I remember that too. Living in NYC and saw P at the Mudd Club.

Reply 13

rdhull said:

poppys said:

How? I missed the explanation. I was in my 20s in 1981 so I remember that too. Living in NYC and saw P at the Mudd Club.

Reply 13

So, a CA thing of the time? I see. Until Altamont the Stones used the Hell's Angels as security and they were known to be violent and the opposite of peace & love.

poppys said:

rdhull said:

Reply 13

So, a CA thing of the time? I see. Until Altamont the Stones used the Hell's Angels as security and they were known to be violent and the opposite of peace & love.

The Hells Angels were used one time. Altamont concert and thats it. And not just a Cali thing with the audience in 1981. Radio segregation ws the norm for all radio basically at that time. The disco rnb racism thing mixed in a well. The ambiguous sexuality thing was okay for that audience in 1981 if it was from Bowie or Jagger, but not from a black man.

RJOrion said:

the troubling thing about the whole LGBT movement/agenda is that the people who dont support or live that lifestyle, and people that openly proclaim heterosexuality, or support hetersexual relationships and dont believe in homosexuality as a choice, are the ones being mocked and villified, and/or even losing their jobs...

Only if they deny the rights of others to exsist. Like issuing marraige licenses. As an agent of gov't you are not allowed to determine whether or not you can deny some one their rights by your religion beliefs. Your beliefs means you follow them; doesn't mean you have the right to deny others based on your beliefs. You don't see LGBTQ community denying the rights of the heterosexuals.

Prince had style; the rest are just jealous.

poppys said:

How? I missed the explanation.

Music was more segregated then. There was also a class divide between people that liked rock and music with guitars, and disco. The point about California Hell's Angels is definitely accurate and Altamont. Aditionally you didn't see many Blacks in punk, or skateboard culture....or the art world....and I could keep going. That 80's period was very different from the progress of the early 70's.... it ties to the history of urban renewal, and much bigger topics. Black radio also became a thing where they stopped playing Black artists on regular radio, it wasn't until MTV that it started to loosen up again. That was where the term "Crossover" came from. Prince was able to cross over. When Living Colour came out in 1988, the idea of a Black rock band was all anybody talked about with them, like it was unheard of or something. There was a collective disconnect... it's not like people didn't know about Hendrix... but that's just how it was, there was a weird cognitive dissonance.

So yeah, people might own a Stevie Wonder but that didn't mean they wanted to see him at a rock show in California in the early 80's when they came to see the Stones.

rdhull said:

The ambiguous sexuality thing was okay for that audience in 1981 if it was from Bowie or Jagger, but not from a black man.

This is true.

Interestingly enough, he wins over Black audiences by the time Controversy comes out, but it's really not until 1999 when he crosses over.

[Edited 1/31/20 21:21pm]

lavendardrummachine said:

poppys said:

How? I missed the explanation.

Music was more segregated then. There was also a class divide between people that liked rock and music with guitars, and disco. The point about California Hell's Angels is definitely accurate and Altamont. Aditionally you didn't see many Blacks in punk, or skateboard culture....or the art world....and I could keep going. That 80's period was very different from the progress of the early 70's.... it ties to the history of urban renewal, and much bigger topics. Black radio also became a thing where they stopped playing Black artists on regular radio, it wasn't until MTV that it started to loosen up again. That was where the term "Crossover" came from. Prince was able to cross over. When Living Colour came out in 1988, the idea of a Black rock band was all anybody talked about with them, like it was unheard of or something. There was a collective disconnect... it's not like people didn't know about Hendrix... but that's just how it was, there was a weird cognitive dissonance.

So yeah, people might own a Stevie Wonder but that didn't mean they wanted to see him at a rock show in California in the early 80's when they came to see the Stones.

Hmmmmm

I dont believe music was so much segregated back then. Kinda? Maybe?

It was a different time.

Maybe it was segregated but I didnt know???

No one pointed it out to me? Thanks Dad.

I was the youngest of six and I grew up on Motown.

I dont know, maybe I just didnt look at it as others would??

Those were the days.

45s on the record player all day long.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

I dont know, maybe I just didnt look at it as others would??

Well....right. But listening to Motown doesn't really have anything to do with California rock crowds during that era. California had a fair amount of "rednecks" (for lack of a better descriptive term) then. A lot of them even grew up hearing Motown, but that doesn't mean they were still listening to it. They had Tina Turner and Etta James open a show each, because Bill Graham was the promoter and got his start promoting shows in a Black club, but they still didn't dare bring them on for the entire tour run.

I talked with one of the bigger bands synonymous with Brit Pop about openng bands once, and this still goes on today. They were saying how they tried to put on groups that they liked or who were inspirations and they loved, but they had decided their audience couldn't handle it after trying it a couple times. They had to factor in things like age, race, genre of the acts. It wasn't a making money thing, it was a fear of the audiences losing their marbles over it.
This wasn't that long ago.

RJOrion said:

lavendardrummachine said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

I dont know, maybe I just didnt look at it as others would??

Well....right. But listening to Motown doesn't really have anything to do with California rock crowds during that era. California had a fair amount of "rednecks" (for lack of a better descriptive term) then. A lot of them even grew up hearing Motown, but that doesn't mean they were still listening to it. They had Tina Turner and Etta James open a show each, because Bill Graham was the promoter and got his start promoting shows in a Black club, but they still didn't dare bring them on for the entire tour run.

I talked with one of the bigger bands synonymous with Brit Pop about openng bands once, and this still goes on today. They were saying how they tried to put on groups that they liked or who were inspirations and they loved, but they had decided their audience couldn't handle it after trying it a couple times. They had to factor in things like age, race, genre of the acts. It wasn't a making money thing, it was a fear of the audiences losing their marbles over it.
This wasn't that long ago.

Sounds like a nuanced, plausible viewpoint

SantanaMaitreya said:

RJOrion said:

because he was black.

I doubt it. Stones fans never had a problem with Buddy Guy or Ike & Tina Turner as opening acts.

And Stones fans loved Hendrix.

I think it was more what Prince wore (just thigh-high boots, bikini briefs and a see-through jacket) that turned off the macho hard-rock loving crowd.