databank said:

Look, OP, you are of the narrow-minded opinion that the only great music ever created in the history of mankind was between 1950 and 1989... Okay.

We know that.... you're not going to change your mind and every time someone suggests something outside of your narrow worldview you laugh and tell them they're talking nonsense....

We get it. You like the 50s to the 80s.... okay. Cool There was lots of great music made in that era... there was several megatons of great music made either side of it as well....

You really don't need to find new ways of dressing up the same obtuse opinion in thread after thread. It's really dull.

Oh, and saying 'I can understand if you PREFER x era, but it was still shit'.... isn't making room for someone else's opinion, hmkay?

Cool.

Rimshottbob said:

Rimshottbob said:

Look, OP, you are of the narrow-minded opinion that the only great music ever created in the history of mankind was between 1950 and 1989... Okay.

(...)

-

There will always be good music, ànd popmusic. But to say Prince's catalogue from start to end is equaly good. I doubt it. His influence 40 years ago was at the time 'huge', and that was basically it.

He gaines respect throughout his career because of the brand 'Prince', and all that happenend around it.

-

To get to your remark (in bold)...

Thing is, the basis of the music industry changed drastically and fast over the last 15 years.

From the 50's on, it was (basically) only radio, driven by big companies who made the choices of what was being heard and what would be promoted.

From halfway the 90's, major companies started to notice the internet as a potential player, were against it at first.

Plus the technological progression of making music, which became easy and less expensive (home made) were new influences too.

And when the internet became thé player on which music should be heard, music from organised Girl bands, Boy bands, decided what the choices were.

All focused on making money, nearly solely, a money machine, much more than ever before.

Quality (sort of) lacked (depending on your taste), quantity was the aim, a wider audience with an average interest in musicology, but looking for easy to grab musical fun.

Easy to remember melodies and very basic rhythms were (like if it were algorithms) created from machines, thus less real instruments - super easy to make.

Childish tunes and melodies made their entrance. Digestable complexity was left to the remixers.

(I read once in a paper on contemporary music, that the best pop and rock was made/released in 1978... just saying, not my opinion, but interesting to think about.)

There is much more music released in one day now, then in a time span of 10 years in the 50's, 60's.

The 70's had the development of all known (basic) styles, and in came the producers (and sessions musicians). Those styles are still used and refered to this day.

Nowadays, the mainstream audience can get what they want, wherever, and whenever they like.

Now, the unmistakenly importance of internet & the consumer who can make music at home on a computer, is what influences the most.

Plus the whole DJ rage (who recycle it all), the streaming and it's influence on what suits you next, and not to forget the TV formats and their (would-be) judges craving for so called new soon to be forgotten talent.

Nowadays pop and rock music is very fragmented, and especially cut into pieces,

which is used almost everywhere and for everything as a mood maker or background filling/droppings.

Pop & rock music in general is over it's hight. But the blended invention as we know it being conceived in the Anglo-Saxon contries is now being copied over the whole world.

Again, there will always be music within it's time frame, but like everything else, pop and rock music might dissapear, or for the best become a niche kind of thing. Just like in the 20's, and 30's, etc..

Remember those big big musicals from the 30's and 40's ?

Almost forgotten and sort of a niche now, just rarely copied, or refered to.

Just sayin'.

To get back on topic, Prince's 90's or later output is of little importance, even in his own legacy.

Yes this is my personal opinion, and I respect others opinion.

(influence me with the right arguments, i'm open to everything.)

Even his 80's output may not survive on a long term, who knows.

imho.

-

Vannormal said:

Rimshottbob said:

Look, OP, you are of the narrow-minded opinion that the only great music ever created in the history of mankind was between 1950 and 1989... Okay.

(...)

-

There will always be good music, ànd popmusic. But to say Prince's catalogue from start to end is equaly good. I doubt it. His influence 40 years ago was at the time 'huge', and that was basically it.

He gaines respect throughout his career because of the brand 'Prince', and all that happenend around it.

-

To get to your remark (in bold)...

Thing is, the basis of the music industry changed drastically and fast over the last 15 years.

From the 50's on, it was (basically) only radio, driven by big companies who made the choices of what was being heard and what would be promoted.

From halfway the 90's, major companies started to notice the internet as a potential player, were against it at first.

Plus the technological progression of making music, which became easy and less expensive (home made) were new influences too.

And when the internet became thé player on which music should be heard, music from organised Girl bands, Boy bands, decided what the choices were.

All focused on making money, nearly solely, a money machine, much more than ever before.

Quality (sort of) lacked (depending on your taste), quantity was the aim, a wider audience with an average interest in musicology, but looking for easy to grab musical fun.

Easy to remember melodies and very basic rhythms were (like if it were algorithms) created from machines, thus less real instruments - super easy to make.

Childish tunes and melodies made their entrance. Digestable complexity was left to the remixers.

(I read once in a paper on contemporary music, that the best pop and rock was made/released in 1978... just saying, not my opinion, but interesting to think about.)

There is much more music released in one day now, then in a time span of 10 years in the 50's, 60's.

The 70's had the development of all known (basic) styles, and in came the producers (and sessions musicians). Those styles are still used and refered to this day.

Nowadays, the mainstream audience can get what they want, wherever, and whenever they like.

Now, the unmistakenly importance of internet & the consumer who can make music at home on a computer, is what influences the most.

Plus the whole DJ rage (who recycle it all), the streaming and it's influence on what suits you next, and not to forget the TV formats and their (would-be) judges craving for so called new soon to be forgotten talent.

Nowadays pop and rock music is very fragmented, and especially cut into pieces,

which is used almost everywhere and for everything as a mood maker or background filling/droppings.

Pop & rock music in general is over it's hight. But the blended invention as we know it being conceived in the Anglo-Saxon contries is now being copied over the whole world.

Again, there will always be music within it's time frame, but like everything else, pop and rock music might dissapear, or for the best become a niche kind of thing. Just like in the 20's, and 30's, etc..

Remember those big big musicals from the 30's and 40's ?

Almost forgotten and sort of a niche now, just rarely copied, or refered to.

Just sayin'.

To get back on topic, Prince's 90's or later output is of little importance, even in his own legacy.

Yes this is my personal opinion, and I respect others opinion.

(influence me with the right arguments, i'm open to everything.)

Even his 80's output may not survive on a long term, who knows.

imho.

-

WONDERFUL post!

herb4 said:

databank said:

^ Yeah I don't really see much of a difference in quality between decades, there was great stuff all the time, still is. But then again, I've stayed away from most mainstream music since the mid 90's, so IDK much of what's going on on that front.

From what I can tell, you're not missing much. I'm sure lots of good music is out there somewhere but, man, I can't imagine being 20 years old and trying to find it.

You'd be surprised. With the Internet it's become easier than ever to find the music that's exactly for you, no matter how niche your tastes.

JayCrawford said:

databank said:

^ Yeah I don't really see much of a difference in quality between decades, there was great stuff all the time, still is. But then again, I've stayed away from most mainstream music since the mid 90's, so IDK much of what's going on on that front.

Man, mainstream music in the 90s was abysmal, 1994-1999 were music at its darkest period. [Edited 1/15/21 13:21pm]

I'm not completely sure how much of it was successful in the mainstream -plus there's always this thin line between "mainstream commercial product" and "successful indie act"- but there was a lot of great stuff in these years, some of which I remember finding its way to the charts to some extent.

.

So IDK. I don't think these years were any worse than the years before or since. I think at best it's a matter of taste. I mean at some point you may wanna wanna compare the most commercial "products" and try and figure whether Bananarama was better than the Spice Girls or whether New Kids On The Block were better than Backstreet Boys, but I think it's a pretty vain exercise.

SantanaMaitreya said:

Besides, what is mainstream anyway? Is it the same as popular? In other words, are acts like Alanis Morissette and Pearljam alternative or mainstream?

Blurry concept indeed, but I'd say music that either is 1/ designed to be a product rather than the artistic expression of an artist or 2/ becomes sufficiently popular to share the spotlight with the first category.

SantanaMaitreya said:

Besides, what is mainstream anyway? Is it the same as popular? In other words, are acts like Alanis Morissette and Pearljam alternative or mainstream?

More or less, yeah.

Those acts you mentioned, along with - say - Nirvana, Faith no More, The Red Hot Chilli Peppers, REM, U2, Talking Heads, Janes Addiction and what have you were "alternative" until they started selling millions of records as people caught on. Then they begin to DEFINE the sound and what's popular so it becomes mainstream. So, they were "alternative" until they weren't is what I'm saying.

Some acts just kind of start out following popular trends so they're kind of mainstream from the start. Think Britney Spears, Christine Aguilera, Justin Beiber, Vanilla Ice, Boyz 2 Men, MC Hammer, etc. and they're just marketed out of the box to sell records, to already sound like what's selling and to be on the radio or used in a commercial. Others never entirely break through to widespread commercial success (Fishbone, Love and Rockets, Husker Du, The Replacements) and stay "alternative".

Sorry. The short answer is "yes"

SantanaMaitreya said:

And then we could add: 3/ becomes so popular that everybody starts doing it and it's not alternative anymore! So I guess we can say that grunge and rap are mainstream.

-

There's alternative rap and alternative grunge, and there's mainstream of both.

It's not about the music, band or artist, but all about the recognisability mostly resulted in sales.

-

SantanaMaitreya said:

^We could add Living Colour to the list, but yeah, that's it: a lot of genres start out as underground or alternative and when they become big, they become mainstream! It happens to our guy, he changed from underground to mainstream in 1982-84.

That's true and I meant point that out. Nothing on Dirty Mind could really be considered or marketed as "mainstream". Quite the opposite really. But the provacative nature of the material created a buzz in the underground/alternative circuits and also amongst critics who were hip to the talent and the songwriting.

I'd go as far as to argue that or the most part, or at least more than half the time, Prince was never really what I'd consider to be "mainstream" or really stove for that in his general approach to things. He was always switching shit up, dressing wild, changing his image and his sound and shit like that. Every once in a while, we'd get a Batman, a D&P or a Musicology but from ATWIAD on, he usually seemed to go out of his way to AVOID the mainstream.

He'd poke his head out, like at the Super Bowl or what have you but I don't think that was his main drive. He seemed to always know he could cash some checks by doing something commercial like a hits tour or pushing his shit on Leno, SNL or whatever (the Rave 2000 misfire notwithstanding) but I don't think he much cared for it or the game, tbh, and preferred to be sort of mysterious and outside the box.

Opinions aren't fact. If someone says the 1991-1996 period gave them the same feeling or high of the 80-87 period, then that's how they feel. Music is clearly subjective. The problem is elitist (the ones that constantly claim to be original fans from 78 or the ones with clear revolution bias) state that his music was "abysmal" in the 90's think that their opinions hold more weight than someone else's. Then the moderators don't say or do shit about the constant bashing/talking down on/to/name calling cause said opinion mirrors theirs.

tab32792 said:

Opinions aren't fact. If someone says the 1991-1996 period gave them the same feeling or high of the 80-87 period, then that's how they feel. Music is clearly subjective. The problem is elitist (the ones that constantly claim to be original fans from 78 or the ones with clear revolution bias) state that his music was "abysmal" in the 90's think that their opinions hold more weight than someone else's. Then the moderators don't say or do shit about the constant bashing/talking down on/to/name calling cause said opinion mirrors theirs.

-

Is that so ?

I did not notice that.

"Constant" ?

-

Debates are very interesting.

Not agreeing on something is also needed.

If there is a majority with an opinion, the minority is not less important.

Politeness and being able to understand that agree to disagree is important in having a constructive and opinionated of factual discussion.

If someone is calling you names, (try to) put yourself above that.

If you feel addressed, it might also be saying something about your own feelings or behaviour.

-

It's always best not to pay too much attention to those who make a slip of the tongue (or call names) into a heated argument.

Often it is not all that intentional.

Calling names is just like shouting to get your point made; it's mostly lack of power or a show of some weakness.

It's also better to not hold on to what you think is important or an opinionated truth.

Dare to be open and willing to change too.

Bacsically we all want the same, and that is to share the fact of our mutual love for Prince's music.

Prince made aaaaaaaaall that music, and sure it is all diffferent too.

How lucky we are there is still so much to discover.

SOme of us, and me too, are affraid to not get old enough to hear and experience it all.

Is there any other artist fan out there who can say that ?!

I'm not into the 90's and later on Prince material, but that doesn't mean i'm open for discoveries proposed/explained by others, who might be able to change my mind.

Peace to all.

-

[Edited 1/20/21 6:15am]

But that's the thing. Nobody is mad about what people think or feel. The problem is this place is constantly and consistently down talking minority opinions. That's not right nor is it fair.

Vannormal said:

tab32792 said:

Opinions aren't fact. If someone says the 1991-1996 period gave them the same feeling or high of the 80-87 period, then that's how they feel. Music is clearly subjective. The problem is elitist (the ones that constantly claim to be original fans from 78 or the ones with clear revolution bias) state that his music was "abysmal" in the 90's think that their opinions hold more weight than someone else's. Then the moderators don't say or do shit about the constant bashing/talking down on/to/name calling cause said opinion mirrors theirs.

-

Is that so ?

I did not notice that.

"Constant" ?

-

Debates are very interesting.

Not agreeing on something is also needed.

If there is a majority with an opinion, the minority is not less important.

Politeness and being able to understand that agree to disagree is important in having a constructive and opinionated of factual discussion.

If someone is calling you names, (try to) put yourself above that.

If you feel addressed, it might also be saying something about your own feelings or behaviour.

-

It's always best not to pay too much attention to those who make a slip of the tongue (or call names) into a heated argument.

Often it is not all that intentional.

Calling names is just like shouting to get your point made; it's mostly lack of power or a show of some weakness.

It's also better to not hold on to what you think is important or an opinionated truth.

Dare to be open and willing to change too.

Bacsically we all want the same, and that is to share the fact of our mutual love for Prince's music.

Prince made aaaaaaaaall that music, and sure it is all diffferent too.

How lucky we are there is still so much to discover.

SOme of us, and me too, are affraid to not get old enough to hear and experience it all.

Is there any other artist fan out there who can say that ?!

I'm not into the 90's and later on Prince material, but that doesn't mean i'm open for discoveries proposed/explained by others, who might be able to change my mind.

Peace to all.

-

[Edited 1/20/21 6:15am]

My question is why don't you like later material. Folks love to bring up rap and that's fair i guess if you're not really into black art forms nor understand them which i'm realizing that most here don't. But there's a lot more songs without rap than songs with it so that's lazy. Also, there's a lot of good music post 1991. Just gotta find it or listen to it on it's own merit instead of comparing it to the 80's stuff

I think some of the songwriting, arrangements, production, experimentation and musicianship on a lot of the 90's stuff actually exceeds his 80's output heyday in several ways.

I got a lot of non fans into Prince by turning them onto Love Symbol, Gold, The Undertaker and especially Exodus. The biggest problem with I think Prince faced was releasing too much (which I didn't mind) along with kind of intentionally half assing his WB releases (but even those have some really great songs).

Adding it up, and not counting The Black Album, I count 11 "records" in the 80's. 1999 and SoTT count as 2.

For the 90's, I count 27, which includes Gold Nigga, Exodus, Rave In2, 1-800-New Funk, Girl 6 and The War/Undertaker (which I combined) and treats GB as 2, CB as 5, Emancipation as 3, The Hits/B-Sides as 3, just like I counted his 80's double albums. The NPG stuff counts (for me) since that was Prince circumventing his record label to release stuff. I suppose you could remove a few of those from the count and nitpick but still...remove 6 then.

That's still 2 times the output of sheer material. Of COURSE the quality is going to get watered down and diluted but a lot of good stuff is still there.

I know your cut off was 1996 but I think my point is still valid.

Also, a lot of people simply can not stand rap and consider it a lower art form that's beneath Prince's talent and not worth his time. So that turns off some folks right away.

herb4 said:

herb4 said: