funkbabyandthebabysitters said:

JayCrawford said:

After reading so many Prince related forums about his 90s era. I'm actually shocked that there are some people who truly believe that his 91-96 era is just as great as his prime 80-87 like I find it hard to understand why lol! Is it because they only became Prince fans around the 90s or do they actually mean what they're saying? I can understand if you PREFER it but I've seen some org members make that statement that it is just as "great" as the 80s. Someone help to me understand 🤣 [Edited 1/13/21 5:35am]

It all has to do with perspective and subjective opinion. I'd argue that Prince was presented, packaged, promoted better in the 80's. Even his flops "Under The Cherry Moon" were presented in a more far reaching, professional, organized matter than say, The Gold Experience. In the end, it's up to you the listener. There's nothing wrong with going against the traditional narrative....especially when it comes to an artist as vast and diverse as Prince.

-

Secondly, and I've posted on this before, whittle down some of Prince's albums from the 90's to the svelt 8-9 songs (40 minutes) collections we saw in the 80's. You are going to feel a stonger collection with "less filler." That will change your experience real quick.

[Edited 1/13/21 6:47am]

JayCrawford said:

After reading so many Prince related forums about his 90s era. I'm actually shocked that there are some people who truly believe that his 91-96 era is just as great as his prime 80-87 like I find it hard to understand why lol! Is it because they only became Prince fans around the 90s or do they actually mean what they're saying? I can understand if you PREFER it but I've seen some org members make that statement that it is just as "great" as the 80s. Someone help to me understand 🤣 [Edited 1/13/21 5:35am]

You're lack of understanding isn't with the subject matter but with the fact that people have different opinions and one isn't actually better than the other. You think the 80s Prince music is better? Awesome. Someone else thinks the 90s music is better? Awesome. Neither of you are right or wrong, you just like different things. The one person isn't going to convince you that something they like is 'better', just as you won't convince them that what you like is 'better'.

I don't prefer one over the other myself. I think there is great stuff in his 80s output and great stuff in his 90s output. There's also some utter turds in both periods, IMO.

OperatingThetan said:

They can say that because opinions are subjective not objective. There is no 'truth' here, just differences in perspective and taste. There's also the matter of nostalgia - peoples favourite period tends to be when they first discovered an artist and connected to them through that initial emotional response. I was first exposed to Prince when I was 14 in 1991. Prince was at the zenith of his popularity in the early 90s in Europe and gained an entirely new generation of fans during this period. Hence, I have a fondness for his early 90s work also, which I still feel is underrated. * [Edited 1/13/21 6:16am]

to say 'just as great' means there is something to be compared. So it's beyond nostalgia, but facts.

We can actually present information to prove 80-87/88 was the golden era/great era

We can present information to try to show 91-96 was great / or just as great

OldFriends4Sale said:

Because music is subjective? lol nobody can determind anybody's opinion regardless of whatever the masses say and whatever the common way of thinking

OldFriends4Sale said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

OperatingThetan said:

They can say that because opinions are subjective not objective. There is no 'truth' here, just differences in perspective and taste. There's also the matter of nostalgia - peoples favourite period tends to be when they first discovered an artist and connected to them through that initial emotional response. I was first exposed to Prince when I was 14 in 1991. Prince was at the zenith of his popularity in the early 90s in Europe and gained an entirely new generation of fans during this period. Hence, I have a fondness for his early 90s work also, which I still feel is underrated. * [Edited 1/13/21 6:16am]

The to say 'just as great' means there is something to be compared. So it's beyond nostalgia, but facts.

We can actually present information to prove 80-87/88 was the golden era/great era

We can present information to try to show 91-96 was great / or just as great

Your points seem to lean more towards proving commercial success and I don't think anyone would deny that the 80s were his most successful period from a commercial point of view.

What you can't present, is information to make someone who thinks the 90s music is better change their mind. Assuming they are already fully aware of the output from both periods.

OperatingThetan said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

The to say 'just as great' means there is something to be compared. So it's beyond nostalgia, but facts.

We can actually present information to prove 80-87/88 was the golden era/great era

We can present information to try to show 91-96 was great / or just as great

Is 'Purple Rain' greater than 'Gold'? Is 'Lets Go Crazy' better than 'Endorphinemachine'? It's entirely a matter of taste and is therefore wholly subjective. The fact that 'Purple Rain' for example, was more commercially successful than 'Gold' and hence exacted a more powerful cultural impact, does not make it factually greater. Nor do the opinions of critics which are also subjective. Lovesexy was a hit in Europe and did not gain the same traction in the USA, but responses to it remain purely individual regardless. For some, it's a spiritual awakening, to others, an over-produced mess. Once any art leaves the artist it then belongs to the individual perceptions of those engaging with it. One persons dross is another persons treasure. I would be quite comfortable joining the choir here and stating that 'Purple and Gold' is my least favourite Prince song, but I still don't think I could state that it is objectively 'bad', although personally, I feel that it definitely is.

BINGO

funkbabyandthebabysitters said:

Most ppl dont see the difference between favourite and best.

That.

.

Most people also don't make much of an effort to understand a musician's artistic journey. They tend to see music as something artists owe them. Admitedly, the vast majority of pop artists have a "golden age" at some early point of their career that they won't ever top in the eyes of critics and fans. For Prince it's 1980-1988, for Bowie or George Clinton it's roughly 1970-1980, for Kate Bush it's usually 1978-1985, and don't even try and ask anyone what they think of James Brown's career after the mid 70's, etc. The second decade of an artist's career is usually the most harmful, as they often either struggle to adjust to new trends or move into more commercial territories for sales' sake.

.

Funnily enough, this doesn't happen so much with contemporary, experimental or even jazz musicians. It's like their audiences are way more capable of appreciating a musician's musical journey and maturity: despite any composer's strong achievements at the beginning of their career, you don't often see critics of fans trash their later works. I suspect it's partly because such artists are usually discovered later in one's life, while pop artists' fans usually crystalize on the music they discovered as teenagers.

.

Some studies suggest that the music people discover between the ages of roughly 12 and 25 have a much stronger emotional impact on them than anything they discover later in life, with streaming platforms claiming that their stats show that most people stop listening to any new music altogether at some point between the ages of 30 and 40.

.

Certainly, an artist will break new grounds in the first part of their career, then sort of settle in a comfort zone and develop an esthetics they've previously established, with the occasional, more or less successful attempt to enlarge their musical vocabulary. It's difficult to avoid this for any artist or human being for that matter: most people fail to truly reinvent themselves, professionally as well as personally, after the age of 30 or so. Which, by the way, is also the age where some studies say the brain stop maturing and slowly begins to decline. Artists aren't superhumans, they will be affected by this as much as anyone else.

.

[Edited 1/13/21 8:59am]

its ok to like the 90s over the 80s

i doubt theres that many people like that, but hey, if you prefer a more normal/conventional sounding prince, less weird, etc, then i can see why people would like the 90s most.

Prince's run from 1980-1988 (sorry, but are you excluding Lovesexy?!) is arguably as near-perfection as you can get. Masterpieces, IMO. Rivals anybody (Beatles, Bowie, U2, etc.) Not saying better, but definitely equal. I feel that Batman should have been Prince's side project in 1989, not his main album release. But here we are.

1991-1996 (to me, would be more like 1990-1995) is Prince incorporating hip-hop a lot more maybe than he should have, but it's still a powerhouse era. He was still energized and had a LOT to say in his music, just not as consistently as he did in the 80s.

databank said:

funkbabyandthebabysitters said:

Most ppl dont see the difference between favourite and best.

That.

.

Most people also don't make much of an effort to understand a musician's artistic journey. They tend to see music as something artists owe them. Admitedly, the vast majority of pop artists have a "golden age" at some early point of their career that they won't ever top in the eyes of critics and fans. For Prince it's 1980-1988, for Bowie or George Clinton it's roughly 1970-1980, for Kate Bush it's usually 1978-1985, and don't even try and ask anyone what they think of James Brown's career after the mid 70's, etc. The second decade of an artist's career is usually the most harmful, as they often either struggle to adjust to new trends or move into more commercial territories for sales' sake.

.

Funnily enough, this doesn't happen so much with contemporary, experimental or even jazz musicians. It's like their audiences are way more capable of appreciating a musician's musical journey and maturity: despite any composer's strong achievements at the beginning of their career, you don't often see critics of fans trash their later works. I suspect it's partly because such artists are usually discovered later in one's life, while pop artists' fans usually crystalize on the music they discovered as teenagers.

.

Some studies suggest that the music people discover between the ages of roughly 12 and 25 have a much stronger emotional impact on them than anything they discover later in life, with streaming platforms claiming that their stats show that most people stop listening to any new music altogether at some point between the ages of 30 and 40.

.

Certainly, an artist will break new grounds in the first part of their career, then sort of settle in a comfort zone and develop an esthetics they've previously established, with the occasional, more or less successful attempt to enlarge their musical vocabulary. It's difficult to avoid this for any artist or human being for that matter: most people fail to truly reinvent themselves, professionally as well as personally, after the age of 30 or so. Which, by the way, is also the age where some studies say the brain stop maturing and slowly begins to decline. Artists aren't superhumans, they will be affected by this as much as anyone else.

Thanks for the awesome post! For the jazz quote, I wonder how much lyrics play a part in an artist's decline?

Prince, U2, even Paul McCartney had declining lyrical content. Some clumsy (Paul McCartney now), some off-putting (Prince JW) some trite (U2 in 2000s), etc. But these same acts have amazing musicianship throughout their careers.

I wonder if jazz music's mostly lack of lyrics allow them to just simply grow as musicians (and be appreciated as such) without the burden of lyrics?

Se7en said:

databank said:

That.

.

Most people also don't make much of an effort to understand a musician's artistic journey. They tend to see music as something artists owe them. Admitedly, the vast majority of pop artists have a "golden age" at some early point of their career that they won't ever top in the eyes of critics and fans. For Prince it's 1980-1988, for Bowie or George Clinton it's roughly 1970-1980, for Kate Bush it's usually 1978-1985, and don't even try and ask anyone what they think of James Brown's career after the mid 70's, etc. The second decade of an artist's career is usually the most harmful, as they often either struggle to adjust to new trends or move into more commercial territories for sales' sake.

.

Funnily enough, this doesn't happen so much with contemporary, experimental or even jazz musicians. It's like their audiences are way more capable of appreciating a musician's musical journey and maturity: despite any composer's strong achievements at the beginning of their career, you don't often see critics of fans trash their later works. I suspect it's partly because such artists are usually discovered later in one's life, while pop artists' fans usually crystalize on the music they discovered as teenagers.

.

Some studies suggest that the music people discover between the ages of roughly 12 and 25 have a much stronger emotional impact on them than anything they discover later in life, with streaming platforms claiming that their stats show that most people stop listening to any new music altogether at some point between the ages of 30 and 40.

.

Certainly, an artist will break new grounds in the first part of their career, then sort of settle in a comfort zone and develop an esthetics they've previously established, with the occasional, more or less successful attempt to enlarge their musical vocabulary. It's difficult to avoid this for any artist or human being for that matter: most people fail to truly reinvent themselves, professionally as well as personally, after the age of 30 or so. Which, by the way, is also the age where some studies say the brain stop maturing and slowly begins to decline. Artists aren't superhumans, they will be affected by this as much as anyone else.

Thanks for the awesome post! For the jazz quote, I wonder how much lyrics play a part in an artist's decline?

Prince, U2, even Paul McCartney had declining lyrical content. Some clumsy (Paul McCartney now), some off-putting (Prince JW) some trite (U2 in 2000s), etc. But these same acts have amazing musicianship throughout their careers.

I wonder if jazz music's mostly lack of lyrics allow them to just simply grow as musicians (and be appreciated as such) without the burden of lyrics?

Not quite sure if this has much to do with lyrics. It's true that I've read much criticism of Prince's religious/puritan conversion in the late 90's/early 2000's, or some of his gangsta hip-hop lyrics from the early to mid 90's, and I wouldn't know about U2 or McCartney, but with most artists, late career criticism usually focuses on the music or at least the songs as a whole.

.

Truly though, contemporary, experimental or jazz artists usually evolve in the instrumental realm. This again suggests their target audiences are more mature or cerebral, thus less likely to remain stuck to their teenage years' Top 40 idols (see how many Prince fans here say that P's instrumental albums are boring, or not "real" albums altogether: pop audiences don't tend to fancy instrumental music too much, they dig the "song" format). I'm not under the impression that jazz, experimental or contemporary musicians explore that many new grounds in the later stages of their careers, they also tend to repeat themselves a lot after a point, but their audiences seem to be more capable of going with the flow and appreciating subtle changes in their music.

oh my god is this #hater and #baby still going on about how much he hates the 90s. to that i would say, "get over it hater" because the 90s are here to stay and also come is better than atwiad

LoveGalore said:

rebelenterprise said:

I think some folks may say that because they're actually paying attention to the music, not just the fact that he wasn't as popular as he was in the 80s. And most would extend that to '88 to include "Lovesexy". But, if "the battle" never happened and he remained just as popular as he was in the 80s, more people would recognize that later era and it wouldn't be as brushed off if he never changed his name. That's the main reason, obviously. If that never happened though, alot of that music wouldn't have been made the way it was. So, everything is everything. People gravitate more to what is the most popular and accepted, and also how it affected them in their youth or their "prime". Basic human nature, unfortunately. It's usually different for people who are actually artists or musicians themselves. In a way, some could say the same about the other biggest artist on WB, Madonna. Erotica and Bedtime Stories, while they were hits aren't looked at by the public in the same way as her 80s material. Ray Of Light was a huge album, but the 80s still basically overshadows it now. Same for The Moonwalker. P-Funk had great material in the 80s, Atomic Dog (one of the most sampled songs of all-time), but they're still looked at mainly as a product of the 70s. So at the end of the day, I think it comes down to people and the media designating artists to a certain time period, and some don't really want to explore any further from that because it would probably strain their brains too much.

I agree. I bet fans who favor the 80's Prince were between mid-teen to early twenties @ the time they discovered him. These are ages we tend to 'imprint'. (Tobacco co's know this)

Same for the 90's fans and so on.

JayCrawford said:

LoveGalore said:

Prince's lyrical quality did not drop. You just stopped relating to what he was talking about. His lyrics were always great. It's hilarious how some of you must have stopped listening at or before Wedding Feast and ignored lyrical garbage like Eggplant or Free or America or Starfish & Coffee.

talk about it

OperatingThetan said:

funkbabyandthebabysitters said: