funkbabyandthebabysitters said:

Every artist falls out of sync with the mass audience after a while Only way he could have regained it is is someone else wrote and produced him But we know that was never happening Prince had hit tours in later years. That's where he had hits. Also the idea that him being too rnb put off white ppl is wrong as princes issue was he could no longer cross back over that well (ie he was older) and the pop audience had moved on to more modern rnb artists. Which is what pop audiences always do. But he was never comfortable ageing, and just following his own path, not even in the 00s, as he was soon trying to write wannabe hits like fall in love 2nite. It's the curse of most artists who hit the big time. [Edited 2/24/21 21:53pm] [Edited 2/24/21 22:00pm]

People really forget this. Music is for the young - the pubescent and the sexually charged - and the charts are almost driven by what young people like. There are occasional exceptions but they're really rare. What was the last "hit" that Stevie Wonder, U2, Madonna, Sting, John Mellencamp, Bon Jovi or even the Rolling Stones have had? Phil Collins and Elton John broke through with the help of some movie soundtracks in the mid 90's.

Just for kicks, I went back and looked at 1994 when TMBGITW came out to look at some names and considered who might have been peers of Prince in the mid 80's. I see a few names there I recognize but also a whole lot of Ace of Base, Counting Crows, Toni Braxton and Stone Temple Pilots. Also, very few names on there that were scoring points around when Musicology or 3121 dropped a decade later.

I think at a certain stage, earlier than most, Prince started to understand as well that the real money wasn't to be made by selling "albums", per se. Most acts eventually become "Dad Rock" and "Mom Music" and NOTHING is less cool to a 17 year old than that shit. I was fortunate that my parents had pretty good and timeless taste in music, even though it leaned white and rock oriented, that mostly stood the test of time but a BIG part of being that age is listening to shit your parents hate and finding your own identity.

By 2016, when Prince died, it's all young bucks and sexy women

https://www.billboard.com/charts/year-end/2016/top-billboard-200-albums

look at this one from 2006, ten years earlier:

https://www.billboard.com/charts/year-end/2006/top-billboard-200-albums

SantanaMaitreya said:

Another thing to consider is Prince being so prolific. Acts like Madonna, Michael Jackson, U2, they only made an album every few years so they created a buzz, a big comeback! Everybody who liked them and hadn't paid attention all of a sudden was interested again. Prince couldn't make a comeback because he was always there. Diehard fans are the only ones who will buy a new album from their favourite artist for 15 years in a row.

That's a good point too.

SantanaMaitreya said:

skywalker said:

It had little to do with Prince's music and more to do with the promotion/selling of his music. Prince wasn't really "working" with WB anymore in this regard. He uncoupled himself from the machine. Thus, he didn't get all the perks that go with being one of WB darlings. Record companies didn't invest enormous amounts of $$$$$ into him like they used to, thus....no "hits". Prince stopped playing the game by the rules and so he wasn't rewarded accordingly.

no no no. it was absolutely about the music.

Well, I'll just say that the theory about Prince's marketing placement with the record companies can be in dispute. I don't have direct access to such records to verify that idea, be it WB or any of the other subsequent labels that he had a one-off publishing and distribution arrangement.

>

All I can say to the effect of the comparative size of labels' R&B division budgets versus their Popular music budgets rests in this 2020 Rolling Stone article (https://www.rollingstone....p-1013534/) detailing the comparative histories of these two sales markets. R&B divisions, while their sponsored acts may be increasing in popularity and their influence upon the pop market, the write-up claims that they actually do maintain a much smaller share of monetary budget among other divisions within labels' promotions.

>

What others like herb4 and SoulAlive have said and I'll agree is that Prince as an ageing artist was struggling in a young-peoples race for the charts. That's just the relevancy battle of the veteran artist that I'll have to admit. As logical as that sounds, it still seems odd when music from a performer of an outside-era gets passed over in the hit parade for newer artists representing the current youth market--proving that I have older-trained ears, I guess. Prince also wasn't able to stem his wealth of new material to allow the labels to maximize their promotional capabilities to generate sales. There may have been a way to do this, but the lables could not maneuver in any novel way. These 2 things did do Prince a disservice in the hit parade.

>

One thing that can be said positively though--in a rail against this thread topic, actually--is that in trade for missing many "hit" opportunities on singles, Prince did figure out ways to make more money than he ever did while working under the record companies' contracts and make good market penetration in his post-95 publishing as an independent agent, especially when considering the limiting effects that would come from his parallel campain for artists' digital rights.

>

RODSERLING said:

WB never put Prince in the rnb département, that s BS. And if they did, that would have been a good move, since rnb was what it sold most in the US music industry at the time, and surely to this day. . WB wanted 7 to be the Lovesymbol lead single. That s more pop oriented than Sexy MF or MNIP, the lead singles Prince wanted. . When 7 was released, most of its airplay was in pop radio stations, since it was #3 in that format, and only #61 in rnb. . Moreover, what killed the Lovesymbol sales in the egg, was that the highly successfull (in Europe and Australia at least) , Sexy MF was released and played on the radio like 4 months (!) before the release of the album ; instead of the usually 3 weeks. That means Lovesymbol lost more than 3 months of sales and momentum. . So that was commercial suicide, and most people at the time may have thought Sexy MF was on D&P. The following single was The Morning Papers, which was also pop/rock oriented (#18 in pop, only #68 in rnb/hip hop) And the following single after that was Peach, also rock oriented. . So that rnb department thing that would have killed Prince sales is a fan invention to justify his declining sales, and is illogic at the same time, knowing that rnb was the best selling genre in the music industry [Edited 3/7/21 15:13pm] [Edited 3/7/21 15:19pm] [Edited 3/7/21 15:21pm]

emesem said:

In the late 90s Prince was a 40/50 year old man who couldnt decide whether he wanted to appeal to teens and 20 year olds or people his own age.

Prince only turned 40 in the "late 90s" (ie, 1998).

But I think he was always trying to appeal to everyone regardless of race, age, socionomic status, nationality.

He remained more popular outside the US than here with our "canned" and pre-digested music.

tab32792 said:

The whole idea of having a "Hit" anymore is outdated. But as a few people above have said, that's a young person's game! And, the pop world moves pretty quickly.

For a long time in the late 1990s/early 2000s, Prince was a bit out of touch with the music world. The record label revolving door, creating some really sub-par music like Newpower Soul/NPG Power Pack, the aborted High project, doing a few jazz projects at the time . . . stuff that doesn't cry for a "hit".

Musicology was a minor hit, but nothing like The Most Beautiful Girl In The World.

Se7en said:

The whole idea of having a "Hit" anymore is outdated.

I don't know about that. Old hits are the songs that are more likely to be used in movies, TV shows, commercials, TikTok videos, video games, memes, reaction videos on Youtube, oldies/classic rock/retro radio stations etc. It's like performers continue to release Christmas albums with the same 20 or so songs like Jingle Bells or Silent Night. Take On Me by A-Ha has over a billion views on Youtube and has been restored as a 4K video. The record company wouldn't have spent money to do that if Take On Me was forgotten or just an album track. Pitbull sampled it too. There's the popular memes about Septemeber by Earth Wind & Fire and "It's gonna be me (May)" by *Nsync that pop up every year during those months. There's also the Michael Jackson gif from Thriller of him eating popcorn that is used a lot. If hits are outdated, then why is Cardi B everywhere in mainstream media? She wouldn't be if she wasn't currently having hits. Post Malone is being cast in movies and so is Cardi. Mainstream pop culture is still a thing and radio hits are a part of that. If not radio, then streaming hits. That's how Drake, Nicki Minaj, & Lil Wayne have more Hot 100 hits than anyone else in Billboard. There's documentaries about Justin Bieber, Billie Eilish, & Shawn Mendes. You think Wendy Williams would have a TV show if there was no pop culture to gossip about?

Se7en said:

I never much cared about "hits' -- with Prince or any other music and art I liked.

A TON of my favorite bands, musicians, books and movies were never, EVER chart busters and I think it's a poor way overall to measure the quality of art. This capitalistic approach to judging success has shown us over and over again that "more popular" doesn't always mean "better", especially with art.

By this measure, The Eagles: Greatest Hits is the BEST album of all time. It's a prefectly fine album but does anyone really believe that it's the best one ever made?

Just go peruse the Billboard top 100 year by year and have a look at what was popular, what's good and -- most importantly -- what's stood the test of time.

herb4 said:

herb4 said:

Just go peruse the Billboard top 100 year by year and have a look at what was popular, what's good and -- most importantly -- what's stood the test of time.

That pretty much is because certain songs/movies/TV are still promoted in some way. Disco Duck by Rick Dees is still popular today. The Beatles & Elvis Presley still get new audiences because they are often talked about in the music media. They have dolls, board games, video games, clothing, and other merchandise. Elvis has a lot of movies that are shown on TV all the time too. Can't say that about Little Richard or Jackie Wilson, many of their albums are out of print. They don't get the same amount of promotion as The Beatles. Marilyn Monroe is probably more more known as a symbol by many people today than have actually watched her movies. Oldies radio/classic rock only plays certain songs by artists like Freebird & Stairway To Heaven over & over. Disney remake their cartoon movies as live action. Superman was created in the 1930s and Spider-Man in the 1960s and they are still popular because movies/TV shows continue to get made for them. There's Time-Life infomercials selling CD sets of old hits.

MickyDolenz said:

The last hit he wrote for an related artist was Love ...Thy Will Be Done in 1991.

After that no hits for Carmen Electra, Mavis Staples, Rosie Gaines, Mayte, Chaka Khan, Bria Valente or Andy Allo. That has nothing to do with age or too many albums...

So what would you be trying to say, ForbiddenFruit?

>

*He had poor songwriting for those acts?

*The talent could not sing?

*The acts didn't hit the zeitgiet?

*The music market's radically shifting structure changed hit-makers ability in those post-95 years?

>

A variety of factors could come into play to cause Prince's absence of hits. Which ones would you choose as a reasoning for this? Otherwise you're only stating the obvious, lolz.

>

ForbiddenFruit said:

The last hit he wrote for an related artist was Love ...Thy Will Be Done in 1991.

After that no hits for Carmen Electra, Mavis Staples, Rosie Gaines, Mayte, Chaka Khan, Bria Valente or Andy Allo. That has nothing to do with age or too many albums...

RODSERLING said:

herb4 said:

I never much cared about "hits' -- with Prince or any other music and art I liked.

A TON of my favorite bands, musicians, books and movies were never, EVER chart busters and I think it's a poor way overall to measure the quality of art. This capitalistic approach to judging success has shown us over and over again that "more popular" doesn't always mean "better", especially with art.

By this measure, The Eagles: Greatest Hits is the BEST album of all time. It's a prefectly fine album but does anyone really believe that it's the best one ever made?

Just go peruse the Billboard top 100 year by year and have a look at what was popular, what's good and -- most importantly -- what's stood the test of time.

Other albums sold more than Eagles Greatest hits. Not even taking into account its fake US certifications.

Yeah that was in the U.S. and it looks like Thriller overtook it again anyway so my information was dated and thanks for the correction, I suppose, but I still think it's relevant to my larger overall point regardless. Let's say The Eagles Greatest Hits was number 12 worldwide.

Is it the 12th best album ever made?

Is Avatar the second greatest movie of all time?

Do we rank Prince's singles and albums according to sales figures? Or his best shows based on attendence?

That's sort of what I was driving at, just to clarify a little.

We can get pedantic about it if we want but I think my overall point/opinion remains pretty obvious.

ForbiddenFruit said:

Good thing I don't gauge how good music is by if it's a hit or not lol

tab32792 said:

Weird thing was, thinking on it, he maybe could have had MORE "hits" -- even before the 1995 time period.

It's been discussed a lot, but some of his choices for singles even from his more popular albums were sometimes questionable and odd. If I Was Your Girlfriend and Glam Slam come immediately to mind.

I never much cared about his chart position so long as I liked the songs.

herb4 said:

ForbiddenFruit said:

Mavis Staples

Mavis Staples never really had any hits in the first place outside of The Staple Singers and that was for a few years in the 1970s. The majority of their records before the 1970s were gospel. Gospel/spiritual songs and gospel artists rarely got Top 40 airplay to become hit singles. The gospel singers that did dropped gospel to do secular like Sam Cooke, Aretha Franklin, Johnnie Taylor, Amy Grant, & Lou Rawls.

RODSERLING said:

Prince succeeded in what most popular 80's artists failed to : have hits in the 90's. I listened to Simple Minds, Hall and Oatesand Tears For Fears lately,When you think about it, they had big hits until 1989. Then came the year 1990, and like magic they were all gonegone forever. [Edited 3/10/21 23:15pm]

That's not true, at least in the US. Hall & Oates reached #11 in the fall of 1990 with "So Close" (and its follow-up "Don't Hold Back Your Love" just missed the top 40 at #41 in 1991). Simple Minds made the top 40 with "See The Lights" in 1991 and Tears For Fears took the excellent "Break It Down Again" to #25 as late as 1993. They were definitely bigger in the 80s but they each had some lingering commercial power at Top 40 into the early 90s.

[Edited 3/11/21 15:02pm]

renfield said:

Prince hasn't had a hit since 1995 because he hasn't written one. Sorry, but that's the truth.

[Edited 3/11/21 16:58pm]

Germanegro said:

It was his way of saying WELCOME TO PRINCE-WORLD lo-ellll! herb4 said:

Weird thing was, thinking on it, he maybe could have had MORE "hits" -- even before the 1995 time period.

It's been discussed a lot, but some of his choices for singles even from his more popular albums were sometimes questionable and odd. If I Was Your Girlfriend and Glam Slam come immediately to mind.

I never much cared about his chart position so long as I liked the songs.

They're fine tracks but not the best choices for singles if an artist is looking for a "hit", and I didn't think that was a controversial opinion.

Which is why I assume you're laughing at me and flipping me off with a no content post but you didn't really specify so I'm not entirely clear what that bullshit was all about. FWIW, I like the songs. Just bad singles. Which is the topic at hand.

IIWYG is a classic track but was a terrible choice for a single. Lovesexy had the title track sitting right there but we got Glam Slam. If you're gonna be a dick, at least explain yourself since, last I checked, neither of the songs I brought up exactly tore shit up and set album sales on fire.

Maybe I'm missing something but it's hard to tell when someone's only contribution is three (pretty offensive) emojis. I guess next time I have an opinion about something I'll just post emojis instead of complete coherent sentences explaining myself and the way I think.

If the mood strikes you, maybe delve into how much tremendous ass those songs I mentioned kicked ass and just crushed on the Hot 100 in ways that really drove album sales. Or not. I'll settle for whatever is locked and loaded on your phone that looks like a piece of poop or whatever.

Good post!