New 8-page feature in March/April UK Esquire:

https://www.esquire.com/u...-petridis/

Thanks for posting

What do peeps think of this article?

Thanks for posting.

I don't have any problems with the article's tone but get why some might.

It's probably a pretty accurate reflection of a lot of things, including how difficult he could be, and calls him out a little bit but also doesn't spare on heaping a ton of praise on him either. The fact that it's obvious not written by a sychophant probably makes it seem more critical and bitter than it was likely intended to be.

I enjoyed reading it and thanks for posting it.

"...ping-pong bat"

???

herb4 said:

I don't have any problems with the article's tone but get why some might.

It's probably a pretty accurate reflection of a lot of things, including how difficult he could be, and calls him out a little bit but also doesn't spare on heaping a ton of praise on him either. The fact that it's obvious not written by a sychophant probably makes it seem more critical and bitter than it was likely intended to be.

I enjoyed reading it and thanks for posting it.

I would align w/this view.

I think the tone is right on the money, because it takes into account how he could really be. I get tired of the slavish devotion heaped on him, while not acknowledging his flaws. That he IS human makes me appreciate his genius more, because i can relate to him.

I never understood that Oprah interview. Something changed in me after learning the actual timeline, and then really thinking how hard that would have been for a mother to lie about her grief. Because I know it was his influence, as he had always played fast and loose with his personal story. But again, he was making his image, and that wasn't going to be part of it.

And I like that the author mentions the disparity between his prolific output and quality in the 90s and 00s. There are still moments of wonder to be found (and I'm a big fan of AOA) but one must dig for them.

None of the article affects my love for him, as I am not a cultist. If anything it shows me that despite a fairly ordinary upbringing and education he creates himself and his myth through hard work and constant self-challenge and expression. His "genius" is even more awesome when one thinks that he might not have been born with it, but WILLED it into being.

Man do I miss him.

shakalakaboom said:

I think the tone is right on the money, because it takes into account how he could really be. I get tired of the slavish devotion heaped on him, while not acknowledging his flaws. That he IS human makes me appreciate his genius more, because i can relate to him.

I never understood that Oprah interview. Something changed in me after learning the actual timeline, and then really thinking how hard that would have been for a mother to lie about her grief. Because I know it was his influence, as he had always played fast and loose with his personal story. But again, he was making his image, and that wasn't going to be part of it.

And I like that the author mentions the disparity between his prolific output and quality in the 90s and 00s. There are still moments of wonder to be found (and I'm a big fan of AOA) but one must dig for them.

None of the article affects my love for him, as I am not a cultist. If anything it shows me that despite a fairly ordinary upbringing and education he creates himself and his myth through hard work and constant self-challenge and expression. His "genius" is even more awesome when one thinks that he might not have been born with it, but WILLED it into being.

Man do I miss him.

Very balanced post

I miss him too. What an extraordinary person but there is no need to be 'slavishly devoted'.

Good article. While obviously Prince has solid albums post 1992, and oodles of good tracks that go unheard and unappreciated, you'll be hard pressed to find someone who will seriously be the one to recommend a post 1992 album as an introduction to Prince. I know there's a few on here who will but, well, I doubt they're making many converts.

shakalakaboom said:

I think the tone is right on the money, because it takes into account how he could really be. I get tired of the slavish devotion heaped on him, while not acknowledging his flaws. That he IS human makes me appreciate his genius more, because i can relate to him.

I never understood that Oprah interview. Something changed in me after learning the actual timeline, and then really thinking how hard that would have been for a mother to lie about her grief. Because I know it was his influence, as he had always played fast and loose with his personal story. But again, he was making his image, and that wasn't going to be part of it.

And I like that the author mentions the disparity between his prolific output and quality in the 90s and 00s. There are still moments of wonder to be found (and I'm a big fan of AOA) but one must dig for them.

None of the article affects my love for him, as I am not a cultist. If anything it shows me that despite a fairly ordinary upbringing and education he creates himself and his myth through hard work and constant self-challenge and expression. His "genius" is even more awesome when one thinks that he might not have been born with it, but WILLED it into being.

Man do I miss him.

I agree with most of this and found it to be a good post. I bolded the problem though, at least as it relates to this website.

I love the man and his music to death but have zero trouble believing he could occasionally be an arrogant off putting jerk or a real pain in the ass to deal with. I don't even realy fault him for that though. He spun what he was given into gold and it doesn't sound like he had a lot of guidance or help from his parents from a very young age.

The article wasn't even really saying he was any kind of trouble really and the parts that weren't gushing with praise were more about scratching ones head than really calling him out in any way that could be read as insulting.

Can't believe it's almost been 5 years.

herb4 said:

shakalakaboom said:

I think the tone is right on the money, because it takes into account how he could really be. I get tired of the slavish devotion heaped on him, while not acknowledging his flaws. That he IS human makes me appreciate his genius more, because i can relate to him.

I never understood that Oprah interview. Something changed in me after learning the actual timeline, and then really thinking how hard that would have been for a mother to lie about her grief. Because I know it was his influence, as he had always played fast and loose with his personal story. But again, he was making his image, and that wasn't going to be part of it.

And I like that the author mentions the disparity between his prolific output and quality in the 90s and 00s. There are still moments of wonder to be found (and I'm a big fan of AOA) but one must dig for them.

None of the article affects my love for him, as I am not a cultist. If anything it shows me that despite a fairly ordinary upbringing and education he creates himself and his myth through hard work and constant self-challenge and expression. His "genius" is even more awesome when one thinks that he might not have been born with it, but WILLED it into being.

Man do I miss him.

I agree with most of this and found it to be a good post. I bolded the problem though, at least as it relates to this website.

I love the man and his music to death but have zero trouble believing he could occasionally be an arrogant off putting jerk or a real pain in the ass to deal with. I don't even realy fault him for that though. He spun what he was given into gold and it doesn't sound like he had a lot of guidance or help from his parents from a very young age.

The article wasn't even really saying he was any kind of trouble really and the parts that weren't gushing with praise were more about scratching ones head than really calling him out in any way that could be read as insulting.

Can't believe it's almost been 5 years.

Remembering Vanity Five Years Later

https://prince.org/msg/5/466014

I can kinda see the author getting this assignment and saying to himself "I'm not going to write a puff piece", but then going out of his way to prove that he's not writing a puff piece.

There's the usual amount of praise, with some disrespect sprinkled here and there . . . for what, literary integrity?

And yet, nothing he says is incorrect. It's just the way he says it.

Everyone knows that Prince was difficult to work with, but I'd almost ask which artist isn't?

Maybe the guy was just annoyed; he came from the EU on short notice, likely jet-lagged and had to go through guessing games w/Prince.

I don't find it harmful...a bit amusing. At least it's not the sycophantic stuff.

Se7en said:

I can kinda see the author getting this assignment and saying to himself "I'm not going to write a puff piece", but then going out of his way to prove that he's not writing a puff piece.

There's the usual amount of praise, with some disrespect sprinkled here and there . . . for what, literary integrity?

And yet, nothing he says is incorrect. It's just the way he says it.

Everyone knows that Prince was difficult to work with, but I'd almost ask which artist isn't?

Could just be one person's preception going in to write an assignment as best they can on short notice. Reminded me a little bit of the Kevin Smith stories.

Like, if I got asked to write a piece on someone who was perceived rather odd like, say (I dunno), Marylin Manson - who I've HEARD a lot about but don't KNOW a lot about - and for whom I wouldn't say I was a "fan", I could see it coming off snarky or whatever from members on his fan board if I poked fun at his schtick or failed to kiss his ass enough.

The author seemed clearly objective and I came away impressed overall from what seemed like them largely doing thier homework, even if they weren't a "hardcore fan". I didn't spot any of what I would typically label "the usual mistakes" or cheap dismissals. They wouldn't be the first person to enter Prince's world and wonder exactly WTF was going on, I don't think.

Prince seemed to want it that way and rather reveled in it in fact. It was a big part of what made him so much fun and what I love about him but, for a lot of people, that mileage can vary.

Not sure what the arguments about "tone" really amount to but I have a few suspicions. Unless someone posts something dealing in specifics, I can only hazard a guess, you know?

shakalakaboom said:

jaawwnn said:

Good article. While obviously Prince has solid albums post 1992, and oodles of good tracks that go unheard and unappreciated, you'll be hard pressed to find someone who will seriously be the one to recommend a post 1992 album as an introduction to Prince. I know there's a few on here who will but, well, I doubt they're making many converts.

something easily accessible and right off the bat genius to someone just getting started doesn't mean something less accessible isn't just as good or better.

for instance i probably wouldn't suggest Come as someone's first p album even though it's in my top 5 and i think a masterwork front to back, but i don't think that's a fair criteria to judge how solid something is or not. there's the question of how "important" or "innovative" something is/was but again i think a lot of that is right place right time bullshit that people put too much faith in and use it to unfairly malign incredibly great records.

don't mind me, i'm just IRATE that this jackass article dared to say he never made a solid record past 80-whatever.

lustmealways said:

jaawwnn said:

Good article. While obviously Prince has solid albums post 1992, and oodles of good tracks that go unheard and unappreciated, you'll be hard pressed to find someone who will seriously be the one to recommend a post 1992 album as an introduction to Prince. I know there's a few on here who will but, well, I doubt they're making many converts.

something easily accessible and right off the bat genius to someone just getting started doesn't mean something less accessible isn't just as good or better.

for instance i probably wouldn't suggest Come as someone's first p album even though it's in my top 5 and i think a masterwork front to back, but i don't think that's a fair criteria to judge how solid something is or not. there's the question of how "important" or "innovative" something is/was but again i think a lot of that is right place right time bullshit that people put too much faith in and use it to unfairly malign incredibly great records.

don't mind me, i'm just IRATE that this jackass article dared to say he never made a solid record past 80-whatever.

Yes, that's a fair point. Come and Rainbow Children are probably my fav post 1992 albums. Ah, everyone with a long career has a period most agree on, and the more successful they were in that period usually the more ignored their latter-day stuff is.

Se7en said:

Everyone knows that Prince was difficult to work with, but I'd almost ask which artist isn't?

Dave Grohl