SantanaMaitreya said:

paisleypark4 said:

What sets him apart from the others was he was almost a one man show who has an entire studio complex shrine unlike ANY of those artists even more popular than him outside of Neverland Ranch. He will defenitley matter.

He was a bit like Frank Zappa. I recently watched a documentary about Zappa on Dutch tv, so he is not forgotten either. I think Prince will be remembered in the same way, as an amazing and very creative musician.

At the beginning of that Dutch documentary, Frank literally stole the keys to Prince's vault (or at least the combo number). Proudly standing inside, he exclaimed "Welcome to the Vault"! Come to think, there's probably a P album by that name. Since we already have "Welcome 2 America".

Se7en said:

Prince will still matter, but the general public only really cares about Purple Rain. That is the LOOK and SOUND that made Prince a household name. And, it's the album that is featured most on the radio.

But wow . . . 30 years from now. I don't know if I'll be here, but if I am I will still be listening to Prince.

oh no...u will long be gone by then taking nice dirt nap

[Edited 4/2/22 1:13am]

fortuneandserendipity said:

SantanaMaitreya said:

paisleypark4 said: He was a bit like Frank Zappa. I recently watched a documentary about Zappa on Dutch tv, so he is not forgotten either. I think Prince will be remembered in the same way, as an amazing and very creative musician.

At the beginning of that Dutch documentary, Frank literally stole the keys to Prince's vault (or at least the combo number). Proudly standing inside, he exclaimed "Welcome to the Vault"! Come to think, there's probably a P album by that name. Since we already have "Welcome 2 America".

I was starting that Doc. Need to finish it

Prince will matter as long as Music matters.............

^ The same cannot be said for the triple+ tracked vocals that make up the snoozefest of today's music.

while Purple Rain song/album/movie has certainly achieved cult status and will always be highlighted whenever people look back at the most iconic moments of the 80s, I believe Prince's broader impact on the music industry as a whole, especially regarding genres/formats/distribuition is sadly underlooked even today (not sure if this will change for the better in the future)

funkman88 said:

Se7en said:

Prince will still matter, but the general public only really cares about Purple Rain. That is the LOOK and SOUND that made Prince a household name. And, it's the album that is featured most on the radio.

But wow . . . 30 years from now. I don't know if I'll be here, but if I am I will still be listening to Prince.

oh no...u will long be gone by then taking nice dirt nap

Sometimes I wonder if you and funkbabyandthebabysitters are the same person. You both troll hard.

darkroman said:

Today I asked a 24 year old kid if he had heard of Prince and the answer was, "no". Remember Prince hadn't had a hit single in over 25 years!!!

.

Ask the same 24-year-old if he has ever heard of The Beatles. Or Led Zeppelin. Or Coltrane. Or Duke Ellington. Or Beethoven. Or hundreds of other (objectively) important musicians. Is it just Prince that he doesn't know?

.

Many people are not interested in past musicians, so by definition those people won't remember past musicians.

.

At the end of the day, I don't care if people that are not musically curious don't know important musicians. It's their loss.

.

As Databank wrote, a challenge for musically curious people is to discover new talents in a context where we've never had access to so much music. Since our time is limited, this is a hard problem to solve.

^ Most people are interested in what's trending musically because they think that's trendy and cool. Similar to fashion where most women and some men have to wear the latest trends. But what these supposed music lovers don't understand, is that even if today's music scene was vital - say, by volume compared to the past - it's still a microcosm of time, and by dint of that, they would still be missing out on so much.

fortuneandserendipity said:

^ Most people are interested in what's trending musically because they think that's trendy and cool. Similar to fashion where most women and some men have to wear the latest trends. But what these supposed music lovers don't understand, is that even if today's music scene was vital - say, by volume compared to the past - it's still a microcosm of time, and by dint of that, they would still be missing out on so much.

I wouldn't put it like that. People who care about what's trendy and cool (hipsters, if you will) also care for music history and past talents, because it's another -equally strong- sign of sophistication.

.

The people you're talking about are those who just eat what they're being fed, whether by mass media or the other kids around them. They may think it's "cool", but ask them why it is, and they probably won't be able to tell.

.

At some point, acquiring one's own musical tastes requires some active involvement and curiosity, to explore a vast diversity of genres and eras. Many people don't have clearly defined preferences, they will just accept what comes to them and make it their own. Then, as demonstraed by these streaming services studies I mentioned above, they will grow old and they won't even accept what comes to them anymore, satisfied with their existing library, no matter how limited in scope.

.

In a way, the way many people listen to music is comparable to being a christian or a muslim or whatever because your family and social environment is: you never questioned the status quo too much, you never made your own free call after thoroughly studying every option. You just take for granted what is served to you, and automatically consider the other options as being weird or even offensive.

.

And that's how we sometimes ended-up with people writing on the Org that Prince's instrumental albums weren't "real" albums. These people didn't dislike instrumental music (you need to know something to dislike it): they were just so unexposed to it that it didn't even fit their definition of music, which is probably "a 3 to 4 minutes piece of music with someone singing 3 verses and 3 choruses, with a bridge and a beat".

.

Now it's a decision to make: is music is just something you enjoy casually, or something you enjoy so much that you want to explore it in depth, and get knowledgeable about it. Most people have jobs, kids, etc.

olb99 said:

darkroman said:

Today I asked a 24 year old kid if he had heard of Prince and the answer was, "no". Remember Prince hadn't had a hit single in over 25 years!!!

.

Ask the same 24-year-old if he has ever heard of The Beatles. Or Led Zeppelin. Or Coltrane. Or Duke Ellington. Or Beethoven. Or hundreds of other (objectively) important musicians. Is it just Prince that he doesn't know?

.

Many people are not interested in past musicians, so by definition those people won't remember past musicians.

.

At the end of the day, I don't care if people that are not musically curious don't know important musicians. It's their loss.

.

As Databank wrote, a challenge for musically curious people is to discover new talents in a context where we've never had access to so much music. Since our time is limited, this is a hard problem to solve.

It's getting vertiginous. Because I've mostly worked from home all my life, I've been able to spend my days listening to music non stop. And even with a library of (currently) over 7000 records, I still find myself digging up brilliant stuff every day, from both the past and present times. I think even if I lived 500 years, I'd still be at it until my last day, and there would still be that obscure yet brilliant record from 25 years ago that I somehow missed. What if I was born in 2076 instead of 1976, with over a century of recorded music available? It's getting crazier every day...

databank said:

olb99 said:

.

Ask the same 24-year-old if he has ever heard of The Beatles. Or Led Zeppelin. Or Coltrane. Or Duke Ellington. Or Beethoven. Or hundreds of other (objectively) important musicians. Is it just Prince that he doesn't know?

.

Many people are not interested in past musicians, so by definition those people won't remember past musicians.

.

At the end of the day, I don't care if people that are not musically curious don't know important musicians. It's their loss.

.

As Databank wrote, a challenge for musically curious people is to discover new talents in a context where we've never had access to so much music. Since our time is limited, this is a hard problem to solve.

It's getting vertiginous. Because I've mostly worked from home all my life, I've been able to spend my days listening to music non stop. And even with a library of (currently) over 7000 records, I still find myself digging up brilliant stuff every day, from both the past and present times. I think even if I lived 500 years, I'd still be at it until my last day, and there would still be that obscure yet brilliant record from 25 years ago that I somehow missed. What if I was born in 2076 instead of 1976, with over a century of recorded music available? It's getting crazier every day...

Let me recommend a few great, underrated artists/bands whose stuff you may not have heard, as with over 7000 records you definitely meet the definition of true music lover!

Todd Rundgren, Frank Zappa, The Orb, Super Furry Animals, The Boo Radleys.

fortuneandserendipity said:

^ The same cannot be said for the triple+ tracked vocals that make up the snoozefest of today's music.

Don't you mean triple-tracked auto-tuned vocals?

fortuneandserendipity said:

databank said:

It's getting vertiginous. Because I've mostly worked from home all my life, I've been able to spend my days listening to music non stop. And even with a library of (currently) over 7000 records, I still find myself digging up brilliant stuff every day, from both the past and present times. I think even if I lived 500 years, I'd still be at it until my last day, and there would still be that obscure yet brilliant record from 25 years ago that I somehow missed. What if I was born in 2076 instead of 1976, with over a century of recorded music available? It's getting crazier every day...

Let me recommend a few great, underrated artists/bands whose stuff you may not have heard, as with over 7000 records you definitely meet the definition of true music lover!

Todd Rundgren, Frank Zappa, The Orb, Super Furry Animals, The Boo Radleys.

I only have some Zappa and The Orb. The others I know by name, but haven't heard. Will check it out, thanks

kingricefan said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

^ The same cannot be said for the triple+ tracked vocals that make up the snoozefest of today's music.

Don't you mean triple-tracked auto-tuned vocals?

Yes, of course auto-tuned as well. I didn't want to say double tracked vocals. Because John Lennon double tracked all his vocals and they sound great. But my point is, it sounds like there are 3 of them singing but they're all one person. It's just not music, but they're all doing it. I don't understand.

Does it "matter" if people are still listening to him in droves in 2051 or even next year ?

For the same reason it didn't matter that he didn't have a hit record for like 20 years...

WHO CARES?

It's the beauty of his artwork, his vulnerability, his honesty, his sweet soul that made you want to get up and dance, or show compassion, or show love for your woman

Maybe one person or ten million people. For the people who find him...it makes them feel alive, loved and special right ?

That's the standard. Not charts.

XNY said:

XNY said:

Does it "matter" if people are still listening to him in droves in 2051 or even next year ?

For the same reason it didn't matter that he didn't have a hit record for like 20 years...

WHO CARES?

It's the beauty of his artwork, his vulnerability, his honesty, his sweet soul that made you want to get up and dance, or show compassion, or show love for your woman

Maybe one person or ten million people. For the people who find him...it makes them feel alive, loved and special right ?

That's the standard. Not charts.

.

I've never understood some people's obsession with charts. But, at the same time, Prince was kind of obsessed with them. I mean, even musicians such as Miles Davis wanted to be popular (especially in the second part of his career).

.

Also, I discovered Prince by (randomly) recording "Batdance" on the radio in 1989, so charts/singles have indirectly had a huge impact on my life, I guess. Go figure.

.

I'm more and more convinced that lists/charts (e.g. lists of "most important movies of all time", etc.) are important, especially in our era of artistic abundance, but most of those lists/charts are unfortunately quite bad and thus useless. So we need charts... for charts? I'll get a second cup of coffee and get back to you, okay?

paisleypark4 said:

What sets him apart from the others was he was almost a one man show who has an entire studio complex shrine unlike ANY of those artists even more popular than him outside of Neverland Ranch. He will defenitley matter.

-

Neverland ranch isn't a studio.

It's an amusements park for children, no ?

-

Vannormal said:

funkman88 said:

Graycap23 said:

Prince will matter as long as Music matters.............

That's the fucking answer right there.

it'll take a popular bio pic (that garners attention and a following from kids/teens and early twenty year olds) and/or a popular artist like Billie Eilish expressing their admiration/obsession with Prince

AvocadosMax said:

it'll take a popular bio pic (that garners attention and a following from kids/teens and early twenty year olds) and/or a popular artist like Billie Eilish expressing their admiration/obsession with Prince

because the estate isn't gonna keep his legacy alive 20-30 years from now.... they are just milking the cow that is the vault.... just wait until they milk the cow dry; see how much they will care then

Free2BMe said:

Vannormal said:

-

Neverland ranch isn't a studio.

It's an amusements park for children, no ?

-

FYI, Neverland Ranch was built as Michael’s HOME. The amusement rides, trains, etc. were things that he and subsequently his own children enjoyed, so that he could enjoy at home instead of having to go to Disney Land or Disney World all the time.He opened it up and invited thousands of inner city children and their families, his celebrity friends, soldiers returning from war and their families, etc. It was never built just for a childrens’ amusement park. It was Michael’s home more than anything else. One last tidbit, Jermaine Jackson said Neverland was so beautiful, relaxing and tranquil NO ONE ever wanted to leave. I’ve read other people who visited there say the exact same thing. [Edited 10/13/21 8:55am]

-

Yeah I know it was Michael's Home...

Sounds utterly freaky creepy if you ask me.

Thanks for the warning!

-

By the way i found my answer on the internet.

So he had a recording studio on his property,

ànd a dancestudio, ohlala.

-

[Edited 10/14/21 4:36am]

TrivialPursuit said:

Graycap23 said:

Prince will matter as long as Music matters.............

That's the fucking answer right there.