bizzie said:

Why link to some shitty rewrite, when the actual interview is available? https://www.hollywoodrepo...235790801/ . And their review of the doc has some more: https://www.hollywoodrepo...235792276/ .

Why have multiple profiles when surely one would suffice.

rap said:

Why have multiple profiles when surely one would suffice.

funkbabyandthebabysitters said:

RODSERLING said:

They tried a revival of that song in 2010, but that was a flop. Even the 2004 MJ demo is not popular. That song was a tremendous success when released, but wasn't popular anymore already in the 1990's. It has 139 millions streams on Spotify, which is like peanuts for the best selling hit of the 1980's. I mean, even Raspberry Beret has 215 millions streams, so that says a lot. No one cares about Prince not doing it. It may did the headlines back in 1985, but time has passed since. We ll see if that doc generates more interest in the song.

the song isnt the important thing

its what it was FOR and the fact these giants of pop music came together for that cause (irrespective of the song's musical merits)

the numbers the song does now do not matter

its what it MEANT

its also just about an important musical moment (live aid etc), the idea of music galvanising people, about music raising awareness, the notion of musicians being about more than just music (no matter what you think of this idea), and the EVENT of everyone recording together, putting egos aside (mostly lol), etc etc.

The giants of pop music came together because it made them look good, not because they truly cared. It's what these days would be called "virtue signaling".

Prince was incredibly philanthropic, but he had the exact opposite approach to it. Most of his charity was anonymous. He did it that way he wanted to help people, not because he wanted credit. I think he (justifiably) looked down on celebrities who publicized their philanthropic endeavors.

Also, Prince donated a unique song to the album. Being that he was one of the hottest acts in the world at that time, they surely help boost sales of the album. To act like that's nothing, and his participation in a group song is more important, is nonsense. There was no reason to pressure him to join the group song than for the sake of conformity.

I'm glad he skipped it. In fact, I'm proud of Prince for not going.

lurker316 said:

funkbabyandthebabysitters said:

the song isnt the important thing

its what it was FOR and the fact these giants of pop music came together for that cause (irrespective of the song's musical merits)

the numbers the song does now do not matter

its what it MEANT

its also just about an important musical moment (live aid etc), the idea of music galvanising people, about music raising awareness, the notion of musicians being about more than just music (no matter what you think of this idea), and the EVENT of everyone recording together, putting egos aside (mostly lol), etc etc.

The giants of pop music came together because it made them look good, not because they truly cared. It's what these days would be called "virtue signaling".

Prince was incredibly philanthropic, but he had the exact opposite approach to it. Most of his charity was anonymous. He did it that way he wanted to help people, not because he wanted credit. I think he (justifiably) looked down on celebrities who publicized their philanthropic endeavors.

Also, Prince donated a unique song to the album. Being that he was one of the hottest acts in the world at that time, they surely help boost sales of the album. To act like that's nothing, and his participation in a group song is more important, is nonsense. There was no reason to pressure him to join the group song than for the sake of conformity.

I'm glad he skipped it. In fact, I'm proud of Prince for not going.

virtue signalling today tends to be about people posting online.

i dont know if recording a song is quite as easy as writing a tweet.

i dont deny there was vanity and self interest involved, but few good deeds are entirely altruistic. and lionel, MJ, quincy etc, might say that their public status helped spread the word, even if it made them look publicity-hungry.

in spite of that self interest, they still raised that money for a good cause ultimately.

im personally ok with prince just donating a song (and i like how he kept his charity work undercover), but i also know how these things look, and can be made to look.

funkbabyandthebabysitters said:

lurker316 said:

The giants of pop music came together because it made them look good, not because they truly cared. It's what these days would be called "virtue signaling".

Prince was incredibly philanthropic, but he had the exact opposite approach to it. Most of his charity was anonymous. He did it that way he wanted to help people, not because he wanted credit. I think he (justifiably) looked down on celebrities who publicized their philanthropic endeavors.

Also, Prince donated a unique song to the album. Being that he was one of the hottest acts in the world at that time, they surely help boost sales of the album. To act like that's nothing, and his participation in a group song is more important, is nonsense. There was no reason to pressure him to join the group song than for the sake of conformity.

I'm glad he skipped it. In fact, I'm proud of Prince for not going.

virtue signalling today tends to be about people posting online.

i dont know if recording a song is quite as easy as writing a tweet.

i dont deny there was vanity and self interest involved, but few good deeds are entirely altruistic. and lionel, MJ, quincy etc, might say that their public status helped spread the word, even if it made them look publicity-hungry.

in spite of that self interest, they still raised that money for a good cause ultimately.

im personally ok with prince just donating a song (and i like how he kept his charity work undercover), but i also know how these things look, and can be made to look.

But this virtue signalling was before today.

"We are the World" needs to be considered in its historical place and time, not in comparison with the ease of tweeting today.

In its place and time, it was a mix of good and bad intentions - Was it for the Ethiopians or for Pepsi? Harry Belefonte's excellent idea to follow on from "Do They Know its Christmas?" became something that was more about the people being seen to do good than the good they were doing. Then there was the egos and politics about who was going to be in it, how much of the song each artist got etc. The name of the supergroup - USA for Africa (United Support of Artists for Africa) and the song title gave the whole thing the feel that about being seen to do better than the Brits and Irish (Not that the original song did not have problems eg how Bono's line sounded).

Bob Geldof has since stated that he is responsible for two of the worst songs in history - ie these two. The success or failure of the two is more demonstrated by who it helped and its longevity. Whilst world hunger crises has not abated, the surviving legacy is the annual Farm Aid concert for farmers in the USA.

IanRG said:

funkbabyandthebabysitters said:

virtue signalling today tends to be about people posting online.

i dont know if recording a song is quite as easy as writing a tweet.

i dont deny there was vanity and self interest involved, but few good deeds are entirely altruistic. and lionel, MJ, quincy etc, might say that their public status helped spread the word, even if it made them look publicity-hungry.

in spite of that self interest, they still raised that money for a good cause ultimately.

im personally ok with prince just donating a song (and i like how he kept his charity work undercover), but i also know how these things look, and can be made to look.

But this virtue signalling was before today.

"We are the World" needs to be considered in its historical place and time, not in comparison with the ease of tweeting today.

In its place and time, it was a mix of good and bad intentions - Was it for the Ethiopians or for Pepsi? Harry Belefonte's excellent idea to follow on from "Do They Know its Christmas?" became something that was more about the people being seen to do good than the good they were doing. Then there was the egos and politics about who was going to be in it, how much of the song each artist got etc. The name of the supergroup - USA for Africa (United Support of Artists for Africa) and the song title gave the whole thing the feel that about being seen to do better than the Brits and Irish (Not that the original song did not have problems eg how Bono's line sounded).

Bob Geldof has since stated that he is responsible for two of the worst songs in history - ie these two. The success or failure of the two is more demonstrated by who it helped and its longevity. Whilst world hunger crises has not abated, the surviving legacy is the annual Farm Aid concert for farmers in the USA.

Very well stated.

lurker316 said:

funkbabyandthebabysitters said:

the song isnt the important thing

its what it was FOR and the fact these giants of pop music came together for that cause (irrespective of the song's musical merits)

the numbers the song does now do not matter

its what it MEANT

its also just about an important musical moment (live aid etc), the idea of music galvanising people, about music raising awareness, the notion of musicians being about more than just music (no matter what you think of this idea), and the EVENT of everyone recording together, putting egos aside (mostly lol), etc etc.

The giants of pop music came together because it made them look good, not because they truly cared. It's what these days would be called "virtue signaling".

Prince was incredibly philanthropic, but he had the exact opposite approach to it. Most of his charity was anonymous. He did it that way he wanted to help people, not because he wanted credit. I think he (justifiably) looked down on celebrities who publicized their philanthropic endeavors.

Also, Prince donated a unique song to the album. Being that he was one of the hottest acts in the world at that time, they surely help boost sales of the album. To act like that's nothing, and his participation in a group song is more important, is nonsense. There was no reason to pressure him to join the group song than for the sake of conformity.

I'm glad he skipped it. In fact, I'm proud of Prince for not going.

He donated a song that was better than that cheesy We Are The World.
I remember reports from back then that Madonnawasn't there because she wasn't asked or because some people there thought she didn't deserve to be there
At least Prince offered to play guitar on the track and they refused that, so it's kind of there own fault that he wasn't there.

Prince made a fool of himself here. ))))

Prince the asshole.

Prine the prick.

Prince "the wrong place wrong joke".

nayroo2002 said:

JorisE73 said:

He donated a song that was better than that cheesy We Are The World.
I remember reports from back then that Madonnawasn't there because she wasn't asked or because some people there thought she didn't deserve to be there
At least Prince offered to play guitar on the track and they refused that, so it's kind of there own fault that he wasn't there.

Exactly !

But,

he "was ruled out after he demanded a guitar solo to be recorded in a separate room."

-

Maybe not enough time to organise that.

All was done so fast. The writing, the organising, the recording.

And Prince's demands - we all know this - are mostly only doable within his entourage, those who know his iinstant whims and thrills.

No one could deal outside of Prince's camp with his fast demands, i'm sure.

[Edited 1/24/24 1:33am]

At that point of his career, that's who he was.

If We Are The World was done during the mid 90s, he probably would have joined.

I always heard/read that Prince wanted to just have a guitar spot in the song, to which there isn't one . . .

Vannormal said:

Prince made a fool of himself here. ))))

Prince the asshole.

Prine the prick.

Prince "the wrong place wrong joke".

nayroo2002 said:

Tom Jones gets the joke...

Vannormal said:

Prince made a fool of himself here. ))))

Prince the asshole.

Prine the prick.

Prince "the wrong place wrong joke".

nayroo2002 said:

You don't think that perhaps it could have been Quincy Jones being a dick instead?

Prince was only in the group on stage because it was the closing of the AMAs where he received a Merit award. The song at the close was We are the world only because it 10 years later. Quincy Jones knew Prince knocked back the invite to be a singer in this song and he was just trying to one up Prince by getting him to sing.

IanRG said:

Vannormal said:

Prince made a fool of himself here. ))))

Prince the asshole.

Prine the prick.

Prince "the wrong place wrong joke".

You don't think that perhaps it could have been Quincy Jones being a dick instead?

Prince was only in the group on stage because it was the closing of the AMAs where he received a Merit award. The song at the close was We are the world only because it 10 years later. Quincy Jones knew Prince knocked back the invite to be a singer in this song and he was just trying to one up Prince by getting him to sing.

No.

Prince remained a prick here, nevertheless.

@Se7en said if Prince was asked for this 10 years later, he would've joined, them... NOT. Her's the proof. He didn't sing. He could've sang, and lef this ego behind. But no, he made it again about him.

Prince is a 'solo-stage-persona,' he doesn't tolerate others on stage to share a spot with, unless it is on his demands.

Remember the George Harrison (sorry made a mistake here) tribute? He made it (nearly) his own, slightly out of place actually, but brilliantly performed. Luckily that save his slightly overdone show.

[Edited 1/25/24 7:55am]

Vannormal said:

No.

Prince remained a prick here, nevertheless.

Remember the Tom Petty tribute? He made it (nearly) his own, slightly out of place actually, but brilliantly performed. Luckily that save his slightly overdone show.

What is this you speak of???

nayroo2002 said:

Vannormal said:

No.

Prince remained a prick here, nevertheless.

Remember the George Harrison tribute? He made it (nearly) his own, slightly out of place actually, but brilliantly performed. Luckily that save his slightly overdone show.

What is this you speak of???

THX

Yeah i see it too...

Corrected!

Vannormal said:

IanRG said:

You don't think that perhaps it could have been Quincy Jones being a dick instead?

Prince was only in the group on stage because it was the closing of the AMAs where he received a Merit award. The song at the close was We are the world only because it 10 years later. Quincy Jones knew Prince knocked back the invite to be a singer in this song and he was just trying to one up Prince by getting him to sing.

No.

Prince remained a prick here, nevertheless.

@Se7en said if Prince was asked for this 10 years later, he would've joined, them... NOT. Her's the proof. He didn't sing. He could've sang, and lef this ego behind. But no, he made it again about him.

Prince is a 'solo-stage-persona,' he doesn't tolerate others on stage to share a spot with, unless it is on his demands.

Remember the George Harrison (sorry made a mistake here) tribute? He made it (nearly) his own, slightly out of place actually, but brilliantly performed. Luckily that save his slightly overdone show.

[Edited 1/25/24 7:55am]

Prince remained ever Prince and Quincy remained ever Quincy.

Prince was there to be recognised with a Merit award for his achievements and Quincy disrespected this to try to get him to sing a song that he had knew Prince had previously refused to sing and knew that Prince was not going to sing. Quincy had the choice to not do this. Prince's response was to turn it into a joke whilst not being forced or tricked into doing what Quincy knew he did not want to do. This is Not Quincy.org.

Yes, I remember Prince's performance when Prince was inducted into the Hall of Fame. Even after your correction, it was not just a George Harrison tribute, it was all the inducted artists plus Harrison's son performing a Harrison song at the end because, for Harrison, it was a posthumous award. Each artist was given a chance to shine and be the centre of attention. All Prince did was shine more.

[Edited 1/25/24 11:51am]

Mind your P's & Q's, please.

nayroo2002 said:

Mind your P's & Q's, please.

Good one!!

RODSERLING said:

Nothing new here, everybody already knew he was to sing the Huey Lewis part. Lol I hope they have more revelations than that to sell their doc.

The documentary isn't made for Prince fans. That this tiny tidbit was shared on Prince.org is to be expected. The people making this documentary could care less other than Prince's involvement being a footnote.

IanRG said:

Vannormal said:

No.

Prince remained a prick here, nevertheless.

@Se7en said if Prince was asked for this 10 years later, he would've joined, them... NOT. Her's the proof. He didn't sing. He could've sang, and lef this ego behind. But no, he made it again about him.

Prince is a 'solo-stage-persona,' he doesn't tolerate others on stage to share a spot with, unless it is on his demands.

Remember the George Harrison (sorry made a mistake here) tribute? He made it (nearly) his own, slightly out of place actually, but brilliantly performed. Luckily that save his slightly overdone show.

[Edited 1/25/24 7:55am]

Prince remained ever Prince and Quincy remained ever Quincy.

Prince was there to be recognised with a Merit award for his achievements and Quincy disrespected this to try to get him to sing a song that he had knew Prince had previously refused to sing and knew that Prince was not going to sing. Quincy had the choice to not do this. Prince's response was to turn it into a joke whilst not being forced or tricked into doing what Quincy knew he did not want to do. This is Not Quincy.org.

Yes, I remember Prince's performance when Prince was inducted into the Hall of Fame. Even after your correction, it was not just a George Harrison tribute, it was all the inducted artists plus Harrison's son performing a Harrison song at the end because, for Harrison, it was a posthumous award. Each artist was given a chance to shine and be the centre of attention. All Prince did was shine more.

[Edited 1/25/24 11:51am]

I had to be more precise, it's my opinion.

Indeed Prince was recognised with an award, true. That part already passed.

Then during the "We Are The World" part, it was not about Prince, not about Quincy, not about the others as well. It was in my opinion, about paying respect to sing a song ALL together, written and performed for people in the world in need. That's what it ws all about.

Prince also had the choice to do right (this time), that's what I think. Quincy is not a singer, but he sang. Find me wrong in what i think, that's perfectly OK.

Prince, like all of us, is an ordinary human being, with flaws and absurdities. I am a big fan, but certainly don't want to condone everything he does (wrong).

By the way, that Merit award '95 speech, was the most relaxed, fun and true Prince thank-you speech I ever heard from him. He was so 'normal' on stage. He thanked everyone from The Revolution members (starting with mentioning Wendy & Susanah iirc), to his then curret band. He was visually pleased and open.

-

True through, Prince shone as the best at that Harrison tribute.

Most of you made really good points, but on top of it all, ain't the song SHIT to begin with?

It sure wasn't the greatest song of all, but that was not the point.

The song was written in a very short time to make 'money.'

Ant it succeeded in that.

In a very short time, it eventually made 80milion dollar, iirc, and all that for a very good cause.

That was the most important. Not the song, not the writeres, not the performers, and certainly not Prince.

Again, what concernes Prince, imho of course.

Vannormal said:

IanRG said:

Prince remained ever Prince and Quincy remained ever Quincy.

Prince was there to be recognised with a Merit award for his achievements and Quincy disrespected this to try to get him to sing a song that he had knew Prince had previously refused to sing and knew that Prince was not going to sing. Quincy had the choice to not do this. Prince's response was to turn it into a joke whilst not being forced or tricked into doing what Quincy knew he did not want to do. This is Not Quincy.org.

Yes, I remember Prince's performance when Prince was inducted into the Hall of Fame. Even after your correction, it was not just a George Harrison tribute, it was all the inducted artists plus Harrison's son performing a Harrison song at the end because, for Harrison, it was a posthumous award. Each artist was given a chance to shine and be the centre of attention. All Prince did was shine more.

[Edited 1/25/24 11:51am]

I had to be more precise, it's my opinion.

Indeed Prince was recognised with an award, true. That part already passed.

Then during the "We Are The World" part, it was not about Prince, not about Quincy, not about the others as well. It was in my opinion, about paying respect to sing a song ALL together, written and performed for people in the world in need. That's what it ws all about.

Prince also had the choice to do right (this time), that's what I think. Quincy is not a singer, but he sang. Find me wrong in what i think, that's perfectly OK.

Prince, like all of us, is an ordinary human being, with flaws and absurdities. I am a big fan, but certainly don't want to condone everything he does (wrong).

By the way, that Merit award '95 speech, was the most relaxed, fun and true Prince thank-you speech I ever heard from him. He was so 'normal' on stage. He thanked everyone from The Revolution members (starting with mentioning Wendy & Susanah iirc), to his then curret band. He was visually pleased and open.

-

True through, Prince shone as the best at that Harrison tribute.

Everyone can have a different opinion, but opinions need not be fixed and inflexible.

Which is why I asked that, if your opinion was that it was all on Prince, then perhaps you should consider that it can also be seen as on Quincy. After all, no one has the right to force anyone else to join with their method of contributing to moral, ethical and welfare causes and it is not as if Prince was not a truly great philanthropist.

IanRG said:

Vannormal said:

I had to be more precise, it's my opinion.

Indeed Prince was recognised with an award, true. That part already passed.

Then during the "We Are The World" part, it was not about Prince, not about Quincy, not about the others as well. It was in my opinion, about paying respect to sing a song ALL together, written and performed for people in the world in need. That's what it ws all about.

Prince also had the choice to do right (this time), that's what I think. Quincy is not a singer, but he sang. Find me wrong in what i think, that's perfectly OK.

Prince, like all of us, is an ordinary human being, with flaws and absurdities. I am a big fan, but certainly don't want to condone everything he does (wrong).

By the way, that Merit award '95 speech, was the most relaxed, fun and true Prince thank-you speech I ever heard from him. He was so 'normal' on stage. He thanked everyone from The Revolution members (starting with mentioning Wendy & Susanah iirc), to his then curret band. He was visually pleased and open.

-

True through, Prince shone as the best at that Harrison tribute.

Everyone can have a different opinion, but opinions need not be fixed and inflexible.

Which is why I asked that, if your opinion was that it was all on Prince, then perhaps you should consider that it can also be seen as on Quincy. After all, no one has the right to force anyone else to join with their method of contributing to moral, ethical and welfare causes and it is not as if Prince was not a truly great philanthropist.

Well said.

Prince proved he cared about feeding the hungry in Africa by donating a song to album, which helped raise money for their benefit. It's absurd to suggest he didn't care about them because he didn't also participate in the We Are The World sing-along.

No celeberity can participate is every single charitable event. They need to be able to pick and choose which they attend. Prince, who was an incredibly philanthropic person, exercised his perogative and took a pass on this particiular event.

I do not accept they argument that the We Are The World sing-along was somehow mandatory because "everyone else was doing it". That's the bullying, conformity-enforcing logic of children.

I want to repeat that because it's an important point: the agrument that We Are The World was somehow more important and more obligatory than other charitable events because "everyone was doing it" is the type of logic used by religons and cults, not liberal-minded people.

Also, if people need to be shamed or coearced into taking part in a charity event, then participation in that event no longer is no longer evicence of their generouisty and good will. To put it another way, when people are oblgiated to perform a specific act of charity, you can no longer claim their participation in that act is a sign of their good character. It's not a sign of anything.

IanRG said:

You keep missing my point and the point that the person who claimed that Astley was a one hit wonder's point. This is not about your need to promote Astley's career.

The statement I was replying to is based on a repeated claim that Prince is only as well known to GEN-Z-ERS as Astley and that to GEN-Z-ERS they are both just one hit wonders. This is plainly untrue.

It is undeniable that Astley had others hits (but fewer than Prince). It is also undeniable that Astley is currently best known to the TikTok generation (the "younger people" you hope to rely on have moved on from YouTube) because of Rickrolling.

And, Yes, everyone who has used Youtube or TikTok etc has been Rickrolled.

I've used both. I've never been Rickrolled in my life. I found out about Rickrolling on some TV show like Entertainment Tonight or Extra. I still hear a couple of Rick Astley's songs on the local Top 40 oldies radio station.

cryndove said:

We're against hungry children Our record stands tall But there's just as much hunger here at home We'll do what we can If y'all try 2 understand A flower that has water will grow & the child misunderstood will go, "Hello"

I've always heard the lyric as "If the child misunderstood we'll go, 'hello'."

I could be wrong. But I also think it might make more sense. I interpeted it as Prince saying, "If the childen of Africa misundersood my lack of participation in the We Are The World sing-along . . ." Granted, I don't how his saying "hello" to them would fix the misunderstanding. Admitttedly, that part of my theory needs work.

[Edited 1/26/24 13:17pm]

MickyDolenz said:

IanRG said:

You keep missing my point and the point that the person who claimed that Astley was a one hit wonder's point. This is not about your need to promote Astley's career.

The statement I was replying to is based on a repeated claim that Prince is only as well known to GEN-Z-ERS as Astley and that to GEN-Z-ERS they are both just one hit wonders. This is plainly untrue.

It is undeniable that Astley had others hits (but fewer than Prince). It is also undeniable that Astley is currently best known to the TikTok generation (the "younger people" you hope to rely on have moved on from YouTube) because of Rickrolling.

And, Yes, everyone who has used Youtube or TikTok etc has been Rickrolled.

I've used both. I've never been Rickrolled in my life. I found out about Rickrolling on some TV show like Entertainment Tonight or Extra. I still hear a couple of Rick Astley's songs on the local Top 40 oldies radio station.

There is always one exception to a rule, perhaps you thought it was just people playing Astley because they like him!!.