Prince did a great job at being Prince.

There will never be another Prince, so i'm very happy to have witnessed all that was Prince.

If you missed Prince, i kinda feel bad for you.

If you try to analyze Prince in any way, you have already lost the meaning of Prince.

That said, Prince will always be more popular than anyone you or your future family ever heard of.

shockadelica86 said:

TheFunkyNewAlbum said:

A silly thing to care about, for sure. We can always listen to him whenever I want. And it certainly makes no difference to him

But...looking at the Billboard 200 Charts and not seeing a single Prince album, no Greatest Hits, no Purple Rain.

I feel sort-of sad for this generation of music consumers. They seem to have no interest in Prince.

Is it because his music isn't being put out there properly. I mean, tons of acts, that have sold less than him are on the current charts.

Here's some examples of "legacy" acts that are ALWAYS on the Billboard 200:

Michael Jackons, Fleetwood Mac, Bob Marley, Creedence, Eagles, Journey, Hall and Oates, Tom Petty, Abba, Lynyrd Fucking Skynyrd, Bob Fucking Seger, Sublime!, Aerosmith, Bon Jovi, Whitney, Blink Fucking 182, etc. etc.

Prince is not as big as Bob Seger???

Silly thing to care about, of course.

But, do any of you feel the same way.

I do feel that way sometimes. No one my age even really knows who he was or what they're missing out on which is sad but I wish more of his stuff would be promoted more to people my age. I love Michael Jackson but even a lot of my friends only listen to him on occasion or not at all. It's sad but again we need more PROMOTION!!!

And how old are you? Reason why I ask, they will probably be around when the government forces people to take a Microchip then somebody ought to put "The War" and "Free" on play and let them listen to him talking about that very thing and see Prince was acturally a Super Badd Dude. hehe lol As just one example of his Brilliance, plus his many other Great Songs and Hits.

MickyDolenz said:

IanRG said:

And yet, of your list Mellencamp, Brooks and Springstein are being let down by "Middle America" as demonstrated by the fact that they are not in the current Billboard 200.

No I am not sad that Prince is not more popular. Even during his peak in Australia there were always people that did not like His Royal Badness. Many of these were more comfortable with what was sometimes called "mid-western American boring" here - See the above.

I don't know about Mellencamp, but Garth & Springsteen are definitely not being let down on the touring circuit, which is more money than whatever is on the Billboard 200, including the Top 10. Artists make little money from streaming. It's the streaming companies & the record labels that make the majority of money.

Please do not edit my comments, especially to take out my comments on the topic. They are not just on topic but are important to your point.

What we were discussing was a post where another person lamented that there were other artists who were not Prince, Mellencamp, Brooks or Springsteen who seem to always be in the Billboard 200. It had nothing to do with touring or streaming.

There are many reasons why people like the music they like and none of them are wrong. As we so often see you virtually only ever post to push ABP music over Prince music on a Prince fan forum.

ABP? Anyone But Prince. It is perfectly OK that you don't like Prince, but why do you come here?

That's a good question? If he doesn't like Prince why does he come here?

And how many Singers/Artist/Bands have Sold over 150 million records worldwide, including 36.5 million certified units in the United States, and over 10 million records in the United Kingdom. Rolling Stone ranked him at No. 27 on its list of the 100 Greatest Artists of All Time.

I see that Garth that he was mentioning on some earlier posts has sold over 170 million records worldwide. But I think anyone that sells over 100 million records worldwide is Awesome; one may not like that Artist/Band but they probably don't care if you like them or not if they can sell that many records to other people!

[Edited 5/8/24 16:20pm]

IanRG said:

Please do not edit my comments, especially to take out my comments on the topic. They are not just on topic but are important to your point.

What we were discussing was a post where another person lamented that there were other artists who were not Prince, Mellencamp, Brooks or Springsteen who seem to always be in the Billboard 200. It had nothing to do with touring or streaming.

There are many reasons why people like the music they like and none of them are wrong. As we so often see you virtually only ever post to push ABP music over Prince music on a Prince fan forum.

ABP? Anyone But Prince. It is perfectly OK that you don't like Prince, but why do you come here?

Since you claim to know my posting style, then you'd know I never (or rarely) quote an entire comment by anybody. Also, going by your comment, you volunteer to read what I post. You don't have to read it. I'm easy to spot because I use comic sans. You replied to me, my first comment was to the OP. One person here that replies to me always changes it to the regular old defoult font. I don't say anything about it. It's not that big of a deal.

MickyDolenz said:

IanRG said:

Please do not edit my comments, especially to take out my comments on the topic. They are not just on topic but are important to your point.

What we were discussing was a post where another person lamented that there were other artists who were not Prince, Mellencamp, Brooks or Springsteen who seem to always be in the Billboard 200. It had nothing to do with touring or streaming.

There are many reasons why people like the music they like and none of them are wrong. As we so often see you virtually only ever post to push ABP music over Prince music on a Prince fan forum.

ABP? Anyone But Prince. It is perfectly OK that you don't like Prince, but why do you come here?

Since you claim to know my posting style, then you'd know I never (or rarely) quote an entire comment by anybody. Also, going by your comment, you volunteer to read what I post. You don't have to read it. I'm easy to spot because I use comic sans. You replied to me, my first comment was to the OP. One person here that replies to me always changes it to the regular old defoult font. I don't say anything about it. It's not that big of a deal.

Thank you for not editing my comment this time, and for only posting when you can push your ABP position. This means we don't often see Comic sans. And yes, changing your font to AFBCS is not a big deal, just a matter of taste - The above is Garamond.

Thank you for agreeing with me that we were discussing a post where another person lamented that Prince is not regularly in the Billboard 200. Also, that when I responded to your error that I did this after you posted that error.

Which leaves the question I asked you unanswered: Given you virtually only ever post to push ABP, why do you come here? And remember the topic - Do you ever get sad the Prince is popular here?

[Edited 5/9/24 5:14am]

IanRG said:

Thank you for not editing my comment this time, and for only posting when you can push your ABP position. This means we don't often see Comic sans. And yes, changing your font to AFBCS is not a big deal, just a matter of taste - The above is Garamond.

Thank you for agreeing with me that we were discussing a post where another person lamented that Prince is not regularly in the Billboard 200. Also, that when I responded to your error that I did this after you posted that error.

Which leaves the question I asked you unanswered: Given you virtually only ever post to push ABP, why do you come here? And remember the topic - Do you ever get sad the Prince is popular here?

I didn't agree with anything because I said nothing about that. I explained to the OP why Bob Seger is more popular (because that was asked) with some audiences than Prince & other mainstream artists. I'd say 95% of my posts were in the other music section when it used to be busy. If you didn't look at that section, then that's why you didn't see comic sans much or other fonts. Occasionally I would post in the superhero movie threads in General Discussion. I never looked at the politics section, because I have no interest in that. I'd also post in threads about members of The Time in Associated Artists.

.

Again, you can pretend this is like other sites that have an ignore or block button. Skip over my posts. Problem solved. There's several folks here and on other sites that when I see their names I don't read their posts because all they do is post negative stuff, are not nice, or troll.

MickyDolenz, You don't any Prince songs, correct?

MickyDolenz said:

IanRG said:

Thank you for not editing my comment this time, and for only posting when you can push your ABP position. This means we don't often see Comic sans. And yes, changing your font to AFBCS is not a big deal, just a matter of taste - The above is Garamond.

Thank you for agreeing with me that we were discussing a post where another person lamented that Prince is not regularly in the Billboard 200. Also, that when I responded to your error that I did this after you posted that error.

Which leaves the question I asked you unanswered: Given you virtually only ever post to push ABP, why do you come here? And remember the topic - Do you ever get sad the Prince is popular here?

I didn't agree with anything because I said nothing about that. I explained to the OP why Bob Seger is more popular (because that was asked) with some audiences than Prince & other mainstream artists. I'd say 95% of my posts were in the other music section when it used to be busy. If you didn't look at that section, then that's why you didn't see comic sans much or other fonts. Occasionally I would post in the superhero movie threads in General Discussion. I never looked at the politics section, because I have no interest in that. I'd also post in threads about members of The Time in Associated Artists.

.

Again, you can pretend this is like other sites that have an ignore or block button. Skip over my posts. Problem solved. There's several folks here and on other sites that when I see their names I don't read their posts because all they do is post negative stuff, are not nice, or troll.

Make up your mind - Did you respond to the OP and then I responded to you as we agreed or did you respond to the OP and I responded to you as happened?

What you used to post in the past does not matter a damn - except that pre April 2016 there were a lot more posts here by people that considered Prince fans as the second worst type of people after Prince.

The use of Comic Sans does not excuse trolling Prince fan sites just because people can easily choose to ignore you if they cannot block you.

Still no answer to my questions - Try this - Is there even a single Prince album that you are sad is not more popular or more regularly in the Billboard 200?

TheFunkyNewAlbum said:

A silly thing to care about, for sure. We can always listen to him whenever I want. And it certainly makes no difference to him

But...looking at the Billboard 200 Charts and not seeing a single Prince album, no Greatest Hits, no Purple Rain.

I feel sort-of sad for this generation of music consumers. They seem to have no interest in Prince.

Is it because his music isn't being put out there properly. I mean, tons of acts, that have sold less than him are on the current charts.

Here's some examples of "legacy" acts that are ALWAYS on the Billboard 200:

Michael Jackons, Fleetwood Mac, Bob Marley, Creedence, Eagles, Journey, Hall and Oates, Tom Petty, Abba, Lynyrd Fucking Skynyrd, Bob Fucking Seger, Sublime!, Aerosmith, Bon Jovi, Whitney, Blink Fucking 182, etc. etc.

Prince is not as big as Bob Seger???

Silly thing to care about, of course.

But, do any of you feel the same way.

I have always felt like that since 2016.

Sometimes I think sings like "1000 X's and O's could be radio-played right now. And many more I am sure we could all come up with.

I do hear him on the radio all the time, just nothing much deeper than PR or D&P & TMBGITW.

I just got the instinct that there will be a time when more of P's music might be digged into & played for the mainsteam poupation.

IanRG said:

And yet, of your list Mellencamp, Brooks and Springstein are being let down by "Middle America" as demonstrated by the fact that they are not in the current Billboard 200.

No I am not sad that Prince is not more popular. Even during his peak in Australia there were always people that did not like His Royal Badness. Many of these were more comfortable with what was sometimes called "mid-western American boring" here - See the above.

How long has been since Mellencamp, and Springstein put out something new though? Especially Mellencamp.

PennyPurple said:

IanRG said:

And yet, of your list Mellencamp, Brooks and Springstein are being let down by "Middle America" as demonstrated by the fact that they are not in the current Billboard 200.

No I am not sad that Prince is not more popular. Even during his peak in Australia there were always people that did not like His Royal Badness. Many of these were more comfortable with what was sometimes called "mid-western American boring" here - See the above.

How long has been since Mellencamp, and Springstein put out something new though? Especially Mellencamp.

That is the point being made in the OP.

Those who are regularly in the Billboard 200 without a current release as identified in the OP include Michael Jackon, Fleetwood Mac, Bob Marley, Creedence, Eagles, Journey, Hall and Oates, Tom Petty, Abba, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Bob Seger, Sublime!, Aerosmith, Bon Jovi, Whitney, Blink 182.

I would much rather listen to Prince and Springsteen before most of these. Although I have a soft spot for Hall and Oates, Tom Petty and ABBA.

I've always had mixed feelings about this. I really got into Prince around 1987 - at that point, in small town Connecticut, he was not seen as very cool. Into college, and even now, none of my friends - with whom I had lots of musical crossover interests - are terribly into Prince. They like some of his hits, but that's about all. That hasn't bothered me, per se. What can irk me is people not realizing just how impossibly talented he was. But that's only if I dwell on it, which I usually don't choose to do.

Also, in the age of streaming, if you delve into his catalogue because you are intrigued by his hits, will you be enticed by his deeper cuts? When I first started buying his albums on cassette and CD, my initial listens were generally tinged with disappointment. The unfamiliar tracks didn't sound like the hits! Many of them struck me as impenetrably strange. But I'd shelled out my money for the albums, so I was stuck with them. So I gave them repeated listens. Prince's music really challenged me, but eventually (most of) it clicked. I love those 1980's albums more than anything else. He will always be my favorite.

But, if I first stumbled upon him in the age of streaming, when I can listen to virtually any album by any artist whenever I want, would I have had the patience to keep going back to music that didn't immediately make sense to me? Album tracks that don't necessarily have the radio ear worm hook of the hits? I don't know.

sahara said:

But, if I first stumbled upon him in the age of streaming, when I can listen to virtually any album by any artist whenever I want, would I have had the patience to keep going back to music that didn't immediately make sense to me? Album tracks that don't necessarily have the radio ear worm hook of the hits? I don't know.

Why not ?

That was my experience. I became curious about him when he passed but the extent of my Prince knowledge at the time was basically his 3 movies, the hits and whatever I found on youtube. Then life happened and it's not that I forgot Prince but I didn't really have time to listen to music as a hobby other than what was popular on the radio. Fast forward to late 2022, I have more time (yay) and find out that he had released 40 albums. I say why not check them out on streaming platforms and then buy the ones I like ? Needless to say it has been a wonderful musical journey that consumed me like no other. I was surprised by his 90's output which resonated with me the most for some reason.

paisleyparkgirl said:

sahara said:

But, if I first stumbled upon him in the age of streaming, when I can listen to virtually any album by any artist whenever I want, would I have had the patience to keep going back to music that didn't immediately make sense to me? Album tracks that don't necessarily have the radio ear worm hook of the hits? I don't know.

Why not ?

That was my experience. I became curious about him when he passed but the extent of my Prince knowledge at the time was basically his 3 movies, the hits and whatever I found on youtube. Then life happened and it's not that I forgot Prince but I didn't really have time to listen to music as a hobby other than what was popular on the radio. Fast forward to late 2022, I have more time (yay) and find out that he had released 40 albums. I say why not check them out on streaming platforms and then buy the ones I like ? Needless to say it has been a wonderful musical journey that consumed me like no other. I was surprised by his 90's output which resonated with me the most for some reason.

That's awesome! I started spelunking into his catalog about 10 years into his career. For some reason, I thought delving in now (40 albums!) might be overwhelming. I think it's great that you've taken the journey. I'm curious if you went chronologically or if you just bounced around. I ended up getting his albums out of order, which I think made for a unique experience.

PennyPurple said:

IanRG said:

And yet, of your list Mellencamp, Brooks and Springstein are being let down by "Middle America" as demonstrated by the fact that they are not in the current Billboard 200.

No I am not sad that Prince is not more popular. Even during his peak in Australia there were always people that did not like His Royal Badness. Many of these were more comfortable with what was sometimes called "mid-western American boring" here - See the above.

How long has been since Mellencamp, and Springstein put out something new though? Especially Mellencamp.

Both Springsteen and Mellencamp put out new albums in the last year or two as well as currently touring.

Yes, I know some fans dont care, but I really feel frustrated to see people talking about Beatles, Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Amy Winehouse, etc all the time, and almost everytime I see something about Prince, it´s on Prince fan sites and Instagram accounts. Very few things get out of the bubble, like the RRHOF guitar solo.

.

purplethunder3121 said:

PennyPurple said:

How long has been since Mellencamp, and Springstein put out something new though? Especially Mellencamp.

Both Springsteen and Mellencamp put out new albums in the last year or two as well as currently touring.

Springsteen's last studio album was released in 2022 and is not in the Billboard 200 today. It disappeared from the charts worldwide by the end of 2023 after achieving number 1 in several European countries and longest time in the charts being 20 weeks in Portugal.

Mellencamp released an album in 2023. It only charted in the 70s and 90s in Germany for 2 weeks.

Whereas, for example, Rumours is still in the Billboard 200 and it has been in the Billboard 200 579 weeks since its release in 1977.

Despite the claims of the ABP, this includes streaming equivalents, not just album sales.

databank said:

Poplife88 said:

(...) I do remember people talking when he did the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame show and were like, man Prince can play...I was like DUH!! (...)

Prince's strategy between 2004 and 2007 was remarkably successful. At the time, I'd say Prince had little to prove to two types of scenes. One was Black music: Prince was already certain to be remembered as one of the most influencial R&B artists of all times, on an equal level with Sly, James, George or Stevie. He was equally important to urban club culture: his "Minneapolis Sound" had shaped dance music in the 80s and beyond (80s esthetics were enjoying a comeback that lasts to this day), and his androgynous and sexualized attitudes had made him an important countercultural figure, akin to Madonna. But the one, true dominant musical culture of the second half of the 20th century was rock n roll.

.

It's like Prince got up one morning and realized he had to cement his American status as a rock icon. He couldn't just be in James Brown's and Madonna's league, he had to be in The Beatles' and Elvis'. And for that, he did have to reach out to "Middle America", as some posters called it above.

.

This led to a lot of things that would have sounded unlikely for the "hip, sophisticated" Prince who once aimed to seduce New York and Europe:

- An acoustic TV special to make-up for the MTV Unplugged he never did (MTV Unplugged featured all kind of genres, but its most iconic 90s shows were by rock artists such as Clapton or Nirvana).

- A Rock n Roll Hall of Fame performance with rock artists he had pretty much nothing in common with, all centered around a spectacular guitar solo (the one instrument that defined rock n roll sound and imagery the most).

- A Superball (= sports event) performance focused on material from Purple Rain (his most "crossover" album) and covers from non-R&B artists (Queen, Dylan and Foo Fighters of all people).

- A residency in Las Vegas of all places, a city that, in the collective mind, is pretty much the exact symbolic opposite of "sophisticated" scenes like New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco.

.

It's also interesting to note how most of the above is connected to a strong imagery of masculinity: rock n roll, guitar, American football, the city of gambling and strip bars...

.

To be 100% honest, at the time, those things sometimes felt to me as if Prince was courting rednecks (and I guess he was). But I had to admit the strategy was brilliant: after nearly a decade of progressively disappearing from public consciousness, Prince re-established himself as a dominant force in pop culture, not just with some ephemerous charts success (though he did that a little, too), not by simply maintaining his somewhat acquired Black and metropolitan audiences (though he also made sure to not lose them in the process), but by becoming a "culturally and historically significant" legacy artist who, one way or another, appealed to every layer of Western society regardless of ethnicity, social class and lifestyle. By 2008, Prince had nothing left to prove. And he'd achieved this transition from declining superstar to cultural icon in the course of a mere four years

I love your view on all this.

For sure interesting take on it all, and I learned a lot from the way you look at it.

But wasn't it a fact that Prince also had serious money issues, right up till 2004?

So, honestly, to me, this could also be a(n acceptable) reason for him to get back in the much needed spotlight. Get back in contact with (the more) conservative audiences?

I might be wrong in what I try to explain here.

Although (as a European) I'm not a financial expert for this mattter.

But before 2004, didn't Prince had (serious) money issues?

peedub said:

i couldn't care less how popular prince is. i have his records and i enjoy them. what anybody else chooses to listen to or enjoy or purchase doesn't affect my experience. the position of an artist's work, or lack thereof, on a list of sales figures is not an indication of its subjective quality.

.

- In my case, it´s not about sales, but prestige. I wish more people knew his work beyond the hits, and how great he was as an artist, songwriter, musician, producer. He was much more than ´a pop singer who recorded some hits in the 80s´ and that´s how many people think of him

GustavoRibas said:

peedub said:

i couldn't care less how popular prince is. i have his records and i enjoy them. what anybody else chooses to listen to or enjoy or purchase doesn't affect my experience. the position of an artist's work, or lack thereof, on a list of sales figures is not an indication of its subjective quality.

.

- In my case, it´s not about sales, but prestige. I wish more people knew his work beyond the hits, and how great he was as an artist, songwriter, musician, producer. He was much more than ´a pop singer who recorded some hits in the 80s´ and that´s how many people think of him

He was definitely marketed as a multi-intrumentalist prodigy at the beginning of his career and that was reinterated when he passed though, I don't understand how that got lost in translation in 2024.

sahara said:

paisleyparkgirl said:

Why not ?

That was my experience. I became curious about him when he passed but the extent of my Prince knowledge at the time was basically his 3 movies, the hits and whatever I found on youtube. Then life happened and it's not that I forgot Prince but I didn't really have time to listen to music as a hobby other than what was popular on the radio. Fast forward to late 2022, I have more time (yay) and find out that he had released 40 albums. I say why not check them out on streaming platforms and then buy the ones I like ? Needless to say it has been a wonderful musical journey that consumed me like no other. I was surprised by his 90's output which resonated with me the most for some reason.

That's awesome! I started spelunking into his catalog about 10 years into his career. For some reason, I thought delving in now (40 albums!) might be overwhelming. I think it's great that you've taken the journey. I'm curious if you went chronologically or if you just bounced around. I ended up getting his albums out of order, which I think made for a unique experience.

I went chronologically.

peedub said:

i couldn't care less how popular prince is. i have his records and i enjoy them. what anybody else chooses to listen to or enjoy or purchase doesn't affect my experience. the position of an artist's work, or lack thereof, on a list of sales figures is not an indication of its subjective quality.

From what I've seen (mostly on Prince's forum on reddit), the frustration seems to come from the much younger Prince fans (Gen-z). At that age it's cool to have things in common with your friends. As you get older these things don't matter as much. Most ppl in my life (other than close family members) don't even know that I'm big Prince fan because we have other things to discuss other than music.

Vannormal said:

peedub said:

paisleyparkgirl said:

sahara said:

I've always had mixed feelings about this. I really got into Prince around 1987 - at that point, in small town Connecticut, he was not seen as very cool. Into college, and even now, none of my friends - with whom I had lots of musical crossover interests - are terribly into Prince. They like some of his hits, but that's about all. That hasn't bothered me, per se. What can irk me is people not realizing just how impossibly talented he was. But that's only if I dwell on it, which I usually don't choose to do.

Also, in the age of streaming, if you delve into his catalogue because you are intrigued by his hits, will you be enticed by his deeper cuts? When I first started buying his albums on cassette and CD, my initial listens were generally tinged with disappointment. The unfamiliar tracks didn't sound like the hits! Many of them struck me as impenetrably strange. But I'd shelled out my money for the albums, so I was stuck with them. So I gave them repeated listens. Prince's music really challenged me, but eventually (most of) it clicked. I love those 1980's albums more than anything else. He will always be my favorite.

But, if I first stumbled upon him in the age of streaming, when I can listen to virtually any album by any artist whenever I want, would I have had the patience to keep going back to music that didn't immediately make sense to me? Album tracks that don't necessarily have the radio ear worm hook of the hits? I don't know.

This is a very interesting analysis and I'd say there are two sides to what you describe.

.

One is indeed the fact that once we had to invest money in, thus had a limited amount of music, we did feel compelled to spend more time on it and, thanks to the album format, learn to enjoy songs we weren't immediately conquered by on first listen. How much of that is left in the streaming era? I honestly have no clue.

.

Another aspect is one's relationship towards arts. I guess, probably thanks to my mom, I was taught from a very young age that arts didn't always have to be about immediate pleasure, that it had a higher value than sheer entertainment and that sophisticated tastes need to be acquired. I remember being puzzled by Housequake at the age of 13, not really understanding what I was hearing, and thinking "it's gotta be me, I need to tame this music and understand what it tries to achieve". About two years later, I felt the same with George Clinton's R&B Skeletons In The Closet and, after taming it for a few months and falling in love with it, I remember playing it to a friend who told me "mate, this shit is too weird, I have no idea what it is, I can't enjoy it". He later learned to groove on it, too.

.

Now don't get me wrong, there's still a lot of great artists that I don't understand or enjoy (I won't name any for fear of being called names ), but what I was taught was that truly enjoying music (or any form of arts) came with taking risks, experimenting, trying to expand one's horizons, challenge oneself and, more importantly, being ready to be disappointed every once in a while and questioning oneself before questioning the artist, because it's the inevitable price to pay for being curious and discovering great shit in the process.

.

We had access to much more music than our parents did, and they had access to more than our grandparents did, so I guess in the end if you educate kids to seek more than immediate pleasure, if you teach them that to fully appreciate a piece of music, you may need to listen to it dozens of times, they'll do just as well in the streaming era as we did

.

But, when all is said and done, it depends whether one seeks sheer entertainment or something more meaningful.

.

[Edited 5/13/24 17:23pm]

I don't really know how to address this question. In my community I don't know anyone that doesn't know exactly who he is. To be specific I'm talking black people in America. He's as big and revered as anyone EVER. Just because "Billy & Sally Blankenstein" aren't familiar ...well honestly I don't give a fuck.

databank said:

sahara said:

I've always had mixed feelings about this. I really got into Prince around 1987 - at that point, in small town Connecticut, he was not seen as very cool. Into college, and even now, none of my friends - with whom I had lots of musical crossover interests - are terribly into Prince. They like some of his hits, but that's about all. That hasn't bothered me, per se. What can irk me is people not realizing just how impossibly talented he was. But that's only if I dwell on it, which I usually don't choose to do.

Also, in the age of streaming, if you delve into his catalogue because you are intrigued by his hits, will you be enticed by his deeper cuts? When I first started buying his albums on cassette and CD, my initial listens were generally tinged with disappointment. The unfamiliar tracks didn't sound like the hits! Many of them struck me as impenetrably strange. But I'd shelled out my money for the albums, so I was stuck with them. So I gave them repeated listens. Prince's music really challenged me, but eventually (most of) it clicked. I love those 1980's albums more than anything else. He will always be my favorite.

But, if I first stumbled upon him in the age of streaming, when I can listen to virtually any album by any artist whenever I want, would I have had the patience to keep going back to music that didn't immediately make sense to me? Album tracks that don't necessarily have the radio ear worm hook of the hits? I don't know.

This is a very interesting analysis and I'd say there are two sides to what you describe.

.

One is indeed the fact that once we had to invest money in, thus had a limited amount of music, we did feel compelled to spend more time on it and, thanks to the album format, learn to enjoy songs we weren't immediately conquered by on first listen. How much of that is left in the streaming era? I honestly have no clue.

.

Another aspect is one's relationship towards arts. I guess, probably thanks to my mom, I was taught from a very young age that arts didn't always have to be about immediate pleasure, that it had a higher value than sheer entertainment and that sophisticated tastes need to be acquired. I remember being puzzled by Housequake at the age of 13, not really understanding what I was hearing, and thinking "it's gotta be me, I need to tame this music and understand what it tries to achieve". About two years later, I felt the same with George Clinton's R&B Skeletons In The Closet and, after taming it for a few months and falling in love with it, I remember playing it to a friend who told me "mate, this shit is too weird, I have no idea what it is, I can't enjoy it". He later learned to groove on it, too.

.

Now don't get me wrong, there's still a lot of great artists that I don't understand or enjoy (I won't name any for fear of being called names ), but what I was taught was that truly enjoying music (or any form of arts) came with taking risks, experimenting, trying to expand one's horizons, challenge oneself and, more importantly, being ready to be disappointed every once in a while and questioning oneself before questioning the artist, because it's the inevitable price to pay for being curious and discovering great shit in the process.

.

We had access to much more music than our parents did, and they had access to more than our grandparents did, so I guess in the end if you educate kids to seek more than immediate pleasure, if you teach them that to fully appreciate a piece of music, you may need to listen to it dozens of times, they'll do just as well in the streaming era as we did

.

But, when all is said and done, it depends whether one seeks sheer entertainment or something more meaningful.

.

[Edited 5/13/24 17:23pm]

Well said. You and paisleyparkgirl have me rethinking my initial position a little.