In general, LOL, but specifically to the song "Family Name" - the term "Black & White" - is not the same as saying "this or that", and "this or that" does NOT mean "this means the truth, or that which is resisted to it". The dude is totally full of shit here, and uses this thread-thin piece of garble to justify the entire song.

I find his politics interesting, but quite crude, and ultimately ridiculous, in the original mean of the word - to ridicule.

It's surely something to debate about, and I think that's good.

Everybody in the end has to settle for what they are.

But there is nothing against having a rainbow-coloured mind.

Prince wants his lyrics to be a guideline for you. A starting point for your own discovery. If you do not find this interesting, just ridiculous, then move over.

Let the ones through that ARE interested.

StCloud said:

How coloured you think his is ??

I agree with Kevin Smith on this matter.

"if the bra fits" is not a great way of responding to claims he now allegedly hates white people or that's how TRC comes across to some people.

He should address these questions properly.

StCloud said:

I am interested - being interested doesn't mean BLINDLY AGREEING - it simply means showing an interest, which I am doing, and if you truly showed an interest rather than just following, you wouldn't make such remarks as to "move over".

Prince doesn't make his thoughts very clear, which you might forgive him for, since being an artist, often the message is wrapped up in the art, and the decyphering of such is upto the listener.

But he is quite plain about what he is laying out here - in the "this or that" diatribe.

And I'm stating, it is a flimsy argument, and one that is incorrect.

As for "Prince wants his lyrics to be a guideline for you" - Well, that's quite a bold statement to make, and if it's true, then maybe he should be more precise on what he actually trying to set as a guideline.

.
[This message was edited Mon May 12 8:10:05 PDT 2003 by VelvetSplash]

Marrk said:

Knowing I'm going to regret re-hashing this debate...

How in the hell can any of those lyrics be interpreted as hate for white people??

FunkMistress said:

I'm not saying I subscribe to this interpretation, but it's quite easy to see how the following lyric can be constrewed as putting white people in a negative frame of reference:

"First of all, the term "black and white" is a fallacy. It simply is another way of saying "this or that". Let's examine the term "this or that" in its ultimate form which is: "this" means the truth or "that which is resistant 2 it."

The phrase "the truth, or that which is resistant 2 it" is purposely, and directly put into relation to "black and white" - which can be interpreted as meaning the races - black and white.

In this understanding, Prince is saying that you are either black, who follow the truth, or white, which is resistant to it. It later then goes on to say that something which resists cannot be assimilated, because it is in direct conflict - and must be "banished" - whatever that means.

Again - this is a common interpretation of the lyrics, I am not stating I personally transcribe to this, that's before any of the paisley police state org-noting me and flaming.

.
[This message was edited Mon May 12 8:50:33 PDT 2003 by VelvetSplash]

VelvetSplash said:

He not only says that "black and white" is like saying "this and that", and that this means "the truth" and that means "that which is resistant to the truth"; he also says that this discrepancy is a fallacy, meaning that it's wrong to deduce these meanings from these words.

VelvetSplash said:

You are both full of shit

ConsciousContact said:

Hee-hee, well please expand on your opinion if it's so superior.

Uh Oh...trouble in paradise...yet again

antoon said:

The direct quote is:

"First of all, the term "black and white" is a fallacy. It simply is another way of saying "this or that". Let's examine the term "this or that" in its ultimate form which is: "this" means the truth or "that which is resistant 2 it. When a minority realizes its similarities on a higher level- not just "black"- but PEOPLE OF COLOR, and higher still "INDIGENOUS", and even higher still, "FROM THE TRIBE OF.", and yet higher- the "RAINBOW CHILDREN". When this understanding comes, the so-called minority becomes a majority in the wink of an eye. This action will cause a Reaction or Resistance. The source of this Resistance must b banished as it is in direct conflict with the initial action. It cannot be assimilated, 4 its very nature is resistance. In other words, ONE CANNOT SERVE 2 MASTERS. U r either "this" or "that" which is not "this".
"

Now that could mean that the term "black and white" is fallacy, and so is "this or that", and the rest of what he explains.

Or, that could mean the term "black and white" is a fallacy, and he goes onto explain what he thinks it *really* means.

Now, I'd like to believe the former, but that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, since why would you go on to describe what something ISN'T in such great detail?

See later on in the diatribe, he goes on to explain what he thinks "black" actually is:

not just "black"- but PEOPLE OF COLOR, and higher still "INDIGENOUS", and even higher still, "FROM THE TRIBE OF.", and yet higher- the "RAINBOW CHILDREN".

So if "black and white" is a fallacy, why is he explaining what black is? (And then stating everything that is not black, or "this", is "that" - whatever "that" may be.)

Or, is he (very badly) trying to say something quite different.

"Black and white is a fallacy" could mean there is no difference between black and white, and the term is used by society to separate us into "this or that" - this creating a conflict because if you are not one, you are the other.

He could be saying that when black people collectively realise that they are not a minority, and are equal, and they are treated as such by the larger society, that this conflict will cease - because we realise we are no longer "this or that", we are all one.

I dunno, it's very confusing because of how badly Prince uses language, and how little expounds on the things he says.

Which was my original point - he explains himself so dreadfully, that his explaination leads to conflict


.
[This message was edited Mon May 12 10:12:32 PDT 2003 by VelvetSplash]

VelvetSplash said:

Calling people "Blacks" and "Whites" is like saying they are complete opposites of eachother.

I think he was just pointing out that the terminology we use to refer to various ethnic groups sometimes also carries other false implications.

Sort of like calling someone an "African-American", as though they are a spinoff of a "real" American, or a pseudo-american. The fact that we don't generally call some people "caucasian-americans" implies they they are the only "real" americans.

But then again, Prince isn't the best person at choosing names...

I would love for him to do an NPGMC chat session, and just expound on what he is trying to say on several of the Rainbow Children tracks - specifically, Family Name, 1+1+1=3 and The Work pt.1 which I find to be the most interesting songs lyrically on the album.

It's also of note that the 3 upbeat funk tracks on the album are also the most interesting lyrically.

Some people don't like discussing these things, I can see that much, but I thought it better here than on the NPGMC board with all it's brain-dead zombies

.
[This message was edited Mon May 12 10:16:02 PDT 2003 by VelvetSplash]

velvet splash, that's a fan-muthafuckin-TAStic idea!!

not that it would ever happen, but i was actually surprised at the time that he never even attempted to explain the whole "holocaust aside, many lived and died..." - there are other lyrical passages on that album that seem to me to be almost...well, i mean hateful, kinda.

i mean if he's really saying "well, aside from the holocaust, you jews haven't had it so bad compared to US. i mean, they just KILLED you...we were SOLD", then yeah, i personally find that shockingly hateful and bizarre.

who knows, maybe i'm reading it wrong...i wasn't at the TRC listening sessions.

ConsciousContact said:

!

people call me rude,i wish we all wewe nude.i wish there was no black and white, i wish there were no rules!

I tend to agree with VelvetSplash,
and I guess you could say that he was well aware of his statements, considering the
fact that he marketed this disc as 'The new controversial album by Prince'...

I like the idea of him bringing his rethorics to the public in a realtime chat,
but I doubt he would dare to do so. There's been other occasions where he
had his share of criticism, and he did not like it too much.

But if no-one asks... then nothing will happen.

deMatthijs said:

Criticism is no problem. You forget the somewhat 'over passionate' fams out there.

Discussion that was always got muddled with talk of "When will you performn with Wendy & Lisa again?"

Remember; he had discussions with people at Paisley Park, spanning exactly these subjects. There he, divided the groups in believers and non-believers, just to let them realise you are always divided in some sense.
Some people though, felt this was a personal attack. It got the discussions nicely heated though.

VelvetSplash said:

It could.
It could also mean just what it says. Not every word has a double meaning.

Also. These words are a guideline. I am sure of this. If you want to delve deeper in the topics Prince raises, it is possible.

Prince has always been a firm believer in integration of the races. Claiming his own does not mean he rejects the other.
It is funny how people are willing to mow a person down because of his beliefs, even though his 20 year journey to this point always showed him concerned about the subjects you now blame him for.

VelvetSplash said:

Remember. Purple Rain. Paisley Park. Lovesexy.
They all were about belief.
I do not think anything changed there.

theblueangel said:

I posted some questions about this album in the P&R forum. While I do appreciate everyone that responded input, I am still very much confused. I ain't as deep as Prince. I don't speak in riddles. Sometimes I don't like to think. Please put stuff in plain English for me. People will say that I am not openminded and I got out of it what I put into it, but, hell. It was a brand new Prince album. I listened to it countless times and I still don't get it. When I heard Family Name, I mean, truly listened to it, I thought the same thing as Blue. "You might have it bad, Jewish people, but we got it worse". I would love for anyone that was at the listening session to post what Prince said when asked questions about this album.

"Love4ONEAnother"

StCloud said:

Well that's what were trying to discuss, you know, what is the literal meaning of what he is saying, because it's quite clear from all the different opinions on this particular lyric section, that it is NOT clear what he is saying, and no-one's looking for a double meaning, just a meaning.

VelvetSplash said:

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, VelvetSplash. I thought I was just insane.

VelvetSplash said:

Thanks for the thread, VelvetSplash In a way I agree with you--"IT" of course, can mean sunshine, which we may well be playing in (same album, no?). All the best

VelvetSplash said:

that site is only as brain-dead as u leave it.
dare 2 discuss something n his presence, that is what the board is there 4!
que it up!
garuanteed his curiousity will have him post something or he will do it thru one of his Paisley number clones...7 is my guess.

MockTurtleSoup said:

Been there, done that, had my threads and posts deleted, as well as the thinly vailed threats - that place isn't a place for open discussion, unfortunately.

My ideas on Family Name can b forund on Stymie's and DPWC's threads in the P&R forum.

As 4 the intro, which VS quotes, I actually c it differently, less offensive. I thought that it rejects the division "black and white" and suggests a division based on shared ideas (in this case shared with him ), between "Rainbow Children" and "Banished Ones".

I actually like his use of riddles and questions and different voices so as to leave everything open. It makes it more like a drama than a sermon. He's always taken on different characters, and the meaning is created by the interaction of their voices, not by taking what one thing that any one of them says.

NEVERTHELESS, I do agree that there is some insensitivity on TRC to possible understanding of some of the statements. It's funny that I saw this more in relation to the Jewish surnames, but less with the "black and white". MAybe because I don't identify as "white", it didn't jar with me as much.

As for the discussion with P, I'm never that interested in what an artist says about their creation. It's never definitive, but just one more text in the equation - another interpretation.