New topic
Printable---The White Album is a mess. Great stuff, as well as half baked demos, parodies worthy of Wierd Al, and that "indulgence" called Revolution #9, all jumbled together. Woulda made a good single album. Of course anyone who knows their history knows they had to get that product out for the Christmas 1968 shopping season, but they were so dysfunctional and surrounded by yes-men by then that there was no one to tell them that some of it wasn't ready for prime-time.---
I think the fact that it's kind of a hodge-podge of songs is exactly what makes The White Album interesting. Given that Revolution 9 is the one that should've been left off, the rest of the album has great songs, interesting, funky, shorts (Why Don't We Do It In The Road), and a few weird self-indulgent experiments (Wild Honey Pie). I think a double album needs all these things to keep it interesting. I remember hearing many people say exactly the same things about Led Zeppelin's Physical Graffiti, The Rolling Stone's Exile on Main St, & Sign 'o' The Times. Just my opinion. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
CrozzaUK said: jackflash said: As I said earlier, I saw all these careers unfold, saw the Beatles live, bought their stuff the day it was released, read many of the biographies and I play music myself. There is no question that the Beatles were innovative pop musicians who changed music forever. However, how much of their impact was due to them as musicians, and how much to good fortune (being present at the nexus of generational change, having George Martin to hold their hands, being easily marketable - white, cute, squeaky clean, etc.)? The point about the Beatles changing popular music from cookie cutter pap to decent rock/pop seems true, as long as you concentrate on white musicians of the early 60's. When you throw Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, Ray Charles, James Brown, etc. into the discussion, the perspective is considerably different. I contend that as individual musicians, they were very good but not great, to wit, their post-Beatles output fell flat within a couple of years after the group split up. C'mon, without the competition within the group and George Martin's help, Lennon's couldn't come up with an interesting melody to save his life - and don't even try to find anything interesting in Paul's lyrics. George wrote some good songs for the group and he had one good record in him, which he stretched over 3 LP's, but that was it. Hardly the stuff of a musical genius. Also remember that thru 1964, they performed and recorded a lot of covers (in part due to a lack of material - "Beatles for Sale"). After their creative peak in 1966-67, it was like the "Emperors New Clothes", the could do no wrong although they recycled riffs to the degree that the "Beatle" sound was so recognizable it was a cliche. The White Album is a mess. Great stuff, as well as half baked demos, parodies worthy of Wierd Al, and that "indulgence" called Revolution #9, all jumbled together. Woulda made a good single album. Of course anyone who knows their history knows they had to get that product out for the Christmas 1968 shopping season, but they were so dysfunctional and surrounded by yes-men by then that there was no one to tell them that some of it wasn't ready for prime-time. Anyway, the point is not to slam the Fab Four, but to say that pound for pound, P's got them beat - more musical diversity, more great songs, plays several instruments better, works harder and actually performs his stuff live. Oh yeah, he never told the world that Yoko Ono's music was the wave of the future and we'll eventually come around. Don't get me wrong, I love Beatles music; after all, most 50 year olds see it as the sountrack to their youth. However, we were asked a question here so I tried to put emotion aside and answer on the basis of the music, not nostalgia (which clouds the intellect of all baby boomers!) nor their cultural impact separate from the music. You made some good points here, but you're using some of the main criticisms of the Beatles work to build up Prince's work, whilst overlooking some of his major flaws. As a body of work, more Beatles songs will live on in the public consciousness for a lot longer than most of Princes. It is nearly impossible to disconnect the songs from the era, but try we must. The Beatles were the biggest thing in England with little following in the US till their first visit in Feb. 1964. They played a couple of TV shows, did some photo-ops and left for home. America, on the heels of the Kennedy assassination, the Cold War, nuclear build-up, Vietnam escalating, civil rights battles, was hungry for something positive and new. The Beatles filled this need admirably. So, will their body of work live on because it is better music, and there is more of it, or because it filled a psychic hunger in the dominant consumer society? Can we separate the two? Also, let's not forget that unlike the Beatles, much of Prince's best work hasn't crossed over into a white, multigenerational demographic for the purposes of airplay. The topic is "better than...", which I interpret as musically better, so as musicologists, let's try not to be swayed by promotion or the catchy but simple hooks that get you to reflexively bob your head. (If so, NPS is a winner, cause I can sure bob my head to that stuff, although it's pretty unchallenging music.) You called the White album a mess, but its no more a mess than Graffitti Bridge, Rave, Chaos & Disorder, Emancipation, New Power Soul, Come……Prince’s Yes men must have been working over time on those. Also to say they did nothing in their solo careers is rubbish. There is something of merit in nearly all their solo albums. Good comparison between the White album and Emancipation on many levels (yes-men galore, widespread fan disagreement on good vs. crap, a desire of the artist(s) to dominate the field by sheer mass, and of course, "shoulda been 1 disc"). Of course, the White album is held up as the sine qua non of the mature Beatles, whereas Emancipation is not a defining Prince album. I beg to differ on the question of the quality of their solo albums. My comments above stand with respect to their output, to which I'd only add two points: 1. John burnt out musically after 2 albums, George after 1 (extrememly padded) multi-album set, and nothing, literally nothing, that Paul/Wings ever put out was as good as many of his "lesser" competitors. "Band on the Run", the album thought to be Paul's "best" is good, but off the top of my head any of the following contemporaneous albums equals or surpasses it: Dark side of the moon - Pink Floyd; Liege and Lief - Fairport Convention; Every Picture Tells a Story - Rod Stewart; Goodbye Yellow Brick Road - Elton; The Yes album - Yes; American Beauty - Grateful Dead; Who's next- the Who... where's the genius? (And for Paul's sake, I've left Joni, Marvin, Stevie, Curtis, Bowie, Zep and the Stones off this comparison list.) Similar to groups like the Eagles (or IMO, Madonna - sorry, guys) for example, Paul could really push that product ("Live and let die", "Silly love songs", etc.) and stay in the public's eye. 2. Doesn't it say something about how they regarded their craft, by John and Paul each having their respective no-talent wives as part of the band? I think either love clouded their vision, or they felt, in their arrogance perhaps, that they could get away with it without affecting the outcome. To say that pound for pound P has them beat is just wrong IMO. Prince, whilst a consumate songwriter, is NOT a better melody writer (or vocalist) than Paul McCartney (who IMO is one of the best melodisists in modern music). Whilst he has his moments of humour and wit, he cannot match Lennons lyrics (not that I believe these to be that great anyway, but I feel Prince has never truly revealed himself in his songs). I can't speak for you, but to my mind, Prince has and continues to reveal himself in his music as much or more than anyone else I can think of (Joni, Marvin, Dylan, Curtis, John Lee Hooker, Springsteen...). In fact, I think that part of the reason we're here on the org is that he has touched us emotionally with his lyrics as well as on the intellectual and visceral level with his music. For me, the Beatle's words are playful, sometimes clever, sometimes enigmatic, but often aloof (sorta like Bowie, who I like a lot). In fact, I find the Stones lyrics to be more personal than the Fabs. And lets face it, he doesn't even scrape the surface when it comes to sales (but lets not get into that). However if you mean as an individual is he better than each individual beatle, id be inclined to say yes. Only Paul comes close to matching P's multi-instrument ability, and even then he's quite a way behind. Prince is the ulitmate all-round performer- a fantastic singer, songrwriter, musician, show man/ performer, but as a collective, the Beatles are just too big a monster to contend with. Here come's "nursie" with my shot. So, I'm done for now. Nice arguing with y'all. *****************************************
"Yes - bold steps must be taken, 2 bump a nation, their scrutiny is what I'm facin' " - "Jughead" W. Bush | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I also say the Beatles were better because, at least they had the decency and respect to acknowledge Chuck Berry & Little Richard as the pioneers of Rock. Elvis never did that. You might say that he made that new genre popular, but he never gave credit where credit was due. You gotta give props to the Fab Four for that.
O.K., now on with the arguments... NEW WAVE FOREVER: SLAVE TO THE WAVE FROM THE CRADLE TO THE GRAVE. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NWF said: I also say the Beatles were better because, at least they had the decency and respect to acknowledge Chuck Berry & Little Richard as the pioneers of Rock. Elvis never did that. You might say that he made that new genre popular, but he never gave credit where credit was due. You gotta give props to the Fab Four for that.
O.K., now on with the arguments... They were decent guys, so what? Plenty of stars pay homage to their heroes and mentors; the Stones, Prince, Dylan, U2, even the Ramones come to mind. If being a good guy was all it took, I'd be a better musician. *****************************************
"Yes - bold steps must be taken, 2 bump a nation, their scrutiny is what I'm facin' " - "Jughead" W. Bush | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
White Album = Masterpiece | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
you go on a beatles site and theyll say The Beatles could topple over Prince.. you go to a Prince site and they throw purple mace over you for questioning Prince standings as the best singer...
solution... go to a general forum.. not a hardcore fansite 
itsssaaalllgoood | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Essence said: timur said: The most songs Elvis sings are produced and written by
another producer or composer! Prince wrote all his songs alone or with a band! Elvis is good of course, he is a big personality,but on the musiclevel, he did not reach Prince`s level! The Beatles wrotes good songs,but on the musiclevel there are worlds between them and Prince!Their are not so good instrumentalist!Prince is a very good one. But all in all i like The Beatles, Elvis and of course the one and only Prince Did Elvis actually ever earn a co-write credit? He only added them as the African-American composers (Otis Blackwell etc) had no rights. Elvis did write some songs, but his main contribution is in the producing/arranging side. his records carry no production credits, and this is due to the fact that he and his band did all that in the studio. There were no Outside producers in fact. I s think that many of the people posting here have not listened to Elvis/The Beatles songs, otherwisw than greatest hits. You can't really say an artist is bad or good, for there'll always be someone who likes it...and I think that's what matters in the end. Isn't this the reason we all like Prince ? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Keep in mind that Prince is a ONE MAN operation... that is ASTOUNDING. He can play whatever the beatles come up with, whereas you couldn't say the same for them. Let's not forget the question...Who is better? Musically, talent-wise...Prince in a landslide. If the question were...Who is more popular? or Who had more hits? (again, a popularity contest, which Prince has taken himself out of the game) then, yes, the beatles may fair better. Thanks for the laughs, arguments and overall enjoyment for the last umpteen years. It's time for me to retire from Prince.org and engage in the real world...lol. Above all, I appreciated the talent Prince. You were one of a kind. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
No. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yeh 100% sure ,for me best modern artist or artist ever...so many jams..so many sounds .. so many looks.. so many moods..and dont forget all them smooth dance moves..he da man...
rocking THE CROSS today and the neighbours loving me. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Revolution said:
He can play whatever the beatles come up with, whereas you couldn't say the same for them. Let's not forget the question...Who is better? Musically, talent-wise...Prince in a landslide. Hmm I'll have to disagree with you on this.. Paul John and George all came out with amazing albums after they broke up and a good portion of their solo albums, they played the instruments, not to mention they did all their songwriting... and for the end of their career as the beatles, most songs were done individually, (like the white album) so U can say the same for them... I wouldnt go as far to say everyone one of the Beatles were as talented musically as Prince, but as a whole, those three could certianly play the same instruments as Prince. Paul McCartney played every single sound/instrument/vocal on his first album McCartney, and as far as im concerned, its aged very nicely. Regardless of whatever the popularity rate was for these guys to become so successful, they turned out to be stunning musicians that paved a road for future artists to be inspired by, not to mention the listeners/consumers... Im not debating on which is better, Im only sayin that these guys accomplished more than just what they did during the Beatles, dont deny them their solo material, because these guys turned out to be pretty amazing musicians even after the Beatles legacy ended. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think it gets to be a pretty sad point when Prince fans are resorting to comparing their idol to iconic rock bands and artists because he is not putting out anything interesting enough to hold their attention. "Was Prince better than Jimi? Elvis? Beatles?" Blah blah blah. Who cares?
If you don't like the Beatles, it's your loss. The topic of the thread was whether or not Prince was "better" than them. Better at what? Personally . I think we are all Boring with No Lives cause all we do is talk about Prince,Criticize and Gossip. I need a Horny Man is what I Need and probably so do most of yas. We are Sexually Frustrated what we R... Amen..!!! - zelaire | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
WatchThemFall said: I think it gets to be a pretty sad point when Prince fans are resorting to comparing their idol to iconic rock bands and artists because he is not putting out anything interesting enough to hold their attention.
No, it's sad in general.  That Prince is soo soo much more talented than elvis and the beatles ever thought. lol... Actually I like the song The Long And Winding Road. But I know if prince sang that song.  It would be not twice as good but ten, yes 10 times better... Whoo hoo!  lol...
"Was Prince better than Jimi? Elvis? Beatles?" Blah blah blah. Who cares?
Yes, Prince was better than Jimi... and santana for that matter. Well the rest. Of course. 
If you don't like the Beatles, it's your loss. The topic of the thread was whether or not Prince was "better" than them. Better at what?
It's not a loss to not like the beatles.  Prince is better. Rock and Roll... Funk and Soul... One man and one show. Somebody eveybody get down on the floor and dance...   Yeah! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
This is silly. However, I must say that Prince in terms of pure talent and drive would outdo any musician to date whether it be Elvis, the Beatles, Jimi, Stevie, Bowie, Joni, Dylan, Ani Difranco (don't sleep), Davis, Mozart, Chuck Berry or whoever.
I'd liken Prince to Picasso. You may not dig his style per se but he's such a force of nature and so prolific you have to give him his due. Both men have complete mastery over their media and have similar legend surrounding them. Every painter, myself obviously included, would be in awe watching Picasso work his magic drawing, painting, sculpting, etc. as would any musician with Prince. Both men have such a wide range of styles and tools at their disposal it's ridiculous to compare anybody else. If you put anybody in a studio or on stage with Prince --J.B., Jimi, Lennon, whoever (in their primes)-- and told them to have at it the last one standing would be Prince and everybody else would be taking notes. You don't have to like somebody to see that. And to those that give one person or group a lot of credit for innovation, don't bother. Prince would be Prince to some degree or other without the Beatles and the Beatles would be the Beatles without Chuck Berry. No one person is responsible for any movement alone. Now if you're talking cultures and their influences then that's another story.  |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
