Just finished reading Alex Hahn's "Possessed: the Rise and Fall of Prince". This (poorly written, repetitive and oh so tabloid-like) book leaves me quite puzzled. Looks like Hahn re-interpreted Prince's career to serve his thesis, according to which Prince failed to achieve long-lasting artistic (and commercial) success due to an obsessive desire to control each and every aspect of his life to the fullest extent possible. As much as this theory may explain some of Prince's shortcomings and failures, it seems quite far-fetched to say the least. Your views on this, orgers?

FYI, I'm not a Prince fanatic, just a nostalgic 30-year old French guy who has been enjoying Prince's music for the past 15 years or so, and keeps on hoping that his next album will somehow surprise me...Peace to all of ya.

Well, it does focus a lot on his negative sides, but by and by I DO belive that it is correct in the stories it relates. That Prince is a control freak - and an arrogant one at that - shouldn't really surprise any Prince fan.

I am the best, better than the rest

P.S.: Also, it is a matter of taste. I wouldn't have minded a bit more of the "tabloid" stuff. In fact, I was rather disappointed by how little new information there was in the book in that regards.

Fair enough. However, I'm not convinced by Hahn's argument that Prince's talent began to decline when Wendy and Lisa left. Saying that Sign of the Times and Lovesexy evidence the start of Prince's artistic fall is surreal (Lovesexy's complexity and depth still amaze me).

I like Lovesexy a lot too, although I do recall it getting a few less favorable reviews than his previous albums. But I remember that I and my fellow Prince fans were very disappointed by Batman and how dull some of those songs were. So for us, Lovesexy was his last truly good album and Batman was the beginning of the fall in quality. Graffiti Bridge also disappointed us a bit, although by and large we thought it was better than Batman. Anyways, we excused those by being soundtracks.
But there was no excuse for D&P. We thought that was the end of our "fanship", but the o(+> album was a saving grace - definitely an improvement. Then the whole Come/Undertaker/Gold period was very exciting, but then the downwards spiral set in for real - starting with Chaos And Disorder and hitting rock bottom with The Truth and Newpower Soul. Through it all, we remained hopeful that he would get better, but hope dwindled with each new release that was more disappointing than the one before it.
Rave Un2 The Joy Fantastic was a minor improvement, but following The Rainbow Children we gave up on any notion of him ever making another truly good album.

DaFunkFreak said:

I don't think he said Sign O' The Times is bad. Sign.. IS rather much a Prince And The Revolution album - a lot of the songs were from '86 - before the band split.
I think it is true that Prince's talent began to decline when Wendy & Lisa left. Not as much because of their actual contributions to the music, but because of what they - along with Susannah Melvoin - inspired in him by having them around. They weren't as "controllable" as subsequent band members but had wills of their own - which of course got them fired, because apparently Prince doesn't like not having his way. But always having his way means stagnation because he isn't challenged to do better and better by the "yes"-men he likes to have around to stroke his ego.

It's a good book, quit hatin.

I don't like the book, to me it's very tabliodish, ridden with mistakes, and has lots of "..source said" bullshit, therefore it really makes it hard for me to believe a thing this book says.


but if others like it, that's cool.

I don't think he said Sign O' The Times is bad. Sign.. IS rather much a Prince And The Revolution album - a lot of the songs were from '86 - before the band split.
I think it is true that Prince's talent began to decline when Wendy & Lisa left. Not as much because of their actual contributions to the music, but because of what they - along with Susannah Melvoin - inspired in him by having them around. They weren't as "controllable" as subsequent band members but had wills of their own - which of course got them fired, because apparently Prince doesn't like not having his way. But always having his way means stagnation because he isn't challenged to do better and better by the "yes"-men he likes to have around to stroke his ego.[/quote]

The Naysayer's Bible.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Much of the book was accurate. The research he used was very good and although the book had a number of poorly researched mistakes, it stands up as a solid, and accurate portrayal of a man who's career has declined.

Anyone who takes it upon himself to write a book about a subject that is not going to sell is obviously not in this for the money. Think about this... the entire book is about Prince's decline. To write a book about a subject with the full knowledge that this is the lowest part of his career is a labor of love. Alex has commented that he'd love to write a sequel about Prince's rise back to the top and I know we'd all read it.

The bottom line is that the book isn't quite as good as DMSR, Turn It Up 2.0 and Days Of Wild, but it fills the gaps in Prince's career nicely and any fan should have it on his/her shelf, even if there are parts that they don't agree with.

scififilmnerd said:

Batman was soundtrack written on commision from Tim Burton and (Jack Nicholson), He was writing in a hell of a box so to speak. Every song is characterized by a cartoon figure dressed in a bat costume living in Gotham City (New York). Give me a break "people who were disappointed by Batman and how dull some of those songs were". Let me reiterate and say this was not just a soundtrack, but a musical description of what was going on in the movie.Watch the movie and see how well it all fits in together. The movie "Batman" was boring not the SDTRK.

altho #2 and most of all Val Kilmer's #3 were the best.
[This message was edited Sat Sep 13 23:33:03 PDT 2003 by lmas]

I just read the book too.. and I loved it!

madhouseman said:

I hate Alex's book. He augmented Prince's negative side, and minimized his artistic talent. However interesting the gossip is, it shouldn't dominate in a biography about a musician. It says nothing I haven't already read in Per Nilsen's book. Alex comes with a hypothesis as an outsider. There could have been other reasons that motivated Prince to act the way he did. Some critics were already being too critical and/or mocking Prince's musical output, and here comes Alex and adds more wood to the fire.

Looked like a good foundation of facts for an even better written book someday if he ever becomes famous again.

im still reading it, and im liking it so far, but im finding it a bit difficult to read, im used to reading fiction (sci-fi, fantacy) not about real ppl, but it is a good book so far.

2freaky4church1 said:

---
If the Star and the New York Post are your favorite things to read then yes Mr. Hahn's book is great.

The book is riddled with mistakes and whole passages were taken from other sources. This guy should keep his day job and leave music journalism to the pros.

laurarichardson said:

yes, this is correct. It's no better than the national enquirer.