Please bear with me…this is for the music

Prince outlasted Jagger so to speak…or did it differently and it worked even if his latest tour did not gross 300 mil like the 40 Licks Tour. And fuck the Revolution and the NPG and the horse everyone rode in on. And because The Stones and Prince eventually since 1980 go hand in hand (1980 because Prince became Freaky then…not just due to the 1981 Stones opener incident).

See Mick said he didn’t want to be singing Satisfaction when he was 40—he wanted to leave the “undignified” rock job behind and go to movies etc…but their 20th was in 1983 I believe. Just after their hugely successful Tattoo You tour. But after that Jagger did Undercover and it was underwhelming ( but still a classic deep cut of an album) and he tried to leave the band for solo success..sure sure he wanted only to do a side project (lie lol).

If She’s The Boss solo album and tour had been radically successful...and if his fucked up follow-up Primitive Cool had been a huge, huge success, he would have left the Stones because he had put in 20 years already. He blinked! He ended up having to reform the Stones and make nice nice with Keif to continue his success. He cant do it without the band.

Prince doesnt need the band..he did his own thing continually and continually…with different bands from the git go. The Andre Cymone /Dez era...the Markus Brown-Dez-Lisa era..the pop Revolution era—the travelling circus expandsed Revolution—the SOTT and Lovesexy bands…the NPG n all its incantations and members ..lawd.

Through it all we always come to see Prince. That’s right, he’s the C, not Morris. We all go to see him , Prince, period. The bands and if they are endearing to us are just gravy. Sure Prince has not sold out one iota of what The Stones have, and he never will. He wont have gazillions. But Mick can’t always get what he wants without help. Prince can. Baby, he’s the star.

This shit is so goofy lol.
[This message was edited Tue Dec 2 23:10:08 PST 2003 by rdhull]

oh my damn, i actually agree

Ya gotta way with words. Right on! Love it when u wax poetic. "the travelling circus expanded Revolution" -- lol, never thought of it that way, but ur on point. all the different incarnations of Prince and his band have certainly taken him in new directions, giving the rest of us one helluva ride!
.
edit: btw, are u gonna be the keynote speaker at the Jamm? LOL!
[This message was edited Tue Dec 2 23:02:54 PST 2003 by Jasziah]

"When the lights go down and Willie gets on the mic, thats what time it is"
- Prince from Chris Rock interview

P will always be compelling because he's a pure musician. I think it would be awesome if he did VH1 Storytellers or MTV Unplugged.

OdysseyMiles said:

Agree... though must say the Rolling Stones are pure musicians as well. Just like Prince they thrive on playing in front of an audience. It is not just the $$'s they tour - although nowadays it plays a major role

Absolutely true, RD!

Though I don't like everything he puts out, Prince is many times more creative than virtually all of the "veterans" that are out there (and the $$ they make is a a weak gauge of artistry).

Comparing Jagger to Prince is like comparing Thomas Edison to Mark Twain - it's just two entirely different things, in two different eras.

Mick started three decades before Prince did. But Mick is a frontman. With Keith and Brian Jones, he created legendary songs. But Jagger's strength lies in his collborative ability (as evidenced by his solo records, as well as Keith's).

Prince is a one man band and CAN go and do his own record without the help of anyone. Jagger cannot.

But Jagger can write legendary songs - Sympathy for the Devil, Only Rock and Roll, Start Me Up, Bitch, etc.

You just can't compare the two. I'm not saying one is better than the other.

Now, take a look at their music side by side. Prince put out his first record in 78, right? fast forward 25 years, and it's 2003, and he's put out what, Rainbow Children. So when did Prince lose "hit" steam? Most Beautiful Girl was the last chart climber, wasn't it? That was in 1995? Less than 20 years from his start. What came next? Ecrapcipation? and then Rave? flops.

Jagger started in 62. Fast forward 20 years, 1982, and he's put out Tatoo You... probably one of their biggest releases, including "Start Me Up" and "Waiting on a Friend". And THEN he went solo. And then the stones did Undercover. And then Steel Wheels, Stripped, Bridges to Babylon... none as big as Tatoo You.

So, to be fair, their careers are paralleled... HUGE for the first 20 years, and then the rest are releases of self-indulgence and self-imitation.

BUT HEY - have you seen the new Stones video? Holy shit it looks cool.

otan said:

It sounds liek it but Im not really comparing per se' like a regualr type of comaprison..Im just stating that Prince is "the one": in his artistry..of course Mick created some of the best songs in th e history of th e world..believe me I know and agree...Ive been sucked and fucked by the stones but thats not the point. We come to see Prince. And whomever he chooses to have tag along lol...we wont come out to se Mick solo--he better have those other mutherfuckers with him or else

I forgeot toa dd orignally..after 20 Prince is doing what Jagger wanted to do--age gracefully..sure Prince is still doing th e hits here and there but th e muthafucka BRANCHED THE FUCK OUT! he did! He doing jazz, instrumentals, eligious dogma influnced cds, websites...and Mick still singing Satisfaction wayyy th e fuck past 40 god bless him. In essence Im saying Prince has aged more gracefully then Mick has...sure Mick has put away ther crazed moves and effeminant stick for th emost paret and actually has started to sing and give a damn onstage (since 1989 Steel Wheels tour), but he still has to sing satisfaction so to speak..and he has to sing it with Keif and company or else

BTW hell yeah I have their 40 Licks Box Set dvd..only looked at a few numbers form two of th ecds though..I know its excellent and above par though.

Here's the thing though, Mick Jagger has always been part of a whole. And let's face it, for all intents and purposes Mick Jagger is The Rolling Stones. Certainly, in the sense of: Could you the imagine the Stones with out him?

Prince has never allowed the Revolution, NPG, or anybody else to stand alongside him as Jagger has with Richards, for instance. Prince never had bands. He had props. They were interchangeable parts never intended to do more than serve his image and musical whims. With this considered, there's really no comparison.

Although, I will say this: I think the Revolution (in particular, Wendy and Lisa) served him from a songwriting standpoint, more than he will ever be willing to admit.

violator said:

Iagre that Jagger started withing th e whole and as a group--he wasnt even the mnain sex symbol, it was Brian Jones etc...BUT!...Y(Ou cant say Prince did not let his bands stand alongside of him...REV folks got plenty of recognition! Prince is stronger than any one band representing himself and his era etc

rdhull said:

They didn't miss a beat, however, in the transition from Brian Jones to Ron Wood. The Revolution were as close as a band could get to standing alongside Prince as an equal and even then it didn't approach anything close to what Jagger and Richards enjoy in the Stones.

The Revolution were a group molded in an image Prince desired. They weren't decision makers. They weren't the focal point. Much like Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman and Wood. Even today, the Stones without Wyman are a huge draw. But could that take place without Jagger or Richards? Nah.

One thing stands out in my mind, in reference to this subject. I remember a Rolling Stone article back in '86. It had Wendy and Lisa, and Prince on the cover. And I recall how strongly W&L were trying to convey the idea that they (The Revolution and Prince) really were a band. It was a point made more than once. Wendy even went so far as to say they would be together forever. Not less than three months later they were history.

violator said:

Mick needs Keif and Charlie...Prince needs nobody. He can attract his core fans without anyone else in tow

rdhull said:

I agree that Jagger without Richards certainly isn't the same. But that's because it's the persona they established from day one. Prince has been Mr.'Produced, Arranged, Composed and Performed' always. He could never be attached to any "band" persona. But Watts? Man, they could replace Watts tomorrow and they'd still sellout 5 nights straight at MSG.

Look at all the bands that "lost it"
after the 70's...

Rolling Stones
The Who
Led Zeppelin
Aerosmith
Kiss

Love the way you think, man

origmnd said:

Agreed... apart from Aerosmith. Their peak was surely mid to late 80s.

Have the rest all had members die??

1p1p1i3 said:

I think origmnd was being a bit facetious. None of the above bands have lost it at all. Led Zeppelin weren't even a band past the 70's. Once John Bonham died, the group disbanded. And when the concert tallies are done I'm sure we'll find that Aerosmith/Kiss had one of the most successful tours of the year.

violator said:

None have put out any decent lps (except
The Elder) after the 70's.

violator said:

You're kidding right? Watts is probably the second most valuable musician in that band behind Keith. Drop Wyman and Woody, and you STILL got the stones. But lose Watts and you've lost some serious shit... that man DRIVES the band, Keith steers, and Jagger is the tourguide.

origmnd said:

That's not really the point. What you or I personally like or dislike about their music doesn't change the fact that all of these bands still move a lot of copies of albums each year and some still sell out huge arenas.

otan said:

Believe me, I don't doubt Watts musicianship. One of my fave CD's for a long time was 'Warm and Tender' by him. It's a beautiful CD. I'm simply saying that for most Stones fans, I don't think Watts' musicianship is the big draw. It's Jagger and Richards. The Glimmer Twins. The Rolling Stones could, conceivably, exist without Watts IMO. But there's no question that the Stones don't exist at all without Jagger or Richards.

otan said:

Watts is a key part of their sound.

MrTation said:

And again...that's not what I'm saying.

Look, there are arguably few drummers more valuable to their band's sound than John Bonham was to Zep. In fact, the band felt so much so that they disbanded upon his death. But a Zep reunion has been one of the most desired reunions for years now. You put Page, Plant and Jones on a stage tomorrow as Zeppelin and you will see shit turned on its ear.

However, if Zep went out with Lawrence Gowan as the frontman...

Well said. I don't know if I'd say fuck em' all but I understand where you're coming from

I'd pay a lot of $ to just see Prince, n a stripped down solo set, like MTV Unplugged. Yet, I doubt it will ever happen.

Maybe

Blue

violator said:

Damn straight.


They knew what side their bread was buttered on.


For almost 2 and a half decades now.

Long live the JB inspired, distinct, thick, funky, heavy-assed rhythms of John Henry Bonham.

Supernova said:

I take it then ,you did'nt dig the No Quarter/Unledded
Page/Plant reunion in '94?I thought it was pretty good,but was SHOCKED to find out later that Jones wasn't even asked to attend.

Still , I agree.Without JB , it isnt Led.

MrTation said:

Oh, I DID! I even think that version of "Kashmir" is superior to the original. But had JB still been around there's no doubt in my mind the song still would be rearranged (live) to the greatness that it is on the NQ album. He was their secret weapon.

Plant and Page were being silly about JPJ; Plant's excuse was that it wasn't really a Led Zep reunion. True as that was, it was completely rude and disrespectful for them to leave Jones out of the equation. JPJ could have been equally as petty and brought up the fact that he (Jones) was a member of Led Zeppelin before Page even recruited Plant. But all that didn't last long. They've been on good terms since then, and really were never on bad terms before that.

rdhull said:

I'm sure this is what Prince believes...

Supernova said:

More importantly than seniority, JPJ was the producer on their albums, and arranged most of the songs. They're credited to page/plant, but do the research and you'll find out the JPJ was actually the strongest member of Zeppelin, I was shocked cuz he always seemed like a lucky bystander.

As far as Watts being easily replaced and nobody'd notice, I beg to differ. As much as Bonham made Zeppelin the Heavy Metal Godfathers, Watts made the stones the Bar Band Godfathers - his solid, unaltering, unflashy playing is hard to pull off... most folks would WANT to Bonham it up a little bit, and that's where Watts shines.

The man can reign it in and play for the song like NOBODY. Go listen to "Only Rock and Roll" for the best example of his playing. He drops the damn snare out for half the song, which is totally unnoticed until he brings it in, and suddenly, you've got wood.

The stones are and always will be my number one band. Prince is Prince, and he's number two in my book for all his talent and songwriting skills, but the stones are number one... OVER Zep, Who, and the Beatles even.