From Christgau, one of the country's most respected rock critics. As usual, I don't get everything he's talking about, but I agree with most of the stuff I do understand.

http://www.villagevoice.c...istgau.php
[This message was edited Tue May 4 12:20:53 2004 by MendesCity]

My head is spinning... Was that written in riddles or what?

Zoinks!

geminito said:

He's usually a bit more comprehensible than that...somewhat of a disappointing review, doesn't really capture much of the album's mood.
[This message was edited Tue May 4 12:50:45 2004 by MendesCity]

A tad overwritten, but interesting.

This is the greatest thing I have read about the album so far. Christgau's criticism of Prince and the hype of Musicology is so correct; it is about time someone told the truth.

He mentions that P's late 90s work was good, not horrible, like the other critics said, and that this album is some comback from obscurity. He was never gone. He didn't have hits, but hits are not the most important thing. Christgau is the only fair critic so far. Being good in his review, but critical towards Prince and his lame attempts at foaming for hits.

Christgau has always been a big Prince supporter, and he is one of the few critics to give consistantly good reviews to late 90's albums, that other critics consider dreck, like Emancipation and Chaos And Disorder.

He makes the point that Columbia is hyping the album as some masterwork, when in actuality it is merely a good album with good pop songs.

Prince is playing to this fraud. Feigning offense, when someone calls his new music some comeback. It is just a play to sell records. Christgau just understands Prince's music better. He likes it, and gets why we like it.

We should all email him and thank him.

jesus, dude needs an editor!

You just don't understand good writing.

That photo they have used is freaky. Is that a statue? What is Prince holding onto there?

2freaky4church1 said:

some of it was good. Some of it was overblown, pretentious, wordy schmaltz. IMO, of course

Loved it. Especially the way he described the music. Cool way with words.

I stopped reading the review when I saw that he didn't even know the name of one of the albums.



I'd rather listen to critic who blatantly isn't a fan, rather than somebody who pretends to be one.

2freaky4church1 said:

I agree. this guy actually knows his stuff, and isn't willing to just right off every release P has done since "Batman". This reviewer is actually quite knowledgeable, and I find that impressive.

BinaryJustin said:

More than likely, that's an editorial mistake, not the writer's (the editor probably saw New Power Soul by the New Power Generation, and assumed the writer had screwed up)

it had my head spinning too, but i was able to get the message that 2freaky4church spelled out fo everybody. try reading the previous review of janet jacksons' damita jo found at the bottom of the article, instead of having your head spinning, it sends the blood flow rushing elsewhere.....

Good review, interesting comments, pretty well balanced. He's obtuse in places amd his grammar isn't outstanding, but he'll pass

Christgau is a legend but this review is a bit hall-of-mirrors.

POOK said:

Well he referred to Purple Rain so I assume he's crediting the movie as being an accurate representation of Prince's real life. If so, that's a bit lazy, imo.

Like anything else, just a mans opinion. I don't think that it's fair to try to put a feeling or opinion on someones personal battle against someone or something else. Prince went at it alone with the help of no other celebrities. Give the man a break. If you write a couple thousand songs all of them aren't going to be gems, but that doesn't mean that I still don't want to listen to them. Is it Princes best album? NO, but I will still say that it is better than 90% of the music that I hear on the radio throughout the week.

BinaryJustin said:

Why does the Prince.org editotial lead in on the home page suggest he "socks it to Prince"?

He doesn't at all. He jsut points out that this is a deliberate attempt by Prince to put out a commercial album despite him saying that he "has not been away".

It seems he quite likes Musicology from my reading of the review.

Christgau is one of those critics that like to think they craft a review like a great songwriter crafts a song or an album. You see this in the structure. The other thing is that the review actually explains his critical approach long before he gets to the record. Funny.. that's at least two reviews that start with a fairly long explanation for the actual album review... In my opinion, this indicates an overanalytical approach and a rather defensive one. It's nice to know Christgau knows his Prince, but seriously... I think critics have enough strikes against them as it is, what with the numerous releases that compete for their attention and the whole routine of constantly having to listen and assess so many records. There's no need to add another contorsion to the exercise -- why overintellectualize the listening experience?

But as these things go, this one is pretty good. It will fit well in his next book of collected reviews. Musicology gets a "good" review, and considering how much he's prepped himself for it, the record is probably better than the review would have you believe.

One thing is for sure : if anyone still thinks Prince isn't taken "seriously", please refer to the incredible lengths some reviewers go to explain their opinion before even getting to it. A sure sign.
[This message was edited Tue May 4 16:11:15 2004 by Aerogram]

BinaryJustin said:

As someone who reads him all the time you have to understand that he uses short phrases(sometimes one word) to refer to albums and songs all the time. "Soul" is just his shorthand for New Power Soul. He knows the name of the album, and assumes that if we are reading the review we know what album he is referring to also. If you had read any of his review books you would know that he is a huge fan, as A- reviews of Emancipation, Chaos & Disorder and the Black Album(before it was officially released) demonstrate.

All that being said, this review is a bit difficult and pretentious.

bkw said:

I agree. On the actual songs, Christgau has this to say (the bold part indicates a weakness, but the rest....) :

"he lead track, first single, and MTV staple "Musicology" establishes his method. It's a straight James Brown rip—Jimmy Nolen guitar, understated bass curlicue, syncopated tom, daubs of organ and faux horn, irregular backup vocals, with every sound, presumably including the thugs and munchkins, provided by Prince himself. The back-in-the-day lyric claiming JB, Sly, Earth, Wind & Fire, old-school rap, and bands-not-turntables might render this unspontaneous multitracking a contradiction, but hell, he contains multitudes, and he loves playing with himself. "Illusion, Coma, Pimp & Circumstance" is just as lean and more out—the patched-in guitar fills startling yet right rhythmically and harmonically, the scratches an extra contradiction. The requisite "Life 'O' the Party" adds femme vox and femme sax to Prince's one-man singing group and ersatz horn charts. That's an uptempo trifecta through track four, interrupted by one of three synthed-up ballads where he loses his mental toughness. And then, having gotten our attention and assent, this lifelong tease slows the pace, permanently—without materially harming the record. Pleasant shocks lurk near the surface and go against the flow of the quality material, and almost everything packs payback: apt rock guitar turning into apt tasty guitar (lick me); vocal calculations that could only have been improvised (right?); godfathered horn charts, some live (Maceo!).

As for the lyrics, who cares? Track two isn't about a dirty dog and an evil rich white woman, it's about the Meters gone pomo. And though the confusion of "Cinnamon Girl" suits its doomed attempt to blur "color lines" where the confusion of 2001's Rainbow Children made the same goal a travesty, its doomed appeal to the good book reminds us that Prince is now a Jehovah's Witness, which bodes ill for his significance. Better, although hardly as newsworthy as EW pretends, is his conversion to monogamy, which yields the yearning eros of "On the Couch" ("Don't make me sleep . . . ") as well as one about resisting a female fan that has Garth Brooks written all over it. But better still is the musicology itself. The rock star mantle implies obligations we shouldn't give up on just because Prince hasn't made the most of them. But James Brown just ignored them, and that hasn't stopped him."
[This message was edited Tue May 4 16:26:32 2004 by Aerogram]

BinaryJustin said:

I'm not a great admirer of Robert Christgau: his long, winding, verbose style wears me out very quickly (try reading one of his yearly pazz and jop poll summaries - you'll see what I mean). However, he is almost certainly one of the longest-lasting and most knowledgeable pop music critics in America. Anyone who regularly reads his columns in the Village Voice knows that he has an intimidating awareness of music across all genres. He's practically the pop music equivalent of Pauline Kael.

2freaky4church1 said:

-----
How is Prince playing a fraud. The man never said " I never want to have hit records again.
He said he wanted to have control over his music and finances. He has found a way to do it all.

What would you want him to do?. Go back to 1984? He grew up why don't you.

Christgau has the same problem that a lot of intelligent writers have. He falls in love with his own words, and dances and flirts with a good point rather than just coming out and saying it.

This review is a little too swamped in it's own style for me to enjoy it, but if you can sort through all the needless wordplay and glib notions, he does make some good points.

Although, the major thing that he neglected is to really say anything detailed or significant about the record. This isn't an uncommon problem; most of the reviews I've read for Musicology have been roughly 90% history and recounts of Prince's battle with Warner Bros. and 10% actual album review. Truth be told, the only review that stands out in my head as really focusing on the album almost entirely is the review that DeCurtis wrote for Rolling Stone.
[This message was edited Tue May 4 16:56:16 2004 by getwild007]

That is one of the most poorly written reviews I have ever read. Intentionally verbose and pretentious and his sentences are far too long in many places.

"ALL THE CRITICS LOVE YOU IN "NEW YORK" O+>