Hotlegs said:

vainandy said:

You guys need to remember that Prince never considered himself a "funk" artist, just an artist. Same goes for Miles. He never considered himself a jazz musician, just a musician. If it weren't for these guys reaching out and trying new things, their catalogues would have been very one-dimensional. Is that what the "funkateers" want?

I agree he's been diverse since the very first album but he didn't overdo it. When comparing Prince to Rick James, diversity should not even be an issue. Rick was considered a funk artist and proud to be one. Prince had some funk under his belt that could easily rival Rick's. I only compare them only on the things they have in common, which is funk, not who's the most diverse. Of course, everyone knows Prince is more diverse.

Over the years, people have praised Prince so much for his diversity that it has gone to his head and now he's on a mission to prove his diversity. Lately, he's been adding horns to his hard rock songs like "Let's Go Crazy". For years, his funk suffered because of him trying to prove his diversity, now his rock is starting to suffer.

I think Rick might have wanted to explore different types of music a little bit but not as much as Prince. I'm not saying that's a good or a bad thing, I'm just stating a fact. Everyone has more tastes than just one but Rick basically stuck with what he excelled in...funk.

I don't see Rick using sythesizer style music later as him trying to branch out into other types of music though. I saw it as him trying to adjust with what was popular on the radio at that time. I do think a little of that could also be a part of him trying to get a slice of the pie that Prince had achieved such success with. The fact that Rick later started dressing like Prince, shows there was some jealousy there. This is not a total diss on Rick because I think that Prince had a little jealousy for Rick in the very early days also and wanted a slice of Rick's shock value. Rick was much more shocking in the beginning than Prince was.

I don't necessarily see him going to Warner Bros. to try to branch out. The albums "Glow" and "The Flag" on Motown were not near the strong albums as he had earlier. He was also very heavy into drugs by then. I'm wondering if Motown let him go. Also, Motown might have ripped him off. I don't know. I do know that they ripped Teena Marie off BIG time.
[Edited 1/19/05 12:29pm]

Don't forget that "My Name is Prince" is a redo of a "Cream" remix. Ever wonder what "resurrect a groove with feeling and give it this much affection" meant?

At least - at least! When Prince reuses grooves, it's on b-sides or side projects. It's very likely that Cloreen Bacon Skin, which was released as a "bootleg," was a rehearsal that led to "Tricky," or the other way around, or whatever.

Unless you count "Gold" and "Last December" as rewrites of "Purple Rain," which they totally are.

But anyone who writes 12-bar blues for the radio is gonna repeat themselves. Check out Kiss, Peach, U Got the Look - all in a row on The Hits 2!

vainandy said:

Vain, Very Well Said. You took the words right out of my mouth. Something about adding horms to Let's go crazy don't mix. Hell, there's nothing wrong with diversity but there a time a place and P has been overdoing it and compromising the funk which I detest.

vainandy said:

Exactly

vainandy said:

sermwanderer said:

Perhaps.And I believe that Rick could have easily recorded a kickass rock album.But his first love was funk.

I think he could have too. Like Prince, Rick always said that he liked all kinds of music. He had a lot more influences that he didn't really explore in his own music. You can tell he was into poetry also. "Stormy Love" is a short track that is basically recited "poetry" before "When Love Is Gone" begins. Rick also loved to write short poems for some of the album sleeves. Rick even went around quoting Shakespeare, something the average funk artist doesn't do. Plus he had Teena Marie around and who knows what rubbed off on each other. Those two were really good for each other. Rick loved to talk about Prince but he had a cultured side as well.

I think the fact that he personally liked a little rock, made his music come across a little more hard edged than the average funk band. I don't know how to explain it but I kind of hear it in the guitar playing on the some of the tracks I guess. I don't know. Rick was a hell raiser and a drug user. I remember he used to hang out with heavy metal groups also. I guess birds of a feather flock together.

I don't know what his reasons were for not branching out but I give him points for sticking to his specialty and continuing to give his original fans, that made him a star, what they wanted, even after his crossover success with "Super Freak"...the funk, the whole funk, and nothing but the funk. You don't find too many black artists that continue on hard and funky after seeing dollar signs.
[Edited 1/20/05 7:59am]

I'm still stuck on this la la land nonsense.
Wasn't Jimi Hendrix in la la land(except he called it ELECTRIC LADYLAND),wasn't P-FUNK in la la land or somewhere?

Oh Lord! Here we go again. Of course, music by all artists is fantasy. "La La Land" is a sarcastic term used to describe Prince's abrupt style change beginning with "Around The World In A Day". Not everyone was happy with it and they have a right to not be happy with it. It's good but I personally don't consider it great like his earlier stuff was.
[Edited 1/20/05 9:12am]

vainandy said:

"The opposite of NATO is OTAN"

First of all, how in the hell is Purple Rain a rehash of 1999? 1999 is way more synth-heavy, way more club/dance-pop oriented, way more retro-futuristic. Purple Rain is more guitar driven, more psychedelic and, in my opinion, is much darker. How can you argue that Computer Blue or Darling Nicki are watered down compared to delirious or 1999 or let's pretend we're married?

Lastly, If Prince was in "la la land" when he made Sign O' The Times, than la la land is definitely a good thing. It wasn't as though there's just a clear partition between "old prince" and "new prince", each album differed from the previous ones in gradations. I mean Around the world in a day is actually fairly similar, and in my mind a logical extension of Purple Rain. That would be like saying that the beatles totally shifted gears with Sergeant Pepper because it ignores the fact that sergeant pepper expanded off revolver and that revolver was an extension of rubber soul.

vainandy said:

You don't hear similarities between "1999" and "Purple Rain" and I do. We all hear things in different ways. But, in your opinion, has Prince never made one single song in his entire career that sounded similar to one his previous songs? The Dog or "Otan" was saying in the other site that Rick James has and Prince has never, not even once, and that's what I was disputing. Those two albums were just one example I gave him in my defense.




You are only seeing a part of the thread from the other site and how the discussion turned around. Otan stated that the last good Rick James album was "Street Songs". I told him that Rick's last good album was around the same time as Prince's last really great album and both of their best runs were basically the same, 1978-1984. The he asked me, "Well what about "Sign O The Times". I told him that yes it's a good album but it is still Prince in "La La Land".

In regards to comparing Prince and Rick, it is only fair to keep them on the same level by fan base. Rick was always considered an R&B artist and had no desire to be otherwise. Prince, in the early days, whether he wanted to be or not, was also considered an R&B artist. That's how their paths crossed to begin with. If you compare them on a pop level, yes, Rick's only great album would be "Street Songs" and Prince would have many more. To put Rick up against an album like "Sign O The Times" would be totally rediculous because Rick had mainly R&B fans and by the time "Sign O' The Times" came out, Prince had more pop fans worldwide than he had R&B fans. The majority of his R&B fans left after "Purple Rain" and a great deal of his pop fans left also because they weren't feeling Prince's new direction. His new sound or, in reality, it was an "old" retro sound, was definately "La La Land" compared to Prince before.

We were not discussing whether "Sign O The Times" was a good album or not. That only came up for a brief moment. We were comparing Prince and Rick. And really, that's not how the thread started. Otan started a thread on the Rick James web site about the performance with James Brown, Michael Jackson, and Prince. Mistermaxxx got mad because Prince's name was even mentioned and later started another thread wanting to know why there were Prince fans on that site. Otan and Mistermaxxx went on and on arguing with each other. In the process, Otan had nothing but negative comments about Rick and mainly positive comments about Prince, then I got into the debate. That's how it came around to this.
[Edited 1/20/05 19:51pm]

vainandy said:

For the most part I agree with what you're saying, I was just pointing out that I think that comparing 1999 and Purple Rain, and excluding Sign o' The times from the ranks of prince's "great" albums, are very weak arguments against Prince. Sure prince has songs and albums that sound the same, but 1999 and Purple Rain would hardly be the most obvious choice. Furthermore, I think it's misguided to claim that Sign O ' the times represents a "retro-prince" or "out of touch prince" because it's al but undisputably his best album. You could argue that ATWIAD and Parade have a "beatles-vibe" certainly, but Purple Rain has just as strong a Hendrix vibe, and 1999 a strong P-funk vibe, how is that any less "retro"? And how exactly do you pigeon-hole Sign O' The times into any one category, retro or otherwise? There are songs on SOTT that are reminiscent of all kinds of sources: Sly & The family stone, James Brown, Pink Floyd, John Lennon etc.

As far as comparing Prince and Rick James, I'm not even going to try because I'm not very well versed with Rick's work, nor am I really a firm believer in quantifying the relative quotient of talent or worth between two artists (not that it's stupid to compare artists, because I do it all the time). However, if you're going to argue that prince repeated himself, 1999 and Purple Rain isn't a very good example, nor would Sign O' the Times be a good example of him losing touch or falling off creatively.

When I hear "1999" and "Purple Rain", I hear influences but for the most part, I hear a futuristic vibe about them. They were also very modern sounding for the time. They could fit in with other artists' music at the time and still have that "Prince" sound that made them stand out. "Sign O The Times", to me and many others, sounds like a visit to the past. There are many influences and different styles of music on that album but it still has a 1960s and 1970s feel to it and it did not fit in well with current music of the 1980s as a whole at the time, where the "1999" and "Purple Rain" albums did.



The only reason I compared those two albums is because we were on a Rick James web site. I used other songs as well but I wanted to throw in some Prince material that Rick James fans would be fimiliar with also in case they wanted to join in on the debate. Otan has heard the other songs I mentioned but the average Rick James fan wouldn't.
[Edited 1/20/05 20:58pm]

vainandy said:

Well I, and many others, would disagree about Sign O' the Times being a retread. I think it sounds more original and forward looking than any other album he's done. Sure it has roots and influences in the past, but what album doesn't? Purple Rain, in my mind, is very 70s in it's feel and while 1999 certainly feels like a work of the 80s, in my mind that's a testament to how dated it is (still a great album but still dated).

I'm sure the average Rick James fan knows a little more about prince than just 1999 and Purple Rain. Whoever Otan was arguing with seemed to be very up on his prince trivia. If you want to argue prince repeated himself, Controversy and Dirty Mind would be a much better example.

Lord, there's that word "dated" again. People sure love to throw that word around a lot around here. I can listen to a song from any artist for the first time and figure out what decade it came from, if I am familiar with that genre of music. If "dated" means that "1999" sounds so 1980s that it would never fit in or get played along side of today's format of music, then I am thrilled to death that it is "dated". "Purple Rain" sounds just as 1980s as "1999" does, just not as much.

As for "Sign O The Times", it sounds "dated" as well. It has a 1960s and 1970s feel to it but the more modern type of instruments he mixes with the more traditional instruments, let's me know it came from the 1980s. Even if the modern instruments were gone, parts of it would still sound "dated" to either the 1960s or 1970s, even though it was recorded to the 1980s. It would still be "dated" to some decade of music. It's not like it was a totally brand new type of music and instruments that had never been heard of before.

"Sign O The Times" may be a favorite around here, it's a Prince web site, but I know countless people that were not wanting to hear an updated version of the 1960s and 1970s, while the 1980s was going on. Somehow, I knew this was going to turn into a debate over the greatness of the almighty "Sign O The Times" rather the real subject at hand which is comparisons to Prince and Rick James repeating themselves. People drop all else when a negative comment is made against it.




The average Rick James would know almost all of Prince's work before and during "1999" and "Purple Rain". Both Prince and Rick James had the same audience during those years. I compared the albums "1999" and "Purple Rain" off the top of my head. Those albums were the first ones during that era that came to mind. There's a lot more Prince stuff that sounds similar after those albums than before though, and I did give some of those examples for Otan because I knew he would have heard of them.
[Edited 1/21/05 14:55pm]

vainandy said:

"Dated" doesn't necessarily just mean that the era of its origin is easily identifiable. dated means that it hasn't aged well, that it sounds like an artifact of its time rather than something that transcends it. 1999 certainly is more "dated" in that regard than Purple Rain.

Just one last question for you. How many albums from the 60s or 70s sound like Sign O' the Times? Furthermore, why would that be a bad thing seeing as how the 60s and 70s were the golden age of rock and R&b?

You have very good points and I can understand the point you are trying to make. But if "dated" means a song or album hasn't aged well or is not really well loved by the generation of today, then that is only judging by current standards. Musical styles from every era are constantly reinventing themselves and showing up later as an updated reincarnation of a previous style. One example would be house music. There was a huge backlash against disco in the early 1980s. People were constantly tearing it down by saying it was nothing more than a meaningless, rhyhmic form of music that really had no substance and was much below the standards of rock or more traditional R&B. Around six or seven years later, house music shows up on the scene, which is nothing more than an updated reincarnation of what used to be disco. There seems to be a 1980s backlash going on today. Maybe not on this web site, but in the world.

People seem to forget that we have been stuck in the same musical mode for 15 years now, especially when it comes to R&B. Artists have thrown in a little something extra every now and then but no really big change has occurred in musical styles. We have been stuck in a ballad and midtempo mode for years and very few uptempo songs have seen the light of day unless you go underground. Current artists for years now have been praising and talking about their idols from the 1970s. Clothing styles from 1970s have been reincarnated from time to time as well. Singers like D'Angelo, Maxwell, or Ginuine have said that Prince was an influence on them but when they make music, you only hear the more mellow, laid back, late 1980s, R&B side of Prince and never the uptempo, funky, futuristic, harder edged side of Prince.

Yes, judging by the current era, "1999" would be considered "dated", but musical styles always change and if they ever change from it's current mode to something more uptempo and modern futuristic, which doesn't seem to be any time soon, "1999" would no longer be considered "dated" and "Sign O The Times" would.

As for albums from the 1960s or 1970s sounding like "Sign O The Times", that's not really the issue. It's more a matter of Prince trying to sound more and more like his influences than he was previously and slipping further and further away from an original sound of his own. It's OK to revisit earlier decades, but damn, Prince needs to snap out of it, he's been stuck in those decades three times longer than he had his modern futuristic sound. I can understand if his head is no longer with his older stuff and doesn't want to make it anymore, but when he releases something from the vault, it is always something similar to what he was doing after 1985 and hardly ever something before. I see that as totally turning his back on his original fans that made him a star and supported him when he was a nobody and totally catering to his pop fans, or his totally die-hard fans that stuck around and made him a superstar. When I'm hungry, I'll settle for hamburger, but it would be nice to have some steak sometimes.
[Edited 1/22/05 5:00am]

Let these comparisons end. They both blew up and made history,...nuff said.

Anyone that knows music history knows neither one is all that original but both are great artist .

Thumparello said:

That's one way of putting it. To a certain extent, I would say both artists borrowed styles from their music idols of the past. So, I can see your point.