802 said:

So you don't find it unusual at all that more people chose the MJ album on (what's supposed to be) a Prince fan site?

[Edited 8/17/11 5:18am]

I do. But the fact is that Diamonds And Pearls hasn't many fans here in the org. Something I strongly disagree with, as it's a superb set of songs, maybe without the cohesion of other albums of his, but such a series of brilliant tunes, almost without filler (in my opinion, only Jughead), is almost impossible to find in any other Prince record. That said, Dangerous is a brilliant album. I'd choose Diamonds And Pearls, but Michael also did an amazing effort with his 1991 album.

802 said:

So you don't find it unusual at all that more people chose the MJ album on (what's supposed to be) a Prince fan site?

I myself choose the "dangerous" and do not see anything wrong with that. A good album - it's a good album! I always give credit to the artist when it is, IMO, a well-deserved. But maybe it is because I am an ordinary fan, not obsessed

Dangerous was a bold move for Mike. Contrary to many comments in this thread it proved that having hit singles wasn't always his primary concern as few of the tracks included scream "OBVIOUS HIT MATERIAL HERE!" The same can be said for History, Blood On The Dance Floor and Invincible.

Despite the success of the album it's no way near as immediate or as chart friendly as his previous three efforts and this is reflected in the relatively poor chart positions in the US (and numerous other markets) of several of its later singles.

What's most apparent to me with Dangerous is his artistic growth. One thing that makes Mike unusual compared to many, if not most, other popular music acts is that his most challenging and experimental material came late in his career and he rarely (if ever) gets any credit for this.

Those who argue that everything that Mike released was considered with commercial success in mind need to revisit Morphine, Is It Scary, Little Susie, D.S., Who Is It, Jam, Stranger In Moscow, Childhood (if you're brave enough), Superfly Sister, Monkey Business, Privacy, Shout, Threatened, among others. These tracks are not the work of someone conciously trying to write a hit single and Dangerous marks the point of a different approach to music making for Mike and also thankfully a step away from the 'King of Pop' malarkey, even though his PR went into overdrive with that ridiculous moniker at the time of the album's release. Looking back at that point in his career Dangerous was anything but a safe option.

By contrast Diamonds And Pearls, while not a bad album, marks the point at which Prince's extraordinary creativity was starting to dry up and it was clearly also a concious effort to write an album of hit material. It worked, yet it was his most ordinary album since his second one some 12 years earlier.

I find Dangerous by far the more satisfying album of the two, but right now I think I'm gonna go listen to Diamonds And Pearls.

Cloudbuster said:

Dangerous was a bold move for Mike. Contrary to many comments in this thread it proved that having hit singles wasn't always his primary concern as few of the tracks included scream "OBVIOUS HIT MATERIAL HERE!" The same can be said for History, Blood On The Dance Floor and Invincible.

Despite the success of the album it's no way near as immediate or as chart friendly as his previous three efforts and this is reflected in the relatively poor chart positions in the US (and numerous other markets) of several of its later singles.

What's most apparent to me with Dangerous is his artistic growth. One thing that makes Mike unusual compared to many, if not most, other popular music acts is that his most challenging and experimental material came late in his career and he rarely (if ever) gets any credit for this.

Those who argue that everything that Mike released was considered with commercial success in mind need to revisit Morphine, Is It Scary, Little Susie, D.S., Who Is It, Jam, Stranger In Moscow, Childhood (if you're brave enough), Superfly Sister, Monkey Business, Privacy, Shout, Threatened, among others. These tracks are not the work of someone conciously trying to write a hit single and Dangerous marks the point of a different approach to music making for Mike and also thankfully a step away from the 'King of Pop' malarkey, even though his PR went into overdrive with that ridiculous moniker at the time of the album's release. Looking back at that point in his career Dangerous was anything but a safe option.

By contrast Diamonds And Pearls, while not a bad album, marks the point at which Prince's extraordinary creativity was starting to dry up and it was clearly also a concious effort to write an album of hit material. It worked, yet it was his most ordinary album since his second one some 12 years earlier.

I find Dangerous by far the more satisfying album of the two, but right now I think I'm gonna go listen to Diamonds And Pearls.

THIS X INFINITY!!!!~

Unholyalliance said:

Cloudbuster said:

Dangerous was a bold move for Mike. Contrary to many comments in this thread it proved that having hit singles wasn't always his primary concern as few of the tracks included scream "OBVIOUS HIT MATERIAL HERE!" The same can be said for History, Blood On The Dance Floor and Invincible.

Despite the success of the album it's no way near as immediate or as chart friendly as his previous three efforts and this is reflected in the relatively poor chart positions in the US (and numerous other markets) of several of its later singles.

What's most apparent to me with Dangerous is his artistic growth. One thing that makes Mike unusual compared to many, if not most, other popular music acts is that his most challenging and experimental material came late in his career and he rarely (if ever) gets any credit for this.

Those who argue that everything that Mike released was considered with commercial success in mind need to revisit Morphine, Is It Scary, Little Susie, D.S., Who Is It, Jam, Stranger In Moscow, Childhood (if you're brave enough), Superfly Sister, Monkey Business, Privacy, Shout, Threatened, among others. These tracks are not the work of someone conciously trying to write a hit single and Dangerous marks the point of a different approach to music making for Mike and also thankfully a step away from the 'King of Pop' malarkey, even though his PR went into overdrive with that ridiculous moniker at the time of the album's release. Looking back at that point in his career Dangerous was anything but a safe option.

By contrast Diamonds And Pearls, while not a bad album, marks the point at which Prince's extraordinary creativity was starting to dry up and it was clearly also a concious effort to write an album of hit material. It worked, yet it was his most ordinary album since his second one some 12 years earlier.

I find Dangerous by far the more satisfying album of the two, but right now I think I'm gonna go listen to Diamonds And Pearls.

THIS X INFINITY!!!!~

I think Diamonds And Pearls was also a step ahead for Prince, and I don't agree that his creativity was starting to dry up. And what's wrong with having hit singles if the songs are extraordinary? Apart from the fact that only Cream and Diamonds And Pearls are really radio friendly; I don't think Gett Off, Money Don't Matter 2night and Insatiable are particularly radio friendly.

[Edited 8/22/11 7:24am]

Javi said:

Unholyalliance said:

THIS X INFINITY!!!!~

I think Diamonds And Pearls was also a step ahead for Prince, and I don't agree that his creativity was starting to dry up. And what's wrong with having hit singles if the songs are extraordinary? Apart from the fact that only Cream and Diamonds And Pearls are really radio friendly; I don't think Gett Off, Money Don't Matter 2night and Insatiable are particularly radio friendly.

I don't dislike Diamonds & Pearls, but again, it's quite an ordinary album compared to anything he'd released in the previous decade. There was little that was bold or original about any of it. Gett Off was quite peculiar next to, say, Cream or the title track but at the same time it was no When Doves Cry or If I Was Your Girlfriend. And that's true also of Insatiable and especially Money Don't Matter 2Night. Both nice and likeable songs but nothing groundbreaking or original.

Money Don't Matter 2Night is a straightforward pop/soul groove with a radio friendly chorus, for goodness sake. Miles away from Sign 'O' The Times or Mountains or even Batdance.

To me it's the album where he stopped trusting his instincts and started to look over his shoulder to see how he could fit in with what was going on around him. While there's nothing wrong with doing that, it certainly diluted his own vision and compromised the alluring creativity that he was renowned for. And, with the exception of the curious TRC album and a few other tracks here and there, he's never really recovered, imo.

Cloudbuster said:

Javi said:

I think Diamonds And Pearls was also a step ahead for Prince, and I don't agree that his creativity was starting to dry up. And what's wrong with having hit singles if the songs are extraordinary? Apart from the fact that only Cream and Diamonds And Pearls are really radio friendly; I don't think Gett Off, Money Don't Matter 2night and Insatiable are particularly radio friendly.

I don't dislike Diamonds & Pearls, but again, it's quite an ordinary album compared to anything he'd released in the previous decade. There was little that was bold or original about any of it. Gett Off was quite peculiar next to, say, Cream or the title track but at the same time it was no When Doves Cry or If I Was Your Girlfriend. And that's true also of Insatiable and especially Money Don't Matter 2Night. Both nice and likeable songs but nothing groundbreaking or original.

Money Don't Matter 2Night is a straightforward pop/soul groove with a radio friendly chorus, for goodness sake. Miles away from Sign 'O' The Times or Mountains or even Batdance.

To me it's the album where he stopped trusting his instincts and started to look over his shoulder to see how he could fit in with what was going on around him. While there's nothing wrong with doing that, it certainly diluted his own vision and compromised the alluring creativity that he was renowned for. And, with the exception of the curious TRC album and a few other tracks here and there, he's never really recovered, imo.

I agree with you that the album wasn't half as brave and innovative as his best 80's stuff. But, in my opinion, not only do innovation and originality count; Diamonds And Pearls is full of brilliant songs, it's really hard to beat the sequence Thunder-Gett Off (the first record of the double album) in terms of pop composition. Who can remain innovative forever? Prince did it for a few years, but certainly not in the 90's. But he continued writing awesome material, and, in my opinion, Diamonds And Pearls is a collection of songs very difficult to beat.

Maybe he named the album like that because the songs actually are diamonds and pearls (and one turd, of course! )

[Edited 8/22/11 8:07am]

Javi said:

I agree with you that the album wasn't half as brave and innovative as his best 80's stuff. But, in my opinion, not only do innovation and originality count; Diamonds And Pearls is full of brilliant songs, it's really hard to beat the sequence Thunder-Gett Off (the first record of the double album) in terms of pop composition. Who can remain innovative forever? Prince did it for a few years, but certainly not in the 90's. But he continued writing awesome material, and, in my opinion, Diamonds And Pearls is a collection of songs very difficult to beat.

Maybe he named the album like that because the songs actually are diamonds and pearls (and one turd, of course! )

Most of the songs are decent and well written, I won't argue against that.

Ironic isn't it that the turd you speak of is actually the album's most dynamic track! Still shit, tho'.

Cloudbuster said:

Dangerous was a bold move for Mike. Contrary to many comments in this thread it proved that having hit singles wasn't always his primary concern as few of the tracks included scream "OBVIOUS HIT MATERIAL HERE!" The same can be said for History, Blood On The Dance Floor and Invincible.

Despite the success of the album it's no way near as immediate or as chart friendly as his previous three efforts and this is reflected in the relatively poor chart positions in the US (and numerous other markets) of several of its later singles.

What's most apparent to me with Dangerous is his artistic growth. One thing that makes Mike unusual compared to many, if not most, other popular music acts is that his most challenging and experimental material came late in his career and he rarely (if ever) gets any credit for this.

Those who argue that everything that Mike released was considered with commercial success in mind need to revisit Morphine, Is It Scary, Little Susie, D.S., Who Is It, Jam, Stranger In Moscow, Childhood (if you're brave enough), Superfly Sister, Monkey Business, Privacy, Shout, Threatened, among others. These tracks are not the work of someone conciously trying to write a hit single and Dangerous marks the point of a different approach to music making for Mike and also thankfully a step away from the 'King of Pop' malarkey, even though his PR went into overdrive with that ridiculous moniker at the time of the album's release. Looking back at that point in his career Dangerous was anything but a safe option.

By contrast Diamonds And Pearls, while not a bad album, marks the point at which Prince's extraordinary creativity was starting to dry up and it was clearly also a concious effort to write an album of hit material. It worked, yet it was his most ordinary album since his second one some 12 years earlier.

I find Dangerous by far the more satisfying album of the two, but right now I think I'm gonna go listen to Diamonds And Pearls.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but here is my take on what you said. Let us assume that Dangerous was the beginning of a slightly more adventurous and less commercial Michael Jackson and that Diamonds and Pearls was the beginning of the end of the adventurous and uncommercial Prince. I would argue that the Prince album, even when the "extraordinary creativity was starting to dry up" is still much more adventurous and creative than Michael at his most uncommercial. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that Diamonds and Pearls is better because I would agree that Prince was not producing top drawer material at that time but as far as experimentation and trying different things I think Diamonds and Pearls easily tops Dangerous. There's nothing on Dangerous comparable to "Thunder" or "Live for Love" in terms of being "out there." "Gett Off" is much more uncommercial as a lead single than "Black or White" was. Heck, even relatively tame pop songs like "Daddy Pop" and "Walk Don't Walk" are more creative than the majority of Dangerous. Stylistically I would argue that Diamonds and Pearls covers a lot more ground than Dangerous.

rialb said:

I don't necessarily disagree with you but here is my take on what you said. Let us assume that Dangerous was the beginning of a slightly more adventurous and less commercial Michael Jackson and that Diamonds and Pearls was the beginning of the end of the adventurous and uncommercial Prince. I would argue that the Prince album, even when the "extraordinary creativity was starting to dry up" is still much more adventurous and creative than Michael at his most uncommercial. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that Diamonds and Pearls is better because I would agree that Prince was not producing top drawer material at that time but as far as experimentation and trying different things I think Diamonds and Pearls easily tops Dangerous. There's nothing on Dangerous comparable to "Thunder" or "Live for Love" in terms of being "out there." "Gett Off" is much more uncommercial as a lead single than "Black or White" was. Heck, even relatively tame pop songs like "Daddy Pop" and "Walk Don't Walk" are more creative than the majority of Dangerous. Stylistically I would argue that Diamonds and Pearls covers a lot more ground than Dangerous.

Besides calling MJ 'commerical' and Prince 'uncommercial' you have done nothing to back the bolded up. Instead of typing up all of this unrelated stuff up, you might as well did a track by track comparison. It would have done a much better job of proving your point imo.

Unholyalliance said:

rialb said:

I don't necessarily disagree with you but here is my take on what you said. Let us assume that Dangerous was the beginning of a slightly more adventurous and less commercial Michael Jackson and that Diamonds and Pearls was the beginning of the end of the adventurous and uncommercial Prince. I would argue that the Prince album, even when the "extraordinary creativity was starting to dry up" is still much more adventurous and creative than Michael at his most uncommercial. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that Diamonds and Pearls is better because I would agree that Prince was not producing top drawer material at that time but as far as experimentation and trying different things I think Diamonds and Pearls easily tops Dangerous. There's nothing on Dangerous comparable to "Thunder" or "Live for Love" in terms of being "out there." "Gett Off" is much more uncommercial as a lead single than "Black or White" was. Heck, even relatively tame pop songs like "Daddy Pop" and "Walk Don't Walk" are more creative than the majority of Dangerous. Stylistically I would argue that Diamonds and Pearls covers a lot more ground than Dangerous.

Besides calling MJ 'commerical' and Prince 'uncommercial' you have done nothing to back the bolded up. Instead of typing up all of this unrelated stuff up, you might as well did a track by track comparison. It would have done a much better job of proving your point imo.

Fair enough but I didn't think it was necessary. There are essentially three types of songs on Dangerous: Teddy Riley/New Jack Swing songs ("Jam," "Why You Wanna Trip on Me," "In the Closet," "She Drives Me Wild," "Remember the Time," "Can't Let Her Get Away" and "Dangerous"), typical Michael Jackson rock songs ("Black or White," "Give in to Me") and typical Michael Jackson ballads ("Heal the World," "Will You Be There," "Keep the Faith" and "Gone Too Soon"). For my money the New Jack Swing stuff is by far the most creative but still very typical of the genre. "Who is It" stands out to me as a new kind of song for him and worthy of praise but otherwise it's half New Jack Swing/half Michael ballads and rock songs. The Michael half is for the most part stuff that he has done before.

Diamonds and Pearls has a couple of "weird" Prince rock songs ("Thunder," "Live 4 Love"), a typical Prince ballad ("Insatiable"), a couple of very commercial hit singles ("Diamonds and Pearls" and "Cream)), a trio of decent, slightly odd pop songs ("Daddy Pop," "Willing and Able" and "Walk Don't Walk"), a jazzy pop song ("Strollin'), an old school R & B ballad ("Money Don't Matter 2 Nite") a trio of weird dance songs ("Gett Off," "Jughead" and "Push"). Are all of these songs great? Certainly not. But even a song like "Push," which is hardly a fan favourite, has some interesting bits in it (the strings).

Let me stress that I am not saying that Diamonds and Pearls is better but that the songs are more diverse and display more experimentation and musical adventurousness than those on Dangerous. I expect there are people that disagree with me and I welcome friendly debate.

rialb said:

I don't necessarily disagree with you but here is my take on what you said. Let us assume that Dangerous was the beginning of a slightly more adventurous and less commercial Michael Jackson and that Diamonds and Pearls was the beginning of the end of the adventurous and uncommercial Prince. I would argue that the Prince album, even when the "extraordinary creativity was starting to dry up" is still much more adventurous and creative than Michael at his most uncommercial. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that Diamonds and Pearls is better because I would agree that Prince was not producing top drawer material at that time but as far as experimentation and trying different things I think Diamonds and Pearls easily tops Dangerous. There's nothing on Dangerous comparable to "Thunder" or "Live for Love" in terms of being "out there." "Gett Off" is much more uncommercial as a lead single than "Black or White" was. Heck, even relatively tame pop songs like "Daddy Pop" and "Walk Don't Walk" are more creative than the majority of Dangerous. Stylistically I would argue that Diamonds and Pearls covers a lot more ground than Dangerous.

Thunder is the exception on Diamonds And Pearls, it is indeed quite experimental. It's also the only solo Prince track on the record. And maybe that's the key. He had a slick but rather unimaginative band behind him for the rest of the album. There's no sense of adventure, no WTF?! moments (Jughead aside), no genuine surprises.

Both Diamonds And Pearls and Dangerous are pretty equal in terms of being stylistically diverse. Both include pop, rock and r&b with a dash of hip-hop. The only difference is that D&P contains a little light jazz in place of Dangerous' gospel.

I agree that Black Or White was a safe choice as lead single. But so what. The follow up, Remember The Time, was also an obvious pop hit. But that was it. Give In To Me was the only other track that was clear single material and it wasn't even issued in the US.

You have to remember that Mike was known as the guy that sang melodic pop tunes with snappy choruses. Jam, Will You Be There and Who Is It, all single releases, were quite some distance away from the music he was known for. And tracks like She Drives Me Wild, Can't Let Her Get Away and Dangerous were markedly different from radio staples like The Way You Make Me Feel and Bad.

And then there's In The Closet. I was very surprised that this was released as a single due to it being a whispered, atonal and rather hookless affair with barely a hint of a chorus. Quite a daring move and far more "out there" to my ears than either Thunder or Live For Love, or anything else on Diamonds And Pearls.

Still, horses for courses and all that.

rialb said:

Diamonds and Pearls has a couple of "weird" Prince rock songs ("Thunder," "Live 4 Love"), a typical Prince ballad ("Insatiable"), a couple of very commercial hit singles ("Diamonds and Pearls" and "Cream)), a trio of decent, slightly odd pop songs ("Daddy Pop," "Willing and Able" and "Walk Don't Walk"), a jazzy pop song ("Strollin'), an old school R & B ballad ("Money Don't Matter 2 Nite") a trio of weird dance songs ("Gett Off," "Jughead" and "Push"). Are all of these songs great? Certainly not. But even a song like "Push," which is hardly a fan favourite, has some interesting bits in it (the strings).

So, essentially (according to you): rock, pop/dance, r&b, and ballad.

That is the ground he covered in D&P. How does that differ from a majority of Prince's albums?!

Cloudbuster said:

rialb said:

I don't necessarily disagree with you but here is my take on what you said. Let us assume that Dangerous was the beginning of a slightly more adventurous and less commercial Michael Jackson and that Diamonds and Pearls was the beginning of the end of the adventurous and uncommercial Prince. I would argue that the Prince album, even when the "extraordinary creativity was starting to dry up" is still much more adventurous and creative than Michael at his most uncommercial. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that Diamonds and Pearls is better because I would agree that Prince was not producing top drawer material at that time but as far as experimentation and trying different things I think Diamonds and Pearls easily tops Dangerous. There's nothing on Dangerous comparable to "Thunder" or "Live for Love" in terms of being "out there." "Gett Off" is much more uncommercial as a lead single than "Black or White" was. Heck, even relatively tame pop songs like "Daddy Pop" and "Walk Don't Walk" are more creative than the majority of Dangerous. Stylistically I would argue that Diamonds and Pearls covers a lot more ground than Dangerous.

Thunder is the exception on Diamonds And Pearls, it is indeed quite experimental. It's also the only solo Prince track on the record. And maybe that's the key. He had a slick but rather unimaginative band behind him for the rest of the album. There's no sense of adventure, no WTF?! moments (Jughead aside), no genuine surprises.

Both Diamonds And Pearls and Dangerous are pretty equal in terms of being stylistically diverse. Both include pop, rock and r&b with a dash of hip-hop. The only difference is that D&P contains a little light jazz in place of Dangerous' gospel.

I agree that Black Or White was a safe choice as lead single. But so what. The follow up, Remember The Time, was also an obvious pop hit. But that was it. Give In To Me was the only other track that was clear single material and it wasn't even issued in the US.

You have to remember that Mike was known as the guy that sang melodic pop tunes with snappy choruses. Jam, Will You Be There and Who Is It, all single releases, were quite some distance away from the music he was known for. And tracks like She Drives Me Wild, Can't Let Her Get Away and Dangerous were markedly different from radio staples like The Way You Make Me Feel and Bad.

And then there's In The Closet. I was very surprised that this was released as a single due to it being a whispered, atonal and rather hookless affair with barely a hint of a chorus. Quite a daring move and far more "out there" to my ears than either Thunder or Live For Love, or anything else on Diamonds And Pearls.

Still, horses for courses and all that.

I think it is also important to consider where each of them had previously set the bar as far as being stylistically varied. in 1991 it was fairly easy for Michael to break from his previous sound and do something different. After an album like Sign O' the Times anything that Prince did afterwards was probably doomed to sound "normal" in comparison.

I made this point earlier in the thread but if you compare the Thriller-Bad era vs. the 1999/Purple Rain/Around the World in a Day/Parade/Sign O' the Times era Prince had already covered an awful lot of different sounds. As an adult Michael only had a handful of albums to his credit prior to Dangerous. Prince had a stretch where he was almost releasing an album a year and each one was radically different than the one that preceded it. By the time of Diamonds and Pearls he was in decline artistically but I still hear some new sounds on there (are there antecedents in his catalog to "Jughead," "Push" and "Live 4 Love?")

rialb and Cloudbuster, thank you for actually DISCUSSING the albums

Might as well get rid of the first 4 or 5 pages because the past 2 pages are where it's at

Unholyalliance said:

rialb said:

Diamonds and Pearls has a couple of "weird" Prince rock songs ("Thunder," "Live 4 Love"), a typical Prince ballad ("Insatiable"), a couple of very commercial hit singles ("Diamonds and Pearls" and "Cream)), a trio of decent, slightly odd pop songs ("Daddy Pop," "Willing and Able" and "Walk Don't Walk"), a jazzy pop song ("Strollin'), an old school R & B ballad ("Money Don't Matter 2 Nite") a trio of weird dance songs ("Gett Off," "Jughead" and "Push"). Are all of these songs great? Certainly not. But even a song like "Push," which is hardly a fan favourite, has some interesting bits in it (the strings).

So, essentially (according to you): rock, pop/dance, r&b, and ballad.

That is the ground he covered in D&P. How does that differ from a majority of Prince's albums?!

I thought we were comparing a single Michael Jackson album and a single Prince album? What does Diamonds and Pearls being more or less varied than his past albums have to do with it being more or less varied than Dangerous? You kind of lost me with this argument.

Besides, "Walk Don't Walk" and "Strollin'" are both pop songs but wouldn't you agree that they are quite different from each other?

I was hoping that you would make a case for the stylistic diversity of Dangerous. I kind of made it easy for you by lumping in all of the Teddy Riley collaborations as a single type of song when there is more diversity to them than that.

rialb said:I think it is also important to consider where each of them had previously set the bar as far as being stylistically varied. in 1991 it was fairly easy for Michael to break from his previous sound and do something different. After an album like Sign O' the Times anything that Prince did afterwards was probably doomed to sound "normal" in comparison.

I made this point earlier in the thread but if you compare the Thriller-Bad era vs. the 1999/Purple Rain/Around the World in a Day/Parade/Sign O' the Times era Prince had already covered an awful lot of different sounds. As an adult Michael only had a handful of albums to his credit prior to Dangerous. Prince had a stretch where he was almost releasing an album a year and each one was radically different than the one that preceded it. By the time of Diamonds and Pearls he was in decline artistically but I still hear some new sounds on there (are there antecedents in his catalog to "Jughead," "Push" and "Live 4 Love?")

Jughead reminds me of Release It, Push has a similar feel to Melody Cool and Live 4 Love is grounded by a steady rock groove that sounds like a slightly faster Elephants And Flowers, albeit with more guitar and Tony M. messing it up along the way.

Nothing new to my ears really.

Cloudbuster said:

rialb said:I think it is also important to consider where each of them had previously set the bar as far as being stylistically varied. in 1991 it was fairly easy for Michael to break from his previous sound and do something different. After an album like Sign O' the Times anything that Prince did afterwards was probably doomed to sound "normal" in comparison.

I made this point earlier in the thread but if you compare the Thriller-Bad era vs. the 1999/Purple Rain/Around the World in a Day/Parade/Sign O' the Times era Prince had already covered an awful lot of different sounds. As an adult Michael only had a handful of albums to his credit prior to Dangerous. Prince had a stretch where he was almost releasing an album a year and each one was radically different than the one that preceded it. By the time of Diamonds and Pearls he was in decline artistically but I still hear some new sounds on there (are there antecedents in his catalog to "Jughead," "Push" and "Live 4 Love?")

Jughead reminds me of Release It, Push has a similar feel to Melody Cool and Live 4 Love is grounded by a steady rock groove that sounds like a slightly faster Elephants And Flowers, albeit with more guitar and Tony M. messing it up along the way.

Nothing new to my ears really.

Eh, for me the strings in "Push" are something new. I can't recall him ever combining strings in a dance song in that way. OK, maybe "The Screams of Passion" but technically that wasn't a Prince song.

"Jughead" was not particularly successful but I think an argument could be made that it was a new type of song for Prince in that it was probably his heaviest use of rap to that point.

"Elephants and Flowers" and "Live 4 Love?" Maybe, but I think you are setting the bar very high as far as originality goes. Or maybe I am setting it too low?

Would you care to make a case for the originality/experimentation/musical adventurousness of Dangerous?