SoulAlive said:

kitbradley said:

SoulAlive said: It is an incredible song. Reminds me of his Commodores days. Interesting Motown passed on the song as a single despite the fact it stayed in heavy rotation at black radio.

This song has become a quiet storm classic....and yeah,you're right.....R&B radio really embraced this song back then.It got alot of airplay.

I'm surprised to hear that it was never an official single. Like it has been already mentioned, R&B radio gave it alot of airplay and I definitely remembered hearing it alot on the radio. I think there was even an extended version that got some play as well. As to why Motown didn't want a single release of it, maybe the suits there thought it could boost album sales if it was the only way for people to get the song.

homesquid said:

Annoyed. Either Prince or Bruce should have won

I'm still annoyed to this day. That was straight-up bullshit, giving Lionel the award for his boring-ass elevator music. Prince wuz robbed.

laurarichardson said:

Scorp said:

that album sold close to 20 million worldwide,

which was a major reason why he was asked to be the opening performer at the 84 Summer Olympic games in Los Angeles....and then co-write We Are The World with Michael Jackson

that was a brilliant album

[Edited 7/4/17 9:21am]

Never said it was not a big seller back then. Is it still selling today or as influential?

I find Prince and Lionel Richie to be hard to compare, but they are both eminent musicians. Prince has a much larger catalogue than LR. Prince played 27+ instruments. Lionel plays a couple--piano and saxophone.

.

Prince and Lionel Richie are also very different people. Lionel Richie has children and grandchildren. Not that it needs repeating, but Prince's only child lived for 6 days. LR was married 2 times, like Prince, but for much longer than Prince. P spent 9 to 10 years of his life married. LR took a long hiatus from his career in the late 80s. Prince hardly ever took a break from making music. Lionel Richie had a more stable upbringing than Prince (parents didn't divorce, he wasn't kicked out of his home).

.

I like Lionel Richie, but of course, I am partial to Prince. I can't speak to the popularity of Purple Rain versus Can't Slow Down in the mid-80s because I wasn't born until 86. One thing is for certain though---Can't Slow Down didn't create much controversy, whereas Purple Rain was very controversial.

.

I believe that Purple Rain has had more impact over time than Can't Slow Down. In the US, prior to April 21, 2016, Prince was a bigger artist than Lionel Richie before Prince died: Prince had more hit singles, he was very countercultural with the and SLAVE on his face, he performed at the Super Bowl in 2007, he toured more freequently, Darling Nikki caused a lot of controversy, he hashis own symbol, he's associated strongly with the color purple, he had a hit movie, he received standing ovations at award shows when he was a presenter, among other examples. Prince's popularity seems even greater now because the world has spent much of the past 16 months discussing Prince and his legacy since 04/21/2016. The bigness of Prince has only enhanced the popularity of Purple Rain (the album) because it is his most well-known album.

laurarichardson said:

MickyDolenz said:

Adele is the biggest selling current act, and her music has more in common with Lionel Richie than it does with Purple Rain or Born In The USA. She even has a song called Hello.

You're right.

As to the OP's question . . . of course I wanted and believed desperately that PR should have won. I was one foot out the door when CSD -- in hindsight, a classic pop album -- beat PR for AoTY.

I was all the way out the door when Joshua Tree (a classic) won over Sign O' The Times (which is and remains the superior record).

But hey, at least that was a time when Grammys seemed to matter more.

MotownSubdivision said:

laurarichardson said:

Never said it was not a big seller back then. Is it still selling today or as influential?

It's certified at 20 million, the same amount as PR.

Didn't know that.

namepeace said:

MickyDolenz said:

Adele is the biggest selling current act, and her music has more in common with Lionel Richie than it does with Purple Rain or Born In The USA. She even has a song called Hello.

You're right.

As to the OP's question . . . of course I wanted and believed desperately that PR should have won. I was one foot out the door when CSD -- in hindsight, a classic pop album -- beat PR for AoTY.

I was all the way out the door when Joshua Tree (a classic) won over Sign O' The Times (which is and remains the superior record).

But hey, at least that was a time when Grammys seemed to matter more.

There'a also other AC type acts who are popular now like Sam Smith, Josh Groban, John Legend, Michael Bublé, etc. Susan Boyle was big a few years ago. No matter what trend is in style, there's always AC acts & songs that are popular at the same time. During the grunge era, there was Celine Dion, Boyz II Men, Enya, & early Mariah Carey, and Whitneys I Will Always Love You was huge. During disco there were hits like Feelings, You Light Up My Life, I Write The Songs, Music Box Dancer, With You I'm Born Again, etc. Songwriter Diane Warren has had many hit songs since the 1980s. Many of the contestants for shows like American Idol were doing soft pop songs. AC as a genre never died out or lost popularity like most other music sounds that were only popular for a few years.

MotownSubdivision said:

laurarichardson said:

Never said it was not a big seller back then. Is it still selling today or as influential?

It's certified at 20 million, the same amount as PR. Maybe CSD is not as influential but why does an album have to be influential to be great?

I never said it was not great. I said it was not as influential and asked if people are buying it now.

No way in this world was Can't Slow Down and better album than Purple Rain. I understand why Lionel won but I do not think he should have.

Cinny said:

laurarichardson said:

MickyDolenz said:

namepeace said:

You're right.

As to the OP's question . . . of course I wanted and believed desperately that PR should have won. I was one foot out the door when CSD -- in hindsight, a classic pop album -- beat PR for AoTY.

I was all the way out the door when Joshua Tree (a classic) won over Sign O' The Times (which is and remains the superior record).

But hey, at least that was a time when Grammys seemed to matter more.

There'a also other AC type acts who are popular now like Sam Smith, Josh Groban, John Legend, Michael Bublé, etc. Susan Boyle was big a few years ago. No matter what trend is in style, there's always AC acts & songs that are popular at the same time. During the grunge era, there was Celine Dion, Boyz II Men, Enya, & early Mariah Carey, and Whitneys I Will Always Love You was huge. During disco there were hits like Feelings, You Light Up My Life, I Write The Songs, Music Box Dancer, With You I'm Born Again, etc. Songwriter Diane Warren has had many hit songs since the 1980s. Many of the contestants for shows like American Idol were doing soft pop songs. AC as a genre never died out or lost popularity like most other music sounds that were only popular for a few years.

There was an article in Salon a couple of months back on those very points, and argues that "yacht rock"/AC is the most dominant influence in pop/rock right now.

I see Thundercat collaborating with Michael McDonald and Kenny Loggins, who are on Yacht Rock's Mount Rushmore, and I can't help but agree.

MotownSubdivision said:

Maybe it's not (as) influential as Purple Rain but I've said in a few of my previous posts that Can't Slow Down and PR sold roughly the same amount in 1984 and are both currently over 2× Diamond worldwide (20 million+ for CSD, 25 million for PR). I never said that CSD was a better album but it's still an excellent one on its own terms. While I stated that I to believe PR should have won, the committee didn't make a bad decision in the end. With the nominees on that ballot they couldn't have made a bad decision even if one was better than another.

I agree.During that time,there was truly an abundance of great albums.

namepeace said:

There was an article in Salon a couple of months back on those very points, and argues that "yacht rock"/AC is the most dominant influence in pop/rock right now.

I see Thundercat collaborating with Michael McDonald and Kenny Loggins, who are on Yacht Rock's Mount Rushmore, and I can't help but agree.

There's those Time-Life infomercials that sell CD sets of 1970s light rock & AM Gold. I think AC songs are often used in weddings too. Brazillian singer Ed Motta and the band State Cows does Steely Dan/Toto/Jay Graydon style music. Swing Out Sister sometimes does 5th Dimension and Come To My Garden era Minnie Riperton.

In the same way, the Eagles are probably more of an influence on current mainstream popular country performers than many older actual country acts. In recent years non-country acts have appeared on the country music award shows like Lionel, Vince Neil, Bon Jovi, Earth Wind & Fire, Justin Timberlake, Eagles, Nelly, Stevie Wonder, Snoop Dogg, etc. The Eagles & Lionel have had country elements in their music, but they're not exclusively country.

MickyDolenz said:

namepeace said:

There was an article in Salon a couple of months back on those very points, and argues that "yacht rock"/AC is the most dominant influence in pop/rock right now.

I see Thundercat collaborating with Michael McDonald and Kenny Loggins, who are on Yacht Rock's Mount Rushmore, and I can't help but agree.

There's those Time-Life infomercials that sell CD sets of 1970s light rock & AM Gold.

Whenever I see one on, I HAVE to watch it. They always take me back.

namepeace said:

Whenever I see one on, I HAVE to watch it. They always take me back.

They always have a veteran singer (usually male) with a co-host who I've never heard of. That just reminded me of those albums that used to be on TV commercials, "Best Of Slim Whitman". Available on record, reel to reel, 8 track, or cassette. Wait 4 to 6 weeks for delivery. No C.O.D.'s. Call now!

MotownSubdivision said:

why does an album have to be influential to be great?

Very good point.

SoulAlive said:

MotownSubdivision said:

"...Well Whitney couldn't play instruments! She never wrote her own songs! She was never as critically acclaimed or as influential as Prince so what if she sold more albums and had more #1's! She's not Prince!"

I think the idea of particular albums being a big deal and the importance of singers/bands self writing was invented by the rock press like Rolling Stone magazine. They're the ones who make lists about the best album, band, etc. Before that there weren't really people writing about Bing Crosby's albums being more important than Julie London's or Harry Belafonte's. The album in itself came around in the late 1940s, before that there were mostly 78s, which is basically a single. There was also 16rpm records, which were mainly used for speeches & spoken word because the sound quality was said to be not that good. Nobody cared if the Andrews Sisters, Andy Williams, or Kay Starr wrote their own songs or played instruments on their records. The idea of "one man band" records was impossible because of the recording technology of the time. Most pre-Beatles acts did not self write and it was common for several singers recording the same songs. These songs became to be called standards usually written by non-performing songwriters. Songwriters wrote the songs, singers sang them, and producers and/or arrangers were behind the records. Most post-Beatles acts also did not self write, but the rock press made these acts sound less important than the ones who wrote their own stuff. That's probably why R&B and pop isn't taken that seriously as the songs are often not written by the singers, but by professional songwriters or producers. The Beatles, who wrote their songs, are considered more important than Vanilla Fudge, who generally remade current hits in a psychedelic style.

MotownSubdivision said:

SoulAlive said:

Very good point.

That seems to be the first line of defense on here. I remember when I made a topic on Prince and Whitney a while back asking who was the bigger star during the 80's and the Prince defense force was out in full mass. "...Well Whitney couldn't play instruments! She never wrote her own songs! She was never as critically acclaimed or as influential as Prince so what if she sold more albums and had more #1's! She's not Prince!" I get this is a Prince fansite and I'm happy to be a part of it as a Prince fan (otherwise I wouldn't be on here) but seriously, some people need to check their fanaticism. Prince was excellent but he is not the be-all, end-all of music. [Edited 7/6/17 7:08am]

I've seen that play out, and I confess, I've said many of the same things when the merits of "Prince v. [fill in blank here]" are mentioned. But even when doing so, I realize it's not a zero sum game; a megastar like Whitney and an artistic force like Prince don't cancel each other out, each brings things to the table that the other does not.

Same with "great" albums and "influential" albums. Can't Slow Down isn't Purple Rain, in terms of "influence" (at least on the surface). But if one can get past his bias, with time or effort (as I did), one can see that CSD is a great pop record. Same goes for a lot of albums that don't get praise from critics or historians.

MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

"...Well Whitney couldn't play instruments! She never wrote her own songs! She was never as critically acclaimed or as influential as Prince so what if she sold more albums and had more #1's! She's not Prince!"

I think the idea of particular albums being a big deal and the importance of singers/bands self writing was invented by the rock press like Rolling Stone magazine. They're the ones who make lists about the best album, band, etc. Before that there weren't really people writing about Bing Crosby's albums being more important than Julie London's or Harry Belafonte's. The album in itself came around in the late 1940s, before that there were mostly 78s, which is basically a single. There was also 16rpm records, which were mainly used for speeches & spoken word because the sound quality was said to be not that good. Nobody cared if the Andrews Sisters, Andy Williams, or Kay Starr wrote their own songs or played instruments on their records. The idea of "one man band" records was impossible because of the recording technology of the time. Most pre-Beatles acts did not self write and it was common for several singers recording the same songs. These songs became to be called standards usually written by non-performing songwriters. Songwriters wrote the songs, singers sang them, and producers and/or arrangers were behind the records. Most post-Beatles acts also did not self write, but the rock press made these acts sound less important than the ones who wrote their own stuff. That's probably why R&B and pop isn't taken that seriously as the songs are often not written by the singers, but by professional songwriters or producers. The Beatles, who wrote their songs, are considered more important than Vanilla Fudge, who generally remade current hits in a psychedelic style.

Valid points as always . . . but couldn't the case be made that Stevie's incomparable run in the 1970's cemented that type of thinking into the minds of critics and audiences alike?

namepeace said:

Valid points as always . . . but couldn't the case be made that Stevie's incomparable run in the 1970's cemented that type of thinking into the minds of critics and audiences alike?

Only people who read those kinds of magazines. The general public don't care about that. Like they used to say on American Bandstand "It has a good beat and I can dance to it". Back in the 1960s, Gladys Knight & The Pips had a hit with I Heard It Through The Grapevine, a year later Marvin Gaye's version was even bigger. Then the Creedence Clearwater Revival version was popular too. 3 versions of the same song being popular around the same time won't happen today. A song becoming hitting #1 twice with different releases like Chubby Checker's The Twist won't happen either.

It's like a few years ago Rod Stewart had several American Songbook albums that sold really well. They sold way more than his modern albums of original material. That's why there's more than one. There were many other acts who released covers/tribute albums like Michael McDonald Motown albums. People buy Christmas albums every year with Jingle Bells or Silent Night on them. If the people who buy these kind of records cared about self-writing, they wouldn't sell in the first place. In recent years, Tony Bennett has been somewhat popular with younger audiences. Tony doesn't write songs.

namepeace said:

..................Out-RAGEOUS!!!!"- Lionel Richie, @ the Awards Show

MickyDolenz said:

namepeace said:

Valid points as always . . . but couldn't the case be made that Stevie's incomparable run in the 1970's cemented that type of thinking into the minds of critics and audiences alike?

Only people who read those kinds of magazines. The general public don't care about that. Like they used to say on American Bandstand "It has a good beat and I can dance to it". Back in the 1960s, Gladys Knight & The Pips had a hit with I Heard It Through The Grapevine, a year later Marvin Gaye's version was even bigger. Then the Creedence Clearwater Revival version was popular too. 3 versions of the same song being popular around the same time won't happen today. A song becoming hitting #1 twice with different releases like Chubby Checker's The Twist won't happen either.

Of course the general audience doesn't, and the proof is in the charts. Pop artists have struck gold covering each other for generations. (Stevie covered a ton of songs in the 60's and early 70's himself). Even in a "prestige" genre like jazz, many classic albums are littered with covers of popular music from the "Great American Songbook" (Porter, Rodgers and Hammerstein, etc.)

My question was targeted more towards the specific critics and audiences that value an artist who writes his own songs.

FWIW, in the Digital Age, it's not limited to magazines. Online communities have been a haven for that line of thinking (to which I subscribe, to a degree). (See, this forum )

MotownSubdivision said:

namepeace said:

I've seen that play out, and I confess, I've said many of the same things when the merits of "Prince v. [fill in blank here]" are mentioned. But even when doing so, I realize it's not a zero sum game; a megastar like Whitney and an artistic force like Prince don't cancel each other out, each brings things to the table that the other does not.

Same with "great" albums and "influential" albums. Can't Slow Down isn't Purple Rain, in terms of "influence" (at least on the surface). But if one can get past his bias, with time or effort (as I did), one can see that CSD is a great pop record. Same goes for a lot of albums that don't get praise from critics or historians.

Precisely. And at the risk of turning the tide of this topic, this is why the Prince VS MJ thing needs to stop. They were both artists with different philosophies and upbringings that led them to make the music they did. Both are musical legends for different reasons despite the strong similarities they did share with each other.

Fair point, but as I see it, Prince v. MJ has given way to, "Prince OR MJ," and it's almost like a basketball conversation (Michael or Magic, etc.). It actually came up at a birthday party a couple of days ago and i found myself extolling MJ's merits, because I know my choice was and always will be Prince.

Interesting scenarios spin off of the topic when it's taken up in fun (who would open for whom if both had to tour together, etc.)

It's less contentious than it used to be, and more or less an interesting pastime. Except sometimes in this forum, when someone provokes a flame war (not naming names).


Sure they both had different skill sets but it's almost a yin-yang comparison between 2 artists like them. It's stupid trying to tear one down to try and elevate the other. The way I see it, I'd hate to have Prince be like MJ or MJ be like Prince because that means less variety to enjoy and if there's one reason the average person loves about music in the 80's, it was variety. Madonna contributed to that variety. Springsteen contributed to it. George Michael contributed. Tina Turner contributed. Cyndi did. Whitney did. Phil Collins did. Janet did. And you know who else contributed? Lionel did among countless others. If all of them were like Prince or even had a skillset similar to Prince, that would have made for a stagnant and monotonous (mainstream) musical landscape, much like the one we have today. We all know there are/were numerous acts out there whose talent doesn't/didn't warrant their popularity but 2 extraordinary artists like MJ and Prince? Both possessed their own unique musical talents that most certainly kept things interesting and even more certainly warranted their status and place in music.

Fully agreed, and I've learned that over time. They all had their place in the firmament of music and the 80's wouldn't have been the same without them. Heck, I've bought at least half of my 80's music collection since the 2000s, because as I get older, I'm appreciating the 80's (and 70's) as a whole.




[Edited 7/6/17 15:26pm]

namepeace said:

My question was targeted more towards the specific critics and audiences that value an artist who writes his own songs.

FWIW, in the Digital Age, it's not limited to magazines. Online communities have been a haven for that line of thinking (to which I subscribe, to a degree). (See, this forum )

The only time I see that kind of thing is when modern rap fans talk about ghostwriters. I guess they think rappers are supposed to write their own rhymes. That's weird to me because older acts like Run DMC, Beastie Boys, and Salt n Pepa sometimes did songs written by other people. The writers were credited though, ghostwriters aren't. But still the idea that rappers write their own lyrics wasn't necessarily the case with earlier hip hop acts and many people didn't care about it, just like they don't care with other popular acts. I don't care if someone writes or not. If I like a song I like it. One of my favorite singers is Johnnie Taylor. He rarely wrote any songs. I like country music, gospel, R&B, and dance music and many of those singers don't write, so I don't know what difference it makes. Just because a person self writes doesn't mean it's some kind of big personal statement. KC from KC & The Sunshine Band wrote the band's songs, but they're mostly about partying and having fun.

.

Just because someone is credited doesn't mean they actually wrote it. Some bands credit the entire group, even if a particular member didn't actually have anything to do with the writing. They do that so they all get royalty payments. In the 1970s, James Brown credited a few songs to his daughters, to get around the taxman. They were under 10 at the time. After they became adults, they sued James for royalty payments. Many Lennon/McCartney songs were written separately, but they made an agreement to credit each other. Others have credited family members or friends to help them out financially. Decades ago people who ran record labels or managers added their names to songs without the actual writers knowledge. That happened to B.B. King. Colonel Parker added Elvis name to songs, and Elvis never wrote anything. Dolly Parton turned down the Colonel, she didn't want to do this arrangement. The ones who accepted figured they'd get more money from Elvis doing their songs than someone else because he was a big seller. Some performers who helped to write songs turn down credit. One reason is because the other act is on another label and they don't want their label to know about it because there's legal issues they don't want to deal with. Or their label might refuse to let the other act release the song.

namepeace said: