The thread that will not die! Do your part to keep this thread alive! Then, continue the healing by helping Rock Town Hall bridge The Great Divide!
Sometimes a provocative post in a given day’s All-Star Jam area needs to be broken out for more focused discussion on the Main Stage. Today we have just such a post. Check out something Townsman Rick wrote regarding Prince’s appearance in the Super Bowl Halftime Extravaganza:
But really, of all the people anywhere near the level of Super Bowl-halftime-eligible, Prince is the closest thing we’ve got to an heir to James Brown.
I say: What’s that actually mean? I know that musically he’s learned a lot from JB, but what exactly has Prince added to it? JB was down with The People. Prince has spent most of his career sitting high above The People, high on a Purple Cloud. The rightful heir to JB was Public Enemy. They made powerful, gritty message music. JB never posed naked with an orchid covering his manhood.
We can agree to disagree, but first I think we need to see what it is we’re disagreeing about. Then, perhaps, the healing reconcilliation will follow. Please feel free to jump in, Townspeople. We’re nowhere near closure on this Prince issue.
Lead guitar. And religion.
OK, so what I’m saying is that, like James Brown, Prince:
* Brings the funk without a punishingly huge backbeat.
* Has assembled a band that expands one’s concept of what tightness can be.
* Dances with a skill and energy that brings it up to the level of an interpretive artistic statement of its own.
Put them together, especially the last two, and you have a guy who has created the feeling that all great artists create – that, as Leonard Pitts wrote of James Brown, “he created himself.”
What exactly he’s added is guitar rock, and the lyrical raunch of his early albums, the value of which you can debate but the novelty and instant popularity of which is clear.
You’re reading my blockquote as though it has no qualifiers in it. You’re also assuming that an heir has to add something, although Prince does. All I was saying is that if there is such a thing as “Pure Rock Power,” Prince’s live performances, like James Brown’s, provide “Pure Funk Power.” Even if you keep your professional demeanor together and don’t cut a rug yourself at one of his shows, you leave feeling pleasantly depleted. “Holy crap” is about all you can manage.
You’ve got to do better than lead guitar. Hendrix, Mile, Funkadelic, Sly, the Isley Brothers, et al didn’t apply lead guitar long before Prince was able to shave?
As for the addition of religion…I’m not touching that other than to say that there are many ways in which an artist expresses his or her spirituality and many ways in which this expression is valid. Judging by the way he carries himself and places himself in the context of his Prince World, I feel safe in guessing that Prince is one of those types whose faith in a God deepens in accordance with the faith the believer has in him- or herself. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, and most importantly, not that this is much different than JB setting himself up pretty much directly as God.
Rick explained:
OK, this all makes more sense. Nevertheless, I’m still not feeling closure, and chances are I’m not alone. Come forward, Townspeople, if you feel there’s more – or less – to this Rick’s hair-raising statement.
The question was phrased as “what has he added?” Not “what has he added that no one else has ever done?” Another answer to that question might be harmonic complexity.
And I can’t really see that Hendrix comes out of the James Brown tradition to any significant extent, unlike the other artists you mention.
I would find it very hard to put Prince on the same level as James Brown in any way. Instead he belongs more in the canon of overwhelmingly successful and revered mainstream pop icons, keeping company with U2, Bruce Springsteen, Sting, Madonna, and the like. Question is, is he the BEST of those pop icons for whom genuinely great musical achievement was never a real possibility? Maybe. Which would be saying a lot for him, but not any more than that.
I mean, he can put on a convincing Super Bowl halftime show. Think about all the good and bad things implied by that fact.
Mark wrote:
You know, for some reason, I’m now making a connection between Prince and Elvis. No joke. Two extremely talented artists who, over time, have a poor batting average and don’t always know what to do with their talent.
Mr. Mod Sed:
You know, for some reason, I’m now making a connection between Prince and Elvis. No joke. Two extremely talented artists who, over time, have a poor batting average and don’t always know what to do with their talent.
I Sez:
No, no, no. He just isn’t doing what YOU want him to do with his talent. He does plenty, though, probably too much for your taste. Honest to God, what has most bugged me about Prince of late are his relentless, repeated “comebacks”. He never stopped making new music and its shameful and a little pathetic that he belittles himself with these giant cheesey appearances where he’s supposed to somehow miraculously reignite the commercial flame. Here’s a Youtube link to a pre-Super Bowl Press Conference where he plays some breathtaking guitar in a little mini-set in front of a totally disinterested NFL press corp audience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj7X5CwP0yo
He’s great and the whole thing is sad. What the fuck does he have to bother with this shit for? If he wasn’t doing shit like this would Wallace notice how dripping with genuine innovative talent he really is?
Can’t rule it out. I mean, I bought that two CD set that Fritz urged on me, so it isn’t like I’ve made no attempt. But I played it a couple times and couldn’t get into it.
That said, I’ve never denied the talent part; I’ve just questioned the use to which it has been put. I mean, isn’t that always the issue with the mainstream icon?
Geo said:
How ungrateful! Here I am comparing the guy to Elvis, and you still need to tell me the problem is with my personal taste? I’ve gone out on a limb since that Super Bowl performance to praise Prince, and this is the thanks I get. You’d probably take umbrage at the fact that I think Jefferson Airplane’s (or was it Jefferson Starship’s) “Miracles” is one of the finest numbers that collection of artists ever produced.
Mark characterized Prince as one of:
And I say:
Sez you. What are your criteria for genuinely great musical achievement and how does Prince fall short? He doesn’t fall short for me, and that’s even allowing that he’s put out more than a couple of albums that I don’t actually like.
Please notice that this is getting into the realm of Prince as a recording artist, when my original comparison of Prince to James Brown was strictly on the basis of his live act.
Sorry, Rick, but I think he’s already musical history. The question is, in 15 years, which song will be more emblamatic of its era: “Little Red Corvette,” “Material Girl,” or “Dancing In the Dark.”
Nah, it’s me, not Geo, who takes umbrage at that one. But I’m not surprised that the above cute-little-pop number appeals to your desire for tightly played music of diminished ambition.
More seriously though, there’s no solution on this list to our wide disagreements about some bands. So here comes another suggestion for another time: the list of bands over whom Rocktown has the most severe disagreements. Who have we fought over most? With this “public” blog, maybe we’ll let the people decide.
If all you know about Prince is that Little Red Corvette didn’t inspire you to investigate further, OK. But please acknowledge that you’re ducking my question.
And I’m glad it took me a while to edit that down, because in the interim you posted an opinion of
and I wonder where your head is at, because the most avid Prince hater would concede that the ambition is tremendous.
Rick wrote (And I cut and paste because I haven’t got these boxes figured out):
and I wonder where your head is at, because the most avid Prince hater would concede that the ambition is tremendous.
The ambition is of the artist and not of the music itself, in Prince’s case. He’s got all the ambition in the world to conquer said world as purveyor of not-so-ambitious music. I have maybe five CDs of his, am not a hata, but only give him credit for so much. He was the last artist before Eminem who’s reviews kept using the name Mozart as a comparison. Ugh.
Gen. Slocum sez:
The ambition is of the artist and not of the music itself, in Prince’s case.
I say:
That’s a mind-bogglingly inaccurate thing to say! What albums of his do you own? I admit there were a few in the 90s where he was just plain cruisin’ on some questionable material, but you’d have to really sift through the ambitious treasures to find those turds. I just plain don’t understand this… at *all*.
Fritz, I think what we’re getting at here is difference of opinion on the term “ambitious” music. I was getting a sense that people were doubting what he brought to the music that was new, or vivionary, or “ambitious”. As distinguished from his commercial ambitions which are not questioned. Also to say an artist’s music is unambitious isn’t to say it can’t be great. Look at the Ramones conversation going on. The stuff I have is from around Parade through Diamonds and Pearls. Fun stuff. Intersting stuff. But creatively it doesn’t seem terribly ambitious. But then, a lot of dance music has that element to it, no? I mean, when JB tapped into that cultural powerhouse at the time to do Say It Loud, regardless of being *musically* ambitious, which it wasn’t, it was throwing a different kind of curve, and a very powerful one. (Also a commercial one, say the skeptics, but they’re never in the Hall!) Put all the non-“turd” songs from his greatest period onto a CD, and it’ll be quite a mix, but musical ambition won’t be densening the atmosphere.
I’ll say this again: along with Sonic Youth, Jefferson Airplane, and a few others, there will never be anything close to agreement regarding Prince on this list. I don’t know who this General Slocum is, but he makes sense to me. Nothing in Prince’s music–not the guitar playing, the fancy settings, the driving danceable beat–can hide its vapid, showy, self-serving heart. I want an answer to my question; who has more to say, Prince or Madonna?
Will anyone dare answer that question? I don’t think so. I look forward to our continued misunderstanding and lack of healing on this topic! With love–
What’s this “more to say” shit? Do you mean, like, who would have the more interesting blog?
Prince.
So there.
Incorrect answer, Steve. But points for daring.
And for Great 48:
I mean, you know, lyrical content. Try it some time.
But seriously, this is always what the debate about Prince’s music comes down to: its vapid, showy, self-serving heart. Now, I’m done. Who would like the last word?
1) Asking a question to which you will only allow one correct answer is bad form.
2) When the issue of “having something to say” arises in relation to music, I would never think first of lyrical content.
3) Having “more to say” lyrically than Madonna doesn’t seem like a herculean task.
Yeah, I don’t know where you’re going with this, Mark. Very strange concept that I still don’t understand.
Ah Fritz, are you saying that you don’t understand the concept of content? That’s pretty funny, I have to admit.
Steve: not everything that creates meaning in music is a function of the lyrics, I agree. And I agree that having more to say than Madonna doesn’t seem very hard. That said, I’ll put it another way; when it comes to the issue of sexuality that is at the heart of their music, I think Madonna has a more convincing stance. Seriously.
What I wasn’t getting (and I’m sure I wasn’t the only one) was why anyone would choose to compare/judge Prince and Madonna based on their lyrical content. I *think* what you’re saying now is that they’re both primarily about sex, and that Madonna is somehow, I dunno, more compellingly sexy or something. I still don’t get it — and not just because both artists write a lot more songs *not* about sex than about it.
Look, far be it from me to call anybody out for a half-baked argument in these parts — people in glass houses and all that, but — whoops, there goes a window.
I’l admit to not having extensive familiarity with Madonna’s later work. Neither she nor Prince make music that is primarily about the lyrics, though. I can see one point of comparison — they’ve both played around with the sex/religion axis in their lyrics (and visuals?).
The knock on Prince, if I remember previous discussions, is that his attitude toward sex is a case of arrested development. For all I know Madonna’s take on sexuality is more mature, but it seems to me that people take Prince seriously when he talks about sex but they don’t take the religious aspect seriously. Kabbalists get more respect than Jehovah’s Witnesses, I guess.
On the other hand, the meaning in Prince’s music comes mainly from the music, not the lyrics. My understanding is that Madonna leans heavily on collaborators, whereas Prince is more totally in control of his music.
And is sexuality at the heart of Prince or Madonna’s music to a greater extent than most popular music? Also I’m not really sure what you mean by a “convincing stance.”
Easy. Prince by a mile. Have you ever seen either of them?
Even if you haven’t, riddle me this: Who sounded like Prince before Prince? Not a whole lot of people. Who sounded like Madonna before Madonna? Hundreds of people.
First of all, I’ve been following almost all that Townsman Mark is trying to get at. I’m surprised more folks don’t understand his points regarding the compelling sexuality and, therefore, importance of these artists.
On the other hand, some of what my man Townsman Rick is saying continues to baffle me, such as this:
I would hate to get into a defense of the originality of Madonna’s sound based on anything but her more compelling sexuality, but Prince has always sounded a great deal like a homemade, onanistic version of Sly & the Family Stone to me. It’s not for me to say, but if it were, I’d venture to say that those who make claims to Prince’s “genius” are doing so based primarily on his oddly driven and prodigious creativity more than the actual results of his creative pursuits. Are we saying “50,000 self-produced Prince songs can’t be wrong”?
Rick Wrote:
“Even if you haven’t, riddle me this: Who sounded like Prince before Prince? Not a whole lot of people. Who sounded like Madonna before Madonna? Hundreds of people.”
I disagree on both counts. But to streamline, name just 5 of the “hundreds.” Or even three. And remember, just because you may not like Madonna’s music, doesn’t mean you can loosen the criteria of “sounds like.”
Madonna’s early singles sound like any number of records from the late disco period of the late ’70s and early ’80s, when synthesizers began to dominate and the Hi-NRG and Italo-disco movements made the biggest inroads they were going to make. There weren’t a lot of canonical albums floating around then, but listen to Cheryl Lynn’s “Star Love,” The Weather Girls’ “It’s Raining Men,” Secret Weapon’s “Must Be the Music,” The S.O.S. Band’s “Take Your Time (Do It Right),” and that’s just from taking a few minutes searching the track listings of the Disco Years comp series. I spent high school listening to the disco station; Madonna was old hat from the get-go.
You’re right. I take back Cheryl Lynn. Madonna couldn’t hold a candle to her.
Rick: Don’t forget “Let the Music Play” by Shannon, a single that I thought was Madonna’s follow-up to “Holiday” the first couple of times I heard it.
I’ll go out on a limb, here, Rick, and guess that Prince’s first few singles aren’t what people here are defending. Prince’s message was a heady mix right off the bat, the first verse of his first single being: “Hey lover, I’ve got a sugarcane/that I wanna lose in you, baby can you stand the pain” – So I can see he’s not cut from the late seventies mold. In any case, if you are equating the Weather Girls’ sound with Madonna, then I think what I suggested might be true. Madonna doesn’t register with you, so it goes in the Out the Other Ear bin. I am a moderate fan of both Prince and Madonna, though Prince wears his mockability on his sleeve a lot more, to me. Neither of them is exactly hanging out at the Algonquin, you know. But I think they both have enough of something that enables me to like at least 25% of their songs. And strangely the Prince/Madonna duet “Love Song” from Like a Prayer I find pleasant. But if you spent high school listening to the disco station, you may well have worn out your cultural neurons. It’s like hi-end loss for metalheads. Those things never grow back! It’s just a good thing for me KISS played only mid-range…
If ‘proving’ Prince’s status as rightful air to James Brown’s throne means first overcoming the challenge of Madonna’s legacy then it is best that James Brown died before coming across this discussion.
Tom Means, you just said a mouthful. Bravolingus!
I’ve really been trying to make a contribution to this Prince vs. Madonna debate, but I’m having trouble getting my head around all the issues being raised.
I find it odd that Prince’s ambition is under question here. I don’t think you can write off all his innovations as mere Sly Stone retreads either. I think of Prince as a great alchemist, one who brought together a diverse range of styles as well as a few of his own making.
A lot of it has to do with timing. I submit that the minimalism of Dirty Mind was the punk-rock of R&B, a throwing down of the gauntlet, removing all the excess of overproduction to get down to the essence. Not to mention the saucy lyrical content.
Madonna has been the more reliable writer of great pop singles over the years. But Prince has written some truly great bad-breakup songs: “When Doves Cry,” “If I Was Your Girlfriend.” I think these songs show that he is capable of depth. And I don’t think you can write them off as Marvin Gaye retreads either. Not to mention all those songs about the end of the world and God and whatnot. Plus “Raspberry Beret” which is one of the more convincing happy love/lust songs. Great, funny details on that one.
Also, I don’t think Madonna sounds at all like the Weather Girls.
Unfortunately, Tom, I have let the other side frame this discussion as a “He can’t even top MADONNA” argument.
Look, this conversation is bugging me, and think I know why. I wanna know right now – how many people in this discussion have seen Prince, and for that matter Madonna, and when? Because, as I said above, when I said Prince was the heir to James Brown, I was talking about as a live act. When I said that Prince had more to say than Madonna, I was drawing on live experiences.
I’m not loaded with experience – I’ve seen Prince in ’89 and ’05, and Madonna in ’05 and ’06 – but I suspect my argument is being argued with on different grounds than those on which it was constructed.
Rick wrote:
Rick, although I clearly see both sides (how we’ve strayed from Mark’s “sexually compelling” criterion is also a shame), once you clarified that your “rightful heir” statement was directly tied to his abilities as a live performer, I was satisfied – and I’ve never seen Prince live and in person. At this point, I fail to understand what all the hub-bub is about. I mean, who thought it was a good idea to pull your innocent comment from another thread and blow it out into its own thread? Jeez!
I’ve never seen Madonna, but I saw Prince on the Controversy tour. Not sure what year that was, but it was a long time ago. The Time opened. I was just about the only white dude in the house (more onstage than there were in the audience … and more pot smoke in the bathroom than I have ever experienced in my life). The whole show totally rocked.
I’m still on this, or rather I just got back. Prince can and does cop a Sly Stone vibe now and then, but he really has other things going on musically. Oats mentioned how some of his early work had a minimalism that connected it with punk rock. I mentioned on some yahoo groups list a while back that I believe some of his early records were stripped down because he had so many great ideas he wanted to lay them right out there without wasting time and energy to dress them up. There is a slippery polytonality to a lot of Prince’s best work that IS original, ambitious, hell, even Mozartian. He is not strictly a well schooled retread/rehash of his diverse influences; he brings his own bag of tricks to those precursors with novel harmonic, rhythmic and arrangement ideas.
As Rick was apparently arguing, Prince does bring a lot to live performance, not least of which is an apparent humorous self-awareness that would surprise folks who are put off by the juvenile pretension that I would admit is an element of his stuff. In a live set he gets across loud and clear that he knows that some of this stuff is way over the top and it changes the whole tenor of the material.
I still think that Prince is the second most genuinely innovative artist ever in the mass pop market, surpassed only by the Fab Four.