Well…he never composed classical music like Frank Zappa. But then I’m not sure anyone ever called Frank’s classical music brilliant ;).
I think he probably qualifies no matter what the general public thought of him( and he sold ~100 million albums, so he wasn’t exactly obscure and under-appreciated ). Musicianship has nothing to do with appearances. Showmanship might I suppose, but I I’m not sure anyone ever accused Prince of putting on a bad show :). He was a prodigy and immensely popular, rightfully so.
We were playing various 80’s music videos to our kids last night (just to show them proper music) and we played “Kiss” to them and the general consensus was along the lines of “only Prince could do that with a straight face and get away with it”
And get away with it he most certainly did. His effeminacy never seemed like a conceit to me, it was just Prince being Prince and not giving a shit either way, that is a huge part of what made him cool. Well, that and the musical genius.
(among other videos we watched were “I want to break free” by Queen, “Rio” by Duran Duran and “True Faith” by New Order, all classics of their time)
I’m a big Rush fan and yeah, Time Stand Still is just terrible. The new technology IS the content, and that never really works out well.
The mid-80s saw a bunch of videos using green screen effects (The Cars - You Might Think and Honeymoon Suite - Feel It Again come to mind) but with arguably better production values. Not that many videos had much of a story to them (or too much story - see the Pat Benetar video mentioned earlier), but at least there was something other than random backgrounds and the members of Rush looking like refugees from a failed video game (Journey the video game anybody?)
Regarding Journey - Separate Ways. It’s not just eye contact. That seemed to be the norm with a lot of half-baked music videos (pretty much all of them in the 80s besides Michael Jackson and Weird Al). What really bothers me about Separate Ways is how none of them seem to know what to do with their hands if there isn’t an instrument (air or real) in their hands.
The Journey videos from that era as all pretty terrible. It’s like someone in the back office decided that $1K was as much as they could spend on a video, and that was it. I mean, c’mon. A Flock of Seagulls put together a much more engaging video with a few mirrors and lights, some mylar and a whole lot of heavy duty mousse. Considering they probably couldn’t return the mousse or the mylar, that video probably cost $1K to make. And it’s a lot better and less creepy than Separate Ways.
“Tom Sawyer” is one of the most famous songs of its time, made by a band that were all millionaires already, and the video looks like it was shot on a home video recorder by a guy who was paid ten dollars to do it.
Another Canadian treasure, The Tragically Hip, have a lot of mediocre videos and some pretty cheap ones for great songs.
Going back to the 80s, though, my recollection is that most of them were bad, and many were really bad, even if the song was good. It wasn’t just Journey, it was all of them. We tend to remember Michael Jackson videos and “Take on Me” and stuff, but most were shitty and appallingly cheap, as if the record company still wasn’t entirely convinced this “music video” thing would take.
And in fairness they were kind of making it up as they went along; that’s why some, like “Love is a Battlefield,” have way more story than they need, and some appear to have been produced at gunpoint.
All of this was over really quickly; by the early 90s, videos didn’t look nearly as cheap. They could still be ill advised and bad, but at least it appeared they were TRYING.
I have to wonder if the visual cheapness of Rush videos isn’t somehow related to the reclusive nature of Peart. He was pretty famous for wanting to avoid the limelight, preferring instead to spend his free time on tour driving his BMW motorcycle or auto to various landmarks.
You’re not the first straight (gonna also assume white) male who not only universalizes their personal opinion about Prince’s style but also conflates this opinion with fact, seemingly oblivious or indifferent to the millions who loved his work over several decades and found his aesthetic uniquely appealing. If his fashion sense detracted from his talent, I’m having a hard time envisioning how he could’ve presented himself to be more successful than he was.
“Blues Travelers is a great band, but John Popper’s weight and baggy wardrobe detracts from his enormous talent. I am speaking as a straight woman.”
I think a better analogy would be something like this.
“I think K.D Lang is a great musician. But speaking as a straight woman, the whole butch thing detracts from her talent. She looks so goofy in those tailored suits.”
That is quite a lot to extract from my opinion of a single video. And do you understand the difference between criticizing an outfit and saying that his fashion sense detracted from his talent? I never said that I couldnt love Princes music because of an unusual outfit. But I do think that it distracts from the music. His music is brilliant all on its own without the glitz. The advent of video has shifted the focus from pure musical talent to appearance/attractiveness. Ever heard of Martha Walsh? Christopher Cross? The first video MTV played was Video Killed the Radio Star. It was a taste of things to come.
This is also apt in some ways, but the point of my comparison is a bit different that what you’re hitting on.There very well could be women that can’t get into K.D Lang because of her butch style, but I doubt they would be present their opinion about her style ) as a matter-of fact statement about her talent or 2) her appeal in general. But it seems to be something men do a lot of with Prince. There’s a certain “He would have been good if only he had made his style confirm to what straight men like.”
I used Blues Travelers in my comparison because it’s an example of a group who doesn’t feature a lead singer who embodies rock star charisma or sexual desirability or anything like that and probably doesn’t particularly attract a passionate female following (like Prince did). Probably not the clearest analogy in the world, but the point I was trying to make is that this band appeals to people who can appreciate its talent and it’s unpretentious style, and it would be obnoxious for a woman (straight or otherwise) to basically ignore this reality because of their own personal thoughts about John Popper’s image.
I don’t understand how an artist’s clothes detract from his/her music. Songs are an auditory medium.You don’t have to watch videos to enjoy music.
If you’re saying it’s hard to enjoy a video when you are put off by the artist’s appearance, I get that. But I read your statement as being about Prince’s talent in general.
Now that I actually watched that video, I have a feeling that the low-budget feel was the whole idea. As for it being an 80s video, that’s what it was, because the song came out in 1984.
A decade later, Stone Temple Pilots did this. Not a bad song either. RIP Scott Weiland.
