See post 167 for monstro’s paradox.
Your OP doesn’t doesn’t demonstrate that you sought to understand the critical reception of a top-tier musician before stating your opinion as if it was of equal regard. It ain’t. Sorry.
Of course I understood Prince’s reputation, etc. That’s just an obvious fact, right?
Equal regard? What do you mean?
Read your OP and your other expository posts. What have you offered other than your opinion? That’s in no way a bad thing, except when you say “he has no melody/guitar/something” then folks point out example and you say “yeah, but that doesn’t work for me.” That’s like your opinion, man.
Then there’s DavidwithanR who apparently decided that Prince perpetuated superficial fraud for 30 years. ‘Cuz that’s possible.
What other things would you like to see?
I wasn’t the one talking about melody.
I have had no issue with the people disagreeing with my specific points and, in fact, there has been a decent discussion hidden among the personal stuff here.
I’d like to see that you’ve listened to Prince. I can’t paste links. Sorry.
-
How Come You Don’t Call Me Anymore is the B side to 1999 on his B sides collection. It is the single finest slow piano jam I know. It’s him, his piano, and a bit of echo judiciously applied. My god, Aeschines, it’s just crushingly good.
-
**The Cross **is on the 4th side of Sign o’ the Times. Straight up gospel. Builds layer over layer, adding power to the passion.
-
Do it All Night is the 3rd track off Dirty Mind. A pop confection seduction song. Just a blast.
Go listen to him.
Cool. I appreciate this and will listen.
And I would laugh at them and tell them they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. I would say it just like that to emphasize the intensity of my opinion. This is not against the rules and it is fully consistent with this board’s mission to entertain and fight ignorance. We aren’t obligated to treat your opinions like they are precious gems just because you see them that way.
“I only like ‘Last Dance with Mary Jane’” is an expression that can’t be disputed. “The only good Tom Petty song is ‘Last Dance with Mary Jane’” is a statement that begs impolite debate. It presumes that differing opinions on the subject either don’t exist or don’t matter. It is arrogant and pretentious.
I’m trying to make sense of this opinion. What kind of style was he wearing, music-wise? Can you describe it?
I just listened to one of his more recent songs (“WOW”). The composition and production have him written all over it, but it doesn’t hit your ears as sounding “like a Prince song”. Because there’s really no such thing. One of Prince’s main talents was cranking out great songs that were not cookie cutter or formulaic. Raspberry Beret, Little Red Corvet, Cream, Mountains, Come, Irresistible Bitch, Holy River, Computer Blue, Head, House Quake, the list literally could go on…all of these works sound distinct from one another, thoughtfully composed, and very much Prince-ish in their rendering all the while spanning multiple genres, with different instrumentration. They also widely differ in mainstream appeal.
So I don’t understand what you mean to convey when you say “his style”. Which style? What are some good examples of songs he made that don’t seem to fit him?
You said that Prince’s “sex thing” didn’t work in the artistic sense because, while women may have dug it, straight men didn’t. Since Prince was neither conventionally handsome nor traditionally masculine I’d say the fact that he was still able to convey sexiness to so many straight women is a testament to his abilities as a performer and songwriter. He may not have done it for me personally, but I try not to confuse my personal preferences with some objective truth about art.
Try this video - Motherless Child - forget about his outfit/makeup/hair - see if the hypnotic beat (that nasty bass sound!), vocals, orchestration, and ripping guitar playing do anything for you…
And if that is allowed, then it incentivizes anyone to do whatever they want when they have an “intense” opinion. Which is a hell of a lot of people.
You are dodging the issue. First, some of the things said here have been against the rules for sure. Second, you seem not to want to recognize the difference between debating about the opinion and debating about the person who has the opinion.
I totally disagree on multiple levels. First of all, I welcome arrogant and pretentious opinions here (that are sincerely held and not trolling, and the holder of said opinions has the same duty not to be a dick as those responding to him/her). Why not? If anything, I think Cafe Society is too staid and careful.
I also think that such arrogant and pretentious opinions assume that differing opinions exist. That’s why a person would bother to state it in the first place. “The Beatles suck. What?! I thought everyone agreed with me!” said no one, ever.
This is a fair point!
To break it down would be complicated. I think Prince’s persona, including the sexual aspects, was very much of its time, and I was not a fan of pop at the time, and I didn’t enjoy Prince or his persona at the time. I still don’t dig it, but I’m certainly not morally offended by it or anything. I recognize that he was quite successful with it.
In terms of Prince’s peak popularity with PR and 1999, he definitely was delivering the goods that worked in the latter half of the 1980s. I do indeed recognize the ability and intensity that produced that success.
Why are you junior modding, bro?
I have not been issued a warning. I don’t think anyone in this thread has been issued one.
I regularly debate people in GD (or at least I used to, before I had a real life). We can call people out in GD for not knowing what they are talking about there. This happens all the time. So I’m curious why you think it can’t happen in Cafe Society. Is there a rule that you can cite that would back up your assertion, or is this just another one of your self-important opinions?
I welcome them too. I welcome anyone to speak their mind however they want, even when their mind personally offends me. But I also welcome myself to express myself the way I want. If I think you’re spouting an arrogant and pretentious opinion, I will tell you so. You are free to ignore me or debate me. But I’m not going to shut up about it just because you have some misconceptions about the ground rules.
For someone who acts like he cares about polite discourse, you seem unaware of the nuances of social grace. “The Beatles suck!” is not a polite way to start any kind of debate. If you express strongly worded opinions like that, then you need to be prepared for folks to give you some in return.
So you should be pleased when arrogant and pretentious opinions get treated in a way that is not exactly staid and careful, right? Like with blunt candor?
There’s been some healthy discussion here even amid some high-quality snark. The lesson in this in that by opening the door to having your viewpoint bluntly criticized, possibly some education has occurred. Why not just be happy about that and put aside the griping.
Yeah, and a lot of times with that assumption is the assumption that differing opinions aren’t just different but also objectively wrong. Hence, the arrogant and pretentious thing. It’s not the right way to come at people if you expect to them to actually engage you politely.
Hi, you just stopped in to pile on and not talk about the OP? Welcome to the large crowd. This is the shit I’m talking about.
If that’s high-quality, then the Dope is in trouble. Strictly amateur.
That’s some pretty awesome button-pushing condescension, I will grant you that. You’re good!
Yeah, I totally thought any other opinion was objectively wrong.
Good job.
Heaven forfend! Report! Report!
Well that’s the gold standard for polite discourse.
Sorry to call you away from that for your invaluable input in this thread (though, sincerely, I did appreciate your actual suggestions for listening).
I’ve cited the rule against personal attacks. I mean, I may be wrong.
You’re really not getting the point, though: everyone thinks they know what they are talking about on any side of the debate. Piling on someone because they are “wrong” means assholes will do the same thing when given a chance.
Except… there are rules, right? Which might not comport with what you personally want, no? And even if there are no rules, then there ought to be limits, right?
The actual rule is this:
You are free to express your views in a forceful manner provided you remain civil. Hate speech, insults, and purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling) will not be tolerated.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/faq.php?faq=vb3_board_faq#faq_vb3_board_usage
Of course, everyone always thinks s/he’s civil and not insulting, so…
Of course it’s not polite. I’m saying that anyone who was so impolite would know that his/her opinion was not shared by all.
I think I found a source for The Cross.
Listen for the hooks. Prince doesn't have those kind of things.I think Prince is inclined to work with vamps and be happy with that. He had an audience that was happy with that too. I get bored frankly with just a vamp. Some musicians are too comfortable with their talent and lose that little nervous connection with the listener that acts as the safeguard against self indulgence, which is a legitimate avenue for criticism of Prince. He was pouring out with music and songs and I find that problematic, if he is exceeding the songs he has the juice for. People can spread themselves thin, and I wouldn’t count Prince out of that.
How are you defining “hooks”? I find Prince’s work full of hooks. The keyboard riff on “When Doves Cry”; the organ and vocal melody on “When You Were Mine”; the ear wormy refrain of “Little Red Corvette”; the gospel anthemy chorus of “Purple Rain,” (which makes me tear up whenever I hear it), the keyboard stabs and vocal riff on “Let’s Go Crazy,” the slithery sexy chorus of “Cream,” the refrain of “Kiss” with the cool James-Brown-like guitar chords interrupting “I just want your extra time and your [funk guitar chords] kiss!” etc.
I mean, hookless is about the last word I would ever use to describe Prince’s music, so we must have very different definitions of what a “hook” is. All those songs have very memorable, ear-wormy melodic and/or rhythmic phrases that one immediately thinks of when thinking of those songs. That is a “hook” by my definition.
Hang on man. I’m going to stick to one song at a time. In fact I will enjoy that. I’m going to try to listen a couple times to each song cited and see if i can add dialectic.
So by hooks I meant that in the Zep tune there is a bass hook, a rthm gtr hook, a title hook, a lead: I mean it’s full of them and it moves like clockwork with a variety of sounds. ROck heaven.
I listened to a couple versions of The Cross and I think it is inspired by ramble on, uses the chords and rthm, but lacks memorable places within it to enjoy yourself. Like above. Those I would term hooks for this purpose. Guitar is reminiscent of Zep, in fact it is the only memorable instrumental hook, from Zep. The vocal melody is a vamp that goes on but lacks contour except that he is pious in the start and wild at the end. The melody is not as good to my ears as Zep, which song had vocal hooks all through it. Lets see how it wears on me.
It didn’t sound to me like you were only talking about that song, so forgive me if I thought you were talking about his body of work. (I also don’t really see the connection between “The Cross” and “Ramble On,” so I was a little confused.)