Well, according to the article linked in OP, Prince’s music is “a girls’ idea of what rock music ought to sound like” and his songs weren’t “written for boys”, so clearly Prince has cooties.
Aside from his contempt for anything dumb girls might like, the author (James Delingpole) also makes it clear that he disapproves of “all that gender-fluidity idiocy currently so fashionable on campus” and is cranky about how it’s no longer socially acceptable to call someone “creepy and sinister and pervy” just because they’re “very androgynous and bisexual and — ugh! — gender fluid.”
If you don’t like his music, you don’t like his music. No need to go on and on about it. There’s definitely no need to slag “girls” and gender non-conformists in the mix either. And Prince was not bisexual, so the tiresome author of that terrible article doesn’t even have his facts straight.
You don’t think he’s a good guitarist but want to explore if that’s a problem. Okay: His RRHoF solo for George Harrison is help up as one for the ages. What do you think about it?
Tell me the title of the song and I’ll listen to it. I don’t know what RRHoF is.
Also, I never said he wasn’t a good guitarist. I said he didn’t establish a recognized style and ended up not becoming famous as a guitarist as a result, at least not among average music fans.
This is just me, but that type of guitar riffing does zero for me. I’m a Beatles fan but I actually don’t like this song very much, nor the original Clapton solo (nor very much Clapton).
This is true. Being famous as a singing superstar puts you in that category in people’s minds, and that’s the top category one can be in, basically. People tend to see a person as one thing and not multiple things.
Lol, just noticed this post. You are seriously questioning Prince’s influence because he didn’t invent funk. That is hilarious. As it happens, he got a lot of kudos for producing funk without the usually obligatory bass.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this bit shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. There isn’t a more sexual song in the universe than “Gett Off”. “Darling Nikki” doesn’t even come close.
The trillions of heterosexual women who are still grieving over Prince’s absence would also vehemently disagree with you. It’s not his unusual horsey face that made the man a virtual sex god in the eyes of many. It wasn’t just his dance moves. It was the sexuality that oozed out of every guitar riff, drum beat, keyboard chord, and yelp.
That was the part that had me LOLOLOLOLO. Prince was sex personified and did it outside of the “normal” perimeters. I can’t take any part of this discussion seriously if it gets even that part so very wrong.
This board skews very old, white, and male. Unfortunately, that means the perspective on pop culture is very narrow. I mean, some of y’all often claim not to know 90% of what’s currently on the radio, so how do you know what the lasting influence is? Even a comment above that Prince’s earlier works had no staying power? That’s doesn’t ring true for me or most who spend way more money on R&B/Soul/HipHop than Rush.
It’s difficult to take the Spectator piece seriously as music criticism since the author is a Breitbart editor. Expecting him to give a fair assessment of the famously non-gender-conforming Prince is like going to Pat Robertson for an in-depth analysis of Danish death metal.
I too was in high school in the latter half of the 80s and I too hated what was on the charts then, but that was nothing to do with Prince — his best work was arguably behind him by then. (Nobody I knew liked Sign O the Times and I never got into the Batman soundtrack, though I was pretty much in the wilderness on that one.) I remember the charts in my high school days being populated mostly by Bon Jovi and second-wave hair metal on one end of the spectrum, and the likes of Bobby Brown on the other. I’d take even past-his-prime Purple One over any of that shit.
It’s hard to assert an “objectivity over bias” argument when the topic is how “sexual” something is. The subject is subjectivity itself.
Is it understandable that someone who places, or otherwise inserts, sexuality into every note, or beat, might not be all that interesting as a musician?
