The Real Reason Prince Isn't Considered The Best Artist.

Nah, it's I Want You.

 

I grew up listening to mostly 80s, so a lot of his hits would've made me think he's much better than how I see him today. I think that it's his image that has made him stand out, along with being one of the default pop stars of the 80s that so many grew up with. I keep hearing about his talent, but that's not gonna make me add to what I've heard on his albums. I think For You is his most consistent album, but he didn't have his trademark sound yet. After that, he got better but was inconsistent. After Purple Rain, there's just a handful of quality prime Prince songs. So he's already overrated because of fame. If he wasn't that famous, he'd be ranked closer to a lot of r&b/funk artists from that time.

 

Interesting. Marvin is great. But I've always seen Roy Orbison as the premier artist in popular music, with his most serious threat as Bob Dylan. So..Perhaps a new thread is in order here..?

 

I'm not too hip on Roy, but it's definitely a preference thing. Marvin just hit every angle dealing with music. Message, art, pain etc...

 

Outside of this forum, I thought he in general is regarded as amongst the greats.

I laugh at those who claim his muse left him after Purple Rain. Please. Sign O' The Times is just as good and the type of artists many artists would kill to have just one of in their discography. Most people wouldn't say his music entered any sort of decline until the early 90s, and even then, an album like The Gold Experience during the name-change wilderness years is pretty amazing.

Prince's problem besides his personality is that he made the "cardinal sin" of making music for himself and not the masses. It will take death ala David Bowie for people to finally accept him as opposed to being mad that he wasn't interested in being Michael Jackson. The fact that he followed his moment of uberstardom with "Around The World In A Day" shows that he wanted to be an artist first, pop star second. He knew ATWIAD wouldn't go anywhere near Purple Rain's level... if anything, he used Purple Rain and the success that came with it to be afforded the creative freedom to do what he wants to do and we got some really amazing and interesting work in the second half of the 1980s simply because PR's success gave him freedom to make Parade, Sign O' The Times and Lovesexy.

 

"Overrated because of fame"? What on Earth does that mean?

 

I'm not too sure I buy into the concept of best ever artist or whatever we're talking about here OP. Oh wait a minute now that I see that in print I know for sure I don't even think that's a valid concept. However, I'm not even the biggest Prince fan in the world... pretty much was aware of him thru Purple Rain and I guess most of his original WB run after that, sort of lost track of him in the modern world. Even so if I was going to sit down and make a list of the top ten most all around talented guys ever to play the music game I'm certain he'd be in the conversation. And I bet a lot of members here would say the same thing...

 

This post is, in a nutshell, why I part ways from some prevalent attitudes on this forum.

Really? What Grandma would enjoy listening to? That's supposed to be a relevant standard for rock music, funk, soul? To me, that's precisely the problem with the Beatles. Cute, sweet, safe, "Penny Lane the pretty nurses in a roundabout" blah blah blah.

My Grandma--R.I.P-- wouldn't enjoy listening to Coltrane. She wouldn't enjoy listening to the Stooges. She wouldn't enjoy listening to J.L. Lewis at the Star Club.

Greatness in the genres I care about involves pushing it. Pushing it way past what Grandma would like. If Grandma likes it, it's not great.

 

It happens a lot for you not to be knowing. One example is when rock fans that don't listen to r&b claim they do because they at least listen to Prince.
That type of extra attention just keeps growing. There's a lot of over celebrating by default in that way. Future generations are gonna experience Prince this way & they will be overrating him as well. The 80s was also a time when fans focused on image/videos more than before. Prince was part of that.

 

All due respect, wtf are you talking about?

 

Today there are kids that think Michael Jordan was the best without ever seeing him play. How many kids today would actually know who he played against. With time, it gets out of control & that fame turns into over celebrating by default. I could've just explained the previous question with The Beatles being overrated because of fame. I don't think this, but it's been brought up a lot. Same thing with Apple. It also depends who's doing the rating.

 

Point is - he got famous because people liked him. "Over-rated" is merely with respect to what YOU think of him.

Personally, I think his fame, if anything, causes him to be "under-rated" by the general public. For example, for many years I merely thought he was a pop icon and entertainer. I basically ignored him like I do most of that ilk. Little did I know that he is in fact a virtuoso guitarist and insanely talented multi-instrumentalist.

 

Prince being a pop icon/entertainer was enough for you to be aware of him so you can later over rate his music based on his music skills. I already said I don't care for talent if it doesn't match the results. There's a lot of talented artists that never got famous because they're writer/producers or they were part of a band. What if Prince was a band & you never knew anything about them but the music? I think ratings would be more balanced. If this thread is about talent with skills, then nobody can really say anything unless it's technically measured (can play 10 different instruments while skydiving). We can all imagine that kind of perfection, but it's the actual music that we can't imagine.
Another reason in general why he doesn't get credit for best ever is that he's barely one of the best of the 80s & that is not that impressive. I do wonder what his music could've been if he came out 10 years earlier. I just thought of Shuggie Otis who is also overrated because of fame.

 

Gimme a break. You say "overrate his music based on his skills" as if you are some objective arbiter of either. The usual opinion as fact nonsense. Aggravating to say the least.

You feel he is overrated through whatever measures you feel are important. I feel his musical talents are under appreciate and underrated by the general public. Neither of our viewpoints are correct. They are merely opinions.

 

I really don't know to be claiming it's fact. I see my opinions as ways to make others think about something in as many ways as I am. It doesn't seem like an opinion to say that Prince is way more famous than other talented artists. With that fame, people check out his music & many keep passing it on, especially a lot of casual fans. Like Miles Davis' Kind of Blue gets passed around to non jazz fans. It's a good album, but it causes a separation where you can clearly see something turn overrated. It shows up on lists of greatest albums, and people suspect that it's the only jazz album they know of. I'm not saying that it's always like this, but it can't be said that this is something that doesn't happen.

 

So essentially what you're saying is every artist popular enough to develop a big following and become famous is overrated? Kind of an absurd comment.

 

Depending on how famous & the reasons for it, that's what becomes absurd. People buying stuff based on the brand causes unfair distribution. I doubt you're just learning this.

 

I agree. Prince is arguably just as underrated and people argue he's overrated. For much of the general public, he's been reduced to Purple Rain, the name change and a half dozen or so 80s standards like Kiss and 1999.

So much of his discography has been overshadowed by the towering popularity of Purple Rain that many out there who aren't in the "know" don't realize how amazing Parade for example is... they know "Kiss" but have no idea what else is on the record. He's been reduced as an 80s megastar who had one classic album, but people forget he had an entire decade of material on the same level of Purple Rain, just might not be as popular.

It would be no different than if people forgot Springsteen's other great albums and pretty much saw him solely as the guy who made Born In The USA, ignoring his other classics and resting all attention squarely on that one record.

 

You realize Purple Rain was Prince's only "mega" blockbuster selling album, right? He was not Michael Jackson or Whitney Houston in the sense of an 80s r&b star who pop masses adored too. If anything, 1999 and Sign O' The Times' album sales are actually lower than what their stature today would imply. SOTT sold something like 1.7 million, it underperformed enough in Prince's mind he didn't even tour stateside. Now hindsight regards the album as a classic but it was hardly like outside of a brief stint in 1984-1985 that he actually was more than a very successful cult artist.

 

I said that in general based on the reply. There are people who know Prince & just think of Purple Rain & 1999. If they do decide to get into that style/genre, they'll start with Prince. The illusion has already been created that one brand is much better than the lesser known brands. They might be around the same, but one usually believes that the more famous brand is better quality. The fame that I'm talking about isn't even that much about sales. It's like someone reading this forum without knowing that much about music. They will get the impression that The Beatles must literally be that much better than the rest. Since Prince is also part of the rock world, his name collects even more mentions within it having to do with the r&b world. Prince ends up standing out more than he should. It's like a rock dominated list including Prince, so r&b/funk fans won't complain. Then I could end up thinking, "Well, I guess I could do the same thing when I make
my list". What I think of Prince's music is separate from these other things I notice. I love a lot of things that have this happen to them.

 

More great in an 'eighties nineties vein' than timeless musical standards.

 

Who sez? I consider Syd Barrett to be the best all-around U.K. psychedelic musician. Prince is probably my favourite 80's artist overall.

 

I'm surprised at the hatred for "Purple Rain" the song. Hearing the song live is nothing short of a religious experience.

 

I think Prince's image got in his way. And yes, I think a lot of music-lovers didn't really know what to think of him then. He almost was a self-parody.

However, I think he was Zappa-esque in rehearsing his band to meticulous performance. I always appreciate that.

I wonder if people thought he was faking his guitar playing then? I like his songs, appreciate his willingness to change his music, and his capability as a performer. He seems to be reaping a lot of adoration now, regardless of what people thought back in the '80s. I think that's a good and deserved thing.

 

If people are still listening 20-30 years on, I think its fair to say its graduated to "timeless".