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

Purple Rain, Thriller, Born In The USA, The Joshua Tree, Appetite For Destruction....

Those albums were massive in the 80s but in 2016 we're still hearing these songs, they're still popular, they've transcended generations. It's fair to say they've reached "timeless" especially since people were so quick to say Zeppelin and Floyd's music was timeless 20 years after their release... 30 is longer than that

 

You must be a lot of fun at parties!

Just kidding, Jarvius! Glad to see you back 'round these parts. I know that there's a few of us who missed ya!

 

Haha thanks man. I'm glad to be back.

 

Really?
I think that's a fairly limited outlook.
I understand your point about 'pushing it' in the 'genres' you 'care about'. One can appreciate Prince in that respect, particularly.
Nevertheless, a great song remains a great song too, irrespective of genre or whether the artist is 'pushing it' or not.
In fact, I'd argue that the greatest artists don't necessarily have to worry about that.
They have the capacity to transcend.
Look at Sam Cooke with something like 'You Send Me', Roy Orbison with 'Blue Bayou', or Elvis with 'Can't Help Falling In Love'..
Genre and pushing the envelope simply doesn't come into it. What you have here is great singers with great, timeless melodies.
That gets the job done in spades. It appeals to everyone from toddlers to Grandmas and everyone in between. My point wasn't so much that grandmas are the yardstick of good taste or what's hip, of course, it was more to impress that Prince's appeal is limited with respect to having timeless classics, beautifully sung, that appeal to all kinds of people.
For all his undeniable talent(s) the vast majority of his catalog reveals an idiosyncratic artist that appeals more to a niche than the general public en masse.

 

Up to a point, perhaps. (Although your comment could apply to many many acts who realistically lack for 'timeless' music, too)
However, relative to the top tier artists in popular music? Hmmm

 

Uh - no - I'm not learning anything from you.

Over-rated is a matter of opinion. I think in general it is a pretty meaningless term when it comes to something as subjective as music. It's a way of making an opinion sound like a fact. What you're really saying is that you don't think Prince's music is that great despite all of his commercial success. If that's what you're really saying - well you are of course entitled to that opinion. To tell you the truth I'm not CRAZY about much of his output either. I'm mostly into his hits and classics.

What I'm saying is that I feel his fame as a pop icon tends to overshadow the immense musical talent he has - to the effect that many don't realize what a special musician he is.

 

Well. Look at how many years have passed.

Compare this to 20 years ago. In 1996, we all were in agreement that Led Zeppelin IV, Dark Side Of The Moon, Are You Experienced, Ziggy Stardust, Exile On Main Street and all of the Beatles discography were "timeless". They passed the litmus test of time. Purple Rain or Thriller today is older than any of those albums were in 1996 and yet they're still selling, the songs are still popular and its transcended to another generation that wasn't around in 1984. That to me officially puts it there with the timeless classics. Longevity is crucial and if we were in agreement that a 23 year old (in 1996) album had passed the litmus test of time to become timeless, why not albums that are over 30 years old? Hell, we can even argue that 90s albums by Nirvana and Pearl Jam have crossed the age litmus threshold test into becoming timeless enduring classics given that they are as old today as those Zeppelin records were 20 years ago, and yet they're still popular.

 

I think I'm on board with this. Hard to admire someone that you can't relate to in the slightest. Why do Rush fans believe that band is the greatest? Part of it is that they're approachable and personable guys that many of their fans can relate to. Even Neil Peart, who is a very private person is extremely warm and affable when he does give those few interviews. I don't know any Prince fans who really like the guy so there's a disconnect that makes it difficult to go out on that limb. Add to that the fact that the huge amount of output contains some clunkers, some of which you wonder why he even bothered putting it out. Talent is definitely there but it doesn't always manifest itself in each album or song.

 

A few months ago I had Nirvana's Nevermind playing in the car with my 10-year-old son. He digs the album. I was in my 20s when it was released and remember what a breath of fresh air it was coming out of the late 80s hair band rock. It still sounds fresh and meaningful to me - and always will. But then I thought to myself - sheesh, this music is older to my son than the Beatles were to me when I was his age. Man, am I getting OLD! LOL!

 

I was born in 79 so I was in my pre-teen years when grunge hit. But it scares me to realize that today this music is as old/if not older today than the Zeppelin/Floyd classics were when I was that age. I remember listening to Zeppelin and thinking about how many years ago it was, etc.... I look at Pearl Jam records from 1993 and it feels "oh, maybe ten years back" in my head. Scary.

 

Lenny Kravitz for one. Janet Jackson built her career on aping Prince's sound, not her brother's (thank you Jam & Lewis). Then there was the cattlecar of Prince-affiliated acts that broke onto the pop charts in the mid-'80s, from The Time to Vanity 6 to The Bangles to Sinead O'Connor. Sheila E, anyone? Klymaxx? Jody Watley?

Prince may have ultimately been more influential than Michael Jackson. He certainly had more influence over the sound of the '80s than Bruce Springsteen.

 

The top 3 of the 80's influenced some of the biggest stars of the 21st century.

Michael Jackson:
The Weeknd
Justin Bieber
Justin Timberlake
Usher
Beyonce
Chris Brown
Bruno Mars


Prince:
D'Angelo
Alicia Keys
Miguel
Beck
Andre 3000
Janelle Monae
Lenny Kravitz


Madonna:
Adele
Britney Spears
Nicki Minaj
Sia
Katy Perry
Lady Gaga
Rihanna
Miley Cyrus
Gwen Stefani

 

In case you hadn't noticed, my original premise was specifically *songs*, as distinct from albums.
And a lot of the releases you claim here as being timeless, ( Prince, Jackson, Nirvana, Pearl Jam etc) is not so much that, as merely music which is still popular from the mid-eighties onward largely by default. Ie; merely rehashed because nothing *better* has come along for people to listen to and get engaged in. That's hardly 'timeless'.
It just means stations are playing it in preference to today's crap.

 

But the reason he isn't considered the best..?
Well, basically it's because he *isnt* the best.
If one is a myopic music fan that places a focus on multitasking on musical instruments, then Prince might be your cup of tea. But, all factors considered, Prince is merely just another great artist. He has the advantage, of course, of being an eighties icon, rather than being relegated to 'just another artist' kind of status, if his time was in the sixties.

 

Bruce Springsteen craps all over Prince.
To the tune of about 100 more great songs, and a 'live' aura Prince could only dream of commanding.
By the eighties, 'influence' was largely irrelevant as a barometer of greatness, because it had devolved to being little more than marker of the *superficial* aspects of music-making. Unlike in previous decades.
Case in point; Michael Jackson and Madonna.
Here, the chief influence is not the music, but pointy bras and moonwalking. And the 'artists' being influenced are relative losers like Timberlake and Gaga. Who cares? Nothing to hang your hat on, I'd contend.

 

The other drawback with Prince is his *persona*. As some have alluded to here recently, he isn't exactly the most engaging and respectable of characters. I wouldn't go so far as to say he is 'flawed' to the extent of an Elvis or Michael Jackson, but neither does his weirdness and arrogancy make him spring to mind as a role model for budding musicians.
This might seem less than relevant considering that Rocknroll has never been a genre noted for being devoid of 'unsavoury' characters, but the bigger picture is popular music in general, and if one is going to stake a claim for Prince as being its greatest exponent, I hardly think it's counting in his favour if there are artists atleast as talented, but providing a far better example to succeeding generations of how to build a career.

 

I'd much rather see a Prince live show than The Boss.

Just sayin'.

 

Me too. Prince has a greater vocal range, is a better guitarist, doubles on keyboards (and bass and drums sometimes) and he's a terrific dancer. There is also far more variety in his songwriting, touching on funk, soul, blues, jazz, metal, pop,...
I find Springsteen so tedious.

 

I agree. He's not in the discussion of the "great Greats", and I think it's because of his inconsistency. Not just from album to album, but from song to song on each album.
I love him, and can he ever put on a show (when he's in the mood...). But he needed a consistent band, or a partnership, that would have checked his musical flights of fancy before cutting a track to acetate, as it were...

 

He had that band - it was called The Revolution, and all of his records with them are great to incredible.

Then he dumped them and hired yesmen. Arguably more talented yesmen, but the results were utterly predictable.

This is one area where Springsteen has shone for decades - he really did assemble a killer band with its own personalities.

 

Justin Trowsersnake was heavily influenced by Prince as well - see the whole of his FutureSex/LoveSounds record.

 

It's all down to taste I suppose. I prefer Prince's work through the 90s to the present day over the 80s mushy, synth-pop laden albums (on which I agree there were some fabulous songs). He has done some great work with John Blackwell, Renato Neto and Rhonda Smith for example. Give me that over Dr. Fink and Sheila E any day. A special acknowledgement to Levi Seacer Jnr. however!
Springsteen always had that solid band (yawn) but I think I'd describe his music as being totally predictable. At least Prince is more daring, moving in all directions and often surprises.

 

I think his SOTT/Lovesexy band had some great moments too. The NPG were very talented musicians as well. Each band he's formed seemed to serve a different purpose for what he's aiming at the time.

But I will agree that 3rdeyegirl for example aren't that great. Hannah is a solid drummer (and she probably isn't going anywhere considering how much stock Prince puts into Joshua right now) but the other two girls are just alright. I saw him live in 2007 with the incarnation he had of the NPG at that time and again last year with 3rdeyegirl, the 2007 band was much better and more musically versatile.

 

I think it's fair to say that many of those artists you list were influenced by Prince, Jackson, and Madonna. Heck, looking for that Prince/Beyonce photo from the Grammys for the Beyonce thread, I found her doing a cover of "The Beautiful Ones", which is hardly a well known song anymore (even more amazing is she asks the audience to sing along, implying that Beyonce wears her Prince fandom pretty openly on her sleeve).

I suspect Prince and Springsteen have a mutual admiration for each other. They're both dynamite live performers and brilliant songwriters, albeit with very different sounds and styles. You care much more about pitting one against the other than they do, I'm sure.

As for influence, well, it's a pretty good barometer of someone's musical importance. The Velvet Underground didn't have a lot of record sales, but they changed the face of rock and roll through their influence.

I haven't read through all of your posts, but I'm guessing they're mostly in the "things were better in the sixties/seventies!" vein that gets so tiresome around here.

The New Power Generation lineup that played on Diamonds and Pearls and The Love Symbol were absolutely exceptional, easily as distinctive as The Revolution.

 

It's not a question of how talented these other musicians are or aren't - I suspect they're all more talented than most of The Revolution, at least in the conventional sense.

However, none of his subsequent bands had the personality The Revolution had. As far as I'm concerned, the material he's created since he quit working with The Revolution is (in general) a pale shadow of his former work. That isn't because his newer bands can't play. It's down to chemistry, and the fact we know the more cantankerous members of The Revolution were prone to giving Prince the kind of feedback nobody else in his stream of hired guns has dared to deliver since.