Prince is dead

[JSngry]

I do know that Miles said something about Jimi getting two white English guys to swing, something like that. And yeah, he wanted to get into that Hendrix/Rock circle, Betty Mabry was who he looked to to play that.

It's always easy to dismiss Miles' interest as superficial, ego-drive, vanity, etc./whatever. And you'd be crazy not to allow for some of that. But I think it's insulting to Miles' innate artistry to play it all off as just that, that's kinda nuts, imo. Hendrix was pulling from some pretty deep roots and taking it off into pretty deep space. People who knew those roots and weren't averse to the deep space part of it (and I think Miles qualifies on both counts, surely) knew what was was going on.

And hell, Pete Cosey. Miles hired Pete Cosey and turned him loose. Herbie Mann hired Sonny Sharrock and turned HIM loose. Pop/Rock/Crossover Appeal/Blahblahblahblahblah. Those cats were continuing with some very black-rooted notions of what a guitar was for. Not just what you could do with it, but what the damn thing was FOR.

You get some parallel-universe type things when hillbillies first got electricity and plugged-in pedal steels and shit like that. Some of those motherfuckers went NUTS. But - parallel universe, to be appreciated for what it was, but not to be conflated with what it was not.

Avoiding Cultural Politics about stuff like this is difficult, but not impossible. Just know the musics and connect the dots.

Hendrix playing "white music for white people", no, the tracing backwards maths do not support that notion even slightly. That's a post-historical notion based on, like, t-shirts and Classic Rock radio and Time-Life infomercials and shit like that. I see a tree here now, therefore there used to be a vast forest here, uh....no.

Just saying - history is its own reward, pursue accordingly and yo, 360 at all times, right?

[CJ Shearn]

53 minutes ago, JSngry said:

I do know that Miles said something about Jimi getting two white English guys to swing, something like that. And yeah, he wanted to get into that Hendrix/Rock circle, Betty Mabry was who he looked to to play that.

It's always easy to dismiss Miles' interest as superficial, ego-drive, vanity, etc./whatever. And you'd be crazy not to allow for some of that. But I think it's insulting to Miles' innate artistry to play it all off as just that, that's kinda nuts, imo. Hendrix was pulling from some pretty deep roots and taking it off into pretty deep space. People who knew those roots and weren't averse to the deep space part of it (and I think Miles qualifies on both counts, surely) knew what was was going on.

And hell, Pete Cosey. Miles hired Pete Cosey and turned him loose. Herbie Mann hired Sonny Sharrock and turned HIM loose. Pop/Rock/Crossover Appeal/Blahblahblahblahblah. Those cats were continuing with some very black-rooted notions of what a guitar was for. Not just what you could do with it, but what the damn thing was FOR.

You get some parallel-universe type things when hillbillies first got electricity and plugged-in pedal steels and shit like that. Some of those motherfuckers went NUTS. But - parallel universe, to be appreciated for what it was, but not to be conflated with what it was not.

Avoiding Cultural Politics about stuff like this is difficult, but not impossible. Just know the musics and connect the dots.

Hendrix playing "white music for white people", no, the tracing backwards maths do not support that notion even slightly. That's a post-historical notion based on, like, t-shirts and Classic Rock radio and Time-Life infomercials and shit like that. I see a tree here now, therefore there used to be a vast forest here, uh....no.

Just saying - history is its own reward, pursue accordingly and yo, 360 at all times, right?

Great stuff Jim.  I never thought for a minute the music Jimi was playing was music for white people, that statement of that person lacks historical knowledge.  As you also stated most people are content with the pop culture minutiae, and don't wanna know the depth, thats why it's a pleasure to read and be a part of discussions about music with you and others here, always a learning experience.  It's ok when most don't wanna go that deep, about Prince or whatever, but it's really interesting to see in that clip how Prince on the same stage with JB and MJ,  he clearly understood the tradition and the lineage but took it to a whole other place in that moment.  Incredible.

[JSngry]

Blood Ulmer, not as new/next/next Hendrix, but again, the notion(s) of what a guitar is ultiamtely for. It'll mean different things to different people.

Or, to bring it back inside, Melvin Sparks.

There's no secrets to any of this, it's not a secret knowledge or anything. But people can afford to chose to be ignorant of these days, it's sooooo easy to just swallow the bullet points and smile.

Swallow and Smile, the great tragi-comedy team of the 21st Century, Porn As Perpetual Mindset, All You Can Eat, All You Can Swallow, Is EVERYBODY Happy?

42 minutes ago, CJ Shearn said:

I never thought for a minute the music Jimi was playing was music for white people, that statement of that person lacks historical knowledge. 

Friends don't let friends live stupid. Sometimes you gotta be blunt, but friends don't let friends live stupid. Before I got a good deal on my phone bill, I was going broke calling bullshit.

otoh, for non-friends, hey go ahead with that foolishness, it's not like they're alone, hardly. Misery loves company, and ignunce is the ultimate misery, the misery that numbs itself on your time, not its own.

Also note that this holds true for facts only. Not taste or interpretations of facts, but geez, if somebody's gonna stand around and talk ignunt wholly unfounded bullshit, I'm either gonna call 'em - collect, if need be, make THEM pay for it! - on their bullshit or else walk away and leave them on the side of the road. Not every life can be saved, ya' know?

[Steve Reynolds]

Enjoying the thread - not many thoughts or interest in Prince here - I liked a tune of two enough to not turn it off back in the day but wow - except that I'm amazed we get 5 pages here but how many will we get when Brotzmann goes....

for me when it comes to more popular forms of music/Rock/pop, there be 50 guys/girls/bands who could bring it way heavier than Prince. 

D Boon, RIP from 30+ years ago and many more

 

[JSngry]

Bring what, exactly?

[Steve Reynolds]

C'mon, Jim

energy, power, vibe - all of it - I'm a rock guy for years before I ever heard anything else and Prince never was on the level of 

my take - my taste maybe but I'm far from alone - you all can continue to worship his music as some sort of panacea but I never heard it that way

give me the Youth on their worst day....

 

[CJ Shearn]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

Blood Ulmer, not as new/next/next Hendrix, but again, the notion(s) of what a guitar is ultiamtely for. It'll mean different things to different people.

Or, to bring it back inside, Melvin Sparks.

There's no secrets to any of this, it's not a secret knowledge or anything. But people can afford to chose to be ignorant of these days, it's sooooo easy to just swallow the bullet points and smile.

Swallow and Smile, the great tragi-comedy team of the 21st Century, Porn As Perpetual Mindset, All You Can Eat, All You Can Swallow, Is EVERYBODY Happy?

Friends don't let friends live stupid. Sometimes you gotta be blunt, but friends don't let friends live stupid. Before I got a good deal on my phone bill, I was going broke calling bullshit.

otoh, for non-friends, hey go ahead with that foolishness, it's not like they're alone, hardly. Misery loves company, and ignunce is the ultimate misery, the misery that numbs itself on your time, not its own.

Also note that this holds true for facts only. Not taste or interpretations of facts, but geez, if somebody's gonna stand around and talk ignunt wholly unfounded bullshit, I'm either gonna call 'em - collect, if need be, make THEM pay for it! - on their bullshit or else walk away and leave them on the side of the road. Not every life can be saved, ya' know?

Haha, right!  I am the same age as a lot of these "hipsters" who are trying to reclaim a portion of interest in the music, but the difference is I try to live in the music deeply, looking at the history, the times surrounding what and how it was shaped, its not a lifestyle thing, it is life.

[JSngry]

Prince was a rock guy, eh? Well, no wonder!

Just curious, who/what is your Funk Of Choice?

Tell you what, though, there is no worship here. Plenty of crap in the mix (yeah LoveSexy, I'm looking at you).

The admiration, and even love, here is for the deep skills sets (and I kinda love the whole " I never really paid attention to him and he didn't really do anything special" thing, yeah, not paying attention is always the best way to know...) and the uncompromising dedication to self-determinaion in a game built on destroying it. That and some damn good records, lots of them.

Not unlike Brotzmann, really, except that Prince was from Minnesota,  you know, the whole "geography is destiny" thing.

You wanna blame somebody, blame geography.

[Dave Garrett]

6 hours ago, fasstrack said:

I was nonplussed by the media feeding frenzy (but certainly not surprised). I have to go against the vox popular and say that people like Prince and David Bowie mean nothing to me. I am sorry for Prince's family and fans. I don't understand why someone gets called a genius for prancing around a stage with earrings on and 25 singers and dancers. I guess people are transfixed by a show and a lot of pomp and noise. 

It's disturbing to me that someone like the great J.J. Johnson, who elected to just stand there dignified and play with real genius and accomplishment gets relegated to a historical backwater while Prince and his ilk get so much more attention. 

That's America, folks...

Reading this, I'm reminded of nothing so much as Joe Bussard complaining that everything recorded after 1933 sucks. It would be foolish to expect everyone to fully appreciate Prince, but music isn't a zero-sum game, and I'm personally glad that there's room for both Prince and J. J. Johnson in my collection.

 

[MomsMobley]

3 hours ago, Steve Reynolds said:

C'mon, Jim

energy, power, vibe - all of it - I'm a rock guy for years before I ever heard anything else and Prince never was on the level of 

my take - my taste maybe but I'm far from alone - you all can continue to worship his music as some sort of panacea but I never heard it that way

give me the Youth on their worst day....

 

Please Steve, that's ridiculous; you're a better listening artist than that, don't play yourself like a 'thinking' ofay. And I know D. Boon very very well, who's to say what he could have done but at the point he passed, he was VASTLY more limited than Prince. As for Brotz, let's be generous and call him, I dunno, B.B. King-like in his respective scene (no matter how much he laudably mixes it up, 'free' platutides aside it's ultimately pretty schematic) tho' of course-- I'm sure Peter would agree-- B.B.'s travails as Southern black man of a vastly different order than even 'avant'- Euro, of which there was, if not wholly 'supportive', at least not Jim Crow oppressive etc. 

***

Anyone reading this who doubts Prince's SUPREME brilliance on pretty much ever damn level should check out Vernon Reid's twitter posts of the last week. Regardless what specific distinctions one makes-- & of course they are necessary-- seeing Duke, Miles, Mingus, Braxton, Prince as constellation of long(-ish) lived evolutionary BLACK (& human but always black) genius is the ONLY thing a properly listening / thinking person can do. Ya'll might not like it but please.

***

***

 

2 hours ago, JSngry said:

Tell you what, though, there is no worship here. Plenty of crap in the mix (yeah LoveSexy, I'm looking at you).

 

NO! A step down from "Sign of The Times" & more diffuse than "The Black Album" but not pro forma-- which "Batman" would mostly be. This ain't "Automatic" (say) but it's doing plenty of great things--

follow the structure on this one-- and sure, you might prefer x, y, z elements elsewhere but there's nothing rote / un-inspired here-- quite the contrary, it's pretty damn courageous in less than obvious ways

 

Edited April 28, 2016 by MomsMobley

[ep1str0phy]

America and/or the world can be wrong about one thing and right about something else. The dereliction of the masses with regard to the proper or expected treatment of any number of artistic masters more or less "is what it is." JJ is dead. Bird is dead. Ornette is dead. Ayler is dead. Horace Tapscott, John Carter, Dudu Pukwana, Skip James, Blind Willie Johnson, Albert King, dead--also: David Bowie, Jimi Hendrix, Easy-E, and now Prince. The only thing that all of these guys had in common was creative impetus. Categorization is down to us.

I do call unequivocal bullshit--and will likely continue to do so until the day I die--on the whole undervalued = better/overvalued = worse continuum of thought. The converse is also not necessarily true. Fame chasing is an ouroboric endeavor that can consume and diminish absolutely anyone. I don't think, however, that accessibility and/or a concerted bid for mainstream appreciation and credibility equates to artistic bullshit. If we're weighing the value of "past giants" by how much they mean and to whom, then there is a universe where JJ Johnson and Prince are both worthwhile and in very different ways. If we're saying that we as musicians or experts or critics somehow have a greater access to what does or doesn't make something worthwhile, then I call bullshit.

I also call unequivocal bullshit on the whole austerity = prestige/animation = simple tricks and nonsense thing. I don't know where the fuck this comes from, other than a dilapidated and anachronistic sense of artistic integrity that is rooted in Western concert music and white collar aesthetics. So suddenly Prince (or Jimi Hendrix, or Buddy Guy, or, say, Rahsaan Roland Kirk) is suddenly < Wes Montgomery because the latter sat still while he played? Did I miss the class in music school on how real musicians are supposed to sit still, keep their heads down, and avoid theatrics, or is this another one of those bygone virtues that the kids can leave behind when they get off the proverbial lawn? Must we look sharp and austere? Or should Ornette, Miles, and Don Cherry have left their wardrobes at home?

Let me put this another way--let's live in a universe where Prince did whatever he did out of aphroditic necessity--for free, to no acclaim, and zero recognition. Everything else, save of course the savvy and extreme live shows (which are $$$), is more or less the same. Is this still bullshit? If Sonic Youth and JJ Johnson get put on postage stamps and Prince vaporizes into nothingness, are we living in the best possible universe? Have we blown up the Death Star? Did we stop Hitler before he happened? Or are we just trading one shit sandwich for another?

[Steve Reynolds]

Nice post as always 

for me I am pretty sure about many things relative to music but if I'm too sure, I'm lost

I do pause when I have experienced music live that is beyond possible and the most beyond for me might always be that show at Tonic when a large band played two 40 minute sets with a couple of us screaming a few times but the whole world save for about 50 or 60 people was oblivious that what was happening that night at Tonic, a night that was 2/11/70 through 2/14/70 at The Fillmore East for us 50 or 60 people. And yeah people were screaming "BROTZMANN!!!!!!" One screamed referencing GOD like they did when Clapton was said to be that. I thought Mats might have been Jah that night. Certainly Drake & Zerang combined might have been.

yes for some of us Peter Brotzmann is way way way way more important or beyond than Prince

and yes for me 2/13/70 or 2/14/70 would be the days of all days I could revisit if that shit existed in real life. Jerry & Duane with the bands back to back all night long?!?! Playing the shit they played then?!?!? At least we got Dick's Picks 4.

now Jim that is what is called "Bringing It"

 

 

still.....

 

Coming Down the Mountain

 

Edited April 28, 2016 by Steve Reynolds

[l p]

insipid ballads. 90% of his catalog is funk/dance songs, the best of which get tiring after a couple of minutes of listening. he was good at arranging, and got a great sound in the recording studio, but the music itself is just bad. not a good writer.
and the guy was really just full of himself. his ego was much bigger than his talent. doesn't seem overly intelligent in interviews. what was that quote from him a couple of years ago, 'the internet is over'.  yes prince, we're all tired of using the internet. things were so much more convenient without it.
overall, it's just shitty pop/dance music.
 

[Justin V]

1 hour ago, l p said:

insipid ballads. 90% of his catalog is funk/dance songs, the best of which get tiring after a couple of minutes of listening. he was good at arranging, and got a great sound in the recording studio, but the music itself is just bad. not a good writer.
and the guy was really just full of himself. his ego was much bigger than his talent. doesn't seem overly intelligent in interviews. what was that quote from him a couple of years ago, 'the internet is over'.  yes prince, we're all tired of using the internet. things were so much more convenient without it.
overall, it's just shitty pop/dance music.
 

Stay classy.

[Scott Dolan]

13 hours ago, Steve Reynolds said:

Nice post as always 

for me I am pretty sure about many things relative to music but if I'm too sure, I'm lost

I do pause when I have experienced music live that is beyond possible and the most beyond for me might always be that show at Tonic when a large band played two 40 minute sets with a couple of us screaming a few times but the whole world save for about 50 or 60 people was oblivious that what was happening that night at Tonic, a night that was 2/11/70 through 2/14/70 at The Fillmore East for us 50 or 60 people. And yeah people were screaming "BROTZMANN!!!!!!" One screamed referencing GOD like they did when Clapton was said to be that. I thought Mats might have been Jah that night. Certainly Drake & Zerang combined might have been.

yes for some of us Peter Brotzmann is way way way way more important or beyond than Prince

and yes for me 2/13/70 or 2/14/70 would be the days of all days I could revisit if that shit existed in real life. Jerry & Duane with the bands back to back all night long?!?! Playing the shit they played then?!?!? At least we got Dick's Picks 4.

now Jim that is what is called "Bringing It"

 

 

still.....

 

Coming Down the Mountain

 

The whole world, save for 20-30,000, don't shell out tens of thousands of dollar to be part of L. Ron Hubbard's cult, either. So ultimately, what does that mean? I'd be willing to bet there are 50-60 people who thought Tiny Tim was the greatest singer/songwriter of all time. What does that mean? There are millions of people that would listen to Duke and tell you how stupid and boring it is. What does that mean? 

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing. 

[uli]

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/kind-of-purple-jazz-musicians-on-prince-prince-by-kurt-gottschalk.

[ep1str0phy]

I mean, I will say this--this is the only recent context within which I've heard people having a critical discussion of Prince as a looming musical figure (whatever your personal stance on what he does), which has to count for something. Shit gets heated but it definitely isn't and shouldn't be personal. In terms of the everything v. nothing discussion a little ways above, I think I'm happiest interfacing with art that engenders strong reactions--because, more often than not, these reactions are rooted in the love of something.

In terms of the "insipid ballads" and "funk/dance" song thing--maybe this is just a party line issue, but I've seen this crop up a lot in and among discussions among both musicians and aficionados. Without presuming anything about anyone else's listening habits, sometimes it's a question of quality, sometimes it's a question of the fundamental viability (or, in an opposite sense, disposability) of a given genre.

Sometimes we're asked to listen past the idiomatic and temporal trappings of a given work--like how electric Ornette is still Ornette, even at Prime Time's most anonymous or insipid, or how the classic rock iconography of early Hendrix sort of obfuscates a degree of spontaneity and improvisational freshness that is a lot closer to Coltrane than, say, Eric Clapton. It's not always possible, but I wonder if we shouldn't listen to all music like this. Sometimes surface is just surface, but sometimes the codes therein are just so complex that they look like absolutely nothing.

For example: the phrase "it's time for jazz to die" on "All the Critics Love U in New York." That song feels surface-y to me in a way that some of the others don't--it's kind of ironic/mock-spiteful but also aspirational but also kind of self-inflating, etc.--sort of like an unecstatic "Are You Experienced." That being said, there is a lot of text there. Prince is talking about critical reception to his music, addressing the baby boomer fallout, and even/sort-of winking at the burgeoning jazz wars of the 80's. The vocal's monotonous self-cheerleading overlays some cutting-edge experimentalism, from the post-Hendrixian/Ray Russell-esque guitar to the Laswellian industrial funk. I'm not even sure that Prince knew who Ray Russell was--I mean, probably not, all things considered--but this is part of the kaleidoscopic appeal of his music--it can seem numbing and facile, but it's so deft that somehow manages to suggest things that aren't even there.

Also, how many major pop stars of the past few decades have cared enough about jazz to adjudicate over its life and death? You don't throw a phrase like that into a song that detailed and dense without having it mean something. On the one hand, it's the obvious: let's move onto something else, let's revise the revolution, etc. On the other hand, Prince is interfacing with a vast lineage of composers and improvisers who have rejected both jazz as a term and method of categorization--a group that includes, hey, Duke Ellington.

You can read, say, Albert Ayler similarly. On the one hand, it's a lot of freaking noise. On the other hand, we're talking about a profound dimension of spontaneous interplay, textural control, and technical ingenuity overlaying a compressed simultaneity of gospel music, rural blues, R&B saxophone, bebop, and so on. Obviously Ayler does not equal Prince--they're doing very different things--but if we are (again) evaluating music on the merits and preferences of mass consumption or a lack thereof, is that on Ayler and Prince, or is it on us? Moreover, I'd hasten to consider whether or not Prince as an inherently postmodern (or maybe post-postmodern) artist didn't ask the same questions of himself, his peers, and his forebears. Yes, it's a lot of insipid funk--but Ayler was a lot of freaking noise, Hendrix was a lot of drugged out BS, and Ornette was "jiving."

Or maybe it's just down to taste and the biology of the ear, in which case--hey, do what you like.

Edited April 28, 2016 by ep1str0phy

[robertoart]

On 27 April 2016 at 2:59 AM, MomsMobley said:

 

from 1985 Rolling Stone interview (can't find original link on their website but it's here also), Moms Mobley bought & read it at the time--

 

Not long ago I talked too George Clinton, a man who knows and has done so much for funk. George told me how much he liked Around the World in a Day. You know how much more his words meant than those from some mamma-jamma wearing glasses and an alligator shirt behind a typewriter?

 

 

This reminds me of a David Lee Roth quote where he says.......the reason music critics like Elvis Costello so much is because he looks like them. 

Clearly Prince knew he was talking to Rolling Stone because he had to remind them who George Clinton is. 

Edited April 29, 2016 by robertoart

[robertoart]

16 hours ago, fasstrack said:

Well, there were strong reactions to what I wrote. I'm not surprised. Maybe this is a sign that I should give my musical opinions with the guitar. I've never offended anyone that way...

Anyway, I don't feature getting negative. Better to say live and let live and look for the good...

The readers here know you're not out for a Funky Good Time. However lets all go outside of ourselves, and you did bring up (albeit with a dismissive tangentiality), the juxtaposition of two musico-cultural figures. Prince and Bowie. Interesting parallels. Both were driven (initially and at heart) by Top 40 success. Both presented themselves as transgender cross dressers (without any hint of Gender Dysphoria because it was purely a Public offering), Both never had hits in their Middle Age to compare to the earlier success, unlike Madonna who kept charting for a longer time. Both were considered at the classy end of that street. Yet both are being disected and championed 'by the thinking people', for their product that is surplus to that body of their work - or their work that 'betrayed' the hit song direction. The 'value added' aspect of their discographies. For Bowie, it was his precursor status or immersion in the 'alternative' scene of the Post-Punk Cold War European Aesthetic, and for Prince it seems to be the dark Catalogue spaces of his 'fuck you I can and will do anything I want because I can' Post-Hendrix Space Jams. But in the 'ticky tack, this is what its all about' world of 'the top 40 song' I still love Michael more. His Dance Hits just seemed to have 'more balls and muscularity' more pained yet joyful urgency, more Real Life emotional shit, than Prince's and Madonna's Dance Hits. Prince sounds very 'fluffy' to me. In words and sound. Prince just wanted to get your knickers off and play . But Michael sounded 'messed up' by all this relationship turmoil. And he could only emancipate himself by Dancing until he'd had enough. Maybe because Michael came up in a more meat and potatoes pre-Synth world. For people of my generation, who's youthful connection to Pop music hadn't entirely run it's course by the emergence of the synthesiser or processed sound in mainstream Pop, there is a big Divide, a BC/AD moment. Those Synth Pop natives like Prince and Madonna, just lose a certain amount of Testosterone in the nether regions of the life force. 

Edited April 29, 2016 by robertoart

[fasstrack]

I deleted what I wrote. I don't want to be involved with negative energy anymore. It's easy to give an opinion, hard to play well. I'd rather do that, and give my opinions musically. OK?

[jazzbo]

Interesting Robert. I really connect with Prince. Never connected with Michael or Madonna. I can really respect Micheal's talent, but his work has done little for me. Prince I'm in awe of his talent and really have enjoyed his work since his first LP. Life is good, there is so much music to explore, and some of it GREAT.

[clifford_thornton]

Being transgender and cross-dressing are two different things.

[JSngry]

Quite apart from anything musical, I am disturbingly amused by notions that music aimed at any kind of popular visibility is based on a false value system or whatever it is, and then many of those same notion-holders bemoaning the "fact" that "jazz" has no public visibility. What, is it supposed to just be there and knock everybody out against all odds just because of how well it is played? Is this something that need not be aimed because it goes everywhere and hits all targets? Is there ANY basis for thinking that this is a reality-based expectation?

Relationships must be cultivated. Flirting works. Seduction works. Random gifts and treats work. Occasional silliness works. There's a reason why they're a basic part of human behavior. Why a behavior that is antagonistic towards proven successful human behavior should expect the same or better results that a behavior which does is beyond me.

Popular music is popular for a reason, and if that reason has little or nothing to do with actual music, it stands to reason that evaluating these musics on a predication of that popularity defining the actual ideas and executions of the music is a misguided evaluation, clothes make the man, clothes are not the man, there is a difference.

 

[MomsMobley]

fasstrack, thank you for your senstivity though I respectfully sugget, for starters, you read the interviews in that AAJ link that Uli posted (props especially to Craig Taborn.) ANY / every musician, all genres, ANY / every artist any medium has much to learn-- much to be in AWE about-- in Prince's career. I can understand how certain white people-- let's call it truthfully because I daresay you can't find ANY (credible) black artist who'd dismiss Prince--

pull up Mavis Staples' tribute last week for one example, funny she's saying how she was gonna be cool when first introduced to him (and think how many folks Mavis has known) & when it happened, she immediately broke, ooooh Prince!--

but look to yourself and your own limitations first. Miles was correct and that only a fraction of the story.

Even 'mediocre' Prince is what? Oh, he only does 3-4-5 of the 7-8-9 things he can do extraordinarily well.

Give Brotzmann or Sonic Youth (hah hah) twice Prince's budget and put them on any worldwide stage, see what they come up with. Ghost of D. Boon (& living, humble Mike Watt) would laugh at any suggestion they were superior or even equal to the prodigal talent, force, work ethic, restless invention of Prince.

We gonna front on Maceo here too? And this a 'mere' live showpiece

And while we're in a blues bag, which Prince didn't over pursue on record compared to the after-party live shows

deep dark as (yet different from) any John Lee Hooker, any Bobby Bland, any James Brown or James Hendrix...

that Prince virtuoso singer / arranger / producer / conceptualist no small factor, hah.

Edited April 29, 2016 by MomsMobley

[Scott Dolan]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

Quite apart from anything musical, I am disturbingly amused by notions that music aimed at any kind of popular visibility is based on a false value system or whatever it is, and then many of those same notion-holders bemoaning the "fact" that "jazz" has no public visibility.

 

This actually made me laugh out loud. I should make this my new signature quote!