Ketch's 10 Thoughts From the Weekend (What can we expect from the freshmen DTs?)

[CS]

When Mozart died, his funeral was sparsely attended and only in his death did his popularity spike again to reflect what he was in his time.

Modern music doesn't work that way, though. Artists peak during their heydays and decline thereafter. At best they maintain a high percentage of their popularity over time. No artist like Prince is going to see his popularity increase over what it was in the '80s. Hell, he's been off the radar for 20 years as it is.

 

[Ketchum]

Paul McCartney is one.

In what way does he surpass Prince?

 

[Ketchum]

Modern music doesn't work that way, though. Artists peak during their heydays and decline thereafter. At best they maintain a high percentage of their popularity over time. No artist like Prince is going to see his popularity increase over what it was in the '80s. Hell, he's been off the radar for 20 years as it is.

Off the radar, huh...

 

[CS]

In what way does he surpass Prince?

Songwriting and longevity, for sure. As great as Prince is on guitar, he's not considered one of the GOATs there like McCartney is on bass. Ask @Alex Dunlap about the regard in which McCartney is held by bassists. He's always at or near the top there, and he played guitar, piano and drums for The Beatles, too.

 

[Perdy]

a. He's the ultimate five-tool player.
b. What made Lennon/McCartney better songwriters?
c. Jagger is a five-star performer, but he doesn't have him on anything other he's lived longer.
d. He's not been forgotten in the last 20 years. That's crazy talk.

I wondered about Prince's appeal so I decided to see what my kids think. I have a 23 year old son and a 16 year old daughter. I asked them what they think of Prince and neither really like him. Small sample size, but they both think Michael Jackson is amazing. I think reflective of the cross generational appeal of Michael and lack of Prince's.

It was the same for those, like me, who came after the Beatles generation. We still all know and love their music. We know every song. My parents were older when the Beatles started, but they loved their music. My kids love them. I simply do not see this happening with Prince.

 

[CS]

Off the radar, huh...

Who would legitimately suggest otherwise? His last hit song was in the mid-90s.

 

[Ketchum]

Songwriting and longevity, for sure. As great as Prince is on guitar, he's not considered one of the GOATs there like McCartney is on bass. Ask @Alex Dunlap about the regard in which McCartney is held by bassists. He's always at or near the top there, and he played guitar, piano and drums for The Beatles, too.

Let's start with song-writing and we'll move on to the other subjects.

Very subjective discussion, but what validates McCartney over Prince as a song-writer, a guy that not only penned his own music, but is notorious for writing songs for other people, songs that turned out to define those artist's careers?

 

[Ketchum]

Who would legitimately suggest otherwise? His last hit song was in the mid-90s.

Just so that we can define what a hit is, when was Paul McCartney's last hit? His last Top 20 US hit was in 1984.

We'll come back to that when we discuss longevity.

 

[CS]

Let's start with song-writing and we'll move on to the other subjects.

Very subjective discussion, but what validates McCartney over Prince as a song-writer, a guy that not only penned his own music, but is notorious for writing songs for other people, songs that turned out to define those artist's careers?

We can start with 600 million units sold by The Beatles and add another 100 million sold as a solo act. Prince sold 1/7 that amount himself, and whatever he wrote for others doesn't add up to 600 million.

 

[CS]

Just so that we can define what a hit is, when was Paul McCartney's last hit? His last Top 20 US hit was in 1984.

We'll come back to that when we discuss longevity.

I didn't claim McCartney has been relevant recently, though. He was relevant for 20 years, though, longer than Prince.

 

[Ketchum]

We can start with 600 million units sold by The Beatles and add another 100 million sold as a solo act. Prince sold 1/7 that amount himself, and whatever he wrote for others doesn't add up to 600 million.

so sold units = edge in songwriting?

 

[Ketchum]

I didn't claim McCartney has been relevant recently, though. He was relevant for 20 years, though, longer than Prince.

Define relevant?

He had a double platinum album as recent as 2004. He dropped his first album in 1979 at 19 when he played all 27 instruments used on the album.

 

[CS]

Define relevant?

He had a double platinum album as recent as 2004. He dropped his first album in 1979 at 19 when he played all 27 instruments used on the album.

I'm going with hit songs (Top 10). The last such song in the US charts was "The Most Beautiful Girl in the World" back in '94. We could look at album charting positions, but then you'll want to ignore how McCartney's albums have charted, as his last three albums have all been Top 5 in the US charts (2007, 2012, 2013).

 

[CS]

so sold units = edge in songwriting?

You asked for some validation on a subjective subject. What validation can you provide to the contrary?

 

[RLong68]

In what way does he surpass Prince?

I think with that you should probably give up the conversation. Again, I like Prince but it's certain you have no objectivity. Honestly, perhaps since you are the one making the grand statement, perhaps YOU should be the one to explain in what ways Prince surpasses Sir Paul. At this point we understand you devotion to Prince really blinds you in this area.

 

[RLong68]

Just so that we can define what a hit is, when was Paul McCartney's last hit? His last Top 20 US hit was in 1984.

We'll come back to that when we discuss longevity.

McCartney's 2013-2014 tour (FIFTY FRIGGIN YEARS after the Beatles first came to the States) grossed over $165 million worldwide. You don't want to go down the "longevity" road. Particularly if you didn't see McCartney rock the shit out of the FEC on that tour.

 

[Ketchum]

You asked for some validation on a subjective subject. What validation can you provide to the contrary?

There's an argument that I will make, that hasn't yet been made because of time restraints, but before the end of the day, I'll make the case.

 

[BlackStallionMexicanFood]

#GOT

I had no idea that Prince was such an insanely talented musician. All this time I thought he was just another song and dance man like Michael Jackson. Oh well I guess that is what I get for thinking. My college girlfriend at UT, Monica, loved him and used to listen to his records all of the time. I personally couldn't understand why she liked him so much. It was always a mystery to me....... until now.

 

[jdriscoll]

Dylan and McCartney are better songwriters than Prince

 

[SkullSplitter]

Speaking of UFC: White vs. McGregor. Who's in the right; who wins in the end?

 

[Ketchum]

Dylan and McCartney are better songwriters than Prince

again, based on what?

 

[CS]

again, based on what?

Sales, critical reviews, public perception, etc. Saying "based on what" and then providing no reasons of your own is not a valid argument.

 

[Ketchum]

Speaking of UFC: White vs. McGregor. Who's in the right; who wins in the end?

Conor is right. UFC will win.

 

[jdriscoll]

again, based on what?

Whoever has had more bands cover their material is usually a good measuring stick. Also, popular demand/opinions. I don't know the facts, but in my personal experience, I have heard way more Dylan and McCartney covers than your boy Prince.

 

[seanie punkin]

Sales, critical reviews, public perception, etc. Saying "based on what" and then providing no reasons of your own is not a valid argument.

No kidding. Asking questions in response to the questions of his claims by others in lieu of objective evidence is super frustrating. But that's what journalism has become by and large I suppose... largely unsubstantiated opinions that are shared with the world as fact.

 

[Ketchum]

But that's what journalism has become by and large I suppose... largely unsubstantiated opinions that are shared with the world as fact.

Pretty clear what your view of me is. Seems like you like to take it personal. Honestly, you can just stay away from my threads moving forward if it's like that.

 

[Ketchum]

Here's the case. As someone earlier in the thread suggested, I'm not sure that you can come up with a better five-tool player in his genre.

Song-writing

I don't know how in the world you can possibly rank song-writers, although historically Dylan probably goes down as the GOAT, with all due respect to John and Paul. Prince is in there somewhere, though. We could do nothing but list the songs for other people that's he's put together and put together a HOF song-writing career. From the age of 19, he wrote some of the most iconic songs of the last 30+ years.

Musicality

As I've stated before, he played all 27 instruments on his first album at 19. He's a Top 10 all-time guitarist and he played other instruments better than people who get paid to play them. He might rank No.1 in musicality.

Performance

He's the Jagger of his generation. Along with MJ, you're talking about a Top 2 showman from 1979-to-now. If I'm doing a Mount Rushmore of all-time performers.

I'd say MJ, Prince, Jagger and James Brown.

Longevity

Dropped a HOF album at 19 and sold two million copies of an album in his 40s. Still, for almost 40 years. he made 40 album and did something like 25+ world tours with nothing but huge sellouts. He died incredibly relevant, even if some in this thread weren't the ones he was relevant with.

Sexual Power

If we're going Mount Rushmore here, he's on the list with David Bowie and two other dudes that aren't Bowie and Prince. Just call it Mount Rush. Maybe throw Marvin on the list.

Again, if you're thinking in 100 years, this guy won't be at the forefront of this era's music discussion, I just think you're crazy.

 

[CS]

Here's the case. As someone earlier in the thread suggested, I'm not sure that you can come up with a better five-tool player in his genre.

Song-writing

I don't know how in the world you can possibly rank song-writers, although historically Dylan probably goes down as the GOAT, with all due respect to John and Paul. Prince is in there somewhere, though. We could do nothing but list the songs for other people that's he's put together and put together a HOF song-writing career. From the age of 19, he wrote some of the most iconic songs of the last 30+ years.

Musicality

As I've stated before, he played all 27 instruments on his first album at 19. He's a Top 10 all-time guitarist and he played other instruments better than people who get paid to play them. He might rank No.1 in musicality.

Performance

He's the Jagger of his generation. Along with MJ, you're talking about a Top 2 showman from 1979-to-now. If I'm doing a Mount Rushmore of all-time performers.

I'd say MJ, Prince, Jagger and James Brown.

Longevity

Dropped a HOF album at 19 and sold two million copies of an album in his 40s. Still, for almost 40 years. he made 40 album and did something like 25+ world tours with nothing but huge sellouts. He died incredibly relevant, even if some in this thread weren't the ones he was relevant with.

Sexual Power

If we're going Mount Rushmore here, he's on the list with David Bowie and two other dudes that aren't Bowie and Prince. Just call it Mount Rush. Maybe throw Marvin on the list.

Again, if you're thinking in 100 years, this guy won't be at the forefront of this era's music discussion, I just think you're crazy.

Poll 100 guitar players and less than 10 percent will put Prince in the top 10 all time. He's just not held in that type of regard in the guitar community. He was good technically, no doubt, but he was a derivative player who didn't add anything unique to the guitar world. You're badly, badly overrating him here. He probably isn't top 100, let alone top 10.

There's no argument for Prince over Paul McCartney in the categories of songwriting and longevity. Any way you want to measure them leads to an inescapable conclusion that McCartney is the clear winner. McCartney is held in higher esteem on bass than Prince is on guitar, and McCartney was also a multi-instrumentalist. At best that is a push for Prince.

Prince ranks high in performance, and obviously you think he was sexy as hell, but as a total package he's not in McCartney's class.

 

[jdriscoll]

Have to respect the fact that he can play so many instruments and play them well.

 

[Ketchum]

Poll 100 guitar players and less than 10 percent will put Prince in the top 10 all time. He's just not held in that type of regard in the guitar community. He was good technically, no doubt, but he was a derivative player who didn't add anything unique to the guitar world. You're badly, badly overrating him here. He probably isn't top 100, let alone top 10.

There's no argument for Prince over Paul McCartney in the categories of songwriting and longevity. Any way you want to measure them leads to an inescapable conclusion that McCartney is the clear winner. McCartney is held in higher esteem on bass than Prince is on guitar, and McCartney was also a multi-instrumentalist. At best that is a push for Prince.

Prince ranks high in performance, and obviously you think he was sexy as hell, but as a total package he's not in McCartney's class.

We're just not going to find common ground. here. You find my positions to be a stretch, and I feel the same way about yours.

No worries.

 

[CS]

We're just not going to find common ground. here. You find my positions to be a stretch, and I feel the same way about yours.

No worries.

I don't see how you can legitimately argue songwriting and longevity in Prince's favor when compared to Paul McCartney. There's literally no objective basis for this, as I've demonstrated earlier in the thread.

 

[Perdy]

Here's the case. As someone earlier in the thread suggested, I'm not sure that you can come up with a better five-tool player in his genre.

Song-writing

I don't know how in the world you can possibly rank song-writers, although historically Dylan probably goes down as the GOAT, with all due respect to John and Paul. Prince is in there somewhere, though. We could do nothing but list the songs for other people that's he's put together and put together a HOF song-writing career. From the age of 19, he wrote some of the most iconic songs of the last 30+ years.

Musicality

As I've stated before, he played all 27 instruments on his first album at 19. He's a Top 10 all-time guitarist and he played other instruments better than people who get paid to play them. He might rank No.1 in musicality.

Performance

He's the Jagger of his generation. Along with MJ, you're talking about a Top 2 showman from 1979-to-now. If I'm doing a Mount Rushmore of all-time performers.

I'd say MJ, Prince, Jagger and James Brown.

Longevity

Dropped a HOF album at 19 and sold two million copies of an album in his 40s. Still, for almost 40 years. he made 40 album and did something like 25+ world tours with nothing but huge sellouts. He died incredibly relevant, even if some in this thread weren't the ones he was relevant with.

Sexual Power

If we're going Mount Rushmore here, he's on the list with David Bowie and two other dudes that aren't Bowie and Prince. Just call it Mount Rush. Maybe throw Marvin on the list.

Again, if you're thinking in 100 years, this guy won't be at the forefront of this era's music discussion, I just think you're crazy.

Ketch, you are passionate about Prince no doubt, but I think that you have added in a bunch of criteria that is interesting if not very helpful in deciding if Prince is the 20th Century Beethoven or Mozart.

No body talks much about the performance ability or sexual power of those guys or the other greats. It is all about the music that they produced and the judgement of future generations on that criteria alone. Even stuff like musicality is cool, but not that relevant.

While it is possible that Prince finds mass appeal in the next century there is little doubt about what future generations will say about McCartney or Lennon. We have already seen their works being loved by 3 generations. I'm not sure Prince will be much considered in 20 years.

 

[RLong68]

Here's the case. As someone earlier in the thread suggested, I'm not sure that you can come up with a better five-tool player in his genre.

Song-writing

I don't know how in the world you can possibly rank song-writers, although historically Dylan probably goes down as the GOAT, with all due respect to John and Paul. Prince is in there somewhere, though. We could do nothing but list the songs for other people that's he's put together and put together a HOF song-writing career. From the age of 19, he wrote some of the most iconic songs of the last 30+ years.

Musicality

As I've stated before, he played all 27 instruments on his first album at 19. He's a Top 10 all-time guitarist and he played other instruments better than people who get paid to play them. He might rank No.1 in musicality.

Performance

He's the Jagger of his generation. Along with MJ, you're talking about a Top 2 showman from 1979-to-now. If I'm doing a Mount Rushmore of all-time performers.

I'd say MJ, Prince, Jagger and James Brown.

Longevity

Dropped a HOF album at 19 and sold two million copies of an album in his 40s. Still, for almost 40 years. he made 40 album and did something like 25+ world tours with nothing but huge sellouts. He died incredibly relevant, even if some in this thread weren't the ones he was relevant with.

Sexual Power

If we're going Mount Rushmore here, he's on the list with David Bowie and two other dudes that aren't Bowie and Prince. Just call it Mount Rush. Maybe throw Marvin on the list.

Again, if you're thinking in 100 years, this guy won't be at the forefront of this era's music discussion, I just think you're crazy.

Well, if you are going to cite Dylan as GOAT songwriter then perhaps offer up that Sir Paul and Lennon are 2 & 3 respectively in like the same Rolling Stone poll you saw.

Like @CS said, I believe you are overrating his guitar work.

Performance-wise I can perhaps see that. Although I would add that Freddie Mercury arguagably is best of all.

Longevity still pales compared to Sir Paul.

Sexual Power? Dafuq? Sounds like you need to make that up to bolster your argument.

 

[RLong68]

We're just not going to find common ground. here. You find my positions to be a stretch, and I feel the same way about yours.

No worries.

Most reasonable folks easily argue one is not stretching when arguing McCartney. The stretch being made is the argument for Prince. As most reasonable folks would tell you in this debate.

 

[Ketchum]

I don't see how

Yes, that is the crossroads we're currently positioned at.