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

[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.

 

[Ketchum]

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.

It's really not. Prince was a perfect 10 in every single element of his craft.

I don't think you can say that about Paul.

 

[CS]

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

You tried to make an (unsubstantiated) data argument for Prince, I provided several data points in which McCartney is vastly ahead of Prince (700 million units sold to 100 million), and that's all you've got? That's a Baylor argument.

 

[CS]

I don't think

We can see that.

 

[Ketchum]

You tried to make an (unsubstantiated) data argument for Prince, I provided several data points in which McCartney is vastly ahead of Prince (700 million units sold to 100 million), and that's all you've got? That's a Baylor argument.

Yes, if the standard is units sold, Prince doesn't measure up.

Of course, that means that Taylor Swift is the greatest active living songwriter, right?

Let's approach it like this. I'll give Prince perfect 10 scores in every area of this discussion. You tell me where he's not a perfect 10.

 

[Ketchum]

We can see that.

Touche.

 

[RLong68]

It's really not. Prince was a perfect 10 in every single element of his craft.

I don't think you can say that about Paul.

The quickest way to stop digging a deeper hole is to put the shovel down.

 

[Ketchum]

I also love that CS thinks that because Paul could play a few instruments that he's a push with Prince in terms of pure musicality.

Hard to have an actual discussion when wowzers like this are coming at you.

 

[RLong68]

I also love that CS thinks that because Paul could play a few instruments that he's a push with Prince in terms of pure musicality.

Hard to have an actual discussion when wowzers like this are coming at you.

Hard to have an acutal discussion with someone who thinks Sir Paul could play a "few instruments." Honestly, that might be the most stupid thing said in this entire discussion.

 

[CS]

I also love that CS thinks that because Paul could play a few instruments that he's a push with Prince in terms of pure musicality.

Hard to have an actual discussion when wowzers like this are coming at you.

Again, please consult @Alex Dunlap to get an understanding of the esteem in which McCartney is held in the bass community. He's usually on the Mount Rushmore there. Prince isn't sniffing that on the guitar side. The position you're carving out is pretty incredible, really. You could go after almost anyone in the music world and have a solid argument, but you are trying to bow up against the absolute worst possible choice for your position.

What this thread is exposing is a real ignorance on your part for Paul McCartney's career. You fancy yourself a music guy, but you're off the reservation here.

 

[CS]

Yes, if the standard is units sold, Prince doesn't measure up.

Of course, that means that Taylor Swift is the greatest active living songwriter, right?

Let's approach it like this. I'll give Prince perfect 10 scores in every area of this discussion. You tell me where he's not a perfect 10.

In the categories you came up with, only his performance is a 10. He's not a 10 anywhere else.

 

[Ketchum]

Hard to have an acutal discussion with someone who thinks Sir Paul could play a "few instruments." Honestly, that might be the most stupid thing said in this entire discussion.

I don't say a few to minimize how good Paul is. It's hard to have a conversation with someone that cannot concede Paul isn't No.1 in everything.

 

[CS]

I don't say a few to minimize how good Paul is. It's hard to have a conversation with someone that cannot concede Paul isn't No.1 in everything.

I called it a push at best and stand by that. McCartney is a better bassist than Prince was a guitarist. Both were multi-instrumentalists. McCartney's work is better remembered than Prince's by a long shot.

 

[RLong68]

I don't say a few to minimize how good Paul is. It's hard to have a conversation with someone that cannot concede Paul isn't No.1 in everything.

The argument was never about being #1 in every singe category. It was about as the whole. And yes, it's downright f'n foolish to think that over the categories you initially listed (not the monumentally foolish "sexual power" you included later), as a whole, that McCartney isn't superior. Alluding to what @CS said, I would imagine that @Alex Dunlap is shaking his head at your argument.

 

[ball911]

Silly argument....every generation throws a hero up the pop charts. The music of omes youth likely determines what we think is great rather than any objective criteria.

 

[Ketchum]

I called it a push at best and stand by that. McCartney is a better bassist than Prince was a guitarist. Both were multi-instrumentalists. McCartney's work is better remembered than Prince's by a long shot.

It's a push for you because there's no ability to concede an inch with you in the conversation of McCartney.

Let me guess, McCartney is a better performer as well.

 

[Ketchum]

The argument was never about being #1 in every singe category. It was about as the whole. And yes, it's downright f'n foolish to think that over the categories you initially listed (not the monumentally foolish "sexual power" you included later), as a whole, that McCartney isn't superior. Alluding to what @CS said, I would imagine that @Alex Dunlap is shaking his head at your argument.

Alex has out of this world respect for Prince's abilities.

 

[Ketchum]

Just something I came across.

 

[RLong68]

Alex has out of this world respect for Prince's abilities.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. I don't think Colt was as good a QB as VY. It does not mean I think Colt sucked as a QB. See where I'm going?

 

[CS]

It's a push for you because there's no ability to concede an inch with you in the conversation of McCartney.

Let me guess, McCartney is a better performer as well.

I've said no such thing. You, on the other hand, have said Prince is a perfect 10 in all categories. You're really confused on this subject.