Brother Prince is gone - RIP

Originally posted by FMF
He was only singing about it. But still. Your endorsement of him as a "brother" seems a bit peculiar.

This was from 2006:

"Stop it, baby
You're a V.I.P. at least to me
Come here and show me some ID
Eye know you're fine from head to pumps
If u were mine we'd bump bump bump

You're much too young to peep my stash
You're tryin' to write checks you'r ...[text shortened]... e run
Hellhounds barkin' 'round my door
I can't sip you once 'less eye sip you some more."

Next time the JWs come around to my place I will give them a copy of that... words from a prominent / famous JW hymn writer . 😀

Originally posted by sonhouse
Its funny, as a folk musician who played professionally, I don't think I ever actually listened to a prince song. I just wasn't interested since in my opinion folk music is much more meaningful than any rock icon.

I suppose that makes me a pariah here now.

I agree.
I do like rock-based music though

But Prince? No matter the talent he obviously had his whole shtick just seemed like an 80's thing.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I agree.
I do like rock-based music though

But Prince? No matter the talent he obviously had his whole shtick just seemed like an 80's thing.

Hi, you ever hook back up with that crazy gf?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Next time the JWs come around to my place I will give them a copy of that... words from a prominent / famous JW hymn writer . 😀

"Brother Prince"

Robbie carrobie's example of a fine upstanding Jehovah's Witness.

Originally posted by FMF
I've been listening to his music these last couple of days. Change takes time? Well, well. Where would one start? In 2006, for example, he wrote and recorded a song about imagining having sex with a minor he met at a night club. How much time did Prince need to change and create art that was in accordance with JW principles?

Well, if Mohammad can fondle a 6 year old perhaps Prince thought it OK to mess with a teenager.

Originally posted by whodey
Well, if Mohammad can fondle a 6 year old perhaps Prince thought it OK to mess with a teenager.

Apparently Prince writes all kinds of songs from the perspective of the third person. If we are to conclude that he should be held morally responsible for doing so then logically David Byrne should also be be held morally responsible for writing the song Psycho Killer, a song written in the first person but clearly from a third person perspective.

I can't seem to face up to the facts
I'm tense and nervous and I
Can't relax
I can't sleep 'cause my bed's on fire
Don't touch me I'm a real live wire

Psycho Killer
Qu'est-ce que c'est

Of real note here is FMF's inability because of his extremely narrow moral perspective and self assuming nature and divegeester because of his hatred of Jehovahs witnesses failed to consider any other alternative perspective other than a purely condemnatory one and thus even though the man is dead and has been acquitted of his sins from a Biblical perspective used it as a pretext for further douchbaggery, FMF feigning genuine interest when he had infact an ulterior motive all along and divegeester simply as a vent for his hatred. Oh well.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Apparently Prince writes all kinds of songs from the perspective of the third person. If we are to conclude that he should be held morally responsible for doing so then logically David Byrne should also be be held morally responsible for writing the song Psycho Killer, a song written in the first person but clearly from a third person perspective.
...[text shortened]... d infact an ulterior motive all along and divegeester simply as a vent for his hatred. Oh well.

You should let this go. You called out Prince as being your "brother" (in Christ??) without giving him, his work and his lifestyle one moments thought. Now you are just making yourself look like a even bigger dick than what you did on page one.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I agree.
I do like rock-based music though

But Prince? No matter the talent he obviously had his whole shtick just seemed like an 80's thing.

Still, he partied like it was 1999.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Hi, you ever hook back up with that crazy gf?

Oh we have a child together ,so yes I have seen her. Luckily I have 100% custody and she rarely visits.

(This may seem mean but if you knew the circumstances you would realized we are all as blessed as can be)

Oh, and we never "hooked up" again, I'm beyond r'ships

Originally posted by Suzianne
Still, he partied like it was 1999.

Meh.

Partied? I could go for some slacker rock at the sound of that

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Apparently Prince writes all kinds of songs from the perspective of the third person. If we are to conclude that he should be held morally responsible for doing so then logically David Byrne should also be be held morally responsible for writing the song Psycho Killer, a song written in the first person but clearly from a third person perspective.

So does this mean, having been given 2-3 days to think it over carefully, you have decided that Prince's work was appropriate and acceptable from one of your JW "brothers" and in keeping with JW and biblical principles and standards?

wow using a mans death for douchbaggery, is there no level too low for Beavis and Butthead? 😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow using a mans death for douchbaggery, is there no level too low for Beavis and Butthead? 😵

What was interesting to me was how you chose to use Prince's death to try to promote your religious organization and then unraveled completely when asked to consider the nature of the art that had made Prince famous.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Did you look at the link?

And no, seeing how you wrote "demonstration of a deep understanding of music or instrumental virtuosity"? It is not at all logical to dismiss out of hand the thought you were talking about lectures.

Did you look at the link?
I did. It's certainly a better demonstration than this: YouTube
From what I gather, it's also quite a bit less popular. In general, the more advanced the music, the less popular since it demands more knowledge and focus to understand and appreciate.

The following is much less popular than your example: YouTube.
Fast forward to the 10'38 mark or so. No prerecorded material, electronic effects, etc. Just a guy and an alto sax with a stunningly good demonstration of the use of harmonics, multiphonics, circular breathing, etc.
Also no dance, light show, pyrotechnics, etc. The "show" is the music. And with music of this caliber, it doesn't need it.

And no, seeing how you wrote "demonstration of a deep understanding of music or instrumental virtuosity"? It is not at all logical to dismiss out of hand the thought you were talking about lectures.

I could understand it if I had written "explanation" rather than "demonstration", but I didn't. Also the context is clearly about musical PERFORMANCE:

Though pop performers ("artists" is a misnomer the vast majority of the time) are often lauded as "musical geniuses", for the most part they are instead "entertainment geniuses". It's really about the "show" (dance, lighting, pyrotechnics, etc.) rather than a demonstration of a deep understanding of music or instrumental virtuosity.

As I said:

Given the context in which it was written. seems like it would have been logical to dismiss out of hand the thought that I was speaking of "lectures" - especially the part about "a demonstration...of instrumental virtuosity".

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, it most certainly is, and I most certainly did. Did you understand what I meant by my comment?

[b]But this is the level on which you seem to like to argue.
Yes, a bit too sophisticated for you apparently.

Since you missed it, sonhouse is partial to unmodified 'natural' guitars. He presumably believes that music made with an unmodified gui ...[text shortened]... m and had no guitar skills whatsoever, I could still claim musical genius if my music was great.[/b]

Lets see.

sonhouse wrote the following:

Look at K T Tunstall, Black Horse and the Cherry Tree, live, you can see what she does, which is all her

You responded with the following:

She clearly has a guitar. It is not 'all her'.

So I called you on it:

Well, it's really not difficult to understand what sh meant by that comment.

But this is the level on which you seem to like to argue.

It also seems to be the level on which you view the arts if not the world, so I'll leave you to it.

Now you're trying to claim that the following is what you meant by it:

Did you understand what I meant by my comment?

Since you missed it, sonhouse is partial to unmodified 'natural' guitars. He presumably believes that music made with an unmodified guitar is somehow harder to do, and presumably therefore more skilful. My point is that he is talking nonsense. Both artists have used the instruments available to them to create great music. One is not superior to the other just because of sonhouse's personal preference in music. If I was to create wonderful music solely with the use of a computer program and had no guitar skills whatsoever, I could still claim musical genius if my music was great.

I've seen quite a few people on this forum go to great lengths to admit something (including you on more than a couple of occasions), but this one really takes the prize.

Hopefully you aren't so delusional that you actually believe that nonsense. Or that anyone else will.

Would it really kill you to admit it?