Prince makes history with O2 shows
By Matt Thorne
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 22/09/2007
There have been several famous UK rock residencies - Eric Clapton's 24 nights at the Albert Hall, Pink Floyd's 14 nights at Earls Court, Bob Dylan's various five-night stints - but none has caught the public imagination like Prince's 21 nights in London, which came to an end last night.
Prince knows what he's achieved. "Everything's changed this summer," he told the cheering crowd. "It doesn't matter who came before or who comes after. From now on, the O2 is Prince's house."
Everyone who's caught a show has been blown away. Listening to the crowds after the shows, all anyone can mutter is "he's a genius". The alchemy Prince achieves on stage is easy to surrender to but hard to describe.
The facts are simple: in 52 and a half hours on stage, he's played a total of 504 songs to audiences of half a million. But the effects of that extraordinary marathon are more complex.
Before this summer, Prince had lost his grip on the mass popular imagination. In spite of regular attempts to reignite his career his sometimes antagonistic attitude towards his back catalogue had left audiences confused about what to expect from his live performances.
The last time he played England (in October 2002), he opened with a 12-minute Jehovah's Witness-influenced jazz song, and berated fans who had come expecting Purple Rain.
This time he opened the run with his most famous song.
Yet although this has been a hit-based show, what has elevated this among the best concerts ever isn't the set list, but the extraordinary musicianship.
"Real music by real musicians" has been Prince's regular on-stage chant, and his current band is the best he's ever had. They are so good that the audience doesn't just cheer when Prince plays Kiss or Raspberry Beret, but after every horn solo or piano interlude.
This is a hits show that Prince can deliver without feeling any musical limitation. So he includes covers and mixes up the show every night.
Even when the set list has been similar, no two shows have been the same.
I saw 19 of the 21, and deeply regret missing the other two. And while the main shows have been extraordinary, the die-hard fans have been rewarded with a series of astonishing aftershows in the Indigo club, occasionally lasting longer than the main show itself, where Prince takes different elements of his music and gives unique performances that many believe are his greatest aftershows ever.
"We're making history," Beverley Knight announced one night while joining Prince at an aftershow.
Prince makes history with O2 shows
By Matt Thorne
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 22/09/2007
504 different songs in 52 hours concert, the Stones can put this in their pipe and fucking smoke it!!!!!!
[edited by Prince]
[Edited by jostorm]
26th September 2007 04:25 AM
Jumacfly
Nice read.
504 songs, that s more than the entire Stones catalog!!
26th September 2007 04:40 AM
jostorm
Thanks, Juma.
And yes, what a contrast! The question that follows is : would Prince have gotten away with playing the same 17 songs every night, opening every show with Purple Rain and made as much money as the Stones made with the Bigger Bang Tour???? Maybe, for 21 shows only, but not for two years while touring around the globe....
So, in a way we only have ourselves to blame, we put them where they are, bent forwards and let them sodomise us with their extortionate ticket prices and overpriced shitty merchandise for years, and we all collectively orgasmed when they (very badly) played Sway every now and then....let's face it, Kids, we are a bit of a joke....
By the way, there's an old PM in your box with my postal address, for when the thong has finished her tour of Montpellier, but at this rate I shall be a grandmother when it arrives........
26th September 2007 04:51 AM
Jumacfly
quote:jostorm wrote:
Thanks, Juma.
By the way, there's an old PM in your box with my postal address, for when the thong has finished her tour of Montpellier, but at this rate I shall be a grandmother when it arrives........
I ve seen it quickly in Egypt,sorry,I ve forgotten to answer Jo!!!
The thong is lost somewhere, hope it will arrive soon!
26th September 2007 09:52 AM
GotToRollMe
His name is Prince, and he is funkay.
26th September 2007 10:51 AM
Gazza
"504 different songs in 52 hours concert"
504 songs...Not 504 DIFFERENT songs.
26th September 2007 11:07 AM
Throwaway
quote:Gazza wrote:
"504 different songs in 52 hours concert"
504 songs...Not 504 DIFFERENT songs.
I was about to say..fuck, whats that like nearly 30 songs a show with no repeats!?!?!
26th September 2007 12:00 PM
Gazza
Its also 504 songs over up to 42 shows (ie, including the aftershows) presumably if hes counting 52 hours of music.
the main shows lasted from 90-120 minutes usually with a few running longer at the start of the run and at the end.
Prince played, I suppose, 12-14 of the aftershow gigs, although even then he wasnt onstage throughout the show. On the nights he did show up, the amount of time he played varied from literally a couple of minutes to a full gig of around two hours. The night myself, Meg and Sweet Virginia went, he played for about an hour and a half. It WAS absolutely incredible though, and blew the main show (which was superb in its own right) out of the water.
Add to that the discussion of whether or not singing a verse of a few lines can be classed as a 'song'.
The shows were brilliant, incredible value for money, the band fantastic and Prince was out of this world, but theres a wee bit of journalistic licence in some of those claims.
26th September 2007 01:41 PM
jostorm
quote:Gazza wrote:
"504 different songs in 52 hours concert"
504 songs...Not 504 DIFFERENT songs.
WHAT.
EVER.
But that's not what the journalist implied. The lying cow.
(Some spoilsport always has to turn up and start splitting hairs, BOB SAGET !!! )
Hm, the woman was clearly implying he played a massive catalogue,which I also understood from the fact she saw 19 out of 21 concerts, and who am I to question it, I'm not a Prince fan....although by the sounds of it I would have been a lot wiser being one......although perhaps not, I like the weirdoes in this asylum....
And you've officially ruined my day now, Gazza, what else have you got in store for me??? The news that Prince is into anal sex only, perhaps??????
26th September 2007 08:37 PM
StephenNYC
Not really a Prince fan but had the opportunity to catch a concert at The Garden about 3-4 years ago. He certainly delivered a memorable performance. He's an exceptionally talented musician with great stage presence and charisma who can play the heck out of a guitar!
26th September 2007 11:36 PM
CraigP
Is this topic a joke?
27th September 2007 06:52 AM
gotdablouse
He's the guy who was booed off stage during the '81 tour, right ? ;-)
We're bitching about the Stones not releasing strong new material, but since 1987 Prince hasn't released anything of interest !
27th September 2007 07:03 AM
Gazza
quote:CraigP wrote:
Is this topic a joke?
What - whether Prince and his band are more musically gifted and versatile than the Stones?
Only a joke if you happen to be blind and deaf.
Personal taste on their music is another issue entirely, of course.
[Edited by Gazza]
27th September 2007 07:14 AM
Gazza
quote:gotdablouse wrote:
He's the guy who was booed off stage during the '81 tour, right ? ;-)
We're bitching about the Stones not releasing strong new material, but since 1987 Prince hasn't released anything of interest !
well, I think he's put out 24 studio albums in that time..(including a triple and QUADRUPLE set of material) whereas the Stones have amassed a mighty tally of four, even with three songwriters between them.
Certainly a large amount of fluff in amongst that lot as you'd expect with that amount of productivity, but theres definitely been some excellent stuff too.
[Edited by Gazza]
27th September 2007 07:16 AM
speedfreakjive
quote:Gazza wrote:
well, I think he's put out 24 studio albums in that time..whereas the Stones have amassed a mighty tally of four, even with three songwriters between them.
Certainly a sizeable amount of fluff in amongst that lot, but theres definitely been some excellent stuff too.
yeah i was a fan of some of Musicology, and Sexy MF
27th September 2007 07:36 AM
Zack
quote:jostorm wrote:
But that's not what the journalist implied. The lying cow.
Journalists frequently are lying cows. Or other hoofed mammals.
27th September 2007 09:23 AM
gimmekeef
Hey good for him....he was great at the Superbowl even in the rain.Would I care to see him live?...nope...But lots of others do so there you go...Its always got to come down to some comparison with the Stones...Its music and its different comparisons of personal taste are perhaps interesting but really meaningless....
27th September 2007 09:55 AM
CraigP
quote:Gazza wrote:
What - whether Prince and his band are more musically gifted and versatile than the Stones?
Only a joke if you happen to be blind and deaf.
Personal taste on their music is another issue entirely, of course.
[Edited by Gazza]
There may be a misunderstanding between us upon this issue. I'm assuming you may think that Prince and his band, of all there is to pick from, is better and more versatile than The Rolling Stones...?
I'm not bashing Prince. He's an excellent producer/performer.
I am neither blind nor deaf(yet). I'm an audio engineer/musician.
Gazza, you are a music connoisseur as well as a major force on this board and I've always liked your opinions, but man, Prince over the stones in any way, shape or form?!
[Edited by CraigP]
27th September 2007 11:19 AM
Gazza
quote:CraigP wrote:
There may be a misunderstanding between us upon this issue. I'm assuming you may think that Prince and his band, of all there is to pick from, is better and more versatile than The Rolling Stones...?
Musically more talented? Yes - but the Stones make better records and I enjoy their music more.
quote:CraigP wrote:
I'm not bashing Prince. He's an excellent producer/performer.
I am neither blind nor deaf(yet). I'm an audio engineer/musician.
Gazza, you are a music connoisseur as well as a major force on this board and I've always liked your opinions, but man, Prince over the stones in any way, shape or form?!
there are loads of artists with more versatility and better musical talent than the Stones. You're not seriously going to argue that Keith and/or Woody are the best or most versatile guitarists on the planet, are you? Prince plays about 20 instruments, and is proficient and in many cases fantastic on many of them.
I just happen to prefer the Stones MUSIC, though. By some distance.
Pretty simple distinction I'd have thought.
[Edited by Gazza]
27th September 2007 11:36 AM
tookthatname
quote:Gazza wrote:
Prince plays about 20 instruments, and is proficient and in many cases fantastic on many of them.
[Edited by Gazza]
One word answer - BRIAN
[Edited by tookthatname]
27th September 2007 12:12 PM
CraigP
quote:Gazza wrote:
Musically more talented? Yes - but the Stones make better records and I enjoy their music more.
there are loads of artists with more versatility and better musical talent than the Stones. You're not seriously going to argue that Keith and/or Woody are the best or most versatile guitarists on the planet, are you? Prince plays about 20 instruments, and is proficient and in many cases fantastic on many of them.
I just happen to prefer the Stones MUSIC, though. By some distance.
Pretty simple distinction I'd have thought.
[Edited by Gazza]
Keith and/or woody were never the best guitar players around, (by far), but they exile Prince out of the castle as far as versatility and innovation. Keith/stones were much better musicians than they were guitar players.
Within my career as an engineer, producer, musician I know better players than all of these guys combined.
'Prince' is nothing special in my opinion, nor in the same ballgame as the Stones as far as overall talent.
Thats my rant on this topic.
Don't get me wrong, I respect differences in opinion.
27th September 2007 01:02 PM
jostorm
The point I was trying to make, not that "the point" has ever mattered on any thread on this board EVER, is that:
Prince delivered a high level of musicianship for his fans. Full stop.
He played 21 dates, blew everyone and their dog absolutely away, didn't just repeat his old warhorses ad nauseam, didn't need a backing band to cover up his constant musical mistakes, or wrong introes,or lapses in lyrics, he attended most of the after-parties and gave people A LOT "extra" for their money. He was professional, consistent, and generally had everyone waxing lyrical about whichever show they saw.
Although his tickets , too, were partially sold " a bit overpriced" in the VIP category, he offered most of them for just over 30 squid,which is very good by today's standards, he didn't just sodomise his fans financially, or start a different company raking in "special premium memberships" for very dubiously placed seats and a shitty old baseball-cap, to then offer much superior seats for less money a bit later. Did he screw his fans? no, he didn't. Did he behave unprofessionally at any point? No, he didn't. So no, Craig P, it isn't a joke. I may prefer listening to the Stones most of the time, but let's face it, the "value for money" they have given us in the last two tours was very shitty, indeed....
27th September 2007 01:15 PM
pdog
One day I hope to see Prince perform live...
27th September 2007 01:41 PM
jostorm
One day I hope my cats will learn to dance like yours....
27th September 2007 01:42 PM
gimmekeef
quote:jostorm wrote:
The point I was trying to make, not that "the point" has ever mattered on any thread on this board EVER, is that:
Prince delivered a high level of musicianship for his fans. Full stop.
He played 21 dates, blew everyone and their dog absolutely away, didn't just repeat his old warhorses ad nauseam, didn't need a backing band to cover up his constant musical mistakes, or wrong introes,or lapses in lyrics, he attended most of the after-parties and gave people A LOT "extra" for their money. He was professional, consistent, and generally had everyone waxing lyrical about whichever show they saw.
Although his tickets , too, were partially sold " a bit overpriced" in the VIP category, he offered most of them for just over 30 squid,which is very good by today's standards, he didn't just sodomise his fans financially, or start a different company raking in "special premium memberships" for very dubiously placed seats and a shitty old baseball-cap, to then offer much superior seats for less money a bit later. Did he screw his fans? no, he didn't. Did he behave unprofessionally at any point? No, he didn't. So no, Craig P, it isn't a joke. I may prefer listening to the Stones most of the time, but let's face it, the "value for money" they have given us in the last two tours was very shitty, indeed....
Sorry you missed Atlanta..Toronto...MSG.etc etc..I got my moneys worth by a mile....Enjoy Prince if thats your choice...
27th September 2007 01:45 PM
monkey_man
I sure this HOF clip has been seen by many here. For the Prince naysayers, check out Prince's guitar solo beginning at 3:30.
27th September 2007 03:47 PM
CraigP
My clients as well as my friends do play better solos than that in a drunken stupor.
If you only knew...
Prince is a producer, not a virtuoso guitarist.
The older people on this board may think that when Keith plays a 1/4 second pinch harmonic bend during a good SympathyFTD solo back in '89/90, that it is mindblowing.
When Ronnie plays slide (in his more recent age), same response.
If only Ronnie hadn't sucked since '78...
27th September 2007 03:54 PM
CraigP
I love Ronnie and his old sloppy style but just watching Keith have to carry two guitar parts (nevermind, with arthreitis) makes me angry that Ronnie is such a drunk fucking idiot who cannot play for shit.
Keith is supposed to be rythm. The leads hurt his fingers.
Keith has needed someone to shred and not pretend for 30 years or so.
Mick Taylor? A little too noodly, but kept Keith chopping.
I still love Ron, but he's ruined their quality (post '81)
27th September 2007 05:50 PM
speedfreakjive
gazza wrote -there are loads of artists with more versatility and better musical talent than the Stones. You're not seriously going to argue that Keith and/or Woody are the best or most versatile guitarists on the planet, are you? Prince plays about 20 instruments, and is proficient and in many cases fantastic on many of them.
I just happen to prefer the Stones MUSIC, though. By some distance.
Pretty simple distinction I'd have thought.-)
i agree, very simple distinction IMHO
27th September 2007 09:37 PM
robpop
I just went to search for some live Prince on You-Tube, and none was to be found. What's up with that?
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour
NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
)
