Was at a local watering hole and “Raspberry Beret” came on and it made me think, if Prince wasn’t from Minneapolis, one of the most midwest cities there is, and was either from New York or LA, would he have been able to make it as he did? Basically, could Prince’s success be attributed to being more of a “big fish in a small pond” and having a hometown crowd that was drawn to his subversion of cultural norms vs. having the legit musical chops to make it in a city where there were more entertainers vying for attention?
This isn’t to say that he doesn’t have some good songs that turned into hits, but more that I don’t see how he necessarily gets put on the pedestal that he does when it seems like there were a ton of other acts that were putting out similar music at around the same time. Maybe it’s just a personal taste/not being around during his heyday thing, but I really don’t see the reason as to why he’s as venerated as he is, when there’s really nothing makes him stand out compared to other funk/r&b acts from the late 70’s and 80’s.
He’s an absolute icon who would have made it from anywhere, on his own talent alone. Simple as that.
Also the other acts that sounded like Prince were often influenced by Prince or straight-up copying or mimicking his style. Not necessarily a bad or cynical thing but this is the impact that icons have on culture and pop culture.
Just roll the clip of him preforming among guitar legends at the memorial.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
the guy was like mozart a musical prodigy/savant. He was going to be a star no matter where he came from.
I don’t see how he necessarily gets put on the pedestal that he does when it seems like there were a ton of other acts that were putting out similar music at around the same time
I'd like to know which other acts were putting out music like that. I was around back then and I certainly didn't hear anyone else doing that.
lol many people consider him the greatest musician of all time for a reason. Saying he didn’t have legit musical chops to make it in the big city means you haven’t listened enough or are listening wrong
Well I mean, it’s not like he’s from the booming metropolis of Gary, Indiana.
I don’t think Prince is a great example for this effect but I do sometimes think about how artists (musicians, but also actors, writers, etc.) who get big in the UK will often cross over and gain a sizable audience in the US as well, which is a pretty good deal for them considering the UK has about a quarter of the population and one city that’s universally agreed to be the cultural center. I’m not saying it’s easier to become a star in Britain than in the US once you factor in everything else, but statistically speaking you do certainly have less competition.
*I do sometimes think about how artists (musicians, but also actors, writers, etc.) who get big in the UK will usually cross over and gain a sizable audience in the US as well* *I’m not saying it’s easier to become a star in Britain than in the US once you factor in everything else, but statistically speaking you do certainly have less competition.* I've certainly had this thought regarding David Bowie. His influence became so absurdly wide. Pretty much after the early 70s, most British artists had at least some Bowie influence, many of them citing him as a primary influence. Before I became a music fan, I didn't realize just how devoted that fanbase was and is. In the UK, I think he's been voted greatest/most influential artist of the 20th century in a few different polls. Before I got into him, I would have assumed The Beatles or something. Then he went to New York, mingled with some iconic New York artists and bands like the Velvet Underground, and became a huge touch point of influence there too: Ramones, Blondie, Talking Heads, and others in punk, post-punk, new wave, and art music cite big Bowie influence. Then you have other cities like Philadelphia (where he recorded *Young Americans*), Los Angeles (where he recorded *Station To Station* and lived for a bit), and presumably others. My guess is that even if you aren't big in the US, you can usually get some kind of cult following. The Smiths, I don't think were that big in the states but they're still a major icon of college rock, indie, and alternative music. Even if a British artist can't get big everywhere in the US, usually the coasts or big cities can have some appreciation by virtue of a more cosmopolitan environment. Whereas American artists, they might have to contend with the "Too American" perception unless the artist is some kind of honorary Brit (e.g. The Killers). It almost feels like there's more Anglophilic Americans than Ameriphilic British people.
A better example of big-fish-small-pond is an act that is beloved in their home country or home city but doesn’t do anything unique and doesn’t have the ability to crossover into other markets. Every city has one of these acts that can fill a room locally but nobody has heard of them if you drive 45 minutes in any direction. A country wide example is the Angels, who are immensely successful and beloved in Australia and a footnote anywhere else. That is big-fish-small-pond.
[removed]
Yes. His talent, style, presence, creativity, and style are iconic. His songwriting skills were stunning. He was dripping with talent and charisma and everything else that makes a star. He would have been big no matter where he came from.
It's provocative title. My first instinct is to disagree and say that Prince's talent isn't something that makes me immediately think "Oh, he's only good because he's from Minneapolis." He really amalgamated a lot of traditions from the past while still feeling unique and challenging. You can see influences from Sly Stone or James Brown but you wouldn't say he's a clone of them.
But there is a good discussion to be had about how regional identity shapes an artist. Prince is known for pioneering "the Minneapolis Sound" and essentially being a huge epicenter of a scene. There were tons of artists that he helped nurture, some to a controlling extent. See Prince Associates.
The OP is being overly dismissive of Prince which isn't really productive for discussion. But at the same time, I do think it's worth examining what makes an artist stand out beyond a simple "They're the greatest".
To state it more clearly: Prince's talent is not solely because of Minneapolis, I'm sure he could have been popular elsewhere. But it is also worth examining the way in which region shapes an artist and allows them to carve out their unique identity.
Not trying to be dismissive but more thinking along the lines of how much his image and presentation along with being from Minneapolis contributed to his success. Did his androgyny and sex appeal play a large part in getting him noticed compared to acts that may have been stylized the same way yet were from cities where that was more in line with the norm? If he were from San Francisco or Miami, would people have even gave a hoot and a holler just because he more or less looked like a lot of the artists that were already there? Maybe my question is more fashion and culture oriented than exclusively music based, but I think when it comes to his music, at least for things released pre-1986, there doesn’t seem to be much that sets him apart from the pack for me.
This is the correct take. I think the distance from a major city allowed Prince to become Prince, to grow into his own aesthetic. Had he been from Los Angeles or New York, I think he would’ve been quickly picked up by an existing act that saw him for the teen prodigy he was and they would’ve molded him to fit whatever their style was. The relative isolation of Minneapolis allowed him to create a vision of his work that was his own. You could make the same argument for any act that started from an isolated market. Would Kurt Cobain sound different if he were from Los Angeles? Would Three 6 Mafia sound different if they were from New York? Yes, of course.
Oh dear....
Simply put...Hell no.
If anything I imagine it was more difficult being from Minneapolis which is not well known as a hotbed of musical talent. Probably would have been easier to be from a big city with a thriving scene.
That man was a natural born talent that would have stood out anywhere he was from.
He was a prolific and phenomenal songwriter, multi instrumentalist but stood out for his incredible guitar playing...arguably a contender for the top 10 of all time...A reporter once asked Eric Clapton how it felt to be the best guitarist in the world..he said . " I don't know. Why don't you ask Prince "
Joy in Repetition live 2002.
I think the wording of the question is what's leading to all of these hard "no" answers because Prince was obviously a generational talent and extremely driven so it's easy to imagine him breaking through in any city. I do think Prince - as he existed in our timeline - could make it anywhere. He was just too determined to succeed and too talented not to. However, your question does make me wonder if being from a different city would have changed his musical approach. Would he have incorporated as many New Wave and Pop influences into his Funk, had he been from a city with a richer history in Black music, such as Memphis or New Orleans? Would white American audiences, a few years off the Disco backlash, have recognized his talent if his songwriting wasn't as legible to them? Would he have leaned into Hip Hop had he seen its rise in 70s NYC? Would he have stuck to something closer to classic P-Funk had he been going to Uncle Jam's parties in LA? What if he was from DC - would he have been more inclined towards Bad Brains style Hardcore? (probably not) Obviously there's no telling but it's interesting an interesting series of "what ifs" to think about.
I think I get what you are trying to get at. Prince was a very unconventional R&B artist, especially for his time. You are attributing at least part of that to being in Minneapolis, which had no real R&B community to speak of back then and therefore had no one around to criticize him when he blended R&B with psychedelic rock or whatever else?