the guitar solo at the end of why you wanna treat me so bad is more interesting than that entire first record, but yeah after those first 2 songs its a bunch of smoothshit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v43z_4r_6k
chemo coming thru

Unsurprisingly, Warner demanded an immediate follow-up to the debut, he didn't have material, and this resulted.

>>129084291
I mean don’t you like the first record? I don’t see how some people can think this album is an improvement, it doesn’t shimmer like that first one.

“In Love”, “Soft And Wet”, “I’m Yours” are all excellent tracks.

>>129084307
Was that why? Poor kid, I didn’t know.

>>129084383
That was just how the record industry worked back then. Shit was exploitative as fuck.

>>129084339
Same here, Sony wanted a sequel to Ten and they didn't have any songs so they just knocked out a bunch of jam sessions in a a couple hours.

>>129084274
On top of that the first album's cover art looked like the early 90s it was quite futuristic for 78 while this just has a totally generic 70s cover design.

Prince was never good.
its time to wake up and see the light

Prince [Warner Bros., 1979]
This boy is going to be a big star, and he deserves it--he's got a great line. "I want to come inside you" is good enough, but (in a different song) the simple "I'm physically attracted to you" sets news standards of "naive," winning candor. The vulnerable teen-macho falsetto idea is pretty good too. But he does leave something to be desired in the depth-of-feeling department--you know, soul. B+

>>129084425
Agreed.

Rick James denounced him as a degenerate who wore women's panties onstage and had too explicit song lyrics.

>>129084365
i think it's pretty good, it's just pretty different from how he would later sound. besides the songs you mentioned i like the sort of yacht-rock tinged "my love is forever".

>>129084543
ddddid you say Rick James? the same Rick James who subjected women to non-consensual BDSM sessions while high out of his mind on drugs? nobody should take moral lessons from him, nobody.

>>129084543
What’s wrong with wearing panties?

>>129084274
early prince is incredibly impressive, usually you can tell one man bands have a weak spot, but aside from prince's simple drumming, he's really selling the sound of a whole band. it's especially impressive on for you, where he was literally 19. but c'mon, both for you and prince have some of the lowest lows imaginable, although i'd argue the second is just a bit more polished. for you has a lot of slow tracks that just take up the runtime instead of going anywhere

>>129085021
That's every R&B album from this era. They were heavily padded out with slow filler mush.

>>129085062
Personally, I like modern R&B better. It's made by session guys who, instead of whoring out to the mainstream (Toto, Christopher Cross, etc.), do their own thing. And it sounds great. Early to pre-modern R&B is all filler and a few killers.

>>129085099
the record industry in the 70s was still heavily invested in the idea that ballads with lots of string goop=radio play=money

lol there's many Cuckgau reviews where he's like "agggh, two hot funk tracks on here and a bunch of ballad goo C+"

people always seem to name Controversy as the cool early Prince album. the title track is great, but for me, Dirty Mind is where it's at.

>>129084339
Wrong. It's better than Ten.
>>129084411
That may be so, but it sounds more raw and energetic as a result of that. Even the band themselves expressed that they felt Ten was a bit overproduced, reverb heavy and that they did too many different takes. You can only do so many takes before the song starts to lose some energy.