4 ms·

The evidence for him being provocative, perplexing, and strange, is that he used 4 instead of 'for'. This is not evidence of anything except that the authors wa

by noqc 3y ago

The evidence for him being provocative, perplexing, and strange, is that he used 4 instead of 'for'. This is not evidence of anything except that the authors want you to think that Prince is provocative, perplexing, and strange. This sort of writing is more or less the definition of fluff

mlyle 3y ago
> > Prince had always been provocative, perplexing and often strange artist, and frequently used symbols (such as an eye for “I”) or numbers (such as 4 for “for”) in his album artwork. I don't interpret the second clause primarily as evidence for the first. I view them as two related statements-- He was already known as provocative and strange; he'd already used symbols more than most people before. This is important context to his strange move of changing his name to a symbol. It's more longwinded than necessary, but it's not awful.
ink_13 3y ago
It's certainly idiosyncratic, I might go so far as provocative or strange myself, but perhaps perplexing is a bit far, because it's not like what he meant was unclear. (Unless one finds the question "buy why mean it that way?" to be perplexing)
amalcon 3y ago
That was much more unusual when Prince did it in the early '80s than it is today. The article is a bit fluffy, yes, but I'm not sure that line is the best example.
Cheer2171 3y ago
The past is a different country. In the 1980s, it was indeed very strange to do that, especially in the official names of songs and albums. It was something kids or the illiterate did. It was embarrassing for an adult to use 4 for 'for' in anything important, even art. Today, that is not strange at all, it is common slang. Prince is one of the reasons why we don't see that as strange today. He was one of the first to (re)introduce doing that on purpose in a major work of popular culture.

4 ms·

The evidence for him being provocative, perplexing, and strange, is that he used 4 instead of 'for'. This is not evidence of anything except that the authors wa

by noqc 3y ago

mlyle 3y ago
> > Prince had always been provocative, perplexing and often strange artist, and frequently used symbols (such as an eye for “I”) or numbers (such as 4 for “for”) in his album artwork. I don't interpret the second clause primarily as evidence for the first. I view them as two related statements-- He was already known as provocative and strange; he'd already used symbols more than most people before. This is important context to his strange move of changing his name to a symbol. It's more longwinded than necessary, but it's not awful.
ink_13 3y ago
It's certainly idiosyncratic, I might go so far as provocative or strange myself, but perhaps perplexing is a bit far, because it's not like what he meant was unclear. (Unless one finds the question "buy why mean it that way?" to be perplexing)
amalcon 3y ago
That was much more unusual when Prince did it in the early '80s than it is today. The article is a bit fluffy, yes, but I'm not sure that line is the best example.
Cheer2171 3y ago
The past is a different country. In the 1980s, it was indeed very strange to do that, especially in the official names of songs and albums. It was something kids or the illiterate did. It was embarrassing for an adult to use 4 for 'for' in anything important, even art. Today, that is not strange at all, it is common slang. Prince is one of the reasons why we don't see that as strange today. He was one of the first to (re)introduce doing that on purpose in a major work of popular culture.