>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.
This sentence is perhaps the new best example of fluff.
Why is it fluff? I know nothing about Prince other than that he changed his name to a symbol (and that is because Eminem told me). Knowing that he used symbols in other ways could add context to his choice to change his name to a symbol.
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
> > 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.
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.
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.
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)
I'd say it's fluff because the first half adds nothing you don't already know by that point, and the second half is a longwinded way to say 'he liked rebuses'.
I could have sworn we in Sweden used another word for rebuses and I was proven wrong many times in a pub discussion recently but I'm on a hunt for my word. (Very interesting I know...) If you don't mind what word did you use before for rebus? (I haven't given up there is an archaic or "brand name" out there I saw in my youth...)
This sentence is perhaps the new best example of fluff.