Reply to "Prince vs. Michael"

quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:

I merely stated that I thought Prince was more talented - because he wrote, composed, arranged, produced, played and recorded his first 2 albums - by himself!


Interesting that you don't mention the quality of his doing those things - just that he did them. In general, my response from above still applies:

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

More talented at what?

Singing? No.

Dancing? No.

Over-all showmanship and entertainment value? No.

At creating record selling music? No.

At winning Grammy's? No.

At making money in the industry? No.

At creating cutting-edge music videos? No.

Oh, OK, playing musical instruments? Arranging? Composing? Perhaps. At the end of the day, though, IMHO those talents are not necessarily the things which make a recording artist "world-class" at what they do. You and AG just seem to value a different set of skills than the ones that are necessarily required of them. It would be like asking music producers to be able to sing and dance. Is P. Diddy more talented than Quincy Jones because he can "sing" and "dance"? Is that really fair?


quote:
(Without Q, where would Mike have been?).


Perhaps you would have an argument if Q had done the same for all(or even other) of his clients. He did not. If you viewed Q's talents in the singular way that you seem to be vis-a-vis his association with Mike for, say, the Brothers Johnson - then I guess we wouldn't have such a high opinion of him, would we. In your seemingly all or nothing analysis which discounts artist ability, why didn't Tevin Campbell sell as many records as MJ? Patti Austen? The Manhattan Transfer? It's all about Q right? Confused

quote:
He became a star as a result of those efforts.


So, was Q just lucky in the albums he produced for M and unlucky in those he produced for other artists? Funny how that works, huh? bsm

Oh, that's right, it was the marketing. Mike just got more marketing than those others. nono Again, Q could create the best compositions in history for me, the record wouldn't sell. There's a reason for that.

quote:
...Mike, on the other hand, CREATED a whole new way of moving on stage...

quote:
Mike created nothing... EVERY dance move he does, has been done before - mimes were doing the "moonwalk" way before Mike. Ever heard of the Temptations? The Dells? Ever heard of the "Lindy Hop"?


Again, AG, JUST SAY NO. You straight trip if you suggest that any of those crooners moved anywhere like MJ. Bruh, it didn't happen.

quote:
Just because he popularized something doesn't mean he created it.


So which is more reflective of talent: creating something which has little consumer value, or adopting something and, in so doing, presenting it in a way that is commercially popular? Apple created the PDA back in the early 90's - forgot what it was called - but no one saw value in it. It flopped. Palm comes along and creates the Palm Pilot, and the rest is history. Who was the real innovator? I guess central to this whole discussion is the value that you place on popular adoption. I think the point of art is to touch and impact people. Anyone can create art in their closet. Prince created art which was popular, but no way near as popular as what MJ (and Q - I'll give you that) did.

Maybe that was Prince's problem. Maybe he should have chosen producers who could have packaged his music in a more popular way.
×
×
×
×