Reply to "Prince vs. Michael"

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Interesting that you don't mention the quality of his doing those things - just that he did them.
Do I really need to mention the quality?? The fact that he has done many subsequent albums should be enough. Rec cos. do not allow you to make more albums if your first two aren't any good.

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

More talented at what?

Apparently, how I define talent is quite different from how you do. I assumed that since you are a former musician that you could appreciate the difficulty in mastering ONE instrument let alone several. Maybe you are unaware(?), but the producing, and recording processes are extremely difficult as well, as is the composing process. The process of completing an album with separate individuals in each of those roles is hard enough, but to do all of them yourself, to me is extraordinary.
quote:
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?
No producer has great success with every artist. A great producer has success with many artists and then great success with one, maybe two. Q is one of the greatest producers of all time - he had success with all of the artists that you mentioned - and more.
quote:
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.
Of course MJ got more marketing... are you trying to say he did not?? As I have said in a previous post, MJ had a 15 yr head start in a successful group before going solo - that's 15 yrs of marketing in addition to the marketing he got/gets as a solo artist. There certainly have been and in fact are other artists who are more talented than MJ, but yet don't do as well. Why? Marketinggggggg. Razz

p.s. With the proper marketing anybody can be a star... ANYBODY. Look at Milli Vanilli - they did not even sing on their project and became international stars.

Again, popularity & record sales do not reflect talent.

quote:
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.
The point is that MJ did not create anything - there were other people who did the same stuff before him.

quote:
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?
Apple. The device you are referring to is the Newton. It is still today far superior to the palm pilot in terms of innovation and functionality. (I refer you here) With the exception of IPOD and the "1984" advertisement, Apple has not ever done much marketing. Their biggest problem is their steadfast refusal to license any of their products so that other manufacturers can innovate and create while they get the moolah. IBM licensed the PC and look what happened - sure they lost control of the product, but they made a whole lot of money as a result. I digress. If Apple put some money behind Newton they could have cornered the market.
quote:
I guess central to this whole discussion is the value that you place on popular adoption.
No, the point was to offer an opinion as to who I/we thought was more talented. I still think Prince was/is.
quote:
Maybe that was Prince's problem. Maybe he should have chosen producers who could have packaged his music in a more popular way.
Maybe he should not have fought with his rec co. I just think that he was not willing to give up creative control of his work and he suffered as a result - he still ain't doin' to bad though.
×
×
×
×