Remember in the days when Michael Jackson and Prince used to "compete" for being the "most talented man on the planet"? While they didn't do it openly, there seemed to be a bit of a rivalry between the two as to who had the best records and who was the coolest etc. Believe it or not, back in the early 80's I remember when Prince was "weirder" than Michael. Eek

All these years later, it's pretty clear who the winner is now. Prince made more money than any other music artist in America last year and has an absolutely beautiful wife on his arm. And Michael . . .

Here's a link to a pic of Prince and wife at the Oscars. http://www.imdb.com/features/rto/2005/gallery/oscar05-redcarpet/131



© MBM

Original Post
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Believe it or not, back in the early 80's I remember when Prince was "weirder" than Michael. Eek

All these years later, it's pretty clear who the winner is now. Prince made more money than any other music artist in America last year and has an absolutely beautiful wife on his arm. And Michael . . .


You ain't lyin'! lol

Micheal went from 'he', to 'she', to "it"! He is a *&%@! mess!

P.S. Who did you like better back in the day?
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

P.S. Who did you like better back in the day?


Well, it was hard not to be in love with Mike back during the Thriller days - OA were you even born then! Big Grin

PS - I added a link to a pic of Prince and his wife at the Oscars in the original post. What a stark contrast w/ good 'ole MJ. Eek
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

P.S. Who did you like better back in the day?


Well, it was hard not to be in love with Mike back during the Thriller days - OA were you even born then! Big Grin

PS - I added a link to a pic of Prince and his wife at the Oscars in the original post. What a stark contrast w/ good 'ole MJ. Eek


Mike was my pick too. Thanks for the link. I've never seen Prince's 'newest' wife until now. She is pretty...But so is he! Is she the lady from Canada I heard he built a cstle like home for?

And yes, I remember Thriller MBM!...lol...I actually still know the entire "Beat it" dance routine from the music video by heart! I even remember the "Off the Wall" LP when Micheal looked normal..I wasn't allowed to touch any records or the record player at that age so when they were brought out I would study the labels as my Dad held them... I have the strange ability to retain early childhood memories of music. But my father used to be a musician so that's probably why.

Who do you like more now? Prince or Mike?...not judging looks...just music...
I used that same pic of MJ in an e-mail joke yesterday to some friends, in which I had him in a photo lineup with Jason, Freddy Krueger & the guy in the "Scream" mask.

What a got dam waste.

Before I got heavily into music, Thriller was out & everybody was into the phenomenon, so it was hard not to like it. But by high school, Prince was all-that, and MJ was already starting to become a joke to me. The hair-on-fire thing, the elephant man thing, and all the plastic surgeries were kicking in back then. Prince was weird, but his music was edgy & creative, & it worked for me.

BTW, I wish I could've seen MJ in concert. That's the true test of talent, & that would've been the best way to compare them. because last year, Prince...

tore...

the...

roof...

off...

of Madison Square Garden.

So for me, it's no contest. Prince is King.
Chris Rock said it best last year in his HBO Special Never Scared.

"Remember back in the 80s when we used to wonder who was better [between Michael and Prince]?...Prince won!"

I remember someone on the defunct africana.com had an article between Prince and Michael Jackson and someone said you could tell which girls were Michael fans and those who were Prince fans.

If you were a dad in the 80s and your daughter had a MJ poster, you weren't upset. But if she had a Prince, you'd be very concerned...if she wasn't sexually active, she would be very soon. Wink
quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:

IMO, Price is the more talented artist - on his first couple of albums he played ALL of the instruments. I don't think Mike can/could've do(ne) that.


OK - I'll start some stuff to keep this discussion going.

Prince may have been more talented in the sense that he can play a number of instruments, but IMHO, Mike's vocals and dancing/performance are so far superior to Prince that the ultimate experience blows Prince away. Who cares that Prince plays more than one instrument? We consume the music and the performance in total - and in those categories, Mike is miles and miles ahead of Prince. It ain't even close.

I saw the Purple Rain concert as well as Mike around the same time. The Prince show was fantastic. He is a great performer - absolutely. BUT - he don't come close to Mike in his prime. Back in the day, Mike was incredible - better than anyone else on the planet. cabbage

Thoughts?
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:

IMO, Price is the more talented artist - on his first couple of albums he played ALL of the instruments. I don't think Mike can/could've do(ne) that.


OK - I'll start some stuff to keep this discussion going.

Prince may have been more talented in the sense that he can play a number of instruments, but IMHO, Mike's vocals and dancing/performance are so far superior to Prince that the ultimate experience blows Prince away. Who cares that Prince plays more than one instrument? We consume the music and the performance in total - and in those categories, Mike is miles and miles ahead of Prince. It ain't even close.

I saw the Purple Rain concert as well as Mike around the same time. The Prince show was fantastic. He is a great performer - absolutely. BUT - he don't come close to Mike in his prime. Back in the day, Mike was incredible - better than anyone else on the planet. cabbage

Thoughts?


You have got to be kidding MBM ! Prince' LOVESEXY tour tore everything Mike did to shreads. I admit to being prejudiced though. Prince does not do shows he does experiences. Only James Brown is funkier. As a performer MJ in his prime was a good Pop artist while Prince is an artist period. To compare the two is not fair to MJ he will never be what Prince is.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
OK - I'll start some stuff to keep this discussion going.

Prince may have been more talented in the sense that he can play a number of instruments, but IMHO, Mike's vocals and dancing/performance are so far superior to Prince...


I'm sorry... I thought that the initial question was about TALENT... My bad. bump
quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:

I'm sorry... I thought that the initial question was about TALENT... My bad. bump


You know - there's a reason that we're talking about Prince and MJ as opposed to MBM and AudioGuy. It's called TALENT. cabbage cabbage cabbage
Razz

You infer that Jackson's music, singing, and performances are somehow not related to talent? Mr. AudioGuy - OFF THE PIPE!!! music
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
You know - there's a reason that we're talking about Prince and MJ as opposed to MBM and AudioGuy. It's called TALENT.

No, it's called marketing. Either one of us could be touted as the next famous whatever - all it takes is marketing (and a whole lot of it!!! laugh)
quote:
You infer that Jackson's music, singing, and performances are somehow not related to talent? Mr. AudioGuy - OFF THE PIPE!!! music


Singing and dancing are indicators of talent???!!! Would you say that Beyonce is more talented that say, Quincy Jones? Would you say Hammer or Vanilla Ice are more talented than RUN-DMC? Milli Vanilli more so than Babyface? All because of their performance ability??

Maybe you should define what you see as talent - and we will start over. Wink
quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:

Singing and dancing are indicators of talent???!!!


AG! Can YOU dance like Hammer? Can you even sing like him? Smile Of course singing and dancing are examples of talents. Being a producer is but another type of talent.

quote:
Would you say that Beyonce is more talented that say, Quincy Jones?


You're trying to compare apples and oranges, but I would say that Q is a more talented producer than Beyonce is a singer/dancer. On the other hand, I would say that Michael Jackson was a more talented performer than Q is a producer. I would say that the other MJ - Jordan - was a more talented basketball player than Q is a producer. I would say that Paul Robeson was a more talented person than Q is a producer. There are lots of talents that people have. I think in this thread we were comparing Michael and Prince to each other, somewhat holistically, as artists/performers. Sure Prince may be able to play more instruments. At the end of the day though, I'm not sure that matters all that much. People are buying the whole package and IMO the most important variables are the vocals and over-all performance - closely followed by the music. Let's take Mike's little sister, as an example. Janet CAN'T sing, but because she's FOINE and puts on a great show, she has been a very entertaining performer. The entire package is entertaining. When I was drooling at her in concert here about 10 years ago - I could care less that she was probably lip syncing and in reality had no voice. The experience of her show was great.

Prince is definitely a smarter guy. He definitely has better judgment than Mike. He is saner than Mike. He can probably write "better" lyrics. He can probably play more instruments and play them better than Mike. But IMHO, in their prime, Mike was a better performer (although I'm sure Prince could probably let Mike have it in concert today.)

quote:
Would you say Hammer or Vanilla Ice are more talented than RUN-DMC?


In a word, "HELL NO". But, while Hammer was a more talented dancer - the total package of Run-DMC - IMHO - put on a better show!
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
AG! Can YOU dance like Hammer? Can you even sing??? like him? Smile Of course singing and dancing are examples of talents. Being a producer is but another type of talent.


Can I now dance like Hammer used to? No. Did I used to be able to? Yes. In fact, I was in a rap group as a DJ/Dancer - back in MY heyday. We performed @ the Apollo and everything (not on the TV show - just wed night am. night)



quote:
You're trying to compare apples and oranges, but I would say that Q is a more talented producer than Beyonce is a singer/dancer. On the other hand, I would say that Michael Jackson was a more talented performer than Q is a producer...
Obviously, my employment as a sound engineer has jaded my opinion - I have a very different view of what talent is.

When you can write, produce, play all the instruments, record all the instruments in your own studio, establish yourself as a premier artist with hit records, and then back it up with your performance... in my book that makes much more talented than just about anybody else out. But as I said, I am jaded.

Just as an aside... Jacko had the bulk of his success as a solo artist with two albums - "Off The Wall" & "Thriller"... who was the producer of both?? Quincy Jones!!

Just maybe Q is a more talented producer than MJ is an artist... Food for thought.
quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:

When you can write, produce, play all the instruments, record all the instruments in your own studio, establish yourself as a premier artist with hit records, and then back it up with your performance... in my book that makes much more talented than just about anybody else out. But as I said, I am jaded.


Ah, so . . . Jay Z is the most talented man in hip hop? Eek
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Ah, so . . . Jay Z is the most talented man in hip hop? Eek


JayZ does not play any instruments, doesn't produce his own music... he only writes his own lyrics - much like MJ. nono

quote:
BTW - who is more talented, Prince or Stevie Wonder?
Stevie, he did the same as Prince on his early albums(played all instr's)... except he is blind! cool
In my view, if you play ten intruments well, you're not as talented as someone who can only sing, but sing amazingly.

Nevertheless, I'm with AG on Prince v. MJ. Michael was a reasonably good singer in his day, and he was an excellent dancer and performer. Prince was a reasonably good singer, great dancer and great performer, plus a masterful composer and yes, he played multiple instruments amazingly. I don't think there's any question that Prince is a musical genius. To me, the bottom line is that musical genius beats "King of Pop" any day, all day.

Stevie vs. Prince: I hate to do it, but I have to go with Stevie. Same reasons given by AudioGuy.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

I don't think there's any question that Prince is a musical genius. To me, the bottom line is that musical genius beats "King of Pop" any day, all day.


So why didn't that genius translate into record sales?


Biggest Selling Album Of All Time

Michael Jackson's "Thriller" Album is the biggest selling album of all time, with over 50 million copies sold worldwide. Thriller is also the biggest selling U.S album with sales of 25 million copies.

Most No. 1 Hits in 1980's

By The End of the 1980's MIchael Jackson had more no. 1 hits than any other artist for the decade.

Greatest Audience

The highest-ever viewership was 133.4 million viewers watching the NBC transmission of Super Bowl XXVII on June 31, 1993. Michael was spotlighted during the half-time peformance.

Bad Tour

Michael Jackson's world tour brought in a record gross revenue of over $124 million during September 1987-December 1988.

100 Million Records

Michael has sold over 100 million singles and albums outside of the U.S.

Billboard Charts

Michael Jackson is the first person in the 37 year history of the Billboard chart to enter straight in at No1, with his single "You Are Not Alone". The previous record "Earth Song" which had debuted at No5 and also Michael Jacksons.

Biggest Selling Video

Michael Jackson's "The Making Of Thriller" is the biggest selling video to be released by an artist.

Billboard "Hot 100" Singles Chart

Most No. 1 Hits by Male Artist (13)

No. 1 Debuts

Michael Jacksons "Bad", "Dangerous", and "HIStory" albums all debuted in at No1.

Awards

Michael has won more awards than any other artist.

No. 1 On Charts

In 1983 Michael became the first artist to simultaneously hold the number one spots on Billboard's rock albums and rock singles charts, as well as the R&B albums and singles charts.

Consecutive No. 1 Singles

Jackson 5 were the first group to ever have four consecutive No. 1 singles.


BTW - Prince's biggest selling album was Purple Rain which sold 13 million records in the US. MJ's Thriller sold 26 million in the US. Prince's next greatest selling album was at 2 million units - with nothing else coming close. MJ had at least 7 records with US sales over 2 million units. Even "Invincible" - which BOMBED (and was terrible) - still sold 2 million units domestically.

Looking at the numbers, Prince couldn't carry MJ's jock! nono
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

So why didn't that genius translate into record sales?



You're asking that question of a guy who thinks Jill Scott is more talented than, say, Mary J. Blige. And that Talib Kweli is more talented than 50 Cent. And hold up... I'm not new to you... I know damn well that u agree with me on those artists, as well, Mr. MBM... nono

So nope. Not tryin' to hear it... MJ's sales numbers are 2nd to none, but that can't be part of that equation.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
[So why didn't that genius translate into record sales?


How about the fact that MJ had about a 15 year head start??

How about the fact that he came from one of the most popular groups of all time??

Prince established himself as a major artist... by himself!!

You of all people should know that sales are not driven by talent - they are driven by marketing. Especially now. If they were driven by talent, Roberta Flack would be one of the greatest selling artists in history... Earth, Wind & Fire would be Kazillionares... Stevie Wonder and Donnie Hathaway would have Bill Gates money... Fertile Ground would outsell the Beatles... I could go on, but I think the point has been made.

Talent and records sales have no correlation.
Let's just cut to the chase; we're talking about two androgynous and extremely talented "brothers" who are two distinct sides of the same damn coin.

It's like people in clubs who hates or likes either rap music or techno music, despite the fact they like dancing to both forms of music.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

So why didn't that genius translate into record sales?



You're asking that question of a guy who thinks Jill Scott is more talented than, say, Mary J. Blige. And that Talib Kweli is more talented than 50 Cent. And hold up... I'm not new to you... I know damn well that u agree with me on those artists, as well, Mr. MBM... nono

So nope. Not tryin' to hear it... MJ's sales numbers are 2nd to none, but that can't be part of that equation.


For the sake of argument, could it just be that you particular tastes are not in line with those of the rest of America/the world? Obviously people vote with their dollars. If most have overwhelmingly voted for MJ, then what does that say?
quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:

You of all people should know that sales are not driven by talent - they are driven by marketing.


If that were entirely the case then groups like The Monkees, Milli Vanilli, B2K, Backstreet Boys etc. would still be kicking it.

Marketing dollars follow talent. When there ain't no talent, there won't be no marketing. Again, all the marketing in the world couldn't make me into a pop idol.

Don't you think people see through Ashlee Simpson? They certainly did at the Super Bowl! lol

BTW - if your hypothesis were true, then Da Band would be on top of the Hip Hop world.

In business every investment is designed to make money. Marketing dollars will not be invested in anything that it is not believed will deliver a return. Sure, marketing can enhance someone's luster, but at least in music - IMHO - it can't absolutely make you. Even Janet looks the part and can dance! cabbage Reebie, on the other hand, can't do either, and therefore she's at home sullking. Smile


quote:
Especially now. If they were driven by talent, Roberta Flack would be one of the greatest selling artists in history.


While I may agree with you - our tastes are not the mainstream's tastes.

quote:
... Earth, Wind & Fire would be Kazillionares... Stevie Wonder and Donnie Hathaway would have Bill Gates money... Fertile Ground would outsell the Beatles... I could go on, but I think the point has been made.


The point that I think you've made is that YOUR particular perception of talent (which I wholeheartedly agree with) is not aligned with the rest of the world's. That's cool though for me. I'm not trying to hang with folks from Jerry Springer. Wink

quote:
Talent and records sales have no correlation.


In YOUR judgement!

BTW - Purple Rain sold 12 million domestic records. Don't you think that there was all of the marketing in the world behind Prince going forward from that? PR made LOTS of people very rich. The one thing you can guarantee about folks is that if they made some from someone once - they'd be more than down to try to do it again. It never happened. It never even came close.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:


For the sake of argument, could it just be that you particular tastes are not in line with those of the rest of America/the world? Obviously people vote with their dollars. If most have overwhelmingly voted for MJ, then what does that say?


No doubt about your first question. My tastes are not in line with other people's tastes. But I think there's "taste" on one hand, and "talent" on the other. In music, crafting a popular tune and creating a brilliant work of art are often two different things.

And before you accuse me (and us, 'cause I know we have similar tastes) of being a chauvinist, I notice that I'm objective enough to know that sometimes my "tastes" lead me to like songs that I "know" actually aren't very good. I like "1 2 Step" by Ciara, even though I "know" better. I "know" that "Rock Me Amadeus," a joke pop song from the 80s, was no kind of work of art, but that has never stopped me from liking it. And I'm sure there are musical geniuses whose music I can't get into.

A lot else goes into sales figures other than just musical talent. Marketing matters. Pop craftsmanship in itself involves marketing principles. The whole structure of a standard pop hit is the result of market-oriented principles. Somebody realized that Verse/chorus/verse-with-a-li'l-extra-oomph/chorus-with-a-little-extra/bridge/chorus/chorus was, for some reason, the formula most likely to result in a hit record. Do you think there's something artistically "better" about that formula that some other one?
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
If that were entirely the case then groups like The Monkees, Milli Vanilli, B2K, Backstreet Boys etc. would still be kicking it. Marketing dollars follow talent. When there ain't no talent, there won't be no marketing. Again, all the marketing in the world couldn't make me into a pop idol...
All the groups you have mentioned self destructed... They all had some internal conflict that caused them to break up. Had MV not been exposed as frauds, they might still be kickin' it - with no talent.

quote:


BTW - if your hypothesis were true, then Da Band would be on top of the Hip Hop world.
Again, another group that imploded. Puffy was trying to prove a point... the point that you do not have to have talent to make it in the industry - Da Band would have made if they weren't fighting each other constantly.

quote:
In business every investment is designed to make money. Marketing dollars will not be invested in anything that it is not believed will deliver a return. Sure, marketing can enhance someone's luster, but at least in music - IMHO - it can't absolutely make you...
Again, Milli Vanilli had no talent... yet, they were the biggest thing since sliced bread - because of marketing!!!
quote:
Even Janet looks the part and can dance! cabbage Reebie, on the other hand, can't do either, and therefore she's at home sullking. Smile
Janet is NOT marketed as a DANCER, she is marketed as a SINGER. You said yourself that she couldn't sing
    "...Janet CAN'T sing, but because she's FOINE and puts on a great show, she has been a very entertaining performer. The entire package is entertaining..."


The music industry is based on singing. Whomever puts money behind Janet KNOWS that she cannot sing, has no singing talent - yet they still put money behind her.

quote:
BTW - Purple Rain sold 12 million domestic records. Don't you think that there was all of the marketing in the world behind Prince going forward from that? PR made LOTS of people very rich. The one thing you can guarantee about folks is that if they made some from someone once - they'd be more than down to try to do it again. It never happened. It never even came close.
The music industry is not some ubiquitous monolith that plucks talent from a pool, and then makes them famous. The decision to spend marketing dollars is based upon a lot of ass kissing, ego stroking and couch casting - not any standard formula.

Prince has been fighting with his rec.co. since day one, and they chose not to market him the way that he undoubtedly deserved, why? because they knew that his talent was such that they could make money from him w/o spending it. They also knew they could make another prince type, market him a little, and still make money. Unfortunately, he signed a deal back in the day that prevented him from getting out from under them until recently - otherwise he could have had been much bigger, sooner.
And you know, not that I really credit sales all that much in assessing true talent, but AG raises a great point that I want to build on. How many artists -- honestly, how many PEOPLE -- succeed to the astonishing level he reached, as totally on his own as Prince did? Also, consider that he did it all with one of the strangest, most bizarre personas that we had seen up until that time? He did whatever the hell he wanted to do, really, and was incredibly successful. Even if we look at it in terms of popularity, I can name no one in history who has truly managed to do that and attain the level of popularity he did.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

How many artists -- honestly, how many PEOPLE -- succeed to the astonishing level he reached, as totally on his own as Prince did?


What does "on his own" mean? Who do you think distributed his records? Who do you think produced Purple Rain? All of that was "by himself"?

quote:
He did whatever the hell he wanted to do, really, and was incredibly successful. Even if we look at it in terms of popularity, I can name no one in history who has truly managed to do that and attain the level of popularity he did.


How about Elvis Presley?

All of the above said, he still couldn't hold Mike's jock. nono
No, I mean writing, producing, Paisley Park, adhering to his creative vision, and not starting out with a hugely popular group. Creatively, he was as much his own man as any major star ever has been. Elvis??? Borrower extraordinaire? Now I know u're playing devil's advocate. lol BTW, What was the name of the black woman who originally recorded "Hound Dog?"

I think we can all agree, though, that we can vibe all day listening to the best cuts of both artists... I just may go ahead and put a playlist together. Lessee... track 1, Rock With You; track 2, Kiss; track 3, Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough, track 4... cabbage
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
...Who do you think produced Purple Rain?
PRINCE.
quote:
All of the above said, he still couldn't hold Mike's jock. nono
What about all the groups that Prince produced? The Time,(indirectly Jimmy & Terry - who produced Janet) Vanity 6, Apollonia, Jesse Johnson??

Q:How many did MJ produce? A: None.

As I stated before MJ relied heavily on Quincy to produce his 2 greatest albums - Prince produced all of his own music.
Listen, as you will recall, I started this thread supporting Prince over Michael - but y'all are trippin' if you're trying to infer that MJ is somehow not talented and merely a function of marketing. What did Prince create really? (BTW - some would say that the hallmark of his music - which is a synthetic, computer-driven sound - is NOT necessarily an advancement of any kind.) In his music and dance he straight copied from the likes of James Brown as well as others from 'the day'. Ever see Prince wobble across stage? He's doing his damndest to do James Brown. Still. nono

Mike, on the other hand, CREATED a whole new way of moving on stage. Do you see Usher now? There would be no Usher w/out Mike. His whole game is a front - copying Mike's moves. Ever heard of the moon walk? Not that it is necessarily the most important discovery of the 20th century, but ain't no one ever thought a dat chit before MJ. Besides that, who dances better than him? Who?

Most importantly, who has the better/purer voice? Are you trying to tell me that Prince wit dat falsetto/gravelly whining voice can really sing? You think he can sing better than MJ? WHAT? Eek ek

OK - Prince can play a couple of instruments. BIG DEAL. He should have joined the symphony then! bsm

Y'all need to stay off dat pipe!! tongue cabbage
Another feather in MJ's cap is the fact that besides his sister (Janet); name another artist that dances BETTER then any of the back updancers in their videos..?

When you see Michael and/or Jenet in one of their videos, they are the best dancers on the screen...

I cannot think of anyone else that can make that claim..
I'm not sayin' MJ has no talent. I think he has a tremendous amount of talent. I just think that when you add it all up, Prince is the more talented of the two.

I'll say this for MJ: he's talented enough to still be able to sing well after all those nose jobs and the way they can alter the timbre of a singer's voice.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

I'm not sayin' MJ has no talent. I think he has a tremendous amount of talent. I just think that when you add it all up, Prince is the more talented of the two.


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?
Where AudioGuy & I differ is that he says that musicians are more talented if they play instruments and sing than ones who just sing. I don't agree with that, because it seems to me that this would mean that Alicia Keys is more talented than Aretha Franklin. I don't even agree that you're more talented if you write and sing than someone who just sings (Alicia Keys vs., say, Chaka Khan). But if you are an amazing overall creator and overall performer, you're overall more talented than an amazing performer.

What do u think about this formula for judging musical talent, between artists whose music fall under the same or similar genres: Prince could create music that MJ could not have. But MJ never made a song that Prince couldn't have made. If MJ had come out with "When Doves Cry," everybody would have been shocked at the strikingly innovative direction he had gone in (plus it would've sold 50 million copies). Name one MJ song which, if Prince had come up with it instead, would have caught people similarly off guard. Are u willing to say that Prince could never have come up with a bangin' "Liberian Girl?" "Rock With You?" "Billie Jean?"
quote:
Originally posted by blaqfist:
It's a push if you ask me..
Lost in the shuffle of this debate is the fact MJ can literally "blow"...!

If you don't beleive me go back and listen to "Lady In My life". It's on the Thriller Album..



tfro "Lady In My Life..." tfro
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

What do u think about this formula for judging musical talent, between artists whose music fall under the same or similar genres: Prince could create music that MJ could not have. But MJ never made a song that Prince couldn't have made.


I'm not sure I understand it as a "formula for judging talent". They are very different people and artists. If it has integrity, music springs forth from who that artist is. I don't think that Prince could have executed many of the songs that Michael made mega-hits. I can't see Prince singing "Thriller" or "Billie Jean" for example. Beyond that, I don't think that the Jackson 5 would have been the hugely popular group that they were with Prince leading it. Not that Prince isn't talented etc., just that I can't see him pulling it off like Mike did.

quote:
If MJ had come out with "When Doves Cry," everybody would have been shocked at the strikingly innovative direction he had gone in (plus it would've sold 50 million copies).


Two interesting points here: 1) what is "strikingly innovative" about WDC? When I think "strikingly innovative" I think Charlie Parker or Jimmi Hendrix or John Coltrane. I'm not saying it isn't, but I'm interested in your interpretation here. 2) Inherent in your statement seems to be an admission that Jackson could "do it better" than Prince. Based on the debate here, I'm wondering what you think is behind the contention that MJ would sell more of Prince's songs than Prince could.

quote:
Name one MJ song which, if Prince had come up with it instead, would have caught people similarly off guard.


In your mind, how does "catching someone off guard" equate with talent or great music?

quote:
Are u willing to say that Prince could never have come up with a bangin' "Liberian Girl?" "Rock With You?" "Billie Jean?"


Well, he didn't. Are you suggesting that Prince never intended to sell as many records as possible? Do you think he preferred to be a more limited commercial success? Perhaps so, but most artists with integrity - I would guess - create from the heart, and then hope that everyone else sees their work as brilliant and buys it. I don't think that they create with the objective of limiting their work's popularity. What do you think?
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Listen, as you will recall, I started this thread supporting Prince over Michael - but y'all are trippin' if you're trying to infer that MJ is somehow not talented and merely a function of marketing...
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! (Without Q, where would Mike have been?). He bacame a star as a result of those efforts. He subsequently, wrote, produced and arranged the rest of his albums. Mike did none of those things - to ME, what Prince did takes a great deal more talent to accomplish.
quote:
...Mike, on the other hand, CREATED a whole new way of moving on stage...
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"? To say that Mike CREATED does a serious disservice to all those do-wop groups that were creating and inventing way before Mike was born. Just because he popularized something doesn't mean he created it.
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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

quote:
When I think "strikingly innovative" I think Charlie Parker or Jimmi Hendrix or John Coltrane.



And interestingly, they never sold as much as Michael Jackson. I guess they weren't as talented... Wink


Vox, sir, that's YOUR point, not mine. I never said anything about innovation and talent. Smile
quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:

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


AG - I've been thinking about this. You may have it exactly backward. Without MIKE where would Q be? Would he be just another talented, but undermarketed jazz musician/producer? Probably so. I think the fact that Michael was a STAR before he even met Q, and the fact that Q never came even remotely close to replicating his success with Michael with any other artist suggests that Michael had more to do with their success than Q.

BTW - Quincty's website lists the following musicians/groups that he worked with: Michael Jackson, 98˚, Tevin Campbell, K-Ci & Jo Jo, George Benson, Ivan Lins, S.W.V., Vanessa Williams, Patti Austin, The Manhattan Transfer, James Ingram, Barry White and Ray Charles.

Any of those come anywhere near MJ? If Q was so talented why isn't Tevin Campbell MJ? He can sing better than MJ. He can dance. So what he's 4'2"? lol

I'm pretty sure that MJ did more for Q than vice versa. How many of those artists do you think he got because he worked with MJ? Can you imagine if Jimmy Jam and Terry L. got Mike from the jump? ek
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
AG - I've been thinking about this. You may have it exactly backward. Without MIKE where would Q be? Would he be just another talented, but undermarketed jazz musician/producer? Probably so...
Are you telling me that you never heard of Q before he produced MJ??? The reason that Q was chosen to produce MJ in the first place was because of his enormous body of work. No one else could have produced MJ and made him into the superstar that he is/was besides Q. As I have stated before, MJ did not come close to having the sales that he had with Q, on his post Q albums - he was still making money from "Thriller" when "Awful", I mean, "Bad" came out.

quote:
BTW - Quincty's website lists the following musicians/groups that he worked with: Michael Jackson, 98˚, Tevin Campbell...

Any of those come anywhere near MJ? If Q was so talented why isn't Tevin Campbell MJ? He can sing better than MJ. He can dance. So what he's 4'2"? lol
You neglected to mention that he has done numerous movie soundtracks, numerous tv show themes, he has worked with Miles, Dizzy, Train, Monk... just about anybody who is anybody in music, across all genres... (He produced "We Are the World") Has his own tv production co. which produced the hugely successful "The fresh Prince of Belair" among others... He did not need MJ, MJ needed him.

Again, Tevin self destructed.

quote:
I'm pretty sure that MJ did more for Q than vice versa. How many of those artists do you think he got because he worked with MJ? Can you imagine if Jimmy Jam and Terry L. got Mike from the jump? ek
Me don' tink so... nono
quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:

Are you telling me that you never heard of Q before he produced MJ???


Sure - but I've heard of a lot of people. That has nothing to do with the question. tongue

quote:
The reason that Q was chosen to produce MJ in the first place was because of his enormous body of work.


Well - as you know - "enormous" has nothing to do with quality.

quote:
No one else could have produced MJ and made him into the superstar that he is/was besides Q.


My brother - Nancy Reagan said it best: "JUST SAY NO"!!! You better lay off that pipe before it makes permanent damage. ek

quote:
As I have stated before, MJ did not come close to having the sales that he had with Q, on his post Q albums - he was still making money from "Thriller" when "Awful", I mean, "Bad" came out.


So what? If Q was really that talented he could have replicated his talent elsewhere. He did not - not even remotely close. So what are we to believe about his talent? Confused

BTW - your two arguments are converging here. You believe that marketing is the most important thing to an artists' commerical success. You also believe that Q's producing and arranging skills are what "made" Michael. If artist talent is so unimportant and if Q is so good - why wouldn't record companies have invested the marketing to make ANYBODY Q worked with into mega-stars? If:

Q + Marketing = Mega Star

then why didn't that equation work for ANYBODY else? Confused


quote:
You neglected to mention that he has done numerous movie soundtracks, numerous tv show themes, he has worked with Miles, Dizzy, Train, Monk...


So what? What does that have to do with this argument? And btw - "working with" someone doesn't mean jack. You know how many people can say that they "worked with someone"? bsm And btw - Q's own websites do not list the credits that you site for him here.

quote:
just about anybody who is anybody in music, across all genres...


Again - HIS website suggests otherwise.

quote:
(He produced "We Are the World")


ek ek ek Well, with that point, I'm sold!! lol
We will never agree...

quote:
From MBM:
...And btw - Q's own websites do not list the credits that you site for him here.


Do you list your high school on your resume? Just because they were not listed on a website, doesn't mean that he did not produce them.

quote:
From MBM:
quote:
From AG:
(He produced "We Are the World")



Well, with that point, I'm sold!!


Up until "Candle in the wind" by Elton John(1997), "W.A.T.W." was the largest selling single in history.

BTW, "Thriller" sold 25 million copies (with Q), "Bad" sold 8 million (w/o Q)... Same "talented" artist on both albums - different producer.
quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:

Up until "Candle in the wind" by Elton John(1997), "W.A.T.W." was the largest selling single in history.


AG - with all of the talent on that cut, even I could have produced that song and sold millions. cabbage
quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
AG - with all of the talent on that cut, even I could have produced that song and sold millions. cabbage


Somehow I doubt that... Razz


AG - I lead a software company. I knew not one thing about how to create the product that my company produced.

I could have made millions with all of that talent! It's all about management. (BTW - so could you!) $$
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
AG - I lead a software company. I knew not one thing about how to create the product that my company produced.

I could have made millions with all of that talent! It's all about management. (BTW - so could you!) $$


Where's Nancy R. when you need her...
OK - I can't let this thread die!!! lol

So, let's concede the fact that Prince is a more talented musician, writer, composer, arranger etc. We can also throw in that he has FAR better taste in 'love interests'. ek All that said, who was/is the better PERFORMER? Now I'm sure we could have a pages long debate about what the word "performer" means, but I am using it in the most common way - who put on the best show, who can sing/dance/perform better? Who has better stage presence? Who 'moves the crowd' better? Etc.

Michael or Prince?
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
OK - I can't let this thread die!!! lol

So, let's concede the fact that Prince is a more talented musician, writer, composer, arranger etc. We can also throw in that he has FAR better taste in 'love interests'. ek All that said, who was/is the better PERFORMER? Now I'm sure we could have a pages long debate about what the word "performer" means, but I am using it in the most common way - who put on the best show, who can sing/dance/perform better? Who has better stage presence? Who 'moves the crowd' better? Etc.

Michael or Prince?
Let it go man!!! Let it gooooooooo!!!

If you include their most recent tours, Prince... If not, MJ...

*fuel for the fire* Did I mention that Quincy J. also produced several albums for the greatest white crooner-icon there ever was... Frank Sinatra? Who was notorious for eating producers alive?
Better artist?

Prince....

Better performer?

Michael.....


Weirdest then?

Prince....

Weirdest now?

Michael......

Better choice of ladies?

Prince.....

Look like a lady?

Michael.....

Who do I still jam too?

Prince....

Who I wish could put out better jams?

Michael....

bsm



Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
Better artist?

Prince....

Better performer?

Michael.....


Weirdest then?

Prince....

Weirdest now?

Michael......

Better choice of ladies?

Prince.....

Look like a lady?

Michael.....

Who do I still jam too?

Prince....

Who I wish could put out better jams?

Michael....

bsm



Peace,
Virtue



yeah
The first time I heard MJ, he was singing things like ABC. The first time I heard Prince, I was visiting a friend and had to get up on the floor and get my groove on to "Soft n Wet". Michael is an entertainer and more enjoyable to watch than to listen to - well, at least he used to be when he was Black.

Prince, on the other hand sings "grown up" songs and does not give a dayum about the commercialism. Michael may have MADE more money, but I have a feeling that Prince HAS more money.

Prince all the way for me! music
I must admit that I never watch American Idol, so I don't know what the commercialism factor is. I do recall, however, when Prince had his tiff with Warner Brothers and sold his material exclusively on his website - knowing that he would not make as much money without a record company behind him.
I grew up on the J5, but came of age with Prince. I was a BIG Prince fan! (I still have my 1999 concert t-shirt!)

I never thought there was a rivalry. Each did his own thing. Each had his share of copy cat artists. (Even Rick James wanted to be Prince. Remember Process and the Do Rags and The Mary Jane Girls? And if his Glow video wasn't a four-minute bootleg version of Purple Rain, I don't what was.

Back in the day folks thought Prince was a weirdo, a freak. Nowadays some folks use the same words to describe MJ.

Anyway, my all-time personal favorite is Prince.
Have you heard that Prince has recently divorced his wife...and she was fine too.

I guess Salma Hayek must've split them up. A friend of mine emailed this quote from Prince when his current video which was directed by Salma herself:

'"Salma heard the song and came up with the original concept," Prince said. "Salma is the most thoughtful, attentive director I have ever worked with. An absolute joy."'

Hmm, methinks Salma and His Purpleness have sweated up some bedsheets. bow
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:

'"Salma heard the song and came up with the original concept," Prince said. "Salma is the most thoughtful, attentive director I have ever worked with. An absolute joy."'

Hmm, methinks Salma and His Purpleness have sweated up some bedsheets. bow


Ain't Salma too old for Prince? Wink You know, I can picture him trying to get next to the lead PussyCat Doll, Nicole. She looks like his type.

quote:
Originally posted by Santana St. Cloud:
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:

'"Salma heard the song and came up with the original concept," Prince said. "Salma is the most thoughtful, attentive director I have ever worked with. An absolute joy."'

Hmm, methinks Salma and His Purpleness have sweated up some bedsheets. bow


Ain't Salma too old for Prince? Wink You know, I can picture him trying to get next to the lead PussyCat Doll, Nicole. She looks like his type.



She looks like my type, too..."The Fine As HELL" type.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Listen, as you will recall, I started this thread supporting Prince over Michael - but y'all are trippin' if you're trying to infer that MJ is somehow not talented and merely a function of marketing. What did Prince create really? (BTW - some would say that the hallmark of his music - which is a synthetic, computer-driven sound - is NOT necessarily an advancement of any kind.) In his music and dance he straight copied from the likes of James Brown as well as others from 'the day'. Ever see Prince wobble across stage? He's doing his damndest to do James Brown. Still. nono

Mike, on the other hand, CREATED a whole new way of moving on stage. Do you see Usher now? There would be no Usher w/out Mike. His whole game is a front - copying Mike's moves. Ever heard of the moon walk? Not that it is necessarily the most important discovery of the 20th century, but ain't no one ever thought a dat chit before MJ. Besides that, who dances better than him? Who?

Most importantly, who has the better/purer voice? Are you trying to tell me that Prince wit dat falsetto/gravelly whining voice can really sing? You think he can sing better than MJ? WHAT? Eek ek

OK - Prince can play a couple of instruments. BIG DEAL. He should have joined the symphony then! bsm

Y'all need to stay off dat pipe!! tongue cabbage


You certainly don't have to stop at Usher as far as those who've copped MJ's moves. How about Justin Timberlake, Omarion and Chris Brown? They may have added their own twists to it, but they are all heavily influenced by MJ's dancing.
I remember the Prince vs Michael hype... I remember when Prince won his first award at the Minnesota Music Awards; he said, "The reason I said I don't care to win awards in DMSR was because I wasn't up for any". lol

I remember back then that Farrakhan told Black women they shouldn't listen to Prince because he was making them "fall in love with themselves". Meanwhile, he heaped praise on Michael.

Although I never met Michael, I actually met a much different person than what people see in the media, when I've spoken to Prince. I do wonder though, what do they talk about between themselves, and how they deal with these kinds of divisions.

Michael garnered the ire of those in power, when he began to use his money to support "bad negroes". I wonder if the same will happen with Prince, as he grows more politically conscious?
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident:
I miss the old Michael Jackson



Trust me, Dissident. ALL of us miss the old Michael Jackson. A friend of mine once said that if he died after winning Grammies for "Thriller," he would've been an iconic posthumous legend like James Dean or Elvis.
Micheal Jackson is horribly over rated. Prince on the other hand is an artist. He writes, pruduces and plays music. Micheal sings others songs.
Plus his songs are dumb, I'm "Bad" , what is that, "Beat It" more garbage not to mention Micheal is a nigger and a disgrace to the race.
quote:
Originally posted by Afro Saxon:
Micheal Jackson is horribly over rated. Prince on the other hand is an artist. He writes, pruduces and plays music. Micheal sings others songs.
Plus his songs are dumb, I'm "Bad" , what is that, "Beat It" more garbage not to mention Micheal is a nigger and a disgrace to the race.


I guess Prince was originally supposed to play Wesley Snipes' role in the "Bad" video. He declined because the first line of the song is "Your butt is mine..." and he said, "Mike wasn't singin' that to me... and I definately wasn't singin' that to him".
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:

Trust me, Dissident. ALL of us miss the old Michael Jackson. A friend of mine once said that if he died after winning Grammies for "Thriller," he would've been an iconic posthumous legend like James Dean or Elvis.


I hear ya, Huey. Thriller was the beginning of the end for Michael. If Michael's style and lyrics could have remained similar to his Off The Wall album for a few more years he just could have been that iconic figure most thought he was going to be. I was disappointed with Thriller. It was too pop tart for my taste. I knew at that time this was the route Michael was going to take. And the Bad album. Yeah, it was bad alright. So bad I didn't bother buying that garbage. This was about the time I began to dislike Michael. I wish I knew what happened to this guy.
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident:
Thriller was the beginning of the end for Michael.


MJ jumped the shark! Razz

As I mentioned upthread, I was a huge Prince fan. But, my fandom began to wain when "Purple Rain" came out. I got on the bangwagon (okay, maybe the bandwagon was half-full) c. 1977/78 but by the time PR blew up, everybody was trying to "take a bite of [Prince's] purple rock."
One thing's for sure: If you put them alone in separate studios, each studio having the exact same instruments and equipment, and require each of them to write, perform, and produce his own songs, Prince would come out with much better and much more interesting music.

Hmmm might as well continue the debate...I don't got anything else to do at this hour.

 

The Idea that Michael Jackson didn't produce and arrange his music needs to stop.

 

Michael Jackson Co-Produced all his solo albums, did all of the background singing and vocal arrangements etc. He wrote all but 2 songs on Bad.

 

Michael Jackson almost wrote all his hit songs.

 

He wrote Don't Stop Til You Get Enough, Billie Jean, Beat it, Bad, Smooth Criminal, Dirty Diana,Can't Stop Lovin' U, The Way You Make Me Feel, Black and White, Remember The Time and Scream.

 

Michael Jackson also had better music videos and had input in those.

 

Michael Jackson also is the better performer, dancer, and singer.

 

Michael Jackson didn't play any instruments.

 

Prince produced and wrote all his albums and even played all of the instruments on some of them. Prince was also extremely pop but had adult subject matter. Michael Jackson was kid friendly.

 

I think overall, Michael Jackson has the better music, but Prince is the better auteur, Michael Jackson was going for Pop sensibilities all the way. He didn't inject his personality or thought into his music but he injected feelings.

 

Prince major commercial success ended after Signs of the Times. Michael major commercial success ended after HIStory. Both had small revivals in the early 2000s. 

 

Prince albums had a lot of hit and miss. Michael's albums were very lean and efficient.

 

I side with MIchael overall but it is close, Michael had a better peak from Off the Wall to Dangerous and I feel like Prince fizzled out too early for me. Both are among over the biggest African American music artists ever.

Originally Posted by ForeverMan:

I side with MIchael overall but it is close, Michael had a better peak from Off the Wall to Dangerous and I feel like Prince fizzled out too early for me. Both are among over the biggest African American music artists ever.

 I am partial to MJ too, but both were some of the biggest artists of the 20th century hands down.

Michael's gone permanently and it's a loss never to return.  Prince is still here to please his followers. If he were to go permanently, it would be a loss never to return.  Enjoy whoever you like while they're here.  I miss Luther, Isaac, Barry, Lou, Miles, Ray, Nat, Billy Eckstein, Billy Daniels, Charlie Parker, Sarah, Ella, Marvin, The Temptations, the list goes on and on and on.  Once they're gone, there's a void that will never be replaced. For us no one entertains like our entertainers.  It's not who's the best, they all brought something SPECIAL to the African in America's table and to our eyes and ears and to our souls; it's all about the sounds they gave that we'll NEVER HEAR EVER AGAIN and the visual performances we'll NEVER SEE AGAIN. Think about this for awhile and it could make tears come to your eyes.

Prince does not perform like he used to due to a hip replacement….

 

that said…. Prince will never perform like he used to, what used to be (in terms of live performances) is gone permanently, too.  

 

Although I'm not a fan of all things Prince, I look forward to any new music he puts out there.

 

Michael's legacy lives on also…..

 

I'm happy to say I can still enjoy Michael Jackson's music & performances via video or audio whenever I want to. 

 

Michael Jackson has previously unreleased music that is currently being released to the public (with the musical help/vocals of other artists)….

 

So, in that sense, Michael Jackson returns (much like Tupac) via his previously unreleased music.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG08ukJPtR8

 

Michael Jackson, Justin Timberlake - Love Never Felt So Good

 

 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post
×
×
×
×