candy2277 said:

What do you mean by real artist ?

krayzie said:

I think they mean someone who plays thousands of instruments and writes their own material every track, but who knows.

krayzie said:

i agree, that why when people stress over his coming album i think the only competition he has is himself

MJ is by far. doesnt make him any worse or better than Prince

I just watched MJ and Britney Spears on Youtube singing 'the way you make me feel'. MJ just gave me the creeps and I won't even comment on Britney (eww). Then I decided to watch Prince and Beyonce at the 2004 grammy. No contest...but I digress. I loved MJ in his hey day but I loved still love Prince ten times more. I lot of the younger set do try to imitate MJ too much,but Prince only really gets those trying to imitate his beats not his music cause they know better. Nobody can touch him!!! His influence is transparent i.e. net music, owning your masters, writing and producing your own music, owning your studio and record label,using real musicians, developing 'side' projects, etc. I remember reading somewhere that managers would take their artist to see Prince perform live to show them how its done. And he's still teaching!!!

ejnbmore said:

I agree about net music but the others have been dobe decades before Prince was performing.

ejnbmore said:

So, you agree that Beyonce MADE the performance that happened at Grammies? She really was the one who cause the media attention the talk around the water coolers the next day. To even put Britney and Beyonce in the same sentence is an insult to Beyonce. Just think of how great Beyonce and Michael would have been and then compare that to if Prince and Britney had performed. I have always respected Prince's artistry and talent;however, his influence has never been as widespread or prevalent as Michael's. Prince doesn't have the influence of James Brown; although, his stage presence is influenced by the Godfather or Soul. As far as owning his own masters, that was done WAY before Prince did it. Michael always used REAL musicians when recording his albums. Other artists have done the same thing before Prince, so that's nothing new. Many artists have owned their own recording studio. Prince was not the first to do that. Finally, almost every artist in pop, r&b and hip-hop uses Michael as the model for how IT(vocals,production, melody,rhythms,videos,promotion,etc.) should be done. Michael is still the barometer of what every artist wants to achieve i the music industry,despite the things that have happened in his personal life. Michael Jackson's influence is undeniable.

I don't think either one of them have too much influence these days because they both look the part of a gay man which is the furthest thing that these little thugs these days would imitate.

I see Michael's influence these days a lot more than Prince's though. However, it is strictly from the dancing and not the music. Michael made it big in music videos with all those damn choreographed Broadway looking dancers. A lot of the artists these days have a whole stage full of choreographed dancers. However, their reasons are totally different than Michael's. They need them to fill up the stage from where instruments used to be back in the day. They would look kinda funny standing all alone on a huge ass stage with nothing else.

I saw a little of Prince's musical influence in the 1990s with folks like D'Angelo. However, it was all influenced from slow songs like "Adore". Hell, Prince's albums were mostly uptempo with either funk and rock. Prince had a slow jam or two on his albums but Prince could throwdown. Those that say they were influenced by Prince must have listened to nothing but particular slow songs over and over.

Both of their influences have lasted a little but not in great ways because these dull asses refuse to imitate their uptempo stuff.
.
.
[Edited 6/22/07 19:44pm]

LittleBLUECorvette said:

Well,I guess that means that Elvis was not a REAL artist because he didn't write a single note that he sang.At least,that's the rationale of some people on this org.There is no denying that Prince is a real artist; however,there is no denying that Michael Jackson is a real artist, also.I will never forget how Leonard Bernstein, a real musician/composer/conducter said that Michael was a creative genius.During an interview with Donny Simpson years ago on BET, Quincy Jones, a real musician/composer/producer,said that Michael was the most talented artist/musician that he had ever worked with. He said that Michael came up with rhythmns, melodies, "sounds" that he had never heard anyone compose. What I am saying is that all REAL artists don't have to fit into the same category as Prince.

Graycap23 said:

like I am laughing in YOUR face right now??

What I said was pretty much quotes from PROFFESIONAL musicians

skyecute said:

Womp womp womp....

Just the same people talking s*it about Michael as usual and as always they can't back up their claims about him not being a "real" artist. I don't see how anyone can say that MJ is not a real artist just because he doesn't play 50 million instruments like Prince does. Some of you on here act like music begins and ends with Prince and that anyone who doesn't play every instrument and doesn't write all their songs isn't talented which is just absurd.

Also you CANNOT compare Michael Jackson to Prince. I don't understand why people continue to do this. Prince is a musician, Michael isn't. That's not what he does. Compare Prince to other musicians like Stevie Wonder, Jimi Hendrix, etc. don't compare him to MJ because they are two TOTALLY different artists. Anyway this MJ vs. Prince thing is BEYOND old and tired. That subject has really run it's course.

skyecute said:

Totally agree. Jimmy Jam said the same thing years ago in this article:

Jimmy Jam helps Jackson tell 'HIStory' his way

Star Tribune
June 18th, 1995

Twin Cities producer-songwriter Jimmy Jam was partying with scores of recording-studio types at Michael Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch to celebrate the completion of the megastar's long-awaited new album. Jam's pager beeped, but he ignored it so he could keep riding the carnival rides. Then his cellular phone rang, and he answered it.

It was Janet Jackson. She was calling from Europe. Somehow, the wrong mix of her duet with Michael had ended up on the master copy of the album. "Excuse me," Jam said to his fellow partygoers, "but I have to head back to the studio."

The Grammy-winning producer recalled the episode the other day. "We went in and tweaked her vocals, and we ended up putting in some hand claps," he said. "Since Janet was overseas, they sent her a tape and a tape player to play it on." Such is life in Michael Jackson's creative world.

Of course, the extra effort paid off. "Scream," the first duet featuring superstars Janet and Michael, has been heard around the world. As is often the case with Michael, "Scream" set a record. It entered Billboard's Hot 100 this month at No. 5, the highest debut for a single since the Beatles' "Let It Be" at No. 6 in 1970.

"Scream" is the prelude to "HIStory: Past, Present & Future - Book 1," a 2 1/2-hour, 30-song set divided between hits and new tunes, which arrives in stores Tuesday. As with all Jackson albums, Epic Records is banking on a blockbuster. It's predicting $500 million in sales of "HIStory," which has a list price of $32.98 for the CD set. Epic reportedly is spending $30 million to promote the project - the first album in four years by the biggest-selling pop artist ever.

Working overtime

The Grammy-winning team of Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis was invited to New York last October to record "Scream" with the two Jacksons. The Minnesotans were told it would take three days. Jam and Lewis ended up spending six months on the Jackson project, writing and producing 3 1/2 of the 15 new songs on Michael's album.

"It ruined our year," the 36-year-old Jam said the other day. Not that he is complaining about wrinkles in his schedule. Michael Jackson's people met Jam and Lewis' fee, which is among the highest in the business.

Although Jam had met Michael Jackson a couple of times before ( including over dinner in 1988 ), he went into the project with no expectations. "The thing that was the most surprising was how spontaneous he was and also how prolific he was," Jam said.

"Because of not knowing him and having worked with Prince in the past, I always thought of Prince as the most prolific person because he would come up with songs a mile a minute. I always thought Michael was very meticulous, and he'd come up with one song a month. It's really not true. Michael's kind of a weird blend of spontaneous and meticulous. He came up with so many song ideas as we would just sit and talk."

The difference, Jam said, is that Prince can play several instruments so he can record his ideas right away, whereas Jackson is a collaborator who bounces his ideas off others. "And then he goes over the idea with a fine-tooth comb to make sure it's absolutely the best idea it can be."

History of HIStory

"HIStory" has been in the works for more than two years. Originally it was to have been released for Christmas 1993 with three new songs, then for Christmas 1994. Jam recalled one point last year when the album was going to feature 23 hits and only seven new songs.

"Michael talked about what he calls 'keeping the promise.' He realized that there was going to be a lot of hype around the record," Jam said. "The thing he wanted to do was not disappoint the fans. He never really talked about numbers, as far as how many he wanted to sell. He talked about how he wanted to do the best album he could do. I found that he's very much into the art, much more than the commercial. He's aware of the marketing and all of that, but the two didn't ever really come together. The music dictated everything to him."

Jam and Lewis were involved with three pivotal tunes on "HIStory": "Scream," the title song and "Tabloid Junkie," which addresses some of the outrageous media coverage the 36-year-old King of Pop has received. The Twin Cities producers were invited to join the project because Jackson loved "Rhythm Nation 1814," the 1989 album they'd made with Janet Jackson, and she'd put in a good word for them, according to Jam.

Michael's people had inquired about Jam and Lewis working on his "Dangerous" album, which came out in 1991, but they were already working on "janet" at the time. When Michael's reps called again last year, Jam and Lewis were standoffish until they heard Janet would be involved.

Janet had come up with the title "Scream," for which Jam and Lewis were asked to write uptempo, aggressive music. They arrived at the Hit Factory in New York City with seven rhythm tracks. Michael picked out his favorite track, and the next day the foursome met at his apartment in Trump Tower. Michael came up with a melody, and he and Janet worked on lyrics separately, with Lewis acting as referee. Michael had said he wanted something about how angry he'd felt for the past two years.

The three-day recording session stretched to a week and a half, at which point Janet decided that she'd be more comfortable recording her vocals at Flyte Tyme Studios in Edina, where she'd made her last two multimillion-selling albums. The producers urged Michael to come along, since he was distracted in New York, bouncing between four studios working on four different songs.

"Them in the studio together was probably the highlight of the whole record," Jam reflected. "Because they were reminiscing about the old songs Michael had written a long time ago, and Janet would start singing, and Michael would go, 'Oh, you remember that song?' and they'd start singing it together."

[
[Edited 6/22/07 20:53pm]

Good article i remember reading this a couple years ago

I´ve never read that article. Thanks.

I am by no means a groupie. I like both of these guys' music. It's just that I have so many "IDEAS" of music myself that I think if I had given at least one of them away that it could add up to something, major or not. I don't know. I don't really "WANT" or "MEAN" to undermine "Michael Jackson's Talent" (Which indeed exists. There's no denying that. I mean, just look at his successes over the years during the "1980's" that still have a large effect on many aspiring entertainers, today), but I can't do what "Prince" has done in his career, while there could be a possibility that I could do what "Michael Jackson" did, just not as good. Let's face it: "Michael Jackson" had appeal, a swag', and some charisma deep down within the depths of his soul. They just had to be rummaged-through and relinquished from without his body through the beatings committed by his daddy. That's all I am saying. Either way, I don't have what he has, nor do I really want it, when I think about it.

FarrahMoan said:

No offense, but I think that statement should be the other way around.

Why can't you do what Prince has done in his 29 years career but almost do what MJ has done in his 39 year career?

krayzie said:

The Beautiful Ones

krayzie said:

I don't take it bad, OK MJ 'dancing ability is (was) far more versatile than Prince's one he was influenced by Fred Astaire too and Prince stayed in the James Brown /Elvis dancingstyle but if Prince doesn't moonwalk can you imagine MJ dancing better, even in the mid 80s, than Prince did on the "Kiss" video?
*
*
[Edited 6/23/07 1:20am]

LittleBLUECorvette said:

Okay, technique-wise, though I am not too big on dancing and I can't really sing all that well, I just have this little feeling inside me that I could manage. I think I just might be able to pull off the "Moonwalk" some time in my life. I still attempt to and I think I am getting closer, but it ain't like I keep at it. I don't know, but from experience, it is quite frustrating to play just one instrument as it is, but three or four others is a killer. I mean, "Prince" was a triple threat. He could dance,(Although, he had a small repertoire which made him almost one-dimensional. But, he had the energy through the compactness to kind of mellow it all out), sing (Sometimes, "SANG", even), and play instruments, greatly. "Michael Jackson" appeals more because he's got soul. He's super bad! There's always been this thing about "Soul", "Spirit", and "Charisma" that have weighed everything else down when it comes to some people. Some people don't even need to have the greatest aptitude within their craft ("2Pac": As blaspemous as this may/might be, although he had the greatest "SPIRIT", "SOUL", and "CHARISMA" in the "Rap/Hip-Hop" genre of entertainment, music, and culture. Lyrically, I don't feel that he was the best. But, there was more to him than "Rap". The effect of his life is still prevalent to this day.). I think "Michael Jackson" is one of those people. He is, undoubtedly "THE King of Pop". "Pop" is short for "Popular". So, yeah, now that I think about it, I might want to transgress from that previous statement that you have in bold. OKAY, I admit it! I really couldn't do what "Michael" did and have the same effect, neither do I want to, though. "Pop" has the most listeners of "ALL" genres in music and although I listen to "SOME" of the supposed "MUSIC" in that genre, it is not of my most favorite. I'd rather listen to something that sparks my interest. Although, on the contrary, I will say this, though: In the '80's, "Pop" had my respect at nearly it's greatest in rivaling with the "Late 50's" (Which saw the release of the "MOST INNOVATIVE" release of the "Pop" music genre, ever in most eyes: "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" by "The Beatles") and throughout all of the '60's. DAMN! I need a breather. I suck at trying to make a short post. Sorry for making it so unbearably long.

jn2 said:

OH please ...Kiss video?

Its Preposterous and absurd to even hint that Prince is a better dancer or vocalist than MJ, In fact prince is not an original dancer, yes he got skills but he totally ripped James Brown dancing style , and he didn't create his own moves , but that can be understood since he plays instruments on stage , Mj didn't create Some of the moves either but he definitely create his style and his own moves ,he is the most natural dancer ever, and his style of dance on stage was completely something new....as for prince having the best voice, I won't ever bother responding to this.

Simply MJ. He is more accessible to people than Prince.

Joining the pary late....
If Prince were the main influence you would see more artist playing their own intruments and no lip synching during live concerts..If MJ were the prevailing influence you would see more dancing, lip syncing, producer driven records. The answer couldn't be more clear.

popgodazipa said:

Based on that logic, Honda's are better cars than Ferrari's. It is far easier 2 dance and lipsync than 2 create something with an instrument. That's known as the path of least resistance. That has NOTHING 2 do with Mj or Prince.

PricelessHo said:

Britney is more accessible to people than Ella Fitzgerald.
__

seeingvoices12 said:

Prince stayed true to his groove/funk roots MJ didn't and yes I can't find a little bit of sex/sensuality in MJ's voice can you imagine him singing Little Red Corvette or Erotic City ? In 2002 I when I heard Prince sing SISIA live but you have the right to prefer She's Out Of My Life ("can I get down there" ).
*
.
[Edited 6/23/07 10:52am]

jn2 said:

only Britney lacks the talent.

popgodazipa said:

So you're trying to say that Michael Jackson is responsible for artists lip synching during live concerts? I guess that's MJ's only contribution to music then, huh? What I gather from this topic is that most of you are saying that Michael is a talentless lip syncher who really can't sing (well certainly not when compared to Prince's phenomenal voice right?...pffft) can't dance, can't perform and is just a producer driven artist. A puppet basically . This is just all too ridiculous but I can't say i'm suprised.

jn2 said:

I can't imagine Michael singing Little Red Corvette or Erotic City and I can't imagine Prince singing Butterflies, Lady In My Life, Whatever Happens or You Rock My World. I also can't imagine Prince singing Dirty Diana, Give In To Me or Billie Jean. Both of these artists are different and talented in their own right. I prefer the soulful, sexy, smoothness of Michael's voice. Michael's voice has that kind of magic that makes you quiver, have chills and goosebumps when he sings. I FEEL something when I hear MJ's voice. I don't have that type of reaction when I hear Prince. Don't get me wrong, there are Prince songs that I like, albeit none of his newer stuff. The difference is that Prince's music doesn't move or touch me. Michael's voice and music has always had an effect on me. IMO, his voice is sexier now than it was years ago.
[Edited 6/23/07 11:25am]

jn2 said:

Well then you have obviously never heard of "Liberian Girl" or "Lady In My Life".

Cinnamon234 said:

i know there are many songs

mimi07 said:

The thing is people are not really listening to the songs MJ has done in the last 20 years, firstly because of things that have happened in his personal live have over-shadowed his music. Secondly, he hasn't done that much in the last 20 years, 3 and half albums is not that much in 20 years and those albums don't necessarily carry the soul of his earlier albums.

If you were to ask someone over the age of 35 or even younger what is vintage Michael Jackson? it would more likely be something like "Rock with You", "Billie Jean", "Don't Stop till you Get enough" or even something like "Let me show you the way to go", in a way these are the songs that are actually influencing today's youngsters.

Someone who has never been into Michael Jackson and who is quite young would probably never of heard of "Liberian Girl" or "Stranger in Moscow", or even some of his earlier stuff. That's why Youtube is a great invention, because it's opening so many people's eyes to who is who, and how long certain people have been around and what their contribution has been to music. It is through YOutube that some young people today realize that Michael has been around since he was a child, and that alone is an achievement in it self.
[Edited 6/23/07 13:20pm]