You have to read more carefully, I'm afraid. I never said she would ONLY be remembered for IWALY. There will always be folks who know their shit and who can come up with 10 or more successful Whitney singles at 4 a.m. after just being woken up, but the question is what Joe Public, the casual pop music listener, will associate an artist with without too much thought. And my point here is, just as "Billie Jean" will be the more likely answer for MJ than, let's say, "Liberian girl", IWALY will be Joe Public's most likely answer for Whitney rather than e.g. "I'm your baby tonight". And Joe Public will also associate the Stones with "Satisfaction" more likely than with "Start me up". And I personally - opinion, opinion! - think that the song Joe Public most likely will associate Whitney with is pretty boring. And that, more generally, this fits into a scheme of Whitney lacking the edge to have the iconic status of MJ, Madonna or Prince.

And please stop with this racist bullcrap rergarding one poster. MJ and Prince are both black folks. How can it be racist to say that MJ or Prince have had more of an impact than Whitney?

[Edited 8/2/11 13:15pm]

purplethunder3121 said:

Now this is a real icon for me!

EmancipationLover said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Now this is a real icon for me!

I accept James Brown as an icon but will that racist poster call him a PCP junkie, woman beater, drug fiend! hmmm.....

EmancipationLover said:

You have to read more carefully, I'm afraid. I never said she would ONLY be remembered for IWALY. There will always be folks who know their shit and who can come up with 10 or more successful Whitney singles at 4 a.m. after just being woken up, but the question is what Joe Public, the casual pop music listener, will associate an artist with without too much thought. And my point here is, just as "Billie Jean" will be the more likely answer for MJ than, let's say, "Liberian girl", IWALY will be Joe Public's most likely answer for Whitney rather than e.g. "I'm your baby tonight". And Joe Public will also associate the Stones with "Satisfaction" more likely than with "Start me up". And I personally - opinion, opinion! - think that the song Joe Public most likely will associate Whitney with is pretty boring. And that, more generally, this fits into a scheme of Whitney lacking the edge to have the iconic status of MJ, Madonna or Prince.

And please stop with this racist bullcrap rergarding one poster. MJ and Prince are both black folks. How can it be racist to say that MJ or Prince have had more of an impact than Whitney?

[Edited 8/2/11 13:15pm]

The racist comment was not directed at you so don't know why you are referring to it unless a hit dog...

if you don't like her type of music, that is fine. Music is subjective, not objective. However, if you are telling me that to be considered iconic one needs to make edgy music then I cry bullshit!

If you find any racist content in this thread, please report it to moderators, because this kind of stuff is not allowed on prince.org. If you can't find concrete postings with racist content, please stop throwing around this accusation.

It is my opinion just as others here have called people other adjectives. I think the person has racist tendencies as demonstrated by his rant.

I don't have to have concrete evidence of racist actions to believe someone has racist tendencies. Much racism isn't even overt. It's subtle. If you don' t like my opinon of that poster based on his obscene rant then move along. Not to hard to do.

By the way go back and see what I objected to. It had nothing to do with MJ or Prince. Reading my friend is fundamental as you told me. I don't feel the need to waste anymore of my time on that particular poster as they are clearly living with one can short of a 6pack.

[Edited 8/2/11 13:30pm]

Entertainer said:

EmancipationLover said:

You have to read more carefully, I'm afraid. I never said she would ONLY be remembered for IWALY. There will always be folks who know their shit and who can come up with 10 or more successful Whitney singles at 4 a.m. after just being woken up, but the question is what Joe Public, the casual pop music listener, will associate an artist with without too much thought. And my point here is, just as "Billie Jean" will be the more likely answer for MJ than, let's say, "Liberian girl", IWALY will be Joe Public's most likely answer for Whitney rather than e.g. "I'm your baby tonight". And Joe Public will also associate the Stones with "Satisfaction" more likely than with "Start me up". And I personally - opinion, opinion! - think that the song Joe Public most likely will associate Whitney with is pretty boring. And that, more generally, this fits into a scheme of Whitney lacking the edge to have the iconic status of MJ, Madonna or Prince.

And please stop with this racist bullcrap rergarding one poster. MJ and Prince are both black folks. How can it be racist to say that MJ or Prince have had more of an impact than Whitney?

[Edited 8/2/11 13:15pm]

The racist comment was not directed at you so don't know why you are referring to it unless a hit dog...

if you don't like her type of music, that is fine. Music is subjective, not objective. However, if you are telling me that to be considered iconic one needs to make edgy music then I cry bullshit!

Well, before I personally would consider someone a pop or rock icon, I would expect them to deliver something with edge in its very broadest sense. This can also be that they are super-cheesy, like ABBA, for instance. My personal problem with Whitney (just as with other folks like Celine Dion or Shania Twain) is that I can't find anything remarkable about them apart from being musically skilled (which is also true for good session musicians though) and commercially highly successful. So, from my perspective, I see these people as extremely successful popstars, but they won't make it to actual icons in my book.

Entertainer said:

I agree sales is not everything but it is a yardstick that is very important.

So that leaves out Jimi and Sly then. You've thrown them on the scrap heap for Whitneys talent.

It was said that she will be remembered as only being a singer popular for one classic, 'I will always love you' when clearly that is not the case.

Of course not. She won't be simply known for a cover of a Dolly Parton track. She'll be remembered as a crack addict too.

You don't have people purchasing in the millions singles by a Black woman if she is not making an impact and crossing over in a big way.

Here you go with colour again. You clearly have issues and feel the need to drag colour into everything as an excuse. Aerosmith crossed over from rock to pop. When it comes to any genre crossing to pop, its colourless. Get over yourself.

covered on American Idol of any artist, not Madonna, not Prince, not Mariah, not MJ.

That should be expected. Non writing lounge singers probably list Whitney as their biggest influence.

Jennifer hudson and Leona Lewis covered 'I have nothing' on their respective talent shows as well as I believe in you and me and I will always love you respectively. Celine Dion has covered several of Whitney's songs.

Lounge singers covering lounge singers who cover The Four Tops and Dolly. Oh the irony.

I don't know about you but just above every kid I know graduation back in the late 80's sung 'greatest love of all' as their graduation song.

You graduated??????

That's the point now that the poster has been schooled hopefully they won't make that erroneous comment again about her only being known for IWALY.

No, she will also be known for having a great voice and thowing her career away to become a tragic crack head.

EmancipationLover said:

Entertainer said:

The racist comment was not directed at you so don't know why you are referring to it unless a hit dog...

if you don't like her type of music, that is fine. Music is subjective, not objective. However, if you are telling me that to be considered iconic one needs to make edgy music then I cry bullshit!

Well, before I personally would consider someone a pop or rock icon, I would expect them to deliver something with edge in its very broadest sense. This can also be that they are super-cheesy, like ABBA, for instance. My personal problem with Whitney (just as with other folks like Celine Dion or Shania Twain) is that I can't find anything remarkable about them apart from being musically skilled (which is also true for good session musicians though) and commercially highly successful. So, from my perspective, I see these people as extremely successful popstars, but they won't make it to actual icons in my book.

[Edited 8/2/11 13:37pm]

EmancipationLover said:

Entertainer said:

The racist comment was not directed at you so don't know why you are referring to it unless a hit dog...

if you don't like her type of music, that is fine. Music is subjective, not objective. However, if you are telling me that to be considered iconic one needs to make edgy music then I cry bullshit!

Well, before I personally would consider someone a pop or rock icon, I would expect them to deliver something with edge in its very broadest sense. This can also be that they are super-cheesy, like ABBA, for instance. My personal problem with Whitney (just as with other folks like Celine Dion or Shania Twain) is that I can't find anything remarkable about them apart from being musically skilled (which is also true for good session musicians though) and commercially highly successful. So, from my perspective, I see these people as extremely successful popstars, but they won't make it to actual icons in my book.

And that is fine. I'm not trying to change your mind. I think that the history books will reflect something different and the entire point of this thread didn't differentiate between the makings of a pop icon. It broadly related to status, broad appeal and global impact and the evidence is clear, her name belongs right along side theres. She crosses genres in a way than none of the 3 does. I've yet to see MJ, Prince or Maddy on gospel charts. I've yet to see Maddy or prince make an impact the way that she did on the r&b charts. It's not just a pop world we live in.

I don't see session singers being highly awarded for their work and if the bar was set for good singers as mere session singers then anyone and everyone who openned their mouth would sell , have successful careers, and have some type of vocal impact and we know that is not the case.

Entertainer said:

EmancipationLover said:

Well, before I personally would consider someone a pop or rock icon, I would expect them to deliver something with edge in its very broadest sense. This can also be that they are super-cheesy, like ABBA, for instance. My personal problem with Whitney (just as with other folks like Celine Dion or Shania Twain) is that I can't find anything remarkable about them apart from being musically skilled (which is also true for good session musicians though) and commercially highly successful. So, from my perspective, I see these people as extremely successful popstars, but they won't make it to actual icons in my book.

And that is fine. I'm not trying to change your mind. I think that the history books will reflect something different and the entire point of this thread didn't differentiate between the makings of a pop icon. It broadly related to status, broad appeal and global impact and the evidence is clear, her name belongs right along side theres. She crosses genres in a way than none of the 3 does. I've yet to see MJ, Prince or Maddy on gospel charts. I've yet to see Maddy or prince make an impact the way that she did on the r&b charts. It's not just a pop world we live in.

I don't see session singers being highly awarded for their work and if the bar was set for good singers as mere session singers then anyone and everyone who openned their mouth would sell , have successful careers, and have some type of vocal impact and we know that is not the case.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you really have to read carefully what people are writing. I never said that a session musician could achieve what Whitney has achieved, but that one of the few things I will always acknowledge about Whitney will be her musical (i.e., in her case, her former vocal) skills, but that good musical skills can also be found for good session musicians - so that alone is not a really strong argument.

And the argument of her crossing genres more than Prince does is so ridiculous that it speaks for itself. Whitney could continue to make music until she is 420 years old, still she could never come up with records such as Parade, SOTT, The Undertaker or The Rainbow Children. The only genre Prince has never touched is bluegrass, I guess...

EmancipationLover said:

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you really have to read carefully what people are writing. I never said that a session musician could achieve what Whitney has achieved, but that one of the few things I will always acknowledge about Whitney will be her musical (i.e., in her case, her former vocal) skills, but that good musical skills can also be found for good session musicians - so that alone is not a really strong argument.

Don't beat yourself up. They are not interested in reading what is being said and they are sprewing groundless accusations in every direction. A brand new orger too. Clearly a troll with anger issues.

EmancipationLover said:

Entertainer said:

And that is fine. I'm not trying to change your mind. I think that the history books will reflect something different and the entire point of this thread didn't differentiate between the makings of a pop icon. It broadly related to status, broad appeal and global impact and the evidence is clear, her name belongs right along side theres. She crosses genres in a way than none of the 3 does. I've yet to see MJ, Prince or Maddy on gospel charts. I've yet to see Maddy or prince make an impact the way that she did on the r&b charts. It's not just a pop world we live in.

I don't see session singers being highly awarded for their work and if the bar was set for good singers as mere session singers then anyone and everyone who openned their mouth would sell , have successful careers, and have some type of vocal impact and we know that is not the case.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you really have to read carefully what people are writing. I never said that a session musician could achieve what Whitney has achieved, but that one of the few things I will always acknowledge about Whitney will be her musical (i.e., in her case, her former vocal) skills, but that good musical skills can also be found for good session musicians - so that alone is not a really strong argument.

And the argument of her crossing genres more than Prince does is so ridiculous that it speaks for itself. Whitney could continue to make music until she is 420 years old, still she could never come up with records such as Parade, SOTT, The Undertaker or The Rainbow Children. The only genre Prince has never touched is bluegrass, I guess...

Again, reading, you're missing out the main qualifier to my response to you. I've said that i've yet to see them make an 'impact' on the multiple charts that she has not just chart or cross over. therein lies the difference.

Your argument remains the same re seesion singers, if it was just the ability to sing well as you are clearly stating with your session singer reference then my point stands, more of them would be superstars domestically and globallay.

Come on, we all know that it is more than just the ability to sing. Singers are a dime a dozen and by the handful in church on sundays. It is that unique singer who transcens just singing and can touch lives, have that X factor, that Je ne c'est pas that Whitney oozes which contributed to her her global superstardom and her unique vocal tone that when one hears a whitney song, people pretty much know it's her.

And the singers you praise whom I also love could never sing 'a quiet place' or 'after we make love' or 'i was made to love him' or it's not right but it's ok' or joy' the way that she could.

I'm not going down this road with you. I've stated music is subjective and people have varied tastes. It's always been that way. The argument is you may not like her music, she may not be your cup of tea and that is perfectly fine. However, that doesn't mean that she hasn't had an impact on millions of other people who don't feel the way that you do. As i've stated, the history books, billboard and other industry bibles will reflect and have reflected her impact which is overwhelming.

Entertainer said:

EmancipationLover said:

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you really have to read carefully what people are writing. I never said that a session musician could achieve what Whitney has achieved, but that one of the few things I will always acknowledge about Whitney will be her musical (i.e., in her case, her former vocal) skills, but that good musical skills can also be found for good session musicians - so that alone is not a really strong argument.

And the argument of her crossing genres more than Prince does is so ridiculous that it speaks for itself. Whitney could continue to make music until she is 420 years old, still she could never come up with records such as Parade, SOTT, The Undertaker or The Rainbow Children. The only genre Prince has never touched is bluegrass, I guess...

Again, reading, you're missing out the main qualifier to my response to you. I've said that i've yet to see them make an 'impact' on the multiple charts that she has not just chart or cross over. therein lies the difference.

Your argument remains the same re seesion singers, if it was just the ability to sing well as you are clearly stating with your session singer reference then my point stands, more of them would be superstars domestically and globallay.

Come on, we all know that it is more than just the ability to sing. Singers are a dime a dozen and by the handful in church on sundays. It is that unique singer who transcens just singing and can touch lives, have that X factor, that Je ne c'est pas that Whitney oozes which contributed to her her global superstardom and her unique vocal tone that when one hears a whitney song, people pretty much know it's her.

And the singers you praise whom I also love could never sing 'a quiet place' or 'after we make love' or 'i was made to love him' or it's not right but it's ok' or joy' the way that she could.

I'm not going down this road with you. I've stated music is subjective and people have varied tastes. It's always been that way. The argument is you may not like her music, she may not be your cup of tea and that is perfectly fine. However, that doesn't mean that she hasn't had an impact on millions of other people who don't feel the way that you do. As i've stated, the history books, billboard and other industry bibles will reflect and have reflected her impact which is overwhelming.

As I have to work, just three comments:

1) Charts mean sales, and sales mean jackshit. To measure cultural impact based on charts or sales alone is pointless. But the reason you go on and on and on about Whitney's chart success is simple: take it away from the scheme and there isn't that much remarkable stuff left.

2) I know that there is more to a pop career than just musical abilities - this is pretty much what I have written. But it is not only about "unique vocal tone" and that kind of stuff either. It is, to a pretty massive extent, about being at the right place at the right time with the right songs. Whitney has been put into the limelight by clever management at a time suitable for a crossover success and had some strong songs with hit potential (written by other people, not her) to enable her career to take off. I've already acknowledged that she has very good vocal capabilities, that surely contributed to the success, but doesn't tell the whole story at all imo.

3) I never said she hasn't had an impact on millions of other people. The original question of this thread begins with "Why don't people...". I've given my personal answer to the original question. If that answer is reasonable and can also be applied to others is not up to me to decide. I think that her lack of edge might be a crucial point for at least some people (at least, I should have Andy on my side ), but as I said: I believe, not I can prove...

purplethunder3121 said:

I swear people need to really listen to this and think if it applies to them or not!

purplethunder3121 said:

y'all are still having this debate?

LOl at people complaining about this thread. 5,800+ views and 260 posts clearly shows that there is interest and people are clicking and reading although they won't admit, lol!

She's a lighting bolt indeed as clearly demonstrated in this thread!

But she is Whitney The Icon, The Diva, Legendary!!!

Terrib3Towel said:

I hate to bring race into it, but Whitney gets so much flack because she's black. No other black artist (other than MJ) crossed over like Whitney Did. I honestly believe that black people felt she should have been singing more R&B/Urban songs back in the 80s. Nobody expected a black girl from New Jersey to sing songs like 'How Will I Know' or 'So Emotional.' Had she been white, nobody would have said anything, but she wasn't so people began to call her songs 'white bread' and she was a sell out because she didn't shake her ass or over-sing. Then here comes the 90s, she came out with 'I'm Your Baby Tonight' a big mistake if you ask me. She had good ballads on there, but she should have stayed pop instead of trying to please ignorant black people who probably don't even buy albums. Even the critics felt her transition was somehow forced. She went back to pop briefly with 'The Bodyguard' album, which went 17x platinum proving she should have never left. After that, she was all R&B. Whatever the case, at one point in time she was the best singer on God's green earth. No matter what genre she sang, she sounded awesome. I don't think there's any other artist that can sing a bubble gum pop song like 'I Wanna Dance With Somebody' then turn around and belt out a ballad like "All The Man I Need" and not miss a step. Whitney in her prime was an unstoppable force. She could sing, she didn't need to pop-lock or hold a guitar or be whore for popularity. All she needed was a mic and the magic would start. There's never going to be anyone like that ever again.

Good post articulated well!

TylerHippie said:

RKJCNE said:

Here is an interesting article explaining why!

Besides the fact she did crack, she's just as good as Madonna.

Whitney has more talent (vocally) than Madonna in most people's eyes. The tricky thing about everyone talking about how Madonna is so great is that when she first came on the scene, people thought she was slutty, ugly, and a passing fad. She sure did prove them wrong (unless your willing to argue that she is kind of "slutty") and now she is a legend, the supposed "Queen of Pop" when Whitney Houston could have very well been refered to as such. I don't see why Whitney Houston's legend must be forgotten because of a mistake she made and overcame, while Madonna made many mistakes and gets applauded for it, or so it seems. I'm not condoning the crack thing, but Whitney should always be remembered...the big three of the 80s; Michael, Prince, and Whitney. Madonna can come too, but as a servant to their greatness.

SquirrelMeat said:

With each post you reveal just how immature you are. I wonder if someone was having a discussion on Prince and the entire time they kept calling him a freak or faggot how that would make you feel when the discussion is MUSIC RELATED

That STILL does not take away from her icon status... just shut the fuck up... ur posts are worthless LOL

Entertainer said:

SquirrelMeat said:

And they only became legends because they died.

Jim and Jimi were fine, but there deaths created the legacy. I rate John Lee Hooker much higher. A true legend and credit to his profession.

yes in a few of the cases that's true but the bigger point is is anyone on org calling them crack whores or other demeaning names. How about living artists, Natalie Cole, Mary J Blige,Gaga, Madonna, even El Debarge I don't see spoken off in such disdaine. it makes no sense. Are people calling MJ a pedofile or druggie in this thread? Nina Simone? Arethat with her alcohol problem, Gladys with her gambling addiction, billie Holiday with heroine, Etta james with heroine, does anyone here speak of them as whores or drug whores which is especially silly as Whitney her self said in her 14years of marriage she never cheated and certainly has the money where she doens't have to pimp herself out.

First people are racists for calling Shitney a crack whore because she's a black woman and now you can't understand why these same people aren't shitting on other black women who did drugs that you posted? That's not being racist at all. That's shitting on Shitney because she comes off as a hypocrit. She came out from day one with the image of a sickening little goodie two shoes Barbie doll cheeleader...ra ra....all sweet, virginal, and wholesome, girl next door. And then years later, it turns out she's one drugs. That's why people shit on her and not those other women because those other women didn't come across as hypocrits. Shitney comes across as hypocritical as a Republican downing gay people and then getting caught sucking a dick in an airport men's room. People love to see hypocrits fall from grace.

EmancipationLover said:

No one with a clear mind will deny Whitney's massive commercial success in the late 80s and early to mid 90s.

However, just like some other figures in popular music (Celine Dion comes to mind), I think she has failed to leave a lasting iconic impression within pop culture. The reason is simple: she is too watered down and too much everyone's darling and just lackes edge. I would argue that Tina Turner is the much more impressive figure if we want to discuss soul divas. Whitney's sterile act - no drugs, no sex, no rock'n'roll - is just too boring to make her iconic imo. She is like a solo R'n'B version of The Corrs.

Let's take her version of "I will always love" you as an example. This is a good song and a good cover version, for sure! Her vocal delivery is perfect! But - and that is the problem imo - it is also something you can play at your Grandma's place without her starting to complain. Try that with "Head" from Prince... While MJ will be remembered for "Thriller" and "Billie Jean", Madonna (who I don't like too much btw) for "Like a virgin" and Prince for "When doves cry" and "Kiss", she will be remembered for an adult contemporary "everyone likes me" version of an old country diva's song. That's the problem I have with her in a nutshell.

EXACTLY!

I'm not a fan of people crossing over by no means, but when it comes to crossing over, both Shitney and Tina's solo careers were more crossover than R&B. But the difference is, Tina came out HARD! Tina made her solo impact with that huge spiked hair and was putting out a lot of hard stuff like "You Better Be Good To Me", "Simply The Best", "What You See Is What You Get", etc. She had a wild and outrageous look and image and she looked liked she'd take one of her spiked heels off and jab you in the eye with it if you fucked with her. While Shitney was all goodie goodie and sickening with her little Barbie doll, cheeleader image and making safe boring nonthreatening shit.

That's the difference right there. Shitney was dull and boring both musically and imagewise while Tina was more hard, wild, and outrageous. And when it comes to being remembered, the wild and outrageous will always be more remembered than the boring.

mjscarousal said:

SquirrelMeat said:

With each post you reveal just how immature you are. I wonder if someone was having a discussion on Prince and the entire time they kept calling him a freak or faggot how that would make you feel when the discussion is MUSIC RELATED

That STILL does not take away from her icon status... just shut the fuck up... ur posts are worthless LOL

Boo hoo.

You just can't accept someone elses point of view. You showed that on the thread mentioning MJ too. A lot of people think that Whitney is a not iconic, and threw her career away to drugs. You just can't accept people having that view.

Couple that with the fact that she was simply a singer who had hits with cover versions and it fairly easy to see why she is not held in as high regard as MJ or Madonna.

Thats what the thread asked, thats all I ever stated. You just don't like my language and you are throwing your toys out of the pram because of it.

Whitneys music is drug related whether you like it or not. Same goes for Jimi or Jim or Janis, Pete Doherty or Amy Winehouse. If people criticise Prince, I would hope it would be for something he had done that effected his career (like becoming a JW), and not his sexual orientation that had no bearing.

Whitney is not mentioned in the same breath because she is not respected. That isn't just my opinion. it seems to be the opinion of a lot of people.

So why did she lose respect? You could take the view of our little black power friend Entertainer and say it must be racism or sexism. But if she engaged her brain she would have realised that MJ is black and Madonna is female. So she is either dumb or trolling.

My view? As I've said all along, its because she is only and singer and wrecked her career with drugs.

Grow a set and answer the question in the thread. The orignial poster asked why Whitney is not held in as higher regard as MJ and Madge.

Is your answer really just going to be "She is!" and bury your head in the sand to the fact that she isn't in public and music circles?

[Edited 8/3/11 2:08am]

SoulAlive said:

y'all are still having this debate?

I hear ya. This thread had disappeared for a while. I don't know who brought it back up to the first page. However, it's always fun to get another chance to shit on Shitney some more. It's like a lot of folks consider baseball....shitting on Shitney is one of my favorite pasttimes.