Militant said:

Unholyalliance said:

PLEASE, explain why you consider his music to be so much more 'complex.' What makes it more complicated?

I'm not answering for him, but perhaps he meant in the sense that a much larger percentage of Prince's music deviates from the standard song lengths, arrangements and chord progressions typically found in most pop music? Which is certainly true. Doesn't make either of their catalogs any better or worse, just different, and relates to what I said in the previous post about different goals and ideals career wise.

Yes, you're right. You're a music critic or just a music lover?
More unusual, more experiments, music, created by Prince, is much more difficult to play a musical instrument. But again, these benefits, which has Prince over Michael, are also its weaknesses. The paradox, but true. Prince will never be so understood and loved around the world.
They each have their way, I think.

PS I am a girl ...((:

Militant said:

Unholyalliance said:

PLEASE, explain why you consider his music to be so much more 'complex.' What makes it more complicated?

I'm not answering for him, but perhaps he meant in the sense that a much larger percentage of Prince's music deviates from the standard song lengths, arrangements and chord progressions typically found in most pop music? Which is certainly true. Doesn't make either of their catalogs any better or worse, just different, and relates to what I said in the previous post about different goals and ideals career wise.

It's not about whether or not it makes it better or worse, I just want to know why the poster thinks that Prince's music is 'complex.' While I agree that he his music does deviate from 'normal' pop/rnb at times...I don't think it makes it 'complex' or not 'clear' to the masses. By not clear did they mean that it lacks good and/or strong hooks?

When people mention complex music, as I said, before, his name NEVER comes up. It could be just the term that they used that I am in most disagreement with? Maybe experimental is the better term perhaps? But is Prince that experimental?! I swear to god that a good amount of his discography since Sign of The Times have sounded the same give or take a track here or there.

Either way, I agree that each artist had a different MO in life. It doesn't make them better or worst. It's just who they were, as artists.

Actually, wait, many of those who study music have claimed that BOTH MJ's and Prince's music are hard to classify since they both incorporate so many musical infleunces. It's not as simple to go "MJ does pop music, Prince does not." They both do and don't.

[Edited 8/16/11 13:48pm]

TylerHippie said:

Some people are just picking their favorite artist album even though they know the other album is better. That's loyalty.

Yeah! That's the MO of Prince fans when it comes to Michael Jackson!

Militant said:

I get what Lili is saying.

Michael definitely experimented with different things but nowhere near to the point Prince has. I mean, to say otherwise is ridiculous.

Michael never deliberately opted to do something that he knew wouldn't be commercially successful just because he felt like it.

Prince is the guy that puts out instrumental jazz albums like NEWS that even half his fanbase don't have much interest in! He's the guy that'll make entire funk albums where he did basically everything them except the lead vocals, won't put his name anywhere on the record, and then deny that he had anything to do with it for years! (The Time).

Michael rode out the commercial success of Thriller for two years, and didn't even have serious thoughts about recording a follow up for three years. Hell, the title track didn't come out as a single with the video until 14 months after the album had already been released. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but that's the kind of thing you do when you're trying to sell as many records as possible.

Prince, on the other hand, had a follow-up album to Purple Rain released and in stores just 9 months afterward. He could have ridden it out for another year, taken the Purple Rain tour international and sold another 15-20 million records if he was focused on on sales. And then he releases a wholly uncommercial psychedelic follow-up that sounds NOTHING like the sound that made him a superstar, and sends the album to radio with NO single! Straight up told 'em "play what you like".... which just confused the hell out of all of them! WB, expecting a commercial follow-up were completely non-plussed and basically forced Prince to release singles from the album.

Those are more so the actions of someone who wants to challenge the audience on a musical level and open them up to new sounds (opening ATWIAD with the title track being a perfect example), and is completely willing to forego selling more records in order to do that.

I think that's what Lili was getting at. Prince was and has always been perfectly happy with the possibility that the general public might not get what he was doing at all.

You could almost say that Michael tried to operate vertically, as in always thinking "How can the next thing be even bigger and better and create more and more buzz!", always trying to move upwards.

Whereas Prince operates horizontally. Like, "OK, done that. Let's move on to something else that's different. Maybe it'll work, maybe not, but we'll do it, and then we'll move on again".

They're my two favorite artists of all time, equally and I'm fortunate enough to have seen them both live - but the reason this debate never works for me is primarily because their similarities are superficial (both black, both pop artists, both making funk/soul based music)... but their career ideals and objectives are about as different as you can get.

Nice post.

PatrickS77 said:

TylerHippie said:

Some people are just picking their favorite artist album even though they know the other album is better. That's loyalty.

Yeah! That's the MO of Prince fans when it comes to Michael Jackson!

Both sides has the same MO.

TylerHippie said:

PatrickS77 said:

Yeah! That's the MO of Prince fans when it comes to Michael Jackson!

Both sides has the same MO.

Sure! But it applies more to Prince fans!

Militant said:

I get what Lili is saying.

Michael definitely experimented with different things but nowhere near to the point Prince has. I mean, to say otherwise is ridiculous.

THATS ALLL that really needs to be said quite frankly because that is the overall point.

A Prince stan was insisting that Michael was formulated and didnt experiement with different themes and genres which is not true. I dont think no one came in here and suggested Michael has done more than Prince. BUT to sit here and have the audacity to type out Michael did not experiement with genres and that he made songs JUST for commercial success BUT yet claims to be a fan is just bullshit. To be honest, they are about the same as far as what they have experimented with because their are some things Michael did Prince hasnt even done. Just because Prince released a instrumental album doesnt make he more creative than Michael. Michael and Prince are very different despite some similarities which is why this comparision is very dumb.

TylerHippie said:

mjscarousal said:

Oh he did?

Where was his award for Keep the Faith which was a gospel style song??

What about Little Susie that was a dutch style song????

He also has covered more genres than you mention..whatever I know who house this belongs to folks and will not entertain this useless discussion anymore. If that is your opinion than okay..

[Edited 8/16/11 12:38pm]

Were they singles?

No they werent... that discussion wasnt about singles though. It was about his overall catalogue. The poster suggested Michael has not experimented with different genres besides pop, rock, r&B and soul and that is not true.

mjscarousal said:

TylerHippie said:

Were they singles?

No they werent... that discussion wasnt about singles though. It was about his overall catalogue. The poster suggested Michael has not experimented with different genres besides pop, rock, r&B and soul and that is not true.

Well you asked did they win any Grammys. I think it has to be a single to win a Grammy, I think.

PatrickS77 said:

TylerHippie said:

Both sides has the same MO.

Sure! But it applies more to Prince fans!

Nah we're both equal.

^^Yes, but some are more equal than others!!

TylerHippie said:

mjscarousal said:

No they werent... that discussion wasnt about singles though. It was about his overall catalogue. The poster suggested Michael has not experimented with different genres besides pop, rock, r&B and soul and that is not true.

Well you asked did they win any Grammys. I think it has to be a single to win a Grammy, I think.

I was being sarcastic.

The point is those songs DID'NT receive any commercial accolade BUT still some of Jacksons best works that he experimented with despite some here insisting Michael did everything based off of accolades and his popularity.

You have to read the whole conversation if you care to understand and dont cheat

PatrickS77 said:

^^Yes, but some are more equal than others!!

Yeah, some on the Prince side, and some on the MJ side.

mjscarousal said:

TylerHippie said:

Well you asked did they win any Grammys. I think it has to be a single to win a Grammy, I think.

I was being sarcastic.

The point is those songs DID'NT receive any commercial accolade BUT still some of Jacksons best works that he experimented with despite some here insisting Michael did everything based off of accolades and his popularity.

You have to read the whole conversation if you care to understand and dont cheat

aha Ok I guess.

But imo, if those songs were released as singles, you never know they could've recieved some awards.

TylerHippie said:

PatrickS77 said:

^^Yes, but some are more equal than others!!

Yeah, some on the Prince side, and some on the MJ side.

True, but more on the Prince side ... LOL okay, we're going in circles, so I leave it at that!

PatrickS77 said:

TylerHippie said:

Yeah, some on the Prince side, and some on the MJ side.

True, but more on the Prince side ... LOL okay, we're going in circles, so I leave it at that!

More on both sides...LOL okay, we're going in circles, so I leave it at that!

If you want to talk about music, I think maybe Prince was continuing to do what he normally did musically, and changing his band to the new power generation, which may have given the music an upgrade a tad bit. MJ brought in more of a hip hop/new jack swing sound to Dangerous, wrote deeper lyrics overall than the last 3 albums with a serious undertone, and dare I say it, though Dangerous doesn't sound like a Prince album, I could slightly hear some Prince influence in songs like Why You Wanna Trip On Me, In the Closet and Black or White, though I know he was inspired by Rhythm Nation which was inspired by Prince/JJ & TL Still, Dangerous is my pick

Will You Be There did very well and I saw people remembering that song for years, probably thanks to Free Willy (good move including that song on the soundtrack), but had there been no allegations, I believe it would have continued to chart higher, grown more legs and possible gotten a Grammy nomination or something though

mjscarousal said:

THATS ALLL that really needs to be said quite frankly because that is the overall point.

A Prince stan was insisting that Michael was formulated and didnt experiement with different themes and genres which is not true. I dont think no one came in here and suggested Michael has done more than Prince. BUT to sit here and have the audacity to type out Michael did not experiement with genres and that he made songs JUST for commercial success BUT yet claims to be a fan is just bullshit. To be honest, they are about the same as far as what they have experimented with because their are some things Michael did Prince hasnt even done. Just because Prince released a instrumental album doesnt make he more creative than Michael. Michael and Prince are very different despite some similarities which is why this comparision is very dumb.

I strongly disagree. In addition to the instrumental albums Michael never did anything as uncommercial as The Rainbow Children. Michael essentially followed up Thriller with Thriller, Pt. 2 while Prince released Around the World in a Day which was quite a deparure from Purple Rain. Prince was much more musically daring and willing to experiment. That does not necessarily mean Prince was better but if you think they "are about the same as far as what they have experimented with" then I do not think you are paying very close attention to the music that both men released. Look at it this way, in 1982 Michael released Thriller and Prince released 1999. In 1987 Michael released Bad and Prince released Sign O' the Times. Thriller and Bad are basically state of the art pop albums packed with hit singles while 1999 and Sign O' the Times sound radically different to each other and anything else that was released contemporaneously. When you consider that in between those two albums Prince released Purple Rain, Around the World in a Day and Parade, three albums that each have a unique sound, I think it is pretty obvious that Prince was much more willing to take risks and change his sound than Michael was.

In your opinion what are some of Michael's most uncommercial/complex/adventurous songs?

I don't think Bad is Thriller part 2, they are different albums. Is it cause each has a rock song, that sound nothing like each other? Or each one had grand videos nothing like each other mind you? I've heard the media say stuff like that, but not people overall. If you want to compare Bad to anything, it should be his contemporaries at the time and excelling them.

Around The World In a Day is a brilliant album and IMO better than Purple Rain. More creative, diverse, instrumental, you name it. I don't understand fans' accounts of why it lost his new fans, and lost his black fans who followed him from the beginning. It would have been nice if he pushed it more commercially, but he still did well,and I still hear Raspberry Beret on the radio often.

LiLi1992 said:

Yes, you're right. You're a music critic or just a music lover?

More unusual, more experiments, music, created by Prince, is much more difficult to play a musical instrument. But again, these benefits, which has Prince over Michael, are also its weaknesses. The paradox, but true. Prince will never be so understood and loved around the world.
They each have their way, I think.

PS I am a girl ...((:

My apologies, didn't check your profile. I don't know if I'd call myself a critic... I just think about music on many different levels lol.

alphastreet said:

I don't think Bad is Thriller part 2, they are different albums. Is it cause each has a rock song, that sound nothing like each other? Or each one had grand videos nothing like each other mind you? I've heard the media say stuff like that, but not people overall. If you want to compare Bad to anything, it should be his contemporaries at the time and excelling them.

Around The World In a Day is a brilliant album and IMO better than Purple Rain. More creative, diverse, instrumental, you name it. I don't understand fans' accounts of why it lost his new fans, and lost his black fans who followed him from the beginning. It would have been nice if he pushed it more commercially, but he still did well,and I still hear Raspberry Beret on the radio often.

I suppose in a way you are correct. You can hear the difference the five years made and Bad sounds "newer" than Thriller but both albums are essentially a collection of very commercial hit singles. If there is a difference between the sound of the albums I would credit it more to the advances and changes in the pop world in the half decade that separates them rather than to any artistic growth.

rialb said:

mjscarousal said:

THATS ALLL that really needs to be said quite frankly because that is the overall point.

A Prince stan was insisting that Michael was formulated and didnt experiement with different themes and genres which is not true. I dont think no one came in here and suggested Michael has done more than Prince. BUT to sit here and have the audacity to type out Michael did not experiement with genres and that he made songs JUST for commercial success BUT yet claims to be a fan is just bullshit. To be honest, they are about the same as far as what they have experimented with because their are some things Michael did Prince hasnt even done. Just because Prince released a instrumental album doesnt make he more creative than Michael. Michael and Prince are very different despite some similarities which is why this comparision is very dumb.

I strongly disagree. In addition to the instrumental albums Michael never did anything as uncommercial as The Rainbow Children. Michael essentially followed up Thriller with Thriller, Pt. 2 while Prince released Around the World in a Day which was quite a deparure from Purple Rain. Prince was much more musically daring and willing to experiment. That does not necessarily mean Prince was better but if you think they "are about the same as far as what they have experimented with" then I do not think you are paying very close attention to the music that both men released. Look at it this way, in 1982 Michael released Thriller and Prince released 1999. In 1987 Michael released Bad and Prince released Sign O' the Times. Thriller and Bad are basically state of the art pop albums packed with hit singles while 1999 and Sign O' the Times sound radically different to each other and anything else that was released contemporaneously. When you consider that in between those two albums Prince released Purple Rain, Around the World in a Day and Parade, three albums that each have a unique sound, I think it is pretty obvious that Prince was much more willing to take risks and change his sound than Michael was.

In your opinion what are some of Michael's most uncommercial/complex/adventurous songs?

It wouldnt matter because you have an biased opinion. You seem to think everything Michael did was commercially driven since he was ... well more popular that Prince. You choose to hold that against him for some reason and define his music based on that...

mjscarousal said:

rialb said:

I strongly disagree. In addition to the instrumental albums Michael never did anything as uncommercial as The Rainbow Children. Michael essentially followed up Thriller with Thriller, Pt. 2 while Prince released Around the World in a Day which was quite a deparure from Purple Rain. Prince was much more musically daring and willing to experiment. That does not necessarily mean Prince was better but if you think they "are about the same as far as what they have experimented with" then I do not think you are paying very close attention to the music that both men released. Look at it this way, in 1982 Michael released Thriller and Prince released 1999. In 1987 Michael released Bad and Prince released Sign O' the Times. Thriller and Bad are basically state of the art pop albums packed with hit singles while 1999 and Sign O' the Times sound radically different to each other and anything else that was released contemporaneously. When you consider that in between those two albums Prince released Purple Rain, Around the World in a Day and Parade, three albums that each have a unique sound, I think it is pretty obvious that Prince was much more willing to take risks and change his sound than Michael was.

In your opinion what are some of Michael's most uncommercial/complex/adventurous songs?

It wouldnt matter because you have an biased opinion. You seem to think everything Michael did was commercially driven since he was ... well more popular that Prince. You choose to hold that against him for some reason and define his music based on that...

Not at all, being more willing to experiment does not guarantee great music. A lot of people love the Radiohead albums Kid A and Amnesiac but I vastly prefer the more commercial The Bends and OK Computer. Experiments sometimes fail.

If you honestly believe that they were equally experimental then please share with me what you think are some of Michael's more experimental songs. I think I made a pretty good case for my side of the argument and your response was to claim I can not be persuaded because I have a biased opinion. Well, how do you know you can not persuade me if you do not even try?

[Edited 8/16/11 17:37pm]

rialb said:

mjscarousal said:

It wouldnt matter because you have an biased opinion. You seem to think everything Michael did was commercially driven since he was ... well more popular that Prince. You choose to hold that against him for some reason and define his music based on that...

Not at all, being more willing to experiment does not guarantee great music. A lot of people love the Radiohead albums Kid A and Amnesiac but I vastly prefer the more commercial The Bends and OK Computer. Experiments sometimes fail.

If you honestly believe that they were equally experimental then please share with me what you think are some of Michael's more experimental songs. I think I made a pretty good case for my side of the argument and your response was to claim I can not be persuaded because I have a biased opinion. Well, how do you know you can not persuade me if you do not even try?

[Edited 8/16/11 17:37pm]

With your past responces you have shown that already hun And so far what I have got from your responces is punching that commercial bag again which isnt really much of an arguement

I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. If that is how you feel that is how you feel. Just ask to be open to different views and not base everything on popularity. Naturally since you like Prince or prefer him you not going to care for Michael and feel Prince is superior and you know what? You can feel that way. I just think its inaccurate to say Michael didnt experiment with different things as well JUST because you prefer Prince.

Some of my favorites as far as genres goes

Stranger in Moscow, Little Susie, Keep the Faith, Superfly Sister, , Dont Stop Till You Get Enough, Liberian Girl, She Drives Me Wild, Give In To Me

Some songs that had creative depth lyrics that HE has written

They Dont Really Care About Us, Little Susie, Give In To Me, Who Is it, Will You Be There, Stranger In Moscow, Superfly Sister

mjscarousal said:

rialb said:

Not at all, being more willing to experiment does not guarantee great music. A lot of people love the Radiohead albums Kid A and Amnesiac but I vastly prefer the more commercial The Bends and OK Computer. Experiments sometimes fail.

If you honestly believe that they were equally experimental then please share with me what you think are some of Michael's more experimental songs. I think I made a pretty good case for my side of the argument and your response was to claim I can not be persuaded because I have a biased opinion. Well, how do you know you can not persuade me if you do not even try?

[Edited 8/16/11 17:37pm]

With your past responces you have shown that already hun And so far what I have got from your responces is punching that commercial bag again which isnt really much of an arguement

I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. If that is how you feel that is how you feel. Just ask to be open to different views and not base everything on popularity. Naturally since you like Prince or prefer him you not going to care for Michael and feel Prince is superior and you know what? You can feel that way. I just think its inaccurate to say Michael didnt experiment with different things as well JUST because you prefer Prince.

Some of my favorites as far as genres goes

Stranger in Moscow, Little Susie, Keep the Faith, Superfly Sister, , Dont Stop Till You Get Enough, Liberian Girl, She Drives Me Wild, Give In To Me

Some songs that had creative depth lyrics that HE has written

They Dont Really Care About Us, Little Susie, Give In To Me, Who Is it, Will You Be There, Stranger In Moscow, Superfly Sister

I have to admit "Stranger in Moscow" is a masterpiece. That is one beautiful song that he wrote...

thedance said:

PatrickS77 said:

Yes! And thus not really a valid opinion!

^ what??

and....... what the f*** are YOU Wacko fans doing here on prince.org,

after all this is not Wacko.com - this is a Prince fansite........ isn't it???

Tell me about it!

rialb said:

alphastreet said:

I don't think Bad is Thriller part 2, they are different albums. Is it cause each has a rock song, that sound nothing like each other? Or each one had grand videos nothing like each other mind you? I've heard the media say stuff like that, but not people overall. If you want to compare Bad to anything, it should be his contemporaries at the time and excelling them.

Around The World In a Day is a brilliant album and IMO better than Purple Rain. More creative, diverse, instrumental, you name it. I don't understand fans' accounts of why it lost his new fans, and lost his black fans who followed him from the beginning. It would have been nice if he pushed it more commercially, but he still did well,and I still hear Raspberry Beret on the radio often.

I suppose in a way you are correct. You can hear the difference the five years made and Bad sounds "newer" than Thriller but both albums are essentially a collection of very commercial hit singles. If there is a difference between the sound of the albums I would credit it more to the advances and changes in the pop world in the half decade that separates them rather than to any artistic growth.

Michael admitted too he wanted to use the latest drum sounds for Bad and he did just that. And there is growth in his writing and subject matter, as he wrote more songs on Bad than Thriller, and used his voice differently on different tracks. Plus on bad, I hear rawness and a man, on Thriller, I hear a kid ready to take on the world.

802 said:

thedance said:

^ what??

and....... what the f*** are YOU Wacko fans doing here on prince.org,

after all this is not Wacko.com - this is a Prince fansite........ isn't it???

Tell me about it!

Get back to your stan section where y'all belong.

So you don't find it unusual at all that more people chose the MJ album on (what's supposed to be) a Prince fan site?

[Edited 8/17/11 5:18am]