MikeMatronik said:

But no-one knows who.


It's probably Prince.

Cloudbuster said:

no...

it's marshall!




[Edited 9/9/05 4:31am]

I just came across some footage of Prince and Michael Jackson invited on stage at a James Brown concert around the Purple Rain/Thriller(ish) era.

Michael sings a little does a few signature dance steps and then hug James Brown.

Prince plays guitar, strips, dances, squeals and swings off of an on stage prop that collapses and drops him in the crowd.

Now I know which one I'd rather see.

NuttahRaja said:

Don't that bring that up again

Juice said:

Okay...You seem a little confused at the point I was making...Roy Orbison is one of the greats; truely one of the first to wear the banner of singer-songwriter...But you are side stepping the theme of my post...First, I think music fans like yourself have to learn the difference between loving an artist over another artist and loving say Janet Jackson over Tori Amos (which by the way, I do) with the "common sense" understanding that Amos is much more talented than JJ...In the case of a lot of hardcore MJ fans, they just can't seem to seperate their love and devotion for the man when having a mature and imformed musical discussion..

There's a reason I brought up Bob Dylan in the MJ/Prince debate...Dylan was not known as a great songwriter because he wrote more songs than his peers; He's known as one of the great songwriters of his time because he challenged standards of what songwriting was supposed to be. He took the songwriting craft to higher level artistically; he wrote on subject matter that went beyond the normal "baby I love you" songs of his peers and forced his fellow artists to step their game up...In his own way, like Dylan, Prince expanded the boundaries of songwriting in the '80s...Like Dylan he challenged notions of what and how subject matter like sex, politics, and love can be addressed in a song...To borrow a line from one of the orgers: MJ wrote "Heal The World;" Prince wrote "Sign O The Times.." In other words, Prince's songwriting during his prime years (Dirty Mind to LoveSexy) was more complex, challenging, groundbreaking, and yes, more prolific..

Prince's greatest strength is perhaps his dizzying versatility which seemed less forced than MJ...The question you have to ask yourself is this: Prince could write a "Beat It," "Liberian Girl," "Stranger In Moscow," "Don't Stop...," and most of the other songs MJ didn't write...But could MJ write a "Sign O The Times," "Manic Monday," "When U Were Mine;" "Little Red Corvette," "Money Don't Matter," or "Erotic City"...? I think you know the answer to that...

Unlike a lot of cultish Prince "fams" on this site, I see and respect the genius of MJ in his prime...It's just that MJ's genius in my opinion was never connected to his songwriting...(Again, I don't listen to "Billie Jean" or "Remember The Time" for some grand revelation of songwriting; I listen to it because the songs make me want to dance; because MJ's voice is freakishly soulful; because it makes me want to sing along out loud without any embarrasment..) MJ's true genius, again, was in his brilliant performances (To me he is the only artist that actually made genuis statements in his video clips) I'm an MJ fan from back in the days...I've seen the man with his brothers on the Triumph Tour and I can tell you that it was one of the most fluid, natural, and infectious shows I've ever attended...It was in a word...awsome. But this constant re-working of the man's legacy is a bit overeaching...MJ was and is the greatest entertainer of any era; he had one of the greatest voices of all time and he stands as the most iconic figures in pop culture and posessed a scary gift for melody as well; In short, he was an icon amongst icons...That's all that needs to be said about Michael Jackson...
[Edited 9/11/05 23:51pm]

Okay, here's a long ass essay on MJ and Prince that was written back in 2003 that I found and posted on MJboard.com. It's basically about how MJ and Prince had to play by a different set of rules than their white counterparts in the music industry and how Prince's direction that veered away from "playing the music industry game" proved to be more benefitial to his legacy than MJ's...


-----
Michael Jackson and Prince: Two Sides of a Different Coin

by C. Liegh McInnis

"I had put myself in the hole with the first record. I wanted to remedy that with the second album. I wanted a 'hit' album. It was for radio rather than for me, and it got a lot of people interested in my music. But it wasn't the kind of audience you really want.They only come around to see you when youhave another hit. They won't come to see you when you change directions and try something new. That's the kind of audience I wanted." (Prince, Los Angeles Times, 1982.)


In light of Michael Jackson's latest troubles with Sony Music, many black people have been appalled at Jackson's obvious playing of the race card. The basic issue for many blacks is the notion that Jackson has been happy being the crossover, mainstream icon as long as his albums have been selling. In fact, Jackson has remained basically mute when other black artists have complained of racism. Now that Jackson wishes to cry wolf, very few African Americans are coming to his aid. In fact, one prominent DJ compared Jackson's issue of sour grapes to Prince's issue of sour grapes. Jackson and Prince have been lumped together as two black men who have sold their souls to the devil and then were dumb enough to complain when they were burned. While I agree that both have been two black men who have not wanted to be identifiably black, that is where the similarities end.

Jackson's issue with Sony is about money. Prince's issue with Warner Bros. was about artistic freedom. Jackson's issue is about a loan and lack of promotion. Prince's issue is about masters, which does equate to money, but is more about artistic ownership and control.

Prince's issue was not about Warner Bros.' lack of promotion, how much money they paid him, or whether or not his albums were selling. Prince's initial issue was that Warner Bros. wanted the right to be both judge and jury. Warner Bros. wanted the right not to release any work that it deemed unacceptable, and they wanted the right to keep that work, which they deemed unacceptable, from being shopped around to other outlets, including self-distribution by the artist. In essence, Warner Bros. wants the right to have total control over an artist and his offspring, as if that artist and all the art he produces is their chattel. Warner Bros. not only wanted the right to judge Prince's art; they wanted the right to keep others from judging it even after they had rejected it. Once Prince realized that he only needed to submit five more albums to fulfill his contract with Warner Bros., Prince merely gave them five albums.

Yet, Warner Bros. was at it once again, asserting that they had the right to accept or reject the work as fulfillment to Prince's contract and that Prince's contract would not be fulfilled until they released the albums, which could have tied Prince to Warner Bros. for an additional ten years. If this is not slavery, then we need a referendum. In fact, Prince initially refused to promote his last few albums on Warner Bros. until they asserted that he was legally bound to do so. What is important about Prince's refusal to promote his art owned by Warner Bros. is that it speaks to his lack of concern over how much money the albums would generate.

Once Prince realized that he could not have control over his artistic direction, he was willing to loose or not make money if it would allow him to leave Warner Bros. and regain control of his artistic life and direction. The core of Prince's issue was the right of an artist to market/barter his work after one company deems that they cannot/will not be able to sell that work.

This issue lead into the deeper waters of who should own and control the masters or master recordings. Put clearly, Prince asserted:

"As a businessman and the owner of NPG Records...I realize that the record companies are a natural part of the food chain. It is the record label that allows a musical artist to reach out to his or her audience, but that does not mean that whichever organization markets anddistributes the music should own the final product, i.e., the Masters...All artists, whether new or established, must have a substantial ownership interest in the music they create. Conversely, all record labels need an incentive to market music and push it through their distribution system; still, that incentive should not be ultimate control. Record labels have no right to enslave the creators" (Prince, "Message from the Artist." 1995).


Unlike Prince, Jackson was groomed in the hit-making machine of Motown, where hits were produced on an assembly line, like cars, specifically to pander to a mainstream taste. Barry Gordy admits that he tried to talk Marvin Gaye into not making a "political" record, such as What's Going On, and he often wished that Stevie Wonder would put more emphasis on making records rather than traveling the globe as a political activist. Accordingly, from the age of eight, Jackson has been groomed to be a mainstream, apolitical icon. In stark contrast to this, Prince has consistently, and in the face of great economic gain, asserted that artistic satisfaction, not money, has been his driving force.

In 1990, a full six years before his falling out with Warner Bros., he stated "I'm always going forward, always trying to surprise myself. It's not about hits. I knew how to make hits by my second album." (Karlen, "Prince Talks," 60). Even earlier, in 1986, at the height of his Purple Reign, he asserted to Detroit DJ, the Electrifying Mojo, "The only purpose of hit records is to keep money in the pockets of the people hanging around." We have several documented statements, along with Prince's artistic history of defying or refusing to go the way of what's hot on radio, that suggest that Prince's emphasis has always been art over money--all years before his encounter with Warner Bros. "When everyone else goes right, I go left." In fact, during a 1990 legal battle, his former mangers, Cavallo, Ruffalo & Fargnoli wanted to be compensated by Prince for lost "wages and profits" for not following their advice and making more marketable/profitable art.

This, then, refutes Rolling Stone/MTV reporter, Kurt Loader's notion that Prince's issue with Warner Bros. was merely sour grapes due to lacking sales. In fact, in a 1996 Forbes interview, reprinted by The Prince Family Newsletter, there is a clear notion that Prince is more concerned with artistic expression and freedom than economic gain.

"He wants to flood the market with his work. That's something Warner would never let him do, and it was the issue that helped trigger the split...a Warner executive states, 'Despite his brilliance, one record after another causes burnout.' If so, then it's burn, baby, burn, the singer retorts. 'My music wants to do what it wants to do, and I just want to get out of its way...I know they're not all going to sell.'...With the shackles off, his fans can expect what the poet Shelley called 'profuse strains of unpremeditated art'" (Dawkins 116).

So, if selling is not the point for Prince, what is? "My music wants to do what it wants to do, and Warner Bros. and nobody else has the right to tell me or my music what to do." This is the line that separates Prince from Jackson, making his issue an artistic one and Jackson's issue an economic one. In addition, in 1985, Prince asserted:

"I think the smartest thing I did was record Around the World in a Day right after I finished Purple Rain. I didn't wait to see what would happen with Purple Rain. That's why the two albums sound completely different. People think , 'Oh, the new album isn't half as powerful as Purple Rain or 1999. You know how easy it would have been to open Around the World in A Day with the guitar solo that's on the end of 'Let's Go Crazy?' You know how easy it would have been to just put it in a different key? That would have shut everybody up who said the album wasn't half as powerful. I don't want to make an album like the earlier ones...More than anything else, I try not to repeat myself...I think that's the problem with the music industry today. When a person does get a hit, they try to do it again, the same way." (Karlen,
"Prince of Paisley Park," 30, 86.)

Throughout his career, Prince has been an artist who has followed his artistic inspiration and not the charts. Jackson, on the other hand, has made sure that he always used the hippest producers, the best marketing, and the most "in-the-now" choreographers. So it seems that Jackson's entire career, unlike Prince's, has been about hit's, which equates to money. Therefore, his issue now with Sony is not about art but about money, which is what separates him from Prince. Of course, the argument can be made that Jackson has a more impressive record of being a humanitarian, citing the USA for Africa project, where Prince was seemingly absent. However, the truth is that Prince was not absent. He wrote and donated a song for the project, electing not to participate in the "We Are the World" single. Yet, just because Jackson has been more visible does not mean that Prince has not used his talents and financial gains to help others. Prince was one of the first artists to lend his talents to the Million Man March (writing the song "We March"), Prince was one of the first artists to donate to the Tom Joyner HBCU Scholarship Initiative, and Prince was one of the first artists to assist Marva Collins in her project to develop a school that meets the needs of black children in Chicago. One's humanitarian deeds should not be used for a pissing contest, but it is necessary to cite these works as a means to show that Prince's work has been equal to his rhetoric.


Despite their artistic differences, both Jackson's and Prince's problems ith their record companies are directly related to the consistent pressure to assimilate and achieve by the standards of Eurocentrism and capitalism, which often places a double standard in regard to the treatment and valuing of African Americans. While both black and white artists continue to suffer the ill with not being paid properly, white artists tend to get a bit more leeway when their records do not sell as well, especially if that white artist is considered to be "artistically influential." On the other hand, black artists, in their relationship with their record labels, are judged more sternly by the amount of units they are able to move, especially when a black artists attempts to break away from the current system of distributing and selling music.

Rolling Stone and Vibe both treated Emancipation as a flop, even though Prince netted 50 million that year for the entire project, including multi-platinum status. Unfortunately, the masses accepted RS and Vibe's analysis because we have been trained to accept the opinion of the master and his lackey. In light of the atmosphere that RS and Vibe created, Prince was unable to get his videos for Emancipation played on MTV, and they were played in a very limited manner on BET. (It also should be noted that many critics did indicate that Prince should have chosen more commercial tunes for video release.) We must remember that magazines are in bed with the record companies. Thus, the journalism in those mags can be only so objective, especially if they want to continue to get the interviews and pictures that they need to sell mags. The whole system is based on one party using the other to make money; therefore, black independent artists, who are not making money for major labels, tend to be marginalized.


The problem with Jackson, Prince and far too many other black artists is that we all have been trained to think as integrationists and not as black nationalists. And generally, it is not until something happens to us, as individuals, that we are willing to address the inconsistencies and injustices of our so-called integrated society. However, this is not an issue or a problem just for Jackson and Prince. Most African Americans do not care about racism until they are the one who has been denied the job. Let's not over romanticize the past. Only about ten percent of the black population actively participated in the Civil Rights Movement during the 1950s-1970s.

And even less actually marched, sat-in or engaged in any type of protest. So, Jackson's "Johnny Come Lately" attitude should not be placed in a glass box for all to ridicule. But furthermore, Prince should not be sweepingly lumped into the same category as Jackson. The record clearly shows that Prince, unlike Jackson, has been a champion of artistic freedom and individual liberation throughout his career, which was the crust of his issue with Warner Bros. The problem for Prince is that it takes a mass not an individual to change a social injustice. To paraphrase Stokely Carmichael, no matter how bad George Washington was, he would have been just another dead settler by himself.

Prince's inability to impact or change what he saw as an injustice was because he has spent his career so in search of his "individual" higher self and his "individual" freedoms that he has alienated himself from any mass, especially the African American mass. Despite his alienation from any particular group or mass, he had, unlike Jackson, a history of fighting for artistic and individual freedom and liberation against all types of oppression, especially in his music. Unfortunately for him, he is seen as having taken the same road as Jackson and many other black artists who have wanted to be more individual and less Negro.

Thus, Prince appears to suffer from what Langston Hughes calls "the desire to pour racial individuality into the mold of American standardization, and to be as little Negro and as much American as possible" (Gates and McKay 1267).


Regardless of Prince's artistic and individual reasons, two wrongs (or misguided efforts) never seem to make a right. Wh ther someone smokes marijuana to unlock the mystical truths of the universe, for medical purposes, or for mere physical gratification, the general public, which views drug use as wrong, lumps all three of these users into the same category. Thus, the same holds for Prince and Michael Jackson, two distinct artists who traveled the same paths for different reasons. Regardless of the reason, the general black populous sees them the same. This same notion holds true when African Americans attempt to mold themselves in a certain manner to achieve professional success. On the one hand, Jackson molded himself to make himself more palatable for mainstream, crossover success.

On the other hand, Prince molded himself as a way to gain access to play/produce all the music to which he felt he had a right to make. For Prince, being classified as a R&B (Real Black) artist meant being limited and, often, being dead in the water before you have an opportunity to swim. Black artists have been and continue to be limited in the range of music that they are allowed to produce, while whiteacts, such as the Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton, are allowed to produce music that is all over the musical spectrum, which also allows them to be heard on more than one radio station at once, which allows them greater access to the public. For instance, Jimi Hendrix can be heard on the class rock station, but he is not played on the R&B or Pop station because he is not black enough. This racism is also true of black listeners. Recently, BET's 106 and Park premiered Darious Rucker's (Hootie and the Blowfish) new solo video. One audience member, a young African American male, stated "Iike him as an alternative act. He should stick to that."

So, it is clear that African American artists are held to a more limited capacity, and those who choose to struggle against that limitation are more often maligned than celebrated. The young black male who desires for Rucker to "stick to that," which implies to "stay in his place," clearly shows that blacks too commonly accept their assigned places and limitations, which ultimately limits their growth and evolution both personally and collectively.

Prince has been vocal about this racial disparity for his entire career, even as early as 1987. "I don't go to awards shows anymore. I'm not saying I'm better than anybody else. But you'll be sitting there at the Grammys, and U2 will beat you. And you say to yourself. 'Wait a minute. I can play that kind of music, too...I know how to do that, you dig? But you will not do 'Housequake'" (Karlen, "Prince Talks," 5. That year, Prince was pitted in one category against U2 and in another category against Luther Vandross, and both times he lost because Sign "O" the Times was deemed as too eclectic. I continue to wonder if this means too eclectic for a black men, since white acts continue to get played in multiple categories. For

Prince, not being aligned to anyone or anything--race, gender, and musical category--was an issue of musical/artistic/spiritual survival, not crossover appeal. However, when a black artist refuses to directly aligned himself with the accepted, traditional. And programmed tastes of the black mass, he is setting himself up for permanent banishment from black radio. More importantly, his self-isolation/banishment from the collective to pursue his individual desires has caused his attempts to rally the collective around a serious issue of artist infringement to fall on death ears.

Maybe Prince and Jackson's rhetoric have fallen on death ears because they are perceived as men who can finally do something about these injustices but who have done nothing more than talk. Essentially, Jackson's problem is about a loan from Sony, which is standard operating procedure. The question that should be raised is, "Why is Jackson still getting loans from other people to produce records?" With his financial security and global icon status, Jackson should be looking to become an institution--not work for one.

When a financially successful artist like Jackson continues to work for a system that he knows is unjust, we must question the mentality of a people who continue to invest in integration when it continues to fail them. Even with his success, Jackson will continue to earn only ten percent of the profits as long as he continues to work for Sony instead of himself.

On the other hand, Prince has broken away from the traditional system of making and disseminating music, but his efforts, for the most part, have remained individualistic--or at least they ar perceived that way. For all of their financial success and professional frustrations, neither man has seemingly really considered the idea of black nationalism, to a degree where they are willing to make themselves institutions in order to create an entirely new system.

Thus, it is this lack of "work" which causes their rhetoric to fall on death ears. It seems that Jackson does not want to be free; he just wants to be a well paid slave. And Prince is willing to escape from the plantation, but he is no Harriet Tubman. In both cases, African Americans are missing a golden opportunity to use one of their greatest gifts for something more than pleasure

Every artist who achieves large financial gain will not be the type to invest that financial gain into the creation of a new system that better serves his people. All artists are not able to make the jump to being a capitalist first and an artist second. Prince came to this realization with his first record company, Paisley Park Records, which was distributed by Warner Bros. Most of the acts that he signed were aesthetically pleasing to him, but those acts did not generate enough revenue to satisfy the demands of Warner Bros. Scarface of the Ghetto Boys affirms this dilemma. When Scarface became an executive of a major label, he was clear that he would have to sign acts that he thought would make the company money even if they did not peak his artistic interest.

So, there is always going to be an ongoing battle between art and economics because it is the music business. But, if Jackson is going to be marching and picketing Sony and asking well known black people, such as Johnnie Cochran and Al Sharpton, to join with him to help rally the masses, he should know that the general black public will expect that something will come of this oter than some individual gain for Jackson.

Please excuse the long ass post....

murph said:

Dah-yyumn.

That's a long ass post.

Illustrator said:

Yeah, it's an article that I found on the web...It's quite long, but if you have the patience, it's a thought-provoking read....I think we have a few people on this site that can get over their ADS.....

Prince kicks MJ'S white/black ass all over the place, everyone knows for fucks sake...

This is going to trip everybody's mind!, because I not here to judge
micheal or prince is better than each other, I like both, because I grew
up to micheal first before I ever even knew Prince music or who he even
was. I like them both because they both put out good music, but on the
other hand micheal is not there in the music anymore like he used to be
or I simply gave up on micheal because he just don't put out the music
anymore like Prince puts out and micheal don't get involved with soceity
like Prince does.

ThePowersCreepin said:

AMEN! Case closed