One thing that bothered me about the cable and major network coverage of MJ's life was that there was no mention of the rivalry with Prince. This was a part of MJ's legacy, as well, anybody who lived in the 80's knows this. It seemed to me that they wanted so bad to portray Micheal as the sole greatest of his era that they deliberately omitted this from their documetaries. I became angry when someone would say "no one came close to Micheal". I'm like hello, Prince did. The only place where the rivalry was brought up was in the print, online, and radio. I've also noticed that there seems to be a biases against Prince by the cable outlets. I first noticed this around his superbowl performance. The cable outlets barely mentioned how good it was but the print media did.

My 2 :
Prince is one of the greatest. My personal favorite.
Prince is Prince as Joni Mitchell said the greatest live performer ever to grace the stage. The fact is Prince is a skilled musician with the flair to put on a live performance like no other. And music that dare to go where nobody in the pop realm dare to go. He chose to let the music lead him and didn't worry about being or maintaining king of pop status-he could of taken that route(tone down the lyrics-worn jeans in the 80's). Instead, it appears he wanted to be the musician's icon.
MJ is MJ, one of the best dancer singer pop icons ever (with outstanding videos).
Prince has more top ten albums than MJ, does that make Prince better? Greater? No, it doesn't. But it doesn't make MJ any less or better either.
Greatest of all time-is like picking your favorite child. It aint happening.

candy2277 said:

There never was a rivalry.

BigAudio said:

I agree but that is not how most people see it. Most people still compare the two. Why do you say this? Are you saying this because you feel one is superior to the other?

NastradumasKid said:

What artist out here do you feel is better than Prince. I'm curious. I can't find any. I like a lot of artists that are out now but I don't think they're better than Prince.

Every day I switch between either Prince or Stevie being the Best of All-Time.

I can definitely make a case as to why either one of them could be the G.O.A.T.

candy2277 said:

I don't know any at this moment but I better there are ones out there.

Clevelandgirl said:

Agree, Prince is great, but,not consisten...half his shit is just bland and boring...he has great stuff and then some really horrible stuff...and he is NOT fan friendly like the other fellow was...
also the "other" fellow took the time to present his work with a bang and maximum entertainment value & exposure, he went all out on his projects to make sure fans are blown away. Prince is just always luke warm and his stuff forgotten within days of dropping.
I am a huge fan anyway, but truth is truth.

SPOOKYGAS said:

Bullshit!

There is no best.
Only different

The answer is: Yes.

And let's hope it doesn't take a memorial service to realize that.

kewlschool said:

Good God No!! Are people really that delusional?

For different people, "the best" means different things. Some people don't even have a favorite at all and just embrace music for where ever the individual song takes them.

But for a lot of us there is that singular figure who came to the table with the perfect sound at the perfect time, providing a perfect storm of sound and personal experience.

It is all so personal that it is really impossible to argue or quantify. It is impossible to quantify talent.

We all carry our own baggage and sometimes, for some of us a musician will come along who makes that baggage seem lighter, or helps us understand the importance of that baggage, and for some people that person is someone who makes them forget they have baggage altogether.

Ultimately, "The best" is a condescending phrase meant to pit people against one another instead of bring them together.

As touched as I was by the memorial today, I found myself taken out of the celebration of Michael's legacy everytime someone declared him the best entertainer ever. I love the music Michael gave the world, but for me he isn't the best ever but he was one of the best.

In my musical world there is room for Prince, and Michael, Marvin and Sam, Elvis and Little Richard, Chuck and Jerry Lee, the Beatles and the Stones, Jimi and Eric C.and on and on and on.

The top as it turns out is a very big place, and there is room for everybody, if we all just check our baggage at the door.

And for the record, for me that moment was the summer of 84, and for reasons I won't get into here, "When Doves Cry" helped me through one of the roughest times in my life. But then there's fucking "Jughead"...
[Edited 7/8/09 0:19am]

i always have a hard time with these kind of question because of the questionabe things that hes done

Michael Jackson has done some questionable things and yet many people still like him, even after his death.

ernestsewell said:

I thought the question was about music... What has 'heaven' got to do with the OP?

But, to answer the OP, I'd say that he isn't the best singer, songwriter or musician ever, but is he the greatest all-rounder of all time? Probably.

NastradumasKid said:

john mayer is a pretty damn good song writer and guitarist as well as dave mathews. stevie wonder is the shiznit and writes and plays instruments and has been doing it way longer than MJ or Prince and he's blind on top of it. Ray charles was awesome. madonna can't sing worth a damn but she makes decent music and her concerts are off the chain and she's loved worldwide like MJ.

I am clearly biased in favor of Prince most of the time but I'm realistic in that I know he is the not the greates ever and there is no greatest ever. All the stuff they said about MJ opening doors best believe Sammy Davis did it before him and so did Nat King Cole who had a TV show back when black folks was still getting lynched.

In short...it's not fair to say anyone is the best of all time because they are all great in their own way. The true test is whether we will still talk about them 30 plus years after they are gone. Elvis anyone?

DesireeNevermind said:

Preach on!!!!!

To me yes, but what do i know

DesireeNevermind said:

I agree with most of what you say but John Mayer and Dave Matthews are not better than Prince. They're good artists but not better IMO. Prince plays the guitar much better than Mayer. If Prince were on the Jackson memorial, he would've of tore up that solo. I do like Mayer BTW. Stevie is equal to Prince as a musician but lacks the excitement and eccentric traits that Prince brings to a performance. Madonna is great performer but you don't get anything musical from her.

I like that you mentioned Nat King Cole and Sammy Davis Jr opemimng up barriers before MJ. I was watching Sharpton during the memorial and got mad and told my mother the same thing you said word for word LOL.

You're right nobody is the greatest of all time.

SPOOKYGAS said:

Prince= Musical genius (a prolific 30+ year career)

MJ= a had been popstar (grabbing the headlines for shady reasons)

I'd say yes until recently. Albums like Lovesexy and ATWIAD. ONLY Prince could create that. His more recent things, like Rainbow Children....I mean anyone could do that.

catpark said:

MJ was every bit as genius as Prince is. Sorry, but Mr. P could never blend his influences with pop so seemlessly. Prince has never had a song that appealed to EVERYONE! 'Corvette' was pretty big, but there were people who hated that synthpop crap. If you think Prince could've wrote something as musically universal as "Man In The Mirror," you are smoking some serious crack.

Aside from a few hits, Prince is obscure as all hell.

Look at 1991, for a random example. What was huger, Diamonds and PEarls, or Dangerous? '95. HIStory or Gold Experience? Which had more press and publicity?
'01? Invincible or Rainbow Children?
[Edited 7/8/09 2:47am]
[Edited 7/8/09 2:52am]

NoVideo said:

co-sign.

when he's NOT a one man jam-he is rather good at getting the right people to do what they do at another level which feeds his creativity. 2 minds are always better than one-especially one so isolated from the outside world (us!)

BUT

when he does EVERYTHING -no he then becomes good-not great and deffo nowhere near the best-there are better songwriters, dancers, singers ,guitar players and definately better business folk out there then Prince

still a brilliant live artist-but he's definately not the only brilliant live act-and now he's older and obviously slowing down-i can't see him keeping that crown much longer-plus now he literally does his own thing and does not seem to want to participate it the game all artists HAVE to play somewhat-I see more isolation-crazy deals that benefit only him (not the folk buying whatever will be next)

alot of folk have said this and that on the current situation. I hope thay mean it like i do-cuz i'm NOT buying official releases again-and i really hope others don't get fooled again

if he was-the best-why would he need all the current crap to sell his stuff-surely the music would speak for itself-like it used to.....

and.....

how many folk have been alienated from him in say-the last year? Long time fans that sell his idea to others for free-cuz we wanted to. Housequake closed-some went then. Lotus is driving so many folk away somewhat.

The best don't need to threaten fans, open shady web sites or make ridiculous claims like playing the hits for the very last time-every time he plays.....

the best does what they do best-and trusts others to do what they do. One man cannot do it all-no matter how intelligent or cool he seems

jonylawson said:

I agree...She/he (Celevelandgirl) is trying to say that because MJ's memorial was watched by 1 billion viewers...this reinforces that he was/is the best.
How?
In order to conduce a theory such as this one must have two variables (both the memorials of Prince and MJ).
I am not saying this to demoralize or to show disregard....but she was trying to compare a memorial service (how many fans watched) to what? Prince is still alive (Thank goodness)...and a memorial service should not even begin to be a method to a "Popularity/best of all time" comparison.

P.S. RIP MJ. You will be missed!

he's very good. brilliant. musician, performer, 4-octave voice, genre-bending basta rd! BUT. if we are talking about world impact. No. Bob Marley had more impact on the world. James Brown had more impact in the world. Plus the fact that he is the literal embodiment of his idols (James, Santana, Hendrix, Mitchel). For me yes, no doubt, he is the most creative and talented musician bar none. But for most people, he is just a wierdo with a few good songs to his name. I think Michael Jackson (even though I never liked him as Prince) has got more of a claim to the "best of all time" tag...simply because he affected so many people globally. Bloody hell, you could go to the depths of the amazon and the tribes there would no about Jackson...shamon mother f u x x er shamon!

MJ=Pop
Prince= Music