LBrent said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

I'm a music fan in general, with a wide range of interests and artists that I enjoy, so painting me as a mere a "MJ fan" doesn't faze me at all. I'm as much of an MJ fan as I am a Miles Davis, Frank Zappa, Schoenberg and Liszt fan. Thankfully I can appreciate different musicians of varying calibre rather than painting myself as a musical elitist that is above the likes of an artist like Michael Jackson, which is the implicit vibe a lot of you are giving.

Lawd. Musical eliticism, really? Please, feel free to enjoy whomever and whatever you like. I enjoy a bit of junk food every now and then...but I don't pretend I'm eating a gourmet meal when I do scarf down McD's, then add insult to injury by insisting that anyone who rejects the delusion that McD's s gourmet is being a nutritional elitist. I think the biggest roadblock to P fans listening to MJ fans is is the pretention. If MJ fans could just be honest, "Yes, it's pop. No, it isn't earthshatteringly deep. No, he isn't a musician, but I still enjoy MJ's stuff anyway." The resistance MJ fans feel when trying to make comparisons to P is often cuz we're onto y'all. We get it. You wish MJ was P. He wasn't. Oh, well.

both fanbases have pretention. As someone who's been a member of the Org, Housequake, MJJC and other MJ forums, it goes both ways

I don't think MJ fans want him to be Prince. Hell, a lot of them love Prince too The issue I've always seen is the dismissing one to lift up the other when BOTH of them were great and excellent at what they did.

They made great music, they were both talented. It's best to leave it at that.

bboy87 said:

LBrent said:

smoothcriminal12 said: Lawd. Musical eliticism, really? Please, feel free to enjoy whomever and whatever you like. I enjoy a bit of junk food every now and then...but I don't pretend I'm eating a gourmet meal when I do scarf down McD's, then add insult to injury by insisting that anyone who rejects the delusion that McD's s gourmet is being a nutritional elitist. I think the biggest roadblock to P fans listening to MJ fans is is the pretention. If MJ fans could just be honest, "Yes, it's pop. No, it isn't earthshatteringly deep. No, he isn't a musician, but I still enjoy MJ's stuff anyway." The resistance MJ fans feel when trying to make comparisons to P is often cuz we're onto y'all. We get it. You wish MJ was P. He wasn't. Oh, well.

both fanbases have pretention. As someone who's been a member of the Org, Housequake, MJJC and other MJ forums, it goes both ways

I don't think MJ fans want him to be Prince. Hell, a lot of them love Prince too The issue I've always seen is the dismissing one to lift up the other when BOTH of them were great and excellent at what they did.

They made great music, they were both talented. It's best to leave it at that.

purplethunder3121 said:

laurarichardson said:

heathilly said:

I think prince most melodic songs are

the love we make

question of u

I feel for you

do me baby (this one is really strong melody wise)

little red corvette

beautiful ones

most beautiful girl

cream (although this one kinda forgettable)

Paisley Park

Thats off the top of my head.

I think prince was an overall a better songwriter but mj wrote better pop songs they were just more hooky and hummable. I think thats why his music had more of broad appeal like the beatles just strong hooky melodies.

Never the less two genius in my book they both inspired me greatly.

But Prince could do more than Pop music and you need to listen to some of the things that are in the Vault that are out on line. Everyday I hear something new that blows my mind. The guys that worked on his jazz project are describing the music as being incrediable. Prince was a serious storyteller with the hooks and words to keep it interesting. When he said his best stuff was in the Vault he was not joking. In the next few years people are not going to be comparing these two as musical artist.

No dis to MJ but he was a simple pop song writer and not even in the top 20 at that.

Yes Im familar with prince work believe or not. I said prince was a superior song writer but mj wrote better pop songs . Mjs a better pop songwriter he understood simplicity and the beauty of a melody and devalued words for feeling. Hence all those things you can say are lower intellectually but have a much stronger feeling that all people can sense no matter the language barrier. And thats not dimissing prince but he didnt do that as nearly as well. They had two different goals so its bad to compare them when prince just wanted to experiment and his stuff could turn out very esoteric and Mj wanted to make good songs that appealed to everyone not too dumb down not too sophistcated.

[Edited 10/14/16 0:21am]

RicoN said:

rapper said:

RicoN said:

snip

snip

The man was tried and acquited in a court of law. Get over it already.

smoothcriminal12 said:

Noodled24 said:

This is not difficult. If you want to talk about Jackson as a musician, you can talk his skills as an arranger, composer, and vocalist. That alone is evidence of his musicianship. That is how you discuss him as a musician. These three topics alone are enough to fill a book the size of the Bible.

It's quite difficult. Since the vast majority of his songs have multiple co-writer credits and multiple producer credits. If there are 5 co-writers and 2 producers on a song are we supposed to believe these people were given credit despite having no input?

I, frankly, would love to hear more talk about Prince as a composer, arranger and producer. I could talk forever about the intricacies in his music, chord progressions he uses and varying arrangement choices that create unique textures and timbres in his songs. There is much more to talking about music and musicianship than just instruments. This topic can be dissected and delved into in depth and at length.

When I hear a song like The Beautiful Ones, I'm more inclined to think about how Prince skillfully uses arrangement and his own voice to create tension, drama and release. I could go on and on about the musicianship of that alone.

Yes, but that's because Prince was a musician. He did it all himself so it makes talking about it easy.

Adorecream said:

RicoN said:

snip

People ignore it, because there was not any. Mods please snip this trolls crap about Michael Jackson as a u know what. And give him a holiday from the org.

I have reported this post and the mod replied to me that the post had been "reviewed" and obviously didn''t think it serious enough to remove. So far this mod has refused to answer any of my follow up PMs. You ever wanna throw slander and demean anything and everything that MJ has done there will always be a place for you on prince.org!

This is the sort of stuff that got ALL MJ threads relegated to one MJ thread in the first place...

dublinproud said:

I've removed all those posts now.

Keep it on topic.

If you're not a fan of both artists, this isn't the thread for you.

Militant said:

I've removed all those posts now.

Keep it on topic.

If you're not a fan of both artists, this isn't the thread for you.

Good work and thanks militant, but one post, 2 above mine still has Rico's crap.

Militant said:

dublinproud said:

I have reported this post and the mod replied to me that the post had been "reviewed" and obviously didn''t think it serious enough to remove. So far this mod has refused to answer any of my follow up PMs. You ever wanna throw slander and demean anything and everything that MJ has done there will always be a place for you on prince.org!

I'll remove it when I get a few minutes. This is a discussion thread about the podcast. It is for people who are fans of both. If you have no interest in MJ then don't come in this thread. If you want to talk shit about nonsense allegations that everyone knows are false, do it someplace else. Thanks to all the people contributing meaningful discussion to this thread.

Thank you!

smoothcriminal12 said:

One can be a musician without playing an instrument. That would be an instrumentalist. Musician can be broadened to include anyone with musical talent.

.

Yes.

.

A skilled vocalist is most definitely a musician. MJ's vocal style was inimitable. He was a meticulous, precise arranger of his original material. His interpretative skills when singing songs written by others were first rate.

.

All of this makes an airtight case for MJ the musician - despite the fact that he wasn't known as an instrumentalist.

.

Prince was a monstrously talented multi-instrumentalist - and the same can be said for his vocal skills.

.

Charlie Parker invented a new language for jazz musicians - he "only" played sax. One needn't be a multi-instrumentalist to be a musician.

.

MJ's instrument was his voice. Just like Ella Fitzgerald, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Sarah Vaughan, and many other artists.

.

(Not comparing Bird's musicianship to MJ's, by the way, just trying to make a point because some folks seem to be hung up on multi-instrumentalism as a prerequisite for being considered a musician.)

.

Also by the way - posting as someone who is by no means an MJ "fanatic" (because some folks seem to believe that any defense of MJ's artistry must be coming from a "fanatic").

CAL3 said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

One can be a musician without playing an instrument. That would be an instrumentalist. Musician can be broadened to include anyone with musical talent.

.

Yes.

.

A skilled vocalist is most definitely a musician. MJ's vocal style was inimitable. He was a meticulous, precise arranger of his original material. His interpretative skills when singing songs written by others were first rate.

Great vocalist. Probably the greatest of all time. He could sing the phonebook and make it captivating.

All of this makes an airtight case for MJ the musician - despite the fact that he wasn't known as an instrumentalist.

I think I should reiterate, I believe MJ could play a bit. I can, and I don't work in the music business. He must have been able to. However...

What I said was that MJ lacked credibility as a musician, due to the fact there is no footage of him playing. For example; If Prince never played guitar live, we would question if he was playing all the guitar on his songs.

Another example would be; I forget if it was Sonny T or Morris Hayes who claimed Prince could play a bit of Sax. No fan has ever taken Prince seriously as a Sax player. If it was true then he didn't even take himself seriously since he always brought in the horn players.

Noodled24 said:

What I said was that MJ lacked credibility as a musician, due to the fact there is no footage of him playing. For example; If Prince never played guitar live, we would question if he was playing all the guitar on his songs.

.

As an instrumentalist, sure.

.

My point is that MJ's instrument was his voice. Vocalists who really know what they're doing are musicians.

.

On the other hand, there guitarists and keyboardists in bands who make a living playing music, who we see playing everytime their band appears, who are in fact quite rudimentary as musicians. But we don't question them as musicians because we see them playing something. Even if its just a bunch of power chords. And even when they're not writing or arranging any of the material.

.

Point being, for anyone to bust down MJ to something other than a musician because they can't accept his voice as his intrument... That also means some of the other greatest musical artists of all time are not "musicians" while the person laying down a synth pad and cooing some backing vocals in back row of a working band is. (They both are. The difference lies in their skill level, artistry, and originality - EDIT: and in many cases, their versatility.)

[Edited 10/18/16 8:54am]

CAL3 said:

Noodled24 said:

.

As an instrumentalist, sure.

.

My point is that MJ's instrument was his voice. Vocalists who really know what they're doing are musicians.

Ok, that's fair enough. However that opens things up to people I wouldn't necessarily call musicians.

On the other hand, there guitarists and keyboardists in bands who make a living playing music, who we see playing everytime their band appears, who are in fact quite rudimentary as musicians. But we don't question them as musicians because we see them playing something. Even if its just a bunch of power chords. And even when they're not writing or arranging any of the material.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. I mean there aren't many people who play an instrument but don't have aspirations to be better at playing that instrument. The fact you might have seen a band have a hit with a 2 chord pop song doesn't mean that's all they do.

Point being, for anyone to bust down MJ to something other than a musician because they can't accept his voice as his intrument... That also means some of the other greatest musical artists of all time are not "musicians" while the person laying down a synth pad and cooing some backing vocals in back row of a working band is. (They both are. The difference lies in their skill level, artistry, and originality - EDIT: and in many cases, their versatility.)

First I'm not "busting" anyone. Second, you're right... of course anyone working in the music business, if they were filling out a form and the form asked for their occupation they'd tick "musician". But you're using the broadest sense of the word.

I think a prerequisite for gaining credibility as a musician is playing an instrument. Equally I struggle seeing someone who never played an instrument as one of the "greatest musicians" of all time.

Noodled24 said:

CAL3 said:

I'm not sure that's entirely true. I mean there aren't many people who play an instrument but don't have aspirations to be better at playing that instrument. The fact you might have seen a band have a hit with a 2 chord pop song doesn't mean that's all they do.

Point being, for anyone to bust down MJ to something other than a musician because they can't accept his voice as his intrument... That also means some of the other greatest musical artists of all time are not "musicians" while the person laying down a synth pad and cooing some backing vocals in back row of a working band is. (They both are. The difference lies in their skill level, artistry, and originality - EDIT: and in many cases, their versatility.)

First I'm not "busting" anyone. Second, you're right... of course anyone working in the music business, if they were filling out a form and the form asked for their occupation they'd tick "musician". But you're using the broadest sense of the word.

I think a prerequisite for gaining credibility as a musician is playing an instrument. Equally I struggle seeing someone who never played an instrument as one of the "greatest musicians" of all time.

.

Ok, that's fair enough. However that opens things up to people I wouldn't necessarily call musicians.

.

That's true. Just like it would be overly generous to call many people who play an instrument "musicians."

.

I mean there aren't many people who play an instrument but don't have aspirations to be better at playing that instrument.

.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I think. In my view, the music industry is positively littered with musicians who demonstrate absolutely no forward progress in their abilities. Some of this depends on the genre. Many a rock musician who have become "estasblished" in their success are content to coast on their stagnanting skill level.

.

First I'm not "busting" anyone

.

Didn't accuse you of doing so (keep in mind, you responded to a post of mine that was a response to somebody else's post) - I meant people in general.

.

I think a prerequisite for gaining credibility as a musician is playing an instrument.

.

We agree on the general point - we disagree on the finer point. I'm including voice as an instrument. What MJ (or, say, Billie Holiday or Mario Lanza) did with his voice was far more proficient from a musicianship standpoint than a great many people strumming guitars or clomping out chords on a keyboard - yet we're not questioning their status as musicians because they're wielding an external instrument.

Listening to "Break of Dawn" that was just an amazing song, can anyone here imagine Prince doing a version (Know its a bit hard now, but who knows what is in the vault). The podcast draws it out as a supreme example of a Michael Jackson sex ballad and proves it has more class than the average Prince wants to fxxk you song (This part made me laugh). But I agree with them the song is brilliant and has a whole lot of class.

.

I feel too that "Break of Dawn" has a huge Prince feel to it and kind of a Prince tribute song like D'Angelo's Untitled.

Huge compliments to the MJCast and everyone who participated in this. It took a while, but I actually couldn't agree more than all of your points.

Everything people have said in this thread concerning not knowing why they're compared is answered in the podcast. Loved Samir's story from the Purple Rain era when he came to the realisation that you can be a fan of both at the same time, after reviously resisting his older siblings' protests

Thanks for sharing this. I don't understand the comparisons either, but given they were both on top of the world during the 80's some cannot help themselves. What is so infuriating to me is that, when some say MJ is better than Prince, all they seem to focus on is that MJ sold more records and won more awards. I am like, really? To me, quality is better than quantity. I feel some fans have fallen for the so called rivalry that the media likes to stir up and want to pit one against the other and that is really sad. MJ's music was more for the masses, but that is how he wanted it, whereas Prince wrote and released what he wanted and didn't care about record sales, popularity and awards. Makes me wonder if some of these rabid fans have really bothered to listen closely to either one's music. If they did, they would notice the stark contrast and stop with the comparisons. So sad, some have to build one artist up and tear down another.

Part 2 is out now! So I'll lock and unsticky this thread, and see you over in the new thread! You can still discuss things from the first episode in the new thread as well if you want to.