4You92 said:

All of this. This is why I find it silly for people to harp on Mike's limited instrumentalism as some type of proof that he couldn't write music. They don't understand his capabilities. Either that or they don't understand what perfect pitch allows someone to do.

Pefect Pitch allows someone to identify or replicate any note. That's it. It doesn't mean you have some ability to write music via osmosis. The only person I've read claiming MJ had perfect pitch was Will.i.am. No scientific tests were done so it's a moot point.

LBrent said:

Ok, if what you're saying is true then...about one being a "BORN prodigy" and P simply being "a genius and hardworker"...Then this makes sense to me on many levels.

If someone is "BORN" whatever then they have zero control over having whatever. It's in them at birth...It's nothing they earned, it's something they were given, like eye color or hair color or dyslexia or perfect pitch.

But like you said, P was a genius AND a hardworker. So he earned his place in the history books...Sorta like he was able to win an Academy Award (Oscar) after less than 10 years in the industry and not having lifelong connections in the industry (including an entire older family).

Yup. Excellent point. Makes perfect sense now.

Yes if you seen the movie Amadeus mj would be mozart prince would be salieri. Pure talent is hard to out work and sometimes prince did have specs of genius but at the end of the day mj is remembered world over as the greater of the two more influential the natural prodigy and tortured soul.

Noodled24 said:

4You92 said:

All of this. This is why I find it silly for people to harp on Mike's limited instrumentalism as some type of proof that he couldn't write music. They don't understand his capabilities. Either that or they don't understand what perfect pitch allows someone to do.

Pefect Pitch allows someone to identify or replicate any note. That's it. It doesn't mean you have some ability to write music via osmosis. The only person I've read claiming MJ had perfect pitch was Will.i.am. No scientific tests were done so it's a moot point.

It's funny that you made this distinction because I was disappointed when I heard P say in an interview that he had RELATIVE PITCH because I have perfect pitch. I do not have any musical ability. I took music lesons, struggled to play pian, violin...it was awful. I cannot read music. O love listening to music but playing it is anightmare for me and although I do (very loudly with headphones or in the car) but trust me it's offkey. Lol

However, I do have perfect pitch. I can't watch those TV talent shows where people try out thier singing. I hear every slight note being played or sung offkey. I don't always enjoy live performances because I hear every offkey note. Every single one. It's maddening and gives me a headache.

How I found out about my having perfect pitch was in a music class in school. My teacher was a retired music Professor who taught at Julliard then decided he was bored and decided to teach part time at a small local school. He tested me and explained it to me when I casually mentioned not enjoying the chorus singing and the school band playing because they were offkey (they have both won competitions). He determined that I am very sensitive to hearing even the slightest deviation in a specific note and my ear hears those deviations as being "offkey" He said it was interesting because I also hear those slight deviations in speaking voices, car horns and alarms, siren, and other non-musical sounds that the average person wouldn't notice. He tried to convince me to go into music but since I have no musical talent and even less interest he gave up. Poor guy.

heathilly said:

LBrent said:

Ok, if what you're saying is true then...about one being a "BORN prodigy" and P simply being "a genius and hardworker"...Then this makes sense to me on many levels.

If someone is "BORN" whatever then they have zero control over having whatever. It's in them at birth...It's nothing they earned, it's something they were given, like eye color or hair color or dyslexia or perfect pitch.

But like you said, P was a genius AND a hardworker. So he earned his place in the history books...Sorta like he was able to win an Academy Award (Oscar) after less than 10 years in the industry and not having lifelong connections in the industry (including an entire older family).

Yup. Excellent point. Makes perfect sense now.

Yes if you seen the movie Amadeus mj would be mozart prince would be salieri. Pure talent is hard to out work and sometimes prince did have specs of genius but at the end of the day mj is remembered world over as the greater of the two more influential the natural prodigy and tortured soul.

I laughed so hard at this that I swallowed saliva and it went down the wrong pipe, causing me to gasp and nearly strangle.

Pretty, pretty, pretty...Lol

LBrent said:

heathilly said:

Yes if you seen the movie Amadeus mj would be mozart prince would be salieri. Pure talent is hard to out work and sometimes prince did have specs of genius but at the end of the day mj is remembered world over as the greater of the two more influential the natural prodigy and tortured soul.

I laughed so hard at this that I swallowed saliva and it went down the wrong pipe, causing me to gasp and nearly strangle.

Pretty, pretty, pretty...Lol

Just some similarities

mozart mj

unorthdox compostional method

child star and prodgy

died young

One of the most remembered and reverved artist of his day. Granted Mozarts been gone way longer,

salieri Prince

talented traditionlist

in the shadow of their peer

out lived their peer

Fogotten to time (prince is largely remembered by the younger generation as a dave chapelle sketch. And this was of his own unwillingness to have his music be on the internet.)

^ MJ didn't play an instrument, Motzart did nothing but.

heathilly said:

Just some similarities

mozart mj

unorthdox compostional method

child star and prodgy

died young

One of the most remembered and reverved artist of his day. Granted Mozarts been gone way longer,

I agree he'll be long rememberd, not necessarily for the dozen or so albums he made over his career. Unfortunate that.

A better comparison would be P to himself.

And the other to Justin Beiber or Britney Spear or someone in that vein. People enjoy their "art"...or so I understand. Personally, I don't listen to them.

Noodled24 said:

^ MJ didn't play an instrument, Motzart did nothing but.

He did play instruments but he wasnt very skilled at them. Of course theres difference amongst the two. But overall you put to much importance on the abilty to play something instead of the final product. The genius paints a beautiful picture the idiot criticizes him for using his fingers instead of a paint brush.

LBrent said:

heathilly said:

Just some similarities

mozart mj

unorthdox compostional method

child star and prodgy

died young

One of the most remembered and reverved artist of his day. Granted Mozarts been gone way longer,

I agree he'll be long rememberd, not necessarily for the dozen or so albums he made over his career. Unfortunate that.

I'm confident that those who have the ability to appreciate P's legacy will, in the current generation and in future ones. The public is fickle. P has always been an acquired tase, something to appreciate as it's mined...rare and uncommon like when they found King Tut's tomb. There was a time when no one in modern times had heard of King Tut. And since, in the future as years go on, scarcity allows for P's mythos to grow and that is priceless to his legacy.

The other will never be perceived of as a rare treasure to be mined because, like the immense amounts of sand along every beach, his work is easily accessible and common. A listener doesn't have to do any work to grasp it...it's right there under foot.

Not the same caliber, not the same type of product, not the same end user experience.

I'm glad.

Yes and thats fine he will have a small esoteric group of fans as he fades in obscurity.

heathilly said:

LBrent said:

I agree he'll be long rememberd, not necessarily for the dozen or so albums he made over his career. Unfortunate that.

I'm confident that those who have the ability to appreciate P's legacy will, in the current generation and in future ones. The public is fickle. P has always been an acquired tase, something to appreciate as it's mined...rare and uncommon like when they found King Tut's tomb. There was a time when no one in modern times had heard of King Tut. And since, in the future as years go on, scarcity allows for P's mythos to grow and that is priceless to his legacy.

The other will never be perceived of as a rare treasure to be mined because, like the immense amounts of sand along every beach, his work is easily accessible and common. A listener doesn't have to do any work to grasp it...it's right there under foot.

Not the same caliber, not the same type of product, not the same end user experience.

I'm glad.

Yes and thats fine he will have a small esoteric group of fans as he fades in obscurity.

Yeah.

That's what'll happen. Exactly that.

You win!

LBrent said:

heathilly said:

Yes and thats fine he will have a small esoteric group of fans as he fades in obscurity.

Yeah.

That's what'll happen. Exactly that.

You win!

Thats what happens to things that are placed on a pedalstal higher than thou and such not for the common folk. But thats what you said you want and like about prince.

[Edited 11/8/16 9:03am]

heathilly said:

Noodled24 said:

^ MJ didn't play an instrument, Motzart did nothing but.

He did play instruments but he wasnt very skilled at them. Of course theres difference amongst the two. But overall you put to much importance on the abilty to play something instead of the final product. The genius paints a beautiful picture the idiot criticizes him for using his fingers instead of a paint brush.

Well, granted Mozart didn't have two teams of people and multiple producers to help him create music. It's a ludicrous comparison. If he had then he might not be remembered in the way he is.

RE: being alble to play; It's the authenticity isn't it.

heathilly said:

LBrent said:

Yeah.

That's what'll happen. Exactly that.

You win!

Thats what happens to things that are placed on a pedalstal higher than thou and such not for the common folk. But thats what you said you want and like about prince.

[Edited 11/8/16 9:03am]

Actually, those things are kept in museums.

Wait! Paisley Park is a museum!

That other place was sorta like a museum, but wasn't it sold an torn down?

Oops! Sorry for the schadenfreunde...That wasn't nice of me...and certainly not a mitzvah.

Noodled24 said:

heathilly said:

He did play instruments but he wasnt very skilled at them. Of course theres difference amongst the two. But overall you put to much importance on the abilty to play something instead of the final product. The genius paints a beautiful picture the idiot criticizes him for using his fingers instead of a paint brush.

Well, granted Mozart didn't have two teams of people and multiple producers to help him create music. It's a ludicrous comparison. If he had then he might not be remembered in the way he is.

RE: being alble to play; It's the authenticity isn't it.

As I said there are differences between the two but there alot of simalarities. You just cant seem to get that through your thick skull the person with the vision is the genius. The abilty to play is a skill like craftmenship no different from knowing how to build a chair the designer however is the real genius. Authenticity is a personal thing of the artist, if their art is true to their core values unfettered by outside sources not there ability to play. Mozarts claim to fame was not his ablitly to play but his compositions and the fact he was a child prodigy theres no audio recordings of mozart playing anything.

LBrent said:

heathilly said:

Thats what happens to things that are placed on a pedalstal higher than thou and such not for the common folk. But thats what you said you want and like about prince.

[Edited 11/8/16 9:03am]

Actually, those things are kept in museums.

Wait! Paisley Park is a museum!

That other place was sorta like a museum, but wasn't it sold an torn down?

Oops! Sorry for the schadenfreunde...That wasn't nice of me...and certainly not a mitzvah.

Well Im glad you agree with me so prince is for the people not some higher than thou "artist" too complex for the common people.

heathilly said:

Noodled24 said:

Well, granted Mozart didn't have two teams of people and multiple producers to help him create music. It's a ludicrous comparison. If he had then he might not be remembered in the way he is.

RE: being alble to play; It's the authenticity isn't it.

As I said there are differences between the two but there alot of simalarities. You just cant seem to get that through your thick skull the person with the vision is the genius. The abilty to play is a skill like craftmenship no different from knowing how to build a chair the designer however is the real genius.

The similarities are surface deep. Hence you going off on a tangent about designing chairs during a conversation about music.

Authenticity is a personal thing of the artist, if their art is true to their core values unfettered by outside sources not there ability to play.

I think you're confusing authenticity with "image". Athentic would be releasing the songs with no input from Quincy. That's the authentic MJ product.

Mozarts claim to fame was not his ablitly to play but his compositions and the fact he was a child prodigy theres no audio recordings of mozart playing anything.

Yes, but he could only write music because he could also play it, and FYI gave concerts.

heathilly said:

LBrent said:

Actually, those things are kept in museums.

Wait! Paisley Park is a museum!

That other place was sorta like a museum, but wasn't it sold an torn down?

Oops! Sorry for the schadenfreunde...That wasn't nice of me...and certainly not a mitzvah.

Well Im glad you agree with me so prince is for the people not some higher than thou "artist" too complex for the common people.

Oh, you misunderstood...I disagree with you vehemently.

P is for the audience that has the capacity to appreciate his art. Unfortunately, the masses often either are lazy due to being spoonfed easily digested musical pablum or haven't developed a discerning musical palate.

In order to enjoy art at the level of connoiseurs, the consumer, to varying degrees, needs to bring something to the experience...Some look at Picasso and think it's simply "funny looking". Yet they can understand and appreciate The Simpsons.

The masses all over the world can't get enough of McD's, fewer can either afford or tolerate Petrossian Beluga. Some snap up plastic eggs happily and wouldn't recognize a Faberge if the Easter Bunny left it. Some smoke a Black & Mild and enjoy that but couldn't enjoy a Fuente Fuente Petit.

Luxury brands flourish in luxury price, luxury demand and luxury audience.

The masses may think they've become obscure, but that's because they're not for them and they are not in the loop regarding them. They endure becase there have always been and will always be those of demanding tastes who appreciate handcrafted as opposed to mass consumerables.

You mad...or nah?

[Edited 11/8/16 9:50am]

Noodled24 said:

heathilly said:

I think you're confusing authenticity with "image". Athentic would be releasing the songs with no input from Quincy. That's the authentic MJ product.

Mozarts claim to fame was not his ablitly to play but his compositions and the fact he was a child prodigy theres no audio recordings of mozart playing anything.

Yes, but he could only write music because he could also play it, and FYI gave concerts.

I give it up you just dont get it. You keep on tangents. Beileve what you want.

LBrent said:

heathilly said:

Well Im glad you agree with me so prince is for the people not some higher than thou "artist" too complex for the common people.

Oh, you misunderstood...I disagree with you vehemently.

P is for the audience that has the capacity to appreciate his art. Unfortunately, the masses often either are lazy due to being spoonfed easily digested musical pablum or haven't developed a discerning musical palate.

In order to enjoy art at the level of connoiseurs, the consumer, to varying degrees, needs to bring something to the experience...Some look at Picasso and think it's simply "funny looking". Yet they can understand and appreciate The Simpsons.

The masses all over the world can't get enough of McD's, fewer can either afford or tolerate Petrossian Beluga. Some snap up plastic eggs happily and wouldn't recognize a Faberge if the Easter Bunny left it. Some smoke a Black & Mild and enjoy that but couldn't enjoy a Fuente Fuente Petit.

Luxury brands flourish in luxury price, luxury demand and luxury audience.

The masses may think they've become obscure, but that's because they're not for them and they are not in the loop regarding them. They endure becase there have always been and will always be those of demanding tastes who appreciate handcrafted as opposed to mass consumerables.

You mad...or nah?

[Edited 11/8/16 9:50am]

Thats an interesting thought but and I can see why you say that with prince being serious about his art and his abilty to play everything gives him credibility as he is in that tradional school of what a musican is. I mean its kind of nose in the air higher than thou still. It reminds me of the stuck up jazz tradionalist looking down on miles davis and other innovators. Well than I guess prince is apart of that or atleast his fan put him in that light he truly to deep and too complex for the common folk thats why they know purple rain and not sign o the times right?

heathilly said:

I give it up you just dont get it. You keep on tangents. Beileve what you want.

I'm not the one going off on a rant about designing chairs.

Belief is nothing to do with it. Can you name any composer who was able to compose without playing something?

[Edited 11/8/16 10:47am]

Noodled24 said:

LBrent said:

P is for the audience that has the capacity to appreciate his art. Unfortunately, the masses often either are lazy due to being spoonfed easily digested musical pablum or haven't developed a discerning musical palate.

In order to enjoy art at the level of connoiseurs, the consumer, to varying degrees, needs to bring something to the experience...Some look at Picasso and think it's simply "funny looking". Yet they can understand and appreciate The Simpsons.

The masses all over the world can't get enough of McD's, fewer can either afford or tolerate Petrossian Beluga. Some snap up plastic eggs happily and wouldn't recognize a Faberge if the Easter Bunny left it. Some smoke a Black & Mild and enjoy that but couldn't enjoy a Fuente Fuente Petit.

Luxury brands flourish in luxury price, luxury demand and luxury audience.

The masses may think they've become obscure, but that's because they're not for them and they are not in the loop regarding them. They endure becase there have always been and will always be those of demanding tastes who appreciate handcrafted as opposed to mass consumerables.

You mad...or nah?

[Edited 11/8/16 9:50am]

Muthafunka, what??? Prince made music designed to shake your ass, have sex, get high, fight, rebel, get the Holy Ghost, and instigate socially conscious discussions. You do not have to be an “elitist” to be “for” P’s music. He encouraged those of elitist mindsets to get the sticks out of their backsides and party with those of different tastes. Even lower tastes. If you didn’t “qualify”, it made no difference to him, just party. If you were “sophisticated”…..so what…..just party. If you didn't know the difference between a snare drum and a tamborine, just party. The man's music was not discriminatory or restricted to a certain audience.

Noodled24 said:

blacknote said:

blacknote said:

LBrent said:

P is for the audience that has the capacity to appreciate his art. Unfortunately, the masses often either are lazy due to being spoonfed easily digested musical pablum or haven't developed a discerning musical palate.

In order to enjoy art at the level of connoiseurs, the consumer, to varying degrees, needs to bring something to the experience...Some look at Picasso and think it's simply "funny looking". Yet they can understand and appreciate The Simpsons.

The masses all over the world can't get enough of McD's, fewer can either afford or tolerate Petrossian Beluga. Some snap up plastic eggs happily and wouldn't recognize a Faberge if the Easter Bunny left it. Some smoke a Black & Mild and enjoy that but couldn't enjoy a Fuente Fuente Petit.

Luxury brands flourish in luxury price, luxury demand and luxury audience.

The masses may think they've become obscure, but that's because they're not for them and they are not in the loop regarding them. They endure becase there have always been and will always be those of demanding tastes who appreciate handcrafted as opposed to mass consumerables.

You mad...or nah?

[Edited 11/8/16 9:50am]

Muthafunka, what??? Prince made music designed to shake your ass, have sex, get high, fight, rebel, get the Holy Ghost, and instigate socially conscious discussions. You do not have to be an “elitist” to be “for” P’s music. He encouraged those of elitist mindsets to get the sticks out of their backsides and party with those of different tastes. Even lower tastes. If you didn’t “qualify”, it made no difference to him, just party. If you were “sophisticated”…..so what…..just party. If you didn't know the difference between a snare drum and a tamborine, just party. The man's music was not discriminatory or restricted to a certain audience.

You're missing the point of what I said.

If you read upthread, perhaps you'll grasp the plot...or not.

heathilly said:

Noodled24 said:

I'm not the one going off on a rant about designing chairs, and It's not albout belief. It's facts.

How dense are you? I gave the chair analogy to give an example that playing an instrument is a skill like craftsmanship. But the designers or songwriter/composer is the genius.

OK. Ideally you'd just do it yourself right? because who could meet your specs like you? But if you can't do it yourself you just hire any old craftsman because their process of making the item doesn't matter does it? Except oh wait. It obviously does.

Playing an instrument is not required to make great music what is,is creativity and vision and having a plan.

If you're Simon Cowell.

heathilly said:

blacknote said:

Muthafunka, what??? Prince made music designed to shake your ass, have sex, get high, fight, rebel, get the Holy Ghost, and instigate socially conscious discussions. You do not have to be an “elitist” to be “for” P’s music. He encouraged those of elitist mindsets to get the sticks out of their backsides and party with those of different tastes. Even lower tastes. If you didn’t “qualify”, it made no difference to him, just party. If you were “sophisticated”…..so what…..just party. If you didn't know the difference between a snare drum and a tamborine, just party. The man's music was not discriminatory or restricted to a certain audience.

That's what I was saying for him to so elitist about prince. Prince music majority of the subject matter wasn't very high brow and prince overall wasn't that deep or radical. His transition was like a hoe in his younger days to church mouse reciting bible passages in his older days. What is so complex and ungraspable about that for the common folk? Or was he just a high brand of low brow?

Sooooo, lemme see if I have this correct:

You feel that P wasn't particularly a genius, talented, not a prodigy, not deep or radical, not nuanced, not...well, you get the idea...But MJ was?

And you choose to say this...at a website named after and designed specifically for P fans to enjoy appreciating P?

Uh huh...

Wow. Butt hurt much?

LBrent said:

blacknote said:

Muthafunka, what??? Prince made music designed to shake your ass, have sex, get high, fight, rebel, get the Holy Ghost, and instigate socially conscious discussions. You do not have to be an “elitist” to be “for” P’s music. He encouraged those of elitist mindsets to get the sticks out of their backsides and party with those of different tastes. Even lower tastes. If you didn’t “qualify”, it made no difference to him, just party. If you were “sophisticated”…..so what…..just party. If you didn't know the difference between a snare drum and a tamborine, just party. The man's music was not discriminatory or restricted to a certain audience.

You're missing the point of what I said.

If you read upthread, perhaps you'll grasp the plot...or not.

It's possible. I don't pretend to know it all but your comment seemed pretty straight forward. However, I think you've seriously miscategorized P's body of work and the audience it was designed for.

[Edited 11/8/16 11:32am]

[Edited 11/8/16 11:33am]

[Edited 11/8/16 11:34am]

heathilly said:

blacknote said:

Muthafunka, what??? Prince made music designed to shake your ass, have sex, get high, fight, rebel, get the Holy Ghost, and instigate socially conscious discussions. You do not have to be an “elitist” to be “for” P’s music. He encouraged those of elitist mindsets to get the sticks out of their backsides and party with those of different tastes. Even lower tastes. If you didn’t “qualify”, it made no difference to him, just party. If you were “sophisticated”…..so what…..just party. If you didn't know the difference between a snare drum and a tamborine, just party. The man's music was not discriminatory or restricted to a certain audience.

That's what I was saying for him to so elitist about prince. Prince music majority of the subject matter wasn't very high brow and prince overall wasn't that deep or radical. His transition was like a hoe in his younger days to church mouse reciting bible passages in his older days. What is so complex and ungraspable about that for the common folk? Or was he just a high brand of low brow?

I just don't think Prince intended to cater to those with caviar tastes when he was performing in black bikini bottoms with sweat and pubic hair flying all over the audience. Whether you ate KFC or boiled eel feces, all were welcome to the party. Oh, well...............