Oh yeah, Stevie Vs Prince. Stevie's music is like sonic sunshine... 'nuff sed.

namepeace said:

Michael is far more of an "artist" than Elvis ever was. And Elvis made the list. Michael writes, arranges and produces a lot of his work himself... makes him an artist, imo.

Cloudbuster said:

No question as to Elvis. But much of Michael's signature work is either written (Temperton) or produced (Quincy) by someone else. We could go round and round on how much influence outside individuals had on MJ's work, but still.

Yeah, but still...

WAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!

namepeace said:

so? its better then not writing and producing anything, like elvis never did.

and rod temperton only wrote mostly on off the wall and a couple off thriller. michael wrote 97% of his signature work, dont stop, billie jean, beat it, bad, the way you make me feel, smooth criminal, black or white, earth song, the ydont care about us. and he produced half of them. way more then elvis ever did (and im huge fan of elvis too)
[Edited 9/7/05 8:42am]

hellomoto said:

And how many of those classic songs were produced by Quincy Jones?

hellomoto said:

You're wasting your time.

namepeace said:

Michael co-produced from Thriller onwards.

Cloudbuster said:

I was going to say the same thing!

MJ wouldnt have to write shit and still be one of the best artists as a vocalist and dancer.

And dont give me the "the he's an entertainer not artist" shit.

Like singing and dancing dont count as "art"

LightOfArt said:

Well, he can draw really well

LightOfArt said:

You're wasting your time.

Cloudbuster said:

whys that?

lilgish said:

hellomoto said:

'Cos folk don't wanna know how much Mike is involved in the creation of his own work. It's all Quincy, didn't you know?

Cloudbuster said:

I've got nothing else to do anyway

lilgish said:

I've got this little book from '88 called Man In The Mirror by Todd Gold, it's got a photo of his room from early '70s where he's got all of his painting and drawing all over the walls. Mainly Mickey Mouse and Diane Ross pics

He IS good

Cloudbuster said:

Predictable to see Prince at number 6?

Cloudbuster said:

That reminds me of the story a Chicago Bulls player told when Michael Jordan went for 70 in a game and he went for 5. That player said, "I'll always tell my kids about the time Michael Jordan and I combined for 75 points."

Moonbeam said:

Have you seen the rest?

namepeace said:

Blah! Get your hands on some of MJ's demos. All Quincy did was clean them up.

Cloudbuster said:

I will. However comma.

If MJ were such a great producer, why has he moved from "big name" to "big name" since Bad, trying to recapture the magic of his best work? Undoubtedly, he's made some good songs since then -- "Remember The
Time," "Scream," "Butterflies," etc. -- but the results are plainly obvious. His post-Quincy work doesn't stack up to his pre-Quincy work. If he were such a great producer, wouldn't the results have demonstrated more consistency?

If MJ were the producer you believe he is, would you see stories like this?

http://www.prince.org/msg/8/159608

MJ's greatness and QJ's central role in making MJ's good work classic work are NOT, repeat NOT, mutually exclusive facts.


[Edited 9/7/05 9:27am]

Here I go again

Vocals-C'mon people, Stevie's one of the best male soul singers ever. His upper register is phenomenal, he's an uncanny vocal impersonator, and THE absolute master of vocal multi-tracking (listen to Music of My Mind sometime, its all stevie's vocals). Many of his backing vocals that I thought were female at first I later found were his voice (Maybe Your Baby, Living For the City), he has an even BETTER falsetto than prince (once again, that you'd really have to listen closely to his backing tracks to really hear), and at least as good a lower register. Hell, Stevie can even do the rock scream at least as well as prince (though he usually buries it in the mix ala Superstition or I wish). Prince is SERIOUSLY overrated as a singer on this site, though he is damn good. Adore is probably prince's finest vocal performance, and it would probably make for a pretty average track for stevie.

Musicianship-Very tough call, Prince is a better guitar and bass player no questions; hell I still haven't found any 100% verified instances of stevie even playing either of them (though I believe the bassline on fun day and the spinner's It's a shame were stevie, and they're pretty damn good, and he also played rhythm guitar on jermaine jackson's Let's get serious as far as I know, which was at least competant). But Stevie is a master keyboardist, often compared to and praised by the jazz masters, and a much more innovative and expressive pioneer of synthesizers. I can't believe some people are saying that prince is a better drummer. Stevie's a GREAT drummer (prince even said so). Clapton called Stevie the greatest drummer of our time and he jammed with Ginger Baker, Mitch Mitchell, Jim Gordon and Charlie Watts. Listen to Too High, He's Mistra know it all, Summer Soft, Keep On running, hell tons of songs, in style, skill and subtlety he beats prince by a longshot on the skins. He's also THE master of the harmonica, has played accordion (hehe) and is rumored to know all kinds of other instruments like harp, violin etc. I think I'll call this is a draw though since it's easier to determine prince's skill level on the instruments he plays, even if stevie beats him on a few of them.

Songwriting-I don't think anybody beats stevie at the art of melody. However, Stevie's at best a competant lyricist, so prince beats him in that category (though prince is hardly bob dylan). Prince also is better at (or at least more disposed towards) extended complex jams, though stevie certainly CAN jam and does have complex/morphing songs. Both have recorded an insanely large amount of unreleased material so the quality/quantity debate is pretty even sided. Stevie however is more influential, his prime material is MUCH better and more consistent than prince's "80s run", and he had fewer collaborators (as well as being better at CREDITING the ones he did have). Stylistically, they're also pretty even, prince has more stylistically distinct material, while stevie's music is a more blended mixture. All in all, I'd have to call this one in stevie's favor, and I think prince would agree.

Production-stevie HANDS DOWN. Hell, stevie's production style set the stage for Prince, the Neptunes and all the other neo-soul stevie-ites out there.

Live performance-Prince beats stevie because he's toured more, can do more on stage, and truly elevates his artistry on the stage. However, Stevie does have the disadvantage of not being able to see, and as a youngster stevie was quite electrifying. Plus, I've heard his 70s concerts are pretty impressive, even though I haven't seen that many, so the margin by which Prince wins this category might not be THAT big.

Oh, and that top 20 critics list is a bunch of bullshit. Bowie, Prince, Elvis, Springsteen, the Velvet Underground and a few others are MASSIVELY overrated by that list.
[Edited 9/7/05 9:33am]

jacktheimprovident said:

j-t-i: MASSIVELY overrated is in and of itself a MASSIVE overstatement. Make your case as to each.

namepeace said:

Subjective, tho'. I think much of his later work stands up against his early work. If you're speaking purely of commercial merits... then I expected better of you.



Does that take away the fact that Mike has produced a lot of his own work?



Sure, but it ain't all down to Quincy. Mike had some good songs. Period.

namepeace:

in my eyes, this carries as much value as "his only good album is purple rain"

namepeace said:

You're right, that was uncalled for . First of all, I don't see Chuck Berry or Little Richard or Bo Diddley or James Brown on that list, and on influence alone they would get preference over any of those others. Springsteen was a good working class, roots rocker and an above average (arguably great) lyricist, but not a great innovator or virtuoso performer. Bowie tried on lots of different styles and images but, but these were much more superficial than his fans like to think, and he was hardly an innovator or defining force in any of the styles he tried out, plus Brian eno was largely responsible for his artistic peak. Elvis never wrote or produced any of his material, he merely introduced Rock n roll to the mainstream white audience, which is primarily a COMMERCIAL breakthrough. The Velvet Underground were a fine pop group, but seriously mischaracterized as an "avant-garde" group; there really wasn't anything technically avant-garde or even that unusual about their music (though culturally and lyrically they were definitely not mainstream). Lastly, Prince is probably funk's greatest crossover prodigy, but in funk and funk-rock alone Jimi Sly and P-funk were greater and more influential, and Jimi was also one of the most defining forces in hard rock and the developement of the lead guitar, and Stevie is probably the greatest individual auteur in all of Soul/R&b, so that's why he shouldn't be as high as he is.

LightOfArt said:

Get thee to an optometrist then.

jacktheimprovident said:

And you did indeed make your case.