namepeace said:

i'll give u the bold letters ..the other 2 give me sonny t and either michael b or john blackwell and renato

L4OATheOriginal said:

This is weaving from a Non-Prince Thread to a GD Thread to a Prince thread!



What's the beef with W&L? Are you talking about them as live performers or in-studio contributors?

newskin69 said:

This is the most ridiculous comment ever,and the question is ...Do you know what you are talking about? ....somone like Justin will never on same level of mj , Its absurd.....Mj is a musical genius who wrote and composed his classics , seeing you degrading Mj's talents and achievements and putting him in the same level of Justin proves you have a zero credibility.

While I disagree with the above assessment that Michael Jackson is a "musical genius" -- words used to describe classical composers whose works have been celebrated for over two hundred years -- I feel that newskin64 underestimates the talents of Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson had more soul as a ten-year-old child star than Justin Timberlake has as a man in his mid-twenties.

You are comparing Timberlake to someone who displayed prodigious talents as a singer and performer as a child and became a household name before he hit puberty. Someone whose solo work at Motown and with The Jackson 5 and The Jacksons more than qualifies him to be one of the top ten most influential R&B male solo artists in modern popular music. Someone who was almost the same age as Timberlake when Thriller came out. Of course, by then, Off The Wall had been released, which is, IMO, one of the greatest albums of the last thirty years. Newskin64, I believe like a number of others, credits Quincy Jones for the success of both albums. But then how do you explain albums such as Destiny and Triumph, both of which were non-Quincy Jones affairs? While none of these albums were single-man affairs, the influence and presence of Michael Jackson are clear.

As for their (Michael Jackson and Justin Timberlake) talents as a songwriter, it astounds me that someone would compare "Billie Jean" to "My Love," and brush off the first as just a "dance song." To be honest, I am embarrassed. Michael Jackson is a talented songwriter whose songs from Destiny on have been keenly autobiographical. He is an inductee in the Songwriters Hall of Fame for a reason. But, songs on Invincible with its regions of songwriters on each track with the exception of "Speechless" and "The Lost Children," point to the obvious fact that Jackson for that album used the same not-so-well-kept strategy of record companies: giving artists co-songwriting and co-producing credits in order to bathe them in legitimacy (i.e. Madonna and Justin Timberlake).

From the late '70s to the late '80s, Michael Jackson was incomparable as a singer, dancer, and all-around entertainer. He is, IMO, one of the most brilliant entertainers of the twenty century. One needs to be careful in comparing entertainers, just as one should be careful in comparing musicians. I could argue that because Justin Timberlake plays the guitar he is a musician on the level of Prince. Except I will not, because it would be ridiculous. When Justin Timberlake becomes an inductee in the Songwriters Hall of Fame and a double inductee in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, then I will come back to another comparison between him and Michael Jackson.

As for the debate over the 2004 Superbowl fiasco: Janet Jackson fucked up, and made mistake after mistake in handling the reaction to the so-called "wardrobe malfuction" and the promotion of her album. But that does not excuse Justin Timberlake. Sure, he ran to save his career, which is flourishing at the moment. But principle is principle. He should have stood his ground, and called people out on their hypocrisy for overreacting to what was just a breast.

Now I distinctly remember Janet and Justin apologizing for the "wardrobe malfunction"...Justin actually apologized twice, once after it happened and then again at the Grammys. Someone stated in an earlier reply that 'why should Justin put his career on the line for this incident'. I have to agree. Janet has been out for years and a flop album wasn't going to put that much of a dent in her paycheck, but for Justin on his first album...that would have really hurt and probably really hurt his career even more. It was a stupid stunt that neither of them should have done, but like I said earlier, if people are going to call Justin a 'punk' for not sticking up for Janet after the Superbowl debacle, they should be calling the other three male performers 'punks' also. Nobody stuck up for Janet after everything was said and done. Personally, I don't think neither one of them should have apologized for anything. The whole half-time show was too explicit for children to be watching in the first place and all those idiot parents who let their children watch it should have been slapped. They wouldn't let their 'precious little angels' watch MTV, but they'll let them watch a half-time show that was produced by MTV Fucking morons!! Anyway, I don't see what's all that wrong with Justin's character or his career. He's been in showbiz since he was 12 years old. I'm not sure whether people hate him just because of the SuperBowl incident, the fact that he was in a Boy Band that has broken records, or the whole Britney thing, but shit, give the guy a break. He goes on stage, sings live, plays more than one instrument (he may not be Prince, but MJ doesn't exactly play instruments at least not that I've seen so ), and has produced and written many of his songs and songs for other artists (even though many people may not believe that, they really should be doing their homework because it's true). He's more talented than the majority of the other artists that are his age. I'm not going to compare him to MJ or Prince or any other artist who has been in the business for more than 10 years because, point blank, that's just retarded. Of course he's not better than Prince or MJ, but if you look at Prince and MJ when they first started, I'm sure they were both pretty wet behind the ears as well, but years of experience have helped them master their crafts. At the end of the day, only time will tell if Justin Timberlake will be like Prince and MJ and have that longevity, but I'm not going to count him out and I'm definitely not going to disrespect him by saying anything negative about his character, especially since I don't know him personally. Well, that's just my on the matter...carry on

estelle81 said:

Again, what's good for business and what's right are not always mutually inclusive. Unfortunately. And as I recall, the tone and tenor of JT's apology read like a standard "mistakes were made" non-apology apology.



None of those three pulled the stunt. Justin did. Literally. It's a little unfair to put the support staff on the same level as a colleague.



Questions of morality and hypocrisy aside (and the NFL and the wider audience may have issues on those fronts), both JT and Janet knew, or should have known, that if Janet went nude on network TV, there'd be a meltdown. The "costume reveal" was not well designed and was way too risky.



I agree that people shouldn't "hate" him for his success. I sure didn't hold his N'Sync days against him when I was grooving to Justified. I just didn't dig the way he handled himself after the fiasco.



I don't really have any reason to question that, for reasons already stated hereinabove.



Fair and valid points, but I'd submit that Prince's and Michael's talents were appreciably greater at the same stages in their respective careers. By the time they were JT's age, MJ was already an extraordinary singer and dancer, and Prince was a formidable multi-instrumentalist. We know JT is creative and inventive from a production and marketing standpoint, but still.

Good points, though.

namepeace said:

live ..tain't funky enough 4 me and fink and renato's piano/synth playing runs circles around lisa leaving her dizzy lol ..miko was more funkier and his solos were filled with life compared 2 wendy's.

L4OATheOriginal said:

Well, considering that they were on what is regarded as one of the best and funkiest Prince tours of all time, suffice it to say I disagree.

Shit, Justin ain't no fool. He saw the Musicology tour. He wants the BEST.

namepeace said:

that's cool but understand that mico helped in echoing wendy's playing as compared 2 the purple rain tour. now the sign o the times tour ..was FUNNNKKKKYYYYY!!!

wow, talk about hitting a nerve.

I wasn't trying to discredit MJ. Like I said, I love MJ's music.I grew up on it. I'm just comparing the both of them in a fair manner and, in my opinion, they have alot in common. I'll still stand by my assessment on Billie Jean, however. It's a great song, but I'm not about to put it on a pedestal. Comparing it to My Love was my way of showing the differences in generations. As for saying that JT won't reach the level of MJ, how do u know? MJ's success was something that was built up to and didn't just happen overnight. As it is, JT is doing fantastic with FS/LS. So really, if he takes it up a notch...who knows? Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. We shouldn't be quick to put down JT just cause some of us feel that NO ONE will reach MJ's level. Let's wait and see. Look at Madonna. If anyone said in the 1980s that she'd be what she is in the 2000s, you would have gotten laughted at cause, apparantly, she was just some pop artist and she was going to be over by 1985.
[Edited 8/24/07 9:29am]

L4OATheOriginal said:

Oh, no doubt. Miko brought his something to the set, and the Counter-Revolution was my favorite of all Prince bands. Having seen the C/R Live on the Lovesexy tour, I can testify to that!

I'm just saying that W&L were in it to win it and had a lil' funk in'em too. The symbiotic effect they and P had on each other was something to behold, in the studio and onstage.

One of the reasons I'd say I'd want W&L is that I didn't get a chance to catch them with P live, in their heyday.

Lord KNOWS how sick a Dream Factory/Crystal Ball tour would have been!!!!

newskin69 said:

It is a classic, but hey, the argument could be made for other songs on that album and its predecessor.



"My Love" will be the younger folk's "Billie Jean" someday, perhaps. There's no doubt the guy is being creative, or at least, is striving to do so.



It's statistically improbable that JT will get his Thriller saleswise. But heck, Sammy Davis was considered the baddest entertainer alive for a while. Later, it was James, and still later, MJ. Tell me you could watch any Prince performance before 1983 and believe that same artist would be considered the best live performer on the planet by anyone 10-20 years later. You have a point. But when I look at the basic skill sets Prince and MJ possessed at that stage, I think they are and will likely remain a cut above JT. Those like me could be proven wrong at any time!




I was the first person to mention the Madonna comparison on this thread (I think), and I think that's valid.

Good points!

namepeace said:

i saw them on the parade tour at MSG my 1st P concert but after seeing SOTT movie, there was no need 2 ever c them again

namepeace said:

Thanx. I was just glad to better explain my initial statements.

newskin69 said:

Look. I am not one of those fanatics who go ballasitc because Justin Timberlake has been crowned the new "King of Pop." He can have the bloody title. I just have a problem comparing two artists from different generations. I tried to participate in the Elvis vs. Michael thread earlier with diasterous results. I realized that it is difficult to compare the two, and rate who is "greater" when that quality is often determined in the eye of the beholder. And no, you were not saying that Justin is greater than Michael. And no, I do not think that Michael Jackosn is the greatest entertainer in the world. But, he has made his mark.

I did not grow up during the '80s, but I find it hard to believe that Justin has the raw talent and charisma possessed by both Michael and Prince when they were his age. Perhaps I am wrong. In fact, I hope I am proved wrong. Mainstream music needs a recharge.

YOUR DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A MUSICAL GENIUS...

Is decidedly narrow.

Rodya24 said:

namepeace said:

I agree that neither of their apologies seemed heartfelt, but I don't see why they had to apologize at all. The whole half-time show was pretty lewd and definitely not appropriate for younger audiences. With Nelly grabbing his crotch; Diddy feeling up dancers; and Kid Rock's oh so interesting use of the American Flag as a poncho and his colorful language usage, I thought all the performers should have been at least yelled at for making a "family-oriented program" so inappropriate for youngsters. Personally, I still don't think either of them should have apologized if the other three didn't have to for their explicit performances and lyrical content, but that's just my opinion on the matter (pot/kettle ?) The whole show went a little too far IMO and at the end of the day, the main reason people were mad about it was because kids were watching. If no kids were watching, it probably wouldn't have been such a big deal.




Personally, I think Janet was under the impression that if Britney, Madonna, and Christina could make out in front of a live TV audience just months prior and not be crucifixed by parents, (who even if they didn't let their children watch the actual performance, they probably saw all the media coverage of it afterwards) than maybe they wouldn't make a big deal about her shock value stunt either. I'm still to this day unsure as to whether that piece of red fabric was really supposed to come off, but it did and all hell broke loss over a 2 second nipple slip. Right before the half-time show, a male streaker run across the field for a good 2 minutes before he was caught, so I don't see how a nipple is more damaging to a child's eyes than some dude's package slamming against his inner thigh, but people thought the streaker was funny so whatever. I think people just wanted to have a reason to hate Janet as much as they hated MJ at the time; and, unfortunately she gave them one. Shoot, Janet had on more clothes than all the cheerleaders and nobody made a big deal about them. In the end, I was more mad that she apologized than for the actual stunt. I've seen waay worse nipple slips on those televised red carpet events than this.






I agree, but even when Prince first started, his live shows were not very good from many accounts that I have read. MJ has been in the business longer than both Prince and Justin, but has still not picked up playing a single instrument, even though 2 of his brothers did while they were all in the Jackson 5. Each of them have their strong points and weak points, but if MJ and Prince had come out less than 5 years ago and Justin was the 20+ year veteran, I think people would see things a little differently. But those are 'what ifs' and not 'what is' so I think JT is smart enough to know how to stay around for the long run, just like Prince and MJ are. Only time will tell in the end.

Rhondab said:

I feel that they are both to blame for the titty incident. Why is it that Justin is getting the flac, when the BOTH of them were in on it? She had the choice to say, "No, JT, I don't think that it is a good idea", backstage before the show. Okay, she apologized.This apolgy was just to save face and to protect her image.Instead of crying foul, she should put all of that energy into making decent music again....instead of making music for the deaf. All she does now is whisper and moan. Blame should be placed both ways.

HamsterHuey said:

No , it has nothing to do with being prejudiced

I really don't understand what you see in him

Mediocre singer singing over lame computer created beats anyone with Cubase can create

Not evoking any emotion whatsoever

To say he's better than Prince in concert is just ridiculous

And who cares about hitsingles ?

Look at what's in the top 40 nowadays
[Edited 8/26/07 9:01am]

estelle81 said:[quote]

namepeace said:

Some of this accountability needs to go to the Not For Long (NFL) as well. The league wanted MTV to produce a show with some of the flair and excitement that they are known for providing. Problem is, I don't know whether any of the league honchos have watched MTV in 20 years, if ever. They wanted family-friendly performers that pushed the envelope and could draw the same kids that watch MTV every day. It could very well be that the parents may have been more shocked than the kids who watch MTV, BET et al. when they get home from school.

You're right. This would have been par for the course on MTV, and the Janet "exposure" wouldn't have drawn as much heat.




I agree. I mentioned that point about Prince in an earlier post, and MJ in his 20's had been in the business (a little) longer than JT has been.

JT, even at this age, is a seasoned pro. I think he'll stick around for a minute, as well.

namepeace said:

Most definitely. I agree with you 100%. The NFL and its affiliates should have requested to see everything (and I mean Everything) that was to be a part of that half-time show and made it very clear to all the performers that any explicit behavior would not be tolerated and if such lewd acts did take place, penalties would be accessed afterwards. This would have saved the network that $500,000 fine that they got handed to them as a result of the stunt. Lesson learned I hope. I remember teaching a class of third graders the day after that SuperBowl; and they all thought Janet was awesome. Kids have seen almost everything nowadays, but unfortunately their parents aren't observant enough to realize this apparently. I just thought the overly negative reactions to the stunt were ridiculous considering that Britney was selling sugar-coated sex to kids on a daily basis at that time and parents loved and supported her; even allowing their 8 year old little girls to be half-naked like her. I have no problem with people having opinions about anything, but it's when opinions become biased that I get irritated. It's not okay to call out one performer for doing something overly sexual and praise another for doing the exact same thing. If one's wrong, then they're all wrong. I don't play favorites.

BlaqueKnight said:

Hear, hear! Agree with everything you have written.

BlaqueKnight said:

i've always said that we r very 2 faced when it comes 2 what's shown on tv shows and such. it's okay 2 have a commercial showing a babies naked bum but it's taboo 2 c a adults ass? yet on european tv in primetime u can c naked breasts like its no thing.

Rodya24 said:

yes.. he has hit the nail on the head... I was in a house full of dudes and no one notice the tit except me and i wasn't even sure that i saw it until i played back my tivo and couple with the fact some of the commercials were way more offensive... but i'm done with this whole situation

banks said:

i saw the tit, and called my mom who didn't notice it.

most of the people i was in the room with did notice, but we're gay and i think we were trying to figure out what she was wearing.

ehuffnsd said:

papaaisaway said:

I mentioned the above example because I feel that the words musical genius are overused, NOT because I feel that ONLY classical composers who were born over two hundred years should be considered musical geniuses. There should be a better understanding of musical theory and history when deciding to use those words to describe someone.

WORD

BK can you drop some knowledge in some other long winded threads so they can finally be brought to conclusion.

BlaqueKnight said: