mjscarousal

I've heard all the songs of Michael, I'm his fan.
I believe that he has only one weak album - Invincible. Other albums are great. Moreover, I love the Dangerous and History far more than the earlier work, I believe that 90 years - the dawn of Jackson as a lyricist.
I love listening to music by Michael more than Prince. It is more comfortable and more harmonious. But Prince music is really is more complicated and less clear the general public. Michael - biggest pop-star in music history, precisely because his music is easily understood by everyone. This is his forte, so I do not understand why you were offended, honestly.

LiLi1992 said:

mjscarousal

I've heard all the songs of Michael, I'm his fan.
I believe that he has only one weak album - Invincible. Other albums are great. Moreover, I love the Dangerous and History far more than the earlier work, I believe that 90 years - the dawn of Jackson as a lyricist.
I love listening to music by Michael more than Prince. It is more comfortable and more harmonious. But Prince music is really is more complicated and less clear the general public. Michael - biggest pop-star in music history, precisely because his music is easily understood by everyone. This is his forte, so I do not understand why you were offended, honestly.

Agree.

AlexdeParis said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Really? In school my teacher taught me that those were the greater than signs.

Tell me you're pulling my leg! Argh! Back when I was learning this, they taught us to think of it as a greedy alligator. His mouth goes towards the bigger number.

4 < 8

15 < 16

42 > 23

No. I'm dead serious.

LiLi1992 said:

mjscarousal

I've heard all the songs of Michael, I'm his fan.
I believe that he has only one weak album - Invincible. Other albums are great. Moreover, I love the Dangerous and History far more than the earlier work, I believe that 90 years - the dawn of Jackson as a lyricist.
I love listening to music by Michael more than Prince. It is more comfortable and more harmonious. But Prince music is really is more complicated and less clear the general public. Michael - biggest pop-star in music history, precisely because his music is easily understood by everyone. This is his forte, so I do not understand why you were offended, honestly.

I wasnt offended by it but if I feel something isnt accurate then I am going to express that.

Your post came off to me as if Michaels music is primarily simple not complicated. And part of the reason why he was popular was becuase his music was simple because it could be easily understood. Now to me that came across as the lyrics in Michaels music are for the most part simple and not complicated. Michael has well known songs that are not simply constructed also that are not about healing the planet. He covered alot. Just because his music had global appeal doesnt make it simple because its global. I also didnt deny that some of his songs are not that complicated but I thought you were insinuating his whole catalogue was.. simple.

I never wrote that the music of Michael simple or primitive. It is simply absurd.
I wrote only:

the music, created by Prince, is more complicated and I never give up those words.
The main problem of Michael that he was afraid to write an unusual or difficult to understand for the general public lyrics . I'm sure he would have been enough talent for it, but he was afraid that it will not be sold, that he would cease to be number 1, etc. He was afraid to experiment.
So he created songs that should please everyone (or at least most). It's not bad, it's just his way. I think that MJ is a good songwriter. Surely not the best ever, but obviously talented.

LiLi1992 said:

Prince music is really is more complicated and less clear the general public.

So...that would mean that you would also believe that Prince's music is, somehow, more complicated and less clear than Beethoven and Mozart simply because their music is more embraced by the public than his?!?!?!

Something about what you are saying here doesn't make any sense I think.

Unholyalliance said:

LiLi1992 said:

Prince music is really is more complicated and less clear the general public.

So...that would mean that you would also believe that Prince's music is, somehow, more complicated and less clear than Beethoven and Mozart simply because their music is more embraced by the public than his?!?!?!

Something about what you are saying here doesn't make any sense I think.

Yes, because comparing two pop stars who had their commercial peaks in the 1980s is the exact same thing as comparing one of those pop stars and a classical musician that lived hundreds of years ago. This is a classic example of apples and oranges.

Unholyalliance said:

LiLi1992 said:

Prince music is really is more complicated and less clear the general public.

So...that would mean that you would also believe that Prince's music is, somehow, more complicated and less clear than Beethoven and Mozart simply because their music is more embraced by the public than his?!?!?!

Something about what you are saying here doesn't make any sense I think.

I would not have compared the popular contemporary artists and classic artists for obvious reasons.
For me, classical art a priori has a greater cultural value than contemporary music. So you write meaningless things (sorry).

That is, you MJ fans who truly believe that the music of Michael is more complicated than Prince? It's even funnier than the fact that Prince fans consider him the best dancer than MJ. Oh, thank you, I'm not so obsessed by them both, how many forum users.

And yes, Prince - a great instrumentalist (sorry, could not resist).

And I do not compare Prince and Michael, I just expressed my opinion about their music. They really are very different, in some areas dominated by Prince, in some - Michael.
I never said that one of them more talented or great than the other.
They are both great, I can not tell who is more. It is simply impossible.

LiLi1992 said:

Unholyalliance said:

So...that would mean that you would also believe that Prince's music is, somehow, more complicated and less clear than Beethoven and Mozart simply because their music is more embraced by the public than his?!?!?!

Something about what you are saying here doesn't make any sense I think.

I would not have compared the popular contemporary artists and classic artists for obvious reasons.
For me, classical art a priori has a greater cultural value than contemporary music. So you write meaningless things (sorry).

That is, you MJ fans who truly believe that the music of Michael is more complicated than Prince? It's even funnier than the fact that Prince fans consider him the best dancer than MJ. Oh, thank you, I'm not so obsessed by them both, how many forum users.

And yes, Prince - a great instrumentalist (sorry, could not resist).

I swear I like reading your comments ahaha

LiLi1992 said:

I never wrote that the music of Michael simple or primitive. It is simply absurd.
I wrote only:

the music, created by Prince, is more complicated and I never give up those words.
The main problem of Michael that he was afraid to write an unusual or difficult to understand for the general public lyrics . I'm sure he would have been enough talent for it, but he was afraid that it will not be sold, that he would cease to be number 1, etc. He was afraid to experiment.
So he created songs that should please everyone (or at least most). It's not bad, it's just his way. I think that MJ is a good songwriter. Surely not the best ever, but obviously talented.

Im sorry love but I disagree with this and you make your intentions VERY clear with this post.

I am not sure if you have listened to ALL of Michaels music because you wouldnt make a dumbass post like this... sorry but true.

Michael has experimented with different genres. Not only has he experiemented with different genres, he also has experiemented with singing different styles and once again subject matters.

Some of his BEST works that he has in fact experiemented and written HIMSELF DIDN'T go to number one. So I think it is safe to say Michael didnt make music JUST for accolades and I wish you stop saying that JUST because he was more popular than Prince.

I guess anybody that is more popular than Prince makes music just to sell out... come on now.. you need a more LOGICAL arguement

I still don't see how people compare the two artist...they're so different.

But it is fun to have a Michael vs Prince debate every blue moon with your friends.

mjscarousal said:

LiLi1992 said:

I never wrote that the music of Michael simple or primitive. It is simply absurd.
I wrote only:

the music, created by Prince, is more complicated and I never give up those words.
The main problem of Michael that he was afraid to write an unusual or difficult to understand for the general public lyrics . I'm sure he would have been enough talent for it, but he was afraid that it will not be sold, that he would cease to be number 1, etc. He was afraid to experiment.
So he created songs that should please everyone (or at least most). It's not bad, it's just his way. I think that MJ is a good songwriter. Surely not the best ever, but obviously talented.

Im sorry love but I disagree with this and you make your intentions VERY clear with this post.

I am not sure if you have listened to ALL of Michaels music because you wouldnt make a dumbass post like this... sorry but true.

Michael has experimented with different genres. Not only has he experiemented with different genres, he also has experiemented with singing different styles and once again subject matters.

Some of his BEST works that he has in fact experiemented and written HIMSELF DIDN'T go to number one. So I think it is safe to say Michael didnt make music JUST for accolades and I wish you stop saying that JUST because he was more popular than Prince.

I guess anybody that is more popular than Prince makes music just to sell out... come on now.. you need a more LOGICAL arguement

LiLi1992 said:

I would not have compared the popular contemporary artists and classic artists for obvious reasons.

For me, classical art a priori has a greater cultural value than contemporary music. So you write meaningless things (sorry).

Umm...the philosphy still applies regardless I think. We're talking about music that is able to reach people throughout generations. It doesn't matter who is it was made by or when.

True that contemporary music is way simpler than classical, but that in the end, many pieces are still able to touch people to this day. Many of those works were very complicated indeed, but they were still simple enough to touch regular, everyday people. Classical is old, but it's not as if it's untouchable. It's still music regardless.

In the end, I just think that your whole 'Prince's music is complex and not clear enough' argument is full of shit. That's insinuating that only an 'elite' few can get it which I don't think is true. It's a very elitist attitude to have.

At the end of the day, it's just sound. That's all it is.

Modern music examples of 'complex music' would be like Tool or Dream Theater. Not Prince.

Both Michael and Prince fans are indenial. Simple as that.

TylerHippie said:

Both Michael and Prince fans are indenial. Simple as that.

smoothcriminal12 said:

You are the King of gifs

Of course, you can attack your opponent in the dispute, you do not have a valid and adequate arguments ... Yes, Michael has worked in several styles: pop, rock, soul, rnb. In all styles, he received numerous awards and recognitions. Grammy Award he received in 3 styles: pop, rock, rnb. I know about Michael as much as you. I have all his albums + a lot of unreleased material. The manner of execution of Michael Jackson's uniform. Some might say that he simply clearly marked his style, but someone can say that it is monotonous. You always know how about the song will be played (even if you just look at the lyrics, written on paper). I'm tired of the dispute with you, you do not have enough respect for the opponent, so I just leave everything as is.

PS I listened to all the songs MJ.

OMG.
MJ fans, I give you this:

For me:

Thriller is better than 1999

Sign is better than Bad

Dangreous is better than Diamonds and Pearls

What else do you want from me??

I thought, I think, and I will assume that the music of Prince's more complicated.
But it does not humiliate Michael. Moreover, he wanted to create a universal song. Universal songs can not be complex or unusual (it should be clear to everyone, not just the connoisseurs), they are unlikely to be so popular.

mjscarousal said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

You are the King of gifs

Why thank you.

LiLi1992 said:

Of course, you can attack your opponent in the dispute, you do not have a valid and adequate arguments ... Yes, Michael has worked in several styles: pop, rock, soul, rnb. In all styles, he received numerous awards and recognitions. Grammy Award he received in 3 styles: pop, rock, rnb. I know about Michael as much as you. I have all his albums + a lot of unreleased material. The manner of execution of Michael Jackson's uniform. Some might say that he simply clearly marked his style, but someone can say that it is monotonous. You always know how about the song will be played (even if you just look at the lyrics, written on paper). I'm tired of the dispute with you, you do not have enough respect for the opponent, so I just leave everything as is.

PS I listened to all the songs MJ.

Oh he did?

Where was his award for Keep the Faith which was a gospel style song??

What about Little Susie that was a dutch style song????

He also has covered more genres than you mention..whatever I know who house this belongs to folks and will not entertain this useless discussion anymore. If that is your opinion than okay..

[Edited 8/16/11 12:38pm]

mjscarousal said:

LiLi1992 said:

Of course, you can attack your opponent in the dispute, you do not have a valid and adequate arguments ... Yes, Michael has worked in several styles: pop, rock, soul, rnb. In all styles, he received numerous awards and recognitions. Grammy Award he received in 3 styles: pop, rock, rnb. I know about Michael as much as you. I have all his albums + a lot of unreleased material. The manner of execution of Michael Jackson's uniform. Some might say that he simply clearly marked his style, but someone can say that it is monotonous. You always know how about the song will be played (even if you just look at the lyrics, written on paper). I'm tired of the dispute with you, you do not have enough respect for the opponent, so I just leave everything as is.

PS I listened to all the songs MJ.

Oh he did?

Where was his award for Keep the Faith which was a gospel style song??

What about Little Susie that was a dutch style song????

He also has covered more genres than you mention..whatever I know who house this belongs to folks and will not entertain this useless discussion anymore. If that is your opinion than okay..

[Edited 8/16/11 12:38pm]

Were they singles?

I get what Lili is saying.

Michael definitely experimented with different things but nowhere near to the point Prince has. I mean, to say otherwise is ridiculous.

Michael never deliberately opted to do something that he knew wouldn't be commercially successful just because he felt like it.

Prince is the guy that puts out instrumental jazz albums like NEWS that even half his fanbase don't have much interest in! He's the guy that'll make entire funk albums where he did basically everything them except the lead vocals, won't put his name anywhere on the record, and then deny that he had anything to do with it for years! (The Time).

Michael rode out the commercial success of Thriller for two years, and didn't even have serious thoughts about recording a follow up for three years. Hell, the title track didn't come out as a single with the video until 14 months after the album had already been released. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but that's the kind of thing you do when you're trying to sell as many records as possible.

Prince, on the other hand, had a follow-up album to Purple Rain released and in stores just 9 months afterward. He could have ridden it out for another year, taken the Purple Rain tour international and sold another 15-20 million records if he was focused on on sales. And then he releases a wholly uncommercial psychedelic follow-up that sounds NOTHING like the sound that made him a superstar, and sends the album to radio with NO single! Straight up told 'em "play what you like".... which just confused the hell out of all of them! WB, expecting a commercial follow-up were completely non-plussed and basically forced Prince to release singles from the album.

Those are more so the actions of someone who wants to challenge the audience on a musical level and open them up to new sounds (opening ATWIAD with the title track being a perfect example), and is completely willing to forego selling more records in order to do that.

I think that's what Lili was getting at. Prince was and has always been perfectly happy with the possibility that the general public might not get what he was doing at all.

You could almost say that Michael tried to operate vertically, as in always thinking "How can the next thing be even bigger and better and create more and more buzz!", always trying to move upwards.

Whereas Prince operates horizontally. Like, "OK, done that. Let's move on to something else that's different. Maybe it'll work, maybe not, but we'll do it, and then we'll move on again".

They're my two favorite artists of all time, equally and I'm fortunate enough to have seen them both live - but the reason this debate never works for me is primarily because their similarities are superficial (both black, both pop artists, both making funk/soul based music)... but their career ideals and objectives are about as different as you can get.

Militant said:

I get what Lili is saying.

Michael definitely experimented with different things but nowhere near to the point Prince has. I mean, to say otherwise is ridiculous.

Michael never deliberately opted to do something that he knew wouldn't be commercially successful just because he felt like it.

Prince is the guy that puts out instrumental jazz albums like NEWS that even half his fanbase don't have much interest in! He's the guy that'll make entire funk albums where he did basically everything them except the lead vocals, won't put his name anywhere on the record, and then deny that he had anything to do with it for years! (The Time).

Michael rode out the commercial success of Thriller for two years, and didn't even have serious thoughts about recording a follow up for three years. Hell, the title track didn't come out as a single with the video until 14 months after the album had already been released. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but that's the kind of thing you do when you're trying to sell as many records as possible.

Prince, on the other hand, had a follow-up album to Purple Rain released and in stores just 9 months afterward. He could have ridden it out for another year, taken the Purple Rain tour international and sold another 15-20 million records if he was focused on on sales. And then he releases a wholly uncommercial psychedelic follow-up that sounds NOTHING like the sound that made him a superstar, and sends the album to radio with NO single! Straight up told 'em "play what you like".... which just confused the hell out of all of them! WB, expecting a commercial follow-up were completely non-plussed and basically forced Prince to release singles from the album.

Those are more so the actions of someone who wants to challenge the audience on a musical level and open them up to new sounds (opening ATWIAD with the title track being a perfect example), and is completely willing to forego selling more records in order to do that.

I think that's what Lili was getting at. Prince was and has always been perfectly happy with the possibility that the general public might not get what he was doing at all.

You could almost say that Michael tried to operate vertically, as in always thinking "How can the next thing be even bigger and better and create more and more buzz!", always trying to move upwards.

Whereas Prince operates horizontally. Like, "OK, done that. Let's move on to something else that's different. Maybe it'll work, maybe not, but we'll do it, and then we'll move on again".

They're my two favorite artists of all time, equally and I'm fortunate enough to have seen them both live - but the reason this debate never works for me is primarily because their similarities are superficial (both black, both pop artists, both making funk/soul based music)... but their career ideals and objectives are about as different as you can get.

This pretty much sums it up. I agree with everything he said.

LiLi1992 said:

I thought, I think, and I will assume that the music of Prince's more complicated.

I really don't care what you think about MJ or any of his albums, but I disagree with this greatly. When it comes to 'complex' music no one EVER mentions anything about Prince. Especially since his music is still categoized as modern music. Just like MJ, his music is also a congomeration of pop, rock, & rnb as well, but I think he tends to go into experiment with jazz more than MJ who tended to be more interested in classical.

PLEASE, explain why you consider his music to be so much more 'complex.' What makes it more complicated?

Is it possible for you to just give us a solid answer?

Unholyalliance said:

LiLi1992 said:

I thought, I think, and I will assume that the music of Prince's more complicated.

I really don't care what you think about MJ or any of his albums, but I disagree with this greatly. When it comes to 'complex' music no one EVER mentions anything about Prince. Especially since his music is still categoized as modern music. Just like MJ, his music is also a congomeration of pop, rock, & rnb as well, but I think he tends to go into experiment with jazz more than MJ who tended to be more interested in classical.

PLEASE, explain why you consider his music to be so much more 'complex.' What makes it more complicated?

Is it possible for you to just give us a solid answer?

The Parade album is a good complexed album. ATWIAD is also...

Unholyalliance said:

PLEASE, explain why you consider his music to be so much more 'complex.' What makes it more complicated?

I'm not answering for him, but perhaps he meant in the sense that a much larger percentage of Prince's music deviates from the standard song lengths, arrangements and chord progressions typically found in most pop music? Which is certainly true. Doesn't make either of their catalogs any better or worse, just different, and relates to what I said in the previous post about different goals and ideals career wise.

Militant said:

I get what Lili is saying.

Michael definitely experimented with different things but nowhere near to the point Prince has. I mean, to say otherwise is ridiculous.

Michael never deliberately opted to do something that he knew wouldn't be commercially successful just because he felt like it.

Prince is the guy that puts out instrumental jazz albums like NEWS that even half his fanbase don't have much interest in! He's the guy that'll make entire funk albums where he did basically everything them except the lead vocals, won't put his name anywhere on the record, and then deny that he had anything to do with it for years! (The Time).

Michael rode out the commercial success of Thriller for two years, and didn't even have serious thoughts about recording a follow up for three years. Hell, the title track didn't come out as a single with the video until 14 months after the album had already been released. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but that's the kind of thing you do when you're trying to sell as many records as possible.

Prince, on the other hand, had a follow-up album to Purple Rain released and in stores just 9 months afterward. He could have ridden it out for another year, taken the Purple Rain tour international and sold another 15-20 million records if he was focused on on sales. And then he releases a wholly uncommercial psychedelic follow-up that sounds NOTHING like the sound that made him a superstar, and sends the album to radio with NO single! Straight up told 'em "play what you like".... which just confused the hell out of all of them! WB, expecting a commercial follow-up were completely non-plussed and basically forced Prince to release singles from the album.

Those are more so the actions of someone who wants to challenge the audience on a musical level and open them up to new sounds (opening ATWIAD with the title track being a perfect example), and is completely willing to forego selling more records in order to do that.

I think that's what Lili was getting at. Prince was and has always been perfectly happy with the possibility that the general public might not get what he was doing at all.

You could almost say that Michael tried to operate vertically, as in always thinking "How can the next thing be even bigger and better and create more and more buzz!", always trying to move upwards.

Whereas Prince operates horizontally. Like, "OK, done that. Let's move on to something else that's different. Maybe it'll work, maybe not, but we'll do it, and then we'll move on again".

They're my two favorite artists of all time, equally and I'm fortunate enough to have seen them both live - but the reason this debate never works for me is primarily because their similarities are superficial (both black, both pop artists, both making funk/soul based music)... but their career ideals and objectives are about as different as you can get.

Quite possibly the best post made on this topic.

GeminiBrown said:

Militant said:

I get what Lili is saying.

Michael definitely experimented with different things but nowhere near to the point Prince has. I mean, to say otherwise is ridiculous.

Michael never deliberately opted to do something that he knew wouldn't be commercially successful just because he felt like it.

Prince is the guy that puts out instrumental jazz albums like NEWS that even half his fanbase don't have much interest in! He's the guy that'll make entire funk albums where he did basically everything them except the lead vocals, won't put his name anywhere on the record, and then deny that he had anything to do with it for years! (The Time).

Michael rode out the commercial success of Thriller for two years, and didn't even have serious thoughts about recording a follow up for three years. Hell, the title track didn't come out as a single with the video until 14 months after the album had already been released. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but that's the kind of thing you do when you're trying to sell as many records as possible.

Prince, on the other hand, had a follow-up album to Purple Rain released and in stores just 9 months afterward. He could have ridden it out for another year, taken the Purple Rain tour international and sold another 15-20 million records if he was focused on on sales. And then he releases a wholly uncommercial psychedelic follow-up that sounds NOTHING like the sound that made him a superstar, and sends the album to radio with NO single! Straight up told 'em "play what you like".... which just confused the hell out of all of them! WB, expecting a commercial follow-up were completely non-plussed and basically forced Prince to release singles from the album.

Those are more so the actions of someone who wants to challenge the audience on a musical level and open them up to new sounds (opening ATWIAD with the title track being a perfect example), and is completely willing to forego selling more records in order to do that.

I think that's what Lili was getting at. Prince was and has always been perfectly happy with the possibility that the general public might not get what he was doing at all.

You could almost say that Michael tried to operate vertically, as in always thinking "How can the next thing be even bigger and better and create more and more buzz!", always trying to move upwards.

Whereas Prince operates horizontally. Like, "OK, done that. Let's move on to something else that's different. Maybe it'll work, maybe not, but we'll do it, and then we'll move on again".

They're my two favorite artists of all time, equally and I'm fortunate enough to have seen them both live - but the reason this debate never works for me is primarily because their similarities are superficial (both black, both pop artists, both making funk/soul based music)... but their career ideals and objectives are about as different as you can get.

Quite possibly the best post made on this topic.

Well there's not much competition.

smoothcriminal12 said:

GeminiBrown said:

Quite possibly the best post made on this topic.

Well there's not much competition.

Militant said:

I get what Lili is saying.

Michael definitely experimented with different things but nowhere near to the point Prince has. I mean, to say otherwise is ridiculous.

Michael never deliberately opted to do something that he knew wouldn't be commercially successful just because he felt like it.

Prince is the guy that puts out instrumental jazz albums like NEWS that even half his fanbase don't have much interest in! He's the guy that'll make entire funk albums where he did basically everything them except the lead vocals, won't put his name anywhere on the record, and then deny that he had anything to do with it for years! (The Time).

Michael rode out the commercial success of Thriller for two years, and didn't even have serious thoughts about recording a follow up for three years. Hell, the title track didn't come out as a single with the video until 14 months after the album had already been released. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but that's the kind of thing you do when you're trying to sell as many records as possible.

Prince, on the other hand, had a follow-up album to Purple Rain released and in stores just 9 months afterward. He could have ridden it out for another year, taken the Purple Rain tour international and sold another 15-20 million records if he was focused on on sales. And then he releases a wholly uncommercial psychedelic follow-up that sounds NOTHING like the sound that made him a superstar, and sends the album to radio with NO single! Straight up told 'em "play what you like".... which just confused the hell out of all of them! WB, expecting a commercial follow-up were completely non-plussed and basically forced Prince to release singles from the album.

Those are more so the actions of someone who wants to challenge the audience on a musical level and open them up to new sounds (opening ATWIAD with the title track being a perfect example), and is completely willing to forego selling more records in order to do that.

I think that's what Lili was getting at. Prince was and has always been perfectly happy with the possibility that the general public might not get what he was doing at all.

You could almost say that Michael tried to operate vertically, as in always thinking "How can the next thing be even bigger and better and create more and more buzz!", always trying to move upwards.

Whereas Prince operates horizontally. Like, "OK, done that. Let's move on to something else that's different. Maybe it'll work, maybe not, but we'll do it, and then we'll move on again".

They're my two favorite artists of all time, equally and I'm fortunate enough to have seen them both live - but the reason this debate never works for me is primarily because their similarities are superficial (both black, both pop artists, both making funk/soul based music)... but their career ideals and objectives are about as different as you can get.

What did Mint Condition state? Nothing left 2 say..............