http://www.huffingtonpost...568f833896

COMPUTERBLUE1984 said:

Nice article. I think all three were artistic rivals who had respect for each other, despite whatever pettiness allegedly happened/said/alluded to from the article. They each occupied a niche in pop music and despite their differences, I am truly happy to have had their music as the soundtrack of my youth.

MJ, Madonna and Prince represent the Renaissance era of pop music and entertainment. We will never see anyone reach the stardom they had or talent. Its something that can't be manufactured or created. You are either born with it or your not. I feel blessed to have been exposed to their music in my youth. R..I.P. to the greats MJ and Prince

The Big Three of the 80s

mjscarousal said:

EmmaMcG said:

I always felt that putting Madonna in the same category as Prince and Michael Jackson is ridiculous. Just because she had her commercial peak at the same time doesn't mean she deserves to be compared to Prince and MJ. Fame does not equal talent.

I don't think anybody is "comparing" these artists at all.The three of them get linked because they were the three biggest artists of that decade.Plus,there are other obvious similarities.

COMPUTERBLUE1984 said:

mjscarousal said:

MJ, Madonna and Prince represent the Renaissance era of pop music and entertainment. We will never see anyone reach the stardom they had or talent. Its something that can't be manufactured or created. You are either born with it or your not. I feel blessed to have been exposed to their music in my youth. R..I.P. to the greats MJ and Prince

Co sign with what you said. These three, for all their highs/lows, occupied a part of the cultural landscape of the era. MJ was the entertainer who millions saw go from being the young kid from Gary, to the once in a generation talent who seemingly made everything he touched turn to gold. His videos made for must see TV during that time. Prince for me, was always the mysterious one with the showmanship/musicianship of JB, Jimi, and Sly with the avant garde leanings of Bowie. Every album had a theme completely different sound from the last, making each album an event. Growing up, always looked forward to his new releases. Loved the era, especially the pre Purple Rain 1980s albums. Madonna was always a bit more of a mixed bag to me. She may not have been a world class dancer, singer, or musician, but she always surrounded herself with collaborators that were able to keep her sound pop friendly and mainstream. What I admire about her most is she didnt take crap from critics or peers, which is why she imo has been able to stay relevant as long as she has. Her singles during the era were excellent! When you think about it, no year in the 1980s went by without at least one of them having a chart topping album, so their presence was pretty profound. Their catalogues are still wonderful to listen to today, even if some of the sound may be a bit dated. [Edited 8/7/16 22:50pm]

Great post!

EmmaMcG said:

I always felt that putting Madonna in the same category as Prince and Michael Jackson is ridiculous. Just because she had her commercial peak at the same time doesn't mean she deserves to be compared to Prince and MJ. Fame does not equal talent.

I agree.

However, The reason why Madonna is mentioned with them is because she was one of the biggest pop stars of that decade and made the same cultural impact on pop culture. Impact and influence has nothing to do with talent. I do agree though that she was never as authentically talented as they were.

SoulAlive said:

EmmaMcG said:

SoulAlive said:

I don't think anybody is "comparing" these artists at all.The three of them get linked because they were the three biggest artists of that decade.Plus,there are other obvious similarities.

Musically, there's not much similarities though. Prince sang about sex, so did Madonna. But then, so did a lot of people. Bruce Springsteen was also one of the biggest artists of the 80's but he's never really mentioned along with the other three. He's got more in common with Prince than the other two. Both men wrote their own songs, both men were great guitarists. Both men were capable of going on stage without a predetermined set list and performing for hours. They also both sang live. Michael Jackson was a great live performer too but everything was planned down to the smallest detail. I don't think he would have been able to improvise like Prince or Springsteen. And Madonna might have a few good songs but let's be honest, she can't sing live. Prince, MJ and Madonna were completely different and linking them together because they were famous at the same time is ridiculous.

Now this is completely false. Every thing was not scripted at his concerts. If you watch certain performances they are distinctly different. Like Billie Jean is a performance that is completely improvise at his concerts at certain points. There are various sections that are improvised. I am sorry this is false.

mjscarousal said:

Interesting to see all these stories (even if from questionable sources) on a timeline.

I cannot fathom someone in 1988 saying that they worried Michael Jackson wouldn't be popular in a few years. I guess hindsight is 20/20, but motherfucker, what!?!??

[Edited 8/8/16 5:44am]

Also, wow. Madonna's my least favourite of the 3, but she sure could hit the nail on the head:

“Prince’s demure behavior and Michael Jackson’s running away from the truth is much more revealing about them than any of the things I’ve told. I could talk to you for hours and you could read all my interviews, but you’d never feel you completely knew me. If they would just come outside and mingle with humanity, everything would benefit ― their art, and whatever relationships they may have. I’ve spent a good deal of time with both of them. They have these manners and they’re just so careful about what they eat and what they say. It’s never too late to start being a human being. Forget salvation in the public eye. I’m just talking about being happy in your private life.”

EmmaMcG said:

NorthC said:

EmmaMcG said:

I always felt that putting Madonna in the same category as Prince and Michael Jackson is ridiculous. Just because she had her commercial peak at the same time doesn't mean she deserves to be compared to Prince and MJ. Fame does not equal talent.

The thing about Madonna is that she showed that a woman could do it too. This is, as James Brown said, a man's world and I think Madge deserves some respect for that. And as for fame vs talent, I think Madonna has a talent for being famous. She always knew how to surround herself with the best and the hippest producers to keep her sound up to date. That's a talent too! And we are talking about the most famous acts of the 1980s, not the best, because then the top 3 would be Prince- U2- Kate Bush. (I just had to sneak Kate into it. )

EmmaMcG said:

mjscarousal said:

Now this is completely false. Every thing was not scripted at his concerts. If you watch certain performances they are distinctly different. Like Billie Jean is a performance that is completely improvise at his concerts at certain points. There are various sections that are improvised. I am sorry this is false.

It is heavily choreographed. Sometimes it's done in a way so as to appear spontaneous or improvised, but it's most definitely choreographed. Now, I'm not taking anything away from MJ as a live performer. He was the best at what he did. I don't believe anyone could replicate it. It takes a serious amount of skill and talent to do what he did. It's not easy to plan out things to the smallest detail and perform it immaculately. And even if parts of the Billie Jean performances were improvised, which I doubt they were, that's just one example. MJ put on an incredible show. It would be impossible to find room for improvisation because of the multiple backing dancers, light shows etc. And I know he sang live (most of the time) but he did tend to have a backing track play to cover for him when he was doing his elaborate dancing sequences. I'm not saying Michael Jackson was not good, just very different to Prince. So I don't know why they are linked together all the time.

I am not disagreeing with you that his concerts were choreographed. I am disagreeing with you insisting that everything was choreographed to the "smallest detail" which is false. If you watch his concerts from the same period you will see that everything is not choreographed to the smallest detail and there are some differences (i.e. fan interaction, improv dance moves, singing, etc ) This is an argument that is annoying as hell that you Prince fans do. Why even bring Prince up when you are talking about Michael? How can you say what is choreographed and what is not if you havent even watched the whole concert or multiple concerts from the same period? Michael choreographed aspects of his show and yes some things are repetitive (because they have too be such as choreography because they were ICONIC) but not every single thing was down to the spec choregraphed as you implied. He shows were not as mechanical as you are arguing. They were passionate, emotional and charismatic so I again I respectfull disagree. I see you are trying to be shady to with mentioning the backing tracks.... like why? When that has nothing to do with your original argument. All the tours with his brothers including BAD were all live. Sixty percent of Dangerous was also live. The only concert where he really mimed majority was HIStory and that was for health and legitimate reasons.

NorthC said:

EmmaMcG said:

I always felt that putting Madonna in the same category as Prince and Michael Jackson is ridiculous. Just because she had her commercial peak at the same time doesn't mean she deserves to be compared to Prince and MJ. Fame does not equal talent.

The thing about Madonna is that she showed that a woman could do it too. This is, as James Brown said, a man's world and I think Madge deserves some respect for that. And as for fame vs talent, I think Madonna has a talent for being famous. She always knew how to surround herself with the best and the hippest producers to keep her sound up to date. That's a talent too! And we are talking about the most famous acts of the 1980s, not the best, because then the top 3 would be Prince- U2- Kate Bush. (I just had to sneak Kate into it. )

More talented than Michael?

Is this a joke?

I agree with you that Madonna deserves more credit. Its not easy to constantly come up with new ways to creatively reinvent yourself, image and work. She hardly repeated herself. Also, Madonna was not afraid to take musical risks or step out her comfort zone. She also wrote her own music too (something that she hardly ever gets credit for). She has influenced an entire generation. I think she deserves her status. I just wouldn't compare her to Prince and Michael when it comes to talent.

They all were bad ass,legends, icons and heros. We will never have icons or legends like them again.

mjscarousal said:

mjscarousal said:

EmmaMcG said:

mjscarousal said:

I am not disagreeing with you that his concerts were choreographed. I am disagreeing with you insisting that everything was choreographed to the "smallest detail" which is false. If you watch his concerts from the same period you will see that everything is not choreographed to the smallest detail and there are some differences (i.e. fan interaction, improv dance moves, singing, etc ) This is an argument that is annoying as hell that you Prince fans do. Why even bring Prince up when you are talking about Michael? How can you say what is choreographed and what is not if you havent even watched the whole concert or multiple concerts from the same period? Michael choreographed aspects of his show and yes some things are repetitive (because they have too be such as choreography because they were ICONIC) but not every single thing was down to the spec choregraphed as you implied. He shows were not as mechanical as you are arguing. They were passionate, emotional and charismatic so I again I respectfull disagree. I see you are trying to be shady to with mentioning the backing tracks.... like why? When that has nothing to do with your original argument. All the tours with his brothers including BAD were all live. Sixty percent of Dangerous was also live. The only concert where he really mimed majority was HIStory and that was for health and legitimate reasons.

"you Prince fans"? I'm assuming you are a Prince fan too, no? I was a Michael Jackson fan for years before I even heard a Prince song. And for the record, I've seen a LOT of Michael Jackson concerts. Not only that but I have nearly 60 of them as bootlegs. Besides, I'm not saying it's a bad thing that Michael Jackson 's shows were heavily choreographed and planned in advance. Its damn impressive that he could do it. Nor was I implying that he lip synced and at no point was I being "shady" as you put it. The reason I mentioned the backing tracks he used when he was dancing was that it DID have something to do with my argument. As in, it would be hard for him to be spontaneous on stage and go into another song when the backing track is still playing Smooth Criminal or whatever. But again, I'm not saying this as an insult to Michael Jackson, I love MJ. I'm just pointing out the clear differences between what kind of artists he and Prince were. And because of these differences, I don't know why people always compare the two. That's all I was saying.

I love Prince and I am a Prince fan but that is a pet peeve that Prince fans do when it comes to MJ. Some things you mentioned were unnessesary to your original argument. It appeared you were tryin to find ways to put MJ down when compared to Prince. I am still trying to figure out what does backing tracks have to do with a concert being rehearsed down to the smallest detail. MJ did not use backing tracks at all his concerts and as I mentioned in my last post began using them heavily during the late 90s for health reasons. We can agree to disagree because I still disagree with your opinion. I do agree Prince and MJ are very different artists/entertainers and therefore should not be compared.

EmmaMcG said:

mjscarousal said:

More talented than Michael?

Is this a joke?

I agree with you that Madonna deserves more credit. Its not easy to constantly come up with new ways to creatively reinvent yourself, image and work. She hardly repeated herself. Also, Madonna was not afraid to take musical risks or step out her comfort zone. She also wrote her own music too (something that she hardly ever gets credit for). She has influenced an entire generation. I think she deserves her status. I just wouldn't compare her to Prince and Michael when it comes to talent.

Didn't Stephen Bray write most of Madonna's big hits though? I'm not being a smartarse, I'm genuinely asking because I thought he wrote and produced her stuff?

Thats okay lol Your right, he did. Madonna has used songwriters. (Also I am not a Madonna expert too by the way SoulAlive might can help lol) However, she has written more music and has more co writes than what people give her credit for. She has enough where I consider her to be a songwriter. I actually was surprised with how many co-writes she has and songs she has written.

Cool article

EmmaMcG said:

NorthC said:

The thing about Madonna is that she showed that a woman could do it too. This is, as James Brown said, a man's world and I think Madge deserves some respect for that. And as for fame vs talent, I think Madonna has a talent for being famous. She always knew how to surround herself with the best and the hippest producers to keep her sound up to date. That's a talent too! And we are talking about the most famous acts of the 1980s, not the best, because then the top 3 would be Prince- U2- Kate Bush. (I just had to sneak Kate into it. )

U2???? Hahaha

EmmaMcG said:

RachB65 said:

EmmaMcG said:

U2???? Hahaha

U2 was the shit in the 80s n 90s...Especially 1992's Achtung Baby.