u could say Prince from 1980 -1996.....

luvsexy4all said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

1) Prince

2) Zappa

3) Bowie (83-87 period incredibly underrated; no decent album since)

4) Dylan (hasnt done a decent album since '78)

5) Lennon (died too soon, did some shit in the 70s tho)

Stevie Wonder hasn't done anything consistently good since '76.

Michael Jackson not prolific enough.

MJ not creative enough either, 2 albums in 10 years mostly written by other people puts him in the unibond premier league compared to the others mentioned here. (and Madonna is in that league with him)

mjscarousal said:

For everyone saying that MJ was not prolific enough to be qualified, the general public says otherwise as well as his incomparible stats. He deserves to be listed, without question.

unless you're questioning if you actually know what prolific means.

ThePanther said:

mjscarousal said:

The man was a genius and was blessed with God given talent and made great pop music, those are the facts. Michael did not release a lot of albums as a solo act but that does not reflect the creativity or quality of the music that he did make. Everybody across the globe knows all the lyrics to Off the Wall, Thriller and BAD (groundbreaking, iconic and important albums in the history of music and most importantly good quality and creative pop music). In fact, ALL of his albums up until History were solid. He had a good solid creative pop run, spanning 13 number one hits and classic gems that stand the test of time through out his run. AGAIN, don't take my word for it, his music and impact speaks for itself.

As does his image...

.

Look, maybe you're losing sight of the plot here -- the topic isn't "Who is great?". The topic is, "greatest creative run". To me, that implies a sustained series of releases that are (mostly) universally acclaimed. Michael Jackson had two great albums, separated by three years. That's it. I don't care how many copies his other albums sold -- they're not universally acclaimed. Most people today don't play them. They'll never end up on popular lists of the Greatest Albums. Because they're not. Even if you did count Bad (and you shouldn't) that gives him, at most, three such albums in eight years. In eight years, The Beatles recorded every note of their entire career. Stevie Wonder went from 'My Cherie Amour' to Songs in the Key of Life. On top of which, artists like them and Joni Mitchell -- in adulthood, anyway -- wrote all their own songs and played their own instruments. Michael Jackson wrote some songs, but had many written for him. He can't play an instrument. Over eight years, Michael Jackson's song got worse, his videos just repeated themselves over and over, and he managed to scare away the only sensible person who unequivocally helped him -- Quincy Jones. The only thing that showed any kind of development was his nose.

That were only 2 things MJ was prolific with, new faces and lawsuits.

RicoN said:

RicoN said:

ThePanther said:

As does his image...

.

Look, maybe you're losing sight of the plot here -- the topic isn't "Who is great?". The topic is, "greatest creative run". To me, that implies a sustained series of releases that are (mostly) universally acclaimed. Michael Jackson had two great albums, separated by three years. That's it. I don't care how many copies his other albums sold -- they're not universally acclaimed. Most people today don't play them. They'll never end up on popular lists of the Greatest Albums. Because they're not. Even if you did count Bad (and you shouldn't) that gives him, at most, three such albums in eight years. In eight years, The Beatles recorded every note of their entire career. Stevie Wonder went from 'My Cherie Amour' to Songs in the Key of Life. On top of which, artists like them and Joni Mitchell -- in adulthood, anyway -- wrote all their own songs and played their own instruments. Michael Jackson wrote some songs, but had many written for him. He can't play an instrument. Over eight years, Michael Jackson's song got worse, his videos just repeated themselves over and over, and he managed to scare away the only sensible person who unequivocally helped him -- Quincy Jones. The only thing that showed any kind of development was his nose.

That were only 2 things MJ was prolific with, new faces and lawsuits.

And you're dumb

heathilly said:

luvsexy4all said:

u could say Prince from 1980 -1996.....

Let's be real classic ended with lovesexy after that it was never the same. This thread is about high level of artistic achievement over an extend period of time. Everything after lovesexy jumps off a cliff into a trench.

they may not be up to your "standards" ..but no turkeys in there either

Yep good call on Todd Rundgren. Also Talking Heads 1977-1984, Peter Gabriel 1977-1989.

luvsexy4all said:

heathilly said:

luvsexy4all said: Let's be real classic ended with lovesexy after that it was never the same. This thread is about high level of artistic achievement over an extend period of time. Everything after lovesexy jumps off a cliff into a trench.

they may not be up to your "standards" ..but no turkeys in there either

I agree with you about extending his remaarkable era to 1996. Plenty of great songs and very good albums in the post Lovesexy period, even if it is below the brilliance of the earlier portion of the era. No one can compete with that earlier period, so it is unfair to constantly hold this over his head.

ThePanther said:

mjscarousal said:

The man was a genius and was blessed with God given talent and made great pop music, those are the facts. Michael did not release a lot of albums as a solo act but that does not reflect the creativity or quality of the music that he did make. Everybody across the globe knows all the lyrics to Off the Wall, Thriller and BAD (groundbreaking, iconic and important albums in the history of music and most importantly good quality and creative pop music). In fact, ALL of his albums up until History were solid. He had a good solid creative pop run, spanning 13 number one hits and classic gems that stand the test of time through out his run. AGAIN, don't take my word for it, his music and impact speaks for itself.

As does his image...

.

Look, maybe you're losing sight of the plot here -- the topic isn't "Who is great?". The topic is, "greatest creative run". To me, that implies a sustained series of releases that are (mostly) universally acclaimed. Michael Jackson had two great albums, separated by three years. That's it. I don't care how many copies his other albums sold -- they're not universally acclaimed. Most people today don't play them. They'll never end up on popular lists of the Greatest Albums. Because they're not. Even if you did count Bad (and you shouldn't) that gives him, at most, three such albums in eight years. In eight years, The Beatles recorded every note of their entire career. Stevie Wonder went from 'My Cherie Amour' to Songs in the Key of Life. On top of which, artists like them and Joni Mitchell -- in adulthood, anyway -- wrote all their own songs and played their own instruments. Michael Jackson wrote some songs, but had many written for him. He can't play an instrument. Over eight years, Michael Jackson's song got worse, his videos just repeated themselves over and over, and he managed to scare away the only sensible person who unequivocally helped him -- Quincy Jones. The only thing that showed any kind of development was his nose.

This is such a dumb and childish post. For the ones that like to throw the hater word around, this post is a perfect example of a "hater", a person that can not intelligently express what they dislike about an artist and irrationally revert to childish things that have nothing to do with the artists music or talent. I see you Prince fans are still mad about the fact that MJ is the biggest Black act of all time and most succesful but let it go already. Nobody ain't touching his throne so deal with it.

[Edited 1/10/17 22:17pm]

mjscarousal said:

ThePanther said:

As does his image...

.

Look, maybe you're losing sight of the plot here -- the topic isn't "Who is great?". The topic is, "greatest creative run". To me, that implies a sustained series of releases that are (mostly) universally acclaimed. Michael Jackson had two great albums, separated by three years. That's it. I don't care how many copies his other albums sold -- they're not universally acclaimed. Most people today don't play them. They'll never end up on popular lists of the Greatest Albums. Because they're not. Even if you did count Bad (and you shouldn't) that gives him, at most, three such albums in eight years. In eight years, The Beatles recorded every note of their entire career. Stevie Wonder went from 'My Cherie Amour' to Songs in the Key of Life. On top of which, artists like them and Joni Mitchell -- in adulthood, anyway -- wrote all their own songs and played their own instruments. Michael Jackson wrote some songs, but had many written for him. He can't play an instrument. Over eight years, Michael Jackson's song got worse, his videos just repeated themselves over and over, and he managed to scare away the only sensible person who unequivocally helped him -- Quincy Jones. The only thing that showed any kind of development was his nose.

This is such a dumb and childish post. For the ones that like to throw the hater word around, this post is a perfect example of a "hater", a person that can not intelligently express what they dislike about an artist and irrationally revert to childish things that have nothing to do with the artists music or talent. I see you Prince fans are still mad about the fact that MJ is the biggest Black act of all time and most succesful but let it go already. Nobody ain't touching his throne so deal with it.

[Edited 1/10/17 22:17pm]

My main issue is that he liked to touch young boys thrones, and is exreme wealth meant he ws above the law. And in death his immense earning potential means that everyone seems to have collective amnesia about what he did.

luvsexy4all said:

Prince comes to mind. Different sounds and ideas with each album. I believe the run extend long after the so call "hey day."

You don't have to be prolific in order to be qualified on this list IMO. Sure you have to have more than at least 2 albums maybe but 5 or more albums is enough imo. If the music is good and creative consistently, back to back, gem after gem, etc why does it matter how many albums an artist puts out? People make this same argument about Lauryn Hill's Miseducation (in order to down play her) but her Miseducation album is iconic and has made an undenial impact on music. For me its about QUALITY not QUANTITY. Some of these artists listed made a ton of albums but some of their albums are so so and average. The question is asking who had the "greatest creative pop run" not who was the most prolific and came out with the most music.

RicoN said:

mjscarousal said:

This is such a dumb and childish post. For the ones that like to throw the hater word around, this post is a perfect example of a "hater", a person that can not intelligently express what they dislike about an artist and irrationally revert to childish things that have nothing to do with the artists music or talent. I see you Prince fans are still mad about the fact that MJ is the biggest Black act of all time and most succesful but let it go already. Nobody ain't touching his throne so deal with it.

[Edited 1/10/17 22:17pm]

My main issue is that he liked to touch young boys thrones, and is exreme wealth meant he ws above the law. And in death his immense earning potential means that everyone seems to have collective amnesia about what he did.

You're such a shitty person, go fuck yourself, he did nothing and there is plenty of evidence about it.

heathilly said:

luvsexy4all said:

they may not be up to your "standards" ..but no turkeys in there either

Its like including Stevie wonders hotter than July or Joni's Mingus or don juans etc. the world Widely agrees prince creative run ended at lovesexy he had good songs after but it's not the same. And to the other poster it's not about it being fair no one can match the earlier material it's about a classic genius creative run. And for prince that would be self titled to lovesexy that's just the truth. It's no point in extending it because of fandom.

Not exactly, that would be from Dirty Mind to Sign O' The Times, Prince album is not that great and neither is Lovesexy.

214 said:

heathilly said:

214 said:

Not exactly, that would be from Dirty Mind to Sign O' The Times, Prince album is not that great and neither is Lovesexy.

You could say that I'm just saying what is widely considered his classic run. Music of my mind isn't a great record but people include that with Stevie because it was a turning point samething with clouds for Joni

To me is a great album, not as great as the others, but still.

ThePanther said:

Stevie Wonder definitely has a place in this discussion. Anyway, my choices (in sort-of chronological order):

Good choices all, and legit choices all, just for the sake of genuine debate, I respond.

.

The Beatles: 1962 to 1969 -- entire body of work, all 1st-rate. (As 'solo' artists, they continue at peak level in 1970 and 1971, but spotty thereafter.)

.
But George Martin deserves a LOT of credit for the monumental creative arc of the band. (Soundbreakers gets into that a bit). Stevie was the producer and singular guiding force in his run.

Joan Baez: 1960 to 1975 -- from age 19 to 34 she produced A LOT of good records; I really like her, and whatever happened this kind of (very white) singer? Obsolete style today, but she is still goin' strong.

Baez had an impact on the sound an direction of music, but Stevie's run in the 70's eclipses hers. Plus, if Baez's style is obsolete (and I'm not so sure it is), Stevie's has endured.

.

Bob Dylan: 1962 to 1976 -- from his debut to Desire (1976), he's untouchable (almost). Thereafter, he's hit and miss, and most recordings are a mixed-bag (though I think his live peak was probably around 1981, but whatever). After the early 80s, his voice is shot.

.
Fair, he is widely considered as rock's greatest. But though his activism and message resonated across racial and cultral lines (he was covered by r&b greats, including Stevie IIRC), I doubt his music had the same type of crossover impact Stevie's did.

Joni Mitchell: 1968 to 1976 -- I agree with the poster above who said everything from her first record to Hejira (1976) is unbeatable. When the dust settles, she is the greatest female songwriter (in English) ever, and probably 2nd only to Dylan overall.

Can't argue with her rich legacy. She was an influence on artists across the board. But did her run really make the across the board impact, culturally, artistically, and commercially, that Stevie's did?

.

214 said:

heathilly said:

214 said: You could say that I'm just saying what is widely considered his classic run. Music of my mind isn't a great record but people include that with Stevie because it was a turning point samething with clouds for Joni

To me is a great album, not as great as the others, but still.

It has super women/where were you and some catchy innovative songs. Its good but no where in the league of the others. same with self title prince with I wanna be your lover and other catchy songs. Same with jonis clouds has both sides now. Any way thats just a long way of saying thats why his run starts with self titled.

namepeace said:

ThePanther said:

Stevie Wonder definitely has a place in this discussion. Anyway, my choices (in sort-of chronological order):

Good choices all, and legit choices all, just for the sake of genuine debate, I respond.

.

The Beatles: 1962 to 1969 -- entire body of work, all 1st-rate. (As 'solo' artists, they continue at peak level in 1970 and 1971, but spotty thereafter.)

.
But George Martin deserves a LOT of credit for the monumental creative arc of the band. (Soundbreakers gets into that a bit). Stevie was the producer and singular guiding force in his run.

Joan Baez: 1960 to 1975 -- from age 19 to 34 she produced A LOT of good records; I really like her, and whatever happened this kind of (very white) singer? Obsolete style today, but she is still goin' strong.

Baez had an impact on the sound an direction of music, but Stevie's run in the 70's eclipses hers. Plus, if Baez's style is obsolete (and I'm not so sure it is), Stevie's has endured.

.

Bob Dylan: 1962 to 1976 -- from his debut to Desire (1976), he's untouchable (almost). Thereafter, he's hit and miss, and most recordings are a mixed-bag (though I think his live peak was probably around 1981, but whatever). After the early 80s, his voice is shot.

.
Fair, he is widely considered as rock's greatest. But though his activism and message resonated across racial and cultral lines (he was covered by r&b greats, including Stevie IIRC), I doubt his music had the same type of crossover impact Stevie's did.

Joni Mitchell: 1968 to 1976 -- I agree with the poster above who said everything from her first record to Hejira (1976) is unbeatable. When the dust settles, she is the greatest female songwriter (in English) ever, and probably 2nd only to Dylan overall.

Can't argue with her rich legacy. She was an influence on artists across the board. But did her run really make the across the board impact, culturally, artistically, and commercially, that Stevie's did?

.

Just for the joni part the only thing I would say she lacks is the cutural impact and commercial. Artistically she just as innovative musically and vastly superior lyrically.

heathilly said:

namepeace said:

Just for the joni part the only thing I would say she lacks is the cutural impact and commercial. Artistically she just as innovative musically and vastly superior lyrically.

Not that I know Joni's work that well, I do know a little, but that's a bold statement.

namepeace said:

heathilly said:

Just for the joni part the only thing I would say she lacks is the cutural impact and commercial. Artistically she just as innovative musically and vastly superior lyrically.

Not that I know Joni's work that well, I do know a little, but that's a bold statement.

Listen to her run from song to a seagull to hejira. Not that it means much rollingstone magzine has stevie at 10 for songwriting and her at 9. Again its rs magazine so whatever.

Bob Dylan's impact is way beyond Stevie's impact, wider and greater and lyrically is superior as well,not musicallyand vocally, though.

No idea about Joni, the only song i have listened from her, is A Case Of U and i didn't like it a bit.

RJOrion said:

bob dylan impact "way beyond" and lyrically greater than Stevie Wonder's ????? where at? for whom? [Edited 1/11/17 16:34pm]

Really? look for yourself, do you think something like Village Ghetto Land is better lyrically than To Ramona, Simple Twist of Fate, With God on Our Side etc. I love Stevie but his lyrics compare to Bob <Dylan's lyrics seem dome of them a little naive.

214 said:

Bob Dylan's impact is way beyond Stevie's impact, wider and greater and lyrically is superior as well,not musicallyand vocally, though.

No idea about Joni, the only song i have listened from her, is A Case Of U and i didn't like it a bit.

I would argue stevies impact on the world of rnb is as great as dylans in the rock world. Not to make this a race thing but there is a huge over analyzation and lauding for rock artist/white artist music as more worthy of intellectual study and more important more impactful. When in actuality there just written about more. (Theres more books on elvis than there is count bassie, michael jackson, prince, miles davis, duke ellington, chuck berry, stevie wonder, marvin gaye , ray charles combined that is alarming and a problem bigger than music its a reflection of society.) There was whole scene before and after elvis, there was alot going on before and after the beatles arrived the world did not change when dylan plugged in. (perhaps the most ridiclous one) Im not saying these artist arn't important because they are but alot the strides in black music tends to be put on back burner as less than when compared to their white counterpart. With that being said I agree bobs better lyrically he's very influential not much of a singer or genius musically as stevie though.