Dance Hall of Fame Inductees. Most are from the area of classical dances, like ballet and stuff. I think MJ is the only one from popular music.

http://www.dancemuseum.or...s/hof.html

He is actually well respected as a dancer even among classical dancers. They do appreciate his originality and uniqueness and expression as a dancer. This is one of my favourite articles of his dancing, written by a professional flamenco dancer: http://en.michaeljackson....the-dream/

RicoN said:

Lots of clever people like crap heavy metal, they are really clever, but still listen to shit!

Right. Don't feed the troll , guys. He's not worth it.

RicoN said:

mjscarousal said:

Not only that, his albums out sell the current artists. Last year he was hailed as the best selling pop male artist by Billboard because of his sales. He has been dead for 8 years now and his music is still selling, anybody arguing MJ is not known for his music is a straight hater by denying his legitimate receipts and impact. BAD was just certified a diamond album a month ago for crying out loud!

MJ's is unsophissticated music for stupid people who think they like their message deep. Like Adele fans or Coldplay fans.

And as with the Rrump and Brexit vote, there are millions of them out there.

He is a singer and a dancer, who nicked his most famous move. He is supremely over rated. The best bits of the MJ songs is all either Quincy Jones or Cleethorpes finest, Rod Temperton.

What the hell is "sophisticated music" if we go by that with Michael then Prince music is the same, not much "sophistication" to be found there.

According to the US Music Industry Report, Michael Jackson is the #1 Best Selling Male Pop Album Artist of 2016 & 20th Best Selling overall!

HAPPYPERSON said:

Dance Hall of Fame Inductees. Most are from the area of classical dances, like ballet and stuff. I think MJ is the only one from popular music.

http://www.dancemuseum.or...s/hof.html

He is actually well respected as a dancer even among classical dancers. They do appreciate his originality and uniqueness and expression as a dancer. This is one of my favourite articles of his dancing, written by a professional flamenco dancer: http://en.michaeljackson....the-dream/

So what makes Michael unique? Why are there ongoing disputes, for example, that his dancing contains so many sexual moves yet they never make him look vulgar – a vulgarity that can be seen in so many other performers? Why are his contributions to the art of dance considered so invaluable that this pop star can be placed alongside the great masters of ballet or folk dancing?

Michael Jackson stands out among all stage performers of his generation and those that followed. It is often said that many pop entertainers draw on Michael because he created a standard. Still, many seem to draw on the wrong things. Michael was notable for his absolute belief in what he was doing. He always had a sincere and sparkling artistry, while contemporary pop performers mostly look like beautifully designed clockwork dolls and not charismatic entertainers.


I don’t know why this is so, but I suspect the trouble is not in a lack of talent but in the fact that the pop stage has once and for all taken to manufacturing an average glamour ideal. Mostly, these new “stars” create an impression of Barbie dolls: all of them pretty, all of them capable, but lacking passion… Nothing exciting is going on. There is nothing that can shock or surprise us anymore – all revolutions are past. That is the overall feeling. Honestly, it’s sad to see that they are deprived of a true, live creative process and consciously make a product of themselves. A product and not a creator, even a small one. It is strange that the industry keeps dictating this kind of taste and selecting this kind of material for its star factory. But after all, a genius is only a genius if it is rare.


The second, and perhaps the more interesting factor, is that fundamentally, Michael Jackson is not a pop figure. Yes, he worked within the framework of popular mass culture, but he didn’t belong to pop art on the basis of his mentality. I would even say this was his tragedy, of which he was not guilty, of course. The pop culture framework, on the one hand, allowed him to break all possible sales records and reach out to millions of people with simple and inspiring ideas. On the other hand, his talent was confined to that framework, so in the end, certain facets of his artistry didn’t fully manifest and went mostly unnoticed by the general public.


The image of a pop singer prevented some people from taking him seriously. This was unfortunate, and I’ll say it once again: it was not his fault. The blame lies with the narrow-mindedness of society. His figure had too many contradictions for people to perceive him adequately. He combined traits of antipodal conventional types ingrained in popular mythology, and this eventually brought harsh trials and a tragic end upon him.
In conclusion, I will say the obvious: being a genius, Michael wasn’t supposed to conform to any standards. As Niccolo Paganini said, “Talent is not loved, and genius is hated.” By the way, the lives of Paganini and Jackson had many parallels.

I saw Black or White for the first time in its full version in the early 1990s, when the video had just been released. I wasn’t really interested in Michael Jackson at that time. I was very young and far from mass culture. My idols were representatives of “high” dance genres: great performers of ballet, flamenco, and other classic traditions.


However, the second half of Black or White, commonly called the panther dance, shocked me. I still believe it is one of Michael’s best dances – a pure torrent of aggressive passion, even if played for the camera on purpose. It is the kind of improvised dance that goes back to dance’s original source. It is an absolutely unique case in contemporary pop culture of true, passionate, and spiritual dance; it cannot be seen anywhere else in this sphere. In most instances all we see is gymnastics or vulgar hip swaying, while the elegant tap of dancers like Fred Astaire has become a thing of the past. Real, pure ecstasy is virtually absent from the pop stage.


After seeing the video I wanted to say, “Bravo, Michael!” even though I wasn’t a fan of his at the time. In just a few minutes this man, the only person in the pop sphere who possessed this primordial sincerity, did something vitally important that had not been done by any stage performer with international fame. He placed ecstatic improvisation in the spotlight, featuring it in the video that apparently had no relation to it and was built on positive themes such as boyish jokes and uniting nations. The contrast was striking and even wild, incomprehensible for the common viewer, causing wide controversy and even hostility. Perhaps such a contrast and the contradictory design of the short film were created by Michael intuitively. Perhaps he hoped that his stream of consciousness would once again shock the public.

Michael generally referenced a lot of archetypal images in his art, which made it extremely rich and fascinating – unlike many of the sickly-sweet pop images of the modern stage. It includes his elusive and mysterious love of the Moon, which lent its name to his choreographic specialty, the moonwalk. By pure intuition.

We should remember that in art, spirituality is primary, and technique is secondary. Sports are different – in sports, technique is primary – but dancing is not a sport. Michael Jackson had what it takes in terms of artistic gift. Many of his moves looked so brilliant, smooth, and talented not because he was technically skilled (although he was certainly capable) but because he lived through every movement. His entire being participated, including his subconsciousness, producing this perfect union of plastique and music. Unfortunately, this is not something one can learn. This is natural talent.


By the way, Michael was not the most technically proficient dancer in the world. He never performed jumps with splits, never hit fifty steps per second and never did 32 fouettés in a row, although sometimes he did things amazing for a human body. Without a doubt, there are many contemporary dancers, especially young ones, who do what Michael could never have done. But even so, we call him great, and those other dancers are just common extras for us. Why is this so?


I’ll say it again: the reason is the artistic gift, the energy, the shamanic sorcery and charisma. Grandeur on stage starts not when the dancer can do a somersault flying three meters above the stage. That is circus acrobatics. Technique is only a means used by the art of dance. Talent in this art form originates not from technique but from the ability to speak and paint with your body, to express nuances and find an individual style of your body movement. An artist achieves complete grandeur in dance if he can transform a tiny gesture into a small spectacle, a sacred act. Michael Jackson knew how to do it. That’s why he was a genius.


I remember how it jarred on me when I heard people talk about his excessive fame. They argued, for example, that the moonwalk wasn’t even created by Michael himself but was Marcel Marceau’s move. Well, if we dig into history, we discover this move existed long before Marceau. Also, being a dancer myself, I can say that the moonwalk is just a fetish in an individual dancing style – the Michael Jackson dance.


There is an interesting trick in choreography, used by many, that involves finding an original memorable move and showcasing it at the culmination of a performance. This move has to be unique or funny, but it doesn’t have to be technically complex. To find such a move can be a merit in itself – because it’s not easy.


This is the case of the moonwalk: it is quite a simple movement that can be learned by any person who can more or less control his or her body. I don’t refer to the advanced versions, such as the side slide or circular moonwalk – those are more difficult. But the classic moonwalk (i.e., walking backwards) can be performed even by an amateur. Yes, it is unusual, and you have to understand the principle of the move to repeat it. But that’s all it takes.


Michael’s dancing demonstrates so much more serious plastique and technique that, compared to them, the moonwalk is just a trifle. Look at the way he controls his body, his coordination, his sense of rhythm! And his spins! They are simply incredible! This is something only a very gifted professional can do.


Still, the moonwalk is the move that people call “sensational.” That’s a purely social effect – instigated by artistic wit and a talented choreographic choice. To perform such an odd element at a historic Motown anniversary, to make it memorable and pour so much energy into it – it paid off.


When journalists talk about Michael’s dancing, they usually cite the moonwalk as his special achievement in dancing technique. The moonwalk may be a historical event; however, it’s not his main contribution to the art of dance. His contributions extend far beyond that. They are not just in specific elements of dance, but, first and foremost, in his prominent style, his rich and expressive body language, and his unique approach to dancing.

There are many good dancers, but only few of them are Artists and Entertainers. The genre and scale of popularity don’t matter. What’s important is how much the entertainer devotes himself to his art, to what extent he realizes his great gift and how much of it he shares with the audience. The gift is not just talent or brilliance. The gift is an opportunity to become a servant of dance with the help of your God-given talent, loving it and sensing its sacred and universal meaning.


Michael Jackson was one of those dancing poets who loved the dance selflessly and brought its essence on stage. He brought a spark to viewers that took them beyond conventional limits, allowing them to connect with the sphere of frenzied energy, emotion and beauty that cannot be perceived by logic, but can only be felt. He could bare emotions and find incredible details in the stream of improvisation like only a rare dancer – and no other pop performer – can. The spirituality and aesthetics he brought on pop stage were unique and unprecedented. The complexity and yet the simplicity of what he was doing fused into something brilliant. In his genre, he will remain unmatched for a very long time. I’d like everyone to understand that, and not just his fans.

Thanks, this is brilliant.

Dasein said:

RicoN said:

MJ's is unsophissticated music for stupid people who think they like their message deep. Like Adele fans or Coldplay fans.

And as with the Rrump and Brexit vote, there are millions of them out there.

He is a singer and a dancer, who nicked his most famous move. He is supremely over rated. The best bits of the MJ songs is all either Quincy Jones or Cleethorpes finest, Rod Temperton.

I understand what could be the source of this post's enmity towards Michael Jackson as the Org,
and in particular, this forum, is obsessed with him to the point of idolization; it's super annoying.
And trust me, I think Thriller is definitely overrated and that Michael Jackson stopped coming up
with new ideas that were interesting after Dangerous.

But he's probably the most popular entertainer of the 20th century (for a good reason) and I think
you're either trolling hard or just writing vituperatively for the sake of it.

Well, it annoys me that someone who sings other people's songs and dances other people's dances, allbeit, really well, is lauded as some kind of creative genius by people on here, who turn a blind eye to that which must not be mentioned.

If I disagree with what people say on here then they go for the lazy 'troll' label.

Like that dance hall of fame article, it's hagiographic bullshit, that gives no credit to any of the coreographers or even the inventer of the Moonwalk, makes no reference that MJ ripped it off at all. All he did was dance. And sing songs. Plus he didn't release anything decent after Thriller and he made everyone call him the King of Pop!! What an areshole.

Rock with You is one of my favourite songs of all time - Rod Temperton wrote it, QJ made it sound like it does, MJ just adds some passable vocals, that could have been sung by any number of people. That's MJ's level right there.


I don't doubt he's the most popular entertainer of the late 20th Century though.

[Edited 3/29/17 1:54am]

mjscarousal said:

Graycap23 said:

His music VIDEO'S is the reason. The actual music simply isn't that good.

[Edited 3/27/17 13:02pm]

1 billion people in the world disagree

If his music isn't that good, why does it sell so much? Why does he have so many hits? Why does he have so many classics? Why does his albums chart every single year? Why does his music out sell most of the current artists? Why does his music inspire and influence generations? Why does his music influence multiple genres? Why is he the biggest selling artist of all time? You don't sell over a billion units worth of music simply because of your music videos.

How many billions of people in the world believe in gods? they are all wrong.

RicoN said:

Dasein said:

I understand what could be the source of this post's enmity towards Michael Jackson as the Org,
and in particular, this forum, is obsessed with him to the point of idolization; it's super annoying.
And trust me, I think Thriller is definitely overrated and that Michael Jackson stopped coming up
with new ideas that were interesting after Dangerous.

But he's probably the most popular entertainer of the 20th century (for a good reason) and I think
you're either trolling hard or just writing vituperatively for the sake of it.

Well, it annoys me that someone who sings other people's songs and dances other people's dances, allbeit, really well, is lauded as some kind of creative genius by people on here, who turn a blind eye to that which must not be mentioned.

If I disagree with what people say on here then they go for the lazy 'troll' label.

Like that dance hall of fame article, it's hagiographic bullshit, that gives no credit to any of the coreographers or even the inventer of the Moonwalk, makes no reference that MJ ripped it off at all. All he did was dance. And sing songs. Plus he didn't release anything decent after Thriller and he made everyone call him the King of Pop!! What an areshole.

Rock with You is one of my favourite songs of all time - Rod Temperton wrote it, QJ made it sound like it does, MJ just adds some passable vocals, that could have been sung by any number of people. That's MJ's level right there.


I don't doubt he's the most popular entertainer of the late 20th Century though.

[Edited 3/29/17 1:54am]

That alone qualifies you as a first class troll. He released plenty of great stuff after Thriller and he sang plenty of his own stuff. And he did create his own identy in his dancing. He never shyed away from mentioning his influences, but still made it his own and put his own spin on it.

Mintchip said:

I'm sure others have said it, but given how much Michael influenced madonna, this is kind of a no-brainer. Team Michael.

An argument you could make ...

... but by that logic Little Richard, who influenced Michael, was therefore more influential than MJ ... and Billy Wright, who influced Little Richard, was more influential that Little Richard, MJ and Madonna.

PatrickS77 said:

RicoN said:

Well, it annoys me that someone who sings other people's songs and dances other people's dances, allbeit, really well, is lauded as some kind of creative genius by people on here, who turn a blind eye to that which must not be mentioned.

If I disagree with what people say on here then they go for the lazy 'troll' label.

Like that dance hall of fame article, it's hagiographic bullshit, that gives no credit to any of the coreographers or even the inventer of the Moonwalk, makes no reference that MJ ripped it off at all. All he did was dance. And sing songs. Plus he didn't release anything decent after Thriller and he made everyone call him the King of Pop!! What an areshole.

Rock with You is one of my favourite songs of all time - Rod Temperton wrote it, QJ made it sound like it does, MJ just adds some passable vocals, that could have been sung by any number of people. That's MJ's level right there.


I don't doubt he's the most popular entertainer of the late 20th Century though.

[Edited 3/29/17 1:54am]

That alone qualifies you as a first class troll. He released plenty of great stuff after Thriller and he sang plenty of his own stuff. And he did create his own identy in his dancing. He never shyed away from mentioning his influences, but still made it his own and put his own spin on it.

As i said.

PatrickS77 said:

RicoN said:

Well, it annoys me that someone who sings other people's songs and dances other people's dances, allbeit, really well, is lauded as some kind of creative genius by people on here, who turn a blind eye to that which must not be mentioned.

If I disagree with what people say on here then they go for the lazy 'troll' label.

Like that dance hall of fame article, it's hagiographic bullshit, that gives no credit to any of the coreographers or even the inventer of the Moonwalk, makes no reference that MJ ripped it off at all. All he did was dance. And sing songs. Plus he didn't release anything decent after Thriller and he made everyone call him the King of Pop!! What an areshole.

Rock with You is one of my favourite songs of all time - Rod Temperton wrote it, QJ made it sound like it does, MJ just adds some passable vocals, that could have been sung by any number of people. That's MJ's level right there.


I don't doubt he's the most popular entertainer of the late 20th Century though.

[Edited 3/29/17 1:54am]

That alone qualifies you as a first class troll. He released plenty of great stuff after Thriller and he sang plenty of his own stuff. And he did create his own identy in his dancing. He never shyed away from mentioning his influences, but still made it his own and put his own spin on it.

You knwo what, because the radio is so depressing with talk of brexit today, I'll listen to Bad (which I played a million times as a kid) and the next one, is that Dangerous?

Then I'll come back to you.

RicoN said:

MotownSubdivision said:

RicoN said:

How many billions of people in the world believe in gods? they are all wrong.

Prove them/us wrong then. That is after you prove us wrong on Michael Jackson being a special talent.

Proof:

Paedophiles, child murders, Ed Gein, Jihad, 9/11, Mass Starvation, Cancer, Donald Trump, Dick Cheney, Palestine/Israel, Tsunamis, US Gun Laws

RicoN said:

MotownSubdivision said:

RicoN said:

Proof:

Paedophiles, child murders, Ed Gein, Jihad, 9/11, Mass Starvation, Cancer, Donald Trump, Dick Cheney, Palestine/Israel, Tsunamis, US Gun Laws

Those prove nothing.

Exactly - god is nothing

RicoN said:

RicoN said:

PatrickS77 said:

That alone qualifies you as a first class troll. He released plenty of great stuff after Thriller and he sang plenty of his own stuff. And he did create his own identy in his dancing. He never shyed away from mentioning his influences, but still made it his own and put his own spin on it.

You knwo what, because the radio is so depressing with talk of brexit today, I'll listen to Bad (which I played a million times as a kid) and the next one, is that Dangerous?

Then I'll come back to you.

OK, Bad - hasn't aged well at all, 2, maybe 3 good songs on it, cheesy keyboards, no warmth and clinical sound. 6/10 (When you think that Prince had released SOTT in 87, had recorded the Black Album and was gearing up to Lovesexy it shows you the different levels they were both operating at).

Dangerous - I could only manage as far as Remember the Time. it is an uninspired bunch of someone elses beats. You've got to admit it's pretty poor. I won't rate it as I didn't listen to it all.

MotownSubdivision said:

RicoN said:

Exactly - god is nothing

So you have no proof? Got it.

Well, it proves God (if he/she exists) is a bit of a c*nt. I've got not time for c*nts and it baffles me that other people make time in their lives for them.

DaveT said:

RicoN said:

Dasein said:

I understand what could be the source of this post's enmity towards Michael Jackson as the Org,
and in particular, this forum, is obsessed with him to the point of idolization; it's super annoying.
And trust me, I think Thriller is definitely overrated and that Michael Jackson stopped coming up
with new ideas that were interesting after Dangerous.

But he's probably the most popular entertainer of the 20th century (for a good reason) and I think
you're either trolling hard or just writing vituperatively for the sake of it.

Well, it annoys me that someone who sings other people's songs and dances other people's dances, allbeit, really well, is lauded as some kind of creative genius by people on here, who turn a blind eye to that which must not be mentioned.

If I disagree with what people say on here then they go for the lazy 'troll' label.

Like that dance hall of fame article, it's hagiographic bullshit, that gives no credit to any of the coreographers or even the inventer of the Moonwalk, makes no reference that MJ ripped it off at all. All he did was dance. And sing songs. Plus he didn't release anything decent after Thriller and he made everyone call him the King of Pop!! What an areshole.

Rock with You is one of my favourite songs of all time - Rod Temperton wrote it, QJ made it sound like it does, MJ just adds some passable vocals, that could have been sung by any number of people. That's MJ's level right there.


I don't doubt he's the most popular entertainer of the late 20th Century though.

[Edited 3/29/17 1:54am]

I think you are in error here: Michael Jackson had a peculiar songwriting process whereby
he would sing melodies and instrumental melodies into a tape recorder and then handed them
to Jones et al who would turn them into song structures, but that process is still one that is
initiated by Jackson's creativity. Additionally, pop music is a forum in which interpretative sing-
ing is a norm, so Jackson singing other songwriter's/singer's songs should not be criticized.
And his ability to conceptually amalgamate all of his influences into one unique artistic expression,
which is one that has proven to be so influential by the way, is a sign of a singular talent.

I think if the Music:Non-Prince forum was a bit more reasoned in it's praise for Michael Jackson
as opposed to equating his work to the supposed miracles of Christ, you'd have a different re-
sponse altogether.

RicoN said:

MotownSubdivision said:

RicoN said: Prove them/us wrong then. That is after you prove us wrong on Michael Jackson being a special talent.

Proof:

Paedophiles, child murders, Ed Gein, Jihad, 9/11, Mass Starvation, Cancer, Donald Trump, Dick Cheney, Palestine/Israel, Tsunamis, US Gun Laws

I've told you before, but I'll tell you this again:

the existence of the aformentioned is not proof of God's non-existence. This is a ridiculous argu-
ment, Rico. And it is one that could be countered by a theist who also has minimal understanding
of how theology works by suggesting that those who counter all of the above is proof of God's
existence. That theist's argument is just as valid as yours; both are equally unsound, however.

RicoN said:

RicoN said:

You knwo what, because the radio is so depressing with talk of brexit today, I'll listen to Bad (which I played a million times as a kid) and the next one, is that Dangerous?

Then I'll come back to you.

OK, Bad - hasn't aged well at all, 2, maybe 3 good songs on it, cheesy keyboards, no warmth and clinical sound. 6/10 (When you think that Prince had released SOTT in 87, had recorded the Black Album and was gearing up to Lovesexy it shows you the different levels they were both operating at).

Dangerous - I could only manage as far as Remember the Time. it is an uninspired bunch of someone elses beats. You've got to admit it's pretty poor. I won't rate it as I didn't listen to it all.

Right, because Sign of the times, U got the look and If I was your girlfriend are songs that have so much warmth to them. Sorry, you’re not shaking your troll reputation. There are 10 good to great songs on Bad. And more on Dangerous and HIstory.

RicoN said:

RicoN said:

You knwo what, because the radio is so depressing with talk of brexit today, I'll listen to Bad (which I played a million times as a kid) and the next one, is that Dangerous?

Then I'll come back to you.

OK, Bad - hasn't aged well at all, 2, maybe 3 good songs on it, cheesy keyboards, no warmth and clinical sound. 6/10 (When you think that Prince had released SOTT in 87, had recorded the Black Album and was gearing up to Lovesexy it shows you the different levels they were both operating at).

Dangerous - I could only manage as far as Remember the Time. it is an uninspired bunch of someone elses beats. You've got to admit it's pretty poor. I won't rate it as I didn't listen to it all.

Most of the non slow jams from MJ sound extremely dated. Mj is not unique in that respect as a lot of artist materail sound dated. There are only a handful of artist whose work remains fresh even after decades of their original relase date. Prince and P-Funk tend to lead the pack in that area.

DaveT said:

Mintchip said:

I'm sure others have said it, but given how much Michael influenced madonna, this is kind of a no-brainer. Team Michael.

An argument you could make ...

... but by that logic Little Richard, who influenced Michael, was therefore more influential than MJ ... and Billy Wright, who influced Little Richard, was more influential that Little Richard, MJ and Madonna.

You got me there. Although the OP seems interested in pop music specifically, and for whatever reason it doesn't feel right to call Little Richard "pop", but that might just be me.

.

Along these lines, if someone said (and I'm sure they have) that James Brown was the most influential...musician...of the 20th Century, I could agree to that.

Mintchip said:

DaveT said:

An argument you could make ...

... but by that logic Little Richard, who influenced Michael, was therefore more influential than MJ ... and Billy Wright, who influced Little Richard, was more influential that Little Richard, MJ and Madonna.

You got me there. Although the OP seems interested in pop music specifically, and for whatever reason it doesn't feel right to call Little Richard "pop", but that might just be me.

.

Along these lines, if someone said (and I'm sure they have) that James Brown was the most influential...musician...of the 20th Century, I could agree to that.

DaveT's argument kind of works, but the OP limited it to "pop music icons." As Little Richard has himself bemoaned, he was a pioneer, and an early star of rock and roll, but was not the pop music icon that many of those he influenced became. Same goes for LR's influences.

You could make a strong case that James Brown is the most influential musician of the 20th Century.

But as much of a cariacature as he is to us today, Louis Armstrong makes an equally strong -- if not stronger -- case.

namepeace said:

Michael Jackson has successfully crossed over to the new generation

Michael Jackson among Smithsonian's 100 Most Significant #Americans in History-http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonianmag/meet-100-most-significant-americans-all-time-180953341/ …

More

Mr. Montes learning more about Michael Jackson in our living museum. We love our s!

kaeli vales @kaaeliii

Graycap23 said:

RicoN said:

OK, Bad - hasn't aged well at all, 2, maybe 3 good songs on it, cheesy keyboards, no warmth and clinical sound. 6/10 (When you think that Prince had released SOTT in 87, had recorded the Black Album and was gearing up to Lovesexy it shows you the different levels they were both operating at).

Dangerous - I could only manage as far as Remember the Time. it is an uninspired bunch of someone elses beats. You've got to admit it's pretty poor. I won't rate it as I didn't listen to it all.

Most of the non slow jams from MJ sound extremely dated. Mj is not unique in that respect as a lot of artist materail sound dated. There are only a handful of artist whose work remains fresh even after decades of their original relase date. Prince and P-Funk tend to lead the pack in that area.

Gray you my boy but your credibility is SHOT