Customer Discussions > Music forum

Prince vs. Michael Jackson


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 173 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2010 9:07:43 PM PDT
Alt9999 says:
Its inevitable in any discussion with MJ fanatics that they will equate record sales to quality. There's been plenty of garbage that's gone platinum. Record sales are no indicator of quality.

Yes, MJ had many fans. Again, is this a popularity contest? I'll take Prince's body of work over MJ's.

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2010 9:22:13 PM PDT
F. E. Green says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 27, 2010 9:27:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 27, 2010 10:15:55 PM PDT
Tigerlilly says:
How many nutcases are on the music forum?
Or is this just another popularity contest between its members.
Substances is not part of their game.

I don't know too much about Prince, I would never say anything negative about him, except he never made much of an impression on me.
Michael did, even though I was not a fan until late in life.
When I did not understand one word English, it was his songs that were stuck in my mind. Not Prince's, and He was allowed to sell his albums, where I came from, not Michael.
Ask someone from Russia. whether it is Prince or Michael, Michael will always win. No Matter what. None of us were ever exposed to the sick tabloids.
Do you think that the Tabloids would have made as much money on Prince's name?
I bet Michael would have loved to trade places sometimes, but no, he was the chosen one, because he was the best.
Tell me something, how often did Prince go around the World and fill up huge Stadiums time after time. I don't know. Substance please.

Posted on May 27, 2010 9:40:05 PM PDT
Suze says:
Here's a video of James Brown, Michael Jackson and Prince on stage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CoxNzOOoQU

Enjoy!

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2010 9:55:47 PM PDT
F. E. Green says:
Yep. Thanks for posting Susie.

You can see how reverent Michael is towards his idol James Brown. Then watch Prince make a horse's a** of himself.

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2010 10:18:28 PM PDT
Alt9999 says:
Ugh, this again.

OK, in the first case, there was no evidence, only testimony from a child. None of us knows what went on. Only that there wasn't enough evidence to expect a conviction. But MJ settled with the family anyway. That seems odd to alot of people.

In the second case there was, according to legitimate news sources, plenty of significant eyewitness testimony from the employees at Neverland. Either these people were telling the truth, or there was a conspiracy for all of them to lie, which is strange since none of them stood to gain financially. The jury chose to acquit. That means he is not guilty legally. That doesn't mean he didn't do what he was accused of. Juries have been wrong before.

Most sane parents would not allow their children to lay in a bed with an adult, and certainly not a stranger. MJ's fanatics seem to ignore this. As if the rest of us are full of dirty thoughts.

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2010 10:24:54 PM PDT
Roger says:
hmmm It's interesting how I never accused MJ of anything in my post, yet you seem to think I did. Newsflash: Not all of us are living in the "good old US" and while Jackson did, there had to be something that caused the accusations to fly. The guy was a nutcase and perhaps several families used that to their advantage. Unless you knew Jackson personally, you really have no choice but to read those "tabloids" and news reports to draw your own conclusions. besides, the entire point of my post was to insinuate that Jackson's death was covered to the extreme because of the events that surrounded his life (whether true or not) instead of his musical impact. ---an important part nonetheless.

You MJ fans are somethin else. :-D

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2010 10:25:52 PM PDT
Roger says:
"How many nutcases are on the music forum?"

An increased number everytime the Michael Jackson threads start popping up.

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2010 10:34:32 PM PDT
Alt9999 says:
Re: "Prince will never have the impact on...music that Michael had"

You're way off here. Actually Prince had much more impact on the music of the past 30 years. Prince revolutionized the way R&B sounded. He probably had as much to do with disco dying as anyone else. His synth/funk bass/rock guitar sound WAS the R&B of the 80's. His minions became the star producers of the genre. Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis? They pretty much made Janet Jackson's career.

You seem to be sure that Prince isn't charitable. Maybe it isn't news when he gives to a cause. Or maybe he doesn't make a big deal out of it.

Posted on May 27, 2010 10:41:35 PM PDT
T. Harris says:
I will say that Michael Jackson was an amazing man, and I love his music. But I have been a Prince fan since I was 14 years old and I'm in my 40s now. I lived in New York City for over 30 years and have been to EVERY Prince concert that has come to NYC since the Purple Rain tour! I actually still have all concert programs and the original tickets stapled inside:) I am a die hard Prince fan and for me, there is no better artist.

Posted on May 27, 2010 11:30:34 PM PDT
Jim Stalker says:
If you judge Prince on 1/4 of his total output (still more songs than Micheal's lifetime output), discounted that Prince composes all his own material (many of Micheal's biggest hits were composed by others), forget that Prince composes on the piano or guitar (Michael hums his songs to some to transcribe them), threw out that Prince has composed number ones for other artists like Sinead O'Conner, The Bangles, and Tom Jones (none for Micheal), considered that Prince plays virtually all the instruments on Dirty Mind, Controversy, and Sign o' The Times (no musician credits for Michael on any of his records), was a bona fide movie star in Purple Rain (Micheal's only real screen time was as Captain Eo), and had no creepy lawsuits filed against him, I would say they are about equal.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2010 6:30:06 AM PDT
F. E. Green says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2010 6:48:21 AM PDT
F. E. Green says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2010 6:52:38 AM PDT
F. E. Green says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 28, 2010 7:01:26 AM PDT
Jevrick says:
Didn't MJ once serve alcohol to a 12 year old kid?

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2010 7:04:41 AM PDT
Jevrick says:
None of this has anything to do with who is a better artist. I personally wouldn't like Prince any less if he never gave a dime to charity. Also, I would not like MJ any more just because he's donated to charities. Giving doesn't make someone a good person.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2010 7:05:35 AM PDT
F. E. Green says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2010 7:07:35 AM PDT
F. E. Green says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2010 7:09:01 AM PDT
F. E. Green says:
Says alot about your character when you give away entire proceeds from your tours and personally pay for some sick child's organ transplants

Posted on May 28, 2010 7:12:20 AM PDT
Jevrick says:
"Michael produced songs for Diana Ross, who is still a legend. "
Yes, he composed all the ones her fans have forgotten. She's a legend not because of MJ but because of her Motown hits.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2010 7:13:09 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2010 7:17:58 AM PDT
club 7 says:
ya know i think this whole thing about sales is so funny.
what does sales have to do with true artistry?
i mean poison sold millions of records but does that make them great artistically because their sales are great?
one of the most influential and GREATEST groups the velvet underground sold hardly any records yet went on to influence david bowie, iggy pop, the new york dolls, the pixies, patti smith, the ramones,
rem, sonic youth, and other legendary bands.
you can use different forms of an argument to say who is better but try to find a better one than sales.
if sales equals artistry than let's put los del rios (macarena), n'sync, backstreet boys, milli vanilli, mc hammer in that bunch and you tell me if their art is equal to their sales cause their sales were huge.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2010 7:13:19 AM PDT
Jevrick says:
Like what??

Posted on May 28, 2010 7:17:36 AM PDT
Jevrick says:
My point is: you can give someone a billion dollars and still be a child molester.

Posted on May 28, 2010 7:40:31 AM PDT
Easy one.....PRINCE

Posted on May 28, 2010 7:55:03 AM PDT
K. Budd says:
F.E. Green and anyone that agrees with him is a moron
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Music forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Music forum
Participants:  59
Total posts:  173
Initial post:  May 27, 2010
Latest post:  Nov 25, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions