Customer Discussions > Music forum

Prince vs. Michael Jackson

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 173 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2010 7:58:26 AM PDT
F. E. Green says:
You haters are the morons..

Posted on May 28, 2010 11:05:57 AM PDT
Dovebarr says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 28, 2010 11:30:04 AM PDT
Tigerlilly says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 28, 2010 1:20:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2010 1:23:32 PM PDT
Suze says:
There are no Prince videos on you tube because of copyright violations, he and his record company won't allow videos to be posted on any video sites. If someone does post a video it is removed. I think it's a mistake on his part because he would probably sell more cds, etc. if people were more aware of his work. MJ's stuff is all over you tube, people see it and they buy his cds/dvds because it is seen on you tube. It's free advertising imo. (MJ sold around 30 million cds last year, I wonder what Prince sold?) Anyone know? I don't hear Prince played on the radio much either. On the other hand I don't hear MJ that much on the radio either. Commercial radio s*cks. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they are different as artists. I prefer MJ's singing voice. Prince is a good guitar player. I'll take either one of their music over what I hear on top 40 playing nowadays.

Posted on May 28, 2010 1:23:34 PM PDT
From a creative aspect, Prince takes the crown. He has stayed true to his artistic vision even if at times success eluded him (See: "Lovesexy", "Around The World In A Day", and "Chaos And Disorder").

Posted on May 28, 2010 1:24:41 PM PDT
YANA Girl says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 28, 2010 3:36:12 PM PDT
I'm going with Prince. Neither of them have been worthwhile for a long time, though. Prince got a little weird and Michael became a freak. I appreciate Prince as a more complete artist. He's an excellent guitarist.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2010 4:15:03 PM PDT
dallas says:
Bryan A.Criss
I agree with you when you posted Neither of them have been worthwile for along time.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2010 4:40:37 PM PDT
Roger says:
it seems to me that Jackson may have donated all that money out of guilt.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2010 5:09:32 PM PDT
dallas says:

Where there is smoke there is fire he paid them off bigtime.

Posted on May 28, 2010 8:19:49 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2010 9:15:33 PM PDT
YANA Girl says:
Oh good Lord, you guys are pathetic. You don't even bother to check your facts before you post such nonsence. That's the thing with you who think he is guilty, you assume it without even bothering to look at the evidence. Others have given you the truth and posted evidence, but you turn a blind eye and still accuse him. We have told you time and time again why the settlement was made, and how the accusers extorted him, but you continue to call it a payoff. You are judging when you don't know squat and the worst part of it is that you are judging WITHOUT wanting to know.

Has the thought even occurred to you that someone you know could be accused of something they never did, someone you care about. How would you feel if everyone assumed they were guilty even when there was evidence he or she was not?

I know, I know, you'll down click me. Truth hurts doesn't it?

Posted on Jun 2, 2010 3:13:26 AM PDT
So i watched the cool you tube video recomended earlier in the discussion of James Brown, Michael Jackson and Prince. James Brown was so killer what a bandleader . Prince thinking he is better than everyone in the room is evident and always bugged me . No humility ,kind of like Barry Bonds. And Michael imitating the master James Brown -and looking great i wish 83 could have been the end of his looks changing , he looked fine.

Posted on Jun 2, 2010 4:00:34 AM PDT
tabccb says:
I like them both. They have both made enormous contributions in the music industry. Both have great relevance but I really think they have different styles and abilities. Prince is from my area of the country so that has always sparked my interest too.

I think they each appeal to different people for different reasons. While I like them both, I would go with Michael Jackson. Just like my favorite color is green and not blue.

There have only been a handful of posts in this thread that are thoughtful and fair and focus on the music. Most of the rest seem to display a lack of knowledge about either MJ or Prince, though. Both are multi-talented. Not sure why the regulars on the music forum always give "short-shrift" to MJ as composer, musician, and producer, though. We always know more facts about our favorite and don't know enough about the other one.

Thriller has sold 110 million copies due to the teamwork of Quincy Jones and Michael Jackson both. To say otherwise just makes no sense to me. This kind of work made Michael Jackson and Q both very rich and well known men....150 million albums sold on their collaboration. I know, I know....the old sales question. High sales doesn't mean good music? Why don't people ever use that argument when they talk about the Beatles and Elvis? Even that gets tiresome. Sales are and indicator of what people like.

Too much ignorance on both sides of this question to fight about it. And the insistence on rehashing tired tabloid crap over and over gets tiresome. Prince's personal life back in the day was a little over the top as well. It should be about the music. I don't really care about the rest because it is all just speculation and gossip. I wasn't there and I actually didn't know about most of it my entire life....didn't stop me from enjoying the music.

The art scholars can debate the rest.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 2, 2010 1:53:48 PM PDT
Alt9999 says:
Sales figures are irrelevant in judging the quality of music.

That applies to MJ, and to Prince, and to The Beatles, and to Elvis and to the Velvet Undergroud and to Big Star...

I can't fathom why someone would like an album more because of how many copies were purchased. Arguing that an album is better because it has sold more copies isn't a musical argument- Its a commerce argument.

I'm sure more people went to the theater to watch "Weekend at Bernies" than "The French Connection"

Does that mean its a better movie?

Posted on Jun 2, 2010 6:26:23 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 2, 2010 6:27:15 PM PDT
Tigerlilly says:
If people like something they buy it, simple as that. I did not go to see the movie Avatar, it is not my taste of movies, and this movie made more money than anything.
Thriller is the highest selling album of all time, same as the Grease or Saturday Night Fever Soundtrack, because people love it. It is timeless.

Childish people downclick because they don't know how to express themselves otherwise.

Posted on Jun 2, 2010 7:27:03 PM PDT
dierley says:
Well, they both made some of the greatest recordings of the 80s, but for full career, MJ all the way.

Posted on Jun 2, 2010 8:27:33 PM PDT
Grew up with Michael..he is a Prince, but gotta go with Michael on this one

Posted on Jun 2, 2010 9:31:50 PM PDT
YANA Girl says:
I don't mind some of Prince's music, but I do prefer Michael.

Posted on Jun 2, 2010 10:00:37 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 2, 2010 10:19:41 PM PDT
It is absolutely amazing how Michael is so deified. Those who are criticizing others for not checking facts may be indulging in a bit of hypocrisy...given the 'facts' they state are also 2nd or 3rd hand, unless you knew him personally and intimately.

Michael was not a saint, and had plenty of demons and problems to deal with. That should be patently obvious, because people are known by their fruits. I hate the tabloid, voyeuristic, yellow hyper-journalism of the times and the fact that artists' lives and privacy are so repeatedly violated. But it's a commentary on US, not THEM - because WE pay for the magazines, we watch the "Entertainment Tonight" and "E!" TV tabloid shows, WE engage in discussions like this.

But...where there is smoke, there is fire, gang. And no one seemed to have more smoke when all is said and done than MJ. To dismiss every single facet of this as his simply being 'misunderstood' is naive and as biased as the other extreme you criticize.

You can't give credence to all of the positives...and then blindly discount any mention of a negative.

Last I checked, no human artist was perfect...and that includes John Lennon. :-)

And I'm not giving perspective on Prince...because people on the thread seem to be alot more realistic and down-to-earth about him and his personal leanings.

That said, no one can deny MJ's talent. One of the better entertainers and performers of our generation, and certainly a very good musician. However, good as his songs are, they are pop and I'm not sure how long they'll stand the test of time.

Same with Prince - though I agree that his choice of lyrical content and image sometimes detract from that, unfortunately.

On the whole, I do think Prince is more talented in terms of musicianship.


Posted on Sep 15, 2010 10:03:59 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 16, 2010 2:09:02 AM PDT
Prince definitely a little crazy like a modern day Motzart crossed with Barry Bonds and Barbara Streisand. MJ too few great songs and was too crazy in comparison.

Posted on Sep 16, 2010 6:01:18 AM PDT
zlh67 says:
Actually, Ockham's Razor, John Lennon was in fact, perfect, just not as perfect as MJ. lol

Actually, that's a very well written and thought out post but... well, logic and wisdom tend to get overlooked in MJ threads, so I'll just say, um, well, expect a response, ok? Probably along the lines of "What demons are you speaking of? If you knew MJ you might have some credibility, but you didn't so you don't. You only know what you read in the tabloid media so why not get a clue instead of repeating their lies?"

Let's see how many tootsie roll tootsie pops I can eat before someone posts something like this....

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 16, 2010 6:08:43 AM PDT
Suze says:
You spelled 'Mozart' and 'Barbra' wrong, FYI.

Posted on Sep 16, 2010 7:01:02 AM PDT
zlh67 says:
He did have incorrect spelling -- or a typo perhaps -- in trying to type Mozart's name, but... you misspelled "Barbara" and he actually has it correct. For the record.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 16, 2010 7:05:43 AM PDT
Iceblossom says:
Actually, Ms Streisand does not follow the standard spelling and "Barbra" is correct.

Posted on Sep 16, 2010 7:07:07 AM PDT
zlh67 says:
I stand corrected.
[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


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