MJ vs. Prince


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .

pattycakes_

Can turn naughty
That's the best part. It forces your passion out. Even if it's at odds with other strong beliefs you hold. I fucking love Prince, and like others said, especially as I get older. The synth work he does for eg. No one did that shit. So singular. A studio auteur. A pop maestro. The areas of the psyche he dwells and explores.

But MJ, man. I don't care about him being a product. It was one of the best writing teams, band curation & front boy teams ever. Prince is 18+. MJ is for the whole world. The living embodiment of what so many good intending musicians set out to do. He brought people together. He spread a message of love and seeing through the superficial bullshit that I think still remains in the hearts of his fans today.

In many ways, Prince and MJ are the ultimate musical ying yang. They're beyond comparison. Of course its human nature to compare them. But they both had their place at the table.
 

version

Well-known member
The respective groups or just Sly vs. Clinton? I think I suggested Sly & The Family Stone vs. Funkadelic when I made that post.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
anyone who watches the first 5:30, and first few minutes of encores (@1:22:00) and doesn't understand why Prince >>>>>> MJ, idk what to tell you

arguably the greatest pop auteur of all time, at the very height of his performative powers, with his best band, at their most cohesive and powerful

I rebel against the hegemonic, enforced joy of Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson is the Christmas of pop music: artificial, enforced joy which some people happen to enjoy anyway. I do not.

Prince meanwhile is all human emotions expressed simultaneously as a synesthetic explosion of infinitely varied microtonal shades of purple

Michael Jackson can never reach the highs nor lows of Prince. Michael Jackson's music is always just, fine.

life is frequently awful, but as with all things the sweetness of the highs is only as sweet for the bitterness of the lows

when everything is honey, nothing is sweet

when Prince's voice soars off into the literal and metaphysical stratosphere at the end of "Purple Rain", that is an earned moment

Michael Jackson's music will never transcend. it's always fine. this is why some people prefer it, and fair fucks to them.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
now, I'm arguing my position and we're all having a good time

but this in all seriousness

He brought people together. He spread a message of love and seeing through the superficial bullshit that I think still remains in the hearts of his fans today.
is absolute lunacy to me

MJ is for the whole world? MJ is cultural imperialism. He's Coca-Cola*, Levi's, McDonald's.

and again I don't want to tell other people what to do at all, but how is he for the whole world? is he for the children he molested?

if you want to say he made great and timeless pop music, best pop ever even, OK. I don't agree, but it's a reasonable opinion.

but tell me this dude is the avatar of all that is good and pure and noble and uniting humanity? 100% fuck no.

*not a sly reference to legitimately awful Pepsi incident
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
you're making a moral argument for a person who absolutely doesn't deserve one, even if we can empathize with the tragedies in his life
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
"Prince meanwhile is all human emotions expressed simultaneously as a synesthetic explosion of infinitely varied microtonal shades of purple"

Come again?
 

luka

Well-known member
With Jackson it is all primary colour. The emotions aren't lived, human emotions. They're extracted essences of emotion with all the impurities removed. They're more real than emotions. More vivid. They're what emotions aspire to.
 

pattycakes_

Can turn naughty
you're making a moral argument for a person who absolutely doesn't deserve one, even if we can empathize with the tragedies in his life

I'm making a statement about what he represents to me. You are happy on your purple high horse. I'm fine down below dealing with the complexity of the biggest musician of my childhood who then went on to do horrific things. It's not easy, but when I remember that the music of his I love was made before any of that happened it becomes easier. But also, then I'd have to start taking stock as to whether I should enjoy other musicians, like Sly Stone, James Brown, Rick James ad infinitum. Obviously there's a scale of severity but they were also less damaged individuals. It's complicated. One thing is for sure, I don't believe that liking art someone did means you automatically approve of their personal actions at another time in their life. That's pretty easy to separate for me. It seems rather useless to do so, but hey. And virtue signalling is not high on my priority list. If I was to take such a strong stance on something like that which has no direct effect on my own or the people I'm talking to's lives, then I'd probably keep it to myself, you know, not to come off as a self righteous douche, while 'we're all having a good time.'

So now to your question, 'is he the avatar of...?'

Now no, then yes.
 
Top