|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
|
| Poll: Who Is The King Of Pop? |
|
|
|
|
| Prince |
|
43% |
[21] |
| Michael Jackson |
|
37% |
[18] |
| They're both crap. |
|
18% |
[9] |
|
|
|
|
|
| Total Votes : 48 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
undefined
|
- #41
- Posted: 03/14/2013 19:38
- Post subject:
|
|
I actually love both, and while Jackson may have had the more impressive body of work over a longer career, I prefer Purple Rain to any Michael Jackson album (and possibly 1999 as well). Not to mention Prince is actually a surprisingly fantastic guitarist
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Wombi
|
- #42
- Posted: 03/14/2013 19:44
- Post subject:
|
I prefer Prince but to answer the poll question, MJ is the King of Pop. For multiple reasons.
But they're both all time great artists.
Also whether or not an artist writes or plays their own stuff doesn't generally affect my opinion of them and especially not their music.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
paladisiac
= music
Gender: Male
Location: Denver
|
- #43
- Posted: 03/14/2013 19:44
- Post subject:
|
| HugoHeinen wrote: | | I'm a Michael Jackson-fan so I'll vote for him, of course. He had far more talent than Prince, even at the age of 9. Michael made two classic albums in the 80's (Thriller and Bad), but as far as I can see, Prince made none. MJ remained a great artist during the 90's and 00's too. The only true King of Pop. |
not sure how you can say michael jackson had far more musical talent than prince. are you speaking of jacko's mastery of the piano or all the guitar solos jacko riffed?
just speaking of music, they both sang, both produced, both wrote songs, both had a bunch of big albums as solo artists, but jacko couldn't really play an instrument, so i don't see him having far more talent.
prince's huge classic albums of the 80's were "1999", "purple rain" and "sign o' the times". you can query them on this website or wikipedia.org.
MJ's last pretty good album was "dangerous". prince's was "0(+>" released around the same time.
Being only your second post, I'm unsure how much of a discussion you're up for...
_________________
fav artists NOW | ALL-TIME favs | i listen 2 more music than u so u don't have 2!
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh
Gender: Male
Location: Washington
|
- #44
- Posted: 03/14/2013 19:54
- Post subject:
|
| HugoHeinen wrote: | | I'm a Michael Jackson-fan so I'll vote for him, of course. He had far more talent than Prince, even at the age of 9. Michael made two classic albums in the 80's (Thriller and Bad), but as far as I can see, Prince made none. MJ remained a great artist during the 90's and 00's too. The only true King of Pop. |
How are you measuring their talents? As far as you can see Prince had no classic albums? That's not saying much for how far you can see. However, when it comes to King of Pop, you're probably right to go with MJ.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
HugoHeinen
Gender: Male
|
- #45
- Posted: 03/14/2013 19:59
- Post subject:
|
Michael made as far as I'm aware way more "different" songs than Prince. MJ could hit high notes (Childhood) but also very low (2000 Watts). MJ performed a lot of different styles of music (soul, funk, rock, hiphop and even rap (Shout)). And he was a great beatboxer 
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Norman Bates
Gender: Male
Age: 51
Location: Paris, France
|
- #46
- Posted: 03/14/2013 20:06
- Post subject:
|
| HugoHeinen wrote: | | MJ performed a lot of different styles of music (soul, funk, rock, hiphop and even rap (Shout)). |
I can pretty much understand why people can relate more to MJ's music than to Prince's (although this is not my case), but the argument of variety seems frankly out of line in the debate. Prince could play just about anything, and surely any of the styles you mentioned, plus the psychedelic touch that MJ never had.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh
Gender: Male
Location: Washington
|
- #47
- Posted: 03/14/2013 20:06
- Post subject:
|
| HugoHeinen wrote: | | Michael made as far as I'm aware way more "different" songs than Prince. MJ could hit high notes (Childhood) but also very low (2000 Watts). MJ performed a lot of different styles of music (soul, funk, rock, hiphop and even rap (Shout)). And he was a great beatboxer |
As opposed to Prince having a very limited vocal range and only playing one style of music? What one style of music would that be?
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
HugoHeinen
Gender: Male
|
- #48
- Posted: 03/14/2013 20:14
- Post subject:
|
|
I think I've made my previous posts too much from my own opinion as a MJ-fan and it's my own opinion not liking Prince. I'm not saying he's a bad artist with no vocal range, definitely not. I think I better stop discussing this with you
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Guest
|
- #49
- Posted: 03/14/2013 20:15
- Post subject:
|
| Norman Bates wrote: | | I can pretty much understand why people can relate more to MJ's music than to Prince's (although this is not my case), but the argument of variety seems frankly out of line in the debate. Prince could play just about anything, and surely any of the styles you mentioned, plus the psychedelic touch that MJ never had. |
This. Anybody who thinks that Prince had less variety than MJ clearly hasn't listened to a lot of Prince. I find that perhaps the most bizarre of all the arguments made in this thread, and that is no small feat.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
tbakeman
Gender: Male
Age: 31
Location: Cleveland
|
- #50
- Posted: 03/14/2013 20:25
- Post subject:
|
|
I'm really not a fan of either, but I wouldn't go as far to say theyre both crap. Despite all the problems with Jackson, hes still teh king of pop.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
