Engineer Rob Hoffman On MJ role as a Producer

[analogue]

To me, a genius is someone who will use their own ideas, but is also not afraid to take ideas and suggestions from others. If Michael wasn't open minded to other people's contributions, then we never would have gotten songs like Human Nature, Man In The Mirror and Why You Wanna Trip On Me.

Michael always says that you need to put the music before yourself.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Strawman argument, because this is definitely not a typical stance by MJ fans. Some will point out that he did play some instruments occasionally (usually just in reaction to claims he didn't play any instruments at all), but I have never seen claims that he did everything in the studio all alone. You are mixing up Prince fans with MJ fans. To brag about how he did everything all alone is their thing, not MJ fans'.

Most MJ fans are perfectly aware of his method of creating music and are all fine with it. I appreciate the naturality and instinctiveness of his way which is at least as impressive to me as playing a million instruments. To me the important thing is that he was a creator, not the method that he used to create.

As for Quincy, the things that MJ fans say about him are usually in answer to suggestions that Quincy was the creator of MJ's success. When even articles make claims like Quincy wrote We Are The World with Lionel Richie while they don't even mention MJ, or when people until this day believe Quincy wrote MJ's music in the 80s then it is fair to point out that Q's role is often overstated because it is. There is a reason why that erroneous belief about Quincy being the writer of MJ's material is still held by some people.

And I think LindaG hit the nail on the head.

I never read one single article in my life that Quincy said or anyone else said that he cowrote We Are The World.

The night of the recording, the public was already informed that Michael and Lionel penned the song together

 

[barbee0715]

Michael himself talked about Paul McCartney in his bio, saying that Paul could play each and every instrument, but at the same time they considered themselves equals. I've heard Paul say the same and so did George Martin.

And Michael sings Quincy praises to the skies in his book. Not only that but in each and every interview he talks about how Quincy pushes him harder and higher.
Longtime fans know this and they have no problem with it. We appreciate Quincy, Paul whoever too. I like the fact that Michael wasn't such an egotist that he didn't want collaborators. He thrived on that.

It's that rumour mill that started where suddenly Quincy was getting credit for everything. And Michael was just a puppet. No different than the people who say Michael stole the Beatles catalog or Michael couldn't write songs and could only sing or dance.

 

[KOPV]

What point does it make to have the claim of "I did everything on my album.." ... and??? There are people every day that do that.. I understand that some do it partially for the sake of there own self expression, and most do it so they can make money in all areas when it comes to an album.. I don't knock that..

But if someone has the thought of trying to create the best piece of art as possible that would be the biggest thing ever...THAN be humble enough to know you can't do it all alone.. There is a reason when he'd bring someone in he'd tell them "do what you do, that's why I brought you"... He wanted the best result.. end of story!

not for the notion.. "I did it all" album making at it's finest is meant to be a team effort.. NO one can create the BEST piece possible on there own.



and Michael not being a musical genius why? because he did not play instruments?? Did Beethoven sing, or master his own music?



genius is a person who displays exceptional intellectual ability or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of new advances in a domain of knowledge

Musician is someone that composes, cunducts, OR performs music...



So why again would Michael not be a musical genius? To be honest if I read the description of genius without knowing that was the definition he would be the FIRST person that would come to mind.. no joke!

 

[ChrisC]

Based on what we know, am I wrong with that statement? Has MJ EVER written and produced ALL the songs on a single album in his entire career?

But who's to say he couldn't? I believe he could have easily, he just chose not to. And given that his cultural indent runs, in my opinion, far more profoundly than Prince and the Beach Boys, thank god he made that choice; for many reasons, not alone his importance as a singer lying somewhat fascinatingly in the interpretations of other people's writing.

What this, perhaps, sounds like to an MJ fan is yet another attempt at eroding and belittling the man's monumental achievements. It's a recurring theme. And it never stops. And it's very tiring. Certain voices won't quieten until MJ's contributions are reduced to nothing (by certain voices, I don't mean you Psychoniff, necessarily). I honestly feel it's a race issue and I'll probably never change. MJ came from somewhere, and took a particular route, that 'everyone' felt he had no right to. And in the process he became too beautiful, too talented and too powerful. He's been paying for it ever since, and it continues. I'd suggest, Psychoniff, that if you are serious about gaining insight into the creative process of Michael Jackson that you approach it very differently as you will just get people's backs up.

You know when a 2nd unit director's footage figures in the final cut of a major motion picture, does this mean the big name director on the opening credits has falsely taken credit for the work? Or is a sign that they are incapable of directing a full feature film? But then you never really see articles that question the creative nouse of a Spielberg or a Kubrick, for this reason. Or when an author's manuscript goes to the publisher and changes are made, do they add their names to the cover? Or when a journalist's work is sent to the copy desk for proof reading and edits are made, do all those people share a byline? Come on now, it's just silly. There's nothing insidious going on here.

 

[Psychoniff]

But who's to say he couldn't? I believe he could have easily, he just chose not to. And given that his cultural indent runs, in my opinion, far more profoundly than Prince and the Beach Boys, thank god he made that choice; for many reasons, not alone his importance as a singer lying somewhat fascinatingly in the interpretations of other people's writing.

What this, perhaps, sounds like to an MJ fan is yet another attempt at eroding and belittling the man's monumental achievements. It's a recurring theme. And it never stops. And it's very tiring. Certain voices won't quieten until MJ's contributions are reduced to nothing (by certain voices, I don't mean you Psychoniff, necessarily). I honestly feel it's a race issue and I'll probably never change. MJ came from somewhere, and took a particular route, that 'everyone' felt he had no right to. And in the process he became too beautiful, too talented and too powerful. He's been paying for it ever since, and it continues. I'd suggest, Psychoniff, that if you are serious about gaining insight into the creative process of Michael Jackson that you approach it very differently as you will just get people's backs up.

You know when a 2nd unit director's footage figures in the final cut of a major motion picture, does this mean the big name director on the opening credits has falsely taken credit for the work? Or is a sign that they are incapable of directing a full feature film? But then you never really see articles that question the creative nouse of a Spielberg or a Kubrick, for this reason. Or when an author's manuscript goes to the publisher and changes are made, do they add their names to the cover? Or when a journalist's work is sent to the copy desk for proof reading and edits are made, do all those people share a byline? Come on now, it's just silly. There's nothing insidious going on here.

But your sentiment reminds me of how I felt about MJ's producer credentials a year ago. I was convinced that the only reason MJ didn't produced a whole album entirely by himself was because "he just chose not to." Which having thoroughly researched the like of Brad and others, that this is way too simplistic and a rather uninformed way of looking at MJ's role as a producer.

So ultimately I don't think MJ was capable, at least, based on the words of Brad, Hoffman, Q., Greg and countless others who worked closely with him to produce an album full circle. I think this is the fairest way to look at it.

 

[HIStory]

^ Oh, c'mon Psychoniff, most people can see your trolling. Since you are on this board you have been throwing little or more obvious jabs at MJ constantly. Some VERY rude and straight up hateful comments that you have made about MJ have even been deleted because they were so incredibly offensive. You've been doing this since the first time you are here and many people can see through your trolling, so you are fooling no one with this "I was a fan but now I can see the light" act.

 

[barbee0715]

But your sentiment reminds me of how I felt about MJ's producer credentials a year ago. I was convinced that the only reason MJ didn't produced a whole album entirely by himself was because "he just chose not to." Which having thoroughly researched the like of Brad and others, that this is way too simplistic and a rather uninformed way of looking at MJ's role as a producer.

So ultimately I don't think MJ was capable, at least, based on the words of Brad, Hoffman, Q., Greg and countless others who worked closely with him to produce an album full circle. I think this is the fairest way to look at it.

Yesh I don't get it-I've read and heard stories from his collaborators for many, many years-most likely the same ones you have, and the last takeaway I'd ever have is that Michael wasn't capable.

 

[mj_brainiac]

^Except, that he did leave certain songs to the interpretation of the producer. I twisted nothing.



He explained what a 'producer' is vs 'engineer' quite clearly, which is someone who has an overall vision for a project and dictats almost all element of it. If by what Rob said is true, that MJ did indeed leave projects to the interpretation of his collaborators whilst gone for weeks, so in what way is he overseeing and dedicating the entire project? Does that really make him a 'producer'?

This is in no way diminishing MJ, it's just we want the honest picture of his working habits and what he was like working in studio.

Quincy did that as well. When Rod came in to work on Rock With You, Off The Wall, Burn This Disco Out, Q said "Here you go Rod, they're all yours" and left Rod to direct the session

A lot of producers are usually the ones in charge of quality control, handling the sessions and so forth

You mentioned Prince which is a whole different animal in itself as Prince usually did EVERYTHING but be the engineer lol

 

[InvincibleMJ]

So ultimately I don't think MJ was capable, at least, based on the words of Brad, Hoffman, Q., Greg and countless others who worked closely with him to produce an album full circle. I think this is the fairest way to look at it.

Are you arguing with yourself? Nobody ever said MJ always produced everything by himself. That's Prince fans, not MJ fans.

Was he capable of producing a whole album? probably. If you can produce one song, you are capable of producing 80 songs. But you're talking quantity (a "whole") while MJ focused on quality - and it obviously worked. We all know production credits are not this magical thing that makes an album better.

 

[HIStory]

Everyone relies on other people, nobody is completely self sufficient, and claims that Prince was completely insular and never took ideas from anybody else are a complete fabrication.



Take a listen to Mazarati's version:

And Prince's original demo:

And yet I don't see anybody making a concerted effort to diminish Prince's songwriting and producing skills, like certain MJ "fans" seem to (see, I can use inverted commas to make a dig as well... aren't I clever?).

Exactly. And this wasn't the only occasion. Others like Wendy & Lisa complained that they felt they weren't given due credit for their contributions to Prince's work.

After Purple Rain, Coleman and Melvoin continued to participate in Prince projects, including Parade, the soundtrack to Prince's film Under the Cherry Moon. In interviews, the two reported they felt they were not getting the recognition and credit they deserved despite their growing contributions to his work.[SUP][4][/SUP]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_&_Lisa#With_The_Revolution

Yet, no one questions Prince's genius and they shouldn't either. In music, songwriting, production there are always gray areas where you can debate if people who didn't get credit would have deserved it and if yes then what kind of credit and to what extent. To act like it only happened in MJ's case is a big deal of ignorance about music in general. It happens everywhere. "Money" by Pink Floyd is credited to Roger Waters alone when it was a band effort. There are still debates about who wrote what in the Beatles. Most songs are credited to Lennon-McCartney because that was an agreement between them to credit everything that way, but from time to time one of them came out and said "actually I wrote it alone" and then the other disputed it and there were debates. Things like that happen ALL THE TIME in popular music - well, not just popular music. In classical and jazz too there are many, many occasions where great composers (we are talking about people like Mozart) took ideas from others uncredited to incorporate in their work. James Brown and Miles Davis took ideas from their band mates without crediting them and so on. Happens ALL THE TIME. But let's just keep bashing MJ for things that many other greats do too. Let's put his producer role passive-agressively into quotation marks because he didn't aspire to be a one-man-band just to show off. Never mind that great producers like Quincy Jones weren't one-man-bands either and they relied heavily on others too.

I think, besides artistic self-expresion, MJ and Prince had very different goals which they both achieved and they did what they had to do to achieve what their goal was. I feel Prince wanted to be seen as this this lonely genius who was doing everything on his own. I think that image was important to him. So he did what he had to do for that image. MJ's goal was to reach as many people as he could with his music, to be able to talk to people through national, racial, generational etc. boundaries, to create music that was universal and global. And he did what he had to do for that. Prince achieved his one-man-band image and praises for that from the press (although like MattyJam pointed out there is also myth in that image), but he did not achieve the universal and same global appeal as MJ did, his music didn't manage to break down barriers to the extent that MJ's did, his music wasn't that was able to cross racial, national or generational bounderies, not to the extent that MJ's did, his music wasn't as globally and universally loved as MJ's.

And before someone says it's just cheap commercialism, it isn't. I don't think MJ's aspiration for such things were out of commercialism. I don't think he cared much about money. I think it was the genuine desire to talk to as many people as he could and to touch as many people's lives with his music as he could. Is there an ego element to it? Possibly, but wanting to be seen as this one-man-band genius also has an ego element to it. BTW, MJ's aspiration to break down barriers also helped Prince a great deal IMO. 1999 was released before Thriller but initially it wasn't really a huge hit. It was when MJ's Thriller broke down barriers that people also started to pay attention to Prince. I also think Purple Rain's succes too was a bit driven by Thriller's succcess and that artificial rivalry the media created between them at the time. So in my view Prince actually owes MJ's aspirations to break down barriers a LOT.

And Prince too had aspirations for (for a lack of a better word) "commercial success" at certain times of his career but despite the efforts he never managed to achieve that the same way as MJ did. So once again, they were simply in their own lane: Prince could play almost all instruments on his record if he wanted, while MJ had a great sense of how to make music that was universal and that will speak to a great number of people all over the world, from all cultural backgrounds, not just a certain limited demographics. That doesn't mean his music was cheap or throwaway. In fact, the contrary. He created some of the most lasting music in pop history. Until this day he has several albums charting on the Billboard 200 every week, 20-30 year old albums, without any hype or anniversary. He is the most popular non-current artist on streaming sites. That's the very definition of music that lasts, that stands the test of time. Eventually music is for the people. It's the audience that will keep your name going.

MJ never claimed to be a one-man-band so I have no idea why he is being attacked for not being one. It's simply not true that MJ fans routinely brag about him doing everything alone in the studio. I have never seen such claims. So it seems to be a strawman argument by Psychoniff, just to be able to use that to bash MJ. It's Prince fans who brag about him being a one-man-band, so if you want to dissect such claims and whether they are actually true or not you should go to Prince.org and discuss that there with Prince fans.

 

[Psychoniff]

Are you arguing with yourself? Nobody ever said MJ always produced everything by himself. That's Prince fans, not MJ fans.

Was he capable of producing a whole album? probably. If you can produce one song, you are capable of producing 80 songs. But you're talking quantity (a "whole") while MJ focused on quality - and it obviously worked. We all know production credits are not this magical thing that makes an album better.

According Brad, he said MJ wasn't good certain areas so he left to him to do.

 

[HIStory]

According Brad, he said MJ wasn't good certain areas so he left to him to do.

I am sure Prince wasn't great at everything either. That he did everything doesn't mean he was great at everything. His philosophy was to still do it whether he was great at it or just OK. MJ's philosophy was to let someone else do it if there was someone else who was better at it. That still doesn't mean he could not produce a full album. Quincy Jones didn't do everything on an album all alone either, he also relied on specialists who were better at certain areas than him, yet you won't put his producer status in quotation marks, will you?

But I am vary of relying on how you interpret other people's words, because you certainly have a tendency to twist people's words.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

According Brad, he said MJ wasn't good certain areas so he left to him to do.

You're not really responding to what I wrote, I'm not sure why you bothered to quote my post. So it appears that yes, you are arguing with yourself.

 

[mj_brainiac]

Exactly. And this wasn't the only occasion. Others like Wendy & Lisa complained that they felt they weren't given due credit for their contributions to Prince's work.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_&_Lisa#With_The_Revolution

Yet, no one questions Prince's genius and they shouldn't either. In music, songwriting, production there are always gray areas where you can debate if people who didn't get credit would have deserved it and if yes then what kind of credit and to what extent. To act like it only happened in MJ's case is a big deal of ignorance about music in general. It happens everywhere. "Money" by Pink Floyd is credited to Roger Waters alone when it was a band effort. There are still debates about who wrote what in the Beatles. Most songs are credited to Lennon-McCartney because that was an agreement between them to credit everything that way, but from time to time one of them came out and said "actually I wrote it alone" and then the other disputed it and there were debates. Things like that happen ALL THE TIME in popular music - well, not just popular music. In classical and jazz too there are many, many occasions where great composers (we are talking about people like Mozart) took ideas from others uncredited to incorporate in their work. James Brown and Miles Davis took ideas from their band mates without crediting them and so on. Happens ALL THE TIME. But let's just keep bashing MJ for things that many other greats do too. Let's put his producer role passive-agressively into quotation marks because he didn't aspire to be a one-man-band just to show off. Never mind that great producers like Quincy Jones weren't one-man-bands either and they relied heavily on others too.

I think, besides artistic self-expresion, MJ and Prince had very different goals which they both achieved and they did what they had to do to achieve what their goal was. I feel Prince wanted to be seen as this this lonely genius who was doing everything on his own. I think that image was important to him. So he did what he had to do for that image. MJ's goal was to reach as many people as he could with his music, to be able to talk to people through national, racial, generational etc. boundaries, to create music that was universal and global. And he did what he had to do for that. Prince achieved his one-man-band image and praises for that from the press (although like MattyJam pointed out there is also myth in that image), but he did not achieve the universal and same global appeal as MJ did, his music didn't manage to break down barriers to the extent that MJ's did, his music wasn't that was able to cross racial, national or generational bounderies, not to the extent that MJ's did, his music wasn't as globally and universally loved as MJ's.

And before someone says it's just cheap commercialism, it isn't. I don't think MJ's aspiration for such things were out of commercialism. I don't think he cared much about money. I think it was the genuine desire to talk to as many people as he could and to touch as many people's lives with his music as he could. Is there an ego element to it? Possibly, but wanting to be seen as this one-man-band genius also has an ego element to it. BTW, MJ's aspiration to break down barriers also helped Prince a great deal IMO. 1999 was released before Thriller but initially it wasn't really a huge hit. It was when MJ's Thriller broke down barriers that people also started to pay attention to Prince. I also think Purple Rain's succes too was a bit driven by Thriller's succcess and that artificial rivalry the media created between them at the time. So in my view Prince actually owes MJ's aspirations to break down barriers a LOT.

And Prince too had aspirations for (for a lack of a better word) "commercial success" at certain times of his career but despite the efforts he never managed to achieve that the same way as MJ did. So once again, they were simply in their own lane: Prince could play almost all instruments on his record if he wanted, while MJ had a great sense of how to make music that was universal and that will speak to a great number of people all over the world, from all cultural backgrounds, not just a certain limited demographics. That doesn't mean his music was cheap or throwaway. In fact, the contrary. He created some of the most lasting music in pop history. Until this day he has several albums charting on the Billboard 200 every week, 20-30 year old albums, without any hype or anniversary. He is the most popular non-current artist on streaming sites. That's the very definition of music that lasts, that stands the test of time. Eventually music is for the people. It's the audience that will keep your name going.

MJ never claimed to be a one-man-band so I have no idea why he is being attacked for not being one. It's simply not true that MJ fans routinely brag about him doing everything alone in the studio. I have never seen such claims. So it seems to be a strawman argument by Psychoniff, just to be able to use that to bash MJ. It's Prince fans who brag about him being a one-man-band, so if you want to dissect such claims and whether they are actually true or not you should go to Prince.org and discuss that there with Prince fans.

Not to go off topic, but Michael and Prince rode to glory somewhat side by side

Both had aspirations to be the biggest and best, but for Prince, it changed as he was more focused on creating the music he wanted, whenever and however he wanted, sacrificing commercial success to do so at times (Around The World in A Day coming out without a lead single, cancelling The Black Album at the last minute, having the Lovesexy album as one track on CD)

Their decisions and striving to be top star opened doors for each other (Prince being one of the first black stars on MTV and then Michael being the first black artist on MTV to be put in regular rotation. Thrilller's success opening the door for Purple Rain, etc.)

 

[SmoothMJ]

Psychoniff must be really pissed, since Prince dies and his chart impact was nowhere near that of when MJ died.

Perhaps that's why his whining about MJ has increased recently?

Face it Psycho, MJ was far greater than any of you actual favourites. I know it hurts you, but you just need to accept it.

Actually it must hurt you to come here and pretend you actual like MJ, just to be able to post negative nonsense like this. Go get yourself a life, and don't be putting yourself - or us- through it.

 

[KOPV]

maybe michael NOT doing it all is why hes litterally the one of the onlyyyy artists that i cud listen to all tracks without skipping any..


even writer/producers turnned "artists" dont usually produce, mix, and "do it all" because they know to have a fullllly interesting album there is variety needed.. several demensions that can only be brought with other brains..

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Everyone relies on other people, nobody is completely self sufficient, and claims that Prince was completely insular and never took ideas from anybody else are a complete fabrication.



Take a listen to Mazarati's version:

And Prince's original demo:

And yet I don't see anybody making a concerted effort to diminish Prince's songwriting and producing skills, like certain MJ "fans" seem to (see, I can use inverted commas to make a dig as well... aren't I clever?).

You mean it was not all produced by Prince? :busted:

Where's the credit for Mazarati's production?

:smilerolleyes::smilerolleyes::smilerolleyes:

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Psychoniff must be really pissed, since Prince dies and his chart impact was nowhere near that of when MJ died.

Perhaps that's why his whining about MJ has increased recently?

Face it Psycho, MJ was far greater than any of you actual favourites. I know it hurts you, but you just need to accept it.

Actually it must hurt you to come here and pretend you actual like MJ, just to be able to post negative nonsense like this. Go get yourself a life, and don't be putting yourself - or us- through it.

King/Emperor Michael keeps SO many other fanbases seething, pressed, distressed, and lookin a mess.
It's probably because no matter who their fave is, that deep down they know MJ is better.

A LOT of other fanbases go out of the way to attack MJ, but VERY rarely do you see MJ fans/stans attack other artist (most of the time when we do it's in defense of MJ), and this is because MJ fans/stans are secure in the fact that MJ is the GOAT, so we don't have to attack other artist to build MJ up.

 

[HIStory]

Both had aspirations to be the biggest and best, but for Prince, it changed as he was more focused on creating the music he wanted, whenever and however he wanted, sacrificing commercial success to do so at times (Around The World in A Day coming out without a lead single, cancelling The Black Album at the last minute, having the Lovesexy album as one track on CD)

Their decisions and striving to be top star opened doors for each other (Prince being one of the first black stars on MTV and then Michael being the first black artist on MTV to be put in regular rotation. Thrilller's success opening the door for Purple Rain, etc.)

Prince did non-commercial albums, but there were also more commercially aimed ones and even those failed to achive a similar impact as MJ's albums.

I don't think Prince had to open anything for MJ. MJ was a star before people even knew who Prince was. OTW was a pretty huge success already. Also it is not simply about who was first on MTV as a black artist. That credit goes to neither of them but Musical Youth. It's about who had a significant, game changing impact initially that also helped the others - and that was MJ and IMO Prince, among other artists, benefitted from that. Prince was on MTV before MJ but his presence didn't have much impact initially. His 1999 album only blew up after Thriller blew up.

In the age of "Thriller," black music made a resounding comeback on the pop charts. If 1982 was the genre's low point in terms of pop success, by 1985 more than one third of all the hits on the Billboard Hot 100 were of urban radio origin. Even Prince's "1999" single, shut out of pop radio upon its initial release in 1982, was re-launched in mid-1983 and off the back of its belated MTV exposure became a huge pop radio success the second time around. Thus, in a way few historians appreciate, the Michael Jackson/MTV team proved itself a remarkably progressive force, helping to reintegrate a fragmented popular culture at the dawn of the Reagan era. Black music was back at the center at the mainstream, and to this day it has never again been pushed from the spotlight.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop-shop/473949/michael-jacksons-thriller-at-30-how-one-album-changed-the-world

Also Prince being on MTV didn't really break down any barriers for MJ. Remember when MJ tried to get Billie Jean played on MTV he had to fight for that. He was declined first and CBS had to issue threats to MTV of pulling all of their artists from MTV if they did not play Billie Jean. That's why MJ got on MTV not because of Prince. On the other hand once he was there he conquered, unlike Prince before. And MJ's presence really did open the floodgates then for other black artists, including Prince.

And on a sidenote: I don't even how black Prince was considered at the time. He is black, as far as I know, both of his parents were black, but at the time there was a certain PR going on about him in the media which suggested he was more white than black. Here is an article about him from Rolling Stone in 1981.

"I grew up on the borderline," Prince says after the show. "I had a bunch of white friends, and I had a bunch of black friends. I never grew up in any one particular culture." The son of a half-black father and an Italian mother who divorced when he was seven, Prince pretty much raised himself from the age of twelve, when he formed his first band. Oddly, he claims that the normalcy and remoteness of Minneapolis provided just artistic nourishment he needed.

http://princetext.tripod.com/i_stone81.html

So basically this article claims he is only 1/4 black. I don't know who fed these claims but it shows how he was actually viewed by the white rockist media (of which MTV was a part of) at the time.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Prince did non-commercial albums, but there were also more commercially aimed ones and even those failed to achive a similar impact as MJ's albums.

I don't think Prince had to open anything for MJ. MJ was a star before people even knew who Prince was. OTW was a pretty huge success already. Also it is not simply about who was first on MTV as a black artist. That credit goes to neither of them but Musical Youth. It's about who had a significant, game changing impact initially that also helped the others - and that was MJ and IMO Prince, among other artists, benefitted from that. Prince was on MTV before MJ but his presence didn't have much impact initially. His 1999 album only blew up after Thriller blew up.



http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop-shop/473949/michael-jacksons-thriller-at-30-how-one-album-changed-the-world

Also Prince being on MTV didn't really break down any barriers for MJ. Remember when MJ tried to get Billie Jean played on MTV he had to fight for that. He was declined first and CBS had to issue threats to MTV of pulling all of their artists from MTV if they did not play Billie Jean. That's why MJ got on MTV not because of Prince. On the other hand once he was there he conquered, unlike Prince before. And MJ's presence really did open the floodgates then for other black artists, including Prince.


And on a sidenote: I don't even how black Prince was considered at the time. He is black, as far as I know, both of his parents were black, but at the time there was a certain PR going on about him in the media which suggested he was more white than black. Here is an article about him from Rolling Stone in 1981.



http://princetext.tripod.com/i_stone81.html

So basically this article claims he is only 1/4 black. I don't know who fed these claims but it shows how he was actually viewed by the white rockist media (of which MTV was a part of) at the time.

LOL, people actually think Prince broke down doors for MJ?
MJ broke down doors for Prince and NOT the other way around.
Do people not know that MJ was performing almost as soon as he was out of diapers?
Michael was a superstar and a household name before we even knew Prince existed.
Without trying to "make his own Thriller" Prince probably wouldn't even have made Purple rain (and even then Purple rain didn't garner half the success of Thriller, nor did it have half the impact of Thriller).

People are really reaching right now. :/

Also I can definitely see want you mean about Prince being favored by the white media.
Some white rockist as you call them seem to think that regardless of what else you can do, that playing an instrument is the holy grail of talent or something.

Michael could Moonwalk and tapdance barefoot over a bed out hot coals, and the rockist will say "but he didn't do a guitar solo at the end".

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

And on a sidenote: I don't even how black Prince was considered at the time. He is black, as far as I know, both of his parents were black, but at the time there was a certain PR going on about him in the media which suggested he was more white than black. Here is an article about him from Rolling Stone in 1981.



http://princetext.tripod.com/i_stone81.html

So basically this article claims he is only 1/4 black. I don't know who fed these claims but it shows how he was actually viewed by the white rockist media (of which MTV was a part of) at the time.

Yeah, and prince also had a caucasian woman play his mother in purple rain.

 

[barbee0715]

It was 1999 that MTV put on first though, wasn't it, and it just didn't go anywhere, much less open doors. I assume that MTV played it since it was "rock." Didn't realize that Prince, himself, fed the stories about being bi-racial-thought that all came from the movie-and people just kept on assuming. Very interesting that he played the PR machine like that.

How did Prince get into this conversation anyway? Was that the meaning of it all-that Michael wasn't as good as Prince?

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

It was 1999 that MTV put on first though, wasn't it, and it just didn't go anywhere, much less open doors. I assume that MTV played it since it was "rock." Didn't realize that Prince, himself, fed the stories about being bi-racial-thought that all came from the movie-and people just kept on assuming. Very interesting that he played the PR machine like that.

How did Prince get into this conversation anyway? Was that the meaning of it all-that Michael wasn't as good as Prince?

I'm not sure but I think Psychoniff started yet another bait thread and someone pointed out that Psychoniff ikes to belittle MJ in favor of Prince on an MJ fansite.
The aim of this thread was probably for Psychoniff to harp on the untrue fact of how much more "hands on" and "capable" Prince was then Michael.
Psychoniff loves to troll and start bait threads.

Whenever I see that they've started a thread I'm just like

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

^^Lol. This one is also funny

 

[barbee0715]

I'm not sure but I think Psychoniff started yet another bait thread and someone pointed out that Psychoniff ikes to belittle MJ in favor of Prince on an MJ fansite.
The aim of this thread was probably for Psychoniff to harp on the untrue fact of how much more "hands on" and "capable" Prince was then Michael.
Psychoniff loves to troll and start bait threads.

I see. After I asked, I went back and started re-reading it, and the subject of Prince "doing it all" kinda came up later.
One of the earliest posts says that there is not an understanding of what a producer does, and I think that hits the nail on the head.

Producers don't have to be there every single minute of the day, and they don't have to do everything-just like bosses at companies don't. You know the direction of the piece or how you want a project done-and then your employees go to work. You (the producer or boss) come back and listen or look at what they've done-they may get it right or they may not, and have to do it again. You just have to give the direction and guidance to the employee/musician to do what you are envisioning.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

King/Emperor Michael keeps SO many other fanbases seething, pressed, distressed, and lookin a mess.
It's probably because no matter who their fave is, that deep down they know MJ is better.

A LOT of other fanbases go out of the way to attack MJ, but VERY rarely do you see MJ fans/stans attack other artist (most of the time when we do it's in defense of MJ), and this is because MJ fans/stans are secure in the fact that MJ is the GOAT, so we don't have to attack other artist to build MJ up.

In the past 10 years, I've seen attacks towards one another by fanbases of all the major artists at one time or another

that did not take place during yesterday......

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

In the past 10 years, I've seen attacks towards one another by fanbases of all the major artists at one time or another

that did not take place during yesterday......

True.
An did if it did it wasn't as bad as it is now.

There's this website called ATRL (that I no longer frequent) with a forum that legit has a section called "Stan your ground".
The whole "Stan your ground" area is dedicated to knock down drag out stan wars.
There are people on the website that will literally argue that One direction is better then the Beatles. :/

Stupidity and ignorance abounds on that website.

 

[barbee0715]

True.
An did if it did it wasn't as bad as it is now.

There's this website called ATRL (that I no longer frequent) with a forum that legit has a section called "Stan your ground".
The whole "Stan your ground" area is dedicated to knock down drag out stan wars.
There are people on the website that will literally argue that One direction is better then the Beatles. :/

Stupidity and ignorance abounds on that website.

YouTube is where I see absolutely vicious attacks between fan bases. And they're totally absurd. Maybe it has something to do with that word "stan." Where did that come from anyway. Awful.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

YouTube is where I see absolutely vicious attacks between fan bases. And they're totally absurd. Maybe it has something to do with that word "stan." Where did that come from anyway. Awful.

Ugh, don't even get me started on YouTube, and from what I know the origin of the word stan is some Eminem song.

Here's a link to some info.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_(fan)