- Joined
- Mar 25, 2003
- Messages
- 27,099
- Reaction score
- 11,440
I never thought of MJ's production, as great as it was, as anything revolutionary. Great, gleaming pop that would sell to everyone. Prince was more of an outsider intentionally but he was the premier artist of that decade.Prince's own performed music in his prime is way more 80s tied compared to MJ. MJs music doesn't belong to any era.
But it's also the fact that MJs music is arguably a little bit more grand. I just don't feel Princes output was at the same level even though individual components were awesome, such as his guitar skills.
It's not that that I think will hurt his legacy so much as just the internecine issues involving how his posthumous stuff is handled. He died with no will and no plans and it's just been a mess. With Elvis, there was Priscilla who wrestled control away from the colonel and for whatever shortcomings Priscilla had as a person, she's done a brilliant job of marketing Elvis and doing things to keep his name out there. Even now, there are docus, movies, always coming along. The Luhrmann film was a huge deal in the Elvis world. Ya, I know tons of young fans won't know or care a thing about him but there is a market out here for him and it's been nurtured along well.
I love MJ and think he was a great artist but I also think he was definitely a serial molestor, that's a lot for an image to overcome and his crazy fans are stuck in delusion and denial. But, how many more boys need to come out before it's generally accepted? To be honest, most rock stars did the same with girls but just the fact that MJ did it to boys is enough to sink him. He did nothing different, agewise than scores of rock stars who messed with 13 and up. It was boys though so, he'll always be a gay sick fuck rather than a jailbait chasing rockstar.