the kind of low-mental-investment garbage The Coli likes to debate about
statues in germany, militant groups in Liberia and Congo using Pac to fuel their movements, murals in brazil, etcit took Pac 5 years to do that.
Then we made similiar points.
Not identical and there's definitely some disagreement there, but be careful how you define truth.
Of course MJ appeals to young children...Do 4 year olds still wanna be Pac for Halloween or Michael Jackson? I have Godkids ages 3 to 10 and they are all MJ fans and know all of his songs by heart even the 3 year old. People love Pac but he doesn't have outright fans from every single generation even ones born wayyyy after his most influential period and death.
PAC was nowhere close to being anywhere in the vincinity of MJs realm of stardom and influence.
Yet...he still not as big as MJ![]()
Of course MJ appeals to young children...
But for real you gave an anecdote that means nothing
i never denied that.It means that his music stands the test of time. The real test.
I never listened to Elvis or the Beatles, so I can't even speak on that plus they're not relevant to the discussion. It's about Pac and MJ. Quincy Jones might've boosted MJ but MJ was still writing and had his hands in his projects creativity wise. The talent was still there. This shyt just boils down to what you like. Even in the other thread, I said I'd listen to Pac's discography for the rest of my life over MJs, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that MJ is the superior artist.
Michael was more than just a performer. Yes he did have Quincy, but he was definitely a visionary. He beat boxed the sounds from his head onto a recorder. Quincy was there to help polish up Michael`s ideas. If it was all Quincy, Billy Jean wouldn't have existed because he didn't like the idea of it.
A lot of people see Michael and they think king of pop( he didn't even create that term), moonwalk, and thriller, but dude was an artist. I think he gets overlooked in that aspect. He wasn't just a product of the people around him.
Well he is called the "King of Pop" plus he holds a world record for being the most successful entertainer of all time. If that's not the closest thing as an objective truth to saying that one artist is better than another then I don't know what is, at least when you have people arguing over which artist was superior. Pac was a very influential person and rapper/artist but the highest title he holds is probably being seen as the GOAT rapper (which isn't universally agreed upon).
I'm not saying MJ didn't have creative input. I'm say Quincy Jones was a legend back before Micheal was born. He isn't your run of the mill producer
Billie Jean's an undeniable classic and probably the MJ song I relate the most to but him beat boxing it during its conception really isn't impressive. Most credible artists do something of the sort if they can't outright play an instrument.
Fact is that he had his hands all over the process of his music. Whether you find his input impressive or not doesn't matter.
Regardless who the producer was he always had his hands in the process of his albums.
So do most credible artists.
It doesn't change anything. Ultimately, he was under the tutelage of one of the most important musical thinkers of all time.
If I didn't think that MJ had at least some iota of input, I wouldn't have entertained this conversation.
Tupac had dr dre at some point who produced arguably his biggest song. He's had other producers that's contributed to some of his biggest hits as well.
I just don't see how you can hold mj down because of quincy jones when it's clear as day he had his hands in the process of his albums with or without Quincy. I'm not gonna downplay a great artist`s input because they surround themselves with other top tier talent. Michael isn't the sole contributor of his music, but he's been the main reason why his songs are hits.
Tupac had dr dre at some point who produced arguably his biggest song.