HTG
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2011
- Messages
- 5,981
- Supports
- Bayern
Well, he was really good.Case in point
Well, he was really good.Case in point
i would go with Prince - but i am a big Prince fan! The issue with the purple one was his quality control.Now I feel like I’m going mad. How can nobody else agree with this?! Could MJ even play an instrument?
i saw Dylan at Desert Trip about 5 years ago. Dylan, The Rolling Sones, The Who, Mcartney, Neil Young and Roger Walters - he was shockingly bad. Now clearly I know, that he was in his 70’s and it’s not a fair representation of his output - but on the occasions when I saw Prince he blew me away. Prince and Dylan have a lot in common in terms of output - both have great music that wasn’t on album releases, but both really lacked quality control on what they released at times.Dylan, by a considerable margin if you remove the word pop, probably the most important musical figure of the last 100 years. Beyond everything else the quality and prolific nature of his songwriting is quite staggering, he has stuff on his bootlegs and outtakes that is levels above the vast majority of artist's best work.
I honestly think post '87* Prince is largely dreadful (the equivalent would be Bowie going into his Tin Machine phase but never re-emerging) but prior to that he's pretty special.i would go with Prince - but i am a big Prince fan! The issue with the purple one was his quality control.
Prince had 39 studio albums, compared to MJ with 10. MJ was clearly more popular - but this is not a popularity contest.
most would agree with you. I really got into Prince in the early 90’s - so unlike many of his fans, I actually really enjoy the likes of Diamonds and Pearls, The Gold Experience, Emancipation, Symbol and Come. But i acknowledge that these are not classic albums by any stretch. This will blow the mind of a Prince fan… i don’t love SOTT - I find it a really difficult listen.I honestly think post '87 Prince is largely dreadful (the equivalent would be Bowie going into his Tin Machine phase but never re-emerging) but prior to that he's pretty special.
I'm sure he was. You don't become a music icon by being shit I guessWell, he was really good.
Cheers for your posts mate. Been a while since I had fired up Bowie so just went ahead and did it. 5 in the morning. Haven't slept and down with fever and what not. Still couldn't resist moving whatever part of my body when Heroes came up.I'm sure he was. You don't become a music icon by being shit I guess
No-one can say I didn't try. In fact, this thread has given me the motivation to try again. I'm going to listen to Ziggy Stardust (or Let's Dance) until I force myself to like it
I will now, cheers!Have you seen this? It’s excellent.
Michael. He's a superstar in pretty much every corner of the globe.
Even Jimi Hendrix got mentioned.the likes of dylan, bowie, etc aren't really 'pop' stars though?
I consider Dylan on a different level to every name mentioned here. Which is why I stressed on the word "popular". Dylan is a proper proper singer songwriter and probably the most creative and influential, who had a lasting impact on all the great indie bands which form my favourite music now. But like I said he wasnt pop music (he was better). Only thing lacking was his voice thought which many would argue is pretty darn important Still, a complete genius.Dylan, by a considerable margin if you remove the word pop, probably the most important musical figure of the last 100 years. Beyond everything else the quality and prolific nature of his songwriting is quite staggering, he has stuff on his bootlegs and outtakes that is levels above the vast majority of artist's best work.
That's one issue with MJ. People only see his peak but he didn't have longevity. Some artists battled hardships to produce great stuff in their 40s/50s. Michael couldn't. That also has to be held in favour of them and against him.i would go with Prince - but i am a big Prince fan! The issue with the purple one was his quality control.
Prince had 39 studio albums, compared to MJ with 10. MJ was clearly more popular - but this is not a popularity contest.
Love him but not a solo artistPrince as a songwriter, musician and performer for so long. It’s not even close.
Chuck Berry - the father of rock and roll.
Jimi Hendrix - similar to Prince, just over less time.
Bowie - never tire of his music.
I’d have loved to see what Kurt Cobain might have done with more time.
Yeah. Always been in awe of his songwriting but that voice is an earache and I can't listen to more than a couple of songs at once without getting tired of it.Only thing lacking was his voice
It depends on what one's definition of "pop" is. I see it as a generic term for music that did well in the charts.the likes of dylan, bowie, etc aren't really 'pop' stars though?
Not enough time.Love him but not a solo artist
That's one way to look at it.It depends on what one's definition of "pop" is. I see it as a generic term for music that did well in the charts.
Close thread.Is this a serious question?
MJ and no one else comes close.
OK I was referring to the OP asking for "the best solo artist in popular music". What is a "popstar"?That's one way to look at it.
For me I look at it from a musical perspective as a genre in itself. Hendrix, Dylan, Bowie are not 'popstars' going by that whatsoever. That shite is reserved for the likes of MJ, Elvis, Madonna etc.
yeah, me too. there's a difference i think between artists who do their own thing and almost inadvertently become popular, compared to people making music designed to be popular and for the masses. bowie and the like are of course 'popular' because they're freaking legends - so too are bands like the stones or nirvana - but it's not pop music.That's one way to look at it.
For me I look at it from a musical perspective as a genre in itself. Hendrix, Dylan, Bowie are not 'popstars' going by that whatsoever. That shite is reserved for the likes of MJ, Elvis, Madonna etc.
Well, the OP also said “popular” which is different to “pop”. Pop is technically a short version of popular true, but pop has been used so much in this context it’s taken on a different meaning over time to mean a genre. All pop is popular music, but not all popular music is pop. Like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.That's one way to look at it.
For me I look at it from a musical perspective as a genre in itself. Hendrix, Dylan, Bowie are not 'popstars' going by that whatsoever. That shite is reserved for the likes of MJ, Elvis, Madonna etc.
Pretty much.All pop is popular music, but not all popular music is pop.
Pop music for me is popular music. Music that is mainstream and in the charts.OK I was referring to the OP asking for "the best solo artist in popular music". What is a "popstar"?
Bubble pop?I think the genre people confuse with pop music is bubblegum pop.
Or Pit bull. Jennifer Lopez. Shakira. Enrique egliseus. That's what popstars are. Their songs are meant to be played at parties and the radio and be as popular as possible.Pop music for me is popular music. Music that is mainstream and in the charts.
I think the genre people confuse with pop music is bubblegum pop. Or something like that. Think N*Sync or Britney Spears.
Beatles did make pop music unless I'm mistaken? I'm not too familiar with them but I assume at the time, they were like One Direction? They were pop stars most likely... But as I said, I'm not that familiar with them and could be completely wrong.Or Pit bull. Jennifer Lopez. Shakira. Enrique egliseus. That's what popstars are. Their songs are meant to be played at parties and the radio and be as popular as possible.
Paul McCartney wasn't writing yesterday thinking it would be billboard no. 1 or something. It still remains as one of the most popular songs of all time. But that doesn't make him a fecking pop star or the Beatles a pop music group.
Yeah they blur the lines with a lot of their stuff and the beatlemania is pretty much the pinnacle of popularity for a group. Hence I took the example of yesterday and not say She loves you or something. They wrote plenty of stuff that went on to be hugely popular because well.. they were hugely popular. I'd still never classify them as a pop music group.Beatles did make pop music unless I'm mistaken? I'm not too familiar with them but I assume at the time, they were like One Direction? They were pop stars most likely... But as I said, I'm not that familiar with them and could be completely wrong.
To be honest I struggle to see how the Beatles wouldn't be called popstars. They sang 'I want to hold your hand' for a start.Or Pit bull. Jennifer Lopez. Shakira. Enrique egliseus. That's what popstars are. Their songs are meant to be played at parties and the radio and be as popular as possible.
Paul McCartney wasn't writing yesterday thinking it would be billboard no. 1 or something. It still remains as one of the most popular songs of all time. But that doesn't make him a fecking pop star or the Beatles a pop music group.
Stevie Wonder too.To be honest I struggle to see how the Beatles wouldn't be called popstars. They sang 'I want to hold your hand' for a start.
Hard to pick between Prince & MJ.
the Beatles are the definition of popstars!To be honest I struggle to see how the Beatles wouldn't be called popstars. They sang 'I want to hold your hand' for a start.
Hard to pick between Prince & MJ.
But isn't a lot of Beatles music exactly what you say about making music that sells? But you're right, they weren't always like that. But for the most part, they are popstars.Yeah they blur the lines with a lot of their stuff and the beatlemania is pretty much the pinnacle of popularity for a group. Hence I took the example of yesterday and not say She loves you or something. They wrote plenty of stuff that went on to be hugely popular because well.. they were hugely popular. I'd still never classify them as a pop music group.
Just to take examples which would be easier bands like Led Zep, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd are all some of the most popular acts ever. If David Gilmour were to announce a show today his tickets will sell like crazy. He's obviously not a fecking pop music artist.
The idea that music that is popular is pop music is something I've never ever used to classify something as pop music. Pop music is... As said above. Music meant to be sold. With it usually being fairly simplistic in terms of the musical composition and structure as well as the lyrics. The aim is to get the song inside the heads of people with the minimum amount of attention required to it. You hear a small basic verse with very little meaning or lyrical prowess and a catchy chorus tune and that's it. And there's a plethora of artists that apply far more talent and meaning to their music and end up being insanely popular because of just how fecking good they are yet have nothing to do with pop music.