No I'm not. It indicates quantity, with little indication of quality. In artistic fields that's often used to describe people whose production was abundant but not necessarily remarkable in qualitative terms. People making jingles for tv ads are prolific. Morricone was more than prolific; he was a genius who changed his field and left a massive legacy.
Contra examples from simply googling "prolific + NAME":
Wikipedia on Mozart:
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart[a] (27 January 1756 – 5 December 1791), baptised as Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart,[b] was a prolific and influential composer of the Classical period.
British Library on Beethoven:
Ludwig van Beethoven was a very prolific composer, producing many symphonies, concertos, piano sonatas, violin sonatas, an opera, masses and several overtures.
NY Times on Bach:
If any measure of quality is applied to such a comparison, as it must be, Bach was one of the most prolific composers who ever lived; that meager output from Cöthen, for example, includes the “Brandenburg” Concertos, the orchestral suites, other concertos and the astounding solo works for violin and for cello.
The day to day and dictionary definitions of prolific contain no indication of quality. Mozart is probably the best known prolific composer. In all the artistic fields I'm aware, prolific is a complement, and orthogonal to quality. There are both prolific geniuses and prolific hacks.
