New topic
Printablespeeddemon said: jayaredee said: Prince: The best musician and genius out of all three. The most musically gifted and released the most albums
Michael: He shocked the world with amazing dancing and performances. He sold the most albums out of all 3. He relaesed 3 killer Quincy produced records. And then Dangerous which was more artsy. Then due to his obsessions with children and controversey for supposedly molesting a child went downhill. And the rest is "HIStory." He is now pasty white, has peter pan fantasies, and is once again in trouble. Wasted talent and potential is what MJ is. Madonna: The most successful out of the 3 over the whole. Best longevity, never left the spotlight for 20 years. Was the ultimate template for women in music in the future and the fashion sense. The smartest and best business person out of the 3. All her albums went over platinum (except AL) The most hits out of the 3. Not really a musician but an awesome performer and dancer nonetheless. Ageless in the sense she puts performers half her age to shame in the way she can move. She was the first one to use sex for sales and the rest followed with not good results as her. Had crappy movies xcept for Evita where she demonstarted vocal talent people didn't think she had. The most original and most worshipped amongst her peers. I don't really like to compare them as they're all different in there own sense but for best musician i give to our Prince and the most successful overall is Madonna. If Michael Jackson sold more albums than the 3, I don't understand why u states Madonna is the most successful one. Madonna lasted 20 years? Good, but as far as I can remember, Michael was there since 1968, at a time when the Ciccone was learning the art of shoelace. Smartest in business? Who bought the ATV catalogue in 1985 for 47.5 million $, now worth over 1 billion $. The most hits of the 3? MJ charted 18 #1s hits on the Hot 100 since 1969, Madonna 12. Even Diana Ross had more #1 hits than Madonna. The most original is certainly Prince and the most worshipped is certainly MJ. No doubt,Michael has achieved alot in his career.But let's be honest here,I think we can all agree that Madonna has "maintained" her career alot more effectively than MJ.She doesn't have the "image problems" and media baggage that he has to carry around.She is still doing lucrative,record-breaking world tours,and I don't think MJ has toured in at least a decade.So in that sense,I would argue that Madonna is more successful than MJ. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
speeddemon said: VoicesCarry said: Sorry, you're wrong about Elvis. All his seventeen No. 1's came after July 9, 1955, which is when Billboard adopted its methodology and actually began to call the chart the Hot 100. The methodology of calculating chart positions has actually changed several times since then. Otherwise, "Vogue" would have been number 1 for a hell of a lot more than 3 weeks! 
[This message was edited Tue Aug 24 15:11:24 2004 by VoicesCarry] Joel Whitburn has done a lot of good to Elvis` chart stats over the past decades. The old folks may remember that Elvis only had 14 No. 1 Hits in the first edition of Whitburn`s "Top Pop Singles" book (published 1969). That`s because in the two legitimate charts, the Top 100 (1955-58) and since 1958 the Hot 100, Elvis indeed only has 14 No. 1 Hits. Yet in 1977, Whitburn began to compile a completely new chart for the years 1955-1958. Billboard used to compile four different pop charts from 1955 to 1958, not just one. These four charts were the Disk Jockeys chart, the Sales Chart, the Juke Boxes Chart as well as the Top 100 (which put all 3 charts together). Apart from the Top 100, the other charts only ranged from 20-50 positions. Thus Whitburn - when he compiled his first book - legitimately used the Top 100 for the 1955-58 period. However Elvis only had 9 No. 1 Hits in the Top 100. This was due to airplay factor reducing the power of his big hits. In the sales chart, a variety of songs hit no. 1, but failed to do so in the disk jockeys chart (airplay). That meant the sales power was limited in the Top 100 chart, which also used airplay and juke boxes. In 1977, Whitburn created a new "amalgation" chart, using the peak position for one chart, the # of weeks spent at that peak and in the chart from another chart, and so on. Thus he created a chart that didn`t exist historically. This also meant that Elvis` # of no. 1 hits was increased from 14 to 17 because now the sales chart peaks were used. One may argue that it is okay to use the sales chart instead of the Top 100, and I would agree here, BUT, the Hot 100 has always been a combination of sales and airplay, thus I see no reason why for the pre-1958 years, a pure sales chart should be used, especially since a Hot 100 precursor like the Top 100 existed that could have easily been uitilised. See, from 1958 onwards, all acts had to struggle if their songs didn`t get enough airplay, thus nothing is taken away from Elvis if the Top 100 is used for the 1955-58 period. And I seriously think Joel Whitburn - who is known to be a major Elvis fan - wouldn`t have created this artificial "amalgation" chart in 1977, if he hadn`t had at least one eye at the benefit this change in chart-use from Top 100 to "new chart" would have had for his boy Elvis. 
Billboard (and Geoff Mayfield, who heads up chart policy over there, and Fred Bronson, their resident chart expert) always references hits on the Hot 100 as of July 9, 1955. Now, if you're going to decide to blindly follow some idiotic Elvis fan over actual chart policy, then be my guest. Elvis has 17 #1's according to Billboard (NOT "Joel Whitburn"), end of story. 
Why? Well, you don't rewrite chart history simply because of a change in methodology. About 5 years ago, Billboard did the following: -allowed tracks with no commercial release to chart -switched to an approximate 75% airplay, 25% sales points calculation formula (sales used to make up about 75% of a song's points) Now, did Billboard go back and apologize to Natalie Imbruglia for depriving her of a hit song ("Torn" was not allowed to chart at all, since it wasn't released on a commercial format), much less one that would have been #1 for about twelve weeks? No. Did it go back and "correct" all of its charts to the new methodology? No. Changing markets dictate different methodologies. [This message was edited Wed Aug 25 5:02:45 2004 by VoicesCarry] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: and I don't think MJ has toured in at least a decade.
DavidEye, such ignorance 
The HIStory World Tour, from September 7th 1996 till October 15th 1997 (with a 4 month break inbetween) included 82 concerts in front of a total 4.3 million people in 34 countries and all 5 continents. Mayb someone should add up the numbers of MJ's 4 major tours and compare those to the totals of Prince and Madonna (who didn't have to cancel tours because of scandals and media hostility). [This message was edited Wed Aug 25 6:34:19 2004 by SpcMs] [This message was edited Wed Aug 25 6:36:31 2004 by SpcMs] "It's better 2 B hated 4 what U R than 2 B loved 4 what U R not."
My IQ is 139, what's yours? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: No doubt,Michael has achieved alot in his career.But let's be honest here,I think we can all agree that Madonna has "maintained" her career alot more effectively than MJ.She doesn't have the "image problems" and media baggage that he has to carry around.She is still doing lucrative,record-breaking world tours,and I don't think MJ has toured in at least a decade.So in that sense,I would argue that Madonna is more successful than MJ. I don't agree. Not counting his career with J5/Jacksons MJ has been having hit solo singles since 1971. In 1979 he really took off as a solo artist before anybody had even heard of Madonna. To this this day he continues to sell more records then Madonna despite all the setbacks in his career. He has sold more records then Madonna despite the fact that he has released less albums (and we aren't even counting his solo albums for Motown). Michael is most successful. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
WildStyle said: DavidEye said: No doubt,Michael has achieved alot in his career.But let's be honest here,I think we can all agree that Madonna has "maintained" her career alot more effectively than MJ.She doesn't have the "image problems" and media baggage that he has to carry around.She is still doing lucrative,record-breaking world tours,and I don't think MJ has toured in at least a decade.So in that sense,I would argue that Madonna is more successful than MJ. I don't agree. Not counting his career with J5/Jacksons MJ has been having hit solo singles since 1971. In 1979 he really took off as a solo artist before anybody had even heard of Madonna. To this this day he continues to sell more records then Madonna despite all the setbacks in his career. He has sold more records then Madonna despite the fact that he has released less albums (and we aren't even counting his solo albums for Motown). Michael is most successful. In terms of record sales,he may be more successful than Madonna.Few artists sell records the way MJ has.But I just think that,for the most part,Madonna has had a more consistent,more impressive,and more diverse career than Michael.Part of the reason is,she simply "evolves" as an artist,she reinvents herself and is not afraid to take risks.i like MJ,but has he really evolved as an artist? Has he ever recorded anything other than a commercial,radio-friendly R&B/pop album produced by whomever is "hot" at the time? Also,Madonna has maintained her popularity much more effectively than MJ.These days,MJ is still popular,but unfortunately,it's not because of his music or his concerts. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: WildStyle said: I don't agree. Not counting his career with J5/Jacksons MJ has been having hit solo singles since 1971. In 1979 he really took off as a solo artist before anybody had even heard of Madonna. To this this day he continues to sell more records then Madonna despite all the setbacks in his career. He has sold more records then Madonna despite the fact that he has released less albums (and we aren't even counting his solo albums for Motown). Michael is most successful. In terms of record sales,he may be more successful than Madonna.Few artists sell records the way MJ has.But I just think that,for the most part,Madonna has had a more consistent,more impressive,and more diverse career than Michael.Part of the reason is,she simply "evolves" as an artist,she reinvents herself and is not afraid to take risks.i like MJ,but has he really evolved as an artist? Has he ever recorded anything other than a commercial,radio-friendly R&B/pop album produced by whomever is "hot" at the time? Also,Madonna has maintained her popularity much more effectively than MJ.These days,MJ is still popular,but unfortunately,it's not because of his music or his concerts. nothing after BAD is radio-friendly except one or two songs from albums(ie, black or white) yes michael evolved as an artist. his songwriting got better, his production skills got better. he can write produce compose and arrange a song all by himself. he did try different musical stlyes. his sound is based on pop. but he did rock(dirty diana),soul(get on the floor),gospel(will you be there), dont-know-what-to-call-it(morphine, very different and a loved song by fans). and he did some more electronic sounds on invincible. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: WildStyle said: I don't agree. Not counting his career with J5/Jacksons MJ has been having hit solo singles since 1971. In 1979 he really took off as a solo artist before anybody had even heard of Madonna. To this this day he continues to sell more records then Madonna despite all the setbacks in his career. He has sold more records then Madonna despite the fact that he has released less albums (and we aren't even counting his solo albums for Motown). Michael is most successful. In terms of record sales,he may be more successful than Madonna.Few artists sell records the way MJ has.But I just think that,for the most part,Madonna has had a more consistent,more impressive,and more diverse career than Michael.Part of the reason is,she simply "evolves" as an artist,she reinvents herself and is not afraid to take risks.i like MJ,but has he really evolved as an artist? Has he ever recorded anything other than a commercial,radio-friendly R&B/pop album produced by whomever is "hot" at the time? Also,Madonna has maintained her popularity much more effectively than MJ.These days,MJ is still popular,but unfortunately,it's not because of his music or his concerts. Honestly, it's because of his appearances in front of the courtroom. And the only thing he does musically now in days is rehash old crap. And now we have a boxed set to look forwar to, whoopie 
However next year we can look forward to a new Madonna album | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: speeddemon said: Joel Whitburn has done a lot of good to Elvis` chart stats over the past decades. The old folks may remember that Elvis only had 14 No. 1 Hits in the first edition of Whitburn`s "Top Pop Singles" book (published 1969). That`s because in the two legitimate charts, the Top 100 (1955-58) and since 1958 the Hot 100, Elvis indeed only has 14 No. 1 Hits. Yet in 1977, Whitburn began to compile a completely new chart for the years 1955-1958. Billboard used to compile four different pop charts from 1955 to 1958, not just one. These four charts were the Disk Jockeys chart, the Sales Chart, the Juke Boxes Chart as well as the Top 100 (which put all 3 charts together). Apart from the Top 100, the other charts only ranged from 20-50 positions. Thus Whitburn - when he compiled his first book - legitimately used the Top 100 for the 1955-58 period. However Elvis only had 9 No. 1 Hits in the Top 100. This was due to airplay factor reducing the power of his big hits. In the sales chart, a variety of songs hit no. 1, but failed to do so in the disk jockeys chart (airplay). That meant the sales power was limited in the Top 100 chart, which also used airplay and juke boxes. In 1977, Whitburn created a new "amalgation" chart, using the peak position for one chart, the # of weeks spent at that peak and in the chart from another chart, and so on. Thus he created a chart that didn`t exist historically. This also meant that Elvis` # of no. 1 hits was increased from 14 to 17 because now the sales chart peaks were used. One may argue that it is okay to use the sales chart instead of the Top 100, and I would agree here, BUT, the Hot 100 has always been a combination of sales and airplay, thus I see no reason why for the pre-1958 years, a pure sales chart should be used, especially since a Hot 100 precursor like the Top 100 existed that could have easily been uitilised. See, from 1958 onwards, all acts had to struggle if their songs didn`t get enough airplay, thus nothing is taken away from Elvis if the Top 100 is used for the 1955-58 period. And I seriously think Joel Whitburn - who is known to be a major Elvis fan - wouldn`t have created this artificial "amalgation" chart in 1977, if he hadn`t had at least one eye at the benefit this change in chart-use from Top 100 to "new chart" would have had for his boy Elvis.
Billboard (and Geoff Mayfield, who heads up chart policy over there, and Fred Bronson, their resident chart expert) always references hits on the Hot 100 as of July 9, 1955. Now, if you're going to decide to blindly follow some idiotic Elvis fan over actual chart policy, then be my guest. Elvis has 17 #1's according to Billboard (NOT "Joel Whitburn"), end of story.
Why? Well, you don't rewrite chart history simply because of a change in methodology. About 5 years ago, Billboard did the following: -allowed tracks with no commercial release to chart -switched to an approximate 75% airplay, 25% sales points calculation formula (sales used to make up about 75% of a song's points) Now, did Billboard go back and apologize to Natalie Imbruglia for depriving her of a hit song ("Torn" was not allowed to chart at all, since it wasn't released on a commercial format), much less one that would have been #1 for about twelve weeks? No. Did it go back and "correct" all of its charts to the new methodology? No. Changing markets dictate different methodologies. [This message was edited Wed Aug 25 5:02:45 2004 by VoicesCarry] Again, the Hot 100 began in April, 1958. The first single to hit #1 on the Hot 100 was Ricky Nelson's Poor Little Fool. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Honestly, it's because of his appearances in front of the courtroom. And the only thing he does musically now in days is rehash old crap. And now we have a boxed set to look forwar to, whoopie
However next year we can look forward to a new Madonna album mj doesnt need to release an album every year. If he he just decides to wait and comeback 10 years later, it would still hit the top stop and by the way he HAS TO release that goddamn boxset by LAW. his contract with sony goes, a new album(invincible), a compilation(number ones) and a boxset(comin in october) then he'll leave sony and get his rights back to beatles catalog, and his songs from otw,thriller and bad. If he doesnt release the boxset he wont get the right to those back again. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LightOfArt said: Honestly, it's because of his appearances in front of the courtroom. And the only thing he does musically now in days is rehash old crap. And now we have a boxed set to look forwar to, whoopie
However next year we can look forward to a new Madonna album mj doesnt need to release an album every year. If he he just decides to wait and comeback 10 years later, it would still hit the top stop and by the way he HAS TO release that goddamn boxset by LAW. his contract with sony goes, a new album(invincible), a compilation(number ones) and a boxset(comin in october) then he'll leave sony and get his rights back to beatles catalog, and his songs from otw,thriller and bad. If he doesnt release the boxset he wont get the right to those back again. I think MJ has to release more music more often if he wants to stay in the game. He has left it so long that people have forgotten the genius and only see the weirdo. Look what happened with the gap between HIStory and Invincible (BOTDF was not really an album) Invincible was thrown to the lions and then he began his Sony protest and calling people devils. It was because he left it too long, and people forgot who MJ was and what he is about and just see this weird man making music. He didn't win over the younger crowd the same way Madonna and Prince did. Invincible was promoted, i seen tv ads, newspaper and magazine ads, reviews. It just didn't sell that well and if you listen to the album you see why. He was hooking up with hot producers/songwriters and trying to do the young crowd thing rather than the "MJ" thing. Had he let Quincy produce that album it would have took off better, IMO or even if he produced it, it would have done better. I don't see MJ around in 10 years, hell i don't see Madonna in 10 years. Prince i do see because he has the musical giftness to keep him going. MJ and Madonna are performers and they won't be able to perform the same and impress the youngins like they used to. If MJ released an album 10 years from now it wouldn't do that well. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
speeddemon said: VoicesCarry said:
Billboard (and Geoff Mayfield, who heads up chart policy over there, and Fred Bronson, their resident chart expert) always references hits on the Hot 100 as of July 9, 1955. Now, if you're going to decide to blindly follow some idiotic Elvis fan over actual chart policy, then be my guest. Elvis has 17 #1's according to Billboard (NOT "Joel Whitburn"), end of story.
Why? Well, you don't rewrite chart history simply because of a change in methodology. About 5 years ago, Billboard did the following: -allowed tracks with no commercial release to chart -switched to an approximate 75% airplay, 25% sales points calculation formula (sales used to make up about 75% of a song's points) Now, did Billboard go back and apologize to Natalie Imbruglia for depriving her of a hit song ("Torn" was not allowed to chart at all, since it wasn't released on a commercial format), much less one that would have been #1 for about twelve weeks? No. Did it go back and "correct" all of its charts to the new methodology? No. Changing markets dictate different methodologies. [This message was edited Wed Aug 25 5:02:45 2004 by VoicesCarry] Again, the Hot 100 began in April, 1958. The first single to hit #1 on the Hot 100 was Ricky Nelson's Poor Little Fool. NOT ACCORDING TO BILLBOARD ITSELF! They arbitrarily start the official count July 9, 1955 (ie. the beginning of the rock era), when the chart was known as the Top 100. Or is that too difficult a concept for you to understand? [This message was edited Wed Aug 25 9:36:00 2004 by VoicesCarry] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: speeddemon said: Again, the Hot 100 began in April, 1958. The first single to hit #1 on the Hot 100 was Ricky Nelson's Poor Little Fool. NOT ACCORDING TO BILLBOARD ITSELF! They arbitrarily start the official count July 9, 1955 (ie. the beginning of the rock era), when the chart was known as the Top 100. Or is that too difficult a concept for you to understand? [This message was edited Wed Aug 25 9:36:00 2004 by VoicesCarry] Oh my god, check your history! A little history The Billboard HOT 100 has long been regarded as the definitive weekly ranking of America's most popular songs, both in sales and national radio airplay. From 1955 till 1958 Billboard published separate charts: The Best Sellers In Stores, Most Played By Jockeys and Most Played In Jukeboxes, all forerunners to the HOT 100 chart. Its most obvious antecedent was the Top 100 chart, which started in November 1955. The Best Sellers In Stores ended on October 13, 1958 and had during its existence various positions, 25 to 50; Most Played By Jockeys ended on July 28, 1958 and had 20 to 25 positions; Most Played In Jukeboxes lasted till June 17, 1957 and had 20 positions. The above-mentioned Top 100 existed from November 12, 1955 till July 28, 1958. The HOT 100 was created specifically to merge this information into one chart and made its debut on August 4, 1958. By the end of 1958 all mentioned charts were combined into the HOT 100. Over the years, chart methodology has changed many times. One of the last dramatic changes took place late 1998 when airplay-only tracks were allowed to appear on the Hot 100 for the first time. So it wouldn't be necessary anymore to have a single out in order to hit the chart. In the year 2000 the chart had its first album track to reach the summit based on airplay alone. http://home.wxs.nl/~haan0654/hot100.htm | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jayaredee said: LightOfArt said: mj doesnt need to release an album every year. If he he just decides to wait and comeback 10 years later, it would still hit the top stop and by the way he HAS TO release that goddamn boxset by LAW. his contract with sony goes, a new album(invincible), a compilation(number ones) and a boxset(comin in october) then he'll leave sony and get his rights back to beatles catalog, and his songs from otw,thriller and bad. If he doesnt release the boxset he wont get the right to those back again. I think MJ has to release more music more often if he wants to stay in the game. He has left it so long that people have forgotten the genius and only see the weirdo. Look what happened with the gap between HIStory and Invincible (BOTDF was not really an album) Invincible was thrown to the lions and then he began his Sony protest and calling people devils. It was because he left it too long, and people forgot who MJ was and what he is about and just see this weird man making music. He didn't win over the younger crowd the same way Madonna and Prince did. Invincible was promoted, i seen tv ads, newspaper and magazine ads, reviews. It just didn't sell that well and if you listen to the album you see why. He was hooking up with hot producers/songwriters and trying to do the young crowd thing rather than the "MJ" thing. Had he let Quincy produce that album it would have took off better, IMO or even if he produced it, it would have done better. I don't see MJ around in 10 years, hell i don't see Madonna in 10 years. Prince i do see because he has the musical giftness to keep him going. MJ and Madonna are performers and they won't be able to perform the same and impress the youngins like they used to. If MJ released an album 10 years from now it wouldn't do that well. I disagree there. MJ is as much a musician as his is a performer. him not playing the instruments, doesnt mean he is a bad musician. he's a unique songwriter and singer. he is better at those than Prince imo. prince wins at instruments and producing. I agree invibcible was a bad album. Believe me Michael is more appealing to young generation than Madonna an Prince is. see yourself at ANY mj board. kids love dancers, and mj is a great dancer imo. it was forgiveable he was releasing albums like every 4 years in the past. but he must do more now coz he aint touring anymore. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
speeddemon said: VoicesCarry said: NOT ACCORDING TO BILLBOARD ITSELF! They arbitrarily start the official count July 9, 1955 (ie. the beginning of the rock era), when the chart was known as the Top 100. Or is that too difficult a concept for you to understand? [This message was edited Wed Aug 25 9:36:00 2004 by VoicesCarry] Oh my god, check your history! A little history The Billboard HOT 100 has long been regarded as the definitive weekly ranking of America's most popular songs, both in sales and national radio airplay. From 1955 till 1958 Billboard published separate charts: The Best Sellers In Stores, Most Played By Jockeys and Most Played In Jukeboxes, all forerunners to the HOT 100 chart. Its most obvious antecedent was the Top 100 chart, which started in November 1955. The Best Sellers In Stores ended on October 13, 1958 and had during its existence various positions, 25 to 50; Most Played By Jockeys ended on July 28, 1958 and had 20 to 25 positions; Most Played In Jukeboxes lasted till June 17, 1957 and had 20 positions. The above-mentioned Top 100 existed from November 12, 1955 till July 28, 1958. The HOT 100 was created specifically to merge this information into one chart and made its debut on August 4, 1958. By the end of 1958 all mentioned charts were combined into the HOT 100. Over the years, chart methodology has changed many times. One of the last dramatic changes took place late 1998 when airplay-only tracks were allowed to appear on the Hot 100 for the first time. So it wouldn't be necessary anymore to have a single out in order to hit the chart. In the year 2000 the chart had its first album track to reach the summit based on airplay alone. http://home.wxs.nl/~haan0654/hot100.htm This is really an utterly fucking stupid argument that I won't carry on further, but Billboard gives Elvis credit for 17 #1 hits, not 14. However, I know 14 must be the correct number because Joel Whitburn says so!  [This message was edited Wed Aug 25 10:01:03 2004 by VoicesCarry] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LightOfArt said: jayaredee said: I think MJ has to release more music more often if he wants to stay in the game. He has left it so long that people have forgotten the genius and only see the weirdo. Look what happened with the gap between HIStory and Invincible (BOTDF was not really an album) Invincible was thrown to the lions and then he began his Sony protest and calling people devils. It was because he left it too long, and people forgot who MJ was and what he is about and just see this weird man making music. He didn't win over the younger crowd the same way Madonna and Prince did. Invincible was promoted, i seen tv ads, newspaper and magazine ads, reviews. It just didn't sell that well and if you listen to the album you see why. He was hooking up with hot producers/songwriters and trying to do the young crowd thing rather than the "MJ" thing. Had he let Quincy produce that album it would have took off better, IMO or even if he produced it, it would have done better. I don't see MJ around in 10 years, hell i don't see Madonna in 10 years. Prince i do see because he has the musical giftness to keep him going. MJ and Madonna are performers and they won't be able to perform the same and impress the youngins like they used to. If MJ released an album 10 years from now it wouldn't do that well. I disagree there. MJ is as much a musician as his is a performer. him not playing the instruments, doesnt mean he is a bad musician. he's a unique songwriter and singer. he is better at those than Prince imo. prince wins at instruments and producing. I agree invibcible was a bad album. Believe me Michael is more appealing to young generation than Madonna an Prince is. see yourself at ANY mj board. kids love dancers, and mj is a great dancer imo. it was forgiveable he was releasing albums like every 4 years in the past. but he must do more now coz he aint touring anymore. MJ is no musician to Prince, sorry, Prince is a musical genius. Michael holds the hands of hot producers and comes out with big success. And being young myself i know young people do not like MJ as they do Madonna or Prince, you're wrong. I went to see Madonna and there was more teens there than adults. And Prince has a very diverse standing crowd, FULL of young people. Young people view MJ as a head case (which he is) and a pedo. They don't like MJ the same way they do Madonna. As i said they see the weirdo and not the "genius" Besides, parents dont like theire kids listening to MJ or watching him due to his child obsessions. I never said Invincible was a bad album, i think more of it to be an overproduced album covering up MJ's "capabilities" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LightOfArt said: jayaredee said: I think MJ has to release more music more often if he wants to stay in the game. He has left it so long that people have forgotten the genius and only see the weirdo. Look what happened with the gap between HIStory and Invincible (BOTDF was not really an album) Invincible was thrown to the lions and then he began his Sony protest and calling people devils. It was because he left it too long, and people forgot who MJ was and what he is about and just see this weird man making music. He didn't win over the younger crowd the same way Madonna and Prince did. Invincible was promoted, i seen tv ads, newspaper and magazine ads, reviews. It just didn't sell that well and if you listen to the album you see why. He was hooking up with hot producers/songwriters and trying to do the young crowd thing rather than the "MJ" thing. Had he let Quincy produce that album it would have took off better, IMO or even if he produced it, it would have done better. I don't see MJ around in 10 years, hell i don't see Madonna in 10 years. Prince i do see because he has the musical giftness to keep him going. MJ and Madonna are performers and they won't be able to perform the same and impress the youngins like they used to. If MJ released an album 10 years from now it wouldn't do that well. I disagree there. MJ is as much a musician as his is a performer. him not playing the instruments, doesnt mean he is a bad musician. he's a unique songwriter and singer. he is better at those than Prince imo. prince wins at instruments and producing. I agree invibcible was a bad album. Believe me Michael is more appealing to young generation than Madonna an Prince is. see yourself at ANY mj board. kids love dancers, and mj is a great dancer imo. it was forgiveable he was releasing albums like every 4 years in the past. but he must do more now coz he aint touring anymore. That's like going to Alcoholics Anonymous and giving a "Do you like booze?" survey. I've been out of high school for 2 years, and MJ was a joke to most of my peers. They saw him as a pedophile freak who was great maybe 20 years ago. Now that they're older, they mainly see him as a sad, rather pathetic public figure. [This message was edited Wed Aug 25 10:05:17 2004 by VoicesCarry] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: speeddemon said: Oh my god, check your history! A little history The Billboard HOT 100 has long been regarded as the definitive weekly ranking of America's most popular songs, both in sales and national radio airplay. From 1955 till 1958 Billboard published separate charts: The Best Sellers In Stores, Most Played By Jockeys and Most Played In Jukeboxes, all forerunners to the HOT 100 chart. Its most obvious antecedent was the Top 100 chart, which started in November 1955. The Best Sellers In Stores ended on October 13, 1958 and had during its existence various positions, 25 to 50; Most Played By Jockeys ended on July 28, 1958 and had 20 to 25 positions; Most Played In Jukeboxes lasted till June 17, 1957 and had 20 positions. The above-mentioned Top 100 existed from November 12, 1955 till July 28, 1958. The HOT 100 was created specifically to merge this information into one chart and made its debut on August 4, 1958. By the end of 1958 all mentioned charts were combined into the HOT 100. Over the years, chart methodology has changed many times. One of the last dramatic changes took place late 1998 when airplay-only tracks were allowed to appear on the Hot 100 for the first time. So it wouldn't be necessary anymore to have a single out in order to hit the chart. In the year 2000 the chart had its first album track to reach the summit based on airplay alone. http://home.wxs.nl/~haan0654/hot100.htm This is really an utterly fucking stupid argument that I won't carry on further, but Billboard gives Elvis credit for 17 #1 hits, not 14. However, I know 14 must be the correct number because Joel Whitburn says so!
[This message was edited Wed Aug 25 10:01:03 2004 by VoicesCarry] Well, according to Billboard , Elvis had 7 #1s on the Hot 100. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jayaredee said: LightOfArt said: I disagree there. MJ is as much a musician as his is a performer. him not playing the instruments, doesnt mean he is a bad musician. he's a unique songwriter and singer. he is better at those than Prince imo. prince wins at instruments and producing. I agree invibcible was a bad album. Believe me Michael is more appealing to young generation than Madonna an Prince is. see yourself at ANY mj board. kids love dancers, and mj is a great dancer imo. it was forgiveable he was releasing albums like every 4 years in the past. but he must do more now coz he aint touring anymore. MJ is no musician to Prince, sorry, Prince is a musical genius. Michael holds the hands of hot producers and comes out with big success. And being young myself i know young people do not like MJ as they do Madonna or Prince, you're wrong. I went to see Madonna and there was more teens there than adults. And Prince has a very diverse standing crowd, FULL of young people. Young people view MJ as a head case (which he is) and a pedo. They don't like MJ the same way they do Madonna. As i said they see the weirdo and not the "genius" Besides, parents dont like theire kids listening to MJ or watching him due to his child obsessions. I never said Invincible was a bad album, i think more of it to be an overproduced album covering up MJ's "capabilities" Mj is a musical genius too. MJ is a genius at songwriting,singing,performin. NOT at instruments. you may think a musician is an instrumentalist. that is wrong. songwriters are musicians too. IMO as I just mentioned MJ is the better singer and songwriter. Prince is better instrumentalist and producer. so they are both musical geniuses at different things. Michael has more fans than Prince and Madonna. And he has many kid fans, so what I tried to say was MJ has more kid fans than Madonna and P has. But yeah other than that, nonfans only see the weirdo not the genius, as u said. not just kids, both adult and kids that are not fans of him. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
speeddemon said: VoicesCarry said: This is really an utterly fucking stupid argument that I won't carry on further, but Billboard gives Elvis credit for 17 #1 hits, not 14. However, I know 14 must be the correct number because Joel Whitburn says so!
[This message was edited Wed Aug 25 10:01:03 2004 by VoicesCarry] Well, according to Billboard , Elvis had 7 #1s on the Hot 100. elvis sucks. end of story 
no but really, I dont like his music. The music he isnt responsible for. Does anyone here like Elvis's music more than m,mj and prince? just asking... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LightOfArt said: jayaredee said: MJ is no musician to Prince, sorry, Prince is a musical genius. Michael holds the hands of hot producers and comes out with big success. And being young myself i know young people do not like MJ as they do Madonna or Prince, you're wrong. I went to see Madonna and there was more teens there than adults. And Prince has a very diverse standing crowd, FULL of young people. Young people view MJ as a head case (which he is) and a pedo. They don't like MJ the same way they do Madonna. As i said they see the weirdo and not the "genius" Besides, parents dont like theire kids listening to MJ or watching him due to his child obsessions. I never said Invincible was a bad album, i think more of it to be an overproduced album covering up MJ's "capabilities" Mj is a musical genius too. MJ is a genius at songwriting,singing,performin. NOT at instruments. you may think a musician is an instrumentalist. that is wrong. songwriters are musicians too. IMO as I just mentioned MJ is the better singer and songwriter. Prince is better instrumentalist and producer. so they are both musical geniuses at different things. Michael has more fans than Prince and Madonna. And he has many kid fans, so what I tried to say was MJ has more kid fans than Madonna and P has. But yeah other than that, nonfans only see the weirdo not the genius, as u said. not just kids, both adult and kids that are not fans of him. Again no MJ does not have the same fanbase with kids as Madonna and Prince, sorry he doesn't. And Prince is a much better songwriter than MJ. MJ sings songs about how tom sneddon is a cold man and saving the children who are lost. Prince is much more original in his work and MJ these days has no direction. And that comment about Elvis shows how closed minded you really are. You know you shouldn't use a Prince site as an opportunity to defend MJ. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: LightOfArt said: I disagree there. MJ is as much a musician as his is a performer. him not playing the instruments, doesnt mean he is a bad musician. he's a unique songwriter and singer. he is better at those than Prince imo. prince wins at instruments and producing. I agree invibcible was a bad album. Believe me Michael is more appealing to young generation than Madonna an Prince is. see yourself at ANY mj board. kids love dancers, and mj is a great dancer imo. it was forgiveable he was releasing albums like every 4 years in the past. but he must do more now coz he aint touring anymore. That's like going to Alcoholics Anonymous and giving a "Do you like booze?" survey. I've been out of high school for 2 years, and MJ was a joke to most of my peers. They saw him as a pedophile freak who was great maybe 20 years ago. Now that they're older, they mainly see him as a sad, rather pathetic public figure. [This message was edited Wed Aug 25 10:05:17 2004 by VoicesCarry] Thank YOU! Exactly kids these days are still dancing to Madonna. Madonna's "Music" album released when she was 41 was hot among the young crowd. Girls were doing her "don't tell me" dance routine for gym class and the songs off that album were constantly played in the morning over the P.A system. However when MJ released Invincible people knew he can't pull off anything hot for the young kids, hopeless. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jayaredee said: LightOfArt said: Mj is a musical genius too. MJ is a genius at songwriting,singing,performin. NOT at instruments. you may think a musician is an instrumentalist. that is wrong. songwriters are musicians too. IMO as I just mentioned MJ is the better singer and songwriter. Prince is better instrumentalist and producer. so they are both musical geniuses at different things. Michael has more fans than Prince and Madonna. And he has many kid fans, so what I tried to say was MJ has more kid fans than Madonna and P has. But yeah other than that, nonfans only see the weirdo not the genius, as u said. not just kids, both adult and kids that are not fans of him. Again no MJ does not have the same fanbase with kids as Madonna and Prince, sorry he doesn't. And Prince is a much better songwriter than MJ. MJ sings songs about how tom sneddon is a cold man and saving the children who are lost. Prince is much more original in his work and MJ these days has no direction. And that comment about Elvis shows how closed minded you really are. You know you shouldn't use a Prince site as an opportunity to defend MJ. ok, if you dont think MJ is not great songwriter thats your opinion. But many people even here agreed that mj has written some of the greatest songs ever actually there was a topic about that a month ago or so about musical geniuses. mj was mentioned alot of times, not just by mjs LAMBS, in your own words.
And what is making me closeminded? Because I stated the fact that Elvis has written none of his songs, and that I dont like his songs.Do I have to like them?
I'm at a Prince fan because I'm a Prince fan. And by the way we're at NON-Prince board. What do I have to do to become a Prince fan? I have most of his official albums.
Again MJ has more kid fans. Go to MJJforum,mjnewsonline or any forum. Ask peoples ages. Then Come here and ask people here. you'll see the difference yourself. That is what I like about Madonna, nonfans still are somwhat into her music. but if wanna compare fans, mj's got more kid fans. So, just stop fucking with me, u make me wanna scream 
[This message was edited Wed Aug 25 11:15:32 2004 by LightOfArt] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jayaredee said: However when MJ released Invincible people knew he can't pull off anything hot for the young kids, hopeless.
Thank fuck for that. There's enough crap kid fodder on the charts already. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LightOfArt said: jayaredee said: Again no MJ does not have the same fanbase with kids as Madonna and Prince, sorry he doesn't. And Prince is a much better songwriter than MJ. MJ sings songs about how tom sneddon is a cold man and saving the children who are lost. Prince is much more original in his work and MJ these days has no direction. And that comment about Elvis shows how closed minded you really are. You know you shouldn't use a Prince site as an opportunity to defend MJ. ok, if you dont think MJ is not great songwriter thats your opinion. But many people even here agreed that mj has written some of the greatest songs ever actually there was a topic about that a month ago or so about musical geniuses. mj was mentioned alot of times, not just by mjs LAMBS, in your own words.
And what is making me closeminded? Because I stated the fact that Elvis has written none of his songs, and that I dont like his songs.Do I have to like them?
I'm at a Prince fan because I'm a Prince fan. And by the way we're at NON-Prince board. What do I have to do to become a Prince fan? I have most of his official albums.
Again MJ has more kid fans. Go to MJJforum,mjnewsonline or any forum. Ask peoples ages. Then Come here and ask people here. you'll see the difference yourself. That is what I like about Madonna, nonfans still are somwhat into her music. but if wanna compare fans, mj's got more kid fans. So, just stop fucking with me, u make me wanna scream
[This message was edited Wed Aug 25 11:15:32 2004 by LightOfArt] LOL Mj does not have more kid fans, what more do i have to say, just NO he doesn't NO! And the only time i see you on the Prince music board is to defend MJ when an MJ comparison comes up in that board, every time. And god MJ looks ugly and disguisting in that pic, his face makes me wanna scream 
And i would never go to MJJforum because they're full of facists who think MJ is god and defend him like his royal lambs. At least Madonna and Prince fans can admit to their hero's faults. But MJ fans are so closed minded they don't believe MJ is crazy, and follow him like lambs. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I'm tired of people talking shit about Invincible. The only reason folk say it's crap is because Sony didn't allow the album to deliver the usual six or seven hit singles and therefore it didn't last very long on the charts. Unbreakable, Break Of Dawn, Whatever Happens, Speechless and 2000 Watts (yes, 2000 Watts, folks) all had hit potential. And had Sony allowed both You Rock My World & Butterflies a retail release then they would've hit harder, too. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: I'm tired of people talking shit about Invincible. The only reason folk say it's crap is because Sony didn't allow the album to deliver the usual six or seven hit singles and therefore it didn't last very long on the charts. Unbreakable, Break Of Dawn, Whatever Happens, Speechless and 2000 Watts (yes, 2000 Watts, folks) all had hit potential. And had Sony allowed both You Rock My World & Butterflies a retail release then they would've hit harder, too.
They didn't release as many singles cause MJ put no potential singles on that album. Why would they waste money? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jayaredee said: They didn't release as many singles cause MJ put no potential singles on that album. Why would they waste money?
You're wrong. It was record company politics that buried the album. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: jayaredee said: They didn't release as many singles cause MJ put no potential singles on that album. Why would they waste money?
You're wrong. It was record company politics that buried the album. MJ took a loan from Sony anc put his sorry ass into debt, it was his fault. He spends foolishly, for instance shippin his fans to his first court trial LOL | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jayaredee said: Cloudbuster said: You're wrong. It was record company politics that buried the album. MJ took a loan from Sony anc put his sorry ass into debt, it was his fault. He spends foolishly, for instance shippin his fans to his first court trial LOL Im gonna consider it as a joke coz it was a fan club of him who orginzed those busses. I think it was mjni.com | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Despite the medicore "U rock my world", I still bought "Invincable" new!
I was so pleased with the first 3 slammin' tracks as they were funky as hell! Sounded new and fresh from what was on the charts at the time too...no boring n.e.r.d/Timbaland mid tempo's treble sounding low mid tempo's here! ....then album goes downhill.....not bad, just not too hot either.....though "2000 watts" has some cool charm though! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
