MattyJam said:

Not at all.I criticize Madonna when she fucks up.I don't like all of her music.I rarely ever listen to her first three albums.But compared to Michael,she has handled her career amazingly,and she actually evolves as an artist.I call it as I see it.

SoulAlive said:

Madonna has dealt with her career a lot better, particularly in recent years.

But then Michael is where he is largely due to the fact that he doesn't seem to want to be where the likes of Madonna are.

People talk as if he "lost it"... but Invincible was the only below-par album he made. It's not like he's made one bad album after another... the stuff he was doing in the 90s, those bonus songs on Blood On The Dancefloor, and most of Dangerous and HIStory were artistically the best stuff he's ever produced. If his next album is another Invincible then yeah, I may start to wonder whether he really has anything left to offer. But everyone is allowed one or two career fuck-ups. Invincible was Michael's and in a career spanning 35 years it's hardly a criminal offence.

MattyJam said:

I am not sure about that. She only didn´t have to deal with humiliating trials as michael did. She only manages to keep herself in the public, but some of her moves - like kissing Britney and Xtina - show to me some desperation for attention and a need to constantly shock people.
As for Michael, even if his next album sucked, I still wouldn´t have given up on him. Prince last few album are nothing special to me as well, and I still think he´s amazing - one of the best musicians ever. It seems that Michael is the only one who cannot afford to mess up musically - only because it takes him so long to release another stuff. With artist like Madonna and Prince who release album within almost every 2-3 years, it is easier for them to make it up for the last one, but with Mike, one bad album will make ppl say "he lost it" for more than a half of a decade.
But I wouldn´t say Madonna´s still at her peak. The two great albums that she´s made since early 90´s are Erotica and Ray of light, which is not a lot considering how many albums she´s released.
[Edited 10/3/06 3:45am]
[Edited 10/3/06 3:46am]

MattyJam said:

Nope. I really would take Vince over History in a heartbeat.

SoulAlive said:

It's about wanting what those producers have to offer.He's worked with various rappers/producers for almost 20 years now.He's not compromising anything.He's still MJ, no matter who he works with.

Michael doesn't seem to know what he wants anymore, when it comes to creativity. His main aim in the last 20 yrs is to maximize sales, that has meant trying to cover all genres to appeal to many people as possible, getting the 'hot' producer of the day and doing extravagant, expensive videos; lets face it without those costly videos would songs like 'Scream', 'Bad','Smooth Criminal' and even 'Thriller' being even slightly memorable? I doubt it.

Michael has more raw talent than Madonna could ever have, but she has definetly handled her career better than Michael, and this is coming from someone who is NO Madonna fan.

If your primary aim is to maximize sales, no matter how talented you are, you have to compromise and Michael compromise every bit of himself, to the extreme. Reason why fans don't see it has compromise is because no other artist in history has gone to such extremes to try and appeal to has many people as possible, which has now backfired so badly.
[Edited 10/3/06 9:36am]
[Edited 10/3/06 9:44am]

whatsgoingon said:

Do you know about the 'bad' story? MJ wanted to sell 100 million albums; he was dissapointed he didn't.

mikek1 said:

Yep, I heard that story. He was still thinking 100 million albums with 'Dangerous' as well. Someone who was constantly thinking along those lines even though he had already achieved the best selling album of all time, was obviously prepare to compromise to the extreme, and Michael did. In the end it wasn't worth it, considering his older material gets a lot more love than Dangerous, History, Bad and Vince.b

I like how people are writing off MJ's album allready, because history shows that albums that get written off early are always the biggest and best albums. Before Sgt. Pepper's The Beatles had been written off by the critics and then they came out with what is arguably the best album in rock history. Thriller was even written off before its release. Michael Jackson is the next couple of years of music.

DarlingDiana said:

Classic post!

Michael Jackson is at his best when he's not aiming for sales, not working with other producers and just creating art. I'm talking about Morphine, Little Susie, Who Is It, Stranger In Moscow, They Don't Care About Us etc... these songs have very little commercial appeal. Could you really imagine any of them in the charta? I couldn't. That's clearly not what he was chasing with HIStory. I can imagine Michael listening back to most of the tracks off that album and thinking "shit, I need to have a hit on this album" and getting R. Kelly to write You Are Not Alone.

Unfortunately with Invincible it very much did look as if he was chasing trends and concerned with a huge commercial comeback. Hence, the results not being a true artistic expression of who he is.

MattyJam said:

I think Invincible was completely the opposite of what you said. How can he be aiming for a huge commercial success with songs like Speechless and The Lost Children? Pratically the whole second half of Invincible was unmarketable.

DarlingDiana said:

Mike's music hasn't been very commercial (bar the odd song) since Dangerous, and all the more interesting for it. For all people slag Vince off, I was well happy that he returned to his earlier styles of smooth R&B/soul and itchy funk instead of releasing yet another album of jackhammer pop and gloopy ballads. And I still believe that Unbreakable, Whatever Happens and Break Of Dawn coulda been huge had they been issued as singles.

DarlingDiana said:

I'm referring mainly to the up-tempos - 2000 Watts is very N Sync, Heartbreaker and Invincible are both very generic Rodney Jerkins... nothing remotely distinct or unique to MJ. That's what bothers me about those songs. They could've been done by any number of artists.
[Edited 10/4/06 5:41am]

MattyJam said:

Wtf? Heartbreaker and Invincible have Michael's stamp all over them.

MattyJam said:

Is that a bad thing?

MartyMcFly said:

Yes, in my eyes. Michael Jackson shouldn't be chasing the teen pop market. It doesn't suit him and it just simply doesn't ring true.

MattyJam said:

I agree.When I first heard "Heartbreaker",I thought "this sounds like something you would find on an N'Sync album!"

SoulAlive said:

You agree??? With me???

SoulAlive said:

Says the Madonna fan. You get more hilarious with each passing day.

ITCHY FUNK?

On Invincible? Where? Dammit, I shoulda got the green album cover.

Cloudbuster said:

papaa said:

No, try the blue one.

Cloudbuster said:

Oh please, the N'Sync song is called 'The Game is Over'. Sounds exactly like Heartbreaker, and was released first.

Why is it that every time someone says something that you all perceive to be negative about MJ, you all run to attack another artist? I've seen it happen time and again on this board.

DarlingDiana said:

They wrote of "Thriller", but History, vince, Bad etc is No Thriller. History, Vince and even Bad and Dangerous will never reach vintage level. They are practical all over-producer, disjointed and contrieved.

And the reason why some alot of the songs lack popular appeal, is Michael seems to write songs with a kinda of video in mind as oppose to what he use to do on OTW, where lavish videos were not needed to make the songs memorable.

whatsgoingon said:

Shit. Crock. Of.

Rearrange.

whatsgoingon said:

Madonna is not aiming to maximize sales?







I don´t like You Are Not Alone at all. Anyways, music meant for commercial purposes usually always sucks or is much worse. I am also a huge fan of any "non-commercial" music. When it comes to Prince and Mike, my favourite songs are always the ones that never hit the charts. I would pick The Vault or Chaos and dissorter over Musicology Rave or 3121 anytime. My favourite Mj songs are She drives me wild, Little Susie, Smile, I can´t help it, Shout. I´ll never understand how Black or White could have become bigger hit than Who is it, YOu are not alone bigger than Stranger in Moscow etc.

dag said:[quote]

whatsgoingon said:

Of course she cares about sales, but no one cares about sales like MJ. He was still thinking of selling 100 mill after Thriller. He was prepared to change his whole being in the name of sales and mainstream popularity-of course it backfired, badly-but it just goes to show how far MJ was prepared to compromise.

I am just hearing Invincible for the first time right now as we speak. It's a great album. It figures that this would be the one that didn't sale as well. Go figure. He put aside all of that bibble gum pop crap and gets back to his more R&B roots and nobody ran out to buy it.

Am I the only one who doesn't like the idea of MJ going for an urban sound? And since when is R&B his roots? "I Want You Back" and "ABC" were classic pop songs. They were 100%, true blue, pop records. His roots are in pop. I don't care if ya'll think pop is cheesy and plastic. I do too. But at the moment I am so craving for a super-catchy bubble gum pop hit.

I hated Britney Spears and Nsync when they came out. I was totally against how plastic and manufactured they were. But now when I listen to "Baby One More Time" I think 'holy shit! I actually like this', and it's because there hasn't been a great pop song like that for 5-6 years. This whole decade has been bubble-gum-less, and I can't stand it. People are realising that the last few years have been absolutely shithouse for music, but they can't figure out why. Most people think we need more indie, alternative stuff to get the music industry back on track. That's bullshit. We need some motherfucking hits!

When you look back on the last 50 years of music, you don't remember the bullshit alternative crap that some guy living in his mother's basement made on a cheapo 8-track. You remember the pop mega-hits. "Johnny B Goode", "Jailhouse Rock", "She Loves You", "I'm A Believer", "Baby Love", "ABC", "Dancing Queen", "Stayin Alive", "Billie Jean", "Like A Virgin", "Can't Touch This", "Wannabe", "Baby One More Time"... that's what people remember as the songs that shaped rock/pop music of the last 50+ years.

So fuck the roots, fuck artistic expression, fuck all the shit that we've been taught makes a great artist. When makes a great artist in my opinion is hits. You can slag on the pop mega-hits of the last 50 years as much as you want. But the truth is that history shows people loves super-catchy pop mega-hits. Not some bullshit alternative song some hippie made when they were on an acid trip.

Michael, I want to hear some bubble-gum pop that will be remembered in 20 years time, not some street jam that people will hear one week and forget about the next. Bring on the cheese!!

whatsgoingon said:[quote]

dag said:

Yes, MJ might be a bit too ambitious, but I wouldn´t agree that he was prepared to compromise. I mean, Bad was quite a risk, I´d say. It sounded nothing like Thriller or Off the Wall, he could have not predicted the responce of the audience. It was something brand new and innovative and he could only pray that ppl would love it.
I don´t think he tries to be succesful by compromising. He tries to reach succes by being "the best, perfect". That´s why it takes him ages to release a new stuff, that´s why he puts so much effort into making the best music videos ever. He tries to create "art" as with Smooth Criminal, Ghosts, Remember the time, Black or white.
BTW I am suprise that you see MJ this way, cause I can see more of Madonna in the highlighted sentece. Mike is still Mike - singing about healing planet, dressing still the same way, dancing Moonwalk etc. Look at Madonna and her transformations she has made with every record she releases, but she calls it self-reinvention.