New topic
PrintableI have a problem saying a new artist is relevant based solely off of how popular he/she is at the moment; and, how many platinum albums have been sold by that person, because when the question of "Who was a big influence on you when you were growing up" comes about in one of their interviews, they almost always name one or more of these four greats. I've heard new artists name everyone from Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Elvis, Areatha Franklin, Run DMC, Metallica, James Brown, Johnny Cash, Tupac, Biggie, and so on; and, many of these artists haven't made an album in years. If they have, I don't remember any of them going platinum. Simply put, the copies aren't relevant without the originals...and that's what 95% of the new "artists" are...copies (and terrible ones at that). I do agree that many young people don't find MJ, Prince, Madonna, and Janet relevant anymore, but that's also because many of them are too lazy to see past the newer artists that are played in heavy rotation on the radio and MTV. What screaming, 12 year old is going to vote for a Prince, Madonna, or Janet video, when radio stations and MTV play Chris Brown, Fergie, and Panic! at the Disco every 5 minutes? These new artists should be thankful if anyone remembers them 5 years from now, let along 20+ years. People, young and old, know who MJ, Prince, Madonna, and Janet are. Longetivity over temporary popularity should be the most important thing to any REAL artist anyway. Prince Rogers Nelson
Sunrise: June 7, 1958 Sunset: April 21, 2016 ~My Heart Loudly Weeps "My Creativity Is My Life." ~ Prince Life is merely a dress rehearsal for eternity. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
 It is not known why FuNkeNsteiN capitalizes his name as he does, though some speculate sunlight deficiency caused by the most pimpified white guy afro in Nordic history.
- Lammastide | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
skyecute said: lilgish said: Prince is in the worst shape them all of them.
No one, I mean No one bumps Prince, at least not in New York City. I meet young ppl who didn't experience these guys in their prime and they never mention Prince or have him in their Ipod. I started a new job with a large staff 2 months ago. I've had one conversation with a girl about Madonna, One person was humming So Excited, another had it playing on their phone. One guy hums MJ songs all day, a young girl, no more than 21, had the song Dangerous playing in her Ipod the pther day. I turned around and looked at her like  and she was rocking that shit like it was 91/92.
Amongst the pedestrian/casual music fan, Prince is not on their radar, even after musicology. Many young Prince fans are sophisticated or got into Prince through other artists. As much as I berated Prince for his commercial endeavors, he really needs to stay in the public eye to remain relevant amongst casual music listeners. No matter what casual music fans think of the other 3, they certainly think about them more. [Edited 11/26/06 6:06am] I couldn't agree more with what you said about MJ. Despite the non-stop negativity thrown at him, HE is STILL the most relevant and influential among all of the four artists mentioned. When you hear little kids, who can't be more than 8 years old, saying>"He is dancing like Michael Jackson or he has moves like Michael Jackson, then you know that this man is still influencing music. It is obvious that these little kids haven't seen much RECENT MJ music or videos; therefore, it is only plausible that they are hearing about Michael through their parents, big sisters and big brothers, etc. My daughter says that when she goes to clubs, it is Michael's music who gets EVERYONE moving on the dancefloor. She also says that it is MJ's music that is the most requested. No matter what the media claims, Michael is NOT over and will never be over. His music is the only one out of the four that transcends EVERY generation on a major scale. He appeals as much to 80 year olds as the does the little 6 and 7 year old kids. He also has that built-in appeal to teenagers because of his obvious influence on young artists such as Chris Brown, Usher, Neyo, Beyonce, Ciara and every other rap, hip-hop, R&B and pop artist out there. Detractors can say what they want about Michael, but the aforementioned artists ALL give MJ his props. DJ's are axiously awaiting new Micheal Jackson music and if it is anything like Invincible, they will play the hell out of it. Another example of just how much Michael is still loved is the fact that they had a MJ vs. Prince marathon in my city. The DJ's would play MJ songs and then play Prince songs. The callers would have to call in and vote for their favorite song. Michael WON hands down. Finally, when Michael was acquitted, R&B radio showed him MAJOR love by having MARATHONS of his music. A radio station in my city played a TWO-HOUR block of MJ songs. I have read that the same thing from fans who said that the exact same thing happened in their cities all across the US and around the world. Again, Michael is still very relevant and influential, despite the media's propaganda that he is not. People have to be smart enough not to fall for the media's hype. I totally disagree.Of the four artists,it is Madonna who has handled her career the best.In the pop music world,she is much more relevent than the other three.Michael has too many "issues" that prevent his career from moving forward.Prince made a nice comeback in 2004,but his career had many problems in the 90s.Janet simply never evolves and grows as an artist.Madonna just finshed her third tour in five years and of course,it was the year's biggest tour.She stays busy and focused. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SoulAlive said: Janet simply never evolves and grows as an artist.
You're the one who thinks all she's said in her music is "FUCK ME" since Rhythm Nation, right? Which just tells me that you haven't bothered to listen to her music since 1989. Which is fine, but you're no better than a Madonna detractor who took one look at the Sex book and never listened to her.  Same old shit. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
as pop stars, perhaps. but not necessarily as artists or muscians.
let's not confuse these. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
avasdad said: so much discussion about these artist and about how radio, mtv, etc...don't play the songs/videos....
The reality is their music is not as relavent as it was, Madonna - how many times can this woman "change"???....1st she was catholic, then jewish, then kabbala... then it was street than french, than spanish, the english....too much work. MJ: where do we even begin...Thriller was the "shit", but Thriller (pt2) "Bad", Thriller (pt3) "Dangerous", Thriller (pt4) "Invincible"...damn Mike change your sound...people get confused. Oh by the way blaming Tommy Mottola for not buying your album was a "crock"...put music out that people will buy. Also hire a new dance instructor those same moves you have been doing since the 80's is a joke and predictable. "sharing your bed with young boys" will be hard to shake in the general publics eye. Janet: "nipple gate" was the best thing that happen to you, without that happening how many people would of bought Damita Jo??? You gave your career over to JD who had a history of making hits of newer artists...not you.... Don't blame your record company that they didn't promote your album, your on talk shows and radio...people knew you were putting it out...too bad they didn't show up.... Prince: the name change killed your career, boycotting radio, MTV, major labels didn't help. You signed the contract in "92", didn't you read it??? You should of fired your lawyers for letting you sign it..instead of blaming WB's. Now you're playing Vegas..does a free cocktail come with the show??? it just seems to me that it's always someone else's fault when thier record tanks...we just need to accept they facts they these artist are past their prime...kids today don't get that excited over artist over their 40's Mariah...your next!!!! Michael Jackson hasn't released an album since Invincible in 2001, and that album was hardly promoted by Michael or Sony. Michael Jackson has had many legal issues to sort out, so I say your view that he isn't relevent is pure bull shit because he hasn't relesed a flop album yet. Even Invincible sold 8 million copies world wide in less than a year. And Justin Timberlake's success album Justified sold less than Invincible with with world wide sales of 7 million. Another fact is in Europe Michael Jackson is the most sampled artist by DJ's, and his vocals on past hits like Say, Say, Say are sampled and often big hit singles. It's highly unlikely a Michael Jackson album and single will be No.1 in many countries around the world. Another thing is the rumour of Michael Jackson being broke is just a rumour, as nothing has been proven that he is broke and living of friends. Michael Jackson owns two very lucrative publishing companies ATV/Sony (which MJ owns 50%) and MiJac Music which publishes his own songs and that of Sly & The Family Stone and many other artists. I doubt Michael would make Thriller 2, 3, 4 and 5 because Bad, Dangerous and other albums post Thriller are very different. Janet Jackson, who cares if she's relevent. She's a good artist/collaborator but nothing special. Yeah Prince did ruin his career, by changing his name to a symbol etc.I think he's making a great comeback, but Prince was never an artist with a career based in chart success. Don't forget Madonna wasn't a relevent artist for most of the 1990's because her Sex books ruined her career for many years. At the 1995 Brit Awards the media attention on Prince NOT Madonna, and at the 1995 MTV Awards the media attention on Michael Jackson NOT Madonna. Also Madonna isn't a musican, she's purely a commercial act. She's not a natural talent, but a ruthless pop star who really knows how to use her payed collboraters to get the sound she wants. Madonna doesn't seem to have the natural genius of Michael Jackson or Prince to write and compose many classic songs that have changed the face of music. I'm sure Michael Jackson will be doing many relevent things in the music world, that are bigger, better and more relevent than Madonna from late 2007. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Isolar said: avasdad said: so much discussion about these artist and about how radio, mtv, etc...don't play the songs/videos....
The reality is their music is not as relavent as it was, Madonna - how many times can this woman "change"???....1st she was catholic, then jewish, then kabbala... then it was street than french, than spanish, the english....too much work. MJ: where do we even begin...Thriller was the "shit", but Thriller (pt2) "Bad", Thriller (pt3) "Dangerous", Thriller (pt4) "Invincible"...damn Mike change your sound...people get confused. Oh by the way blaming Tommy Mottola for not buying your album was a "crock"...put music out that people will buy. Also hire a new dance instructor those same moves you have been doing since the 80's is a joke and predictable. "sharing your bed with young boys" will be hard to shake in the general publics eye. Janet: "nipple gate" was the best thing that happen to you, without that happening how many people would of bought Damita Jo??? You gave your career over to JD who had a history of making hits of newer artists...not you.... Don't blame your record company that they didn't promote your album, your on talk shows and radio...people knew you were putting it out...too bad they didn't show up.... Prince: the name change killed your career, boycotting radio, MTV, major labels didn't help. You signed the contract in "92", didn't you read it??? You should of fired your lawyers for letting you sign it..instead of blaming WB's. Now you're playing Vegas..does a free cocktail come with the show??? it just seems to me that it's always someone else's fault when thier record tanks...we just need to accept they facts they these artist are past their prime...kids today don't get that excited over artist over their 40's Mariah...your next!!!! Michael Jackson hasn't released an album since Invincible in 2001, and that album was hardly promoted by Michael or Sony. Michael Jackson has had many legal issues to sort out, so I say your view that he isn't relevent is pure bull shit because he hasn't relesed a flop album yet. Even Invincible sold 8 million copies world wide in less than a year. And Justin Timberlake's success album Justified sold less than Invincible with with world wide sales of 7 million. Another fact is in Europe Michael Jackson is the most sampled artist by DJ's, and his vocals on past hits like Say, Say, Say are sampled and often big hit singles. It's highly unlikely a Michael Jackson album and single will be No.1 in many countries around the world. Another thing is the rumour of Michael Jackson being broke is just a rumour, as nothing has been proven that he is broke and living of friends. Michael Jackson owns two very lucrative publishing companies ATV/Sony (which MJ owns 50%) and MiJac Music which publishes his own songs and that of Sly & The Family Stone and many other artists. I doubt Michael would make Thriller 2, 3, 4 and 5 because Bad, Dangerous and other albums post Thriller are very different. Janet Jackson, who cares if she's relevent. She's a good artist/collaborator but nothing special. Yeah Prince did ruin his career, by changing his name to a symbol etc.I think he's making a great comeback, but Prince was never an artist with a career based in chart success. Don't forget Madonna wasn't a relevent artist for most of the 1990's because her Sex books ruined her career for many years. At the 1995 Brit Awards the media attention on Prince NOT Madonna, and at the 1995 MTV Awards the media attention on Michael Jackson NOT Madonna. Also Madonna isn't a musican, she's purely a commercial act. She's not a natural talent, but a ruthless pop star who really knows how to use her payed collboraters to get the sound she wants. Madonna doesn't seem to have the natural genius of Michael Jackson or Prince to write and compose many classic songs that have changed the face of music. I'm sure Michael Jackson will be doing many relevent things in the music world, that are bigger, better and more relevent than Madonna from late 2007. This thread is becoming hilarious 
"Madonna wasn't a relevent artist for most of the 1990s because her Sex book ruined her career" Bullshit.Shortly after the 'Sex' book,Madonna had the biggest hit single of her career,"Take A Bow".Then after that,she did 'Evita' and 'Ray Of Light',two of her career highlights.Around this time,Michael was going through a child molestation trial while Prince was going around,insisting that people refer to him as a nameless symbol  In addition,Madonna ended the decade with 5 Grammys in 1999.She thrived in the 90s. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
"I'm sure Michael Jackson will be doing many relevent things in the music world that are bigger,better and more relevent than Madonna from the late 2007"
Oooh,let's see... ***A New CD that will takes YEARS to finish? He will call up every trendy, popular R&B and hip-hop producer,spend millions of dollars,and come up with 'Invincible Part 2'. ***A tour? He can't even muster up the strength to do a single performance,much less a grueling,6-month world tour.
yeah,it looks like you got alot to look forward to | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: SoulAlive said: Janet simply never evolves and grows as an artist.
Same old shit. Your words,not mine
seriously,are you gonna deny that her latest CD is nothing more than yet another sex-themed R&B album? I have heard the album and it is just more of the same breathy come-ons and sexy lyrics that she's been doing for awhile now.Image-wise,she's still playing the smiling sex kitten that she's been playing since 1993. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SoulAlive said: seriously,are you gonna deny that her latest CD is nothing more than yet another sex-themed R&B album? I have heard the album and it is just more of the same breathy come-ons and sexy lyrics that she's been doing for awhile now.
Nope, since you were speaking of her entire output after 1989 when you made that comment, that's what I was referring to. Not merely her 2006 album, which is not representative of what I'm talking about. I would direct you to: -This Time -New Agenda -Again -Where Are You Now -What'll I Do -Velvet Rope -Got 'Til It's Gone -You -Free Xone -Together Again -Empty -What About -I Get Lonely -Trust A Try -Better Days Image-wise,she's still playing the smiling sex kitten that she's been playing since 1993.
Maybe you actually need to go listen to her records for once instead of looking at her publicity photos and whining about her image. You're no different from the Madonna detractors who took one look at her Sex book and labeled her a slut for the rest of her career. [Edited 12/11/06 5:21am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |