musicjunky318 said:

Madonna and Michael Jackson are more popular than respected. Britney Spears...Popular, not respected. Then there are high levels of both like the Beatles. Popular AND respected pretty much down the middle.

I can't agree with this statement. Both of them are recognized as being highly influential musicians and cultural figures. Both of them are still the benchmark to which all others that have come afterward and even during are still compared to until this day. It's statements like these, the whole part in which I quoted actually, that become the reason why discussions start to go into sales. Hell, even the irony of your about who is 'respected' as opposed to 'popular' is that all the other people you have listed as being 'respected musicians', save for Aretha Franklin, have all still sold a huge number of records.

Stevie Wonder, along with Bob Marley, has sold about 90 million records worldwide. They are still considered to be POPULAR even though they are not, currently, in the Billboard Top 100 at the moment. If The Kinks or the Velvet Underground sold way more than the Beatles who would we be talking about now? Would anyone consider The Dark Side of the Moon to be Pink Floyd's greatest album if not for the fact that it's one of the best selling albums of all time? Same goes for Thriller. Who says that it is MJ's best work and/or album? Had it not sold the 60+ million copies that it has, would the album still bear the harsh reviews that it received before?

It would have been different if you had called out people such as Les Paul or Jeff Magnum. Those are better examples of respected musicians who have never sold huge numbers.

At the end, of the day though, I think that sales have always mattered, because it is a business, first and foremost. The more you sell, the bigger your legend becomes and the more appealing your product tends to be.

As for me though? I really don't care, because sales don't influence my decision to listen to any song, it's the song itself. I don't care if 200 music critics praised it to high heaven either or if 200,000,000 people bought it. What it boils down to, ultimately, is my opinion and my opinion only.

[Edited 12/30/10 8:01am]

For me personally sales mean NADA in terms of appreciating music. Its the quality of the music that counts in the first place, not about how many records someone sells.

Most artists I love aren't really big sellers and dont even reach the album top 100 lists or barely make it to that list. Often artists with a small but loyal fanbase, or who are 'critics darlings' but (relatively) unknown among the mainstream crowd.

A thing I can't stand though, is when people use the 'argument' Michael Jackson / Lady Gaga / Garth Brooks / or fill in the name of any other big seller... is a better artist then.... fill in any name... because he or she sells more albums. Not everyone that 'sells' is automatically better: its probably better dumbed down to teenybopper 'taste' or better marketed, but thats something different... lol

But i admit, from time time, i have the thought: Why the hell crap like this and that sells millions...or more like: is appreciated by many... when that other artist i know, who makes music just as good or far better then whats in the charts, gets no recognition at all.

Unholyalliance said:

musicjunky318 said:

Madonna and Michael Jackson are more popular than respected. Britney Spears...Popular, not respected. Then there are high levels of both like the Beatles. Popular AND respected pretty much down the middle.

I can't agree with this statement. Both of them are recognized as being highly influential musicians and cultural figures. Both of them are still the benchmark to which all others that have come afterward and even during are still compared to until this day. It's statements like these, the whole part in which I quoted actually, that become the reason why discussions start to go into sales. Hell, even the irony of your about who is 'respected' as opposed to 'popular' is that all the other people you have listed as being 'respected musicians', save for Aretha Franklin, have all still sold a huge number of records.

Stevie Wonder, along with Bob Marley, has sold about 90 million records worldwide. They are still considered to be POPULAR even though they are not, currently, in the Billboard Top 100 at the moment. If The Kinks or the Velvet Underground sold way more than the Beatles who would we be talking about now? Would anyone consider The Dark Side of the Moon to be Pink Floyd's greatest album if not for the fact that it's one of the best selling albums of all time? Same goes for Thriller. Who says that it is MJ's best work and/or album? Had it not sold the 60+ million copies that it has, would the album still bear the harsh reviews that it received before?

It would have been different if you had called out people such as Les Paul or Jeff Magnum. Those are better examples of respected musicians who have never sold huge numbers.

At the end, of the day though, I think that sales have always mattered, because it is a business, first and foremost. The more you sell, the bigger your legend becomes and the more appealing your product tends to be.

As for me though? I really don't care, because sales don't influence my decision to listen to any song, it's the song itself. I don't care if 200 music critics praised it to high heaven either or if 200,000,000 people bought it. What it boils down to, ultimately, is my opinion and my opinion only.

[Edited 12/30/10 8:01am]

Great Post.................................

Cornelius1973 said:

Not everyone that 'sells' is automatically better: its probably better dumbed down to teenybopper 'taste' or better marketed, but thats something different... lol

Yeah ITA. I can not tell you how popular Garth Brooks is with the teenybopper crowd. Words can not even express it...

I just did use Garth Brooks as an example of a big selling artist.

I didnt say his music in particular is dumbed down for teenyboppers (its country 'poppiefied' for the mainstream-market anyway.. lol). Some other music in the charts is, but it doesnt automatically apply to anyone who sells a lot. And not everyone who sells a lot is automatically a bad artist or so...

See the nuances there?

Unholyalliance said:

musicjunky318 said:

Madonna and Michael Jackson are more popular than respected. Britney Spears...Popular, not respected. Then there are high levels of both like the Beatles. Popular AND respected pretty much down the middle.

I can't agree with this statement. Both of them are recognized as being highly influential musicians and cultural figures. Both of them are still the benchmark to which all others that have come afterward and even during are still compared to until this day. It's statements like these, the whole part in which I quoted actually, that become the reason why discussions start to go into sales. Hell, even the irony of your about who is 'respected' as opposed to 'popular' is that all the other people you have listed as being 'respected musicians', save for Aretha Franklin, have all still sold a huge number of records.

Stevie Wonder, along with Bob Marley, has sold about 90 million records worldwide. They are still considered to be POPULAR even though they are not, currently, in the Billboard Top 100 at the moment. If The Kinks or the Velvet Underground sold way more than the Beatles who would we be talking about now? Would anyone consider The Dark Side of the Moon to be Pink Floyd's greatest album if not for the fact that it's one of the best selling albums of all time? Same goes for Thriller. Who says that it is MJ's best work and/or album? Had it not sold the 60+ million copies that it has, would the album still bear the harsh reviews that it received before?

It would have been different if you had called out people such as Les Paul or Jeff Magnum. Those are better examples of respected musicians who have never sold huge numbers.

At the end, of the day though, I think that sales have always mattered, because it is a business, first and foremost. The more you sell, the bigger your legend becomes and the more appealing your product tends to be.

As for me though? I really don't care, because sales don't influence my decision to listen to any song, it's the song itself. I don't care if 200 music critics praised it to high heaven either or if 200,000,000 people bought it. What it boils down to, ultimately, is my opinion and my opinion only.

[Edited 12/30/10 8:01am]

Yes i would say the are actually quite respected. MJ For his dancing and vocal ability. Madonna for her ever changing image and genres, going from dance to jazzy to rock to electronica etc.

Some other musicians i highly love but never sold well, but are truly on a respect level. Are Patti Smith & iggy Pop both of them have barely gone platinum. But there thought as the grandparents of punk, and have won lot's of respect in the music world.

I do check out an artist's cd sales because I equate it with their popularity. Record labels are the same way too. Ciara's cd drop last week and so far it has underperformed. That tells me though she's well known people are not interested ih her music.

Unholyalliance said:

musicjunky318 said:

Madonna and Michael Jackson are more popular than respected. Britney Spears...Popular, not respected. Then there are high levels of both like the Beatles. Popular AND respected pretty much down the middle.

I can't agree with this statement. Both of them are recognized as being highly influential musicians and cultural figures. Both of them are still the benchmark to which all others that have come afterward and even during are still compared to until this day. It's statements like these, the whole part in which I quoted actually, that become the reason why discussions start to go into sales. Hell, even the irony of your about who is 'respected' as opposed to 'popular' is that all the other people you have listed as being 'respected musicians', save for Aretha Franklin, have all still sold a huge number of records.

Stevie Wonder, along with Bob Marley, has sold about 90 million records worldwide. They are still considered to be POPULAR even though they are not, currently, in the Billboard Top 100 at the moment. If The Kinks or the Velvet Underground sold way more than the Beatles who would we be talking about now? Would anyone consider The Dark Side of the Moon to be Pink Floyd's greatest album if not for the fact that it's one of the best selling albums of all time? Same goes for Thriller. Who says that it is MJ's best work and/or album? Had it not sold the 60+ million copies that it has, would the album still bear the harsh reviews that it received before?

It would have been different if you had called out people such as Les Paul or Jeff Magnum. Those are better examples of respected musicians who have never sold huge numbers.

At the end, of the day though, I think that sales have always mattered, because it is a business, first and foremost. The more you sell, the bigger your legend becomes and the more appealing your product tends to be.

As for me though? I really don't care, because sales don't influence my decision to listen to any song, it's the song itself. I don't care if 200 music critics praised it to high heaven either or if 200,000,000 people bought it. What it boils down to, ultimately, is my opinion and my opinion only.

[Edited 12/30/10 8:01am]

When I say respected I don't mean only musically I mean as people as well. Michael & Madonna are criticized in a lot of ways Marley & Wonder aren't. They're a lot more polarizing.

Why do people always say "Michael Jackson and Madonna" ? She's no where near his level in terms of popularity, influence, talent, fame and success.

trueiopian said:

Why do people always say "Michael Jackson and Madonna" ? She's no where near his level in terms of popularity, influence, talent, fame and success.

Considering she's the best selling female of all time and he's the best selling male. Not to mention she's dubbed the queen of pop. I would say popularity wise yes there on the same level i do not know one person who doesn't know who either of them are.

Musically is up for debate, i will say 99 percent of these pop tarts that have come out from the 90's till now where all inspired by Madonna, Britney, Christina, GaGa, Katy Perry, Keri Hilson, Even Fantasia

Gunsnhalen said:

trueiopian said:

Why do people always say "Michael Jackson and Madonna" ? She's no where near his level in terms of popularity, influence, talent, fame and success.

Considering she's the best selling female of all time and he's the best selling male. Not to mention she's dubbed the queen of pop. I would say popularity wise yes there on the same level i do not know one person who doesn't know who either of them are.

Musically is up for debate, i will say 99 percent of these pop tarts that have come out from the 90's till now where all inspired by Madonna, Britney, Christina, GaGa, Katy Perry, Keri Hilson, Even Fantasia

They're no where near the same level and 99% of the pop tarts aren't inspired by her. Give me a break! Why people overrate her is beyond me.

Its not important at all, most of what i hold on too, doesnt really sell at all, most of the artists have long since been forgotten in this country basically. To me its more about artists getting their due with respect from "so called" other artists and writers and things like that. But those things matter less and less now, i mean i havent really even looked at a Billboard Magazine since sometime in the 90's and really really looked at it, probably since 1988-1989, i mean i worked in music for so long that i had to know and be on top of what was hot and what people wanted, but at the end of the day, most of the stuff i was getting for people i hated, i would always try to turn them on to something i THOUGHT they should have, basically it rarely worked but hey that 1% got something cool. Im more about "longevity" and also putting out new music, not tredding water, thats why this current Prince tour is bugging the shit out of me, because it seems so "great adventure" like? i mean those of you who get what im saying, im saying that although he can wipe the stage with others as a performer hands down, it just seems so worn out at this point, we im just like "ok time for the show" shit years ago i had like a big countdown to the show, bought new attire just for the show, and cared a bit more with him, but he's not stirking me that way, at least not now.

So back on the topic, sales dont mean shit to me, i mean a-ha is my favorite artist of all time and always will be, but they have not had a HIT in america since "the sun always shines on tv" peaked at Number 20 in 1986, but worldwide they are huge and thats allowed them to keep putting out stuff. I often hear people talk how its great to be indie this that and the other, but them see them posting on the Ciara threads about selling 40,000 albums, i mean do u know what 40,000 would mean to an indie artist? so its almost like a double standard with peeps. Sales dont matter, unless u are with a label and selling 40,000 copies, then u suck, but if you are free then you are great? So at times people are a HUGE contradiction.

trueiopian said:

Gunsnhalen said:

Considering she's the best selling female of all time and he's the best selling male. Not to mention she's dubbed the queen of pop. I would say popularity wise yes there on the same level i do not know one person who doesn't know who either of them are.

Musically is up for debate, i will say 99 percent of these pop tarts that have come out from the 90's till now where all inspired by Madonna, Britney, Christina, GaGa, Katy Perry, Keri Hilson, Even Fantasia

They're no where near the same level and 99% of the pop tarts aren't inspired by her. Give me a break! Why people overrate her is beyond me.

If they aren't then why do they cover her song's and sight her as in influence?

lastdecember said:

Its not important at all, most of what i hold on too, doesnt really sell at all, most of the artists have long since been forgotten in this country basically. To me its more about artists getting their due with respect from "so called" other artists and writers and things like that. But those things matter less and less now, i mean i havent really even looked at a Billboard Magazine since sometime in the 90's and really really looked at it, probably since 1988-1989, i mean i worked in music for so long that i had to know and be on top of what was hot and what people wanted, but at the end of the day, most of the stuff i was getting for people i hated, i would always try to turn them on to something i THOUGHT they should have, basically it rarely worked but hey that 1% got something cool. Im more about "longevity" and also putting out new music, not tredding water, thats why this current Prince tour is bugging the shit out of me, because it seems so "great adventure" like? i mean those of you who get what im saying, im saying that although he can wipe the stage with others as a performer hands down, it just seems so worn out at this point, we im just like "ok time for the show" shit years ago i had like a big countdown to the show, bought new attire just for the show, and cared a bit more with him, but he's not stirking me that way, at least not now.

So back on the topic, sales dont mean shit to me, i mean a-ha is my favorite artist of all time and always will be, but they have not had a HIT in america since "the sun always shines on tv" peaked at Number 20 in 1986, but worldwide they are huge and thats allowed them to keep putting out stuff. I often hear people talk how its great to be indie this that and the other, but them see them posting on the Ciara threads about selling 40,000 albums, i mean do u know what 40,000 would mean to an indie artist? so its almost like a double standard with peeps. Sales dont matter, unless u are with a label and selling 40,000 copies, then u suck, but if you are free then you are great? So at times people are a HUGE contradiction.

Hey, great example there, A-HA i am also a big fan!, they have made some great and diverse music. But sadly most only know them for Take On me

Gunsnhalen said:

trueiopian said:

They're no where near the same level and 99% of the pop tarts aren't inspired by her. Give me a break! Why people overrate her is beyond me.

If they aren't then why do they cover her song's and sight her as in influence?

You listed 6 artists but I guess to you that's 99% of the Pop artists out there

Gunsnhalen said:

lastdecember said:

Its not important at all, most of what i hold on too, doesnt really sell at all, most of the artists have long since been forgotten in this country basically. To me its more about artists getting their due with respect from "so called" other artists and writers and things like that. But those things matter less and less now, i mean i havent really even looked at a Billboard Magazine since sometime in the 90's and really really looked at it, probably since 1988-1989, i mean i worked in music for so long that i had to know and be on top of what was hot and what people wanted, but at the end of the day, most of the stuff i was getting for people i hated, i would always try to turn them on to something i THOUGHT they should have, basically it rarely worked but hey that 1% got something cool. Im more about "longevity" and also putting out new music, not tredding water, thats why this current Prince tour is bugging the shit out of me, because it seems so "great adventure" like? i mean those of you who get what im saying, im saying that although he can wipe the stage with others as a performer hands down, it just seems so worn out at this point, we im just like "ok time for the show" shit years ago i had like a big countdown to the show, bought new attire just for the show, and cared a bit more with him, but he's not stirking me that way, at least not now.

So back on the topic, sales dont mean shit to me, i mean a-ha is my favorite artist of all time and always will be, but they have not had a HIT in america since "the sun always shines on tv" peaked at Number 20 in 1986, but worldwide they are huge and thats allowed them to keep putting out stuff. I often hear people talk how its great to be indie this that and the other, but them see them posting on the Ciara threads about selling 40,000 albums, i mean do u know what 40,000 would mean to an indie artist? so its almost like a double standard with peeps. Sales dont matter, unless u are with a label and selling 40,000 copies, then u suck, but if you are free then you are great? So at times people are a HUGE contradiction.

Hey, great example there, A-HA i am also a big fan!, they have made some great and diverse music. But sadly most only know them for Take On me

Yeah i mean the success of that and other hits early on in the UK allowed them to keep going, successful tours etc...so in a way, especially back then U needed sales, now u could make things happen for less. I mean an interesting a-ha fact was back in 1991 they played (and set a guiness record) at Rock In Rio, now it was four days of shows, and one day Prince, next George Michael, next Guns N Roses and then a-ha, a-ha outsold them all who were all at their peaks, but showed the power of "universal" success. So i think sales then and now are very different animals

lastdecember said:

Gunsnhalen said:

Hey, great example there, A-HA i am also a big fan!, they have made some great and diverse music. But sadly most only know them for Take On me

Yeah i mean the success of that and other hits early on in the UK allowed them to keep going, successful tours etc...so in a way, especially back then U needed sales, now u could make things happen for less. I mean an interesting a-ha fact was back in 1991 they played (and set a guiness record) at Rock In Rio, now it was four days of shows, and one day Prince, next George Michael, next Guns N Roses and then a-ha, a-ha outsold them all who were all at their peaks, but showed the power of "universal" success. So i think sales then and now are very different animals

This is another factor, i know another one of my favorite artist's Grace Jones, has never been really fully accepted by the mainstream radio in the U.S. But worldwide she is huge, on another note i noticed is. It's rare for an album to go over platinum nowadays, back then going 3, 4, 5 million seemed natural for a ton of artist's. A lot of good one's to, and it's rare that an album is a juggernaut going diamond or above in the U.S alone.

musicjunky318 said:

When I say respected I don't mean only musically I mean as people as well. Michael & Madonna are criticized in a lot of ways Marley & Wonder aren't. They're a lot more polarizing.

That's because MJ & Madonna are/were controversial cultural figures. Both of them have gone beyond being huge figures in music and have become large cultural figures as well. Even the Marquis de Sade and Oscar Wilde were controversial, but I have never heard of any self-respecting scholar referring to them as being more 'popular' rather than 'respected' because of it. That doesn't make any sense to me.

I can, honestly, say in this case that you are underrating her & her humongous musical and cultural impact. Even if every single pop tart that has come out afterwards isn't 100% inspired by her, she will continue to be the benchmark to which all of them will be compared to until someone else comes along, but I kind of doubt it because of the sheer amount of her accomplishments.

Unholyalliance said:

trueiopian said:

They're no where near the same level and 99% of the pop tarts aren't inspired by her. Give me a break! Why people overrate her is beyond me.

I can, honestly, say in this case that you are underrating her & her humongous musical and cultural impact. Even if every single pop tart that has come out afterwards isn't 100% inspired by her, she will continue to be the benchmark to which all of them will be compared to until someone else comes along, but I kind of doubt it because of the sheer amount of her accomplishments.

I'm in no way underrating her because that's not possible. She's beyond overrated. Not every pop tart out there is inspired by her or compared to her. Madonna isn't the be all and end all of female artists in Pop music. Case closed.

Sales don't mean a damn thing to me, never have, never will.

I don't care if an album sells 300 or 3000,000 copies, if i like it, that is all that matters.

trueiopian said:

I'm in no way underrating her because that's not possible. She's beyond overrated. Not every pop tart out there is inspired by her or compared to her. Madonna isn't the be all and end all of female artists in Pop music. Case closed.

Yes, they are, especially if they are following in that girl's footsteps and are really successful at it. Unless they manage to carve their own unique road. Well, no matter what I try to say you are going to see what you want to see what you want to see anyways.

sales are just icing on the cake and provide a small amount of pride, I suppose.

all that sales mean to me, really, is that if they're good, you're likely to get another album or single out of an artist that you like. no sales, and the opportunities to hear their music dry up pretty quickly.

errant said:

sales are just icing on the cake and provide a small amount of pride, I suppose.

all that sales mean to me, really, is that if they're good, you're likely to get another album or single out of an artist that you like. no sales, and the opportunities to hear their music dry up pretty quickly.

I like this post.

trueiopian said:

Why do people always say "Michael Jackson and Madonna" ? She's no where near his level in terms of popularity, influence, talent, fame and success.

I disagree.Madonna is arguably the biggest,most successful female artist ever.If Michael was the King of Pop,then Madonna could certainly be called the Queen of Pop.Even now,she's still breaking records and accomplishing great things.Her most recent tour in 2008/2009 was the most successful tour ever by a female performer.

SoulAlive said:

trueiopian said:

Why do people always say "Michael Jackson and Madonna" ? She's no where near his level in terms of popularity, influence, talent, fame and success.

I disagree.Madonna is arguably the biggest,most successful female artist ever.If Michael was the King of Pop,then Madonna could certainly be called the Queen of Pop.Even now,she's still breaking records and accomplishing great things.Her most recent tour in 2008/2009 was the most successful tour ever by a female performer.

She's still no where near his level. That's a fact.

Just because people keep whining about Madonna's sales / popularity / position compared to that of Michael Jackson, shows some people here keep having that distorted view of record sales.

I ain't no Madonna-fan, i dont own any of her records, but anyone who tries to be a bit objective, can see that she is considered the major female mainstream artist of the last 20 - 30 years. Wether you like her music or not, that is just a fact.

Unholyalliance said:

trueiopian said:

I'm in no way underrating her because that's not possible. She's beyond overrated. Not every pop tart out there is inspired by her or compared to her. Madonna isn't the be all and end all of female artists in Pop music. Case closed.

Yes, they are, especially if they are following in that girl's footsteps and are really successful at it. Unless they manage to carve their own unique road. Well, no matter what I try to say you are going to see what you want to see what you want to see anyways.

FYI, They're also compared to other artists. To be honest, I can only think of 4 artists that are always compared to her.

trueiopian said:

SoulAlive said:

I disagree.Madonna is arguably the biggest,most successful female artist ever.If Michael was the King of Pop,then Madonna could certainly be called the Queen of Pop.Even now,she's still breaking records and accomplishing great things.Her most recent tour in 2008/2009 was the most successful tour ever by a female performer.

She's still no where near his level. That's a fact.

No,she isn't but I don't think she's done too badly for herself

trueiopian said:

Unholyalliance said:

I can, honestly, say in this case that you are underrating her & her humongous musical and cultural impact. Even if every single pop tart that has come out afterwards isn't 100% inspired by her, she will continue to be the benchmark to which all of them will be compared to until someone else comes along, but I kind of doubt it because of the sheer amount of her accomplishments.

I'm in no way underrating her because that's not possible. She's beyond overrated. Not every pop tart out there is inspired by her or compared to her. Madonna isn't the be all and end all of female artists in Pop music. Case closed.

Whether they admit it or not,all of those female pop artists are trying to accomplish what Madonna did.Those ladies would kill for the type of longevity that Madonna has had.Rihanna has said that she is aiming to become "the black Madonna" and even Nikki Minaj has said something similiar.

Another observation:

Michael Jackson-fans keep having some kind of unhealthy distorted view on reality, and keep reacting like that unfortunately.

I have never met fans of a musician who were more defensive, more naive and more selfapproved brainwashed then the MJ-crowd (he wants to be a white person? No, he has a skin disease... he did abuse children.. no he is a child himself.... , he is a lypsynching artist... no he did perform live untill the early nineties: excuse after excuse)

Its one thing to defend your idol from the accusations of child abuse and asking people to focus on his artistic output. Its another thing to propel a singer, and a human individual, to some semi-god like status and judging him in terms that are simply over-subjective.

When it comes to judging artistical legacy, the MJ-fams are the first ones who come up with the 'stopgap' he did sell the most records.

When you talk about other artists, from the past or the present, the MJ-fams are the first ones to come up with reactions like: he or she is a MJ-copycat, or they didnt or don't reach such a big crowd as Michael did.

But how can you really judge about music when your view is narrowed down to (afro-american) hitparade music? What about blues, americana, classic funk, alt-country, powerpop, singer-songwriter, afrobeat, crossover, folk-rock?

As i said, these MJ-fams still have some twisted idea about MJ being the 'best' because he did sell the most albums, while they don't know shit and /or don't seem to care about other types of music.