whatsgoingon said:

alphastreet said:

you weren't listening to Gimmie More carefully about her legendary status

Still believe King of Pop sounds naff. Why the fans are so obsessed with this title, I will never know. He never needed any silly title to validate who he was. MJ to me was his best, in every aspect when he was just known as "Michael Jackson". And that's how I will always remember him, with the beautiful smile, brown skinned, massive afro and bundles of talent.

[Edited 7/5/11 13:07pm]

I was making fun of Britney, chill out! I don't care for the title either, he is the best to me, the title is just like a cherry on top, I'm fine with or without it cause I love his Jackson 5 work too and have all the albums.

Imaginative said:

I never said Prince was the Emperor of Pop. On the contrary, I've been saying all along that these titles are meaningless, and unsubstantiated by any actual facts. No one crowned any one the Queen of Pop. That crown doesn't exist except in the imaginations of those who believe it. Please show me a picture of this "crown" Jackson crowned HIMSELF the King of Pop. This is well-documented and has been substatiated by his en manager.

I see that your illiteracy is showing again. Please reread my post and then report back to me.

Also:

http://www.google.com/sea...EEN+OF+POP

Imaginative said:

alphastreet said:

MJ wrote or co-wrote 9 of the 18 number ones. Feeling lazy to do the math for the top 10's

[Edited 7/5/11 12:52pm]

And how many did he write on his own?

FYI: It's well known and common practice in the music industry that a huge recording artist often adds his name to the writing credits to get a bigger royalty cut and being that he has the clout to do so. (He or she can simply not record the song if the composers don't agree to the artist's terms.) Therefore, it's likely that he had little to do with the "callaborations."

tell me what a "callaboration" is

whatsgoingon said:

Still believe King of Pop sounds naff. Why the fans are so obsessed with this title, I will never know.

I don't know, try telling a bunch of diehard Elvis fans how stupid that King of Rock moniker is. =3

Seriously tho? I don't really care. If he has the name or doesn't. It shouldn't matter. Which is why I don't get ppl who try to pull out charts and shit trying to prove some dumbass point. If you don't care, then stop talking about it already.

Imaginative said:

alphastreet said:

MJ wrote or co-wrote 9 of the 18 number ones. Feeling lazy to do the math for the top 10's

[Edited 7/5/11 12:52pm]

And how many did he write on his own?

FYI: It's well known and common practice in the music industry that a huge recording artist often adds his name to the writing credits to get a bigger royalty cut and being that he has the clout to do so. (He or she can simply not record the song if the composers don't agree to the artist's terms.) Therefore, it's likely that he had little to do with the "callaborations."

Are you really suggesting that?

Wow.

I'm done.

This thread has went the fuck down hill for some time now smh.

Unholyalliance said:

Also, like how you didn't dispute the 'Emperor of Pop' title given to Prince in the article, but having a big titty fit about MJ's King of Pop title. If it was all about stats and charts then, obviously, Mariah Carey would have been crowned the Queen of Pop a while ago, not Madonna.

Illiteracy? If you only knew...

I didn't waste time disputing it because I don't give it any creedance. It's obviously as absurd to call Prince "Emperor" as it is to call Madonna "Queen!" I never threw a "hissy fit."

On the contrary, if you go back and read my words, I've been saying all along I have no problem with Jackson bestowing himself with a meaningless title, or his fans using said title.

Unholyalliance said:

whatsgoingon said:

Still believe King of Pop sounds naff. Why the fans are so obsessed with this title, I will never know.

I don't know, try telling a bunch of diehard Elvis fans how stupid that King of Rock moniker is. =3

Seriously tho? I don't really care. If he has the name or doesn't. It shouldn't matter. Which is why I don't get ppl who try to pull out charts and shit trying to prove some dumbass point. If you don't care, then stop talking about it already.

I don't know. I just remember MJ well before this "King of Pop" rubbish. I remember him before, all the moonwalking & grab crotching & silly titles, whether it's "King of Pop" or "Wacko Jacko", He was at his very best before all this. The sad thing is that most of his hard-core fans have grown up on the post-thriller /King of Pop/Wacko Jacko.

alphastreet said:

Imaginative said:

And how many did he write on his own?

FYI: It's well known and common practice in the music industry that a huge recording artist often adds his name to the writing credits to get a bigger royalty cut and being that he has the clout to do so. (He or she can simply not record the song if the composers don't agree to the artist's terms.) Therefore, it's likely that he had little to do with the "callaborations."

tell me what a "callaboration" is

In music publishing terms, it's when a writing co-credit is registered with the copyright office. It can be one person writing the music and another writing the words. It can be several people all working together. If an artist has as much clout as Madonna or Jackson, it could be something as trivial as moving the chorus back 8 bars, or changing a single line in the lyric. There is no one enforcing how co-credits are honored. Also, percentages are not acknowledged by ASCAP or the copyright office. A compoitional co-credit is an even -split. It's a private contract between the credited writers, as to which names get regestered as writers.

Therefore the ONLY songs in which we know Jackson's true compositional contribution are songs which he wrote alone. By my count, this is 18 songs over the course of 26 years.

To remind you, I love some of Jackson's work, in particular his work up through Thriller. He is a great vocalist and dancer. Definitely the greatest "song-and-dance man" that ever lived. But at the end of the day, that's all he was; a song-and-dance man. And a tragic and mentally ill one at that.

[Edited 7/5/11 13:31pm]

whatsgoingon said:

Unholyalliance said:

I don't know, try telling a bunch of diehard Elvis fans how stupid that King of Rock moniker is. =3

Seriously tho? I don't really care. If he has the name or doesn't. It shouldn't matter. Which is why I don't get ppl who try to pull out charts and shit trying to prove some dumbass point. If you don't care, then stop talking about it already.

I don't know. I just remember MJ well before this "King of Pop" rubbish. I remember him before, all the moonwalking & grab crotching & silly titles, whether it's "King of Pop" or "Wacko Jacko", He was at his very best before all this. The sad thing is that most of his hard-core fans have grown up on the post-thriller /King of Pop/Wacko Jacko.

AND a lot of his hard-core fans, if not all that were around during these days own Jackson 5, motown MJ and Jacksons records my friend.

I think we should all appreciate Michael in all Era’s I have my favorites but he has gems on each album. He was an artist, artist evolves and he did.

babybugz said:

I think we should all appreciate Michael in all Era’s I have my favorites but he has gems on each album. He was an artist, artist evolves and he did.

What do you think was his peak?

smoothcriminal12 said:

babybugz said:

I think we should all appreciate Michael in all Era’s I have my favorites but he has gems on each album. He was an artist, artist evolves and he did.

What do you think was his peak?

I personally don’t have a specific one I think everybody enjoyed him more in the 80’s just an observation either way some of his 90’s music was his most creative work but I think people just had an earlier image of him and just couldn’t let go of it.

I love and appreciate him in all the eras, from Big Boi to Much Too Soon. It's very hard for me to say when he peaked, but here is my favourite material of his and you can decide

Best Jackson 5 album: Dancing Machine

Best Motown Solo Album: Music & Me

Best Jacksons Album: Destiny

Best Epic Solo Album: Bad and Dangerous

I love the 90's and 00's too of course, even the unreleased tracks were so underrated.

I may be in the minority but though I loved him in the 80's, he is not my favourite artist of the 80's, he is my favourite artist of all time. The 80's is my favourite decade for music and though everyone was inspired by him too, everyone was an individual and there was so much good and diverse music in that decade and it was full of creativity and launched so many wonderful icons that I can't just reduce it to one, or let his 80's work overshadow what he already did in the 70's or what he would do in the 90's and 00's. Plus, I saw him as a legend more in the 90's when he seemed to stand out more than the other artists on the charts though I liked them too. Sure he was really special in the 80's, but there was so much excellent material out there and he was a part of that.

[Edited 7/5/11 13:43pm]

alphastreet said:

whatsgoingon said:

I don't know. I just remember MJ well before this "King of Pop" rubbish. I remember him before, all the moonwalking & grab crotching & silly titles, whether it's "King of Pop" or "Wacko Jacko", He was at his very best before all this. The sad thing is that most of his hard-core fans have grown up on the post-thriller /King of Pop/Wacko Jacko.

AND a lot of his hard-core fans, if not all that were around during these days own Jackson 5, motown MJ and Jacksons records my friend.

No, most of his crazy hard-core fans tend to be his fans from Bad era onwards. Some of them weren't even born until the Thriller era. Most of his fans from back in the day, do not give a damn about some silly titles, that don't mean a thing.

[img:$uid]http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/1063867_o.gif[/img:$uid]

Imaginative said:

Illiteracy? If you only knew...

I think I have a pretty good idea. I can't think of one discussion we have had where I haven't pointed it out to you.

Imaginative said:

I didn't waste time disputing it because I don't give it any creedance. It's obviously as absurd to call Prince "Emperor" as it is to call Madonna "Queen!" I never threw a "hissy fit."

All the articles that exist on the internet that talk about MJ being the King of Pop and yet that's the one you post here when you proceeded to call the moniker ironic.

Total coincidence? ...Of course.

Also, between you and me...it's credance.

Imaginative said:

On the contrary, if you go back and read my words, I've been saying all along I have no problem with Jackson bestowing himself with a meaningless title, or his fans using said title.

But funny...here you are talking about chart hits and what songs he actually wrote himself.

Somehow what you are saying here and your actions just don't seem to match up.

^ ALL you had to do (because apparently he doesn't wanna listen) is do this:

[img:$uid]http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/1063867_o.gif[/img:$uid]

Seriously, it's like why even give anyone attention? Opinions shove down people's throats and shit, which is obvious in threads like this, just pretend you didn't see it. It gets worst every time we respond to bullshit. Seriously.

I wasn't posting that GIF to be funny either.

whatsgoingon said:

alphastreet said:

AND a lot of his hard-core fans, if not all that were around during these days own Jackson 5, motown MJ and Jacksons records my friend.

No, most of his crazy hard-core fans tend to be his fans from Bad era onwards. Some of them weren't even born until the Thriller era. Most of his fans from back in the day, do not give a damn about some silly titles, that don't mean a thing.

I know that you are trying to avoid making a generalization, but...are you sure that you can even claim 'most.' Are you sure that you just aren't speaking for yourself?

Guys...stop feeding the damn troll. For those in the audience who don't know what I'm talking about...it's (un)Imaginative.

Your ass has been reported. Good day.

whatsgoingon said:

alphastreet said:

AND a lot of his hard-core fans, if not all that were around during these days own Jackson 5, motown MJ and Jacksons records my friend.

No, most of his crazy hard-core fans tend to be his fans from Bad era onwards. Some of them weren't even born until the Thriller era. Most of his fans from back in the day, do not give a damn about some silly titles, that don't mean a thing.

Sweetheart, I was born exactly when Thriller mania took off, and the first MJ era I knew of was Thriller, sometime before Bad took place. I liked some J5 too as a kid and then got into all of their music too. Everyone is not the same and closeminded as you would like to believe, and as you have seen on this forum. I already knew he was big by how people reacted to him and didn't know of the KOP title till some time in the 90's and thought it was cool. Maybe you think fans emphasize on that cause once upon a time, media kept saying he was the self proclaimed king or former king and stuff like that and they got defensive cause of all the stuff he did preceding his popularity and impact peak.

Unholyalliance said:

whatsgoingon said:

No, most of his crazy hard-core fans tend to be his fans from Bad era onwards. Some of them weren't even born until the Thriller era. Most of his fans from back in the day, do not give a damn about some silly titles, that don't mean a thing.

I know that you are trying to avoid making a generalization, but...are you sure that you can even claim 'most.' Are you sure that you just aren't speaking for yourself?

I know MJ fans where I live that are into the old stuff too, and I don't just mean the popular singles, I don't count that and there's people here like bboy87 that know their shit, don't lie

Unholyalliance said:

Imaginative said:

Illiteracy? If you only knew...

I think I have a pretty good idea. I can't think of one discussion we have had where I haven't pointed it out to you.

All the articles that exist on the internet that talk about MJ being the King of Pop and yet that's the one you post here when you proceeded to call the moniker ironic.

Total coincidence? ...Of course.

Also, between you and me...it's credance.

Imaginative said:

On the contrary, if you go back and read my words, I've been saying all along I have no problem with Jackson bestowing himself with a meaningless title, or his fans using said title.

But funny...here you are talking about chart hits and what songs he actually wrote himself.

Somehow what you are saying here and your actions just don't seem to match up.

a.) I posted a very recent article about Prince that references Michael Jackson, in a Michael Jackson thread on a Prince board. That's all it was. It was a recent article published yesterday, which is why I shared it instead of "all of the articles" you reference.

b.) The "irony" I pointed out was in reference to Jackson's state at the time that he died in juxtoposition to this so-called title. To employ the parlance of the Wacko Jackos, as a King, his reign was somewhat short-lived.

c.) Thank you for the spell check. Usually my editor takes care of such things, but he gets paid too much to look at my forum postings! I'm fine knowing that if you're a fan of movies, there is a high likelyhood that my work is on your shelf.

d.) I'm sorry that you're uncomfortable discussing Billboard charts.

alphastreet said:

I know MJ fans where I live that are into the old stuff too, and I don't just mean the popular singles, I don't count that and there's people here like bboy87 that know their shit, don't lie

What? I thought that I was responding to the fact that whatsgoingon was calling most of MJ's post-Bad fandom crazy and stat obsessed while referring to most of MJ's pre-Bad era fandom sane?!?!?!

So y'all willing to argue over bullshit?

Unholyalliance said:

whatsgoingon said:

No, most of his crazy hard-core fans tend to be his fans from Bad era onwards. Some of them weren't even born until the Thriller era. Most of his fans from back in the day, do not give a damn about some silly titles, that don't mean a thing.

I know that you are trying to avoid making a generalization, but...are you sure that you can even claim 'most.' Are you sure that you just aren't speaking for yourself?

Most fans of my generation do not give a toss about silly titles. Fact. We all have a way how we want to remember MJ, I know most people from my generation seem to want to remember him pre-bad or even pre-Thriller. Those fans who tend to remember MJ from the Bad era onwards seem more hell bent in remembering him as the King of Pop. They are more obsesse with record figures and other artists not breaking his records & for some reasons they think that validates his status, when it doesn't really mean anything. With the rise of the King of Pop came the rise of Wacko Jacko, it just goes to show titles doesn't exempt you from ridicule.

Seriously can we stop with the gifs etc I don’t know I just remember when this thread was first created and how it had a lot of high points but now every time I look in it it’s a bunch of nonsense. And I can’t say that everybody that doesn’t agree with things pertaining to Michael is a troll. Just agree to disagree and keep it moving , i'm all for debating but it goes overboard.

The thread is "Discuss Anything and Everything MJ." This is exactly what I am doing. It's funny how no one really has a problem with folks being critical of Prince on a PRINCE FORUM, but if you're critical of Jackson in a "Discuss Anything and Everything MJ" board, it's "trolling."

If I could start an "Is MJ Overrated" thread, I would and people can discuss freely as they have on similar threads about Madonna, Dylan, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, etc. But as it stands, this is the only thread where Jackson can be discussed! So I am discussing him here.

I personally do think his work post Thriller was for the most part sub-par, especially in comparison to what I consider his peak. I also think he was tragically mentally ill and that, as a result his children were at the very least, orphaned.

It would seem that these opinions are not allowed anywhere on this forum, being that they are not allowed in this thread, and we cannot discuss Jackson in any other thread.

Interesting. Equally interesting and somewhat telling, is that for all of Jackson's "popularity" there is apparently no English speaking forum with high traffic dedicated to the discussion his music. So the Jackos congregate here, and chastise anyone with a differing opinion.

Imaginative said:

The thread is "Discuss Anything and Everything MJ." This is exactly what I am doing. It's funny how no one really has a problem with folks being critical of Prince on a PRINCE FORUM, but if you're critical of Jackson in a "Discuss Anything and Everything MJ" board, it's "trolling."

If I could start an "Is MJ Overrated" thread, I would and people can discuss freely as they have on similar threads about Madonna, Dylan, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, etc. But as it stands, this is the only thread where Jackson can be discussed! So I am discussing him here.

I personally do think his work post Thriller was for the most part sub-par, especially in comparison to what I consider his peak. I also think he was tragically mentally ill and that, as a result his children were at the very least, orphaned.

It would seem that these opinions are not allowed anywhere on this forum, being that they are not allowed in this thread, and we cannot discuss Jackson in any other thread.

Interesting. Equally interesting and somewhat telling, is that for all of Jackson's "popularity" there is apparently no English speaking forum with high traffic dedicated to the discussion his music. So the Jackos congregate here, and chastise anyone with a differing opinion.

This is why we can't have nice things.

whatsgoingon said:

Most fans of my generation do not give a toss about silly titles. Fact. We all have a way how we want to remember MJ, I know most people from my generation seem to want to remember him pre-bad or even pre-Thriller. Those fans who tend to remember MJ from the Bad era onwards seem more hell bent in remembering him as the King of Pop. They are more obsesse with record figures and other artists not breaking his records & for some reasons they think that validates his status, when it doesn't really mean anything. With the rise of the King of Pop came the rise of Wacko Jacko, it just goes to show titles doesn't exempt you from ridicule.

There we go.

In general though, I just feel weird making such statements, because I'm not sure. I am pretty sure that if someone took the 'King of Pop' title from him...even some older fans I know of would have an issue with that.