RKJCNE said:

mjscarousal said:

I wouldnt expect for you to know since you DONT listen to Michael Jackson...

Well we can let the reviews speak for themselves.

I dont give a fuck about critics who rank no hacks like Soula Boy, Lil Wayne, Rihanna or Beyonce high and the fact that you do shows just how stupid you really are. You want to throw out criticisms WITHOUT listening to the music for yourself and then expect for people to be convince of your posts...

No I let the vocals, lyrics and the MUSIC speak for itself not what bullshit media tells me.

SC honey, did you report this thread already? I hope so...

RKJCNE said:

mjscarousal said:

I wouldnt expect for you to know since you DONT listen to Michael Jackson...

Well we can let the reviews speak for themselves.

And the most uninformed statement of the year award goes to...

mjscarousal said:

No I let the vocals, lyrics and the MUSIC speak for itself not what bullshit media tells me.

mjscarousal said:

RKJCNE said:

Well we can let the reviews speak for themselves.

I dont give a fuck about critics who rank no hacks like Soula Boy, Lil Wayne, Rihanna or Beyonce high and the fact that you do shows just how stupid you really are. You want to throw out criticisms WITHOUT listening to the music for yourself and then expect for people to be convince of your posts...

No I let the vocals, lyrics and the MUSIC speak for itself not what bullshit media tells me.

You really need to learn how to have a civil conversation. What are you 12?

RKJCNE said:

mjscarousal said:

I dont give a fuck about critics who rank no hacks like Soula Boy, Lil Wayne, Rihanna or Beyonce high and the fact that you do shows just how stupid you really are. You want to throw out criticisms WITHOUT listening to the music for yourself and then expect for people to be convince of your posts...

No I let the vocals, lyrics and the MUSIC speak for itself not what bullshit media tells me.

You really need to learn how to have a civil conversation. What are you 12?

You really need to learn how to make more logical and mature posts.

Im so TIRED of your bullshit.

Im tired of your stupid posts that you think are intelligent but their really dumb and just made to get a rise out of people. Your the one that sounds more and more like a toddler... grow up. You replied TO ME. If you want to have a serious music discussion then get on with it, dont come at me with immature thinking out your ass posts just to be cute... ITS TIRED.

Maybe if you listen to Invincible instead of making pointless opinions like you have and compare it to Madonna albums 00s you might come to find it was ALOT better.

what exactly makes her so relevant? most of the old white acts still sell out tours and some of the worse songs in music history has made the top of the charts, her superbowl stint was the most ive heard her name mentioned in years and most of the talk was about her being shady before the show.

^^^LOL!! I remember watching that! Hilarious!

ElectricBlue said:

where Madonna moved past MJ is when she stopped caring about the charts. She just kept putting out albums for the love of music and caring less if they sold or not. She was filling out her career catalog so when you look back you didnt see that she kept trying to repeat her 1984 success.

MJ on the other hand kept trying to remake "Off the wall" it was the blueprint for his whole solo career... and really a guy that was the biggest star in the world at 25 years old, he was a complete hasbeen at 35.

Madonna was smart all through the 2000's even more then Prince, that she kept doing major tours. Prince had 1 tour that made $95 million, Madonna kept making tour grossing money like that.

Plus she started changing her tour around! She started singing live, changing her stage shows, the whole style of concert from here lipsynced 80's crap.

MJ hasnt changed her concert style since the late 1970's, he just added the new dance routine from the latest video.

by the mid 90s madonna was just as much as a has been as mj was. I also wouldnt actually wouldnt consider Madonna "relevant" in recent years just because she has released music. Honestly, no one I know nor I was checking for Madonna anyway. Also having a hit on the charts usually just mean that your label is putting money into your project (nothing more in 85% of cases). I do think that its wonderful that she can still go on tour and sell out though. Not many people can do that years in the game.

SUPRMAN said:

She can still take a stage though unlike others . . . . .

What kinda comment is this?

RKJCNE said:

This thread is alot less ugly than I thought it'd be,

Not anymore by the look of it.

I do think this thread is stupid, because we all appear to have a different idea of what 'relevant' is. I consider Michael Jackson 'relevant' as people still talk about him often, he's still on the radio, and his music is still selling. I consider Madonna relevant as well, but I don't hear people talk about her as much (outside of this site) - though she is still having chart success.

oh, and btw... what does lip-synching have to do with anything? I haven't followed this conversation closely, but I don't understand how that makes somebody relevant or irrelevant.

I will also add that some of these MJ fans in here make me embarrassed to call myself a fan.

.. I like most of Mr. Jackson's music.. but he's not GOD to me, and I'm fine with anybody disliking him, or pointing out his obvious flaws.

Still, he has been relevant in the 2000s.

[Edited 3/4/12 23:57pm]

seeingvoices12 said:

alphastreet said:

To say MJ did not use the media when convenient is fucking bullshit okay? I may be a fan and care about him like family, but to sugarcoat his flaws? I don't think so. If you're going to argue why Michael is better than Madonna, you better have some better points than that shit.

Oh and MJ could have released music, but he and/or the record label didn't, it is what it is now.

[Edited 3/3/12 10:31am]

why you are talking in that way...

Mj was like many artists , sometimes he uses the media to his benefits , BUT also he didn't need always to get the attention , he still do it today despite after three years of his death , he always get the attention , while media madonna always needs to create publicity shit..always , even before the superbowl , she created the mess against janet jackson to get the attention....do you understand now?

and about the record label he could have signed a deal if he wanted to but he didn't , he didn't want to rush things , he didn't want to release just anything , he faced many problems the trial..etc but michael never rushed things when it comes to releasing music ...

[Edited 3/3/12 10:44am]

He used the media to get attention sometimes, let's not fool ourselves, though there was no need to do that and his talent spoke for itself. Just my opinion. I do believe they did him in really hard too though.

mjscarousal said:

alphastreet said:

Mirwais and Stuart Price were virtually unknown to the US market. No one mainstream was working with them to the best of my knowledge at the time, and some of her best work did come out of their collaborations. She only worked with Pharell and Timbaland for one album.

[Edited 3/3/12 10:38am]

But main audiences would never know that because she released the gimmick mess as SINGLES which is the MAIN point. I still dont think what anything Madonna has released this past decade is something I would define as spetacular. Her best material to me is 90s. This past decade Madonna has cared about gimmicks and not true artistry and if you want to be indenial about it so be it..

My thing is this .. Madonna would NEVER release a song or even attempt a neo soul style song like Butterflies and RELEASE IT AS A SINGLE. Cause TRUST ME and you can take this to the bank, if Michael just soley cared about chart positions he would have NEVER released that especially when their were more radio friendly songs like Heartbreaker, Invincible etc.

I thought Invincible while not Michaels best was alot more creative with collabs and songs.. then what all Madonna has done... not to mention Michael still sounds amazing on it.

[Edited 3/3/12 10:47am]

I'm not in denial about anything, there are plenty of this posts on this thread that are more worthy of denial which shall remain unnamed. It clearly sounds to me as though you know just the 00 singles of Madonna and not the unreleased material. Sounds no different from people judging MJ for singles rather than underrated album cuts and songwriting.

And you say on one hand she doesn't care about true artistry in the 00's, yet you expect her to be exactly like another artist (mj) in order to be a true artist. How does that make sense, and why would she want to do a song like Butterflies? It's not even her style, and she did plenty of r&b in the 90's already and moved on from it and went onto do other styles in the 00's. MJ and Madonna put out awesome work in the 00's regardless of what type of songs. Personal biases don't define whether an artist is relevant or not, but to deny she is still popular is very naive.

CrabalockerFishwife said:

I will also add that some of these MJ fans in here make me embarrassed to call myself a fan.

.. I like most of Mr. Jackson's music.. but he's not GOD to me, and I'm fine with anybody disliking him, or pointing out his obvious flaws.

I agree.I'm a fan of MJ but I just don't see why so many fans get worked up over one's man opinion.Martin's comment is actually tame compared to some of the truly 'mean' comments that people have made about MJ throughout the years.Hell,Quincy Jones made worse comments shortly after Michael's death.

SoulAlive said:

CrabalockerFishwife said:

I will also add that some of these MJ fans in here make me embarrassed to call myself a fan.

.. I like most of Mr. Jackson's music.. but he's not GOD to me, and I'm fine with anybody disliking him, or pointing out his obvious flaws.

I agree.I'm a fan of MJ but I just don't see why so many fans get worked up over one's man opinion.

Well, while I don't agree with them.. I do understand why they get so defensive. As an MJ fan, I've had to constantly hear hateful things about him from people.. if I ever even mentioned his name, I'd have to hear about all of his personal life controversies... eventually you get so tired of hearing all of that stuff. -- I think the MJ fans in this thread are more upset about other orgers comments than this producer's...

I'm still scratching my head over these lip synching agruments going on... #1 how is this relevant to the conversation?, and #2 - Madonna and MJ have both lip-synched and sung live... this is fact. .... who cares? and why?

[Edited 3/5/12 0:17am]

SoulAlive said:

CrabalockerFishwife said:

I will also add that some of these MJ fans in here make me embarrassed to call myself a fan.

.. I like most of Mr. Jackson's music.. but he's not GOD to me, and I'm fine with anybody disliking him, or pointing out his obvious flaws.

I agree.I'm a fan of MJ but I just don't see why so many fans get worked up over one's man opinion.Martin's comment is actually tame compared to some of the truly 'mean' comments that people have made about MJ throughout the years.Hell,Quincy Jones made worse comments shortly after Michael's death.

Personally, I do not care what Solveig said , because 1) he's right about the 00-x, 2) his opinion is not authority for me, his music is usually weak ....
MJ does not really done anything worthy of attention in the 00's, it's not even the subject of discussion .
but some have gone far beyond the 00-ies, and began to criticize MJ as a whole as an artist. That's why there was such an unpleasant discussion
--------------
I have no doubt that you do not mind when MJ criticize, but praise and extol Madonna in his background.
You're obviously a bigger fan of Madge.

LiLi1992 said:

SoulAlive said:

I agree.I'm a fan of MJ but I just don't see why so many fans get worked up over one's man opinion.Martin's comment is actually tame compared to some of the truly 'mean' comments that people have made about MJ throughout the years.Hell,Quincy Jones made worse comments shortly after Michael's death.

Personally, I do not care what Solveig said , because 1) he's right about the 00-x, 2) his opinion is not authority for me, his music is usually weak ....
MJ does not really done anything worthy of attention in the 00's, it's not even the subject of discussion .
but some have gone far beyond the 00-ies, and began to criticize MJ as a whole as an artist. That's why there was such an unpleasant discussion
--------------
I have no doubt that you do not mind when MJ criticize, but praise and extol Madonna in his background.
You're obviously a bigger fan of Madge.

I'm a huge fan of both artists

purple05 said:

by the mid 90s madonna was just as much as a has been as mj was. I also wouldnt actually wouldnt consider Madonna "relevant" in recent years just because she has released music. Honestly, no one I know nor I was checking for Madonna anyway. Also having a hit on the charts usually just mean that your label is putting money into your project (nothing more in 85% of cases). I do think that its wonderful that she can still go on tour and sell out though. Not many people can do that years in the game.

Huh?

Ray of Light, released in 1998, sold over fifteen million copies worldwide.

Music, released in 2000, sold over ten million copies worldwide.

Confessions on a Dance Floor, released in 2005, sold over ten million copies worldwide. Keep in mind that by 2005 album sales had tanked which makes that number even more impressive.

Three albums after the mid nineties that sold at least ten million copies is irrelevent?

Even if Madonna was irrelevent in the mid nineties (which is arguable) she certainly bounced back in a way that MJ never did. That is an inarguable fact.

I am not a Madonna stan by any definition, I don't own any of the three albums I mentioned above, but if you look at the cold, hard facts it is obvious that Madonna was much more successful than Michael circa the late nineties/2000's.

rialb said:

purple05 said:

by the mid 90s madonna was just as much as a has been as mj was. I also wouldnt actually wouldnt consider Madonna "relevant" in recent years just because she has released music. Honestly, no one I know nor I was checking for Madonna anyway. Also having a hit on the charts usually just mean that your label is putting money into your project (nothing more in 85% of cases). I do think that its wonderful that she can still go on tour and sell out though. Not many people can do that years in the game.

Huh?

Ray of Light, released in 1998, sold over fifteen million copies worldwide.

Music, released in 2000, sold over ten million copies worldwide.

Confessions on a Dance Floor, released in 2005, sold over ten million copies worldwide. Keep in mind that by 2005 album sales had tanked which makes that number even more impressive.

Three albums after the mid nineties that sold at least ten million copies is irrelevent?

Michael Jackson...

HIStory sold 20 million

Blood On The Dance Floor (remix album) sold 6 million

Invincible sold 13 million

I do believe that means the three MJ albums I mentioned outsold the three Madonna albums you mentioned. (Yes, I know Madonna has released other albums as well.)

MICHAEL sold 3 million (I think)

If we're basing relevancy solely on album sales (are we?) then I'd say both artists are still relevant.

[Edited 3/5/12 1:11am]

SoulAlive said:

I'm a huge fan of both artists

You never wrote that in some aspects MJ is better (although he was obviously at the peak the better singer, dancer and songwriter), but you're always ready to write about aspects of what Madonna is better (more experiments with images, more development, a smart businessman, and so on).

+ You are the author of about 80% of posts about Madonna in this forum

PS I do not mind if MJ is not the most favorite artist for you, I have some more favorite artists than MJ, too (some of the rock groups actually), just to share my observations.

[Edited 3/5/12 1:33am]

Let's not make this personal..

SoulAlive,do you always feel that

somebody's watchin' you,
and you have no privacy?

rialb said:

purple05 said:

by the mid 90s madonna was just as much as a has been as mj was. I also wouldnt actually wouldnt consider Madonna "relevant" in recent years just because she has released music. Honestly, no one I know nor I was checking for Madonna anyway. Also having a hit on the charts usually just mean that your label is putting money into your project (nothing more in 85% of cases). I do think that its wonderful that she can still go on tour and sell out though. Not many people can do that years in the game.

Huh?

Ray of Light, released in 1998, sold over fifteen million copies worldwide.

Music, released in 2000, sold over ten million copies worldwide.

Confessions on a Dance Floor, released in 2005, sold over ten million copies worldwide. Keep in mind that by 2005 album sales had tanked which makes that number even more impressive.

Three albums after the mid nineties that sold at least ten million copies is irrelevent?

Even if Madonna was irrelevent in the mid nineties (which is arguable) she certainly bounced back in a way that MJ never did. That is an inarguable fact.

I am not a Madonna stan by any definition, I don't own any of the three albums I mentioned above, but if you look at the cold, hard facts it is obvious that Madonna was much more successful than Michael circa the late nineties/2000's.

If we judge the relevance of the sales of albums, then "History" (1995) sold more than absolutely any Madonna album since the mid-90s - more than 20 million copies and is a double album ....
album "Dangerous" (1991) sold more than any Madonna album for her career.

The album "Blood on the dance floor" (1997) is a best-selling album of remixes and re-sold the previous number one, "You can dance" from Madonna.

In fact, even after these terrible accusations MJ still remained a more powerful seller of music ...

Madonna was more successful in the 00's, there can be no doubt .... but how can you properly compare the artist, who released 1 album and 1 video and the artist, who regularly released albums, music videos, tours??
Maybe let us then compare their work in the 70s, this is just as ridiculous ...

PANDURITO said:

SoulAlive,do you always feel that

somebody's watchin' you,
and you have no privacy?

it`s a forum, not a personal diary
but you can be quiet, I do not remember any of your posts ... for some reason they made ​​no impression on me.

CrabalockerFishwife said:

rialb said:

Huh?

Ray of Light, released in 1998, sold over fifteen million copies worldwide.

Music, released in 2000, sold over ten million copies worldwide.

Confessions on a Dance Floor, released in 2005, sold over ten million copies worldwide. Keep in mind that by 2005 album sales had tanked which makes that number even more impressive.

Three albums after the mid nineties that sold at least ten million copies is irrelevent?

Michael Jackson...

HIStory sold 20 million

Blood On The Dance Floor (remix album) sold 6 million

Invincible sold 13 million

I do believe that means the three MJ albums I mentioned outsold the three Madonna albums you mentioned. (Yes, I know Madonna has released other albums as well.)

MICHAEL sold 3 million (I think)

If we're basing relevancy solely on album sales (are we?) then I'd say both artists are still relevant.

[Edited 3/5/12 1:11am]

History was mid nineties, I was trying to rebut the assertion that Madonna was irrelevent after the mid nineties. If you want to include the mid nineties then Madonna had two big albums (Something to Remember [over nine million sold] and Evita [over ten million sold]) that equal History.

I could have compared singles too which is another area where Madonna comes out ahead circa late nineties/2000s.

The numbers do not lie, in the latter stages of their careers Madonna has been more successful than MJ.

LiLi1992 said:

PANDURITO said:

SoulAlive,do you always feel that

somebody's watchin' you,
and you have no privacy?

it`s a forum, not a personal diary
but you can be quiet, I do not remember any of your posts ... for some reason they made ​​no impression on me.

LiLi1992 said:

SoulAlive said:

I'm a huge fan of both artists

You never wrote that in some aspects MJ is better (although he was obviously at the peak the better singer, dancer and songwriter), but you're always ready to write about aspects of what Madonna is better (more experiments with images, more development, a smart businessman, and so on).

+ You are the author of about 80% of posts about Madonna in this forum

PS I do not mind if MJ is not the most favorite artist for you, I have some more favorite artists than MJ, too (some of the rock groups actually), just to share my observations.

If it seems that I write about Madonna more it's because,let's face it,her career was more "active" than Michael's career was,during the last ten years or so.Invincible was released in 2001.Since that time,Madonna released three albums,did 4 world tours and other projects.

This may actually shock you,but my favorite artist is actually Stevie Wonder But,as was the case with Michael,he's not very active these days.

[Edited 3/5/12 1:46am]

rialb said:

History was mid nineties, I was trying to rebut the assertion that Madonna was irrelevent after the mid nineties. If you want to include the mid nineties then Madonna had two big albums (Something to Remember [over nine million sold] and Evita [over ten million sold]) that equal History.

I could have compared singles too which is another area where Madonna comes out ahead circa late nineties/2000s.

The numbers do not lie, in the latter stages of their careers Madonna has been more successful than MJ.

That's fine. I agree with the last sentence. I thought we were still discussing MJ being irrelevant, which if album sales=relvance, then surely he's still relevant. Of course he hadn't released a full album since 2001, so it's not surprising he hasn't been as successful since then.