LiLi1992 said:

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 ...

If you go back and read the very first post in this thread the point is that Madonna was able to keep her career going and maintain a high level of success in a way that MJ was unable to do. That is the question that this thread is all about so it seems reasonable to focus on that question.

If we are comparing their whole careers then obviously MJ is the "better" artist, I don't dispute that, but I think people are straying a bit off topic and trying to blur the lines.

SoulAlive said:

f 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.

Given your avatar, that's not shocking.

And yes, clearly Michael wasn't very active since 2001. Michael was lazy, but some fans will disagree with that, saying he took 10 years between albums because he was a "perfectionist" ( ).

Still, sticking to the original topic, I find it ridiculous to say Michael isn't relevant - given his current popularity, that he's often in the news (even 2+ years after his death), he's still played on the radio all the time, and his posthumous album (MICHAEL) sold millions, with poor content and promotion.

This thread is about Madonna supposedly staying relevant, and Michael Jackson supposedly being irrelevant. Let's stay on topic. This isn't about who's the better artist, or who we like better, or who lip-synchs, or whose tours were better, etc...

Again...

They're two different artists. Comparison is only done because one, they were among the biggest '80s pop acts, and two, Michael Jackson is easily namedropped.

rialb said:

I think people are straying a bit off topic and trying to blur the lines.

People are very off topic.

I think the first step, if we're going to have a decent conversation, is to define "relevant". Clearly, we all have a different idea of what that means.

CrabalockerFishwife said:

Still, sticking to the original topic, I find it ridiculous to say Michael isn't relevant - given his current popularity, that he's often in the news (even 2+ years after his death), he's still played on the radio all the time, and his posthumous album (MICHAEL) sold millions, with poor content and promotion.

Michael has a huge "core" fanbase, particularly outside of America, but I wonder how many "casual" fans he has, especially among the younger generation? I think that is one subtle distinction between the two. Madonna probably needs to deliver hit singles to attract a wider audience but MJ had such a big hardcore following that his albums were practically guaranteed to sell extremely well. When he was able to reach casual fans (Thriller, Bad, Dangerous) his albums sold insanely well but he wasn't able to do that with his later albums.

It will be interesting to see how his legacy develops as those core fans age. Will he be able to develop new, younger fans or will his influence wane as his fan base shrinks and ages?

rialb said:

CrabalockerFishwife said:

Still, sticking to the original topic, I find it ridiculous to say Michael isn't relevant - given his current popularity, that he's often in the news (even 2+ years after his death), he's still played on the radio all the time, and his posthumous album (MICHAEL) sold millions, with poor content and promotion.

Michael has a huge "core" fanbase, particularly outside of America, but I wonder how many "casual" fans he has, especially among the younger generation? I think that is one subtle distinction between the two. Madonna probably needs to deliver hit singles to attract a wider audience but MJ had such a big hardcore following that his albums were practically guaranteed to sell extremely well. When he was able to reach casual fans (Thriller, Bad, Dangerous) his albums sold insanely well but he wasn't able to do that with his later albums.

It will be interesting to see how his legacy develops as those core fans age. Will he be able to develop new, younger fans or will his influence wane as his fan base shrinks and ages?

I definitely think Michael is still appealing to younger audiences. Though, I think it's his 80s music that's winning him new fans, not the new stuff. But most people I think would agree that Michael is on the same level as Elvis Presley and The Beatles, so I don't think he'll ever be forgotten. I don't think people like Madonna and Prince are on that same level.

I guess it's fair to say his new music isn't relevant. But, Michael Jackson is definitely still relevant to younger people. Songs like "Billie Jean" and "Beat It" are still popular among young people, and are still on the radio often... so surely he is relevant, even if Invincible and MICHAEL aren't.

The producer said Michael wasn't relevant in the 2000s, he didn't say that Michael's 2000s music wasn't relevant. I think there is a difference...

And she has succeeded – what I think Michael Jackson has failed to do – to still be relevant in the 2000s

CrabalockerFishwife said:

SoulAlive said:

f 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.

Given your avatar, that's not shocking.

And yes, clearly Michael wasn't very active since 2001. Michael was lazy

Yes, he was lazy all of his adult career, this is so annoying
This is his biggest disadvantage as an artist.
6 albums and 40 singles in 20 + years!
I can not blame him for the low activity in the 00-s: he was accused and tried, he raised three children, he had health problems .... but in the '80s and '90s, he could create more than 2 albums in a decade.

Michael has a huge "core" fanbase, particularly outside of America, but I wonder how many "casual" fans he has, especially among the younger generation? When he was able to reach casual fans (Thriller, Bad, Dangerous) his albums sold insanely well but he wasn't able to do that with his later albums.

It will be interesting to see how his legacy develops as those core fans age. Will he be able to develop new, younger fans or will his influence wane as his fan base shrinks and ages?

If the album with unreleased material will be at least at the level of "History", the album will be successful at any time: tomorrow, after 10, 20 ..... years, if it is "Invincible" -2 or "Michael" -2, then no one will be interested.
Potentially, MJ albums have a huge audience of buyers globally, but it all depends on the quality of the material ....

I don't know if I would say that Michael was lazy,I think there were all these "distractions" that prevented him from making music and touring more often.

***The 1993 allegations and the 2005 allegations---Let's face it,when you're dealing with something as serious as this,you're not thinking about writing songs or planning a tour.

***The Martin Bashir documentary and its fallout---This was one of MJ's biggest career mistakes.It's a shame that someone close to him (family or friend) didn't try to talk him out of it.

***the baby dangling incident

I would argue that Madonna was much more focused and driven than MJ was during this same period.Since 2001,she's been going on tour every two years or so.But,to be fair,she didn't have to deal with all the distractions that MJ had.

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.

LOL. Seriously, I think, that Invincible sucked.. so what?? that's my option? I think that's also RKJCNE's option(and critics, just check the reviews ).... I think Madonna's album in 00's are great, all 00's albums are better than Invincible imo(well, Hard Candy wasn't that great, so it's on the same level for me).. That's just my option, taste...

If you think Invincible is great, well that's your option/taste.. not mine.

I love Michael, but I just can't stand Invincible, that's it.

All his other albums are great, so please... I'm more fan of Madonna, because she is my number one favorite artist(together with Prince) so ofcourse I prefer her albums more.

SoulAlive said:

I don't know if I would say that Michael was lazy,I think there were all these "distractions" that prevented him from making music and touring more often.

***The 1993 allegations and the 2005 allegations---Let's face it,when you're dealing with something as serious as this,you're not thinking about writing songs or planning a tour.

***The Martin Bashir documentary and its fallout---This was one of MJ's biggest career mistakes.It's a shame that someone close to him (family or friend) didn't try to talk him out of it.

***the baby dangling incident

I would argue that Madonna was much more focused and driven than MJ was during this same period.Since 2001,she's been going on tour every two years or so.But,to be fair,she didn't have to deal with all the distractions that MJ had.

I agree...

CrabalockerFishwife said:

And yes, clearly Michael wasn't very active since 2001. Michael was lazy, but some fans will disagree with that, saying he took 10 years between albums because he was a "perfectionist" ( ).

He was not "lazy". He had 3 kids. He had been doing it for 35 years. He was well within his rights to take it slow. And lets not forget that stupid trial that pretty much took away 5 years of his life.

That comparison is very flawed to begin with. You can't fail something you didn't even try to begin with. It would only make sense if he had released album after album and tanked and went on tour and played to empty houses. The way it is, you can't really compare and you can't really say he failed, as he didn't even try.

And as for "relevant".... what does it mean anyway? He's still big news, was still on the charts, sold a million tickets and millions of albums. So I say, he is relevant.

wow......

three years in the grave and mj still a threat to artists of his generation , and especially to their fans...

who takes madonna seriously as an artist other than her crazed fans ,none ,the woman can't even hit a note...reinventing herself my ass ,I need to see raw talent , madonna failed to show that through her entire career !

CrabalockerFishwife said:

rialb said:

I think people are straying a bit off topic and trying to blur the lines.

People are very off topic.

I think the first step, if we're going to have a decent conversation, is to define "relevant". Clearly, we all have a different idea of what that means.

that's exactly what I said People define "relevent" in different ways,which makes it difficult to have a discussion like this.

SoulAlive said:

CrabalockerFishwife said:

People are very off topic.

I think the first step, if we're going to have a decent conversation, is to define "relevant". Clearly, we all have a different idea of what that means.

that's exactly what I said People define "relevent" in different ways,which makes it difficult to have a discussion like this.

[Edited 3/5/12 5:20am]

RKJCNE said:

This thread shows exactly why we have an MJ sticky

Why is that? and why not a Madonna sticky?

CrabalockerFishwife said:

RKJCNE said:

This thread shows exactly why we have an MJ sticky

Why is that? and why not a Madonna sticky?

Because outsider opinions on MJ are immediatly met with hostility.

Because there are copious amounts of MJ fans here who start threads despite the sticky, while there are just a handful of Madonna fans who keep threads to a minimum. The article in this thread was already posted in a Madonna thread.

RKJCNE said:

CrabalockerFishwife said:

Why is that? and why not a Madonna sticky?

Because outsider opinions on MJ are immediatly met with hostility.

Because there are copious amounts of MJ fans here who start threads despite the sticky, while there are just a handful of Madonna fans who keep threads to a minimum. The article in this thread was already posted in a Madonna thread.

I do agree with your first point... MJ fans can be incredibly rude, and don't take kindly to any negative MJ talk.. but why not just ban those people.. why can't I talk about Michael Jackson sanely, without having to be forced into a sticky where I too will be attacked if I say anything negative (which has happened before)?

[Sorry for getting off-topic]

[Edited 3/5/12 6:42am]

CrabalockerFishwife said:

RKJCNE said:

Because outsider opinions on MJ are immediatly met with hostility.

Because there are copious amounts of MJ fans here who start threads despite the sticky, while there are just a handful of Madonna fans who keep threads to a minimum. The article in this thread was already posted in a Madonna thread.

I do agree with your first point... MJ fans can be incredibly rude, and don't take kindly to any negative MJ talk.. but why not just ban those people.. why can't I talk about Michael Jackson sanely, without having to be forced into a sticky where I too will be attacked if I say anything negative (which has happened before)?

[Sorry for getting off-topic]

[Edited 3/5/12 6:42am]

Unfortunately that's just not possible here, and this is a non sticky thread that got just as nasty.

...

[Edited 3/5/12 7:14am]

alphastreet said:

mjscarousal said:

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.

Butterfllies isnt Michaels style either... its a neo soul style song Thats VERY left field for Michael and he nailed it and made it his own. He even RELEASED it as a single...

I dont expect for her to be like Michael nor want her to be because their is only ONE MJ... And Madonna has not cared about artistry in the 00s or pushing herself because if she did she would not be releasing garbage singles if she did. Michael released Butterflies as a single when their were more radio friendly songs he could have released but didnt. I also was impressed with Whatever Happens the collab he did with Carlos Santana on Invincible.

Madonna put out awesome work TO YOU... my arguement was to people who were bagging on MJ. My arguement was Invincible was very underrated compared to what critics said and Michael sound amazing on it. This past decade Madonnas albums got major reviews... why I dont know they werent anything spetacular but then again Madonna is majorly overrated in general.

I was not impressed at all with Madonnas overall body of work last decade. And while I am not a fan.. I do consider myself to be a casual listener of Madonna and I like quite a few of her songs. I have listened to alot of her work to say that most of her best work was in the 90s and I have listen to past and present to make a judgment unlike dumb posters like RJKCNE who makes assessments over things he hasnt listened to. Dumbass...

xLiberiangirl said:

RKJCNE said:

Well we can let the reviews speak for themselves.

All his other albums are great, so please... I'm more fan of Madonna, because she is my number one favorite artist(together with Prince) so ofcourse I prefer her albums more.

And THERE IT IS... so really all that other bullshit is irrelevant you just PREFER Madonnas music

So I guess if Rolling Stones raves about Lil Waynes and Drakes albums as being good THEIR BAD but if Rolling Stones raves about Madonna they are reliable trustworthy opinions..

Yall are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DUMB

Does anyone find it funny that the main topic of this thread is that her current producer (i.e. the one she gave a job to) the one giving her props? Talk about a conflict of interest lol.

rdhull said:

Does anyone find it funny that the main topic of this thread is that her current producer (i.e. the one she gave a job to) the one giving her props? Talk about a conflict of interest lol.

Nobody cares about that, though. This is a who's better - MJ or Madonna thread...

mjscarousal said:

xLiberiangirl said:

All his other albums are great, so please... I'm more fan of Madonna, because she is my number one favorite artist(together with Prince) so ofcourse I prefer her albums more.

And THERE IT IS... so really all that other bullshit is irrelevant you just PREFER Madonnas music

I said that Invincible sucked but that's my option, It's not a fact, it's just taste/option..

But I think a lot of people agree that Invincible is his worst album... right?

So I guess you like that album... well, that's fine.. if you think it's better than Madonna's album, I respect that, that's your option/taste...

mjscarousal said:

xLiberiangirl said:

All his other albums are great, so please... I'm more fan of Madonna, because she is my number one favorite artist(together with Prince) so ofcourse I prefer her albums more.

And THERE IT IS... so really all that other bullshit is irrelevant you just PREFER Madonnas music

You're acting like its not exactly the same for you on the flipside.

CrabalockerFishwife said:

rdhull said:

Does anyone find it funny that the main topic of this thread is that her current producer (i.e. the one she gave a job to) the one giving her props? Talk about a conflict of interest lol.

Nobody cares about that, though. This is a who's better - MJ or Madonna thread...

MJ fans: MJ is much better
Madonna fans: Madonna is better
----------------
The end.

I've always been annoyed only imaginary fans of both artists, who are absolutely taking the side of one of the artists and mercilessly criticized by another artist ...
This category of people is much worse than haters, IMHO.
Hypocrisy.....

RKJCNE said:

mjscarousal said:

And THERE IT IS... so really all that other bullshit is irrelevant you just PREFER Madonnas music

You're acting like its not exactly the same for you on the flipside.

Im exactly a MJ fan not Madonnas but Ive showed to exactly like quite a few Madonna songs and music videos.. Im not a fanatic like you. Ive listen to her 80s 90 material and to me thats her best mostly her 90s.. Her 00s is straight average material to me. I am being completely rational and making my opinion based on what I HAVE LISTENED to.

I am not mindlessly making assumptions to bash Madonna and because I am not a fan of her unlike you are with Michael. I dont see the point in that if we are trying to have a serious music conversation.

Madonna's name is always thrown in with Michael and Prince. Two outstanding singers, and dancers get lumped in with a no talent hack. This woman has no pipes, and that chicken wing dancing she does is horrific. I can't. I don't usually say anything but when they put her up against great talent, and dis the other, please!

Michael could sing Happy Birthday and shut down anything she has done. His voice was that great. This heffa wouldn't make it past the first round on the X Factor.