Dasein 
|
mjscarousal said:
Dasein said:
Maybe, but the context of the thread is about discussing who is more influential between Jackson
and Madonna which lends itself easily to talking about how one recording artist may be better than
the next. I am not sure who first introduced the notion of "record sales" as something that sug-
gests or proves one recording artist is more influential than another, but my point remains that it
doesn't.
Sales of anything, including albums, speaks to many things, but mostly only to what is popular, not
"influential" or "better" which is often the tone many of these disastrous threads take. All this being
said, I'm not quite sure of how to read your post.
But I never mentioned it first. A poster made an inaccurate comment about Prince record sales compared to MJ. They introduced the comparision, I didn't. I just simply disagreed with it.
Okay, then my post wasn't directed towards you. I actually don't remember if I my response was
directed specifically to one particular poster.
The fact remains: high sales does not necessarily reflect whether or not whatever is being sold is
more influential than its competition and/or competitors.
|
| | - E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
4You92 |
Dasein said:
4You92 said:
Some of y'all just don't want to give Mike the credit that he's due no matter what. He is the most influential. People in about every genre of music have credited him as an influence, and he's influential even outside of the realm of music. Kobe Bryant recently stated that Michael was his greatest mentor and his biggest influence. He said in the past that people would expect him to say another basketball player, but he always said Michael. Same thing for his dancing. Nobody has mentioned Misty Copeland, but she was in Spikes OTW documentary, and she even stated that Mike was the reason she wanted to dance and he was one of her biggest influences. And as a side note, Michael didn't just call himself the King of Pop out of nowhere. The media was already doing that as far back as 1984. That Liz Taylor angle people like to throw in is nonsense. Can't help that he just capitalized on what was already being stated.
But some of y'all are wanting to give Mike credit for stuff unjustifiably so simply because you like
him - so, it works both ways.
Also, how are you measuring influence? And just because you've mentioned two celebrities outside of
music as being influenced by Michael Jackson doesn't mean he's the most influential pop musician of
all time.
I honestly don't see how anyone else is really. The man literally changed the music industry as we know it. I think the real problem is people want to make him out to be smaller and less significant than he was based on their own bias. And no where did I unjustifiable give Mike credit for something that he didn't deserve credit for.
[Edited 4/26/17 21:12pm][Edited 4/26/17 21:13pm] |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mjscarousal |
4You92 said:
Dasein said:
But some of y'all are wanting to give Mike credit for stuff unjustifiably so simply because you like
him - so, it works both ways.
Also, how are you measuring influence? And just because you've mentioned two celebrities outside of
music as being influenced by Michael Jackson doesn't mean he's the most influential pop musician of
all time.
I honestly don't see how anyone else is really. The man literally changed the music industry as we know it. I think the real problem is people want to make him out to be smaller and less significant than he was based on their own bias. [Edited 4/26/17 21:12pm]
|
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
4You92 |
Dasein said:
CharismaDove said:
People ain't lying when they say MJ has fans ALL over the world and of ALL ages. In fact, in many foreign countries, MJ's THE icon of popular music, like him or not.
Please provide proof of this.
Are you seriously trying to debate this? Come on now. This is pop culture 101. |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
4You92 |
MotownSubdivision said: 4You92 said: The things I've seen people post in this thread is insane. Some of y'all just don't want to give Mike the credit that he's due no matter what.
He is the most influential. People in about every genre of music have credited him as an influence, and he's influential even outside of the realm of music. Kobe Bryant recently stated that Michael was his greatest mentor and his biggest influence. He said in the past that people would expect him to say another basketball player, but he always said Michael. Same thing for his dancing. Nobody has mentioned Misty Copeland, but she was in Spikes OTW documentary, and she even stated that Mike was the reason she wanted to dance and he was one of her biggest influences.
And as a side note, Michael didn't just call himself the King of Pop out of nowhere. The media was already doing that as far back as 1984. That Liz Taylor angle people like to throw in is nonsense. Can't help that he just capitalized on what was already being stated. Do we have any evidence of this? Here's the link to a paper from 1984. If you could tell me how to post the pic on its own it would be much appreciated. Like i said, that whole Liz Taylor story is a farce. If anything, he capitalized on something he was already referred to as.
https://www.google.com/se...oxTX3jN9M:
[Edited 4/26/17 21:16pm]
[Edited 4/26/17 21:18pm][Edited 4/26/17 21:23pm] |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dasein
|
4You92 said:
Dasein said:
But some of y'all are wanting to give Mike credit for stuff unjustifiably so simply because you like
him - so, it works both ways.
Also, how are you measuring influence? And just because you've mentioned two celebrities outside of
music as being influenced by Michael Jackson doesn't mean he's the most influential pop musician of
all time.
I honestly don't see how anyone else is really. The man literally changed the music industry as we know it. I think the real problem is people want to make him out to be smaller and less significant than he was based on their own bias. And no where did I unjustifiable give Mike credit for something that he didn't deserve credit for. [Edited 4/26/17 21:12pm] [Edited 4/26/17 21:13pm]
Okay, you say Michael Jackson is the most influential pop musician of all time. But, I'm simply
asking you to show us and give us proof or evidence. Because until you do so, then you are most
certainly giving Jackson credit for being the most influential pop musician of all time with no justi-
fication.
Are you able to recognize your own bias?
|
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dasein
|
4You92 said:
Dasein said:
Please provide proof of this.
Are you seriously trying to debate this? Come on now. This is pop culture 101.
Stop appealing to what you think we ought to know or believe and simply give us evidence
or proof to substantiate your claims.
I'm willing to accept Michael Jackson as being the most influential pop musician of all time if
there is a reason to do so! And nobody has yet to offer a methodology of measuring influence
outside of my own attempt to show the Beatles having the most covered songs of all time.
|
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dasein
|
4You92 said:
MotownSubdivision said:
Do we have any evidence of this?
Here's the link to a paper from 1984. If you could tell me how to post the pic on its own it would be much appreciated. Like i said, that whole Liz Taylor story is a farce. If anything, he capitalized on something he was already referred to as. https://www.google.com/se...oxTX3jN9M: [Edited 4/26/17 21:16pm] [Edited 4/26/17 21:18pm] [Edited 4/26/17 21:23pm]
That link ain't working.
By the way, just because Michael Jackson was claimed the King of Pop by a newspaper article
doesn't mean he's the most influential pop musician of all time. Even if Jackson didn't ask or
demand that media outlets start referring to him as such, one can be the king or queen of any-
thing and still not be influential.
In some context, the Queen of England is not more influential the British Prime Minister. |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LittleBLUECorv
ette 
|
MJ was an influence as part of the Jackson 5 in the early 70s as a pre-teen and continues to be one almost a decade after his death. PRINCE: Always and Forever
MICHAEL JACKSON: Always and Forever
-----
Live Your Life How U Wanna Live It |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
214 |
4You92 said:
The things I've seen people post in this thread is insane. Some of y'all just don't want to give Mike the credit that he's due no matter what. He is the most influential. People in about every genre of music have credited him as an influence, and he's influential even outside of the realm of music. Kobe Bryant recently stated that Michael was his greatest mentor and his biggest influence. He said in the past that people would expect him to say another basketball player, but he always said Michael. Same thing for his dancing. Nobody has mentioned Misty Copeland, but she was in Spikes OTW documentary, and she even stated that Mike was the reason she wanted to dance and he was one of her biggest influences. And as a side note, Michael didn't just call himself the King of Pop out of nowhere. The media was already doing that as far back as 1984. That Liz Taylor angle people like to throw in is nonsense. Can't help that he just capitalized on what was already being stated.
Preach to choir. |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
4You92 |
Dasein said:
4You92 said:
MotownSubdivision said:
Do we have any evidence of this?
Here's the link to a paper from 1984. If you could tell me how to post the pic on its own it would be much appreciated. Like i said, that whole Liz Taylor story is a farce. If anything, he capitalized on something he was already referred to as. https://www.google.com/se...oxTX3jN9M: [Edited 4/26/17 21:16pm] [Edited 4/26/17 21:18pm] [Edited 4/26/17 21:23pm]
That link ain't working.
By the way, just because Michael Jackson was claimed the King of Pop by a newspaper article
doesn't mean he's the most influential pop musician of all time. Even if Jackson didn't ask or demand that media outlets start referring to him as such, one can be the king or queen of any- thing and still not be influential.
In some context, the Queen of England is not more influential the British Prime Minister. It's not worth arguing with someone who clearly is willfully ignoring reality. People all throughout this thread have given proof. From the people who blatantly copy him to artists trying to make the next Thriller to him being referenced as an influence by people in the music industry and those outside of it to the fact that he completely changed the industry and how it worked, and on and on. I mean, what else do you want? For us to do a poll? Your questions are ridiculous. If you're this intent on proving he's not, please give proof that he's not because right now you just sound like you're being a contrarian for the sake of being one and possibly some bitterness. And sorry that links not working for you. It works for me, and the point is that people in the real world regarded him as such and was making that known. Really doesn't matter that you disagree because the issue was that people were saying he just came up with that title out of no where and that is factually false. Now either you're going to provide some evdence to the contrary or it's going to be assumed by me that your looking for attention. |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dasein
|
4You92 said:
Dasein said:
That link ain't working.
By the way, just because Michael Jackson was claimed the King of Pop by a newspaper article
doesn't mean he's the most influential pop musician of all time. Even if Jackson didn't ask or
demand that media outlets start referring to him as such, one can be the king or queen of any-
thing and still not be influential.
In some context, the Queen of England is not more influential the British Prime Minister.
It's not worth arguing with someone who clearly is willfully ignoring reality. People all throughout this thread have given proof. From the people who blatantly copy him to artists trying to make the next Thriller to him being referenced as an influence by people in the music industry and those outside of it to the fact that he completely changed the industry and how it worked, and on and on. I mean, what else do you want? For us to do a poll? Your questions are ridiculous. If you're this intent on proving he's not, please give proof that he's not because right now you just sound like you're being a contrarian for the sake of being one and possibly some bitterness. And sorry that links not working for you. It works for me, and the point is that people in the real world regarded him as such and was making that known. Really doesn't matter that you disagree because the issue was that people were saying he just came up with that title out of no where and that is factually false. Now either you're going to provide some evdence to the contrary or it's going to be assumed by me that your looking for attention.
My contention is not that Michael Jackson isn't the most influential pop music icon because I have
no way to accurately measure influence; nobody does. And most influential to who? Recording
artist? The general public? What is influence? How do you define then detect it?
My questions are not ridiculous: if you're making a claim, then it's up to you to provide evidence for
reasons why your claim ought to be taken seriously! So far, you have not cited any sources that
are able to qualify and quantify the claim that Michael Jackson is the most influential pop music icon
outside of posting a broken link, claiming a newspaper called Jackson the King of Pop, and saying
"the man literally changed the music industry" - but you haven't given us an example of how Jackson
did that and why changing the face of music is an indication of how influential he was.
How are you able to determine, with some sound evidence, that Michael Jackson is the most influential
pop music icon outside of you just really liking Michael Jackson?
And let me remind you that I am the only one in this thread who has provided a source to back up
my claim, which was if we are to measure influence amongst recording artists, then the Beatles are
more influential than Michael Jackson as we can safely make that inference about their influence dom-
inating other pop musicians due to the Beatles being the most covered band of all time. Michael
Jackson was not in the top five.
|
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Marrk 
|
I like Michael Jackson's music, always will. It's ingrained in me like a tattoo. But by God I hate nearly all his fans now though, So many overly-protective idiots ruining his legacy arguing trivia. He had flaws and wasn't what everyone thought he was. I recognize that something snapped in his head along the line and it became apparent he was somewhat fake and insincere, possibly covering up bad deeds with well publicised good deeds. The music remains though. That's still good and that's all that matters to me. Don't LOVE it like i did though. I just can't anymore for the reasons I stated. |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
214 |
Marrk said:
I like Michael Jackson's music, always will. It's ingrained in me like a tattoo. But by God I hate nearly all his fans now though, So many overly-protective idiots ruining his legacy arguing trivia. He had flaws and wasn't what everyone thought he was. I recognize that something snapped in his head along the line and it became apparent he was somewhat fake and insincere, possibly covering up bad deeds with well publicised good deeds. The music remains though. That's still good and that's all that matters to me. Don't LOVE it like i did though. I just can't anymore for the reasons I stated.
My God, ican only imagine what you mean by bad deeds. Pathetic. |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Free2BMe |
Marrk said: I like Michael Jackson's music, always will. It's ingrained in me like a tattoo. But by God I hate nearly all his fans now though, So many overly-protective idiots ruining his legacy arguing trivia. He had flaws and wasn't what everyone thought he was. I recognize that something snapped in his head along the line and it became apparent he was somewhat fake and insincere, possibly covering up bad deeds with well publicised good deeds. The music remains though. That's still good and that's all that matters to me. Don't LOVE it like i did though. I just can't anymore for the reasons I stated. What you are saying is hypocritical. EVERY artist fans defend and protect them. It is stupid and immature to think that only Michael fans do that. I get so sick of people like you who have the audacity to tell MJ fans how we are supposed to act. FTR, we know that Michael had flaws. So did Prince. So does Janet, Madonna, and everyone else. They are HUMAN and all humans have flaws. This "bad deeds" crap that you are spewing is weak. I would be willing to bet that you have done more "bad deeds" than Michael ever did. I would also wager that Michael did more GOOD deeds than you will ever do in your lifetime. Stop trying to be so self/righteous. You don't have to love Michael or his music. That's your prerogative. Just stop trying to act as if MJ fans are any different than YOUR favorite's fans.😏 [Edited 4/29/17 0:05am] |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Free2BMe |
Dasein said:
mjscarousal said:
Dasein said:
Maybe, but the context of the thread is about discussing who is more influential between Jackson
and Madonna which lends itself easily to talking about how one recording artist may be better than
the next. I am not sure who first introduced the notion of "record sales" as something that sug-
gests or proves one recording artist is more influential than another, but my point remains that it
doesn't.
Sales of anything, including albums, speaks to many things, but mostly only to what is popular, not
"influential" or "better" which is often the tone many of these disastrous threads take. All this being
said, I'm not quite sure of how to read your post.
But I never mentioned it first. A poster made an inaccurate comment about Prince record sales compared to MJ. They introduced the comparision, I didn't. I just simply disagreed with it.
Okay, then my post wasn't directed towards you. I actually don't remember if I my response was
directed specifically to one particular poster.
The fact remains: high sales does not necessarily reflect whether or not whatever is being sold is
more influential than its competition and/or competitors.
The bottom line is that I have stated that,in MY OPINION,Michael Jackson is the most influential pop artist ever. That's MY opinion. If you agree, then that's fine. If you don't agree, then that's ok also. Btw, MY opinion is NOT only based on album sales. It's based on other things, as well. In my lifetime, I have never known an artist, singer, entertainer who has permeated music, pop culture, etc. in every age group, race, country, socio-economic level as Michael has on a GLOBAL scale. Feel free to disagree or debate my premise. [Edited 4/29/17 0:22am] |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dasein
|
Free2BMe said:
Dasein said:
Okay, then my post wasn't directed towards you. I actually don't remember if I my response was
directed specifically to one particular poster.
The fact remains: high sales does not necessarily reflect whether or not whatever is being sold is
more influential than its competition and/or competitors.
The bottom line is that I have stated that,in MY OPINION,Michael Jackson is the most influential pop artist ever. That's MY opinion. If you agree, then that's fine. If you don't agree, then that's ok also. Btw, MY opinion is NOT only based on album sales. It's based on other things, as well. In my lifetime, I have never known an artist, singer, entertainer who has permeated music, pop culture, etc. in every age group, race, country, socio-economic level as Michael has on a GLOBAL scale. Feel free to disagree or debate my premise. [Edited 4/29/17 0:22am]
Sigh, you're another Orger who thinks that having the "right", so to speak, to an opinion means
that we have to take your opinion seriously.
Wrong.
You are free to have the opinion that the Earth is flat. But that's doesn't mean that we ought to take
your opinion seriously, and/or, that we can't tell you that your opinion is dumb. So, you can't rely
upon this right for having an opinion in a debate or conversation alone. You must provide reasons
why you have an opinion.
When you say: "In my lifetime, I have never known an artist, singer, entertainer who has permeated
music, pop culture, etc. in every age group, race, country, socio-economic level as Michael has on a
GLOBAL scale", how are you able to say this? What evidence do you have that Michael Jackson did
such things? What graph or evidence or sources do you have that rated Michael Jackson as such and
over and beyond a competitor, like, Elvis Presley or the Beatles or {fill in the blanks}?
All you and others are saying in this thread, without any proof to justify your opinion, is:
I just really, really, really like Michael Jackson and prefer him over all other recording artists and be-
cause he was really, really, really popular, I think he was the most influential pop music icon, even
though I can rely upon no scientific evidence to substantiate this opinion.
Besides, the Beatles have sold billions of albums, leaving Michael Jackson behind - I've posted the
sources for supporting this claim. The Beatles are the most covered band of all time, also leaving
Michael Jackson behind - I've posted the sources for supporting this claim too. With these two facts
in place, I'm much more comfortable with the notion of the Beatles being the most influential pop
musicians of all time than I am with Michael Jackson. But, I can be swayed if given new evidence!
|
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Graycap23 
|
In all honesty.....F*ck Pop music.
Give me FUNK...or give me death. FOOLS multiply when WISE Men & Women are silent. |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
214 |
Graycap23 said:
In all honesty.....F*ck Pop music.
Give me FUNK...or give me death.
Then die already and get your ass out of here. |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
4You92 |
Dasein said:
4You92 said:
Dasein said:
That link ain't working.
By the way, just because Michael Jackson was claimed the King of Pop by a newspaper article
doesn't mean he's the most influential pop musician of all time. Even if Jackson didn't ask or
demand that media outlets start referring to him as such, one can be the king or queen of any-
thing and still not be influential.
In some context, the Queen of England is not more influential the British Prime Minister.
It's not worth arguing with someone who clearly is willfully ignoring reality. People all throughout this thread have given proof. From the people who blatantly copy him to artists trying to make the next Thriller to him being referenced as an influence by people in the music industry and those outside of it to the fact that he completely changed the industry and how it worked, and on and on. I mean, what else do you want? For us to do a poll? Your questions are ridiculous. If you're this intent on proving he's not, please give proof that he's not because right now you just sound like you're being a contrarian for the sake of being one and possibly some bitterness. And sorry that links not working for you. It works for me, and the point is that people in the real world regarded him as such and was making that known. Really doesn't matter that you disagree because the issue was that people were saying he just came up with that title out of no where and that is factually false. Now either you're going to provide some evdence to the contrary or it's going to be assumed by me that your looking for attention.
My contention is not that Michael Jackson isn't the most influential pop music icon because I have
no way to accurately measure influence; nobody does. And most influential to who? Recording
artist? The general public? What is influence? How do you define then detect it?
My questions are not ridiculous: if you're making a claim, then it's up to you to provide evidence for
reasons why your claim ought to be taken seriously! So far, you have not cited any sources that
are able to qualify and quantify the claim that Michael Jackson is the most influential pop music icon
outside of posting a broken link, claiming a newspaper called Jackson the King of Pop, and saying
"the man literally changed the music industry" - but you haven't given us an example of how Jackson
did that and why changing the face of music is an indication of how influential he was.
How are you able to determine, with some sound evidence, that Michael Jackson is the most influential
pop music icon outside of you just really liking Michael Jackson?
And let me remind you that I am the only one in this thread who has provided a source to back up
my claim, which was if we are to measure influence amongst recording artists, then the Beatles are
more influential than Michael Jackson as we can safely make that inference about their influence dom-
inating other pop musicians due to the Beatles being the most covered band of all time. Michael
Jackson was not in the top five.
So being a more covered band is an example of influence but trying to sound like you and emulate you in their music isn't? Please go take a seat. You are pressed and don't want to deal with that fact. |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
4You92 |
Graycap23 said: In all honesty.....F*ck Pop music. Give me FUNK...or give me death. Your music snobbery is disgusting. All music is valid, has a place, and has trash among the gems. |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
4You92 |
Dasein said:
Free2BMe said:
Dasein said:
Okay, then my post wasn't directed towards you. I actually don't remember if I my response was
directed specifically to one particular poster.
The fact remains: high sales does not necessarily reflect whether or not whatever is being sold is
more influential than its competition and/or competitors.
The bottom line is that I have stated that,in MY OPINION,Michael Jackson is the most influential pop artist ever. That's MY opinion. If you agree, then that's fine. If you don't agree, then that's ok also. Btw, MY opinion is NOT only based on album sales. It's based on other things, as well. In my lifetime, I have never known an artist, singer, entertainer who has permeated music, pop culture, etc. in every age group, race, country, socio-economic level as Michael has on a GLOBAL scale. Feel free to disagree or debate my premise. [Edited 4/29/17 0:22am]
Sigh, you're another Orger who thinks that having the "right", so to speak, to an opinion means
that we have to take your opinion seriously.
Wrong.
You are free to have the opinion that the Earth is flat. But that's doesn't mean that we ought to take
your opinion seriously, and/or, that we can't tell you that your opinion is dumb. So, you can't rely
upon this right for having an opinion in a debate or conversation alone. You must provide reasons
why you have an opinion.
When you say: "In my lifetime, I have never known an artist, singer, entertainer who has permeated
music, pop culture, etc. in every age group, race, country, socio-economic level as Michael has on a
GLOBAL scale", how are you able to say this? What evidence do you have that Michael Jackson did
such things? What graph or evidence or sources do you have that rated Michael Jackson as such and
over and beyond a competitor, like, Elvis Presley or the Beatles or {fill in the blanks}?
All you and others are saying in this thread, without any proof to justify your opinion, is:
I just really, really, really like Michael Jackson and prefer him over all other recording artists and be-
cause he was really, really, really popular, I think he was the most influential pop music icon, even
though I can rely upon no scientific evidence to substantiate this opinion.
Besides, the Beatles have sold billions of albums, leaving Michael Jackson behind - I've posted the
sources for supporting this claim. The Beatles are the most covered band of all time, also leaving
Michael Jackson behind - I've posted the sources for supporting this claim too. With these two facts
in place, I'm much more comfortable with the notion of the Beatles being the most influential pop
musicians of all time than I am with Michael Jackson. But, I can be swayed if given new evidence!
LOL!!!!! You only like the information you bring to the table and have closed your ears to everything else. Never mind the fact that Michael has already been reported to have crossed the billion mark himself, and the only reason why they Beatles have a bit more is because they were out when singles were the popular thing to buy and they have myriads of the. Never mind the fact that the industry is pretty much based on Michaels success at this point. Never mind the fact You hear more artists say they are influenced by Michael Jackson than you hear anyone claim the Beatles. Michael has monuments and statues all over the world. People copying him all over the world. Nah. It's as I though. You're looking for attention. Nothing will ever sway you. |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Graycap23
|
214 said:
Graycap23 said:
In all honesty.....F*ck Pop music.
Give me FUNK...or give me death.
Then die already and get your ass out of here.
Funk.............never dies.
It multiplies....... FOOLS multiply when WISE Men & Women are silent. |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mjscarousal |
Graycap23 said:
214 said:
Then die already and get your ass out of here.
Funk.............never dies.
It multiplies.......
LOL |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
214 |
4You92 said:
Dasein said:
My contention is not that Michael Jackson isn't the most influential pop music icon because I have
no way to accurately measure influence; nobody does. And most influential to who? Recording
artist? The general public? What is influence? How do you define then detect it?
My questions are not ridiculous: if you're making a claim, then it's up to you to provide evidence for
reasons why your claim ought to be taken seriously! So far, you have not cited any sources that
are able to qualify and quantify the claim that Michael Jackson is the most influential pop music icon
outside of posting a broken link, claiming a newspaper called Jackson the King of Pop, and saying
"the man literally changed the music industry" - but you haven't given us an example of how Jackson
did that and why changing the face of music is an indication of how influential he was.
How are you able to determine, with some sound evidence, that Michael Jackson is the most influential
pop music icon outside of you just really liking Michael Jackson?
And let me remind you that I am the only one in this thread who has provided a source to back up
my claim, which was if we are to measure influence amongst recording artists, then the Beatles are
more influential than Michael Jackson as we can safely make that inference about their influence dom-
inating other pop musicians due to the Beatles being the most covered band of all time. Michael
Jackson was not in the top five.
So being a more covered band is an example of influence but trying to sound like you and emulate you in their music isn't? Please go take a seat. You are pressed and don't want to deal with that fact.
I was about to say the same. He or She just does not want to give Michael Jackson any credit. |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
214 |
Graycap23 said:
214 said:
Then die already and get your ass out of here.
Funk.............never dies.
It multiplies.......
Thanks God you don't. |
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dasein
|
4You92 said:
Dasein said:
My contention is not that Michael Jackson isn't the most influential pop music icon because I have
no way to accurately measure influence; nobody does. And most influential to who? Recording
artist? The general public? What is influence? How do you define then detect it?
My questions are not ridiculous: if you're making a claim, then it's up to you to provide evidence for
reasons why your claim ought to be taken seriously! So far, you have not cited any sources that
are able to qualify and quantify the claim that Michael Jackson is the most influential pop music icon
outside of posting a broken link, claiming a newspaper called Jackson the King of Pop, and saying
"the man literally changed the music industry" - but you haven't given us an example of how Jackson
did that and why changing the face of music is an indication of how influential he was.
How are you able to determine, with some sound evidence, that Michael Jackson is the most influential
pop music icon outside of you just really liking Michael Jackson?
And let me remind you that I am the only one in this thread who has provided a source to back up
my claim, which was if we are to measure influence amongst recording artists, then the Beatles are
more influential than Michael Jackson as we can safely make that inference about their influence dom-
inating other pop musicians due to the Beatles being the most covered band of all time. Michael
Jackson was not in the top five.
So being a more covered band is an example of influence but trying to sound like you and emulate you in their music isn't? Please go take a seat. You are pressed and don't want to deal with that fact.
This post makes no sense. Can you re-word it, or clarify?
Yes; a band that is the most covered band of all time as indicated by an organization which tracks
such things lends itself easily to drawing an inference that the band is influential amongst other re-
cording artists.
The part of your post where you state: "but trying to sound like you and emulate you in their music
isn't?" makes no sense to me.
|
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dasein
|
214 said:
4You92 said:
Dasein said: So being a more covered band is an example of influence but trying to sound like you and emulate you in their music isn't? Please go take a seat. You are pressed and don't want to deal with that fact.
I was about to say the same. He or She just does not want to give Michael Jackson any credit.
I have given Michael Jackson enough credit in this thread and in others: he is probably the most
popular pop entertainer of all time, and easily one of the most influential pop entertainers of all
time too.
I say these things without any evidence to support them, though. Yet, I'm the only one who is
willing to admit it.
|
| | - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
New topic
Printable