Reply #210 posted 04/03/17 2:38pm
214 |
RicoN said:
214 said:
Not at all you're just a Michael Jackson's hater, get out of here already.
All hater means is that i don't have the same blind biizzare adulation for a man who used to get young boys drunk, knock out saccharine pop songs, and mutilate his face while he was off his head on drugs.
So why are you losing your time here? get out of here hijo de la tiznada. [Edited 4/3/17 14:48pm] |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #211 posted 04/03/17 2:40pm
214 |
PatrickS77 said:
RicoN said:
All hater means is that i don't have the same blind biizzare adulation for a man who used to get young boys drunk, knock out saccharine pop songs, and mutilate his face while he was off his head on drugs.
Nah, in this context a hater is someone, who's incapable of objectively judging an artist based on his work, rather than let his dislike for the artist cloud the opinion on the work. Seriously, you showed your colors. None of what you're saying can be taken serious. You really discredited every one of your posts on the topic. What you think about Michael Jackson the person has no bearing on the topic at all. Just because you dislike someone, doesn't take away his influence on the rest of the world.
Preach to choir baby. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #212 posted 04/03/17 11:00pm
TonyVanDam |
Graycap23 said:
paisleypark4 said:
Because Michael Jackson basically defined what the music video was forever after... he is the most influential.
Mj pushed the video format so much so........that it over shadowed the actual music.
I can think of a few songs that I actually hated....but I like the video.
That is the impact that video has.
Where would Mj's career be........without the video? No where near where it is now.
My apologies for playing Devil's Advocate, I can say THAT^ same thing about a lot of artists after 1982.
Chicago, Kool & The Gang, Daryl Hall & John Oates, David Bowie, ...........do I need to mention other names? And I never mention Prince or Madonna yet!
And BTW, before Michael Jackson, The Beatles & ABBA were already showing fans the impact of doing music videos [then called "promotional videos"].
[Edited 4/3/17 23:01pm] |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #213 posted 04/04/17 1:44am
RicoN |
214 said:
RicoN said:
All hater means is that i don't have the same blind biizzare adulation for a man who used to get young boys drunk, knock out saccharine pop songs, and mutilate his face while he was off his head on drugs.
So why are you losing your time here? get out of here hijo de la tiznada.
[Edited 4/3/17 14:48pm]
That's not very nice, it's good job I don't speak spanish!
Hamburger, Hot Dog, Root Beer, Pussy |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #214 posted 04/04/17 8:05am
Graycap23 |
TonyVanDam said:
Graycap23 said:
Mj pushed the video format so much so........that it over shadowed the actual music.
I can think of a few songs that I actually hated....but I like the video.
That is the impact that video has.
Where would Mj's career be........without the video? No where near where it is now.
My apologies for playing Devil's Advocate, I can say THAT^ same thing about a lot of artists after 1982.
Chicago, Kool & The Gang, Daryl Hall & John Oates, David Bowie, ...........do I need to mention other names? And I never mention Prince or Madonna yet!
And BTW, before Michael Jackson, The Beatles & ABBA were already showing fans the impact of doing music videos [then called "promotional videos"].
[Edited 4/3/17 23:01pm]
That doesn't answer the question. FOOLS multiply when WISE Men & Women are silent. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #215 posted 04/04/17 8:46am
mnbvc |
Graycap23 said:
TonyVanDam said:
My apologies for playing Devil's Advocate, I can say THAT^ same thing about a lot of artists after 1982.
Chicago, Kool & The Gang, Daryl Hall & John Oates, David Bowie, ...........do I need to mention other names? And I never mention Prince or Madonna yet!
And BTW, before Michael Jackson, The Beatles & ABBA were already showing fans the impact of doing music videos [then called "promotional videos"].
[Edited 4/3/17 23:01pm]
That doesn't answer the question.
But Michael Jackson was already a superstar talent in the 1970s. The only person among those names who could not become a superstar without the music video is Madonna. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #216 posted 04/04/17 10:55am
mjscarousal |
mnbvc said:
Graycap23 said:
That doesn't answer the question.
But Michael Jackson was already a superstar talent in the 1970s. The only person among those names who could not become a superstar without the music video is Madonna.
|
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #217 posted 04/04/17 10:57am
mjscarousal |
Dasein said:
mjscarousal said:
If it is not Michael, than who is the most influential?
Like I said, if influence is determined in some form or fashion by how many times other recording artists have recorded your songs, than McCartney and Lennon are more influential than Michael Jackson.
If you honestly believe the amount of covers an artist gets is the sole indicator of their impact and influence then you obviously do not know what impact and influence is. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #218 posted 04/04/17 11:19am
TonyVanDam |
Graycap23 said:
TonyVanDam said:
My apologies for playing Devil's Advocate, I can say THAT^ same thing about a lot of artists after 1982.
Chicago, Kool & The Gang, Daryl Hall & John Oates, David Bowie, ...........do I need to mention other names? And I never mention Prince or Madonna yet!
And BTW, before Michael Jackson, The Beatles & ABBA were already showing fans the impact of doing music videos [then called "promotional videos"].
[Edited 4/3/17 23:01pm]
That doesn't answer the question.
FINAL ANSWER: Without music videos, Thriller [the album] might not have sold at the 40+ million copies mark AND we, the music fans, would have Christopher Cross as the King Of Pop instead of Michael Jackson!
Meanwhile, black artists within the USA and their respected record labels would have a bigger fight on their hands trying to convince MTV to play their videos on the network.
[Edited 4/4/17 11:19am] |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #219 posted 04/04/17 11:47am
babynoz |
mjscarousal said:
mnbvc said:
But Michael Jackson was already a superstar talent in the 1970s. The only person among those names who could not become a superstar without the music video is Madonna.
Thank you. Mike was a superstar even before his solo career. Everybody forgets that.
Prince, in you I found a kindred spirit...Rest In Paradise. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #220 posted 04/04/17 12:16pm
babynoz |
The disconnect on this thread is because people have different definitions of what influential means. Some of us define influential more broadly than others. I took the OP to mean who is more widely influential across the board, but that's just me. Those with a more narrow definition will come to a different conclusion.
If you went anywhere from Botswana, to Little Havana, to Bangladesh, Outer Mongolia, Slovenia, etc. and spoke to people from aged 8 to 80. From musicians to fishmongers, they will know of someone influenced in some way by Michael Jackson.
Unless we are talking about specific categories, Mike is the most globally influential artist in the history of music, period.
Prince, in you I found a kindred spirit...Rest In Paradise. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #221 posted 04/04/17 2:20pm
214 |
TonyVanDam said:
Graycap23 said:
That doesn't answer the question.
FINAL ANSWER: Without music videos, Thriller [the album] might not have sold at the 40+ million copies mark AND we, the music fans, would have Christopher Cross as the King Of Pop instead of Michael Jackson!
Meanwhile, black artists within the USA and their respected record labels would have a bigger fight on their hands trying to convince MTV to play their videos on the network.
[Edited 4/4/17 11:19am]
That's true, but that wouldn't have been a bad thing, on the contrary that would have been a good thing for Michael as a person and as an artist. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #222 posted 04/04/17 2:22pm
214 |
babynoz said:
mjscarousal said:
Thank you. Mike was a superstar even before his solo career. Everybody forgets that.
Exactly, actually before his first adult solo important album, he had already released his best or one of his very best albums: Destiny. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #223 posted 04/05/17 1:26am
RicoN |
babynoz said:
The disconnect on this thread is because people have different definitions of what influential means. Some of us define influential more broadly than others. I took the OP to mean who is more widely influential across the board, but that's just me. Those with a more narrow definition will come to a different conclusion.
If you went anywhere from Botswana, to Little Havana, to Bangladesh, Outer Mongolia, Slovenia, etc. and spoke to people from aged 8 to 80. From musicians to fishmongers, they will know of someone influenced in some way by Michael Jackson.
Unless we are talking about specific categories, Mike is the most globally influential artist in the history of music, period.
Going on that definition I'd still say it's Elvis, or The Beatles
Hamburger, Hot Dog, Root Beer, Pussy |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #224 posted 04/05/17 12:47pm
Graycap23 |
mjscarousal said:
Dasein said:
mjscarousal said:
If it is not Michael, than who is the most influential?
Like I said, if influence is determined in some form or fashion by how many times other recording artists have recorded your songs, than McCartney and Lennon are more influential than Michael Jackson.
If you honestly believe the amount of covers an artist gets is the sole indicator of their impact and influence then you obviously do not know what impact and influence is. The numbers of covers has very little to do with influence. Covers lend themselves to either simplicity or familiarity. FOOLS multiply when WISE Men & Women are silent. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #225 posted 04/05/17 6:21pm
babynoz |
RicoN said:
babynoz said:
The disconnect on this thread is because people have different definitions of what influential means. Some of us define influential more broadly than others. I took the OP to mean who is more widely influential across the board, but that's just me. Those with a more narrow definition will come to a different conclusion.
If you went anywhere from Botswana, to Little Havana, to Bangladesh, Outer Mongolia, Slovenia, etc. and spoke to people from aged 8 to 80. From musicians to fishmongers, they will know of someone influenced in some way by Michael Jackson.
Unless we are talking about specific categories, Mike is the most globally influential artist in the history of music, period.
Going on that definition I'd still say it's Elvis, or The Beatles
Elvis is in the ballpark moreso than the Beatles. For example, a sixth grader in East LA or Thai businessman would know Mike and Elvis but the Beatles are not as universally influential.
Speaking in the broadest terms possible it's still going to be Michael Jackson.
Prince, in you I found a kindred spirit...Rest In Paradise. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #226 posted 04/05/17 6:23pm
mjscarousal |
Graycap23 said:
mjscarousal said:
If you honestly believe the amount of covers an artist gets is the sole indicator of their impact and influence then you obviously do not know what impact and influence is.
The numbers of covers has very little to do with influence. Covers lend themselves to either simplicity or familiarity.
Agree. There are a lot of groundbreaking artists that other artists hardly ever cover but that doesn't take away from their influence or impact. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #227 posted 04/05/17 7:24pm
funkycat00 |
Michael Jackson. Waaay too many people try to mimic his falsetto vocals it's shameful. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #228 posted 04/06/17 12:13am
PatrickS77 |
mjscarousal said:
Graycap23 said:
mjscarousal said: The numbers of covers has very little to do with influence. Covers lend themselves to either simplicity or familiarity.
Agree. There are a lot of groundbreaking artists that other artists hardly ever cover but that doesn't take away from their influence or impact.
Nevermind that a Michael Jackson cover usually doesn't make sense. Why cover perfection? Only Michael Jackson can do Michael Jackson. He was so unique in the sense that most others doing his songs fail miserably.
|
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #229 posted 04/06/17 3:14am
mjscarousal |
PatrickS77 said:
mjscarousal said:
Agree. There are a lot of groundbreaking artists that other artists hardly ever cover but that doesn't take away from their influence or impact.
Nevermind that a Michael Jackson cover usually doesn't make sense. Why cover perfection? Only Michael Jackson can do Michael Jackson. He was so unique in the sense that most others doing his songs fail miserably.
Agree 100% Michael Jackson was and IS perfection. Most of his songs were very hard to sing because his voice/singing was so unique. [Edited 4/6/17 3:14am] |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #230 posted 04/06/17 6:39am
RicoN |
mjscarousal said:
PatrickS77 said:
Nevermind that a Michael Jackson cover usually doesn't make sense. Why cover perfection? Only Michael Jackson can do Michael Jackson. He was so unique in the sense that most others doing his songs fail miserably.
Agree 100% Michael Jackson was and IS perfection. Most of his songs were very hard to sing because his voice/singing was so unique.
[Edited 4/6/17 3:14am]
If he was perfection then why did he keep having operations and bleaching his skin to change his apperance?
Hamburger, Hot Dog, Root Beer, Pussy |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #231 posted 04/06/17 7:45am
DaveT |
RicoN said:
mjscarousal said:
Agree 100% Michael Jackson was and IS perfection. Most of his songs were very hard to sing because his voice/singing was so unique.
[Edited 4/6/17 3:14am]
If he was perfection then why did he keep having operations and bleaching his skin to change his apperance?
I think they meant musically ... as in musically the songs written by him and for him were performed as perfectly as they were ever going to be recorded. Its a fair point; I can't see anyone covering his songs and doing a better job than MJ did ... different, but not better.
|
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #232 posted 04/06/17 9:00am
RicoN |
DaveT said:
RicoN said:
If he was perfection then why did he keep having operations and bleaching his skin to change his apperance?
I think they meant musically ... as in musically the songs written by him and for him were performed as perfectly as they were ever going to be recorded. Its a fair point; I can't see anyone covering his songs and doing a better job than MJ did ... different, but not better
On Off The Wall and Thriller, the writers and musicians that QJ got in eman that I would probably agree with you.
After that the songs sound so dated that they coulds easily be done better.
Hamburger, Hot Dog, Root Beer, Pussy |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #233 posted 04/06/17 11:03am
MichaelJackson 5 |
Considering what MJ went through and still managing to create hits and No.1 albums in the 90s up to Invincible, MJ is much more influential than Madonna.
Imagine if that little kid from the Open Your Heart video accused her of molesting him a few years later and it sparked a media frenzy upon which she settled with an out of court payment of $20 million. Imagine if Madonna changed her face after LAV or True Blue and looked Oriental or Latino. Imagine her writing a song that angered the establishment the way They Don't Care About Us did. Her career would have been over and she'd have been forgotten more than 20 years ago.
But the Michael Jackson brand is only getting stronger with each passing year as people forget the madness and really focus on his artistry.
If you don't agree, you either have an irrational hatred of Jackson's body of work based on his personal life or unrealistically idolize a woman who's vocal limitiations, alone, preclude her from being in the same class as MJ.
And who copies whom reveals a lot
https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/lividdizzyenglishpointer |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #234 posted 04/06/17 11:13am
PatrickS77 |
RicoN said:
mjscarousal said:
Agree 100% Michael Jackson was and IS perfection. Most of his songs were very hard to sing because his voice/singing was so unique.
[Edited 4/6/17 3:14am]
If he was perfection then why did he keep having operations and bleaching his skin to change his apperance?
We already established that you're a troll and don't bring anything worthy to the discussion. So stfu and gtfo.
MichaelJackson5 said:
Considering what MJ went through and still managing to create hits and No.1 albums in the 90s up to Invincible, MJ is much more influential than Madonna.
Exactly. Other people would have been finished. So that pretty much answers the question at hand.
[Edited 4/6/17 11:15am] |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #235 posted 04/06/17 12:08pm
sexton |
Dasein said:
mjscarousal said:
This IS a fact
If the number of times your song has been covered by other recording artists is an indication of how influential you've been as a pop musician, then Michael Jackson is not more influential than Paul McCartney/John Lennon.
Sorry, but MJ being the most influential pop artist/icon ever is not a fact.
I agree the Beatles top everyone in terms of influence. Popularizing the idea of the concept album influenced scores of artists who don't even realize it.
|
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #236 posted 04/06/17 1:43pm
214 |
RicoN said:
mjscarousal said:
Agree 100% Michael Jackson was and IS perfection. Most of his songs were very hard to sing because his voice/singing was so unique.
[Edited 4/6/17 3:14am]
If he was perfection then why did he keep having operations and bleaching his skin to change his apperance?
You're a pice of shit who knows nothing. He had vitiligo, even if you don't want to believe it. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #237 posted 04/06/17 3:27pm
DaveT |
MichaelJackson5 said:
Considering what MJ went through and still managing to create hits and No.1 albums in the 90s up to Invincible, MJ is much more influential than Madonna.
Imagine if that little kid from the Open Your Heart video accused her of molesting him a few years later and it sparked a media frenzy upon which she settled with an out of court payment of $20 million. Imagine if Madonna changed her face after LAV or True Blue and looked Oriental or Latino. Imagine her writing a song that angered the establishment the way They Don't Care About Us did. Her career would have been over and she'd have been forgotten more than 20 years ago.
But the Michael Jackson brand is only getting stronger with each passing year as people forget the madness and really focus on his artistry.
If you don't agree, you either have an irrational hatred of Jackson's body of work based on his personal life or unrealistically idolize a woman who's vocal limitiations, alone, preclude her from being in the same class as MJ.
And who copies whom reveals a lot
https://gfycat.com/gifs/d...ishpointer
I don't think I'll ever be able to see past MJ's behaviour and his habit of sharing his bed with kids ... whether it was innocent or not we'll never no, but regardless, its not proper behaviour.
His music, as good as it was, will always be tainted to a certain extent for me (and I suspect I'm not alone in this) ... not on the same level as Gary Glitter obviously, but same principal. His influence, his legacy, it all takes a big knock. I can't advocate for someone who thinks this is acceptable behaviour.
|
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #238 posted 04/06/17 5:54pm
Scorp |
Michael Jackson's best decade of success was in the 1980s and Madonna's best decade of success was in the 1980s...
There's no doubt about that, not one iota |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #239 posted 04/06/17 6:59pm
morningsong |
Shawy89 said:
It's not up for debate.
Michael is the most popular figure in the history of music (Pop and classical alike). The only one who matches his popularity is either Bob Marley, Mozart, Elvis or The Beatles.
And his overall popularity is matched by Jesus's, Mohammed's, Einstein's, Che Guevara's, Hitler's and other globally known figures.
He is influential in every aspect. I say this because I actually traveled to a lot of third world countries and the man is just a major thing. He's like sushi. Even the penguins in Antarctica know about MJ and tried at least once in their lives to moonwalk.
I'd estimate that 60% of current world population knows about MJ. He's known mostly for being the greatest dancer / entertainer ever lived, then comes Billie Jean's popularity, then his vitiligo and image... plus so many things.
Madonna is widely influential but her influence is only big in North America, Europe, Australia, Canada, parts of Asia and that's it really, you don't go to Brazil and see singers impersonating her. You don't go to Sierra Leone and ask someone about her and expect a reaction. Still though, she is a MAJOR FIGURE in pop culture.
[Edited 3/15/17 20:39pm]
Oh my goodness, I got a kick out of this.
|
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
copyright © 1998-2024 prince.org. all rights reserved.