| |
Discussion: What makes Michael Jackson so great?
Member Since: 4/29/2011
Posts: 6,884
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ManDown
His sales are what make him so iconic and legendary to most people. They overshadow any talent he had. I rarely ever hear people saying, "Wow! Michael's voice SLAYED on that song"; it's always, "Wow! Michael's sales SLAYED our faves!"
|
No, you only see that on ATRL, and other music forums.
Quote:
Originally posted by madonnas
The beatles.  |
No, The Beatles do not.
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny
I understand that you may not like Michael Jackson, enjoy his music, or get his performance skills. But do you honesty mean to announce to us that you seriously can not understand the reason he is so special? Is it enough for you that he is one of the biggest selling acts of all time, has left a legacy so large that you can literally see his influence on the pop/R&B stars of late, revolutionized the way we look at and treat music videos, obtained a huge array of worldwide hits, marked himself as one of the greatest popular performers of all time, and just left a huge footprint on popular culture? By all means, continue to be perplexed and wonder "I wonder why a person who has achieved so much is great or special, because I just don't get it." That alone has me wondering where you were when he died, because the tributes and the fact that his movie is now the highest grossing documentary film of all time is a testimony to how much he has influenced popular culture today. And it is completely irrelevant, whether or not you think he is talented or creates good art; greatness is not subjective, it is something you can behold and see with your own eyes.
|
And there's your answer.
Quote:
Originally posted by HausOfJabril
I think you should do your research. You'd be surprised what you find.
 |
It would just be a wild goose chase. The Beatles have done well for themselves, but MJ's impact and influence on today's pop landscape far supersedes that of The Beatles from videos, to performances, to the music, MJ's legacy is omni-present across several genres, while The Beatles are only in pop for the most part.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/6/2011
Posts: 4,948
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Duca
Yes, undoubtedly.
|
Michael Jackson could sing, dance, songwrite, and perform circles around Britney Spears.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/14/2009
Posts: 34,871
|
Ask all tha artists that look up to him. But I do think he's overrated
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/6/2011
Posts: 4,948
|
Michael Jackson had tremendous vocal and dancing talent on top of the type of charisma, stage presence, musicality and creativity that only comes once in a lifetime. You may not like his music or him as an individual, but that fact is undeniable. His sales, while absolutely unfathomable, pale in comparison to the incalculable influence he has had on not just pop music and pop culture, but the world. And that is not an overstatement.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2011
Posts: 18,529
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Duca
Yes, undoubtedly.
|
Tell me how Britney Jean Spears is better than Michael Jackson in ANY capacity? This may be the most delusional statement I've ever seen on ATRL 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/16/2012
Posts: 6,442
|
MJ made three good records, had large appeal because of crossover music (the only truly inventive thing about it was that it crossed over so well), was a fairly good (but not great) singer/writer/producer, was a good dancer (even though it got very one-dimensional after the Bad Tour), had a fairly nice personality and made some fairly good music videos (he was the first to truly capitalise on them, which made them very innovative for their time; it wasn't really because of quality) and of course his massive sales (inflated by many).
But the greatest innovation of Michael Jackson's career wasn't even his doing - it was his marketing, PR and management. They changed the way people sold albums and built public personas for all new artists from the '90s onwards.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/30/2009
Posts: 4,574
|
gerl not with Britney SPears in your avatar.
take several seats
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/9/2012
Posts: 13,357
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Javan
But my point is, the beatles didn't create images that are still remembered today. Honestly, the only image the beatles had made memorable for me was the picture on Abbey Road. They were no way as creative as MJ. The didn't change or experiment. We saw no growth in the Beatles compared to the growth we saw in MJ. As everyone has mentioned, MJ was not only a singer, he was a song writer, philanthropist, dancer, performer, director, producer and many more.
IMO, The Beatles are not greater than MJ and they have not worked as hard as MJ.
|
Are you dumb? The were an English band that had to work hard to appeal to the American artist. You obviously haven't done your research because you have NO RIGHT to say they haven't worked as hard. You hear their songs on commercials all the time even if you don't know it's a Beatles song. You really do need to do your research because your ignorant and don't know what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sláy
In the 80s There was only black and white in the US (for the most part in terms of the music industry).He Also made it possible for Black records to be nominated in the general fields (and not just r&b as Off the wall was) at the grammys which was the Main motivation for the creation of thriller.
Also the thriller sales mostly do come from whites in the uk (4m) as of now, There are about 1.8m blacks here (and when my parents were younger There were around 500k blacks). The Beatles easily got into places no black act could or ever will.
|
I was saying that black and white isn't the only race worldwide. "Breaking racial barriers" doesn't only have to do with blacks and whites...
Quote:
Originally posted by Lately 1814
It would just be a wild goose chase. The Beatles have done well for themselves, but MJ's impact and influence on today's pop landscape far supersedes that of The Beatles from videos, to performances, to the music, MJ's legacy is omni-present across several genres, while The Beatles are only in pop for the most part.
|
You obviously need to look at the links I posted...
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/1/2011
Posts: 33,423
|
Girl you better run the MJ stans do NOT play
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/16/2012
Posts: 6,442
|
The Beatles are far more influential than Michael Jackson. They invented the format for the modern album, not to mention music films, marketing strategies, early music videos, album artwork and also their crazy innovative music, being amongst the first people to popularise modern electronica to great effect. Modern bands and artists and rock'n'roll in general would not be the same at all. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/1/2011
Posts: 33,423
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Javan
But my point is, the beatles didn't create images that are still remembered today. Honestly, the only image the beatles had made memorable for me was the picture on Abbey Road. They were no way as creative as MJ. The didn't change or experiment. We saw no growth in the Beatles compared to the growth we saw in MJ. As everyone has mentioned, MJ was not only a singer, he was a song writer, philanthropist, dancer, performer, director, producer and many more.
IMO, The Beatles are not greater than MJ and they have not worked as hard as MJ.
|
+1
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/1/2011
Posts: 33,423
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Fahrenheit
The Beatles are far more influential than Michael Jackson. They invented the format for the modern album, not to mention music films, marketing strategies, early music videos, album artwork and also their crazy innovative music, being amongst the first people to popularise modern electronica to great effect. Modern bands and artists and rock'n'roll in general would not be the same at all. |
Same could be said for Michael as well. Would you like to tell me which mainstream artist isn't influenced my MJ? Especially being on ATRL NOBODY should be questioning his impact.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/9/2012
Posts: 13,357
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Fahrenheit
The Beatles are far more influential than Michael Jackson. They invented the format for the modern album, not to mention music films, marketing strategies, early music videos, album artwork and also their crazy innovative music, being amongst the first people to popularise modern electronica to great effect. Modern bands and artists and rock'n'roll in general would not be the same at all. |
Thank you 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/16/2012
Posts: 6,442
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Javan
But my point is, the beatles didn't create images that are still remembered today. Honestly, the only image the beatles had made memorable for me was the picture on Abbey Road. They were no way as creative as MJ. The didn't change or experiment. We saw no growth in the Beatles compared to the growth we saw in MJ. As everyone has mentioned, MJ was not only a singer, he was a song writer, philanthropist, dancer, performer, director, producer and many more.
IMO, The Beatles are not greater than MJ and they have not worked as hard as MJ.
|
This is the second-dumbest thing I've ever seen on this forum, after "Britney Spears is talented". 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/16/2012
Posts: 6,442
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jayyyxtee
Same could be said for Michael as well. Would you like to tell me which mainstream artist isn't influenced my MJ? Especially being on ATRL NOBODY should be questioning his impact.
|
No, pop music wouldn't be the same. He doesn't have the same influence artistically or commercially as the Beatles had.
I wish some people would read up on music history before they post **** about it. Or even listen to The White Album and hear why The Beatles have been so influential.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2012
Posts: 33,611
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Javan
But my point is, the beatles didn't create images that are still remembered today. Honestly, the only image the beatles had made memorable for me was the picture on Abbey Road. They were no way as creative as MJ. The didn't change or experiment. We saw no growth in the Beatles compared to the growth we saw in MJ. As everyone has mentioned, MJ was not only a singer, he was a song writer, philanthropist, dancer, performer, director, producer and many more.
IMO, The Beatles are not greater than MJ and they have not worked as hard as MJ.
|
OH WOW.
Michael Jackson is a huge force in pop culture, and undeniably one of the greats in that aspect, but to say something like that is pure delusion.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/24/2011
Posts: 3,702
|
I think The Beatles and Michael Jackson are equally influential. Just in different ways.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/18/2012
Posts: 14,652
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Duca
Yes, undoubtedly.
|
Duca, you are officially delusional. Seek help
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/7/2011
Posts: 18,969
|
You making a thread like this about him just validates his impact, legacy, influence, sales, records.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/18/2008
Posts: 40,057
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Javan
But my point is, the beatles didn't create images that are still remembered today. Honestly, the only image the beatles had made memorable for me was the picture on Abbey Road. They were no way as creative as MJ. The didn't change or experiment. We saw no growth in the Beatles compared to the growth we saw in MJ. As everyone has mentioned, MJ was not only a singer, he was a song writer, philanthropist, dancer, performer, director, producer and many more.
IMO, The Beatles are not greater than MJ and they have not worked as hard as MJ.
|
...
........
...............
..........................
....................................
...............................................
|
|
|
|
|
|
