| |
Discussion: Michael or Madonna: More acclaimed?
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 7,740
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Madonno
The list measured the average career from an artist.
If you had 10 albums with more than more (for example) 95 metascore, the average will put you in the top of the list. And if you have more than 1.000 albums with a lot of them above the 95 metascore mark, but a few other below the 30 metascore mark; you will be down in the list.
John Coltrane has made more music than Madonna and Michael combined and he`s 56 on the list.
So what? The amount of music has nothing to do with the list. Just the acclaimed music every single artist made in their career.
And Madonna has more, and better. Michael is only... 4 good albums + singles?
|
Wait I didn't know this 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 7,740
|
Quote:
Originally posted by tittieslap
Michael is more acclaimed (deservedly so) because almost every singer,musician, entertainer etc. cites him as an inspiration to their career. He's also a lot more respected by the GP compared to Madonna.
Madonna can't ever be as acclaimed as he is because she's done a lot to piss people off and also tarnished the way people see her as an artist. If she made some serious music these days she'd be a lot more appreciated, but she doesn't even have enough talent to receive the level of acclaim Michael has anyway.
|
Because he is not with us anymore.In terms of respect Madonna never reached MJ's highs but she never hit his lows,either.Michael was basically a joke before his death.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 15,843
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 23,375
|
Quote:
Originally posted by XStaticProcess
Because he is not with us anymore.In terms of respect Madonna never reached MJ's highs but she never hit his lows,either.Michael was basically a joke before his death.
|
This is true, mj was a punch line to every freak/pedo joke in the world before he died
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 2,457
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Grumpy Gills
This is true, mj was a punch line to every freak/pedo joke in the world before he died
|
You say that like Madonna isn't considered a joke right now. Just like I said in another thread of course he was called all sorts pedophile and man-child before his death but people never dissed his talent or impact the way they do Madonna, even before the Rebel Heart era. He was respected for that up until the end and at the end of the day that's what really matters.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/1/2013
Posts: 27,364
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 7,740
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KingKunta
You say that like Madonna isn't considered a joke right now. Just like I said in another thread of course he was called all sorts pedophile and man-child before his death but people never dissed his talent or impact the way they do Madonna, even before the Rebel Heart era. He was respected for that up until the end and at the end of the day that's what really matters.
|
Most people view her as an attention seeking old *****.That's true but it's still faaaaar away from Michael's lows.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 2,457
|
Quote:
Originally posted by XStaticProcess
Most people view her as an attention seeking old *****.That's true but it's still faaaaar away from Michael's lows.
|
True but at the end of the day it varies based on perspective. MJ was dissed a lot, but no one ever questioned his talent or impact. As an artist I would never want anyone dissing that of all things, because that's all I have. MJ was dissed as a person but never as an artist, on the other hand Madonna is getting them both.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/3/2011
Posts: 23,567
|
They're basically equally acclaimed, but I think Madonna will win out. MJ's acclaim is heavily centered on Thriller, which has probably already saturated its status as a critical darling. I suspect regard for Madonna's 80's material and especially her 90's experimentation will continue to increase. She's already higher on AM if you're interested in a statistical approach.
Generally, I'd say her catalog is much more broad and interesting to critics.
Also, the "Madonna is embarrassing herself right now" argument doesn't matter. Several of the most acclaimed acts of all time are still releasing music and with the exception of Bob Dylan, virtually all of it is torn to shreds by critics for being awful, but their older material continues to increase in acclaim. Madonna is actually an aberration in the sense that some of her recent material (Ray Of Light, Music) was met with high acclaim.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 7,740
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KingKunta
True but at the end of the day it varies based on perspective. MJ was dissed a lot, but no one ever questioned his talent or impact. As an artist I would never want anyone dissing that of all things, because that's all I have. MJ was dissed as a person but never as an artist, on the other hand Madonna is getting them both.
|
By general public yes.By critics definetly no.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/6/2014
Posts: 41,074
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/16/2012
Posts: 6,442
|
Madonna, due to the volume of her work. 
Quote:
Originally posted by KingKunta
And yea your damn right he has 4 acclaimed albums, at least based on that website most of you are using... Out of only 6. Madonna has 7 out of 13. So let's do the math.
4/6 is 66.7%
7/13 is 53.8%
|
Michael released 10 studio albums. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 2,457
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Fahrenheit
Madonna, due to the volume of her work.
Michael released 10 studio albums. |
He only released 6 as an adult solo artist. Those other 4 he didn't choose to release nor did he have any control over.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 8,763
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KingKunta
True but at the end of the day it varies based on perspective. MJ was dissed a lot, but no one ever questioned his talent or impact. As an artist I would never want anyone dissing that of all things, because that's all I have. MJ was dissed as a person but never as an artist, on the other hand Madonna is getting them both.
|
This is sadly not true tho. He used to be dissed also for his music, mainly his lyrics, and also his detractors tried to question his talent as a songwritter and producer, claiming that Quincy Jones and his producing skills was the main genius behind the success of Michaels arguably best albums, with what I deeply disagree.
Many people realized what an extraordinary artist he was only after we lost him, when it was too late.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 8,763
|
Quote:
Originally posted by tittieslap
There's nothing wrong with the topic. You can't just turn it around and make it about everyone else's faves just because people are bringing up good points that you don't agree with.
|
I didnt say the topic is wrong.
We are comparing artists that belong to the most acclaimed, influential and impactful figures in popular music of all time after all. Trying to ridicule, dismiss or put either one down to compliment the other is just wrong, thats what Im saying. Do you have a problem with that?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 2,457
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bríseis
This is sadly not true tho. He used to be dissed also for his music, mainly his lyrics, and also his detractors tried to question his talent as a songwritter and producer, claiming that Quincy Jones and his producing skills was the main genius behind the success of Michaels arguably best albums, with what I deeply disagree.
Many people realized what an extraordinary artist he was only after we lost him, when it was too late.
|
Some people still try to claim Quincy Jones was the force behind Thriller's success now. I'm just saying even before he died nobody questioned his actual talent. You would hear about him being a freak and pedophile almost anytime he came up in a discussion, but you wouldn't hear someone saying he couldn't sing, dance, or perform. I left out songwriting because speaking generally the gp doesn't really keep up with that like they do the others, but ironically he was inducted into the songwriter's hall of fame in 2002 of all years.
Thriller was still winning "best album of all time" polls in the 2000s too, when he was obviously at his lowest image wise.
http://i.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/m...est-album-ever
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/nov/22/taniabranigan
On Rolling Stone 500 Greatest Albums list from 2005, Thriller came in at 20.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 9/16/2011
Posts: 18,555
|
Lol obviously Michael. Like, it's not even close.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/23/2012
Posts: 1,087
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KingKunta
Honey nobody was talking about John Caltrone. Seriously who is that?
|
1. Heīs an Artist. If you don't know him thatīs your problem.
Musicians and critics, actually the real people who know about music, say heīs a great artist. The fact you does not know him make him not acclaimed? NO.
Once more, the questions is not about popularity.
Quote:
Originally posted by KingKunta
Honey nobody was talking about John Caltrone. Seriously who is that? Both MJ and Madonna are extremely acclaimed but if we put them side by side based on ratio of acclaimed work to material go even judge Michael wins. The amount of music does have something to do with the list obviously, which is why it's stupid so many of her stans are using this to justify her being more acclaimed
|
A stupid contention is when you said something when you donīt know what are you talking about. The amount of music has nothing to do wit being more or less acclaimed. And I can say you don't know what the hell are you talking about in this point.
Receipts?
Madonna's discography, since (and including) American Life is the lowest point on her career. With the exception of Confessions on a Dance Floor.
Thatīs mean 4 from 13 studio album below the 70 metascore mark.
And yet, counting the fact Madonna has more albums than MJ.... how can you explain the fact she's over him?
Because the lowest point of MJīs career was very, very down.
Quote:
Originally posted by KingKunta
And yea your damn right he has 4 acclaimed albums, at least based on that website most of you are using... Out of only 6. Madonna has 7 out of 13. So let's do the math.
4/6 is 66.7%
7/13 is 53.8%
Last time I checked 66 is a bigger percentage than 53 and not only that Thriller and Off The Wall are more acclaimed than anything she's done according to this site and Bad isn't far behind with it being more acclaimed than 4 of her albums listed. And singles wise it's not even fair for him since a good chunk of those were released before he even turned 21.
He's more acclaimed and yes critics do agree, they are the ones that do these things...
|
The rank doesnīt count the "ratio".
Is AVERAGE CAREERS.
MJ could hace 4 acclaimed albums from 6. But all the highest point in his careers was/is/will be eclipsed by his lowes point. Meanwhile, Madonna has something MJ not: consistent.
And no. Sorry. The list is based in the AVERAGE metascore. And metascore is the mark from CRITICS .
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 2,457
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Madonno
1. Heīs an Artist. If you don't know him thatīs your problem.
Musicians and critics, actually the real people who know about music, say heīs a great artist. The fact you does not know him make him not acclaimed? NO.
Once more, the questions is not about popularity.
A stupid contention is when you said something when you donīt know what are you talking about. The amount of music has nothing to do wit being more or less acclaimed. And I can say you don't know what the hell are you talking about in this point.
Receipts?
Madonna's discography, since (and including) American Life is the lowest point on her career. With the exception of Confessions on a Dance Floor.
Thatīs mean 4 from 13 studio album below the 70 metascore mark.
And yet, counting the fact Madonna has more albums than MJ.... how can you explain the fact she's over him?
Because the lowest point of MJīs career was very, very down.
The rank doesnīt count the "ratio".
Is AVERAGE CAREERS.
MJ could hace 4 acclaimed albums from 6. But all the highest point in his careers was/is/will be eclipsed by his lowes point. Meanwhile, Madonna has something MJ not: consistent.
And no. Sorry. The list is based in the AVERAGE metascore. And metascore is the mark from CRITICS .
|
My point what does Joey Caltrone have to do with this discussion about Michael Jackson and Madonna? The discussion was about them so why are you bringing up irrelevant information?
Secondly, how can I say you do know what you are talking about. Reciepts? Even in previous threads on this site people have brought up the issue of volume of work related to ranking, and how it's not fair to artists who haven't released a lot of material, like MJ. And why are we talking about metascore now boo, could have sworn this conversation was about acclaimedmusic. Why are you changing the topic? And I could have sworn metacritic has only been present since the 2000s, you know after MJ released 5/6 of his albums. How is that even going to be a fair argument?
And lowest points in his career? If you're referrring to HIStory and Invincible, his only two studio albums not present on acclaimedmusic as the low point in his career, then that means Madonna has had several low points in her career. Erotica and Bedtime stories in the early 90s, American Life in the early 2000s, and everything after confessions of a dance floor 2006- present, so how does that make her more consistent critical acclaimation wise?
Honey you just summed up this entire argument. This website doesn't rank according to ratio, that's the problem. That's what i've been saying this ENTIRE argument. And wait a minute the highest of MJ's career is overtaken by his lowest? Last time I checked according to this website Thriller and Off The Wall are more acclaimed than anything she has ever released and Bad is more acclaimed than 75% of the material she has released. How in the world does that not overrtake his lows, he isn't 20 spots ahead of her on the album chart for nothing. If you want to call those 3 irrelevant, then you are basically calling Madonna's entire career irrelevant, at least critical acclamation wise.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/23/2012
Posts: 1,087
|
You know.... is so sad when people said that Madonna is "embarrassing herself" nowadays because of her music and her point of view based on FUNNY, like Bitch I'm Madonna.
You call her talentless, attention *****, desperate... But you know what? Youīre wrong.
Musicians are artist. Artist are supposed to express something from their own experiences of point of view the life. And the world, recently in the modern life, has asume that you donīt need to be talented for been considered an artist. Picasso wasn't talented in therms of technique. But he was capable of express a different world from his point of view.
Nowadays, heīs considered a great artist And he died making art. You said Madonna isnīt an artist because she cannot sing like Michael Jackson, she cannot "dance" like Michael Jackson, etc.. But for people who really know about art she is and ever will be an artist. She express herself in a very unique way through the world and blablablabla.
And thirty years before, sheīs still making music and expressing herself. In the other hand, Michael Jackson, with all her talented, her ability for dance and make music... was absorbed by the "ego" and wasn't capable of manage her own life for express his point of view. And he died because of that, he mutilated his body because of that.
You can call Madonna a *****, an attention seeker, a desperate woman. But at the end of the day, she is the only one of her peers that still remain because she was/is and ever will be the only one capable of manage her life and still expressing herself and her point of view with art. And combination that with her personal life. Look at her children: all of them happy, educated an centred in life. Normal childrens. What the point of be "talented" as Michael Jackson, having a spectacular voice as Whitney, if any of them was capable of make art until their last breathe?
I personal prefer the only one who is centred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
