Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: Were MJ and other artists of the old TRULY great?

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by PG13 View Post
    Nonsense and clearly ignores the fact that piracy did exist in Thriller's day.
    But it was nowhere near as big as it has been since the 2000s.

    Thriller represents the marriage of music and film into one better than anything else.
    Which was all due to luck; no one else was doing music videos like that at the time. Says nothing about the actual quality of the product, though; it was just lucky enough to be the first of its kind.

    Michael's sales average isn't something that's typical in the industry even now
    Because albums don't sell anywhere near as much as they did these days. Largely due to piracy and streaming. MJ was certainly lucky enough to not be in this era.

    This is a popstar who worked extremely hard at what he did for years before he spotted an opportunity, put his money where his mouth was and continued to work extremely hard AFTER the one off peak rather than resting on his laurels.
    Plenty people work hard at what they do; what makes MJ stand out in this regard? Not everyone gets the same luxuries, and ultimately, the thing that made MJ stand out from the rest was luck.

    No other act pushed as much as Michael Jackson did, creatively and commercially.
    Plenty of artists have pushed more commercially than MJ has (as in, they do more to sell their albums). Creatively, though, to say that MJ was more creative than any other act is quite an overstatement.

    Nostalgia is certainly a factor that makes people think the past was better. Yet, very, very few of the acts of the old days are listened to in significant numbers or bought in significant numbers. The legends certainly are still, but they're the few. Michael is one of them.
    Because he died and interest was renewed. He wasn't selling so hot before. His death was a relatively recent event, too; it wasn't even 10 years ago. Will he still be selling high in 20 years? We'll see.

    Yet in reading all your post.....I don't see what point you're trying to make?
    My point is basically that there isn't any real difference in quality between old popular music and modern popular music. You can criticize the old for many of the same reasons you can criticize the new. In regards to MJ specifically, what really makes him so much better than artists today? I admit he was a bigger songwriter than most artists today, but reading your post, it just sounds like he was really good at "spotting opportunities". I don't think it's quite right to label someone a "legend" because of that.
    Last edited by Universe; 11 Hours Ago at 09:24 AM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,846

    Favorite
    Album
    Dangerous
    More nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Universe View Post
    But it was nowhere near as big as it has been since the 2000s.
    It's all relative at the end of the day. Back in the '80s, people generally had less money than they do now to spend.

    So, they were more likely to turn to bootlegs which proliferated. At the time, the blackmarket for Michael Jackson was massive and the biggest of the day.

    Of course, blackmarkets grow as well as evolve and change. And?

    You need to do a ratio of disposable income to buying pirated materials. Have you?

    Which was all due to luck; no one else was doing music videos like that at the time. Says nothing about the actual quality of the product, though; it was just lucky enough to be the first of its kind.
    No, that's what you call foresight and spotting an opportunity. It certainly wasn't lost on Michael that Landis had revived the B movie in 1981 with An American Werewolf In London. From there, horror films of this kind became big business again.

    Michael spotted an opportunity because he was always looking AND was willing to put his own money into the project when CBS wasn't.

    Especially since sales of Thriller was slowing down.

    This isn't luck. It's seeing an opportunity, taking the risk AND, ultimately, benefitting from it in the long run.

    Because albums don't sell anywhere near as much as they did these days. Largely due to piracy and streaming. MJ was certainly lucky enough to not be in this era.
    Not even when albums sold more did anyone come close to his sales average.

    Streaming is now included with album sales, so you can argue today's acts have the advantage there. Even so, Michael is the only non-current or deceased artist who features in the Top 20 of most streamed artists today.

    Your point is invalid.

    Plenty people work hard at what they do; what makes MJ stand out in this regard? Not everyone gets the same luxuries, and ultimately, the thing that made MJ stand out from the rest was luck.
    Because it's not enough to work hard. You must work smart. That's what Michael and others did to rise above the rest.

    Many, many people work hard and toil all the way to their graves. Often, their bodies are weary and broken by the end. They did not work smart.

    Plenty of artists have pushed more commercially than MJ has (as in, they do more to sell their albums). Creatively, though, to say that MJ was more creative than any other act is quite an overstatement.
    Again, this relates to working hard or working smart. You want to get more bang for your buck. Sun Tzu said, "To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

    In other words, we must work smart if we want to get ahead of the pack. And win efficiently. I assume you're familiar with the story of the butcher and the correct technique to cut meat from bone? Working smart beats working hard.

    Besides, I bundled the commercial AND the creative together with Michael. I didn't separate them as you've done here.

    There are many who worked hard commercially OR creatively. But none had put the same effort into BOTH as Michael Jackson did in his day.

    Michael learned from those who came before, figured out what he needed to do to make his mark AND worked smarter.

    Indeed, in terms of his solo adult career, he did fewer concerts and put out fewer albums than many, many acts did overall.

    Point made - Michael displayed the characteristics of supreme efficiency in his work in his day.

    Best way to be.

    "You have to know when to hurt them and when to kill them." - Michael Jackson to Billboard magazine in 1992.

    Because he died and interest was renewed. He wasn't selling so hot before. His death was a relatively recent event, too; it wasn't even 10 years ago. Will he still be selling high in 20 years? We'll see.
    Yet there's quite a few dead legends who never did make the same or similar kind of posthumous impact Michael and others did.

    And I doubt any other dead act now or for a very long time to come will have the posthumous impact of Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley, for example.

    That's the way it is. Your point is again invalid.

    My point is basically that there isn't any real difference in quality between old popular music and modern popular music. You can criticize the old for many of the same reasons you can criticize the new. In regards to MJ specifically, what really makes him so much better than artists today? I admit he was a bigger songwriter than most artists today, but reading your post, it just sounds like he was really good at "spotting opportunities". I don't think it's quite right to label someone a "legend" because of that.
    Nobody becomes a legend without first spotting an opportunity nobody else had done before. Nobody.

    Elvis included. Beatles too.

    And absolutely nobody becomes a legend without forging a special kind of connection with the public that largely endures through time.

    Michael, Elvis and the Beatles fit that. So does Mozart, Beethoven or Tchaikovsky. Indeed, we can also point to Michaelangelo, Da Vinci and Raphael. Even if they had apprentices who'd finish paintings for them.

    So.....how do you propose anybody gets to the very top without spotting opportunities that exists?

    The world is not socialist, so get off your high horse. If you don't make it, tough.

    But it's patently clear you resent Michael Jackson's success, foresight and, yes, the status he achieved. Face it, Michael's work will live on without you and me.

    That's just the way it is.
    "Because we do not know when we will die, we get to think of life as an inexhaustible well. Yet everything happens a certain number of times, and a very small number, really. How many more times will you remember a certain afternoon of your childhood, some afternoon that is so deeply a part of your being that you can't even concieve of your life without it? Perhaps four or five times more. Perhaps not even that. How many times will you watch the full moon rise? Perhaps twenty. And yet it all seems limitless." - Brandon Lee

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to PG13 For This Useful Post:

    jaywonder (10 Hours Ago)

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by PG13 View Post
    Of course, blackmarkets grow as well as evolve and change. And?
    And largely because it's grown, albums don't sell as much.

    Not even when albums sold more did anyone come close to his sales average.
    Said average would have been much lower if he was a modern artist, though. And ultimately, commercial success doesn't quite make a legend, as I made clear in OP. I wouldn't consider Adele to be legendary just because of her sales average.

    Streaming is now included with album sales, so you can argue today's acts have the advantage there. Even so, Michael is the only non-current or deceased artist who features in the Top 20 of most streamed artists today.
    I don't deny MJ's long lasting influence on the industry, fam. But just because he was influential doesn't make him legendary.

    Because it's not enough to work hard.
    Which begs the question of why you brought up MJ working hard. Now you're changing your tune to him working smart.

    There are many who worked hard commercially OR creatively. But none had put the same effort into BOTH as Michael Jackson did in his day.
    Pretty sure many artists push themselves to make quality, high selling albums. Whether or not it actually pays off is another matter.

    And I doubt any other dead act now or for a very long time to come will have the posthumous impact of Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley, for example.
    Presumptuous.

    Nobody becomes a legend without first spotting an opportunity nobody else had done before.
    Nothing "legendary" about doing so in and of itself, though. That's just being calculating.

    And absolutely nobody becomes a legend without forging a special kind of connection with the public that largely endures through time.
    Presumptuous to say no modern artists will do that.
    Last edited by Universe; 8 Hours Ago at 12:31 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •