Michael Jackson's death versus others in recent history

[BMoney 0]

are we ranking him as a black man or a white guy?

 

i do think that people are underestimating how big michael was all over the globe....

[ZeroTolerance 584]

I think only a handful of 7 year olds really know this answer.

That could have been his biography. "A Handful of 7 year olds"

[yostevo 0]

I still think Jesus was a pretty big out. I mean, he was fairly young, a bit of an icon in his own right, affiliated with god etc..

 

That would have been big points in Posty's pool.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Honestly, I'll miss Ed McMahon more then the toddler-diddler.

 

Neither as much as Farah.

[NewbieJr 541]

Okay, conversation over. You just lost all credibility. ALL!

Wait. You have claimed Jackson is on a scale with Willie Nelson and George Harrison and you think I've lost credibility? Wow.

 

You must live under a rock, dude. You are clueless.

[remote controller 143]

Dude, please. In terms of stardom, Justin Timberlake is a fart in the breeze. He is on par with Rick Springfield moreso than Michael Jackson.

 

I mean for all the focking hype in his career, what has Timberlake really produced?

 

The N'Sync crap.

Cry Me A River

Sexyback

 

Will you be listening to any of this crap in 20 years? I doubt it. I mean, you are a phag for listening to it now, but in 20 years?

 

When timberlake dies, it will briefly flash across the ticker at the bottom of CNN, as they discuss the latest sex scandal. That's about it.

 

He is probably younger then when Jackson came out with "Off The Wall" and at that point in his respective career. (and he is n't a freaking weirdo!)

[remote controller 143]

The death of Lennon was mush more tragic. Jackos' passing was the culmination of a very sad life. This is what Hollywood is now. The two deaths should not be compared, and the two talent levels, not even close.

[remote controller 143]

Elvis destroyed his own life.

Jackson destroyed his own life.

Lennons life was TAKEN.

 

Lennon shouldn't be in this comparison.

[NewbieJr 541]

The death of Lennon was mush more tragic. Jackos' passing was the culmination of a very sad life. This is what Hollywood is now. The two deaths should not be compared, and the two talent levels, not even close.

Are you insinuating that Lennon was way more talented than Jacko? That's crazy talk. It can be argued that they are fairly equal, but to suggest that Jackson isn't in Lennon's league is ridiculous. Let's not forget that Lennon hadn't written any great songs in years and years. His Double Fantasy album was filled with adult contemporary fluff like Woman and Watching the Wheels which could have very-well been written and performed by Paul Anka or Englebert Humperdink.

 

Lennon was singer/songwriter (and a very good one for a ten year period) while Jackson was more of a singer/songwriter/dancer/performer. Two entirely different types of talent.

[remote controller 143]

Are you insinuating that Lennon was way more talented than Jacko? That's crazy talk. It can be argued that they are fairly equal, but to suggest that Jackson isn't in Lennon's league is ridiculous. Let's not forget that Lennon hadn't written any great songs in years and years. His Double Fantasy album was filled with adult contemporary fluff like Woman and Watching the Wheels which could have very-well been written and performed by Paul Anka or Englebert Humperdink.

 

Lennon was singer/songwriter (and a very good one for a ten year period) while Jackson was more of a singer/songwriter/dancer/performer. Two entirely different types of talent.

No insinuation needed. He was lightyears more tlented then Jacko! They are not even close.

[NewbieJr 541]

No insinuation needed. He was lightyears more tlented then Jacko! They are not even close.

You are clueless regarding pop culture.

 

What's next? Michael Jackson vs. Scott Baio?

[remote controller 143]

You are clueless regarding pop culture.

 

What's next? Michael Jackson vs. Scott Baio?

That would be a much closer comparison. Newbie, I respect your opinions on all that is music. This is simply mine. Jacko would be in a completely different teir, and never in the comparison.

[Voltaire 5,468]

Elvis destroyed his own life.

Jackson destroyed his own life.

Lennons life was TAKEN.

 

Lennon shouldn't be in this comparison.

 

I would argue that Lennon destroyed his own life too considering how he willingly turned his back on the Beatles and hooked up with Yoko.

[NewbieJr 541]

That would be a much closer comparison. Newbie, I respect your opinions on all that is music. This is simply mine. Jacko would be in a completely different teir, and never in the comparison.

If you're talking about your tiers of favorites, that's acceptable. If you're tiering them in amounts of talent, you're wrong. It's not even debatable. Jackson may-well be the most talented performer of our generation. That's not a knock on Lennon, but there were literally dozens of great singer/songwriters. Hell, there was another one in his band. Jackson was a once in a lifetime performer. No one compared to him in his genre.

[TheNewGirl 1,635]

Not sure if this has been mentioned all ready, but Michael was a HUGE part of the MTV generation as well...back when they use to play music and videos.

 

Wasn't Thiller like the longest video EVAH at that point? I think it was a turning point for videos. It wasn't just the cheesy film crew filiming the on-stage concert. It gave the artists an opportunity to not only sing their music, but also put a visual story to it.

 

 

As for what he was to what he became, the part of me that is sad about his death is the 7 to 10 year old in me. Thiller was awesome. Off The Wall was awesome. Now, when Bad came out, I was out of my MJ pahse, but those other two were a HUGE part of my childhood. I mourn for the man that he was. The person he became was a rather frightening person. Not just the child molestation, but his illnesses and mental issues.

 

In MY life, the deaths that I think of the most are Princess Di, and now this.

 

Of the musicians; Michael Hutchence (INXS), Kurt Cobain, sure they were all on shocking type of level. But the only deaths I actually teared up for were Di and MJ, or to where I stopped everything and sat down and watched the hours worth of TV coverage.

 

I am sure I was around when Elvis, John Lennon passed. But I am think they were more a part of my mom's generation. Much like JFK, I am sure that my mom would answer that it was the most poignant death during her lifetime, but mine? No.

[ZeroTolerance 584]

Ok, something needs to be cleared up: in terms of voice, 'entertainment', MJ > Lennon

 

In terms of songwriting, music, and creativity: Lennon and it isn't even remotely close.

 

You can talk about how Michael didn't have a peer in his genre, but the fact is Lennon and The Beatles CREATED half of the genres of rock and roll.

[peenie 1,949]

I would argue that Lennon destroyed his own life too considering how he willingly turned his back on the Beatles and hooked up with Yoko.

[TheNewGirl 1,635]

Ok, something needs to be cleared up: in terms of voice, 'entertainment', MJ > Lennon

 

In terms of songwriting, music, and creativity: Lennon and it isn't even remotely close.

 

You can talk about how Michael didn't have a peer in his genre, but the fact is Lennon and The Beatles CREATED half of the genres of rock and roll.

 

 

But Lennon was great for his TIME, as MJ was great for his. I mean, without MTV and really only mainstream media and TV "talent" shows, the Beatles were awesome. They did inspired the British Invasion, without them, we wouldn't have so many other great Brit bands/groups, and ever actors/actresses.

 

I think that of the Gen. X folks, MJ was probaby in the top three of greatest entertainers.

 

Comparing someone from the 60's to someone in the 80's/90's isn't fair, IMO. MJ also had technology on his side. The Beatles had keyboards and your standard run of the mill equipment. MJ had things like synthesizers (I use that term only for 80s' kids), equalizers, other kind of equipment that would allow mixing, and various other fancy recordings.

[peenie 1,949]

michael jackson was popular in the 70's, 80's and 90's and 00's.

one of my most favorite songs came out on his 2002 invincible album.

this 2002 song i liked reached number 2 on the R&B charts, but i'm sure most of you aren't familiar with it because it didn't have a video and you all don't really listen to music unless it's spoon fed to you:

 

maybe you know this song since it had a video, lol. it was the jam too.

 

the point is that michael jackson put out number one albums every decade for the past 40 years. they way i see it, he gave his life for his art.

no need to compare him to elvis or the beatles, they were all great.

[peenie 1,949]

* 1971: "Got to Be There" #4

* 1972: "Rockin Robin" #2

* 1972: "Ben" #1

* 1979: "Don't Stop Till You Get Enough" #1

* 1980: "Rock With You" #1

* 1980: "Off The Wall" #10

* 1980: "She's Out Of My Life" #10

* 1983: "The Girl Is Mine" (with Paul McCartney) #2

* 1983: "Billie Jean" #1

* 1983: "Beat It" #1

* 1983: "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" #5

* 1984: "Human Nature" #7

* 1984: "P.Y.T." #10

* 1984: "Say Say Say" (with Paul McCartney) #1

* 1984: "Thriller" #4

* 1985: "We Are The World" #1

* 1987: "I Just Can't Stop Loving You" (with Siedah Garrett) #1

* 1987: "Bad" #1

* 1988: "The Way You Make Me Feel" #1

* 1988: "Man In The Mirror" #1

* 1988: "Dirty Diana" #1

* 1989: "Smooth Criminal" #7

* 1991: "Black or White" #1

* 1992: "Remember The Time" #3

* 1992: "In The Closet" #6

* 1993: "Will You Be There" #7

* 1995: "Scream"(with Janet Jackson) #5

* 1995: "You Are Not Alone" #1

* 2001: "You Rock My World" #10

[lambert58 73]

But Lennon was great for his TIME, as MJ was great for his. I mean, without MTV and really only mainstream media and TV "talent" shows, the Beatles were awesome. They did inspired the British Invasion, without them, we wouldn't have so many other great Brit bands/groups, and ever actors/actresses.

 

I think that of the Gen. X folks, MJ was probaby in the top three of greatest entertainers.

 

Comparing someone from the 60's to someone in the 80's/90's isn't fair, IMO. MJ also had technology on his side. The Beatles had keyboards and your standard run of the mill equipment. MJ had things like synthesizers (I use that term only for 80s' kids), equalizers, other kind of equipment that would allow mixing, and various other fancy recordings.

 

 

Most of the Beatles songs were cut on a 4 track mixing board. Only the later albums after Rubber Soul had an 8 track mixing board....

 

 

Michael had a minimum of 64 if not more.... You can add a hell of a lot of layers with that.

[jets24 6]

Holy crap. The people who mention Cobain obviously don't understand the question. Cobain is nowhere near the top of the list. Elvis, Lennon, Princess Di are all right there but Cobain? Too funny.

[jets24 6]

No insinuation needed. He was lightyears more tlented then Jacko! They are not even close.

 

That's absurd. Nobody here is a bigger Lennon fan but Jackson was almost equally as talented. They were both HUGE commercial successes plus Jackson could dance.

[jets24 6]

>>>>>Wow. You may be the most out-of-touch person I know from a pop culture standpoint. <<<<<

 

Well I've read some of your posts concerning 80s music and Rick Springfield in particular and I'd say one of us is the most out of touch person concerning pop culture.

>>>>>Jackson was as big, globally, as teh entire group of Beatles.<<<<<

 

Okay, conversation over. You just lost all credibility. ALL!

And you know what else. Take away the whaco Jacko surgeries and pedophilia and marrying women w/o having sex with them and living with monkeys. Just on musical ability alone, Alive or dead - Hank Williams, Jr. and Willie Nelson go past Jacko.

And prolly many more given time to think about it.

 

OBVIOUSLY CLAPTON. I'd rate him above any musician.

 

Nope...Newbie is right on there as a matter of fact. You obviously dont understand Jackson's global career.

[NewbieJr 541]

Nope...Newbie is right on there as a matter of fact. You obviously dont understand Jackson's global career.

This guy gets it.

[donhaas 19]

No insinuation needed. He was lightyears more tlented then Jacko! They are not even close.

 

This is true.

Not even close.

[donhaas 19]

Are you insinuating that Lennon was way more talented than Jacko? That's crazy talk. It can be argued that they are fairly equal, but to suggest that Jackson isn't in Lennon's league is ridiculous. Let's not forget that Lennon hadn't written any great songs in years and years. His Double Fantasy album was filled with adult contemporary fluff like Woman and Watching the Wheels which could have very-well been written and performed by Paul Anka or Englebert Humperdink.

 

He totally revolutionized music for more than a decade and you're going to make your argument based on his last album -- which, by the way, is light years better than anything that MJ has put out in the last 2 decades.....

 

 

It's a bad argument to start..... Musically, Lennon is way more talented than MJ....

[NewbieJr 541]

He totally revolutionized music for more than a decade and you're going to make your argument based on his last album -- which, by the way, is light years better than anything that MJ has put out in the last 2 decades.....

It's a bad argument to start..... Musically, Lennon is way more talented than MJ....

Musically, they're about the same.

 

And that's not including MJ's dancing. He's not just a good dancer for being a singer, he is a world class dancer. Even if he couldn't writre songs or sing, he would have been one of the world's best dancers.

 

Lennon had talent, but his main claim to fame was because the Beetles were at the front of the British Invasion. Take Lennon and have him born ten years later, and he would have been a successful musician, but he would have been a 70's rock star, just like dozens of others.

 

Jackson's talents would have made him a superstar in any generation.

[ZeroTolerance 584]

Musically, they're about the same.

Give me a list of all of the musical genres and recording techniques Michael invented, and all of the song lyrics he wrote that are regarded as all-time greats, then we can compare them musically.

[phillybear 366]

True dat. Cobain was at teh right place at the right time. The best thing he ever did was kill himself. Otherwise, he'd be an Eddie Vedder, Dave Pirner-type has been. When you die on top, people always remember you that way. He was the leader of the grunge movement, but if you'll recall history, grunge didn't exactly have legs. It came and went faster than disco.

 

K.C. (from the Sunshine Band) >>> Cobain

 

Well, let's just review the play lists of every single modern rock station across this planet. Oh, I see Nirvana and other grunge bands like Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Stone Temple Pilots, etc in heavy rotation. Twenty years after the songs got initial air play. Heavy rotation. Grunge drives modern rock.

 

Just the other day, I heard Poison on the radio. Oh, I guess I didn't. Then maybe it was Michael Jackson...oh, I haven't heard about him in 20 years or any of his songs. John Lennon...nope. Elvis...nope. Jeez, who WERE these people, and what exactly makes them famous?

[remote controller 143]

Musically, they weren't in the same universe................and who give s crap about him grabbing his crotch and wearing goofy cloth? I'm glad the dance world had thier role model. Lennon literally changed the world with his music.

[peenie 1,949]

Give me a list of all of the musical genres and recording techniques Michael invented, and all of the song lyrics he wrote that are regarded as all-time greats, then we can compare them musically.

 

john lennon's imagine is one of my all time most favorite songs in the world, but i also love tool and their lyrics aren't all that deep yet i feel something when i listen.

i can say that man in the mirror is a deep song that michael wrote or we are the world.

i don't think the lyrics are as important as the way the song makes you feel.

the best of led zepplin is when no one is singing, imo.

 

it's wrong to compare artists.

[remote controller 143]

it's wrong to compare artists.

I agree with this, since it is so subjective. Getting back to the original post, I just felt this death was different. He was not taken from us. He totally melted down on his own, and his passing was not a suprise. He was finished in every way shape or form, and could never recover financially. This was the only option that allowed him to be remembered. It will come out that this was either suicide or assisted suicide.

[remote controller 143]

This death was much more like the Blonde Bimbo then it was like Lennon's.

[remote controller 143]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/artic...months-ago.html

[donhaas 19]

Musically, they're about the same.

 

And that's not including MJ's dancing. He's not just a good dancer for being a singer, he is a world class dancer. Even if he couldn't writre songs or sing, he would have been one of the world's best dancers.

 

Lennon had talent, but his main claim to fame was because the Beetles were at the front of the British Invasion. Take Lennon and have him born ten years later, and he would have been a successful musician, but he would have been a 70's rock star, just like dozens of others.

 

Jackson's talents would have made him a superstar in any generation.

 

 

If you are going to factor dancing into the equation then you could probably say MC Hammer/Vanilla Ice > Jimi Hendrix

 

Musical talent, creativity, songwriting, playing multiple instruments, changing the music world forever... Lennon slaughters MJ. MJ didn't even play any instruments (at least not well), didn't write half of his songs and using your strange "Double Fantasy" argument, was absolute crap over the last 2 decades (not just the last album).

 

Lennon was unmatched in his innovation.... Without Lennon (and McCartney) you wouldn't have 90 percent of these rock groups today.

Without Stevie Wonder, you have no Michael Jackson.

 

MJ is a great entertainer who stood on the shoulders of giants.

Lennon was one of those giants.

 

Prince is a thousand times the musician that MJ is, and I wouldn't even put him in the category of a Lennon, Hendrix, Stevie Wonder.

Prince borrowed heavily from all three (and also Santana, Sly, and others).... He had the advantage of being able to take all of these amazing artists, study them for years, and make music from there. It's so much harder to innovate, to change music forever as we know it. There are really only a very few who have done it.

 

John Lennon was one of them.

[remote controller 143]

If you are going to factor dancing into the equation then you could probably say MC Hammer/Vanilla Ice > Jimi Hendrix

 

Musical talent, creativity, songwriting, playing multiple instruments, changing the music world forever... Lennon slaughters MJ. MJ didn't even play any instruments (at least not well), didn't write half of his songs and using your strange "Double Fantasy" argument, was absolute crap over the last 2 decades (not just the last album).

 

Lennon was unmatched in his innovation.... Without Lennon (and McCartney) you wouldn't have 90 percent of these rock groups today.

Without Stevie Wonder, you have no Michael Jackson.

 

MJ is a great entertainer who stood on the shoulders of giants.

Lennon was one of those giants.

 

Prince is a thousand times the musician that MJ is, and I wouldn't even put him in the category of a Lennon, Hendrix, Stevie Wonder.

Prince borrowed heavily from all three (and also Santana, Sly, and others).... He had the advantage of being able to take all of these amazing artists, study them for years, and make music from there. It's so much harder to innovate, to change music forever as we know it. There are really only a very few who have done it.

 

John Lennon was one of them.

The only thing that was allowing this wierdo to subsist, were the right s to the Beatle's music that he stole.

[peenie 1,949]

he didn't steal, he bought the rights to those songs for $47 million.

[NewbieJr 541]

Lennon was unmatched in his innovation.... Without Lennon (and McCartney) you wouldn't have 90 percent of these rock groups today.

Wow. You don't get it, do you?

 

If Lennon had never been born, Jaggers/Richards would have been the frontrunners of the British Invasion. Or Townsend. Or Davies.

 

They were all emerging around the same time.

 

The "talent" advantage that the Beatles had was that they were better looking than the others and that brought the teenage girls along for the ride.

[donhaas 19]

Newbie is fishing, isn't he?

I don't post here enough to know any more.

 

DOH!