Madonna Producer: “She Has Succeeded Where Michael Jackson Failed”

[HIStory]

You all gave the answer: "to me he was, because of...". that king of relevance is a subjective matter. And you didn't have to convince me. I belive you and understand you.
But as a singer you are relevant in music with the reasons I pointed. those are of point of view.


thats where the whole misunderstanding comes from.

The problem is your criteria of relevance is just as subjective as ours, but you try to pass them on as the only correct and objective way to define relevance. It is NOT! It's just YOUR personal way to define relevance, nothing more.

It's about the 1000th time I will write this but someone who is able to sell out 50 O2 shows after all Michael has gone through is simply NOT irrelevant, no matter how you put it. Before TII was announced I remember how some papers were predicting it would be a flop because no one was interested in him any more. Had they got it right then yes, that would have meant Michael was not relevant any more. But as it turned out they were totally WRONG and papers were not sensing the fact that despite of the decades long media campaign and everything against MJ he was still very much RELEVANT! There is nothing subjective about it: those ticket sales are a FACT!

And Paris 78 made a good point about the social top 50 too. That's the top list of artists who are the most talked about, most searched for etc. on the Internet. Michael is 6th and Madonna is 39th. So how is Michael irrelevant, while Madonna is relevant?

If i say JT is popular, because of all the above.
One will say, sales don't mean great music. TRUE.

If I say Rihanna is because of charts.
Other of you will say, chart performance doesn't mean your record is that good or influentional. Today charts aren't on the same as 20 years. TRUE

If I say Lady Gaga is because of her concerts
Next will say, tours.? some like it some not. TRUE

If I say Elvis is relevant.
the opositive will say he hadn't have album release since 15 years(???).

No one said JT, Rihanna, Lady Gaga or Elvis are irrelevant. Why are you trying to turn this around as if any of us have been suggesting that? You keep erecting straw man arguments. We were NOT suggesting any of that! Heck, we haven't even claimed that Madonna was irrelevant. What I claim is that Michael was not irrelevant at any time of his career. Taking a break from making music (for whatever reason) doesn't make that artist automatically irrelevant. If that artist can come back selling out 50 O2 shows then that means he hasn't become irrelevant despite of not releasing music for a while. If he had come back not being able to sell out concerts then yes, we could say he has become irrelevant. But that was not the case.

New music, tours is one thing - it can make someone relevant, but those aren't the only things those can make someone relevant. Relevance is a much broader category than just chart presence or whether someone is or isn't doing new music, tours. One can remain relevant without doing those. The Beatles are still relevant, despite of not making new music. Their Greatest Hits album, "1" sold 31 million copies in the 2000s. They had strong chart presence with "1" but since it's a Greatest Hits album and not new music, according to your criteria they shouldn't be counted as relevant either. However the sales for "1" alone shows that they are still relevant. They don't have to do tours, to make new music, heck they don't even have to exist any more, but they are still very much relevant.

 

[moodyblue97]

How can someone be not relevant when they keep mention him and mock him in papers and talk shows?
I have friends who didn't care at all about Michael Jackson and what he was up to through the last 10 years of his life, still they had to mention that they had "read this and read that" about him. Or maybe I misunderstand the whole thing about this?

 

[chanel05]

As far as I'm concerned this isn't a good comparison anyway.. Also to me Madonna wasn't relevant either because no one I know was checking for her anyway.
If her producer wanted to compare relevance, he should have compared her to Janet or Prince. They are two people who actively put out product this decade. Comparing Madonna to someone who didn't have much put out is stupid.

 

[Sunwalker7]

The problem is your criteria of relevance is just as subjective as ours, but you try to pass them on as the only correct and objective way to define relevance. It is NOT! It's just YOUR personal way to define relevance, nothing more.

New music, tours is one thing - it can make someone relevant, but those aren't the only things those can make someone relevant. Relevance is a much broader category than just chart presence or whether someone is or isn't doing new music, tours.

YES. I agree with all of your post, but especially these parts.

I don't have a problem with someone having a different definition of relevance than I do. If someone defines relevance as having new music on the charts or being on a tour, and that in their mind makes Michael irrelevant in the 2000s, that's fine with me. What I do have a problem with is saying that that definition is objectively right, and implying that people calling Michael relevant are confusing their personal feelings with an objective truth. Not only is it not an objectively right definition, I don't think it's even a very commonly used one. People interested in pop music often talk about whether a certain artist is relevant or not. There would be no need to have these discussions if it were simply a matter of checking whether the artist is currently touring or has new music on the charts.

Relevance is a difficult word to define, I think, but I absolutely agree it's a much broader category than simply being on the charts right now or touring. That's more about whether you are a current artist or not. Relevance, imo, is not the same thing as being hot right now. What about when artists take breaks between albums or tours? Are they not relevant then? Did Elvis stop being relevant when he died? Did the Beatles stop being relevant when they broke up?

If I had to try to define relevance, I guess I would say it's about presence in the public's mind. Does the public remember that you exist? Are they interested in what you're doing? Do people talk about you? If you wanted to get attention, could you get it? Do you influence people? If you were to release new music, would the response be "OMG new music by Artist X!!" rather than "Artist X who? I don't know or care"?

So, when I say I think Michael was relevant in the 2000s, I'm not saying that he was relevant to me. I mean, of course he was that too, but I'm trying to say he was relevant, in the sense that people knew who he was, they paid attention to him, they were still interested in him. This is why I think the TII concerts need to be brought up in this discussion, because they clearly show that the public still was interested in Michael. If he wanted to get attention, he could get it. Staying largely out of the public eye was his personal decision. It wasn't the case that he desperately wanted attention but nobody cared about him anymore.

 

[bluetopez]

MJ had a number 1 album in 2001 called Invincible. He also had a top ten hit from that same album called"You Rock My World" and "Butterflies" also from that same album was a number 2 hit in radio air play alone! But, for some it seems MJ had to rule the whole decade on the charts in the 00's to be even considered revelant musically in that decade...Pff! SMH :smilerolleyes:

 

[oneday]

Never heard of this guy before.Michael isn't relevant? I don't think so

 

[lom kit]

@respect77
Now I'm gonna act like asshole again and tell you that you "read, but can't read". JT Rihanna and Gaga were just examples, thas why I said "If I say....". that straw grabing you say, is excatly the picking of things i was talking. You are trying so hard to give and respond with the oppositive answer to everything i say, that you don't see the simples things.
You say i try to pass them on as the only correct. no i m not. just trying to say that there is two ways that this can be seen. you imply, no its just one and see only the negative in my posts.


Even If (not saying there was) the biggest music critic says what i was saying, you'll won't and dont have to agree. but that doesn't mean its wrong or insisting on how wrong he is, like you all do.
Of course no one can say that IS the only correct definition. in every criticism is personal expression. i think it has to be viewd as third-person (objective) point of view.

@Sunwalker
I can agree with half you say.

this got so much out of sense, that i feel stupid to discuss about it.

 

[HIStory]

@respect77
Now I'm gonna act like asshole again and tell you that you "read, but can't read". JT Rihanna and Gaga were just examples, thas why I said "If I say....". that straw grabing you say, is excatly the picking of things i was talking. You are trying so hard to give and respond with the oppositive answer to everything i say, that you don't see the simples things.
You say i try to pass them on as the only correct. no i m not. just trying to say that there is two ways that this can be seen. you imply, no its just one and see only the negative in my posts.


Even If (not saying there was) the biggest music critic says what i was saying, you'll won't and dont have to agree. but that doesn't mean its wrong or insisting on how wrong he is, like you all do.
Of course no one can say that IS the only correct definition. in every criticism is personal expression. i think it has to be viewd as third-person (objective) point of view.

I'm glad you at least now admit not everybody has to accept your definition of relevance.

 

[HIStory]

YES. I agree with all of your post, but especially these parts.

I don't have a problem with someone having a different definition of relevance than I do. If someone defines relevance as having new music on the charts or being on a tour, and that in their mind makes Michael irrelevant in the 2000s, that's fine with me. What I do have a problem with is saying that that definition is objectively right, and implying that people calling Michael relevant are confusing their personal feelings with an objective truth. Not only is it not an objectively right definition, I don't think it's even a very commonly used one. People interested in pop music often talk about whether a certain artist is relevant or not. There would be no need to have these discussions if it were simply a matter of checking whether the artist is currently touring or has new music on the charts.

Relevance is a difficult word to define, I think, but I absolutely agree it's a much broader category than simply being on the charts right now or touring. That's more about whether you are a current artist or not. Relevance, imo, is not the same thing as being hot right now. What about when artists take breaks between albums or tours? Are they not relevant then? Did Elvis stop being relevant when he died? Did the Beatles stop being relevant when they broke up?

If I had to try to define relevance, I guess I would say it's about presence in the public's mind. Does the public remember that you exist? Are they interested in what you're doing? Do people talk about you? If you wanted to get attention, could you get it? Do you influence people? If you were to release new music, would the response be "OMG new music by Artist X!!" rather than "Artist X who? I don't know or care"?

So, when I say I think Michael was relevant in the 2000s, I'm not saying that he was relevant to me. I mean, of course he was that too, but I'm trying to say he was relevant, in the sense that people knew who he was, they paid attention to him, they were still interested in him. This is why I think the TII concerts need to be brought up in this discussion, because they clearly show that the public still was interested in Michael. If he wanted to get attention, he could get it. Staying largely out of the public eye was his personal decision. It wasn't the case that he desperately wanted attention but nobody cared about him anymore.

I agree with this. A parallel I could make is the Beatles "1" album which was the biggest selling album of the 00s by far outselling the likes of Rihanna, Justin Timberlake or Madonna. So if someone suggested they were irrelevant in the 2000s we would laugh at that. Yet, if we use Lom Kit's definition for relevance that's what we should say, since "1" wasn't new material but a Greatest Hits album, it wasn't music that they have done now but it was just recycled 60s material. So were they or were they not relevant in the 2000s? IMO they were highly relevant and it doesn't matter when that music was made. People in the 2000s still like to listen to that so they are still relevant.

The same with TII. It doesn't matter that the show was centered around old material because Michael hasn't released anything since 2001. What matters in terms of relevance is that people still wanted to see him perform in great numbers! He set a new record with how fast the shows sold out, for god's sake, would an irrelevant artist be able to do that? It doesn't matter that old songs would have been performed in those shows, just like it doesn't matter when judging the Beatles's relevance in the 00s, that "1" contained old material.

 

[TheChosenOne]

My brief two cents worth - Michael Jackson moved beyond the need to be relevant a long time ago. Michael Jackson simply is. He was remarkable and special. There was just something about him (love or loathe him). So, bully for Madonna for all that she has achieved but she aint no Michael Jackson. And even she says so!

 

[marebear]

Why is this guy even mentioning Michael at all? What does he have to do with Madonna's new album? It feels unnecessary.

To me Michael was always relevant even when he had to step away. People were always and still are would love to achieve what he did. Watching other artists in their performances and videos I see Michael's influence in them. I remember hearing once that a lot of things we see now is because Michael did it first.

 

[buzzialdrin]

haha we will see who is successful. We have to wait till March 26th when her new album comes out...she will be competing with Bruce Springsteen and Adele as well. She has to be scared of Adele...hell I am becoming worried too..These guys tooting their horn too early on!lol...

As far as MJ's 2000 decade..Rodney Jerkins single handedly destroyed the album (I know strong words). I wish Pharell had worked instead, and MJ never failed in the 2000s..Do you want proof? His THIS IS IT Movie was entered in the Guiness World Records for the highest grossing concert movie in the history of the universe lol...

 

[Nonoka]

Well, I know a bit about that guy who said that, he's one of the producers for her new album which is out in the end of this month. I agree with everyone that his statement is wrong and it was pretty much completely explained why Michael was and is still relevant.

But let me say this:

I don't think it's necessary to compare Michael with Madonna. They're both one of the most succesfull and most selling recording artists and they both have quite a big impact on today's pop world and it's well known that many pop stars from today were hugely influenced by them.

In my opinion, Madonna definitely is the 2nd best recording artist and entertainer out there, after Michael, of course. She has done many amazing stuff and has built up a legacy which will surely exceed her lifetime. I just think she will go down the same route as Michael - she's being often trashed in the media now, described as "an old hag" and many Gaga fans (and also many other people) are hating on her like she would be an enemy for them. But after her death (hopefully not anytime soon), almost everyone will act like they loved her at all times..."She is the greatest", "Long live the queen", bla bla bla...

Madonna is not Michael - of course not! Madonna is Madonna. Michael is Michael. Everyone can judge on their own who they like more.
For me, it's simple - Madonna is the queen of pop, Michael is the king of pop.





:wub:

 

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

Well, I know a bit about that guy who said that, he's one of the producers for her new album which is out in the end of this month. I agree with everyone that his statement is wrong and it was pretty much completely explained why Michael was and is still relevant.

But let me say this:

I don't think it's necessary to compare Michael with Madonna. They're both one of the most succesfull and most selling recording artists and they both have quite a big impact on today's pop world and it's well known that many pop stars from today were hugely influenced by them.

In my opinion, Madonna definitely is the 2nd best recording artist and entertainer out there, after Michael, of course. She has done many amazing stuff and has built up a legacy which will surely exceed her lifetime. I just think she will go down the same route as Michael - she's being often trashed in the media now, described as "an old hag" and many Gaga fans (and also many other people) are hating on her like she would be an enemy for them. But after her death (hopefully not anytime soon), almost everyone will act like they loved her at all times..."She is the greatest", "Long live the queen", bla bla bla...

Madonna is not Michael - of course not! Madonna is Madonna. Michael is Michael. Everyone can judge on their own who they like more.
For me, it's simple - Madonna is the queen of pop, Michael is the king of pop.

I agree. Somehow, I don't believe that Madonna would agree with this guys' statements. She made one of the most beautiful speeches I've ever heard regarding Michael after his death, saying in effect that so many people had abandoned him when he needed compassion and help during the terrible times in his life. And she paid tribute to Michael during her last concert tour saying something like "Long live the King". I don't think that she would have wasted her time talking nice about Michael if she had no good feelings about him at all. I am not blaming her for what this guy said in this article. He is just saying what he thinks. I don't agree. But I don't fault Madonna for that.

 

[Casandra]

*side eye* MJ stayed relevant even in through his worst times. This guy is a loser smh

 

[Petrarose]

UM...You do know that this is something that can't be possible FOREVER with any artist, right?! There's either a break from them or struggles in their career/personal lives or lack of public interest that will make an artist stop being revelant in the way u define it here. So what then after that? Do u just not see them at all as revelant because they won't chart anymore? Weird way to define revelance I say! SMH No wonder we disagree!

Yeap. I think the person is suggesting that relevance means releasing songs constantly and they move up and down the charts. This is a very static view and leaves no room for the other musical activities the artist is involved in that does not involve the charts as been discussed by several posters here.

 

[BottleOfSmoke]

He is sooooo right, MJ should've released tracks that sound pretty much the same since late 90s, with such lyrics like "give me all your love, give me all your love, give me all your love today (repeat until fade)" to be relevant... this guy's pitiful :smilerolleyes:

 

[HIStory]

This is Madonna's latest. I would be pretty embarassed for Michael had he ever released anything like this. But as I have read Madonna is praised for her new album by critics. Just compare this to the fact that Michael was struggling to get good reviews for anything since Thriller. More than ever I'm pretty convinced this has to do with race. Just like Joe Vogel pointed out Madonna's 20 Rolling Stones covers (I'm sure 21st is coming up soon) compared to Michael's 8 (6 while he was living).

 

[BottleOfSmoke]

^ lol, lol & re-lol @ the lyrics

 

[Ben]

There was a time when Madonna, like Michael, made the trends, and most of everyone else followed. Now, Madonna just follows the same crap that's out there, Katie Perry style.
Michael used the trends, and made them his own. He never sacrificed his artistry for anything. That, to me, makes him more respectable than Madonna.
As for relevance, I dont think Michael was ever irrelevant. Even in his darkest years, he was still acknowledged as the greatest icon, and young artists were still fighting to work with him.

 

[Sephiroth820]

Her new video teaser



She's back to her old style.......Such a shame that we will never see MJ in his new videoclip,that's would be amazing......

 

[Billie Jean 78]

This is the new Madonna? I'm sorry, but this indeed is nothing to be proud of - and I'm speaking pretty much as a Madonna-fan!

 

[DI88]

love madonna too )

 

[kissybissy]

I think what happened to Madonna was that she managed to keep her success on the same level. MJ had that huge hit with Thriller and the following albums didn't have the same impact. It makes it look that his albums wasn't so relevant. Also, he did face the court case that was emotionally draining to him that he stopped working for a long while. And when he was about to come back he died. Madonna didn't have to interrupt her career for a long time and when she briefly stopped working, she managed to keep her name in the press.

 

[marebear]

Bad and Dangerous were successful and Michael's status internationally grew too. Sales wise you can't top Thriller but Michael kept working. If the trial and all that never happened Michael would have continued his work. Madonna was fortunate not to have these obstacles thrown her way. Michael had big success as a child star too.

I don't even know if I should this but looking back on things I think people like the media, critics and so on had more of a problem with Michael's success and power that he had. Michael's quality of work got better after Thriller too and it wasn't appreciated enough. When I read Joe Vogel's book he hinted at that and he feels that people will appreciate the work more now but it should have been when it came out. People were taking attention away from the work and focusing on Michael the person.

I hope I am making sense. I can try again to explain what i mean.

 

[HIStory]

I think what happened to Madonna was that she managed to keep her success on the same level. MJ had that huge hit with Thriller and the following albums didn't have the same impact. It makes it look that his albums wasn't so relevant. Also, he did face the court case that was emotionally draining to him that he stopped working for a long while. And when he was about to come back he died. Madonna didn't have to interrupt her career for a long time and when she briefly stopped working, she managed to keep her name in the press.

Three of Michael's albums (Thriller, Bad, Dangerous) sold more than ANYTHING Madonna ever released, ie. her best selling album!
Yet, Bad and Dangerous were considered failures while Madonna is praised for keeping it "successful"?

Besides that is not necessarily so. For example, Madonna's last album (Hard Candy) sold only 4 million copies. Also her 2003 release "American Life" sold around that number. So it's not really true that she managed to keep success at the same level. But she always got better press. I have my opinion on why.

 

[athina_livadi]

Don't make me laugh, PLEASE! Michael's solo albums Bad, Dangerous were and still are HUGE!!! Madonna would never be able to reach close to that, even in her dreams. Don't flat out Michael's value just because he couldn't get along with the damn media. Michael wanted to be the master of his work even if it meant that he would go against the "stream". That's why he is so unique and irreplacable!!! Madonna was never half as talented as Michael and I want to remind everyone her own words: "I'm worthless to even carry his suitcases"!!!

 

[Victory22]

12 March 2012 Last updated at 05:21 ET

Taylor Swift is pop music's top earner Taylor Swift's tour crossed Asia, Europe, Australia and North America Continue

Adele and Swift rule AMAs roost
Taylor Swift tops teen awards
Taylor Swift wins top music prize

Country star Taylor Swift has beaten Adele and Lady Gaga to be named the highest-earning pop artist of 2011 by trade publication Billboard.

The 22-year-old earned $35,719,902 (£22.7m) in 2011 from a combination of music sales, royalties and touring.

Irish rockers U2 took second place with $32m (£20m) thanks to their 360 tour, seen by more than seven million people.

Kenny Chesney came third, followed by last year's highest earner, Lady Gaga, while Adele came 10th.

The British singer had the biggest-selling album of the year, but her earnings were affected by the cancellation of her North American tour for throat surgery.

Nonetheless, she earned $13,081,909 (£8.3m) in 2011, Billboard reported.

U2 claimed the runner's-up position without releasing any new material in 2011, highlighting the importance of tour revenues.

Kenny Chesney also made the bulk of his $29m (£19m) earnings from touring, although he also did well from merchandising and sponsorship.

Continue reading the main story
MUSIC'S TOP EARNERS IN 2011

1 Taylor Swift - $35.7m
2 U2 - $32.1m
3 Kenny Chesney - $29.8m
4 Lady Gaga - $25.4m
5 Lil Wayne - $23.2m
6 Sade - $16.4m
7 Bon Jovi - $15.8m (pictured)
8 Celine Dion - $14.3m
9 Jason Adlean - $13.4m
10 Adele - $13.1m
Source: Billboard

Lady Gaga sold 2.8m albums in the US last year, with 1.1m copies of Born This Way sold in its first week of release.

Her live earnings dropped, however, after the Monster's Ball tour wrapped up in May.

In total, the theatrical pop diva made $25m (£16m) in 2011.

Fifth place was taken by rap star Lil Wayne, who returned to the limelight after serving an eight month jail sentence for gun possession.

His $23m (£14.8m) earnings came from sales of his comeback album Carter III, as well as touring and profits from his record label Young Money Entertainment, home to artists including Drake and Nicki Minaj.

British musicians were well represented on the annual Billboard chart, with Sade in sixth place, Elton John at 13 and Rod Stewart at 29.

Sir Paul McCartney claimed 25th place on the list, despite playing just six concerts in the US last year. The $18.6m (£11.8m) ticket sales earned the musician an estimated $6.2m (£4m), Billboard said.

Sir Paul's former band The Beatles came one place above him, whose back catalogue sales earned an impressive $6.7m (£4.2m) in 2011, thanks largely to their belated appearance on iTunes and other digital music stores.

The band sold 4.7m digital tracks last year - with George Harrison's Here Comes The Sun the most popular download.

Notice how Madonna's name is not on this list? LOL!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17336833

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Madonna was never half as talented as Michael and I want to remind everyone her own words: "I'm worthless to even carry his suitcases"!!!

Ha, ha. Say what you want about madonna but she knew what the score was vis a vis her and mj.

 

[benscarr]

Michael never failed to be relevent in the 2000's. Michael's career simply became "inactive" in the 2000's due being sued by various business assocoiates and companies, and then the trial. Also whilst Michael's career became inactive in the 2000's, his influence on music became even bigger, with most artists copy his style of music, dancing and fashion, plus constantly being named as an influence by manys artists and bands which musically kept Michael relevent.

This producer is an idiot for not noticing this and saying Madonna has succeeded where Michael failed, and I'm sure Madonna wouldn't agree with her producers comment about Michael either.