Latest on MJJC

Rolling Stone's 100 best albums of the '80s - Michael is Number 7!

Thriller and bad should have been in the top 5
Anyway, Michael will be number one in my heart forever.
 
Michael is the number one for us. Someday the entire world also will know and accept this. It's so clear that they wouldn't have any way to believe this.
 
I'm sick and tired of this garbage, but nothing's new.

They didn't recognize Michael's supremacy not even back then so why would they now?

I always thought that Michael is above all this classification.
 
No One said:
At the risk of sounding anti-MJ, I do agree that Bad should have been on the list (although not top 5). But posts like this frustrate me. Just because an album is popular doesn't make it good. I mean Jedward are popular for god's sake! If it's your opinion that Bad should be top 5, fair enough. I think The Queen Is Dead by The Smiths should be top 5. But to say Bad should be up there BECAUSE it had a lot of hits is silly in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think that album should not be anywhere near any decent music list.
 
Michael should be number 1 PERIOD!!! And Bad should most definitely have been high on the list...makes no sense to me but hey a little old list isn't gonna change the fact that Michael IS and will ALWAYS be the GREATEST EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
No One said:
At the risk of sounding anti-MJ, I do agree that Bad should have been on the list (although not top 5). But posts like this frustrate me. Just because an album is popular doesn't make it good. I mean Jedward are popular for god's sake! If it's your opinion that Bad should be top 5, fair enough. I think The Queen Is Dead by The Smiths should be top 5. But to say Bad should be up there BECAUSE it had a lot of hits is silly in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Music is very personal. What one person likes, the other might absolutely dislike. That's why lists like these are almost impossible to put together. I put Bad in the Top 5, because it's my fave MJ album. In my opinion it might even be slighty better then Thriller. But then again that is just my opinion and someone else might think completely different.

There are sure albums in the top 10 that should be in there. I would change the complete top 10, as I don't agree with Rolling Stone (like always). But then again that is just my opinion. So nothing about my post to frustrate you, just my single opinion :)
 
Sassie said:
Music is very personal. What one person likes, the other might absolutely dislike. That's why lists like these are almost impossible to put together. I put Bad in the Top 5, because it's my fave MJ album. In my opinion it might even be slighty better then Thriller. But then again that is just my opinion and someone else might think completely different.

There are sure albums in the top 10 that should be in there. I would change the complete top 10, as I don't agree with Rolling Stone (like always). But then again that is just my opinion. So nothing about my post to frustrate you, just my single opinion :)
Click to expand...

:agree:
IMO we shouldn't be here if we don't feel like ALL Michael's albums belong to top 10.But that's me.
 
Sassie said:
So nothing about my post to frustrate you, just my single opinion :)
Click to expand...

As I already stated in my post that you quoted (but didn't read, apparently), I have no problem with you having your opinion about where Bad should be. That's your taste. What I found frustrating was your reason why Bad should be top 5 - because it had many hits. I feel this has nothing to do with how good an album is (or isn't). Dangerous, for example, didn't have nearly as many number one hits as Bad. Does that mean it shouldn't be on a similar list about the 90's?

IMO we shouldn't be here if we don't feel like ALL Michael's albums belong to top 10.But that's me.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It is just you. To blindly follow anyone and not have any opinion of your own speaks volumes about you. To say we shouldn't all be here unless we are mindless sheep is just ludicrous.
 
No One said:
As I already stated in my post that you quoted (but didn't read, apparently), I have no problem with you having your opinion about where Bad should be. That's your taste. What I found frustrating was your reason why Bad should be top 5 - beca use it had many hits. I feel this has nothing to do with how good an album is (or isn't). Dangerous, for example, didn't have nearly as many number one hits as Bad. Does that mean it shouldn't be on a similar list about the 90's?





Indeed. It is just you. To blindly follow anyone and not have any opinion of your own speaks volumes about you. To say we shouldn't all be here unless we are mindless sheep is just ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Say what :shock:?!!
Nothing in my post should have generated this kind of reply from you.
 
Last edited:
No One said:
As I already stated in my post that you quoted (but didn't read, apparently), I have no problem with you having your opinion about where Bad should be. That's your taste. What I found frustrating was your reason why Bad should be top 5 - because it had many hits. I feel this has nothing to do with how good an album is (or isn't). Dangerous, for example, didn't have nearly as many number one hits as Bad. Does that mean it shouldn't be on a similar list about the 90's?



Indeed. It is just you. To blindly follow anyone and not have any opinion of your own speaks volumes about you. To say we shouldn't all be here unless we are mindless sheep is just ludicrous.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with parts of this. Michael is amazing, yes that's why we're all here on the board. His music moves people, it creates emotions and is beautiful to the ear. His music is also popular, no denying that. But Rolling Stone is a primarily rock based magazine, so I'm not surprised that Thriller isn't in the top five. Why get angry at a magazine for their choices? It's not the end of the world, most people know the brilliance of Thriller (and unfortunately less know how amazing Dangerous and his other work is) so a simple list in a magazine isn't going to hurt Michael's image any time soon, haha!

There is also so much wonderful music out there besides Michael. Don't forget, he was influenced by the best too! Motown, the Bee Gees, classic song writing teams etc etc. And modern day artists too, even bands like Nine Inch Nails.
 
No One said:
As I already stated in my post that you quoted (but didn't read, apparently), I have no problem with you having your opinion about where Bad should be. That's your taste. What I found frustrating was your reason why Bad should be top 5 - because it had many hits. I feel this has nothing to do with how good an album is (or isn't). Dangerous, for example, didn't have nearly as many number one hits as Bad. Does that mean it shouldn't be on a similar list about the 90's?
Click to expand...

I did read your post completely, but I should have made my response a bit more clear on that point. As you're right, not every album with many hits is a great album. For me almost all songs on bad (allthough I think the duet with stevie could have been much better) are very very good. So what I ment to say is that the many hits that came of Bad have such high quality that the album should be in the top 5, in my opinion.

As someone said Rolling Stone is more focused on rock music. And it really doesn't matter that much what lists they put together. It's just interesting to read other people's opinions on why they think some albums should be on certain spots. I hope I made my reason a bit more clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top