Latest on MJJC

Rolling Stones are a DISGRACE!!!

filmandmusic said:
I mean it is what you get when you base your performances on dancing and spectacle And I haven’t even touched upon the terrible miming or out of breath performances on the dangerous tour. If they make a similar list of the greatest dancers in pop history MJ will be top 5 for sure.
Click to expand...
You're right.
 
this list is complete bullshit and it’s so obvious what they’re trying to do. It’s just laughable. And can people just shut up and stop making everything into a lip sync thread. This has nothing to do with that and that was not in the criteria for this list so just stop with this fetish. Even if it were true MJ sang live for the majority of his career, ever since he was 8 years old so That argument is just invalid.

Again what a joke of a list. Having Rihanna at 68th, bob dylan at 15, Prince at 16, Kurt cobain at 30 something lol. No Celine Dion as well? Terrible
 
Last edited:
Themidwestcowboy said:
And can people just shut up and stop making everything into a lip sync thread. This has nothing to do about that and that was not in the criteria for this list so just stop with this fetish. Even if it were true MJ sang live for the majority of his career, ever since he was 8 years old so That argument is just invalid.
Click to expand...
100% agree. It's soooo annoying
 
Nite Line said:
What's even worse is that Celine Dion isn't on this list. According to Rolling Stones, Taylor Swift & Rihanna are better singers than Celine Dion. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
It does not necessarily have to do with who are strictly better singers.

Keep in mind that a music magazine has a main target audience (in terms of age) that in some way has to satisfy.

The main target audience of Rolling Stone (printed/on line version) has been estimated at 25 to 34 years old.

Rihanna and Taylor Swift are 2 female singers who are by far more popular in that age group (than Celine Dion), so that magazine has to rank these 2 female singers higher than Celine Dion in order to satisfy its main target audience.
 
This is what they said factored in

“"In all cases, what mattered most to us was originality, influence, the depth of an artist’s catalog, and the breadth of their musical legacy."

Now please make sense of his placement. This is a deliberate insult to him and everyone knows it. This has nothing to do with his artistry.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Nobody that knows better, let me phrase it more specifically.
Click to expand...
Well then many mainstream music artists (current & veteran) must not know better since they participate every year in voting and performing at the Rock n Roll Hall Of Fame inductions. They also do interviews with RS. The Rock Hall was founded and ran by the founders of Rolling Stone magazine, Jann Wenner in particular. If RS was a tabloid I doubt they would do that. Like they wouldn't perform at a museum started by the National Enquirer or TMZ. :ROFLMAO: Also RS hasn't really been a boomer magazine since around the 1980s, maybe early 1990s. How much of the boomer audience listen to Eminem, Green Day, Biggie Smalls, Jay-Z, Nirvana, & Tupac? They were all inducted on their first year of eligibilty, but Pat Benetar (a boomer era singer) has been eligible since 1999 and just getting in (2022). The boomers are also generally the ones who complain that a lot of rock acts (ig. prog rock, heavy metal, southern rock, etc.) haven't been inducted but Madonna & ABBA has.
 
Themidwestcowboy said:
This is what they said factored in

“"In all cases, what mattered most to us was originality, influence, the depth of an artist’s catalog, and the breadth of their musical legacy."

Now please make sense of his placement. This is a deliberate insult to him and everyone knows it. This has nothing to do with his artistry.
Click to expand...
On pure musical legacy alone, Michael should be in the top 5.
 
Themidwestcowboy said:
“In all cases, what mattered most to us was originality, influence, the depth of an artist’s catalog, and the breadth of their musical legacy.”
Click to expand...
If we’re discussing influence, originality, and musical legacy, this list is even more egregious. The top ten isn’t the worst and I agree with many of those placements, but nobody is going to convince me that Rihanna, Ariana Grande, Prince, Dolly Parton, or basically the overwhelming majority of those above him hold a deeper and more important place in history than Michael f**king Jackson.
 
AlwaysThere said:
If we’re discussing influence, originality, and musical legacy, this list is even more egregious. The top ten isn’t the worst and I agree with many of those placements, but nobody is going to convince me that Rihanna, Ariana Grande, Prince, Dolly Parton, or basically the overwhelming majority of those above him hold a deeper and more important place in history than Michael f**king Jackson.
Click to expand...
This is what I’m talking about. This isn’t even about being a fan and being biased it’s undisputed facts. Usually I don’t really care about these types of lists but this was just too crazy to brush off.

If we’re talking about singing, then that’s subjective of course, but there is no one that can say with a straight face that Bob Dylan or Kurt Cobain was a better singer than Michael.
 
Bob Dylan in the 60s was hugely influential, even today many rockstars cite him as the greatest artist of all time. His voice is acquired taste but nobody can deny he doesn't own his songs, he has a unique voice that spoke to millions around the world.
Prince of course is also enormously respected among his peers and music critics (like Dylan). He will always be very high in lists like these.

I am very surprised at Whitney Houston's placement most of all. I was not aware her influence was this big.

I don't know if Rihanna or Ariana Grande belong in this list, all I know is these are very popular singers and their Spotify numbers prove that. It wouldn't surprise me that artists 10 years from now cite such people as being hugely influential for them.

Michael Jackson unfortunately took many uppercuts the last couple of years. Without all the controversy I am sure he would still be top 30.
 
Yeah this whole list is a joke. Even without factoring in MJs ranking. I dont get the whole "he used playback when he got older so this list is correct" nonsense. Thats not even how they factor into the ranking. Its more about studio vocals/the artists impact. MJ never lost it when it came to being in the studio. If Prince is 16th then MJ should be much closer to that.
filmandmusic said:
Without all the controversy I am sure he would still be top 30.
Click to expand...
This I can agree on.
 
filmandmusic said:
Bob Dylan in the 60s was hugely influential, even today many rockstars cite him as the greatest artist of all time. His voice is acquired taste but nobody can deny he doesn't own his songs, he has a unique voice that spoke to millions around the world.
Prince of course is also enormously respected among his peers and music critics (like Dylan). He will always be very high in lists like these.

I am very surprised at Whitney Houston's placement most of all. I was not aware her influence was this big.

I don't know if Rihanna or Ariana Grande belong in this list, all I know is these are very popular singers and their Spotify numbers prove that. It wouldn't surprise me that artists 10 years from now cite such people as being hugely influential for them.

Michael Jackson unfortunately took many uppercuts the last couple of years. Without all the controversy I am sure he would still be top 30.
Click to expand...
He has was at no 5 in a list in 2008 and not to long ago in the top 10. You don’t go from no5 to no 86. That’s just ludicrous. No matter how you slice it if we’re talking about the criteria that they themselves wrote MJ should be in top 3 and potentially even no1. Just re-read what they wrote

““In all cases, what mattered most to us was originality, influence, the depth of an artist’s catalog, and the breadth of their musical legacy.”
 
Robbsaber01 said:
Yeah this whole list is a joke. Even without factoring in MJs ranking. I dont get the whole "he used playback when he got older so this list is correct" nonsense. Thats not even how they factor into the ranking. Its more about studio vocals/the artists impact. MJ never lost it when it came to being in the studio. If Prince is 16th then MJ should be much closer to that.

This I can agree on.
Click to expand...
I’ll never understand the hate boner these publications have for MJ. It’s like he did something to them personally. They never, never miss a chance to slight him in some way, covertly and overtly. It’s on such a deep level that it gets inherited from previous generations.
 
Last edited:
filmandmusic said:
Without all the controversy I am sure he would still be top 30.
Click to expand...
Well it's the me-too cancel culture social media era. Pre-2014 most American comedians and the general public would very likely have Bill Cosby as the #1 comedian or at least in the top 5. Today not so much. His old material and TV shows/movies hasn't suddenly changed, but not too many people today are going to claim Cosby. Even though career wise as a Black entertainer in the USA, he was very important. Amongst other things, he was the first to be a main actor in a network TV show in the 1960s with I Spy. His comedy albums were popular sellers. He was also long popular with children on the TV shows Electric Company, Fat Albert, Captain Kangaroo, & those old Jello commercials. The Cosby Show was the #1 show on TV for several years during the 1980s.
 
Themidwestcowboy said:
He has was at no 5 in a list in 2008 and not to long ago in the top 10. You don’t go from no5 to no 86. That’s just ludicrous. No matter how you slice it if we’re talking about the criteria that they themselves wrote MJ should be in top 3 and potentially even no1. Just re-read what they wrote

““In all cases, what mattered most to us was originality, influence, the depth of an artist’s catalog, and the breadth of their musical legacy.”
Click to expand...
I don’t think he was ever at nr 5, the highest I found him was nr 25
 
Who knows perhaps some labels pay to get their artists a favorable placing. It wouldn’t particularly surprise me.
 
DuranDuran said:
Well then many mainstream music artists (current & veteran) must not know better since they participate every year in voting and performing at the Rock n Roll Hall Of Fame inductions. They also do interviews with RS. The Rock Hall was founded and ran by the founders of Rolling Stone magazine, Jann Wenner in particular. If RS was a tabloid I doubt they would do that. Like they wouldn't perform at a museum started by the National Enquirer or TMZ. :ROFLMAO: Also RS hasn't really been a boomer magazine since around the 1980s, maybe early 1990s. How much of the boomer audience listen to Eminem, Green Day, Biggie Smalls, Jay-Z, Nirvana, & Tupac? They were all inducted on their first year of eligibilty, but Pat Benetar (a boomer era singer) has been eligible since 1999 and just getting in (2022). The boomers are also generally the ones who complain that a lot of rock acts (ig. prog rock, heavy metal, southern rock, etc.) haven't been inducted but Madonna & ABBA has.
Click to expand...
Bro I ain't reading all that. I go to Billboard. RS are the Oscars of Music, and they are desperate to have appeal and remain a caricature of a good magazine.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Bro I ain't reading all that. I go to Billboard. RS are the Oscars of Music, and they are desperate to have appeal and remain a caricature of a good magazine.
Click to expand...
The same Billboard that today has 500 different charts and where Drake & Lil Wayne has more hits than anyone else and considers that a certain amount of streams is equivalent to an album sale. They're also keeping up with the current audience, like most other media. It's also not a big secret that record labels, radio stations, & record stores have faked numbers for decades. If the labels have long used payola, what makes you think the charts are legit?
 
Lennon physically and emotionally abused his wife and children. Elvis enjoyed sleepovers with prepubescent girls and started dating Priscilla when he was 24 and she was 14. Bowie and Jagger were both accused of sleeping with/taking the virginity of 15-year-olds. James Brown consistently beat his wife. David Ruffin is said to have been abusive towards Motown singer Tammi Terrell.

They all ranked higher than MJ. None of them had a sentence discussing their “complicated past” or “controversies.”

I know Rolling Stone is (and has always been) a joke of a publication, but the fact that MJ’s allegations are consistently used as points of criticism while the above listed artists (and many others) don’t see an ounce of condemnation pisses me off.
 
DuranDuran said:
The same Billboard that today has 500 different charts and where Drake & Lil Wayne has more hits than anyone else and considers that a certain amount of streams is equivalent to an album sale. They're also keeping up with the current audience, like most other media. It's also not a big secret that record labels, radio stations, & record stores have faked numbers for decades. If the labels have long used payola, what makes you think the charts are legit?
Click to expand...
At least that is just reporting what the people want. We have a say in those charts. Mostly. At least humanity as a whole does, not just some corporate guys and nepo babies. I don't love every billboard article but I can usually agree with them more than RS. RS is just glaringly biased and it's hard to justify, Billboard is maybe just more of a revolving door of biases.

I trust all of them as far as I can throw em. I hate pitchfork way more. Rolling Stone just grinds my gears personally.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
At least that is just reporting what the people want. We have a say in those charts. Mostly. At least humanity as a whole does, not just some corporate guys and nepo babies. I don't love every billboard article but I can usually agree with them more than RS. RS is just glaringly biased and it's hard to justify, Billboard is maybe just more of a revolving door of biases.

I trust all of them as far as I can throw em. I hate pitchfork way more. Rolling Stone just grinds my gears personally.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that Billboard has reported several times that Eagles Greatest Hits Vol 1 is the biggest selling album in history and other media outlets have repeated that. I've seen it.
 
@AlwaysThere Bowie, Jagger or Presley never got charged with anything though it is a big difference in public perception because 99% of,the people aren’t even aware of those things. Besides that if they weren’t charged then I guess it happened under consent.

I don’t want to defend them I’m just pointing out there is a nuance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top