Should Janet Jackson Be Inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?

[144000]

Now you're reaching.

how? it's documented.

 

[trueiopian]

again..not to the extent of Michael. again..i'm talking guiness book.

You're stuck on this fascination of accolades. Talent doesn't equate to sales and accolades. The industry IS a corporate. Sadly, the public buys into image.

you gotta be clear. you're not making yourself clear. how am i a red herring?

My sentence was clear for the average reader. You're red herring by slowly moving away from the previous discussion.

 

[MJ1814]

how? it's documented.

You're reaching, and you know it, and you know how. Using Guinness as the justification of talent superiority ing getting ppl out to buy an album. Reaching. Don't pull a muscle.

 

[144000]

You're stuck on this fascination of accolades. Talent doesn't equate to sales and accolades. The industry IS a corporate. Sadly, the public buys into image.






My sentence was clear for the average reader. You're red herring by slowly moving away from the previous discussion.

image? the media was dogging his image. boy am i laughing at that comment. and you are by far, not qualified to talk about moving away from a subject. this thread was about Janet's hall of fame discussion. and you and others already went wayyy off topic.

or...we can all say, that this discussion allows for a lot of subdiscussions..which means...your comment was invalid. and you would be a red herring, too. now..since you wanted to go in other directions..pls allow others to do so, too, though whether or not, we are really leaving this wide bodied discussion, is debatable..

You're reaching, and you know it, and you know how. Using Guinness as the justification of talent superiority ing getting ppl out to buy an album. Reaching. Don't pull a muscle.

this is easy..and i'm laughing. no muscles being pulled. lol. if anything, when a person starts to get personal, like you are, right now..that is pulling a muscle, because you were backed into a corner, enough to stop discussing the subject, and start discussing ME.

 

[trueiopian]

image? the media was dogging his image. boy am i laughing at that comment. and you are by far, not qualified to talk about moving away from a subject. this thread was about Janet's hall of fame discussion. and you and others already went wayyy off topic.

or...we can all say, that this discussion allows for a lot of subdiscussions..which means...your comment was invalid. and you would be a red herring, too. now..since you wanted to go in other directions..pls allow others to do so, too, though whether or not, we are really leaving this wide bodied discussion, is debatable..

The media? Yes. The public? No. Reading is fundamental you know....

No, you're red herring.

 

[MJ1814]

this is easy..and i'm laughing. no muscles being pulled. lol. if anything, when a person starts to get personal, like you are, right now..that is pulling a muscle, because you were backed into a corner, enough to stop discussing the subject, and start discussing ME.

You were grasping for straws and you know it. Using Guinness to justify talent superiority. That's a reach and you know it.

And I'm still clueless as to how you are equating talent to sales, a question which you have avoided for quite some time now.

 

[trueiopian]

You were grasping for straws and you know it. Using Guinness to justify talent superiority. That's a reach and you know it.

And I'm still clueless as to how you are equating talent to sales, a question which you have avoided for quite some time now.

vncwilliam, there you go!

 

[144000]

You were grasping for straws and you know it. Using Guinness to justify talent superiority. That's a reach and you know it.

And I'm still clueless as to how you are equating talent to sales, a question which you have avoided for quite some time now.

there is no grasping for straws. you just want to see it that way. that's why people call people sellouts..that's due to envy. financial envy.

you have to have talent to get people to spend money.

now...if you want to say that this isn't so...then...

everything becomes subjective, now, doesn't it?

i can say that so and so has talent..and you can say they don't. that amounts to nothing.

but you have to be special to get people to spend money, without the help of the media, and image grooming, and such. every aspect of what people program people to do, in order to get them to buy something, went out the window, with Michael, when there was a steady campaign to destroy all the things that people think need to be liked, in order to get people to buy a product. and when it was all said and done...Michael's music sold without any help from that destructive media. so..now..we're talking the merit of the music..and the musical talent, but...to the extent where it was the best selling, for all time. if your artist did that, you would be screaming it from the mountaintops. but, because Michael did it..suddenly you think it's...shame shame shame..

 

[144000]

vncwilliam, there you go!

i already did. there are myriads of people who would read what i wrote and get it, the first time.



World Records by Paavan S - Targetseo.com - SEO India | Friday, June 26, 2009 | Michael Jackson Awards, Michael Jackson Guinness World Records, Michael Jackson World Records | 5 comments » Michael Jackson, 50, one of pop music's biggest stars, was rushed to a Los Angeles-area hospital by paramedics who found him not breathing when they arrived at his home. Later that afternoon Jackson was pronounced dead, the cause of death is believed to be a cardiac arrest. Below are Mentioned World Records and Achievements.Most Successful Concert Series - Guinness Book Of World Records
Michael Jackson sold out for seven nights at Wembley Stadium, London, England in the summer of 1988. A total of 504,000 people saw Michael perform July 14-16, 22-23, and August 26-27, 1988.

Biggest Selling Album Of All Time - Guinness Book Of World Records
Michael Jackson's "Thriller" Album is the biggest selling album of all time, with over 50 million copies sold worldwide. Thriller is also the biggest selling U.S album with sales of 25 million copies.

80's Most #1 Hits
By The End of the 1980's Michael Jackson had more #1 hits than any other artist for the decade.

Michael Awards
Michael has more awards than any other artist.

Entertainer Of The Decade
With the #1 (Thriller) and #2 (Bad) ranked albums in the world Michael was the 1980's Entertainer Of The Decade.

Most Grammy Awards - Guinness Book Of World Records
Michael won a record breaking 8 Grammy Awards in 1984, more than any other artist in one year.

Largest Contracts - Guiness Book Of World Records
$890 million (Sony Music) Contract, with prospective earnings of $1 billion.

Greatest Audience - Guiness Book Of World Records
The highest-ever viewership was 133.4 million viewers watching the NBC transmission of Super Bowl XXVII on June 31, 1993. Michael was spotlighted during the half-time peformance.

Highest-Paid Commercial Spokesperson - Guiness Book Of World Records
Pepsi Cola paid Michael Jackson $12 million to do 4 TV commercials.

Bad Tour - Guinness Book Of World Records
Michael Jackson's world tour brought in a record gross revenue of over $124 million during September 1987-December 1988.

100 Million Records
Michael has sold over 100 million singles and albums outside of the U.S.

Billboard Charts
Michael Jackson is the first person in the 37 year history of the chart to enter at # 1, with his single "You Are Not Alone". Michael broke his previous redord held by his single "Earth Song" which debuted at #5.

Biggest Selling Video
Michael Jackson's "The Making Of Thriller" is the biggest selling video to be released by an artist.

Billboard "Hot 100" Singles Chart
Most #1 Hits by Male Artist (13)

#1 Debuts
Michael's "Bad", "Dangerous", and "HIStory" albums all debuted at #1.

Consecutive #1 Singles
Jackson 5 were the first group to ever have four consecutive #1 singles.

#1 On Charts
In 1983 Michael became the first artist to simultaneously hold the number one spots on Billboard's rock albums and rock singles charts, as well as the R&B albums and singles charts.

First Video
Michael Jackson was the first black artist to have a video aired on MTV.

Michael Jackson visits Guinness World Records in London Live Video

 

[MJ1814]

there is no grasping for straws. you just want to see it that way. that's why people call people sellouts..that's due to envy. financial envy.

you have to have talent to get people to spend money.

now...if you want to say that this isn't so...then...

everything becomes subjective, now, doesn't it?

i can say that so and so has talent..and you can say they don't. that amounts to nothing.

but you have to be special to get people to spend money, without the help of the media, and image grooming, and such. every aspect of what people program people to do, in order to get them to buy something, went out the window, with Michael, when there was a steady campaign to destroy all the things that people think need to be liked, in order to get people to buy a product. and when it was all said and done...Michael's music sold without any help from that destructive media. so..now..we're talking the merit of the music..and the musical talent, but...to the extent where it was the best selling, for all time. if your artist did that, you would be screaming it from the mountaintops. but, because Michael did it..suddenly you think it's...shame shame shame..

All that ties in with commercial appeal. There are a lot of artists who are talented, but do not have commercial appeal. Mike and a lot of other artists are marketable, and they have mass appeal. Just because one artist sells more than the other doesn't mean they are more talented. Because like it or not, there are ppl more talented than Mike....and haven't sold anything close to what he has sold.

 

[144000]

All that ties in with commercial appeal. There are a lot of artists who are talented, but do not have commercial appeal. Mike and a lot of other artists are marketable, and they have mass appeal. Just because one artist sells more than the other doesn't mean they are more talented. Because like it or not, there are ppl more talented than Mike....and haven't sold anything close to what he has sold.

again...a lot of people thought Michael was not marketable in his later years. and that didn't stop him from selling.

and if we go with your argument. then the plumber can say he is talented. so what. that doesn't mean that he is.

nobody wants to part with their money. you don't seem to want to accept that the money is the final judge. that's your perrogative, but it doesn't stop it from being true. i hate a lot of people who i still listen to on the radio, and i don't even know what they look like. but if i listen, i fill their pockets. that takes talent. and..no image.

when i bought MJ's first music, it had nothing to do with his image. when i buy music, i buy MUSIC. and, if an artist can multiply that by a number that makes him the biggest selling ever, there comes a time, when your grasping for image arguments go out the window, because there are a lot of people out there, who are tired of image being thrown in their faces. outcasts, who are gunna rebel by going by music alone. and Michael caught up many of those. that number of people that nobody else could claim, because of the same ol same ol...

Michael claimed the most amount of THOSE people, too.

 

[Dr.Feelgood]

Hell, yeah. If not she WHO?
I've always said you have to honour someone as long he is alive. Give some love, don't wait until they are dead

 

[trueiopian]

i already did. there are myriads of people who would read what i wrote and get it, the first time.

[IRRELEVANT TO DISCUSSION]

Again, there's a difference between commercial appeal and how one uses their talent. Who said good music equates to sales? I would hate to see your ipod :mello:

 

[MJ1814]

again...a lot of people thought Michael was not marketable in his later years. and that didn't stop him from selling.

and if we go with your argument. then the plumber can say he is talented. so what. that doesn't mean that he is.

nobody wants to part with their money. you don't seem to want to accept that the money is the final judge. that's your perrogative, but it doesn't stop it from being true.

Mike wasn't as marketable in his later years as he was in the 80s...hence his album sales declining beginning with Bad.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how album sales equals talent.

 

[MJ1814]

Who said good music equates to sales? I would hate to see your ipod :mello:

AAAHHHHHHH!!!! :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

 

[144000]

Again, there's a difference between commercial appeal and how one uses their talent. Who said good music equates to sales? I would hate to see your ipod :mello:

well, then, everything you said is irrelevant. that's how you are arguing, now.


Michael is on my ipod. i guess you never heard him, before. and i guess you would hate to hear him.

 

[trueiopian]

well, then, everything you said is irrelevant. that's how you are arguing, now.


Michael is on my ipod. i guess you never heard him, before.

How does sales equate to talent?

You keep pushing this question to the side and repeatedly commenting on MJ's accomplishments.

So he's the only artist in your iPod?

Wow.

 

[144000]

How does sales equate to talent?

You keep pushing this question to the side and repeatedly commenting on MJ's accomplishments.

So he's the only artist in your iPod?

Wow.

am i getting forty lashes for just having MJ on my ipod, now?

do i have to discuss his talent? you can look through this thread, from the beginning to see what i said about his talent. you are sooo taking a big leap, to avoid the five hundred pound elephant in the room. are you saying MJ stood on the stage, and never opened his mouth?

are you on this website, because you are sooo sorry that you are a victim of image? because, according to you, apparently, MJ is all image and very little, to no talent.(never mind the lashing that his image received in the nineties.)

and an ipod requires listening, not watching. so sorry to say, that the music is on its own, there. and, i'm not putting stuff on my ipod to get another person's approval. apparently, i needed your approval. and that means, you need someone else's approval to consider your ipod list 'acceptable'.

 

[trueiopian]

am i getting forty lashes for just having MJ on my ipod, now?

do i have to discuss his talent? you can look through this thread, from the beginning to see what i said about his talent. you are sooo taking a big leap, to avoid the five hundred pound elephant in the room. are you saying MJ stood on the stage, and never opened his mouth?

are you on this website, because you are sooo sorry that you are a victim of image? because, according to you, apparently, MJ is all image and very little, to no talent.(never mind the lashing that his image received in the nineties.)

No, just asking a simple question. No need for the caddy remarks.

I never said that.

I never said that MJ was all image. Why are you in this thread, again?

 

[144000]

No, just asking a simple question. No need for the caddy remarks.

I never said that.

I never said that MJ was all image. Why are you in this thread, again?

why are YOU in this thread, again? my remarks were not caddy, they were necessary, because you didn't see my answers, the first time. they angered you so you called them 'caddy'. your questions were unnecessary, because MJ's talent was long discussed. why would you even ask about what it took for MJ to get into the hall..or..why he sold anything? that question doesn't need to be asked, unless you just needed to go back and forth in argument, because you know why MJ sold what he sold..unless, you are arguing with yourself.

 

[trueiopian]

why are YOU in this thread, again?

Speaking of Janet which you're not doing. All you're doing is defending how MJ is more talented because he sold more.

 

[MJ1814]

Speaking of Janet which you're not doing. All you're doing is defending how MJ is more talented because he sold more.

I CAN'T! :hysterical:


Co-signs with the last part.

 

[144000]

Speaking of Janet which you're not doing. All you're doing is defending how MJ is more talented because he sold more.

you're doing the same for Janet, at Michael's expense, with whatever you can come up with, so you are being hypocritical.

this thread was titled 'should janet get into the hall?' it allowed for multiple choice answers. you knew that. so, you knew you were offended before you came into this thread. if you couldn't handle multiple choice, you should not have entered.

in my first post, i said who i thought should get in, and who should not, and why. every person is entitled to their opinion. but then...people other than me, started finding ways to diss Michael, on behalf of Janet. and it kept going. i have a right to defend Michael.

and it's very lame to downplay sales. very very lame.

because it's an obvious meter. so, people are threatened by it.

instead of attacking the 'sellouts', find a way to become one, yourself, or else, stop personally attacking those that are 'sellouts'. it's too easy to see envy when people do that.

just because a person is able to get someone to pick up their money does NOT mean that the music is suddenly less quality.

 

[144000]

I CAN'T! :hysterical:


Co-signs with the last part.

you can..you just don't want to. it keeps up your fight.

if Janet was the one in the guiness book, you would be the biggest champion for her...and...beware anyone who would argue with you...

but of course you'll deny that, and put me on blast.

 

[MJ1814]

you can..you just don't want to. it keeps up your fight.

if Janet was the one in the guiness book, you would be the biggest champion for her...and...beware anyone who would argue with you...

but of course you'll deny that, and put me on blast.

First of all, Janet already has two records in Guinness. Second, no one is knocking Mike for being in there. Your logic and argument failed catastrophically when you correlated talent to album sales...the higher your sales, the more talented you are. No sir. The RIAA would not approve of such logic :lmao:

 

[144000]

First of all, Janet already has two records in Guinness. Second, no one is knocking Mike for being in there. Your logic and argument failed catastrophically when you correlated talent to album sales...the higher your sales, the more talented you are. No sir. The RIAA would not approve of such logic :lmao:

so you are in the RIAA?

so..the RIAA doesn't approve of talent? :lmao:

by the way, you are knocking Mike. you are looking for the most subtle way to say he's not talented enough to achieve what he has achieved.

 

[DuranDuran]

I don't know what all this arguing is about, because getting into the Hall of Fame has nothing to do with talent, influence, or how many records an act has sold, only that Jann Wenner likes them.

 

[trueiopian]

you're doing the same for Janet, at Michael's expense, with whatever you can come up with, so you are being hypocritical.

this thread was titled 'should janet get into the hall?' it allowed for multiple choice answers. you knew that. so, you knew you were offended before you came into this thread. if you couldn't handle multiple choice, you should not have entered.

in my first post, i said who i thought should get in, and who should not, and why. every person is entitled to their opinion. but then...people other than me, started finding ways to diss Michael, on behalf of Janet. and it kept going. i have a right to defend Michael.

and it's very lame to downplay sales. very very lame.

because it's an obvious meter. so, people are threatened by it.

instead of attacking the 'sellouts', find a way to become one, yourself, or else, stop personally attacking those that are 'sellouts'. it's too easy to see envy when people do that.

just because a person is able to get someone to pick up their money does NOT mean that the music is suddenly less quality.

How do you know if I was offended? TBH, I wasn't a bit. This question has been beaten to death on Janet forums and other forums. So it doesn't surprise me to see the "Oh she shouldn't because she can't sing", "She wouldn't be where she is if her last name wasn't Jackson", etc. etc. You know, simple ass remarks that are irrelevant to her significance in the music and dance world. So what I did was give my 2 cents on these responses and then I think it was "babysilk" that said something like "Janet isn't on MJ's level" then you came in and went on and on how MJ sold this much and how he's better because he sold a lot of albums. Which I don't understand because the logic behind that is so narrow and sorry. I see it like this- A designer label may sell shitloads for 2 reasons 1. It looks good 2. It becomes a trend. Artists can be seen the same way. So just because an artist sales a lot of albums doesn't mean they're more talented. And I'm not attacking you or anyone else. Just giving my opinion like everyone in here.

 

[MJ1814]

so you are in the RIAA?

so..the RIAA doesn't approve of talent? :lmao:

by the way, you are knocking Mike. you are looking for the most subtle way to say he's not talented enough to achieve what he has achieved.

Clearly that was a joke. :mellow:

And I wasn't knocking Mike. I was baffled as to how you were equated talent to album sales....and then exacerbated your argument by saying the higher your sales, the more talented you are. :ermm:

 

[MJ1814]

I don't know what all this arguing is about, because getting into the Hall of Fame has nothing to do with talent, influence, or how many records an act has sold, only that Jann Wenner likes them.

Does Jann like Janet as a person or her music?