Latest on MJJC

Today´s NBC Article: Jackson changed the music industry the way Elvis, Beatles did before him

i liked the article except 4 a few lined..but hey pple cant help but pick on michael, b**ches
 
The beatles are legends in their own right, what they did with writting their own songs specially in the decade they orignated from is deemed very highly talented. Because artists were mostly seen to just sing prepared songs that were produced from the management bit like how X Factor winners are now a days (but thats the going off topic) Elvis however in MY opinion is the most overrated preformer and singer ever. But yet again who am I too say if i'm right or wrong because millions of Elvis fans would argue that case bluntly just like we would if someone said that against Michael. Michael as solo and yet even with the Jacksons has changed music in todays music scene totally from the actual style of music, music promos (videos) technical dances, image, even his status as flown with other preformers such as Justin Timberlake, Usher, Kanye West and Ne-Yo just name but a few ! MJ has seriously taken music and shaped it in a way we cannot even begin to describe. So going back to The Beatles, Elvis and Michael Jackson I personally think its impossible for them to contend with one and other! Thats my personal opnion.
 
AllTheLovelyFlowers said:
And this is why Elvis is not revered by young people. Young people honor the people who really did contribute something to the music industry. Just look at YouTube and see how much honor and admiration is given to Michael and compare it with that of Elvis and you will see what I mean.

Michael RULES YouTube!
Click to expand...

Yup! And just look at a lot of the younger pop/r&b artists and even some rock artists. Many of them list Michael as an inspiration, but I hardly hear any of these younger artists mentioning Elvis as an inspiration or you don't see too many artists constantly sampling Elvis' music, copying his dance moves or just paying tribute to him like they do with Michael. Elvis was talented and the "so called" King yadda, yadda but he really is an old time act. No matter how much the media and his family tries, him and his music just do not resonate with today's youth.
 
Last edited:
Oh great, another stupid article about Thriller and Jackson's history. Oh yay. Yippie. So fresh and new. Thriller this, Thriller that, because it's all Michael has ever done.

Thanks for all of the NEW and EXCITING information we don't already know and haven't already heard 15 million times! :)

"What Michael Jackson has become hasn’t changed what he was 25 years ago"

FU** YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
punk.gif
punk.gif
punk.gif
 
Last edited:
vncwilliam said:
so now, do you see, ChiChi?

we have been forced to accept these aritlcles as 'good' articles. everytime they come up. it's redundant to tell us what we already know about 'Thriller'...let alone, 'Off The Wall', which by the way, the 'writer' said was..'mindless funk'..which flies in the face of the supposed positive reviews of 'off the wall', which spawned all the wannabe 'off the wall' albums of the future, which, of course, were brilliant, according to the 'writers' of the future.

there is a hypnotic practice to write 'positive' articles...in hopes that the 'idiot' fans of MJ would accept them..and move on. a little sublinal practice/seduction/programming, if you will.

when will a truly positive article come along? so that the fans can say that it was positive, without feeling guilty. this is not a positive article. it's a mundane article stating the obvious about thriller. nobody can say that thriller is a horrible album, with a straight face, unless they are on something, or need help of some sort. and i'm sure that thriller never received rave reviews before the audience reacted to it. the press can't be trusted, in full. i have yet to see a rave review that equalled audience approval.

this is why the fans need therapy sections in forums...cus there is an unwritten rule that says either fans of MJ do what society says, on society's terms...or else.

that rule states that a journalist must be allowed to write a 'positive' article that features a dehumanizing of MJ, personally, if the 'writer' is to write something postive about 'the only good cd that MJ apparently made.'
Click to expand...


THANK YOU, THANK YOU for taking the words right out of my head!
 
Fu*kers. It's like it's physically impossible for them to write a positive article about Michael without putting some insulting bull sh*t in at the same time. Screw it. It was just regurgitated lines from popular beliefe anyway.

And the reason they put Michael with Elvis and The Beatles is because those are the three mega star acts of all time, it's not about talent comparison. Michael is obviously more talented then all of them combined.
 
Last edited:
I hate this type of discussions. this is what makes Mj fans very unsexy. beatles and elvis will alway be the biggest inovator of music even if we like it or not. most people look at mj as a amazing perfomer. but he did not move the whole world as beatles, elvis and even stones did.
 
nationtonation said:
I hate this type of discussions. this is what makes Mj fans very unsexy. beatles and elvis will alway be the biggest inovator of music even if we like it or not. most people look at mj as a amazing perfomer. but he did not move the whole world as beatles, elvis and even stones did.
Click to expand...

Go away you are a troll!
 
Datsymay said:
Absolutely. They do it to minimise the effect he had on the music industry. To even include the beatles and Elvis with him is an insult. They impacted the music, but they did not revolutionise anything. Esp Elvis. Had Elvis did what Michael did, they would not be puting Michael up there with him. I am glad that Youtube is there for people to see for themselves.
Click to expand...

If Elvis had gone through half the stuff Michael had gone through, being falsely accused of child molestation twice, having the media trying to get the public to turn against him. If Elvis had Tom Sneddon, Diane Dimond, Gloria Allred and Nancy Grace on his back for 10+ years, he wouldn't have lasted as long as MJ has. His music wouldn't have survived the way that Michael's has. That's why I think that Michael must've had a greater impact on music, because he has lasted this long, even after all the junk they tried to throw at him. If the same thing happened to any other artist, they wouldn't be able to sell anything. Thriller 25 isn't even a new album, and it's selling more than most of the artists on the charts today.

I think Michael deserves to be seen just as great, if not more great than Elvis and the Beatles. And I'm not just saying this because I'm a fan of Michael's, I'm a huge fan of Elvis and The Beatles too.
 
nationtonation said:
I hate this type of discussions. this is what makes Mj fans very unsexy. beatles and elvis will alway be the biggest inovator of music even if we like it or not. most people look at mj as a amazing perfomer. but he did not move the whole world as beatles, elvis and even stones did.
Click to expand...

WTF!!!!!!! what the f*ck???? who ARRREE YOU??? are you sure you are in the correct fan site???? please DO explain how MJ "did not move the whole world" ....
 
This thread reminds me of Big Boi's verse on "Hollywood Divorce", lol
 
nationtonation said:
I hate this type of discussions. this is what makes Mj fans very unsexy. beatles and elvis will alway be the biggest inovator of music even if we like it or not. most people look at mj as a amazing perfomer. but he did not move the whole world as beatles, elvis and even stones did.
Click to expand...

WHAT?!

WHAT?!!!

Oh god don't even get me started.

I don't even know where to begin on this one.

breathe....breathe...
 
nationtonation said:
I hate this type of discussions. this is what makes Mj fans very unsexy. beatles and elvis will alway be the biggest inovator of music even if we like it or not. most people look at mj as a amazing perfomer. but he did not move the whole world as beatles, elvis and even stones did.
Click to expand...

Can you stop with the bulls*it please? lol Seriously, I've read your other postings and already know what your agenda is on here so i'm not suprised you would make such a ridiculous statement. I'm not gonna entertain you any further though because you are an obvious troll.
 
It's a troll, kill it! Anyone who says Michael is "just an entertainer" is either smoking too much weed or got droped on their head when they were a baby.
 
nationtonation said:
I hate this type of discussions. this is what makes Mj fans very unsexy. beatles and elvis will alway be the biggest inovator of music even if we like it or not. most people look at mj as a amazing perfomer. but he did not move the whole world as beatles, elvis and even stones did.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I think ur seriously wrong about that.I dont like Beatles' or Elvis' music, but I respect them. I have no problem with them putting Michael in the same league of Elvis and Beatles (though IMO The Beatles made bigger contribution than Elvis). But believe me popularity-wise, Michael is more global than The Beatles, and much more than Elvis. I come from an Asian country, and all I could remember from my childhood is Michael Jackson and his music, and videos. My whole country was caught in a Michael craze at that time, and it's even more impressive that mine is SOCIALIST country, which means ppl had hard time to accept music from Western country, especually a country which was for a long time at war with mine. But Michael was so big to be ignored by anyone on earth. Elvis is virtually a nobody in my country.Thanks to Michael, ppl here started to have interest in other WEstern actsThe same can be said for Chinese ppl.
I know a Chinese MJ fan, and he told me that Chinsese ppl may not know who Elvis and The Beatles are, but they generally regard MJ as the greatest WEstern artist. And I believe the same is also true for Russia, as I read somewhere. His albums were banned atone time in Russia, but thanks God they had pirated stuffs, and of course Michael mania swept Russia too.
I also dont believe Elvis or The Beatles were bigger than Michael in African countries.
Sales-wise, he released far fewer albums, but he's the best-selling artist in France, Germany, and tons of other countries.
Elvis and The Beatles are great, but they were not global as Michael. He was so huge that he even broke political barrier, which I think Elvis or The Beatles couldnt achieve (someone can correct me if I'm wrong)
He deserves to be as great, if not greater than them.
 
Last edited:
litia said:
Sorry but I think ur seriously wrong about that.I dont like Beatles' or Elvis' music, but I respect them. I have no problem with them putting Michael in the same league of Elvis and Beatles (though IMO The Beatles made bigger contribution than Elvis). But believe me popularity-wise, Michael is more global than The Beatles, and much more than Elvis. I come from an Asian country, and all I could remember from my childhood is Michael Jackson and his music, and videos. My whole country was caught in a Michael craze at that time, and it's even more impressive that mine is SOCIALIST country, which means ppl had hard time to accept music from Western country, especually a country which was for a long time at war with mine. But Michael was so big to be ignored by anyone on earth. Elvis is virtually a nobody in my country.Thanks to Michael, ppl here started to have interest in other WEstern actsThe same can be said for Chinese ppl.
I know a Chinese MJ fan, and he told me that Chinsese ppl may not know who Elvis and The Beatles are, but they generally regard MJ as the greatest WEstern artist. And I believe the same is also true for Russia, as I read somewhere. His albums were banned atone time in Russia, but thanks God they had pirated stuffs, and of course Michael mania swept Russia too.
I also dont believe Elvis or The Beatles were bigger than Michael in African countries.
Sales-wise, he released far fewer albums, but he's the best-selling artist in France, Germany, and tons of other countries.
Elvis and The Beatles are great, but they were not global as Michael. He was so huge that he even broke political barrier, which I think Elvis or The Beatles couldnt achieve (someone can correct me if I'm wrong)
He deserves to be as great, if not greater than them.
Click to expand...


You broke that down perfectly! I agree 100%

Being from Latiamerica, it's the same thing. People here know and recognice how good Elvis and The Beatles were, but they're in no way in the same league as Michael is, he's on a whole different level.
I honestly can't remember the last time I heard a Beatles song on the radio, let alone an Elvis song, but MJ...mmm let me see, yeah yesterday.
 
Michael is more famous then either, he's sold more litterally then Elvis and in ratio, more then the Beatles, which shows he's more popular the world over. Michael's had easily as great an impact if not bigger. His individual talent is bigger then either the Beatles or Elvis, easy, and he's very much revolutionized the music and entertainment world, in more ways then either. He made and showed Aisa to be a huge market for the music industry, he changed the expectations on todays acts and what they're expected to do, he changed the way concerts and tours are done, he changed the way the visual is incorporated in to a musical act, he changed the way business is done within the industry, he changed the way records are made, he created a totally unique style of music and dance, etc... Michael's changed everything. To say he hasn't had as big an impact as Elvis or the Beatles is plainly stupid. If anything, you can very much argue he's had a far bigger impact.
 
I think Mike does deserve to be put in that list. True, he's not from Liverpool or Mississippi but no one can deny that Michael has made a HUGE impact in popular music regardless of the era. But I think with Thriller, his influence was greater than people think it was.
 
Nice article, could've done without the little snide remarks here and there, but overall a good article. We are all gonna have to probably drop dead first before we ever see an article written about Mike without some writer inserting their twisted imagery and down right awful remarks!

As for the performance on the Today Show, they obviously need to learn to dance insync with each other and nice to that Vince Patterson is still alive and kicking.
 
Last edited:
Plus, if you just look at todays landscape of acts, they're all imitating Michael in some way, either as vocalists, as dancers, as songwriters, as performers. They're all modling themselves after Michael, not Elvis, Paul, John, Ringo or George.
 
nationtonation said:
I hate this type of discussions. this is what makes Mj fans very unsexy. beatles and elvis will alway be the biggest inovator of music even if we like it or not. most people look at mj as a amazing perfomer. but he did not move the whole world as beatles, elvis and even stones did.
Click to expand...

MAN ... Why are you still here???

I dont see anyone emulating elvis or the beatles today
so apparently Michael made a bigger impact and is still
moving the world .. 25 yrs after Thriller.. most his fans
anyway those who are visible are under 18 yrs old -
they adore him and his music still today.

On youtube Michael has the LARGEST fanbase
and the most uploaded videos - he is still moving
the world -

he is invisible and yet he is Still EVERYWHERE
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Plus, if you just look at todays landscape of acts, they're all imitating Michael in some way, either as vocalists, as dancers, as songwriters, as performers. They're all modling themselves after Michael, not Elvis, Paul, John, Ringo or George.
Click to expand...
certainly in the mainstream pop scene you see a lot of that - it's a great testament to MJ - but i think it's heavily controlled by the record labels in terms of what kind of acts they sign and don't have much creativity flowing in that department. as for "today's landscape of acts", that's a huge range of artists/writers/producers/musicians you're referring to and we can't generalise in this way. in fact from my personal standing, the majority of current artists i enjoy listening to are more inspired by Prince (music) and Marvin Gaye (vocals) than anyone else.
 
Last edited:
I was a beatles fan and i really liked elvis but once i put my eyes on michael jackson he stole my heart. He was so young like about ten or eleven and i was about 18 19 . So i think Michael is the greatest intertainer i ever layed my eyes on not taken anything away from the other to but michael out shines them all
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Plus, if you just look at todays landscape of acts, they're all imitating Michael in some way, either as vocalists, as dancers, as songwriters, as performers. They're all modling themselves after Michael, not Elvis, Paul, John, Ringo or George.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how acts like Lizz Wright, Chrisette Michele, Eric Benet, or Tori Amos are imitating Mike, but if you say so...
 
Well main stream acts, I should say. The record lables pressuring their acts to imitate Michael is testiment to his impact. He changed what was expected of todays acts.
 
Last edited:
Well they shouldn't, because they can't be, lol. But the fact that they're trying just shows that being Michael, artistically, is a goal of a lot of people. They just look like clowns out there though, haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top