Latest on MJJC

Unpopular opinions

MJJ:G.O.A.T said:
317hymt6822970.gif







:lol:



Why do you think FB is hateful? Michael Buble is crap? You probably don't like the Frank Sinatra comparisons.
Click to expand...


I refuse to use facebook because i don't feel the need to have 500 friends that i hardly know and i don't feel the need to let them know every little mundane thing i do in a day, if i need to contact a friend i just phone them or call to their house. All kids nowadays have facebook and i think it's a very dangerous thing, for one thing their safety is a risk because of the amount of personal information they give away on facebook and for another their entire life turns is under the type of scrutiny one would feel if the were running for public office, everything they do has to posted for everybody to see, pictures have to be posted to show how great and fun their life is, they have to let people know their likes and dislikes, their relationship status and the amount of friends they have. Everything posted on facebook is then owned by facebook and they charge marketing companies for your personal information so that they can catagorise you and then target you.

As for buble i don't see the talent, his voice is very plain which suits his songs which are plain boring, the comparison to Sinatra doesn't really bother me because i reckon he too was over rated, fair enough he had a very strong voice but so do hundreds of people in my own town and every town in the world, i just don't rate having a good voice as being enough to be a superstar.
 
Dangerous is Michael Jackson's best album ever,
Thriller the album is extremely overrated
Black or White is a real time less classic
Elvis and Madonna are the most overrated person's in the history of music, both of them lack of talent
Elvis was a white man imitating black men
The Beatles were crap and are overrated none of them were great singers if anything it was their song writing skills but even that's overrated
 
Last edited:
sloride said:
Probably not that unpopular here but it is elsewhere. The Beatles are boring. Tried to get into their music but simply cannot. Its dull and their songwriting in later years is awful as Lennon and McCartney were so high they couldn't even put a sentence together.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

As for the Freddie Mercury vs. MJ stuff, I think Freddie had a more powerful voice, but Michael had a more unique one. The way he sings things like "Groove of midnight" just makes you melt. I am a big admirer of Freddie and he is perhaps the best singer in rock history, but there's something about Michael that nobody else has, you know....
 
MaryJackson said:
You are not alone and Man in the mirror are overrated.....

:fear: :fear: :fear:
Click to expand...

I agree about YANA being WAAAAAY overrated, but not about MITM.

I also think hip-hop is an overrated, overplayed genre.
 
Gottobethere said:
i just don't rate having a good voice as being enough to be a superstar.
Click to expand...
Being a "superstar" has nothing to do with talent or having a good product, but with a marketing or promotional department of a company that has lots of money.
 
Are you guys crazy??? :mello: :eek:

Butterflies is one of my favorite songs from MJ.
(Now I need my ptchfork) :D
 
I love Butterflies track. One of my favourites.

Invincible is the best album of 00s this far and the best album by Michael Jackson.
 
Some have already been said before by others, but I agree:

Elvis was not an artist, let alone the "king" of anything. Artists create, he didn't (ie. he didn't write his songs).
Madonna is VERY overrated and she can't sing.
Janet too is overrated. She can't sing either.
Usher, Justin Timberlake and Justin Bieber are lame MJ wannabes.
I HATE the HiStory album cover (what was Michael thinking?)! But the album itself was a lot better than given credit for.
The video for YANA is disgusting and YANA is a lame song. There are many, many LOT better songs on History than that!
I HATE the gold pants!
Michael was the sexiest when he was not trying hard to look sexy!
"Who is it" the best song of "Dangerous" and one of Michael's best songs ever.
Lady Gaga and Beyoncé are overrated, overhyped.
Rolling Stone became a tabloid long ago, also its editors are a bunch of snobs.
MJ's best video is Smooth Criminal, not Thriller.
 
respect77 said:
Totally agree.

As for the Freddie Mercury vs. MJ stuff, I think Freddie had a more powerful voice, but Michael had a more unique one. The way he sings things like "Groove of midnight" just makes you melt. I am a big admirer of Freddie and he is perhaps the best singer in rock history, but there's something about Michael that nobody else has, you know....
Click to expand...

I agree with that :) both performers had something about there live shows that nobody else could ever match
 
Jazz & Blues music should be more popular than it is. Selling 100,000 copies is considered a big thing with these genres. It's kinda odd that Soulja Boy and other ringtone acts & "boy bands" can sell millions and get millions of views on Youtube and B.B. King & George Benson can't even go gold and a great young musician like Esperanza Spalding is unknown.
 
DuranDuran said:
Being a "superstar" has nothing to do with talent or having a good product, but with a marketing or promotional department of a company that has lots of money.
Click to expand...

And good looks. Taylor Swift is good, but a measure of her "star" status owes to her looks and granted she has that inexplicable "it" factor. MJ was immensely blessed with "it" and looks too, but he also was a consummate talent.
 
Give Into Me and Dirty Diana are better rock songs than Beat It
 
twinklEE said:
Dangerous is Michael Jackson's best album ever,
Thriller the album is extremely overrated
Black or White is a real time less classic
Elvis and Madonna are the most overrated person's in the history of music, both of them lack of talent
Elvis was a white man imitating black men
The Beatles were crap and are overrated none of them were great singers if anything it was their song writing skills but even that's overrated
Click to expand...

If you ask a rock fan about him being overrated they will agree actually. There are some rock fans that will laugh in people face if anyone said that Elvis was a pioneer. I have asked some in the rock music fanbase this.

I actually don't like the beatles that much, except for a few songs. (though thier mostly from lennon.)

Jazz & Blues music should be more popular than it is. Selling 100,000 copies is considered a big thing with these genres. It's kinda odd that Soulja Boy and other ringtone acts & "boy bands" can sell millions and get millions of views on Youtube and B.B. King & George Benson can't even go gold and a great young musician like Esperanza Spalding is unknown.
Click to expand...

That is sad. :(
 
gerryevans said:
MJ was immensely blessed with "it" and looks too, but he also was a consummate talent.
Click to expand...
He still needed big money and competent people behind him. If Mike had of been on a label like Malaco or Verve, or remained on Motown instead of switching to Epic, or kept Joseph as a manager, he wouldn't be where he is. He'd just be an oldies act. A label with money (payola) can make anyone popular and does it all the time, or they can kill your career just as easily.
 
Thriller_MJ said:
I agree with The Beatles part I think there really overrated there up there with AC/DC,Led Zeppelin the big 3 in terms of Overrated Bands i really don't get the appeal all 3 bands have I do have all 3 Bands Greatest Hits albums too see what all the fuss was about but I failed to see the hype
Click to expand...

i totally agree with the beatles thing. it's totally a study in the psychology of media. for whatever reason, that group is chosen as the media darling. i don't know that i would have ever listened to them, if it hadn't been for the media. if i were to put them on an objective level, i'd pick the long and winding road as the only good song they ever did.
 
DuranDuran said:
He still needed big money and competent people behind him. If Mike had of been on a label like Malaco or Verve, or remained on Motown instead of switching to Epic, or kept Joseph as a manager, he wouldn't be where he is. He'd just be an oldies act. A label with money (payola) can make anyone popular and does it all the time, or they can kill your career just as easily.
Click to expand...

i disagree on that. and besides, Michael had to know when to make the moves he did. when you go to the great beyond, nobody is responsible for your decisions, but you.

i think the most unpopular opinion to have here, is, that MJ fans underestimate MJ, and are big fans of his, at the same time, and don't realise it.
 
vncwilliam said:
i disagree on that. and besides, Michael had to know when to make the moves he did. when you go to the great beyond, nobody is responsible for your decisions, but you.

i think the most unpopular opinion to have here, is, that MJ fans underestimate MJ, and are big fans of his, at the same time, and don't realise it.
Click to expand...
If Mike was on Malaco, he wouldn't be anywhere. Malaco doesn't have worldwide distribution. It doesn't even go all over the USA. It's mostly distributed in the southern USA. Malaco has existed since the 60s and only has one album in its whole existence to go platinum and that was in 1996. The talent doesn't matter if the record label doesn't have any pull. It's like any business. The more money it has the more it can spread, like McDonald's or Coca Cola.
 
DuranDuran said:
He still needed big money and competent people behind him. If Mike had of been on a label like Malaco or Verve, or remained on Motown instead of switching to Epic, or kept Joseph as a manager, he wouldn't be where he is. He'd just be an oldies act. A label with money (payola) can make anyone popular and does it all the time, or they can kill your career just as easily.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If all it takes is money, the record companies wouldn't be in such dire straits. They'd be able to MAKE anyone that comes through their doors popular. There are many factors that contribute to making an artist successful. A certain look helps.

I do agree that there was a confluence of circumstances that secured MJ's success, including the advent of music videos. I also agree about the importance of labels, because if MJ hadn't had a major one behind him, his music videos wouldn't have been seen by a vast audience. And yet, if MJ wasn't the super multi talented brilliant artist that he was, and had endearing qualities that deeply touched and connected with the masses, all the money and labels in the world wouldn't have resulted in the worldwide acclaim he achieved.
 
gerryevans said:
I disagree. If all it takes is money, the record companies wouldn't be in such dire straits. They'd be able to MAKE anyone that comes through their doors popular. There are many factors that contribute to making an artist successful. A certain look helps.
Click to expand...
Acts like Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones, Grateful Dead, or Willie Nelson weren't particularly attractive, but are popular. Neither was Janis Joplin. Danielle de Niese is attractive, but isn't popular to the mainstream because she sings opera. So looks in itself doesn't sell reocrds. The difference today is that people download stuff for free, when before the internet, people had to buy a product. That's why the labels are in trouble, most people aren't going to pay for something if they can get it for free. Where I used to work, there was a guy would burn CDs & DVDs and sell them for $4 or $5. There's many people in my neighborhood that does this too. This cuts into legit sales too. Chain stores like Best Buy & Wal Mart that buys CDs in bulk and sell them for cheap, rather than the $20 a CD that other stores sell them for.
Labels only promote certain types of acts. When was the last time you heard a polka act on the radio or on MTV? :p
 
DuranDuran said:
If Mike was on Malaco, he wouldn't be anywhere. Malaco doesn't have worldwide distribution. It doesn't even go all over the USA. It's mostly distributed in the southern USA. Malaco has existed since the 60s and only has one album in its whole existence to go platinum and that was in 1996. The talent doesn't matter if the record label doesn't have any pull. It's like any business. The more money it has the more it can spread, like McDonald's or Coca Cola.
Click to expand...

here's an even more unpopular opinion. i don't believe in what if's.
 
vncwilliam said:
i totally agree with the beatles thing. it's totally a study in the psychology of media. for whatever reason, that group is chosen as the media darling. i don't know that i would have ever listened to them, if it hadn't been for the media. if i were to put them on an objective level, i'd pick the long and winding road as the only good song they ever did.
Click to expand...

I was one of those who said I find the Beatles boring. But I disagree with this statement. I find them boring and I feel their music is dated and not as timeless as Michael's for example. BUT! We have to acknowledge their place in pop/rock history! I think we have to view everything in its own context. At the time they were really pioneering things and were very influential. Michael too cited them as one of his influences. I don't really listen to the Beatles, but I wouldn't call them overrated. I understand the influence they had on music.

Now, Elvis and Madonna are a different subject. They ARE overrated IMO. Actually I have always felt the media have been better to Madonna than to Michael. No matter what she put out they hyped her, while with Michael it was the other way around. I wonder if that had anything to do with the fact she is white and he was black (sorry to bring this up, but I cannot see any other reason why they would put somebody like Madonna above Michael).....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top