MJ was and still is the greatest performer/entertainer of all time

[QUOTE="sayyy-gaa"]

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"] Doesnt really matter though, if I go to a concert I go for amazing music, it shouldnt have to be hightened by effects and dancing. Look at Queen at Live Aid, just a band and a stage and Queen got 70,000 people to clap at Radio Gaga even at the far back, that is what a concert is all about. If we go by your logic that means Britney Spears was better than Queen and Elvis becuase she dances and has fancy lighting...LJS9502_basic

I think that stuff does matter at a concert. Even so, take all that away and MJ is still the greatest! Absolute greatest!

Concerts aren't just about music. Concerts are about ENTERTAINMENT. Entertainment includes choreography, vocals, showmanship, crowd involvement, etc. You are correct that it is my opinion that MJ is the greatest entertainer of all time. But it is a WIDELY accepted opinion. And whenver you have a conversation about "greatest", then that goes a long way.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sayyy-gaa"]

I think that stuff does matter at a concert. Even so, take all that away and MJ is still the greatest! Absolute greatest!

sayyy-gaa

Concerts aren't just about music. Concerts are about ENTERTAINMENT. Entertainment includes choreography, vocals, showmanship, crowd involvement, etc. You are correct that it is my opinion that MJ is the greatest entertainer of all time. But it is a WIDELY accepted opinion. And whenver you have a conversation about "greatest", then that goes a long way.

Actually concerts are about the music...but those that don't have the talent to provide a good musical experience frequently rely on everything else to distract people from noticing that fact. And it works. Most people aren't able to figure that out.... Widely accepted means nothing as we all know that popular is pandering to the lowest common denominator. But hey....you feel happy in that group....more power to you. Some of us ask for more.LJS9502_basic

No sir, concerts are about more than just music. At least for MJ, he wanted to put on a production. And the bolded part of your comment is totally bogus. Just because an entertainer puts on a great show doesn't mean that the music is lacking. The music is the primary reason why people go to concerts by musicians in the first place. All of the other stuff is just added entertainment.

I can figure out just fine that moonwalking, pop/locking, and exploding fireworks aren't music. But when the music is awesome AND all of the entertainment aspects are top tier, well that is just a supreme showman doing his thing.

Popular doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator. It appeals to everyone.But I'll forego that debate because I can see your point. So what adjective do you want to use instead of popular to concede that MJ is widely considered an unparalleled entertainer?

*critically acclaimed?

*record setting?

*award winning?

pick one.

Says his superior.

But yeah, he's one of the greatest at least.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Actually concerts are about the music...but those that don't have the talent to provide a good musical experience frequently rely on everything else to distract people from noticing that fact. And it works. Most people aren't able to figure that out.... Widely accepted means nothing as we all know that popular is pandering to the lowest common denominator. But hey....you feel happy in that group....more power to you. Some of us ask for more.sayyy-gaa

No sir, concerts are about more than just music. At least for MJ, he wanted to put on a production. And the bolded part of your comment is totally bogus. Just because an entertainer puts on a great show doesn't mean that the music is lacking. The music is the primary reason why people go to concerts by musicians in the first place. All of the other stuff is just added entertainment.

I can figure out just fine that moonwalking, pop/locking, and exploding fireworks aren't music. But when the music is awesome AND all of the entertainment aspects are top tier, well that is just a supreme showman doing his thing.

Popular doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator. It appeals to everyone.But I'll forego that debate because I can see your point. So what adjective do you want to use instead of popular to concede that MJ is widely considered an unparalleled entertainer?

*critically acclaimed?

*record setting?

*award winning?

pick one.

LJS is right.

Funky_Llama

I can't wait for the holographic version of him (ie. Tupac)

[QUOTE="sayyy-gaa"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Actually concerts are about the music...but those that don't have the talent to provide a good musical experience frequently rely on everything else to distract people from noticing that fact. And it works. Most people aren't able to figure that out.... Widely accepted means nothing as we all know that popular is pandering to the lowest common denominator. But hey....you feel happy in that group....more power to you. Some of us ask for more.Funky_Llama

No sir, concerts are about more than just music. At least for MJ, he wanted to put on a production. And the bolded part of your comment is totally bogus. Just because an entertainer puts on a great show doesn't mean that the music is lacking. The music is the primary reason why people go to concerts by musicians in the first place. All of the other stuff is just added entertainment.

I can figure out just fine that moonwalking, pop/locking, and exploding fireworks aren't music. But when the music is awesome AND all of the entertainment aspects are top tier, well that is just a supreme showman doing his thing.

Popular doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator. It appeals to everyone.But I'll forego that debate because I can see your point. So what adjective do you want to use instead of popular to concede that MJ is widely considered an unparalleled entertainer?

*critically acclaimed?

*record setting?

*award winning?

pick one.

I would say you must be joking but I know better. Anyways, MJ is not fraud. He is an entertainer. I'm not saying he's one of the best musicians, I'm saying he is an unsurpassed ENTERTAINER. When speaking of ENTERTAINMENT those *smoke and mirrors* count for something.

That said, EVEN WITHOUT ALL OF THE ENTERTAINMENT EXTRA Michael's Jackson music is some of the best(and definitely most influential) from the pop genre.

You are very confused when talking about MJ's music. it is the entertainment aspects that are the backdrop. It's the music that's primary. Whether he's making a groundbreaking video, performing in concert on on TV, it is the music that is what captivates all about MJ. It's not his moonwalking or crotch grabbing that can be heard on any of the over one hundred million records he has sold. It is the music.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="sayyy-gaa"]

No sir, concerts are about more than just music. At least for MJ, he wanted to put on a production. And the bolded part of your comment is totally bogus. Just because an entertainer puts on a great show doesn't mean that the music is lacking. The music is the primary reason why people go to concerts by musicians in the first place. All of the other stuff is just added entertainment.

I can figure out just fine that moonwalking, pop/locking, and exploding fireworks aren't music. But when the music is awesome AND all of the entertainment aspects are top tier, well that is just a supreme showman doing his thing.

Popular doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator. It appeals to everyone.But I'll forego that debate because I can see your point. So what adjective do you want to use instead of popular to concede that MJ is widely considered an unparalleled entertainer?

*critically acclaimed?

*record setting?

*award winning?

pick one.

sayyy-gaa

I would say you must be joking but I know better. Anyways, MJ is not fraud. He is an entertainer. I'm not saying he's one of the best musicians, I'm saying he is an unsurpassed ENTERTAINER. When speaking of ENTERTAINMENT those *smoke and mirrors* count for something.

That said, EVEN WITHOUT ALL OF THE ENTERTAINMENT EXTRA Michael's Jackson music is some of the best(and definitely most influential) from the pop genre.

You are very confused when talking about MJ's music. it is the entertainment aspects that are the backdrop. It's the music that's primary. Whether he's making a groundbreaking video, performing in concert on on TV, it is the music that is what captivates all about MJ. It's not his moonwalking or crotch grabbing that can be heard on any of the over one hundred million records he has sold. It is the music.

In Russia they had a military parade for MJ in 93 when he did a tour. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzifKediGYA&feature=relatedAddict187

[QUOTE="Addict187"]In Russia they had a military parade for MJ in 93 when he did a tour. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzifKediGYA&feature=relatedJandurin

I'm not saying he wasn't a good showman; I'm saying that he was a sh*tty musician, irrespective of how many records he's sold. And sure, perhaps his music is some of the best from the pop genre. So what? Pop music is worthless.

Funky_Llama

I can't cogently argue how good a musician he was...particularly with you. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But at least we can agree he was a good entertainer.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

I'm not saying he wasn't a good showman; I'm saying that he was a sh*tty musician, irrespective of how many records he's sold. And sure, perhaps his music is some of the best from the pop genre. So what? Pop music is worthless.

sayyy-gaa

I can't cogently argue how good a musician he was...particularly with you. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But at least we can agree he was a good entertainer.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

I'm not saying he wasn't a good showman; I'm saying that he was a sh*tty musician, irrespective of how many records he's sold. And sure, perhaps his music is some of the best from the pop genre. So what? Pop music is worthless.

sayyy-gaa

I can't cogently argue how good a musician he was...particularly with you. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But at least we can agree he was a good entertainer.

If you do not like the music then is just you, MJs Thriller holds the record for most album sold, and will never be broken. That right there is proof he was just that good. Addict187

[QUOTE="sayyy-gaa"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

I'm not saying he wasn't a good showman; I'm saying that he was a sh*tty musician, irrespective of how many records he's sold. And sure, perhaps his music is some of the best from the pop genre. So what? Pop music is worthless.

Addict187

I can't cogently argue how good a musician he was...particularly with you. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But at least we can agree he was a good entertainer.

anyway, music quality is subjectiveJandurin

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

LJS is right.

Jandurin

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]anyway, music quality is subjectiveFunky_Llama

[QUOTE="sayyy-gaa"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That "matters" at concerts where the performance itself isn't strong. Anyway on topic...no he wasn't. That's just your opinion. Hell I don't even think his music was that interesting. Just basic pop music....*yawn*Funky_Llama

Concerts aren't just about music. Concerts are about ENTERTAINMENT. Entertainment includes choreography, vocals, showmanship, crowd involvement, etc. You are correct that it is my opinion that MJ is the greatest entertainer of all time. But it is a WIDELY accepted opinion. And whenver you have a conversation about "greatest", then that goes a long way.

to me a cock and balls is pretty damn funny and evocativeJandurin

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="sayyy-gaa"]

Concerts aren't just about music. Concerts are about ENTERTAINMENT. Entertainment includes choreography, vocals, showmanship, crowd involvement, etc. You are correct that it is my opinion that MJ is the greatest entertainer of all time. But it is a WIDELY accepted opinion. And whenver you have a conversation about "greatest", then that goes a long way.

Nuck81

edit: ALSO you know f*ck all about how music works if you think that Michael Jackson was a musical genius. He was a canny showman, and nothing more

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"] Actually concerts are about the music...but those that don't have the talent to provide a good musical experience frequently rely on everything else to distract people from noticing that fact. And it works. Most people aren't able to figure that out.... Widely accepted means nothing as we all know that popular is pandering to the lowest common denominator. But hey....you feel happy in that group....more power to you. Some of us ask for more.Funky_Llama

edit: ALSO you know f*ck all about how music works if you think that Michael Jackson was a musical genius. He was a canny showman, and nothing more

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"] You're pretty much dead wrong about this one, and as usual you are only looking at things at surface level but trying to include some deep insightful message that is ill concieved and incorrect. It goes with your personal insecurities and your desire to be accepted and feel superior. Britney Spears is what you're talking about. Michael Jackson was an actual musical genius, that could play multiple instruments, write his own songs, and change the face of pop as we knew it. The fact that he was an amazing dancer and entertainer as well as an amazing musician is just more proof of how special and one of a kind he was. History will remember Michael Jackson, the studio creations that you are talking about will be forgotten. Learn the difference.Nuck81

edit: ALSO you know f*ck all about how music works if you think that Michael Jackson was a musical genius. He was a canny showman, and nothing more

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]WHY WOULD YOU ATTRIBUTE THAT TO ME
I HARDLY USE ELLIPSES, EVER

edit: ALSO you know f*ck all about how music works if you think that Michael Jackson was a musical genius. He was a canny showman, and nothing more

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Nuck81"] Actually I meant to quote that from LJ not you, I used quick quote, not sure why it used your name I have a bachelors in Music Education and in three more weeks will have a Masters degree in Ensemble Conducting. What do you know about music?Nuck81

Okay, so he wrote his music and was extremely influential. So what? That doesn't say anything whatosever about his actual level of talent. God knows the kind of rubbish that people listen to these days is testament to the fact that popularity and compositional skill are quite different things. Your post mostly boils down to 'he was a trendsetter and therefore a genius', which is a lazy and stupid way to argue.

It's not like he's gonna defend that title anytime soon.

Hallenbeck77

Sorry to interrupt you imma let you finish but hmm Kayne West was the best performer and entertainer of all time!!AussieePet

Lol at all the butthurt over MJ. Say what you will, but you damn well know he will be remembered long after your "superior" musicians ever will, deal with it. There's something to be said for that.

There was something unique to MJ that separated him from the norm, and it was not necessarily his musical aptitude. He had an energy and intense focus that permeated through everything he did. He poured himself 100% into his art. Watch his concerts. People are fainting and going completely ballistic. You cannot convince me that that was due entirely to his "inferior" musical talent as opposed to others. If he is so inferior, why are people not going apesh!t over other's performances? As good as Freddy Mercury was, as good as other artists are, they lacked this aspect which set MJ apart. He was his music and dance, a beast onstage, and this drove people absolutely nuts.

Claim that others were better, sure. Whatever. I've watched many concerts. They are nothing compared to the reaction MJ got (aside from Queen, but even still). He will always remain one of the greatest entertainers that has ever set foot on the planet, long after others have been appreciated yet forgotten.

Meh, one of the best, yeah, the absolute best? I think it belongs to someone like Elvis, tbh.

No, in terms of live peformance, no one is even close to Freddie Mercury.

V4LENT1NE

It's one of those things I would love to see if it were still possible. A Queen concert with Freddie Mercury.

[QUOTE="Nuck81"] You're pretty much dead wrong about this one, and as usual you are only looking at things at surface level but trying to include some deep insightful message that is ill concieved and incorrect. It goes with your personal insecurities and your desire to be accepted and feel superior. Britney Spears is what you're talking about. Michael Jackson was an actual musical genius, that could play multiple instruments, write his own songs, and change the face of pop as we knew it. The fact that he was an amazing dancer and entertainer as well as an amazing musician is just more proof of how special and one of a kind he was. History will remember Michael Jackson, the studio creations that you are talking about will be forgotten. Learn the difference.LJS9502_basic

How did Michael Jackson change pop?

1. Michael Jackson invented the modern pop video. Think of every single pop video you've ever seen with a lead and it's some variation of an MJ video.

2. Michael Jackson revolutionized and inspired choreaography in music videos. All those music stars nowadays doing all that gyrating and popping in their videos? That came from MJ.

3. Michael Jackson's heyday isn't just the 80s. Michael Jackson's heyday is practically HIS WHOLE LIFE. He was making platinum records at the age of 11.

4. The modern boy band structure? That started with the Jackson 5.

5. The word teen idol. That word was INVENTED for Michael Jackson

6. Dangerous/Invincible/History...all released after the 80s. All several times platinum

I can continue...