Article: Will Pop Music Ever Produce Another Michael Jackson?

[Graf]

I think it's important to note that while Michael 'the artist' was the core of his greatness, Michael 'the person' was just as intriguing and interesting as his music. From His legendary talent, to Neverland, his unique personality, to everything else about him - his whole life was a one of a kind journey...you can't replicate that.

 

[KOPV]

the quality of artists will never be the same.. Like mike or not.. Michael was not only born with natural abilities that were out of the norm (which can still happen) BUT to live a life that grooms a person in the music/entertainment the way Michael was cannot happen.. He was pushed into being 'perfect' at a young age, and he was brought into the School of Motown which was basically a University of becoming an artist. He came out of the gates a pro.. If he started off being up to par with the greats, he had his whole life with all the tools needed to become GREATER!!

The industry does not pave that anymore.. What Michael became was a cosmic collision between pure talent, desire, drive, the desperateness to be the best, and timing.

 

[Magicgirl]

I think the thing was not only in the talent, but in the message he was carrying to this world all his life, like Jesus Christ was carrying his word to the world as well. Not only the message, but what he was doing as well to make this world better.

 

[Paris78]

Tevin Campbell ?@tevincampbelll May 19th

Comparing anyone to Michael Jackson #BadIdeaIn5Words

Kanye West on ELLEN

http://www.z96.com/2016/05/19/kanye...-and-changing-the-world/#.Vz4Tcwwm4a0.twitter

 

[HIStory]

^ I like Tevin. He is one of the best male vocalists I ever heard, he deserved a so much better career. I am glad he appreciates MJ. I have seen a video of him singing Butterflies in a club. I also seen him in an interview when he talks about MJ and how when he was a teen he was annoyed by the comparations (I guess he wanted to be seen as his own person, not labelled as this "new MJ" which is fair enough IMO) but growing up he grew to appreciate it.

 

[mjprince1976]

Definitely not, Michael Jackson was unique just like Prince. None of todays stars have his image and music distribution of today is not up to the levels of promotion and puffery it had in the 80s. Most of todays are artists are hugely overrated (Beyonce, Rihanna, Chris Brown, Katey Perry, Miley etc) and just play one type of music (Shit hop, trap crap, sexualized R kelly style r and b, boy band, post boy band, douche bag hipster nonsense, antisocial rap and metal).

Whereas Michael and Prince had a variety of styles and yet blended them into something uniquely their own. Most of todays performers don't even write songs or play instruments, they sing doggerel over looped ***** and even that has been computerised, most Katie Perry and Megan Trainer type songs sound like Nintendo sounds.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Most of todays performers don't even write songs or play instruments, they sing doggerel over looped ***** and even that has been computerised, most Katie Perry and Megan Trainer type songs sound like Nintendo sounds.

That's SO true.

Some artist now need a whole football team and then some to write one song, yet people will try to put them on the same level as someone like MJ.
It's cringeworthy.
IMO you can like whatever artist you want, but don't try to put them on a level that in reality they're nowhere near. :yes:

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Pop music didn't produce Michael Jackson

Culture did

 

[Silouette]

As unique as Michael was, I doubt it.
Close maybe, but no cigar.

 

[krikzil]

MJ was a one-off.


Packaging supercedes actual talent today but I also think the music industry/consumers don't allow an artist to have the chance to hone their talent. You disappear for a bit and you can be out as your fans have moved on with their short attention spans and need for something new.

 

[pyt1994]

Michael was the most talented, loving, kind and all around wonderful human being to exist. There will never be another...it's so insulting to me that they can suggest Michael can be replaced. Sure there will be other "chart-topping" "artists," but you can never replace Michael as a person and honestly it really upsets me to see others suggest it. Did anyone see that whole thing about The Weeknd being the next and closest thing to MJ ? LOL......
Here's the article : http://elitedaily.com/music/the-weeknd-michael-jackson/1198285/

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Michael was the most talented, loving, kind and all around wonderful human being to exist. There will never be another...it's so insulting to me that they can suggest Michael can be replaced. Sure there will be other "chart-topping" "artists," but you can never replace Michael as a person and honestly it really upsets me to see others suggest it. Did anyone see that whole thing about The Weeknd being the next and closest thing to MJ ? LOL......
Here's the article : http://elitedaily.com/music/the-weeknd-michael-jackson/1198285/

There's a new MJ every week.
You just have to ignore the foolishness.
I actually take it as a compliment that MJ is the standard, and is so much so to the point that everyone wants to be the "new MJ", "this generations MJ", etc.
The ULTIMATE compliment for ANY entertainer is to be compared to or mentioned alongside MJ in some way, which IMO is a testament to how great MJ was/is.

 

[thewayumakemefeel]

Like many have said, Michael was one of a kind. Nobody will be able to influence pop-culture as much as Michael did throughout his career. There will never be anyone like him. Ever.

 

[HumbleBee]

Hmmm no.
People are really trying though. They're reaching. People still try to say The Weaknd is the next Michael Jackson. I'm like..they're not even alike in the slightest. Let's make a list of all the artists who were called "the next Michael Jackson"
Justin Beaver
The Weaknd
Beyonce
Justin Timberflake
Bruno Mars
Chris Brown
Ne-Yo
Usher
Miguel
Lady Gaga
Taylor Swift
I think i'm missing a few.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Hmmm no.
People are really trying though. They're reaching. People still try to say The Weaknd is the next Michael Jackson. I'm like..they're not even alike in the slightest. Let's make a list of all the artists who were called "the next Michael Jackson"
Justin Beaver
The Weaknd
Beyonce
Justin Timberflake
Bruno Mars
Chris Brown
Ne-Yo
Usher
Miguel
Lady Gaga
Taylor Swift
I think i'm missing a few.

IKR, they reach SO much when it comes to people "being the new MJ", or being "better then MJ", so to all of the people you listed, and even the ones you forgot.-_-

 

[Goddess4Real]

Nope because everything is so cookie cutter these days :beee:

 

[Bad7]

No. Michael Jackson was a one off. He's one of the greatest talents the world has ever seen.

No modern day artist comes close.

 

[Goddess4Real]

Yuuup one of the best song and dance man ever:bow:

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I mean no disrespect to Aaron Carter, especially since the only song I recall hearing from him is "How I Beat Shaq"...but my answer to the article's question is "probably not". The article itself and others online have made some excellent points...and chief among them is the entitlement mentality of the current generation. I'm only 35, but seeing how younger teens behave now makes me feel so much older. Their undercooked brains have been firmly conditioned, to an attention span of less than ten seconds. With so-much "on-demand" now, from preschool fare to porn and beyond, its no wonder lots of folks have now become the real-world equivalent of Veruca Salt...constantly screaming "I want it now!" (or more accurately, yesterday).

 

[SarahJ]

There won't be another MJ because he was unique, talented beyond compare and completely devoted to music and art. I remember reading him saying somewhere that if you wanted that kind of recognition and that level of excellence you had to sacrifice for it. I don't think artists today are willing to devote that much time, care and attention. It seems its more about getting those streaming numbers than anything else.

 

[Paris78]

http://www.inquisitr.com/3398601/stop-comparing-kanye-west-to-michael-jackson/

Stop Comparing Kanye West To Michael Jackson

Many outlets, including Entertainment Weekly, are reporting that Kanye West has passed Michael Jackson when it comes to earning top 40 hits.

The article notes that West achieved this with his collaboration with Schoolboy Q on “That Part.” This gives Kanye West 40 top 40 hits. Still, Elvis Presley, Lil Wayne, Elton John, Drake, Stevie Wonder, Jay Z, James Brown, Chris Brown, and Marvin Gaye have scored more. But there is a big catch to this list, and it has something to do with what the Inquisitr noted two weeks ago as it was revealed Rihanna surpassed Madonna’s chart record.

Billboard has changed their chart rules over the years, and now, any album cut can chart in the Hot 100 based on Spotify streams or even iTunes sales. Before 1998, a song was only eligible to chart if a it was actually released as a single to record stores all across America. Then, after 1998, a song could chart as a promotional release, but it needed enough airplay to qualify.

Several songs by Kanye West, Taylor Swift, or even Nicki Minaj would not have charted if they had been considered before 2005, when USA Today revealed Billboard‘s new chart system....

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3398601/stop-comparing-kanye-west-to-michael-jackson/#melGxyjh4IXSsj8Z.99

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

http://www.inquisitr.com/3398601/stop-comparing-kanye-west-to-michael-jackson/

Stop Comparing Kanye West To Michael Jackson

Many outlets, including Entertainment Weekly, are reporting that Kanye West has passed Michael Jackson when it comes to earning top 40 hits.

The article notes that West achieved this with his collaboration with Schoolboy Q on “That Part.” This gives Kanye West 40 top 40 hits. Still, Elvis Presley, Lil Wayne, Elton John, Drake, Stevie Wonder, Jay Z, James Brown, Chris Brown, and Marvin Gaye have scored more. But there is a big catch to this list, and it has something to do with what the Inquisitr noted two weeks ago as it was revealed Rihanna surpassed Madonna’s chart record.

Billboard has changed their chart rules over the years, and now, any album cut can chart in the Hot 100 based on Spotify streams or even iTunes sales. Before 1998, a song was only eligible to chart if a it was actually released as a single to record stores all across America. Then, after 1998, a song could chart as a promotional release, but it needed enough airplay to qualify.

Several songs by Kanye West, Taylor Swift, or even Nicki Minaj would not have charted if they had been considered before 2005, when USA Today revealed Billboard‘s new chart system....

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3398601/stop-comparing-kanye-west-to-michael-jackson/#melGxyjh4IXSsj8Z.99

I'm not going to trash Kanye because my fave is the best anyway, but you'd have to be delusional asf to think anyone now is on the same level as MJ.
Hell, even if you think someone comes close it's statistically a fact that no one is on his level.
People harp on it like hell when these records get broken/ surpassed, but they seem to forget that Michael is one of the best selling solo artist of all time and has the best selling album of all time.
Michael could also sing, dance, AND write his own music.


Edit: and even the people that can sing, dance, and write their own music can't do it as good as Michael could.

 

[barbee0715]

^^Im always just shocked that little Wayne, JayZ, Drake, Rihanna. etc. have such a ton of "hits." They're all up there with classic legends. I honestly don't think it's fair for Billboard to change the rules or they ought to take the old stuff into consideration. Do something more like apples to apples.

 

[HIStoric]

Hell, even if you think someone comes close it's statistically a fact that no one is on his level.
People harp on it like hell when these records get broken/ surpassed, but they seem to forget that Michael is one of the best selling solo artist of all time and has the best selling album of all time.

Hmm, well there are many artists that have records that surpass Michaels. Michael isn't the best selling artist in history, let alone the best selling solo artist. He doesn't have the most Grammys, nor has he spent the longest cumulatively at #1 in the USA. He doesn't have the most #1's in either the US or the UK, nor does he have the best selling album in the UK or even the best selling greatest hits album. I could list a bunch of similar statistical records so there are artists who surpass Michael in some areas.

I suppose you mean artists who have achieved a high amount of great records as a whole though, rather than just the odd super great one here or there. If that's the case, then yeah, not many can say they're near Michael's level of accomplishment (keeping this to statistics). Still, I'd say that both Elvis and The Beatles not only come close, but are on Michael's level in many ways. Sure, neither might not have the best selling album of all time, but they're the only two artists in history to outsell Michael. You then look at the US/UK charts and they both do exceptionally well on there - see here for USA and here for the UK. There's a reason I always call them The Big Three

----

As for the Kanye West thing, as a fan of both artists, I'm pretty indifferent. Hell, I don't even care tbh.

I hear some fans cry and get defensive as they feel their idol's reign is over... but it's not. Nothing's gonna change. Remember when Rihanna surpassed Michael in Number 1's a few months ago? Nothing's changed, Michael's still viewed as amongst the greatest. I'm only going to pay attention if someone outsells him (or something equally impressive that I can't think of right now) and if they do that in today's music climate? Hell, I wouldn't be mad, I'd be impressed.

Also, while Kanye has worked hard over the years to rightfully earned those Top 40s, there are a number of those that are mere features on another artists song (with Kanye's creative input ranging from little to a lot). You look at artists like Michael, Elton and Elvis who didn't do many cross-over features and you'll find their statistics are honestly more impressive because of that, especially given the tighter rules they had.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Hmm, well there are many artists that have records that surpass Michaels. Michael isn't the best selling artist in history, let alone the best selling solo artist. He doesn't have the most Grammys, nor has he spent the longest cumulatively at #1 in the USA. He doesn't have the most #1's in either the US or the UK, nor does he have the best selling album in the UK or even the best selling greatest hits album. I could list a bunch of similar statistical records so there are artists who surpass Michael in some areas.

Michael is the 2nd best selling solo artist of all time, has the best selling album of all time, and is the most awarded artist in the HIStory of music.
I'm sure any current artist would turn in every other achievement they have to be able to have those three.

Also as far a solo artists go Michael isn't the best selling only because he didn't release more albums.
And I'm sure he is the best selling when it comes to the albums vs sells ratio.

I suppose you mean artists who have achieved a high amount of great records as a whole though, rather than just the odd super great one here or there. If that's the case, then yeah, not many can say they're near Michael's level of accomplishment (keeping this to statistics). Still, I'd say that both Elvis and The Beatles not only come close, but are on Michael's level in many ways.

The Beatles are a whole band so I've never really compared them to Michael.
I also never really compare Elvis to Michael, but from what I know Elvis released a lot more records then Michael and started selling them before Michael was even born, and not all of his sales have been tracked correctly from what I know because some of his sales were pre Nielsen soundscan.

If we're going to be honest it's really impressive that Michael is the 2nd best selling solo artist of all time considering all of the people he had to compete with and pass to get that spot.
To put it into perspective, Madonna is still alive and touring and hasn't been able to pass Michael to become 2nd.


Anywho in the end for me it will always be Michael>Everyone else.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

As for the Kanye West thing, as a fan of both artists, I'm pretty indifferent. Hell, I don't even care tbh.

I hear some fans cry and get defensive as they feel their idol's reign is over... but it's not. Nothing's gonna change. Remember when Rihanna surpassed Michael in Number 1's a few months ago? Nothing's changed, Michael's still viewed as amongst the greatest. I'm only going to pay attention if someone outsells him (or something equally impressive that I can't think of right now) and if they do that in today's music climate? Hell, I wouldn't be mad, I'd be impressed.

Also, while Kanye has worked hard over the years to rightfully earned those Top 40s, there are a number of those that are mere features on another artists song (with Kanye's creative input ranging from little to a lot). You look at artists like Michael, Elton and Elvis who didn't do many cross-over features and you'll find their statistics are honestly more impressive because of that, especially given the tighter rules they had.

Overall I don't really care either. *shrug*
In fact, I see it as a compliment because it shows that Michael is the standard.
Lets be honest, if anyone else was surpassed or had their record broken then the media and people in general wouldn't have cared half as much, but because Michael is the best it's a big deal when it happens to him no matter how small the record might be in the grand scheme of things.

But to help you understand just a lil bit, I'll put it like this.
I'm sure you'd get a lil bit annoyed every now and then too if the media was hellbent on trying to make out EVERY upcoming boyband to be the new or better Beatles.
Or if the media kept saying that Harry Styles or somebody is the new Paul Mccartney.

Michael's fans are actually very respectful and tame considering that pretty much every other fanbase in existence and the media are always downplaying and disrespecting Michael's accomplishments and talent.
VERY rarely do I see MJ fans go out of their way to lash out at other artist.

 

[HIStoric]

Michael is the 2nd best selling solo artist of all time, has the best selling album of all time, and is the most awarded artist in the HIStory of music.
I'm sure any current artist would turn in every other achievement they have to be able to have those three.

Oh definitely! Honestly I don't think it's even that possible for current artists to sell that much in today's music climate of streaming and easily accessible free music downloads. There's the odd artist that'll break out (i.e. Adele) and sell in the tens of millions but they are usually more popular with the older crowds who aren't as tech savvy to stream and they tend to restrict their music from said streaming services for long periods of time... and even then they still don't reach MJ's Top 3 best selling records.

The Beatles are a whole band so I've never really compared them to Michael.

That's cool, but I do.

I also never really compare Elvis to Michael, but from what I know Elvis released a lot more records and started selling them before Michael was even born, and not all of his sales have been tracked correctly from what I know because some of his sales were pre Nielsen soundscan.

As a casual fan, I think Elvis has done pretty well tbh. If I was to be completely honest, I don't think his music has aged THAT well and I think he's better remembered as a cultural icon of America. Still extremely famous, if someone teen-aged and above didn't know his name I'd honestly be like ???

He was the king of kings salewise in the 1950s but then come the 1960s. He had been in the army for two years, got into gospel music, a horrendous film contract (courtesy of his money-hungry manager) and the world moved on for the most part as other artists took over. He had a bit of a comeback late 60s, early 70s but then that dipped again until he died in '77. Not sure how he did in the 80s/90s (probably pretty meh, his music hasn't aged too greatly), but he did have a revival in the early 2000s with the success of ELV1S and that amazing remix to A Little Less Conversation, I believe that was my first introduction to him and I was only a kid!

I feel if he wasn't thrown into the film contract (I blame Colonel Parker) and instead focused on his music career, trying to grow as an artist instead of rely on third-parties writers, he'd probably have been an even bigger artist.

When it comes to comparing him with Michael, I think statistically you can absolutely compare them, Elvis did extremely well on the charts and even looking at "certified" sales alone rather than the claimed sales he does extremely well. Musically? Well they're both great singers; Michael's obviously better but Elvis had a great, iconic voice too and the songs he did suited him well. (I don't know how much he pushed his voice on his songs though?) and while Elvis has the upper hand when it comes to playing instruments, Michael obliterates him in the songwriting aspect. I wish Elvis did write some stuff, it'd be interesting to see what he could do.

Elvis is a great musician, he wouldn't be the best selling solo artist if he wasn't... but musically... yeah. You know where I stand

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

That's cool, but I do.

Okay.
But IMO it's not a legit comparison though.

As a casual fan, I think Elvis has done pretty well tbh. If I was to be completely honest, I don't think his music has aged THAT well and I think he's better remembered as a cultural icon of America. Still extremely famous, if someone teen-aged and above didn't know his name I'd honestly be like ???

He was the king of kings salewise in the 1950s but then come the 1960s. He had been in the army for two years, got into gospel music, a horrendous film contract (courtesy of his money-hungry manager) and the world moved on for the most part as other artists took over. He had a bit of a comeback late 60s, early 70s but then that dipped again until he died in '77. Not sure how he did in the 80s/90s (probably pretty meh, his music hasn't aged too greatly), but he did have a revival in the early 2000s with the success of ELV1S and that amazing remix to A Little Less Conversation, I believe that was my first introduction to him and I was only a kid!

I feel if he wasn't thrown into the film contract (I blame Colonel Parker) and instead focused on his music career, trying to grow as an artist instead of rely on third-parties writers, he'd probably have been an even bigger artist.

When it comes to comparing him with Michael, I think statistically you can absolutely compare them, Elvis did extremely well on the charts and even looking at "certified" sales alone rather than the claimed sales he does extremely well. Musically? Well they're both great singers; Michael's obviously better but Elvis had a great, iconic voice too and the songs he did suited him well. (I don't know how much he pushed his voice on his songs though?) and while Elvis has the upper hand when it comes to playing instruments, Michael obliterates him in the songwriting aspect. I wish Elvis did write some stuff, it'd be interesting to see what he could do.

Elvis is a great musician, he wouldn't be the best selling solo artist if he wasn't... but musically... yeah. You know where I stand

Some of this I agree with, and some I don't at all.
All I have to say is that to compare Elvis to Michael musically is unfair to Elvis, and sales wise Elvis only did 'better' then Michael because he released more albums.

Michael had/has so many talents that he wasn't only good at, but GREAT at.
Michael was one of those rare cases of being a jack of all trades and a master of some.
Sometimes I truly wonder if the only thing he couldn't do was play an instrument LOL.

 

[Bubs]

^^People use Michael as a measuring stick of an artist’s worth. Was there any articles of Kanye passing no 39 on the list of top 40, or anyone else for that matter?
I don't think so, but when somebody pass Michael's record, it gets attention. If Kanye gets another no 1 song, you won't see articles of him passing Marvin G's record

This Kanye's no 1 is a song he was featuring artist, so its not like he released a single that went no 1. Thats the way they roll these days and can achieve no ones more often than back in the day. Same thing with Rihanna et all - featuring artists on someone else's song as well as their own. I don't think many of MJ's no 1 songs are because he was featuring someone else song

 

[HIStoric]

Overall I don't really care either. *shrug*
In fact, I see it as a compliment because it shows that Michael is the standard.
Lets be honest, if anyone else was surpassed or had their record broken then the media and people in general wouldn't have cared half as much, but because Michael is the best it's a big deal when it happens to him no matter how small the record might be in the grand scheme of things.

Yeah! That's how I feel we should react. Michael's legacy is so great it's not going to have the slightest of dents anyway!

Honestly I don't think these articles get TOO much airplay anyway? I've seen the odd Beatles record broken recently (one by Bieber for most simultaneous Top 100 Hits and 1D with another one that I can't remember, this was 2015) and they've got fairly similar attention as this Kanye one has tbh. It was only reported two days ago and it's already blown over for the most part. I've seen a bit more on the Kanye one, but I'm biased as I do go on various Kanye fansites (well, the Kanye West subreddit on Reddit but hey), so naturally they'll report this.

But to help you understand just a lil bit, I'll put it like this.
I'm sure you'd get a lil bit annoyed every now and then too if the media was hellbent on trying to make out EVERY upcoming boyband to be the new or better Beatles.
Or if the media kept saying that Harry Styles or somebody is the new Paul Mccartney.

I understand what you mean hehe, and to be honest... no? I've seen countless bands over the past few decades be called "the next Beatles" or at least compared in some way, it seems whenever a British band especially goes big the Beatles comparisons come out to play.

I find I'm personally very secure in the success and longevity of both The Beatles and Michael Jackson's musical legacy. I never feel threatened by the media trying to compare them, and like you are with Michael, I'm honestly just honoured that they are the both standard for the greatest. How great is it that 30/50 years on, current artists are still being compared to them?

Now, I understand if someone prefers, say, Justin Bieber over Michael. That's cool, thats the way music rolls. It's subjective! BUT if someone comes up to me and tries to argue that (say) 1D is as good musically or as influential as The Beatles, or that (say) Bruno Mars is musically as good/influential as Michael Jackson, I definitely won't hesitate to go:

And this is from a guy who actually likes Bieber, Mars and 1D (ok, 1D not so much... but they do have a song or two I enjoy).

But ya know I'm just very chill about it all... half-glass full kinda guy and that's how I try to be. There's no two artists I'm more confident in

VERY rarely do I see MJ fans go out of their way to lash out at other artist.

Yeah... can't say I agree with you on that unfortunately.