Will we ever have an artist as big as MJ ever again?

FortéFord

Proud Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2016
Messages
41
Points
0
I'm not sure about you guys, but I think that MJ was the biggest and most well known artist of all time (worldwide) I remember someone saying that there would never be someone as big as The Beatles and Elvis back in 1982 and then BOOM! Thriller gets released and you know the rest of the story. But it definitely seems impossible now. Do you think we'll ever get an artist as big and influential as Michael Jackson?
 
Interesting question. I'm going to venture maybe a controversial opinion here but one based on stats. I think that the top current artists, like Beyonce, Justin Bieber, Rihanna, Adele, Taylor Swift are as big and well known internationally as MJ. I'm not going to rank them against MJ because I think all of these artists have reached what is the maximum level of 'bigness' - which is that they are basically known, popular, and listened to everywhere in the world. If you look at the albums of these artists on the worldwide iTunes album chart you will see that they chart in the majority of countries. If you look at the Global Digital artist ranking you see they perform highly in all 5 areas (anglo, latin, euro, africa and asia). And if you look at the Youtube streaming charts and the regional distributions, they all show huge international reach.

The key point to note though is that the world is much more interconnected today primarily due to the internet and social media - plus many third world countries have seen rapid development so they now also have these technologies - which means it is easier now to reach people all over the world. Whereas, Michael did it in an age without internet or social media. Sure there was TV but it's still harder to access music on TV on demand and no doubt the TV coverage of the world (and esp access to American/western channels) in the 80s is less than the internet coverage today. And Michael has maintained his complete worldwide popularity to this day. It's hard to stress just how unique this is - you can see that from the fact that not one of his peers (or any music artist from before the late 90s) has this truly global status. For example, when albums of the Beatles/Elvis/Prince/David Bowie/George Michael appear on the worldwide iTunes chart, they chart in few of the smaller markets whereas Michael's do. Also take an example from the global digital artist chart today (looking at classic artists):

33. David Bowie (he recently had a new album released): anglo 65, latin 10, euro 65, africa 26, asia 2
62. George Michael: anglo 29, latin 0, euro 39, africa 15, asia 8
80. MJ: anglo 17, latin 24, euro 19, africa 17, asia 28
131. Queen: anglo 13, latin 23, euro 14, africa 12, asia 4

Others are ranked below this or not on the chart.

From this you can see how uniformly popular MJ is. So to sum up, I think you can say that Michael was the first true international music artist and achieved it in a time when it was very hard to do so. Also one thing that Michael probably has over current artists is that he appeals more across demographic barriers such as age, gender and race. Certainly it will be hard for anyone to ever achieve that sort of uniform appeal again as culture has become more fragmented as people are now able to create their own 'personal bubbles' of culture due to increased information accessibility.
 
Likely not. The closest thing we have today is Adele, at least sales wise (21 has sold 35 million copies now I believe, 25 had sold over 20 million) but she doesn't have a mania around her as big as Michael did (Or Elvis/The Beatles). No artist has ever become as big as those three and I don't think we will again, one reason being the way we consume music has changed.

I think it's easier to avoid big acts now than it was back then. You basically were forced exposure to them if you wanted to listen/watch modern music. Like music videos, if you wanted to watch your favorite artists music video, you had to sit down on MTV and wait until it was played, whilst having to watch other artists first and Michael was in heavy rotation at Thrillers peak. Nowadays you can jump straight onto YouTube and watch only what you want to watch. Music wise, if you listen to the radio (which while still popular, more people did back then) you had to listen to what they played, nowadays you can just stream whatever you choose on Spotify/Apple Music. Sure, you could only buy what you wanted, but it's easier to stream than buy too.

If you wanted to listen to modern music in 1983, you simply couldn't avoid hearing/watching a lot of Michael Jackson's material. That did help expand his cultural impact as more people were exposed to his works. If Thriller instead came out in 2017, there could be lots of promotion, media and radio play of him and like with modern artists still, you couldn't avoid his image, but you still could easily avoid his material for the most part by simply not playing it. You can play what you want. Thinking of Adele, if you don't play the radio it's extremely easy to not listen to her work for the most part. Although you could still hear bits of her biggest material through viral videos and maybe the news and all that, but yeah.

Probably also the fact that there is so much more music to play nowadays. You're not forced to hear the Top 40, you have access to magnitudes more artists via the internet, both professional and amateur, and it diversifies the listening audience accordingly. Some people I know don't play much of the radio and prefer to listen to some really cool work of "no-ones" on Soundcloud or Bandcamp.

I was born many years after Beatlemania and Michaelmania so I've never experienced it and perhaps can't adequately compare, but from what I heard they were absolutely COLLOSAL. Artists today can still be EXTREMELY huge and famous to those in all four corners of the earth, but to the point of having a cultural movement like Beatlemania or Michaelmania? Doesn't seem so.
 
I was born many years after Beatlemania and Michaelmania so I've never experienced it and perhaps can't adequately compare, but from what I heard they were absolutely COLLOSAL. Artists today can still be EXTREMELY huge and famous to those in all four corners of the earth, but to the point of having a cultural movement like Beatlemania or Michaelmania? Doesn't seem so.

^This exactly. I guess you can call it the 'depth' or 'fervour' of popularity which at its greatest is a cultural movement. And Michael had the fervour AND the internationality - he is probably unique in that. That's something I don't think any other music artist in history has ever achieved or ever will again.
 
Nope.
And that's not an insult to any current or future artists/entertainers because Michael was just THAT big.
Heck, I know that Michael is the biggest and best artist/entertainer ever, and we barely shared any time on earth together.:(
Michael has been gone for years yet he's still the golden standard that all other artists/entertainers are compared to and weighed against.:)
 
All good points above. No, I don't think it will happen again. And yes, I am thinking in terms of cultural movement, not just a great singer or big sales. A person who completely changed the music industry into something different.
In the 40's we had Sinatra, in the 50's it was Elvis. The 60's brought Beatlemania-the 70's had nothing-the 80's Michael came and changed everything again. He changed the music world because it wasn't only music for teenagers anymore--suddenly all ages, races and genders were on the same page. And he took it international. And he made it visual, like the old beloved Hollywood musicals that were supposedly extinct.

If we were going to have someone that big again, it would have happened already.

People can be extremely talented, but I don't think the stars will quite align like they did with Michael-he had the best of the best to learn and absorb from-icons in the field like Gordy, Gamble and Huff, Quincy Jones, an adoration of old Hollywood and old music-not to mention the blues and soul of his roots, and was born with a work ethic that's pretty much extinct these days.
 
They were colossal. I was very young when Beatlemania hit, but I remember seeing seeing footage of them on TV and was a Bealtes fan for many years. I didn't think anyone could top that. Beatlemania did die down, especially once they became primarily studio artists and stopped touring. Not that they weren't still big of course, just the intensity, screaming etc. Michael's never did. It lasted throughout his life. There's candid footage online that shows how intense it was. Even in early 2009. Unreal.

Also his commitment to his music and how serious he took his art and how many areas of his life it impacted are not to be matched. Artists like him, I think, come along rarely. I think there are artists who have and will achieve huge heights but not at his level and depth. And probably not for as long.
 
Pink Diamond Princess;4181631 said:
Heck, I know that Michael is the biggest and best artist/entertainer ever, and we barely shared any time on earth together.:(

If it makes you feel any better, I've seen this quote about David Bowie floating around, so I've adapted it to Michael for you!

If you’re ever sad, just remember the world is 4.543 billion years old and you somehow managed to exist at the same time as Michael Jackson.

^_^
 
MJ was a supreme gifted artist, but allot of factors played into that....along with his inate gift, from the first day J-5s was introduced on the national scene, MJ was already was always present with exceptional producers to work with....that was a major key in shaping his sound and musical presentation.......that level of music product is lacking these days and the void is more glaring by the year.......along with that, the culture has to be rich to cultivate your talent to the fullest, and that richness has all be exhausted and tapped out.........
 
-the 70's had nothing-

Except some of the best classic and progressive rock music that was influenced by The Beatles and later on itself influenced future music subgenres (metal, grunge, pop rock (Beat It, Dirty Diana?) etc). Besides, the best thing about the Beatles was not the Beatles Mania, but the stuff they did after. The popularity and money basically gave them freedom to create music that they were inspired to write (experimental rock music) instead of boy band hits that appeal to teenage masses. They brought production to whole another level with the limited tools they had available at the time (4-track machines!). Later came Led Zeppelin, David Bowie, Elton John, Pink Floyd, Queen etc. which broke further ground as far as rock music and record production and multitracking. 70s had some of the best music, in my opinion anyway.
 
And he took it international. And he made it visual, like the old beloved Hollywood musicals that were supposedly extinct.

This is a great point and it's a specific example of an important general point. Which is I think that Michael was a pioneer of 'immersive' art - that which you can hear, see, experience, interact with. Because his art had music, dance, video, fashion, a story, fan interaction all combined. And if you think about this is the blueprint of all popular art and culture today because the modern audience demands this sort of 'immersive' experience. That's true not just for the music world but TV, film, literature, etc as well. Think why is something like Harry Potter so popular? Because it's not just a book or story, but a world that you can be immersed in and there's a great deal of fan interaction with the creation and its creator JK Rowling. I'm reminded of a quote I once heard that's really fitting - 'Michael created events not songs'.

This I think is one of two monumental legacies of Michael. The other is as we have all mentioned his internationalism - that he brought Western popular music (and what it represents of liberalism and creativity) to a true global audience. This is why I can never understand why he gets such mixed reception and has so many detractors (in the establishment and media) in America (more than internationally where I feel he is almost unanimously loved) because I think it's true to say that Michael is one of the greatest men America has ever produced and certainly made a huge contribution to the global spread of American culture and thus American soft power.
 
SarahJ;4181637 said:
I was very young when Beatlemania hit, but I remember seeing seeing footage of them on TV and was a Bealtes fan for many years. I didn't think anyone could top that. Beatlemania did die down, especially once they became primarily studio artists and stopped touring.

John Lennon’s attitude at that time is one of the key factors (if not the most important one) that led to the band’s dissolution.

His gradual disinterest (towards the band’s matters/music) was also greatly intensified by Yoko Ono’s appearance into his life at that period, for example:

… John [Lennon] in particular was ready to do something else… She [Yoko Ono] showed him another way to be that was very attractive to him, and I can see that: ‘how about this, don’t you like this, or, you’re just a rock n roll?’, so I think it was time for John certainly to leave…he was definitely gonna leave…” (Paul McCartney)

HIStoric;4181620 said:
Likely not. The closest thing we have today is Adele, at least sales wise (21 has sold 35 million copies now I believe, 25 had sold over 20 million) but she doesn't have a mania around her as big as Michael did (Or Elvis/The Beatles).

I was born many years after Beatlemania and Michaelmania so I've never experienced it and perhaps can't adequately compare, but from what I heard they were absolutely COLLOSAL.

I did not witness The Beatles’ colossal success during those years, too.

But, when it comes to comparing bands, it strikes me that Oasis’ impact/success in the '90s is the closest thing to Beatlemania, & I am sometimes inclined to believe that both of these bands were almost equal on that level!
 
mj_frenzy;4181676 said:
But, when it comes to comparing bands, it strikes me that Oasis’ impact/success in the '90s is the closest thing to Beatlemania, & I am sometimes inclined to believe that both of these bands were almost equal on that level!

Oh, we might have some very different opinions on that one haha :lol:

Not to doubt Oasis' huge success in the 1990s but personally, and from what I've read, I don't consider anyone to have gotten to the level of Elvis, Michael Jackson or The Beatles, least in that 'mania' sense. :)
 
Last edited:
People can, and do, sell in big numbers. But they don't have the cultural impact that Michael had, and still has.

Take Adel. Her songs sell well enough. They are like vanilla ice cream. Most people like it and it's non offensive. But how has she influenced music video? Or fashion? Are her concerts exciting to watch? Or are you just as well off staying at home and sticking her CD on?

Michael was so much more than just sales. People are still trying to copy his style, his music videos, his live/ concert performances. That's why no one will ever come close to his worldwide impact.

Michael was, truly, a one-off phenomenon.
 
HIStoric;4181679 said:
Oh, we might have some very different opinions on that one haha :lol:

Not to doubt Oasis' huge success in the 1990s but personally, and from what I've read, I don't consider anyone to have gotten to the level of Elvis, Michael Jackson or The Beatles, least in that 'mania' sense. :)

It is also important to stress that it is really admirable that it took Oasis fewer studio albums & a shorter period of time to achieve that size of impact (similar to The Beatles’ one). So, I think any comparison between these two bands makes absolute sense, even from a mania point of view.

Also, Oasis even surpassed that entire cultural movement called ‘Britpop’ from which they originated from, simply because their huge appeal could not be confined to specific movements.

Mania aside, personally I consider the quality of Oasis’ music better than the Beatles’ music (mainly because of Noel Gallagher’s phenomenal songwriting abilities in Oasis’ first three studio albums), whereas the only really good Beatles’ album is only one (“Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band” that was released in 1967). So, even when it comes to lasting music, Oasis’ songs can compare favorably to the Beatles’ songs.
 
I would bet my house on the fact that you could travel the world, and most of it would never of heard of Oasis!

Try that with Michael Jackson, or even the Beatles.

Oasis were big, for a short period of time, in English speaking countries. And even then, they didn't manage a #1 album in the US. They weren't even as big as The Spice Girls.
 
Short answer, No
Long answer, no because the music industry is on it's knees right now, television is slowly dying along with it, even concert sale are beginning to slip and that's due to the lack of innovation ad talent, both of which Michael had in abundance.
 
Short answer, No
Long answer, no because the music industry is on it's knees right now, television is slowly dying along with it, even concert sale are beginning to slip and that's due to the lack of innovation ad talent, both of which Michael had in abundance.


the industry is on fumes right now but there's allot of factors that played into it. It did'nt happen by chance
 
The world of celebrity is different from MJ's days so no matter how big someone got It would never be comparable. The way people get fame, how its measured, and much surrounding it has completely changed.. For example Back then - If an artist has a draw in outside countries of there own meant huge success. Now Any one of us could post a video and people from each section of the world could hear/see what we are doing. The reach and access to the world each person has changed everything..
 
No. Music industry has changed and the album sales in particular are at an all time low. I very much doubt we ever see an artist as big as MJ.
 
I don't see a contemporary who embodies what Michael did taking everything into account.

If you combined:
Adele's album sales
Beyonce's celebrity status
Coldplay's touring
Gaga's early videography
Katy Perry's singles success

...you'd come close. But the last impact Michael had/has is hard to come by.

I feel like Michael's impact on the creation of an era, encompassing not just an album's singles and associated tour, but its videos, fashion, imagery (even in part due to his surgery), dance moves, etc. are all sort of used today to try and bank as much as possible on an album cycle through a long world tour now that the touring market has expanded so much. The best example is probably The Fame Monster era by Lady Gaga.
 
People should stop looking or wondering if there will be a new ''MJ''. Just stop it. Damn. There will never be a new Michael Jackson. Michael was the godfather of music and dancing. Michael was the inventor of modern music. Michael was the master of doing shows. A lot of artists are influenced by him, but THERE WILL BE NEVER A NEW MJ!
 
respect77;4181709 said:
It is easy to forget how much the Internet helps current artists in global availability.
Of course, similar to what I mentioned with the "no-names" on Soundcloud and Bandcamp.

respect77;4181709 said:
So I feel it is unfair to suggest his success was because people couldn't avoid him on MTV.
I never suggested it was the only reason, I said it was one reason, and it was one factor that definitely would have helped when it came to the Western world.

I remember reading a discussion a while ago about Michael's impact in Europe/eastwards. It was suggested that while there was impact during the Thriller/Bad era, it really took off more-so from the Dangerous era onwards. As you grew up in Europe at the time, what are your personal thoughts on this?

mj_frenzy;4181683 said:
It is also important to stress that it is really admirable that it took Oasis fewer studio albums & a shorter period of time to achieve that size of impact (similar to The Beatles’ one). So, I think any comparison between these two bands makes absolute sense, even from a mania point of view.

Also, Oasis even surpassed that entire cultural movement called ‘Britpop’ from which they originated from, simply because their huge appeal could not be confined to specific movements.

Alright, well let's compare their mania and impact through the charts.

Fewer studio albums? Focusing in on the UK...

- With Definitely Maybe, Oasis struck gold which essentially went straight to #1 in the UK, but only claimed the top for a week (the album danced around in the Top Ten for a respectable amount of time though).
- (What's The Story) Morning Glory? fared much, much better. It debuted at #1, sat at #2/#3 for the next 3 months, before going to #1 for 6 weeks, #2 once more, then another 3 week streak of #1.
- Be Here Now spent the first 4 weeks at #1, followed up by a week at #2, then one more week at #1.

For The Beatles, Beatlemania was already in full-effect by around October 1963, a month before the release of their second studio album, which came out in November 1963. Their first album came out in March 1966 and was slower to reach #1, doing so in May. What I consider extremely remarkable however is the fact that The Beatles reigned King at #1 consecutively for almost an entire year, from the 11th of May 1963 until the 24th April 1964. The Beatles took back #1 on the 25th July 1964, holding on until the 6th February 1965. There were 4 albums released in this period:
- Please Please Me/With The Beatles in the first streak
- A Hard Day's Night/Beatles for Sale in the 2nd streak.

You are right, the speed of which Oasis hit #1 with their debut album is actually very admirable in itself. Fewer studio albums though? Same Impact? Mmmm, yeah gonna have to disagree.

Focusing on the USA, The Beatles first success was at the very beginning of 1964 when the song I Want To Hold Your Hand reached #1 on January 16, 1964. A few weeks later, Beatlemania truly took hold of the nation when they landed in America and performed on The Ed Sullivan Show to a record 73 million people. By this point, only two albums had been released, they were released 10 days apart in January because of the significant demand for their material after IWTHYH reached #1.

They remained at #1 from the 15th February 1964 - 5th June 1964, reclaiming #1 from 25 July - 30th October 1964.

For Oasis in America, with all due respect, they hardly even compare. Not once in their career have they ever top the US album charts (although they did come very, very close with (What's The Story) Morning Glory? and Be Here Now, #4 and #2 respectively). Additionally, they never had a #1 single in the USA either (Wonderwall was closest at #8, then #55 with Don't Look Back in Anger. They did, however, reach #1 a few times in the Alternative charts!). If you look at singles in the USA in 1964 alone for The Beatles, they had 3 #1 singles, with another 4 songs reaching the Top 5. 1965 had 5 #1's for them.

The Beatles and Oasis can be compared, until you come to the United States of America, which is admittedly the biggest commercial market for music in the world. The Beatles cracked it early on and have held it in their grip ever since (Between 1991 and 2014, The Beatles sold over 65 million albums in the USA alone), Oasis never did.

Otherwise yes, looking at the rest of their albums, both The Beatles and Oasis have both held a very solid grip charts-wise for the rest of their careers (if I look at the peak position) and they were both the biggest selling British bands of their respective decade.

mj_frenzy;4181683 said:
Mania aside, personally I consider the quality of Oasis’ music better than the Beatles’ music (mainly because of Noel Gallagher’s phenomenal songwriting abilities in Oasis’ first three studio albums), whereas the only really good Beatles’ album is only one (“Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band” that was released in 1967).

Only really good Beatles album?!? Them's fighting words right there :p

For Really Good Beatles albums, I'd consider A Hard Day's Night, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, perhaps The White Album, and Abbey Road to all be a part of that list(Really showing my love for them here :lol:). I personally consider John Lennon and Paul McCartney to be amongst the greatest songwriters of all time, and if anything their songwriting got even better during the 1960s.

But at the end of the day, this part is all subjective though so hey, each to their own :)
 
Last edited:
People should stop looking or wondering if there will be a new ''MJ''. Just stop it. Damn. There will never be a new Michael Jackson. Michael was the godfather of music and dancing. Michael was the inventor of modern music. Michael was the master of doing shows. A lot of artists are influenced by him, but THERE WILL BE NEVER A NEW MJ!

OP never asked if there would ever be another MJ. (S)he asked if there could ever be an artist as big as him again. Two different things.
 
HIStoric;4181765 said:
- With Definitely Maybe, Oasis struck gold which essentially went straight to #1 in the UK, but only claimed the top for a week (the album danced around in the Top Ten for a respectable amount of time though).
You are right, the speed of which Oasis hit #1 with their debut album is actually very admirable in itself. Fewer studio albums though? Same Impact? Mmmm, yeah gonna have to disagree.

Here, Oasis even surpassed Beatles because ‘Definitely Maybe’ became the fastest selling debut album of all time in UK (beating ‘Please Please Me’, in that respect).

HIStoric;4181765 said:
Alright, well let's compare their mania and impact through the charts.

Fewer studio albums? Focusing in on the UK...

- With Definitely Maybe, Oasis struck gold which essentially went straight to #1 in the UK, but only claimed the top for a week (the album danced around in the Top Ten for a respectable amount of time though).
- (What's The Story) Morning Glory? fared much, much better. It debuted at #1, sat at #2/#3 for the next 3 months, before going to #1 for 6 weeks, #2 once more, then another 3 week streak of #1.
- Be Here Now spent the first 4 weeks at #1, followed up by a week at #2, then one more week at #1.

For The Beatles, Beatlemania was already in full-effect by around October 1963, a month before the release of their second studio album, which came out in November 1963. Their first album came out in March 1966 and was slower to reach #1, doing so in May. What I consider extremely remarkable however is the fact that The Beatles reigned King at #1 consecutively for almost an entire year, from the 11th of May 1963 until the 24th April 1964. The Beatles took back #1 on the 25th July 1964, holding on until the 6th February 1965. There were 4 albums released in this period:
- Please Please Me/With The Beatles in the first streak
- A Hard Day's Night/Beatles for Sale in the 2nd streak.

You are right, the speed of which Oasis hit #1 with their debut album is actually very admirable in itself. Fewer studio albums though? Same Impact? Mmmm, yeah gonna have to disagree.

Focusing on the USA, The Beatles first success was at the very beginning of 1964 when the song I Want To Hold Your Hand reached #1 on January 16, 1964. A few weeks later, Beatlemania truly took hold of the nation when they landed in America and performed on The Ed Sullivan Show to a record 73 million people. By this point, only two albums had been released, they were released 10 days apart in January because of the significant demand for their material after IWTHYH reached #1.

They remained at #1 from the 15th February 1964 - 5th June 1964, reclaiming #1 from 25 July - 30th October 1964.

For Oasis in America, with all due respect, they hardly even compare. Not once in their career have they ever top the US album charts (although they did come very, very close with (What's The Story) Morning Glory? and Be Here Now, #4 and #2 respectively). Additionally, they never had a #1 single in the USA either (Wonderwall was closest at #8, then #55 with Don't Look Back in Anger. They did, however, reach #1 a few times in the Alternative charts!). If you look at singles in the USA in 1964 alone for The Beatles, they had 3 #1 singles, with another 4 songs reaching the Top 5. 1965 had 5 #1's for them.

The Beatles and Oasis can be compared, until you come to the United States of America, which is admittedly the biggest commercial market for music in the world. The Beatles cracked it early on and have held it in their grip ever since (Between 1991 and 2014, The Beatles sold over 65 million albums in the USA alone), Oasis never did.

Otherwise yes, looking at the rest of their albums, both The Beatles and Oasis have both held a very solid grip charts-wise for the rest of their careers (if I look at the peak position) and they were both the biggest selling British bands of their respective decade.

I do not doubt at all these high chart positions that Beatles’ songs reached during those years, but in the Beatles’ case these high chart positions do not necessarily mean good quality of music.

For example, the first two Beatles albums that gave rise to Beatlemania (‘Please Please Me’, ‘With The Beatles’) were by all accounts very easy, mushy pop songs (superficial lyrics along with some catchy tunes), not to mention that almost half of the material from these two albums was just …covers.

I am of the opinion that Beatles were overrated as a band. A very large part of their success, particularly during their first years, has to be put down to other factors, rather than to the quality of their songs (Brian Epstein’s effective public relations, people’s hunger from all over the world for care-free tunes after the misery that World War II brought on, etc.).

HIStoric;4181765 said:
Only really good Beatles album?!? Them's fighting words right there :p

For Really Good Beatles albums, I'd consider A Hard Day's Night, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, perhaps The White Album, and Abbey Road to all be a part of that list(Really showing my love for them here :lol:). I personally consider John Lennon and Paul McCartney to be amongst the greatest songwriters of all time, and if anything their songwriting got even better during the 1960s.

But at the end of the day, this part is all subjective though so hey, each to their own :)

Like I said before, I consider their ‘Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band’ a truly good album (both thematically & musically), but other than this album & some other marginally good tracks dispersed in their discography, I am afraid the rest of the Beatles’ discography comprises of substandard material.

Regarding John Lennon & Paul McCartney, believe it or not, personally I think that their really memorable compositions came after the Beatles’ era (for example, Lennon’s ‘Jealous Guy’, ‘Woman’, ‘Beautiful Boy-Darling Boy’, ‘I’m Losing You’, while the ‘Band On The Run’ album is a shining example of Paul McCartney’s songwriting skills).
 
SmoothMJ;4181681 said:
Take Adel. Her songs sell well enough. They are like vanilla ice cream. Most people like it and it's non offensive. But how has she influenced music video? Or fashion? Are her concerts exciting to watch? Or are you just as well off staying at home and sticking her CD on?

oh yes they are, I´ve been to 3 of them. But after all, she can just stand there talking because she´s so funny, so may have nothing to do with the music.
 
For the sake of art alone, I hope that - sometime in the future - there will be artists that have talent and a personality as amazing as Michael. We need visionaries. It might be in a different field (composition, visual arts, ...), and of course that person will be completely unique as well (and no "next Michael Jackson" -_-).

Regarding worldwide SUCCESS: I guess it will be hard for anyone to come close to Michael´s vast commercial and "social" success, though.
 
What would it take for another artist to be as famous as Michael Jackson?

7 Answers

Trey Morehouse, worked at University of North Carolina at Wilmington


Updated Mar 19, 2011 · Upvoted by Ethan Hein, music technology and music education professor

I wonder if we will ever have an artist that is as famous as Micheal Jackson. It could be argued that Micheal Jackson was sort of the end of an era. He represented the last great American Pop star that just about everyone knew and could agree was pretty great. We live in crazy and ever growing multimedia world dominated by flash sensations and internet stars. It's quickly disseminating into a world where no one really has to agree on any one pop icon anymore; we can all have our own personal pop stars.

I remember ten years ago, going on road trips with my family; we all had to agree on one radio station or one CD to listen to while we drove those many miles. I can imagine that many families on the road agreed and settled on Micheal Jackson as a safe choice to please everyone. Now that's just not necessary any more. Look in any minivan today and everyone has their own laptop, their own i-Pod, their own Gameboy. We don't have to agree on a single song or a single singer anymore. You can listen to Lady Gaga, and your sister can listen to Justin Bieber. Outside this microcosm, the whole world is breaking apart into little personal bubbles of culture. Anyone can upload the latest song they wrote onto the internet for the whole world to listen to in a matter of minutes. Corporatist big wigs don't decide what the people want to listen to, and we certainly don't have to rely on the democracy of the marketplace to select for us what artists we want to buy.

Postmodernism means death of the meta-narrative means less hegemonic control means no more pop stars. It's a pretty crazy world out there man, and I doubt we'll ever see anyone or anything as big as Micheal Jackson ever again.
1.7k Views · View Upvotes

source:

www.quora.com/What-would-it-take-for-another-artist-to-be-as-famous-as-Michael-Jackson
 
I don't think anyone will ever be as big as MJ was/is.

He was in the game for 4 decades - on top in every 4 of them...
He was extremely known all over the world - and that was before internet, facebook, twitter etc. etc.
He influenced sooo many people - not only singers, but designers, dancers etc. etc.
His live performances were spectacular!! - No one could do it like he did.
His songs were great.
He became such a huge star not only because of talent, but also a little because of the time. Back when he first captivated the entire world there was black music and white music. MJ really changed that. - The movement was already there, but he kicked down the last boundaries and got his videos shown on MTV and other white TV channels.
Back in a time were colour mattered he mixed music genres like no one had ever done before. He had Van Hellen on Beat it and made a rock song, made a duet with Paul McCartney a huge (white) popstar etc. etc. - time was different back then, so I don't think anyone could ever break so many boundaries and therefore gain such HUGE success.

MJ was a genius gifted talent who worked extremely hard - but other factors he had no control over also helped him become an even bigger star...

So to sum op the question - NO... We will NEVER see an artist as big as MJ - Ever....
 
Back
Top