Latest on MJJC

Do you think anyone can be bigger then Michael Jackson is / was ?

There may be some day, but not soon in my opinion. Madonna is pretty close up there though. Aretha Franlin's legacy is pretty huge too as far as I know.
 
No, because the music business is different than it was in the past. It has nothing to do with talent, but how the business works. Talent in itself doesn't sell records, but promotional money and wide distribution areas. In the past radio DJs had more control over what was played, now most stations are owned by some comglomerate like Clear Channel, who gives all the stations a playlist of what to play and they can't deviate from it. A lot of stations today don't really have a "DJ" per se, the songs are played by a computer program. They might hire a people to tell corny jokes or to run the commercial tapes. There was no cable, DVD's, VCR, video games, computers, internet, cell phones, etc. So there was no competition. At the most, people had board games like Checkers or Connect Four. A few might have had a pinball game, but they took up a lot of space and were costly. Acts only did music, and not clothing lines and sports drinks.
 
Thanks to MJJHistory for this. In the new book for "Thriller 25" it says: "Today, Michael Jackson enjoys an awareness level of more than 97.2% worldwide, only surpassed by Coca-Cola and the pope".

And ya'll know Coke and the Pope don't count. Coke is a product, not a person, and the Pope is a symbol of Christianity, not really recocnizable for himself but for what he represents. On top of which who the Pope is isn't constant, there's every so often a new one. Like I said before in this thread, most people wouldn't recognize him if he walked down the street in regular cloths, but everyone would recognize Michael if he walked down the street in regular cloths.

Now you know there's no one in the world today or in the past who has ever achieved that level of recognition. I mean, THINK of what that means. Over 97% of the world's population knows who Michael is, that's billions upon billions of people. Don't say Jesus, same deal as the Pope and nobody even knows what the dude really looked like.
 
no way ! :) Michael is to big and i think NObody ! NOBODY can reach what michael did in the past.
Michael Jackson really is the "KING OF POP" ! ...
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Thanks to MJJHistory for this. In the new book for "Thriller 25" it says: "Today, Michael Jackson enjoys an awareness level of more than 97.2% worldwide, only surpassed by Coca-Cola and the pope".
Click to expand...

And again...
Who did examine this how and when? To rightfully say so someone must have done some kind of examination. I'd like to finally see that cuz if not we can talk in circles with fans and non fans for the next billion of years.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Thanks to MJJHistory for this. In the new book for "Thriller 25" it says: "Today, Michael Jackson enjoys an awareness level of more than 97.2% worldwide, only surpassed by Coca-Cola and the pope".

And ya'll know Coke and the Pope don't count. Coke is a product, not a person, and the Pope is a symbol of Christianity, not really recocnizable for himself but for what he represents. On top of which who the Pope is isn't constant, there's every so often a new one. Like I said before in this thread, most people wouldn't recognize him if he walked down the street in regular cloths, but everyone would recognize Michael if he walked down the street in regular cloths.

Now you know there's no one in the world today or in the past who has ever achieved that level of recognition. I mean, THINK of what that means. Over 97% of the world's population knows who Michael is, that's billions upon billions of people. Don't say Jesus, same deal as the Pope and nobody even knows what the dude really looked like.
Click to expand...


lol...i don't think we should get into the religion thing here...can of worms..
 
I don't care. I didn't say Jesus didn't exsist, I just said nobody here knows what he looks like. Mechi, that's what it says in an official released publication directly related to Michael and since the percentage is so exact, I assume they must have come to the number through research. Apparently, nothing will satisfy you and you are simply arguing the point for arguments sake. If you have to have every single reason for why a certain conclusion was reached mapped out for you, then I'm afraid you're going to be dissatisfied with most things in life. You can go on believeing that there isn't sufficient enough evidence that Michael is the most famous person on the planet, but you're in the minority in arguing that fact, because it is widely recognized that he indeed is and several, three that I'm aware of, study's have shown that he is, study's which DID conduct research. Just because we don't see it doesn't mean they didn't used some sort of equation or method to reach the answer. Just because we don't have them on hand doesn't mean we're lying about them. They HAD to have used research to reach such a specific number and just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not legit.
 
Last edited:
There will never be another Michael Jackson or a artist that will top the Thriller era but you do have to be realistic and consider a few thngs. In this era you can download music and get the entire album without having to pay for it like back in the 1980's so you end up losing a lot more potential sales then you would in the 80's. Lets look at some of todays top male r&b/pop artist.

Usher - His 2004 album confessions sold 8 million in the USA. The same as Bad and Dangerous in the USA. Now if you put him and this album in 1988/1989 without the internet this album easily sales in the 12 to 15 million range. USA alone. That album would have blown up in 1989

Justin Timberlake - His last album sold in the 5 to 6 million range in the USA. If this was released in the late 1980's this sales 10 million + without the internet.

So neither could top Thriller but they would be able to compete and maybe top MJ's other albums in the USA. Im not sure about worldwide, but USA they would be right there.
 
There's many albums which have sold more, at this point, then either "Bad" or "Dangerous", but those artists are hardly as big and/or bigger then Michael. On top of which, it's really pure speculation as to how many copies Usher or Justin would have sold in 1989. You can try and make an educated guess, but it's a guess none the less. What did "Confessions" sell? 20 million world wide? That's about equal to "Bad" in the first few years of release. But it's no indication of over all success or popularity. Usher's new album is doing poorly by comparison. Justin's first record sold what, 10 million world wide, with heavy, heavy promotion. I don't even know what his latest has done. Nor have either of those two set any sort of records in terms of touring and other fields involved in the recording and performing arts.

"Bad" was the second largest selling album in history for a long time. Michael set the standard in terms of artists being able to move huge numbers. Before him, no one sold in to the 20 million range. "Saturday Night Fever" was the only one, and that wasn't any one artist, but many for a film soundtrack.

All combined, none of todays acts match Michael's success in the least, whether factoring in the internet and downloads or not. You have to be fair in every regard. By logic, you would think because of the enhanced communication of today versus when Michael was at his height in popularity, today's stars would have more of a chance of reaching the level of fame he acquired, but they haven't come near to it. Why? Because they just don't have what it takes. Usher and Justin would also be competeing with the acts of 1989, far superior talents, including Michael himself. Do you really think anyone would take notice of those two in such a diverse and talented field of artists? Speculation, I know, but I don't think so. By today's standards, those two stand out, but today's standards are far lower then in 1989.
 
Last edited:
There also comes a time when you have to just look at what is. The fact of the matter is, factoring in this or that, no one today or from the past has achieved Michael's sales except the Beatles, not over all, and certainly no one has achieved his level of recognition and over all popularity.
 
Good point but what competetion did MJ really have back in the 1980's when it came to young male solo artist besides Prince. They weren't as many young male artist for 12 to 18 year olds to look up to. That age range isvery important when it comes to high sales. Now days there is so many young artist for teenage girls to choose from for them to like. There not limited to just a couple.

Now days you have young pop male artist, young r&b artist and the whole rap game which was not around back in the early to mid 1980s.

Basically its like Michael Jordan in the 1980s when they weren't as many athletic shooting guards as today. Jordan was 6-6 and his competetion at his position was guys who were 6-3 like Joe Dumars of the Pistons who is 3 inches shorter and less athletic. Now days you have Kobe who is 6-7 220, Lebron James who is 6-8 260 pounds, Dwayne Wade who is 6-5-215. The era's are different

he he i love me some basketball
 
Well you had Prince, Boy George, George Michael, Bobby Brown, Lionel Richie, Billy Joel, Phil Collins, etc... Michael was and is unique in what he had to offer though, on top of which he has an enigmatic personality, and those factors, combined with the timing is what led to his success. Michael is special.

You have a greater slew of young, male solo acts today, that's true, but they're quality as compared to back then is far lower. It's quantity over quality these days and there is an oversaturation of the market, one act offering basically the same thing as the next. Which, as you pointed out, leads to lower sales and interest. You don't have artists that stand out now a days. When Michael was in his early 20s, every artist had something to offer which seperated them from the rest of the pack, and they had legitimate talent. Michael stood out completely because he had the unique combination of world class vocal and dance talent, and that combination is still unique today. The industry tries to make it seem common with acts like Usher and Chris Brown, but it's not the same and anyone who knows anything about singing and dancing knows that. It's just imitation of the real thing. Which is why you see Michael still outselling todays top acts. "Invincible", with practically zero marketing, sold as many copies as Justin's first solo record, which in contrast had heavy promotion. And Michael, in this decade, with only one album release and a slew of greatest hits packages, has outsold every artist in the world except Eminem. It's because he's unique and people know it. There's more choice today, but there's less quality and it's more then likely that todays top acts would have been lucky to land a record contract back in the 80s. The competition today is a lot less steep, over all, and it's easier to get a foot hold in such a weak playing field.
 
Last edited:
i honestly aint read the previous respsonses but here is mine...

people can argue all day about who WAS the biggest, MJ, Elvis, Beatles.. I'll tell you now it was NOT Elvis... his popularity was restricted to Amercia, and he never actually toured outside the states. His record sales are not what they myth surrounding them makes them sound like, and his talents were limited in reality. Beatles were massive and caused mobs and hysteria and sold hundreds of millions of records, but their fame was shortlived as a performing group. Splits, relationships and deaths. They didnt dance and to me, they just bore me - not an entertainment package, just a group of alright singers and great songwriters. Michael Jackson was a star from 1970 until NOW.. 38 years of being one of the worlds most demanded entertainers!...he is STILL in demand... even when he is doing nothing, people are still excited at the mention of his name. Even now, when he arrives at an airport, he is mobbed. Even now, he has fans following him globally and camping outside his hotels. This is without even having released musc in years! And this adoration is GLOBAL! People in Japan, Germany, UK, everywhere FLOCK for Michael Jackson.

Bein the MJ fan I am of course I believe Michael WAS the biggest (in the past) and will REMAIN unbeaten in that sense.

I dont believe the word "superstar" exists anymore.

I dont see anyone setting the world on fire, causing mass hysteria, doing incredible things musically or entertainment wise.

Maybe Michael can get back in the region of superstar once more, but anyone else, nope, i cannot see it... I dont think the public will accept another artist as a superstar because like, when you are following up on someone, you get compared... like "wow Elvis cool" .. "wow James Brown so cool".. "wow Beatles so cool" then "wow Michael Jackson even cooler" and now no one can compare to Michael Jackson. Its like, a talent like that comes once in a lifetime. That talent has come, and is still with us, but once its gone I dont expect to see it EVER again. (not just saying that coz im a MJ fan, thats actually for real. He is the ultimate entertainment package)
 
damien shields said:
i honestly aint read the previous respsonses but here is mine...

people can argue all day about who WAS the biggest, MJ, Elvis, Beatles.. I'll tell you now it was NOT Elvis... his popularity was restricted to Amercia, and he never actually toured outside the states. His record sales are not what they myth surrounding them makes them sound like, and his talents were limited in reality. Beatles were massive and caused mobs and hysteria and sold hundreds of millions of records, but their fame was shortlived as a performing group. Splits, relationships and deaths. They didnt dance and to me, they just bore me - not an entertainment package, just a group of alright singers and great songwriters. Michael Jackson was a star from 1970 until NOW.. 38 years of being one of the worlds most demanded entertainers!...he is STILL in demand... even when he is doing nothing, people are still excited at the mention of his name. Even now, when he arrives at an airport, he is mobbed. Even now, he has fans following him globally and camping outside his hotels. This is without even having released musc in years! And this adoration is GLOBAL! People in Japan, Germany, UK, everywhere FLOCK for Michael Jackson.

Bein the MJ fan I am of course I believe Michael WAS the biggest (in the past) and will REMAIN unbeaten in that sense.

I dont believe the word "superstar" exists anymore.

I dont see anyone setting the world on fire, causing mass hysteria, doing incredible things musically or entertainment wise.

Maybe Michael can get back in the region of superstar once more, but anyone else, nope, i cannot see it... I dont think the public will accept another artist as a superstar because like, when you are following up on someone, you get compared... like "wow Elvis cool" .. "wow James Brown so cool".. "wow Beatles so cool" then "wow Michael Jackson even cooler" and now no one can compare to Michael Jackson. Its like, a talent like that comes once in a lifetime. That talent has come, and is still with us, but once its gone I dont expect to see it EVER again. (not just saying that coz im a MJ fan, thats actually for real. He is the ultimate entertainment package)
Click to expand...
:clapping::clapping::clapping: You are so right about Elvis. There was never an Elvis hysteria. He was never mobbed in the streets. People didn't mob celebs in Elvis's days. I doubt they even know what they looked like, as they had no tv or media to see them with. Elvis's music was huge in the dance halls and juke boxes but people did not flock to buy music. They had nothing to play it with. Radio was their only means oif entertainment.
The Beaatles had some hysteria but it was mainly in America. It was never as big in Britain. The Jackson 5 had a bigger audience in the Beatles home town than they did,. It is a documented fact. Also, Beatles were mainly a subcultureal group, ie, hyppees. They became bigger after they broke up.
Michael Jacksion is just about the only celeb I know who has touched everyone from birth till death and of every social class, including royalty. It has never happened before.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
I don't care. I didn't say Jesus didn't exsist, I just said nobody here knows what he looks like. Mechi, that's what it says in an official released publication directly related to Michael and since the percentage is so exact, I assume they must have come to the number through research. Apparently, nothing will satisfy you and you are simply arguing the point for arguments sake. If you have to have every single reason for why a certain conclusion was reached mapped out for you, then I'm afraid you're going to be dissatisfied with most things in life. You can go on believeing that there isn't sufficient enough evidence that Michael is the most famous person on the planet, but you're in the minority in arguing that fact, because it is widely recognized that he indeed is and several, three that I'm aware of, study's have shown that he is, study's which DID conduct research. Just because we don't see it doesn't mean they didn't used some sort of equation or method to reach the answer. Just because we don't have them on hand doesn't mean we're lying about them. They HAD to have used research to reach such a specific number and just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not legit.
Click to expand...

It's not I'm saying it's not true. And it's not true that nothing would satisfy me lol all I say is, it would be interesting and nice to see how they've found out to finally have some prove (and that indeed would certainly satisfy me in this matter completely) cuz like this we have only hear say. lol
But we can leave it at that lol... my happiness is not really dependent on it.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Well you had Prince, Boy George, George Michael, Bobby Brown, Lionel Richie, Billy Joel, Phil Collins, etc... Michael was and is unique in what he had to offer though, on top of which he has an enigmatic personality, and those factors, combined with the timing is what led to his success. Michael is special.

You have a greater slew of young, male solo acts today, that's true, but they're quality as compared to back then is far lower. It's quantity over quality these days and there is an oversaturation of the market, one act offering basically the same thing as the next. Which, as you pointed out, leads to lower sales and interest. You don't have artists that stand out now a days. When Michael was in his early 20s, every artist had something to offer which seperated them from the rest of the pack, and they had legitimate talent. Michael stood out completely because he had the unique combination of world class vocal and dance talent, and that combination is still unique today. The industry tries to make it seem common with acts like Usher and Chris Brown, but it's not the same and anyone who knows anything about singing and dancing knows that. It's just imitation of the real thing. Which is why you see Michael still outselling todays top acts. "Invincible", with practically zero marketing, sold as many copies as Justin's first solo record, which in contrast had heavy promotion. And Michael, in this decade, with only one album release and a slew of greatest hits packages, has outsold every artist in the world except Eminem. It's because he's unique and people know it. There's more choice today, but there's less quality and it's more then likely that todays top acts would have been lucky to land a record contract back in the 80s. The competition today is a lot less steep, over all, and it's easier to get a foot hold in such a weak playing field.
Click to expand...

Bobby Brown came around in 1988 as a solo artist with his album Don't Be Cruel which was a vey good album but released 1 year after Bad. But still there weren't a lot of good looking african american r&b artist that young teenagers could choose from. Now teens have so many options with young artist that you can't even count. Lionel Richie was still a factor in 1984, but he wasnt exactly a guy who young teenage girls would be hanging on there bedroom walls like a Chris Brown, Ne-Yo, Justin, Rapper Ti, and many other young artist in the r&b/hip hop field today. There's just more to choose from for teens these days. More options.

I do think if you put 1984 MJ in this era he would still be 1# though. My point is there would be more competetion because ppl are also in to rap and hip hop these days. Not just singing
 
Alright, I know all of us here love Michael and all, and he's "the best" and everything, but we need to look to the future. Michael is the greatest in his field, yes. But there will come a time when someone comes along who has the same or more impact on the world, musically/in entertainment. Just consider the possibilitiy, and put away the blind Michael-Jackson-worship for a second.

This world has billions of people in it...and billions more to be born in the future.

Heck, we have no idea what future megastar is even in the works RIGHT NOW!
 
I understand what you're saying LovelyOne, but I think that it must also be understood that the likelihood for someone in the future to be as great as Michael Jackson, and impact the world as he has done, is INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY. If music was the way it was back then, right now, then I can see there being an opening in the future for more musical greats like the era MJ came out of. But this world we live in now is sooo different than back then. Popular music is nowhere near the quality of what it once was, and the people that are considered the "greats" are a far fetch from the real greats from back in the day. These people today have become popular based much more on their appearance and personalities than actual talent, and I consider them to actually be "dumbing down" the real art of music, instead of taking it to new heights. They are cocky, and for no damn good reason. If you believe, like I believe, that people are mainly products of their environment, then it's gonna be real tough for someone to come out with the artistic talents of a Michael or Stevie, or Elton when they have grown up hearing Timbaland, Pussycat Dolls, and Rihanna. It's not gonna happen.
 
damien shields said:
i honestly aint read the previous respsonses but here is mine...

people can argue all day about who WAS the biggest, MJ, Elvis, Beatles.. I'll tell you now it was NOT Elvis... his popularity was restricted to Amercia, and he never actually toured outside the states. His record sales are not what they myth surrounding them makes them sound like, and his talents were limited in reality. Beatles were massive and caused mobs and hysteria and sold hundreds of millions of records, but their fame was shortlived as a performing group. Splits, relationships and deaths. They didnt dance and to me, they just bore me - not an entertainment package, just a group of alright singers and great songwriters. Michael Jackson was a star from 1970 until NOW.. 38 years of being one of the worlds most demanded entertainers!...he is STILL in demand... even when he is doing nothing, people are still excited at the mention of his name. Even now, when he arrives at an airport, he is mobbed. Even now, he has fans following him globally and camping outside his hotels. This is without even having released musc in years! And this adoration is GLOBAL! People in Japan, Germany, UK, everywhere FLOCK for Michael Jackson.

Bein the MJ fan I am of course I believe Michael WAS the biggest (in the past) and will REMAIN unbeaten in that sense.

I dont believe the word "superstar" exists anymore.

I dont see anyone setting the world on fire, causing mass hysteria, doing incredible things musically or entertainment wise.

Maybe Michael can get back in the region of superstar once more, but anyone else, nope, i cannot see it... I dont think the public will accept another artist as a superstar because like, when you are following up on someone, you get compared... like "wow Elvis cool" .. "wow James Brown so cool".. "wow Beatles so cool" then "wow Michael Jackson even cooler" and now no one can compare to Michael Jackson. Its like, a talent like that comes once in a lifetime. That talent has come, and is still with us, but once its gone I dont expect to see it EVER again. (not just saying that coz im a MJ fan, thats actually for real. He is the ultimate entertainment package)
Click to expand...

Totally agree! Great post
 
WhosBad58 said:
I understand what you're saying LovelyOne, but I think that it must also be understood that the likelihood for someone in the future to be as great as Michael Jackson, and impact the world as he has done, is INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY. If music was the way it was back then, right now, then I can see there being an opening in the future for more musical greats like the era MJ came out of. But this world we live in now is sooo different than back then. Popular music is nowhere near the quality of what it once was, and the people that are considered the "greats" are a far fetch from the real greats from back in the day. These people today have become popular based much more on their appearance and personalities than actual talent, and I consider them to actually be "dumbing down" the real art of music, instead of taking it to new heights. They are cocky, and for no damn good reason. If you believe, like I believe, that people are mainly products of their environment, then it's gonna be real tough for someone to come out with the artistic talents of a Michael or Stevie, or Elton when they have grown up hearing Timbaland, Pussycat Dolls, and Rihanna. It's not gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Even though Timbaland steals ideas sometimes, he produces great music. His music sounds great. Great beats, great/strong melodies, people like it...I'm not even a big fan of Timbaland but I don't see why you're bringing him up as an example of bad music...he's known as the career-reviver lately (Nelly Furtado, Madonna, Keri Hilson, and many others I haven't mentioned).

But anyway, many young people are into good music from the past as well. Many young people listen to the music their parents and grandparents listened to...Michael Jackson, Stevie, Hendrix, Elton, whoever.

Besides, what music they listen to doesn't really matter...I mean, music does not have to be the same as it was 30 years ago. It doesn't have to be like Stevie, and it doesn't have to be like Michael. You have to think about the future. I think some people are just pissed that these new artists aren't who they grew up listening to, and so they don't like their sound. But these are the sounds of the future, not the past. For instance, Rihanna's song "Umbrella" is no Stevie song, but its' catchy, has a great melody, great beat, and people like it! Madonna herself (one of the great "superstars) wasn't exactly Mozart...it was just catchy dance music that people liked to listen to.

So, after all that rambling (lol)...I'll say it again, think about the FUTURE! You don't know who is yet to come. You have no way on this earth of knowing. There are many talented people that exist today, and just because they're not Michael Jackson doesn't mean they are any less talented, or that their artistic work is any less important.

This music business goes in cycles anyway...this seems to be a down cycle, I suppose (according to many here).
 
All I know is that Michael was and still is unique. I say it all the time, to the point of pissing some around here off, but before Michael, there was never a known world class vocalist who also was a world class dancer and a world class composer, all at the same time, and there hasn't been one since Michael. That's not just rare, that's never happened except for once, not in any known capacity, and that, essentially, is what makes Michael the biggest star in history. None of todays stars are even a quarter as big as Michael and if they were going to be, you would have seen it coming by now. And more importantly, none of todays stars are even a quarter as talented as Michael. The only person whose had any sort of signifigant success which some might stupidly compare to Michael's is Usher and at his most popular, Usher doesn't come close. Michael is known by over 97% of the world's populice. People don't grasp what that means apparently, but it means over 5 billion people know who he is. That's freakin' scary. People also don't seem to realize what it takes to create that sort of phenom. It takes more then just being good at something. It takes timing, atmosphere, massive talent, huge charisma and enigmatic personality, on and on and on. The likelyhood of ever seeing anyone on Michael's level of superstardom again is slim to none.

And music now sucks, period. If you can't see that, then don't talk to me.
 
It's often said if people like Michael, Elvis Presley, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, Diana Ross, Muhammad Ali and Richard Pryor weren't born, you'd have to make them. After MJ, they stopped, lol.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
And music now sucks, period. If you can't see that, then don't talk to me.
Click to expand...



dammmm i hate it when someone says this.
there is some great stuff out there, it's just not in the charts anymore, sadly

to sum music today up as 'it sucks' is an insult to all those talented muscian out there, who just dont get a chance.
 
For me... NO there will never be anyone bigger than Michael Jackson for many reasons.

First of all, in todays world ANYONE can be famous for a small amount of time, its not hard. With stuff like Youtube, Big Brother etc its very easy to get your '15 minutes of fame'. Talent has nothing to do with it anymore. Also theres no 'longevity' with fame these days.

Another thing is being an individual and being unique...its VERY rare these days to find anyone that isnt immitating someone. For example you have JT, Chris Brown etc who may aswell be MJ impersonaters at times. No one really stands out in todays world of celebrity. With todays crop of 'celebrities' there is not really any GLOBAL superstars. With Michael Jackson he is known all over the world!
 
SIDEWALK said:
dammmm i hate it when someone says this.
there is some great stuff out there, it's just not in the charts anymore, sadly

to sum music today up as 'it sucks' is an insult to all those talented muscian out there, who just dont get a chance.
Click to expand...
i completely understand what you mean but when people say "music today sucks", they obviously refer to the mainstream side of it since this is what the masses are getting.

you're a music fan, so you go hunt for the things you like (this has been done for decades), but most people want to have it handed to them on a plate. that's the job of big labels, and there's nothing wrong with it if those businesses actually provide more of the "right" options (creative artists, unique talents) for their audience.

and some do exist, as i said before about Winehouse or Coldplay, but very rarely do you get such massive successes from creative and unique (and risky) talents these days.
 
SIDEWALK said:
dammmm i hate it when someone says this.
there is some great stuff out there, it's just not in the charts anymore, sadly

to sum music today up as 'it sucks' is an insult to all those talented muscian out there, who just dont get a chance.
Click to expand...

Well I meant main stream. Sorry I didn't qualify it. But it didn't used to be that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top