Madonna Producer: “She Has Succeeded Where Michael Jackson Failed”

[lom kit]

to me the words relevance and influence are two different things. And what most of you tell is about influince.
Been relevant in the music bussines is when you are active and walk up and down in the charts. I said about devolop yourself. If positive or negative, it's personal taste. The Gaga lady is relevant now. I don't like what shes doing at all, but sadly she is THE relevant person in music at the moment.
It's no insult when others are compared to Michael. It's insult to you, cause you don't like them personaly.
And as I read the comments about her actual song been lame (it is no doubt about it) or comments of the like "shes an 50 old hag, that acts like 20 year old", same as in youtube.

she had few nr.1 last 10 years. two sucessful tour. If that appeals to you is one thing, but that made her relevant.
All you say about Michael is that he was influential. this no one denies.
But don't mix up apples with pears.

two more things. I think Michael decided to step back from music after Invincible for some period of time, because of his personal life. Doesn't mean he wasn't working on new matterial.
the trial messed up alot. but i thnik last decade wouldnt have been less that much of active as the 90s were, even if there was no trial.

And Michael was one of the greatest, but doesn't mean there is no comparison to him at all. Maybe not madonna, but someone else for sure.

 

[terrell]

Oh please. Just because you bring out a cd does NOT mean you were better. by that standard, Vanilla Ice and others are still relievant. HEr cd were not good in 2000. The same with Prince. Yes, Prince brought out cd but they were not good even many of his fans said the same thing.

 

[HIStory]

@ Lom Kit

Your definition of relevance (current chart performance) is arbitrary though. Somebody who is able to sell out 50 O2 shows in minutes is not irrelevant, regardless of when he released his last album.

 

[lom kit]

Oh please. Just because you bring out a cd does NOT mean you were better. by that standard, Vanilla Ice and others are still relievant. HEr cd were not good in 2000. The same with Prince. Yes, Prince brought out cd but they were not good even many of his fans said the same thing.

Ahmm no one said that.
Reading is big problem here. You guys read, but you can't read.

 

[lom kit]

@ Lom Kit

Your definition of relevance (current chart performance) is arbitrary though. Somebody who is able to sell out 50 O2 shows in minutes is not irrelevant, regardless of when he released his last album.

I love that word now, relevance. My view is the last 10 years as a whole.
the sold out concerts show that there is still interest in you. not that the last decade you were relevan in the music.
Again respect, don't pick on the single words you don't like. read carefuly.

 

[HIStory]

I love that word now, relevance. My view is the last 10 years as a whole.
the sold out concerts show that there is still interest in you. not that the last decade you were relevan in the music.
Again respect, don't pick on the single words you don't like. read carefuly.

I don't pick out single words. I pick out your definition of relevance with that I don't agree with. That there is still (huge!) interest in you means you are relevant.

 

[bluetopez]

Been relevant in the music bussines is when you are active and walk up and down in the charts.

UM...You do know that this is something that can't be possible FOREVER with any artist, right?! There's either a break from them or struggles in their career/personal lives or lack of public interest that will make an artist stop being revelant in the way u define it here. So what then after that? Do u just not see them at all as revelant because they won't chart anymore? Weird way to define revelance I say! SMH No wonder we disagree!

 

[teli-mj]

to me the words relevance and influence are two different things. And what most of you tell is about influince.
Been relevant in the music bussines is when you are active and walk up and down in the charts. I said about devolop yourself. If positive or negative, it's personal taste. The Gaga lady is relevant now. I don't like what shes doing at all, but sadly she is THE relevant person in music at the moment.
It's no insult when others are compared to Michael. It's insult to you, cause you don't like them personaly.
And as I read the comments about her actual song been lame (it is no doubt about it) or comments of the like "shes an 50 old hag, that acts like 20 year old", same as in youtube.

she had few nr.1 last 10 years. two sucessful tour. If that appeals to you is one thing, but that made her relevant.
All you say about Michael is that he was influential. this no one denies.
But don't mix up apples with pears.

two more things. I think Michael decided to step back from music after Invincible for some period of time, because of his personal life. Doesn't mean he wasn't working on new matterial.
the trial messed up alot. but i thnik last decade wouldnt have been less that much of active as the 90s were, even if there was no trial.

And Michael was one of the greatest, but doesn't mean there is no comparison to him at all. Maybe not madonna, but someone else for sure.

I'm reading your post, i truly am, and i wonder what are you exactly trying to say because i don't understand it. Yes, MJ was not climbing the charts, he was not doing tours during 2002- 2009, he was not developing himself, so according to your definition of relevant, he was not relevant, he was irrelevant. So, i agree with this producers view on MJ, that MJ failed where Madonna kept going, again based on your and his view on what is relevant or not.

But i think that you and this producer here, should acknowledge the fact that, unlike Madonna (and i hate to bring her name because it's not she who is responcible for the comments made by this "producer")and all the other artist who were relevant during the period that MJ wasn't, they weren't facing the crap that MJ did.

Did those relevant artists have TV and radio station boycotting their music because their owners and people who worked there, refused to play the music of "pedophiles"? Did those relevant artist have to go through the things that MJ went through personally, starting from 1993 only to explode during the 2002- 2005 period? Do you think that someone who is being accused of the worst thing possible on this earth, has the time, the energy or the physical strength to "develop themselfs artistically" when almost a whole world is basically doing everything to bring them down by mocking, ridiculing, accusing, labeling them them, trying to put them to jail,trying to take their kids away, trying to bury their work as an artist and basically trying to bury them as a human being?

So, when this guy is saying that MJ failed where his fellow artists kept going, shouldn't he just take into consideration MJ's situation before he going on comparing?

For example. Why not compare Madonna to Prince? I don't think anyone of them was facing any kind of trial where their life and future was being determined.Why compare with MJ? Don't you think that the comparison is a bit unfair and stupid? Don't you think that it is like mixing apples and pears, as you said? And don't you think that people who know what MJ went through that period of time have every right to be mad at stupid comments made by a guy who is so obvious that is an attention w.... well you know.

 

[marebear]

Ahmm no one said that.
Reading is big problem here. You guys read, but you can't read.

I am sorry but that is not necessary. We are adults not little kids. Maybe people just don't agree with your opinion. We are all just giving our opinions on these topics that's all.

 

[Sunwalker7]

Lom kit, you have this definition of relevance, fine. It's just that I haven't seen anyone else use the word "relevant" to mean "currently on the charts".

It would also be nice if you could make your argument without insulting other posters' reading skills. I get the impression from your posts that you believe everyone who disagrees with you just doesn't like to face the facts or can't read. Maybe that's not the issue here. Maybe people just disagree with you.

 

[gerryevans]

But i think that you and this producer here, should acknowledge the fact that, unlike Madonna (and i hate to bring her name because it's not she who is responcible for the comments made by this "producer")and all the other artist who were relevant during the period that MJ wasn't, they weren't facing the crap that MJ did.

Did those relevant artists have TV and radio station boycotting their music because their owners and people who worked there, refused to play the music of "pedophiles"? Did those relevant artist have to go through the things that MJ went through personally, starting from 1993 only to explode during the 2002- 2005 period? Do you think that someone who is being accused of the worst thing possible on this earth, has the time, the energy or the physical strength to "develop themselfs artistically" when almost a whole world is basically doing everything to bring them down by mocking, ridiculing, accusing, labeling them them, trying to put them to jail,trying to take their kids away, trying to bury their work as an artist and basically trying to bury them as a human being?

So, when this guy is saying that MJ failed where his fellow artists kept going, shouldn't he just take into consideration MJ's situation before he going on comparing?

For example. Why not compare Madonna to Prince? I don't think anyone of them was facing any kind of trial where their life and future was being determined.Why compare with MJ? Don't you think that the comparison is a bit unfair and stupid? Don't you think that it is like mixing apples and pears, as you said? And don't you think that people who know what MJ went through that period of time have every right to be mad at stupid comments made by a guy who is so obvious that is an attention w.... well you know.

So well said. Thank you.

 

[lom kit]

It's ok to disagree, else we won't discuss if we are all the same opinion. Just all the things i've listed should in my opinion seen as a whole. and not taking one by one either as i said no new music, touring, charts presents and so on. you don't like my argumentation. I have the feeling that you guys think what i say is like i'm refering his whole carriere was't relevant. I'm not saying he was nothing. I don't bring him down.
80s and 90s were. the last 10 years of his carrier wasn't. and please stop reminding me of the trial all the time. Im not ignoring it. Nor i'm blaming him for anything.

I say it's albums, touring, charts presents, been active as singer is what it make it.
the opposed argumennts:
one says: albums can be bad or not liked by fans.
the others says: devolop yourself could be positive or negative.
next: charts is arbitrary

So thats why i say you guys pick them one by one.

Whitney, was she the last decade? No.
I'm not saying she didn't archive anything. she did have troubles in her life the last 12 years too. and that was what has held her from staying relevant in music bussiness as she was in the 80s and 90s. she did release albums and videos, singles.

was Prince? no. he had albums, tours.

Janet? no. superbowl was her doom. albums and tours failed.

no one denies their influence & relevance in the music history. just both wasn't importand as in the 80 & 90.

You'll problably say that i'm contradicting myself now.

who was relevant the last decade?
Rihanna, L. Gaga, U2, Eminem, Katy Perry, Kaney West and others.

if you like what they are doing is other thing.

 

[anak]

^^ yOU say in a previus comment that people here confuse ifluence with being relaivant and i say you confuse being relLLEvant with being PopuLLAr.

 

[lom kit]

^^As superficial it is. they both come close after one and other.

Or to say, been popullar is what makes you relevant.

 

[anak]

^^ ok then. yOU see it that way i see it diferently. i Don''t believe that what makes you relevant is if you ppopular, but if you believe it is then fine. i was about to bring you examples of how wrong is what you say but i seaw people have already done it so is not necesary. we have all to agre to idsagree on this.

 

[HIStory]

^^ Besides Michael WAS popular. If he hadn't been he would not have sold out 50 O2 shows. He just didn't release new music after Vince. I really don't know what's Lom Kit's point is. The whole comparison came from Madonna's producer as a way to say that somehow this makes Madonna greater in his eyes. But the whole argument is flawed when you consider the circumstances (allegations, trial etc.). It's like as if I would boast: I can run faster than Carl Lewis (when his leg is broken).

next: charts is arbitrary

That's not what I said, Lom Kit. I said your criteria of what makes someone relevant are arbitrary. I personally cannot see how someone who sells out 50 O2 shows in minutes is irrelevant, no matter how long ago he has released his last album. This fact alone shows that there was still a huge interest in him - ie. he was relevant.

 

[lom kit]

^^ ok then. yOU see it that way i see it diferently. i Don''t believe that what makes you relevant is if you ppopular, but if you believe it is then fine. i was about to bring you examples of how wrong is what you say but i seaw people have already done it so is not necesary. we have all to agre to idsagree on this.

To be fair, why was Michael relevant in the 80s 90s?
because of big album sales, records set, chart performance, videos, tours. that was because of creative videos and great dance ability. the summary of that all made him popular.
His music is definately not the best ever written and made. and his dance not just the perfect ever performed. It was one of very best. that was what made him popular.
there are plently of other artist that made greater music and dance good as Michael, but they are unknow or not that famous. Doesn't mean, they weren't influence to someone at all.


If i say JT is popular, because of all the above.
One will say, sales don't mean great music. TRUE.

If I say Rihanna is because of charts.
Other of you will say, chart performance doesn't mean your record is that good or influentional. Today charts aren't on the same as 20 years. TRUE

If I say Lady Gaga is because of her concerts
Next will say, tours.? some like it some not. TRUE

If I say Elvis is relevant.
the opositive will say he hadn't have album release since 15 years(???).


But viewed as whole one ist what makes you popular, which leads to relevance in todays music.

That was what made Michael Jackson who he was for today in music history.

what if he wasn't that popular as he was?

I hope you understand the logic i'm on. thats why i say some of you are picky by argue on separate points that they don't suit you.

 

[Paris78]

Nothing more to say like this:

Social Top 50 Charts Billboard: Michael Jackson at 6; Madonna is at 39
Madonna's new Song is at 58 in the Top 100

Source: www.billboard.com

 

[lom kit]

^^please respect77 or others who say how wrong I am, comment on that.
I made my point on that in my post above.
Or to make some example for you, Katy Perry. now you.
ps: what are social top50?

 

[Paris78]

^^please respect77 or others who say how wrong I am, comment on that.
I made my point on that in my post above.
Or to make some example for you, Katy Perry. now you.
ps: what are social top50?

A ranking of the most active artists on the world's leading social networking sites. The Social 50 chart tallies artists' popularity using their weekly additions of friends/fans/followers, along with weekly artist page views and weekly song plays on Myspace, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and iLike.

 

[gerryevans]

It's ok to disagree, else we won't discuss if we are all the same opinion. Just all the things i've listed should in my opinion seen as a whole. and not taking one by one either as i said no new music, touring, charts presents and so on. you don't like my argumentation. I have the feeling that you guys think what i say is like i'm refering his whole carriere was't relevant. I'm not saying he was nothing. I don't bring him down.

80s and 90s were. the last 10 years of his carrier wasn't. and please stop reminding me of the trial all the time. Im not ignoring it. Nor i'm blaming him for anything.

I get what you’re saying about the whole, but you’re being constantly reminded about the trial “period” (which began in '03with Bashir) because the trial period brought everything to a complete HALT.

Fact is MJ WAS successful in the beginning of the last ten years of his life (1999). He charted in 2001 with Rock My World. His 2001 30th anniversary television special was one of the highest rated in television history. He was about to follow that with a tour, but 9/11 happened, and no major artist toured.

Then in ’03 when he was publicly venturing back out there, it was with Bashir.

two more things. I think Michael decided to step back from music after Invincible for some period of time, because of his personal life. Doesn't mean he wasn't working on new matterial. the trial messed up alot. but i thnik last decade wouldnt have been less that much of active as the 90s were, even if there was no trial..

I agree. Trial or no trial, I don’t know if Michael would have been as active with new music product as in the past even though he was constantly working on music. He had been saying since his Bad days he wanted to devote himself to movie making. Plus, he now had his children and his focus had greatly shifted.

But the trial ended ALL career endeavors. That's what makes it wholly significant.

He couldn’t focus on any parts of the “whole” thereafter, be it new music, touring, appearances, movies or anything else. His life was literally at stake from '03-'05. After '05, he didn’t care as much about the whole or any of its parts. And who could blame him. He had been brutalized. And all he’d ever wanted to do was make people happy and “give them something they’d never seen before”.

But the whole argument is flawed when you consider the circumstances (allegations, trial etc.). It's like as if I would boast: I can run faster than Carl Lewis (when his leg is broken).

This is a great analogy.

Michael was broken as devastatingly as any leg or entire body break by 2005. He had persevered through the ’93 allegations and continued to give everything he had, but everyone who knew him says he was never quite the same after ’93.

After the second allegations and the trial, he just wanted out. And got out. Out of his own country. For his own sanity. You couldn’t turn on a television or radio and not hear the most demeaning, hateful, vile commentary or jokes about Michael Jackson.

And this is a period when some producer and other industry folks are talking about relevance like he should have been out there still singing and dancing when he was in a battle for his emotional and physical well being. I don’t know any fan who saw the debilitated MJ after that trial and weren’t concerned or just plain scared for him.

I also don’t know of any other artist the industry would have expected to put out product during this time.

Kind of interesting they ignore what was happening to him then and also ignore what happened when he decided to emerge from his self-imposed retreat and had a historic ticket sale.

Just proves MJ was as relevant as he wanted to be when he wanted to be it.

 

[teli-mj]

To be fair, why was Michael relevant in the 80s 90s?
because of big album sales, records set, chart performance, videos, tours. that was because of creative videos and great dance ability. the summary of that all made him popular.
His music is definately not the best ever written and made. and his dance not just the perfect ever performed. It was one of very best. that was what made him popular.
there are plently of other artist that made greater music and dance good as Michael, but they are unknow or not that famous. Doesn't mean, they weren't influence to someone at all.


If i say JT is popular, because of all the above.
One will say, sales don't mean great music. TRUE.

If I say Rihanna is because of charts.
Other of you will say, chart performance doesn't mean your record is that good or influentional. Today charts aren't on the same as 20 years. TRUE

If I say Lady Gaga is because of her concerts
Next will say, tours.? some like it some not. TRUE

If I say Elvis is relevant.
the opositive will say he hadn't have album release since 15 years(???).


But viewed as whole one ist what makes you popular, which leads to relevance in todays music.

That was what made Michael Jackson who he was for today in music history.

what if he wasn't that popular as he was?

I hope you understand the logic i'm on. thats why i say some of you are picky by argue on separate points that they don't suit you.

Can i ask you something? Why wasn't Michael Jackson relevant, in your opinion, in the time period that Madonna's producer says he wasn't? I'm not being ironic by the way, i just ask you.

 

[lom kit]

^^ I just want to make clear i'm not agreen with the producer guy.

And I repeated myself constantly, so if you really want to know why, read back. sorry its just annoyng to post for 15th time the same.

factualy he wasn't. it's not about what would have been or not. thats why no need to remind me of the trial for 1000th time.

TII was coming back and the release of the new album would have bring him in that position.

 

[bluetopez]

It's pointless. It's best to just agree to disagree and move on. To me MJ was revelant in the 2000's IMO in many different ways. He didn't need to chart for the whole decade just for me to notice this! smh lol

 

[lom kit]

It's pointless. It's best to just agree to disagree and move on. To me MJ was revelant in the 2000's IMO in many different ways. He didn't need to chart for the whole decade just to me to notice this! smh lol

Now I agree on that one.

Personaly for you all he was. As actual (can't find the right word) point of view he wasn't.

 

[Moon__Walk]

^^ I just want to make clear i'm not agreen with the producer guy.

And I repeated myself constantly, so if you really want to know why, read back. sorry its just annoyng to post for 15th time the same.

factualy he wasn't. it's not about what would have been or not. thats why no need to remind me of the trial for 1000th time.

TII was coming back and the release of the new album would have bring him in that position.

But like many have said, relevance is a subjective matter. To many of us on this forum and across the World, Michael was hugely relevant to us in the 2000's. Listening to Michael Jackson everyday, or watching Peformances/ Video's would make him relevant in our day to day activities. I understand what your saying, but in the end Relevance can only truly be deemed by the actual person, and their behavior.

 

[teli-mj]

^^ I just want to make clear i'm not agreen with the producer guy.

And I repeated myself constantly, so if you really want to know why, read back. sorry its just annoyng to post for 15th time the same.

factualy he wasn't. it's not about what would have been or not. thats why no need to remind me of the trial for 1000th time.

TII was coming back and the release of the new album would have bring him in that position.

No actually i was trying to get somewhere with my question and it didn't concern only MJ, as i have already said. There are lots of artist that i love and many of them are not so active or productive right now. Kinda like it was MJ back in the 00s.But in no way would i ever call them irrelevant just because they don't tour or don't release cd etc. They are very much relevant to me and to people who listen to they music. So you see i can't agree with your definition of relevance and i agree with those who said that you might confuse relevance with popularity. Anyway, we all made our points. it's time for me to move on.

 

[marebear]

I understand Michael was not as active in the music business in the 2000s as he was before but like it has been mentioned there were unfortunate cirumstances that prevented Michael from doing what he wanted to do. The way this producer guy sounds it feels like a put down to pump up Madonna who doesn't need to be pumped up. She is Madonna. He could have acknowledged the reasons why or used different words to be honest. That's just how I feel and my opinion on it.

 

[lom kit]

@teli-mj

It seams I left the impression that Michael's music was irelevant to me personaly. No! His music never was and never will. there is no day where i don't listen to his music. there is no day when I didn't liste to Scream-TDCAUS-ITC(medley) or BOTDF(live

 

[gerryevans]

It's pointless. It's best to just agree to disagree and move on. To me MJ was revelant in the 2000's IMO in many different ways. He didn't need to chart for the whole decade just for me to notice this! smh lol

You’re right. Time to agree to disagree.

If Elvis who's been dead for 35 years is still relevant and according to the music industry and receipts from his estate, he still is,...MJ who wasn't professionally active during a few tumultuous years, but then still was able to sell more tickets and faster than any artist EVER for a single venue, was, is, always has been, and always will be relevant.