Latest on MJJC

Is Michael Jackson Underrated?

It's nice to see people agreeing with me on that. Whatever about The Beatles, Michael Jackson definitely outsold Elvis in record sales.
 
mc8755 said:
It's nice to see people agreeing with me on that. Whatever about The Beatles, Michael Jackson definitely outsold Elvis in record sales.
Click to expand...

and the only reason why The Beatles have outsold Michael is because they have more albums than him. If both of them had the same amount of albums then Michael probably would have outsold The Beatles
 
mc8755 said:
Maybe read my whole post before jumping on a non-sensical whim...
Click to expand...
First of all i meant to say TYPING.
Second i mantain what i said, even though i know Michael became big in he 80's not in the 50s or 60s so theres a big diffence there. And yes The Beatles have more albums than Michael.
 
Last i dont care as i stated before about the "who sold more thing "(writen it, on the first posts....) that won't tell me if an artist is good or not... for sure The Beatles are great, but Michael was a solo artist and his artistry is far more innovative, on every aspect, mainly cause it was all HIM and he was simply genius, The Beatles were a GROUP, Paul as a solo artist (though he he has incredible albums) is nowhere close to Michael Jackson :)

I dont know where all this competion comes from, because one is a group, the other is a solo, totally different things... but its all about that and frankly i dont give a f. But i do hate injustice, thats why i stand up in cases like these, cause really, I DONT CARE WHO SELLS MORE, i dont :)
 
Last edited:
And in the end YES in the 60's one actually sold more RECORDS, nowadays is more downloading than anything, in the sixties, you couldnt do that...
 
Yeah I get what your saying, but I believe the Beatles have sold the most due to quantity. If Michael released another album between Thriller and Bad and Another between Dangerous and HIStory, Michael would be the best selling artist of all time... :O
 
Well, Michael Jackson is known as being the greatest entertainer of all time. Therefore, no, for that reason alone, he is not underrated to me.
 
OnOurWay said:
People get caught up in the spectacle of his performing and dancing skill that fans become fixated on that aspect and somewhat chose to not acknowledge the other aspects that comprise "Michael Jackson". Casual fans don't and probably will never understand the lyrical depth of songs like SIM, MITM, DD, or TJ. They just like the songs for what they are rather than what they stand for. Only when you become a true fan do you fully begin to understand the man we know as Michael Jackson.
Click to expand...

This is the truth!
 
I think MJ is underrated in many areas. Despite being the most famous man on the planet, and being heralded as one of the all time great entertainers by all and sundry, there are still some aspects of his professional (and personal) life which are largely unknown.

With regards to stage show planning, This Is It opened many people's eyes. People were going into theatres, seeing, for the first time, MJ behind the scenes directing every small detail of music, timing, dancing etc. For some reason he didn't really show himself working to the public at large.

Many people don't realise that most of his biggest hits were songs he wrote himself. Through comparison with Prince, many people just see him as a singer with no real musical ability. Whilst he wasn't an instrument person like Prince, his mind was essentially an all encompassing instrument and his ear for detail was, by all accounts, remarkable. Couple his musical brain with his extremely versatile voice and mouth, he was able to replicate instruments using only what he was born with.

Only recently I've seen a video of Rodney Jerkins talking about his knowledge of the music industry in a business sense. There were just so many strings to his bow.

I think even us hardcore fans still have no idea just how far his talent stretched. Some people may be able to dance as well as him. Some may be able to write as well as him. There may even be singers as good as him. However I can't imagine anyone else having the whole package as he had it coupled with an ego curtailed by a profound sense of humility.

I've heard people say that someone of that calibre only comes along every 100 years. I'd call that extremely optimistic.
 
babykinsilk05 said:
He's been hailded as the "Greatest ENTERTAINER that Ever Lived/of all time" or the "King of Pop" but there is hardly ever any mention of his musicianship, like his writting, producing, beatboxing, composing, ect...I know he didn't really play a truckload of instruments but is that enough to reduce his greatness to simply Entertainer? I've come across so many people who see MJ as simple a "song and dance" man, and it annoys me because I know he was soooo much more then that. Any Thoughts...?
Click to expand...


agreed - there are a fair number of people that think of his music as simplistic. It might be because they're not listening very carefully or they just need an artist to play a guitar to consider him/her talented. Another problem is that more than a few mj songs are a little weak when it comes to lyrics. You have to admit he has a record of using syrupy and literal lyrics at the expense of subtle allusions. That's not always true, but if you want to say that about him you have plenty of songs to choose from. IMHO, his real talent was in creating new sounds and in composition and layering tracks (of course that doesn't include performance which is a whole other dimension). I think people that are looking for technically difficult chord progressions on a guitar and so-called "clever" lyrics don't listen for what's really going on in a michael jackson song.
 
I think Michael is underrated, in part because there is no way to rate him. He excells at everything he does--singing, composing, dancing, choregraphing, conceptualizing-writing-directing-producing short films, his poetry is hearbreakingly beautiful, no one stages a show the way he does (I know he has help).....add to that his philanthropy and what is described as natural business savvy. How do you rate such a person? You are inspired and amazed by him, or you are envious and want to see him fail at something.
 
To all of the above I'd add his genius for creating an unforgettable image..a kind of 'brand Michael' that has become timeless and can never be usurped by anyone else.. As Chaplin had the suit, cane, hat, and walk, Michael has the glove, hat, socks etc.
Who else currently is recognised just by their shadow, or by the outline of their feet, or by a particular stance?
(In the past I can think of Hitchcock for his shadow...but I can't think of anyone else right now).
 
Particularly his post-Bad work is underrated. The general conception is there was Thriller, Bad, and then a few "flops." But Dangerous, HIStory, Blood on the Dance Floor, and Invincible all had amazing tracks that were ahead of their time and still hold up today.
 
I've actually heard some people in the media say this

''Although the Dangerous album sold alot of copies fans still viewed the album as a disapointment''


This just makes me laugh. The Dangerous album is a fan favorite. The media must have spoke to the wrong group of fans.
 
analogue said:
I've actually heard some people in the media say this

''Although the Dangerous album sold alot of copies fans still viewed the album as a disapointment''


This just makes me laugh. The Dangerous album is a fan favorite. The media must have spoke to the wrong group of fans.
Click to expand...

haha - maybe Quincy Jones is getting them to write that :). Dangerous was actually the first one I owned and I'd put it up there with OTW, Thriller, and Bad. Post-Dangerous every album had good songs, but it felt like there were always a few tracks that shouldn't have made the final cut or were retreads of old themes from previous albums.
 
Here's a great quote from Michael

''I'm the captain of my ship. I'll take suggestions and listen to what others have to say but the final decision is mine''


There you have it. Michael had the final say on what ever he worked on. He was humble enough to take suggestions from others but he was the boss.
 
Yes, he is. People compare him to The Beatles--yeah, they're OK if you're into that kind of thing, but only as a band. If I recall correctly, they all pretty much suck as solo artists, with Ringo Starr being the worst one of them all when it comes to solo stuff (although McCartney is halfway decent.) The Beatles worked as a band, but alone, they're nothing special. I know a lot of people, especially Americans, like them and think they're god or something, but I just don't see it. *shrugs*

Elvis deserves some credit for being a revolutionary, though. His stuff was legitimately quality, and he gets props for being a music/dance pioneer, but if I recall rightly, he didn't write any of his own material.

So...if you compare them on merit alone (forget sales--people buy stupid sh!t all the time, and I'm not counting those numbers simply because it measures popularity and not real quality) then Michael is indeed pretty goddamn under-rated. He truly was the best, period, and he proved it throughout his life.

He outshone Elvis because, unlike him, Michael actually wrote his own songs, and did more to revolutionize dance/music/entertainment, introducing the concept of a music video, which will live on for a long time to come, if not forever. That was his idea, his vision, and others after him have taken from it, whether willingly or grudgingly.

He's outshone the Beatles in that he was always truly brilliant alone. He was a multi-talented wunderkind, and did not really need any of his brothers to shine on. As a matter of fact, he was better without them, as events prove. The Beatles, once they broke up, fell apart, because none of them had that individual spark, and their real (I guess) magic happened when they were together. So, as individual artists, they were all pretty mediocre, whereas Michael was this lone, brilliant, amazing thing.

So, as far as I'm concerned, he's got them all beat. People just don't like to admit it for some strange, stupid reason. So yes, IMO, he is very underrated.
 
Siyahamba said:
Particularly his post-Bad work is underrated. The general conception is there was Thriller, Bad, and then a few "flops." But Dangerous, HIStory, Blood on the Dance Floor, and Invincible all had amazing tracks that were ahead of their time and still hold up today.
Click to expand...

I think this is very accurate. From comparing many of the critical and mainstream reviews in the music press, there is a noticeable decline in the opinions following Bad. Of course Bad had its share of unfair criticism too, but certainly post-Bad the work is very much underrated. Some of Michael's best work in those years is likely to never have come to the attention of people outside the fan community. He experimented and evolved with new sounds and styles, but that genius was wrongly overshadowed time and time again as we know.
 
as a singer and song writer he is very underrated...as a dancer/performer he is hailed as number one

michael may not have been the best singer out there with the best voice but he had a very distinctive voice and once you heard him you knew exactly who it was

he used his voice as an instrument as well so that was very unique...most people wo arent serious fans only think of nillie jean and bad wen they think of his songwriting abilities but they dont know anything about other incredible songs he wrote such as speechless, will you be there, wanna be startin something and so on...threatened is like my mj song of the month right now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top