Latest on MJJC

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

How many copies her last album sold? Four million copies. Michael was ripped for it when Incincible sold "only" 10 million...

And with all honesty her latest work sucks. In her latest video she's trying to act like 18 year olds at the age of 53. That's more embarassing than anything else.
 
55.jpg


What a MAROON Madonna pays to TALK for her :hysterical:
 
Clearly this Producer needs to get his fact straights! Selling out 50 02 Shows in 2009 and yet not relevant during the 2000's??

All for publicity, or he's extremely stupid.
 
Moon__Walk said:
Clearly this Producer needs to get his fact straights! Selling out 50 02 Shows in 2009 and yet not relevant during the 2000's??

All for publicity, or he's extremely stupid.
Click to expand...

HAHA I know.. which other artist could sell out 50 shows in ONE city when they have no definite new material to promote?
 
Vici said:
HAHA I know.. which other artist could sell out 50 shows in ONE city when they have no definite new material to promote?
Click to expand...

Exactly, not to mention a highly publicized court case and like you said, no new material since 2001's Invincible.
 
Solveig was already making crappy noise for himself, and now he is doing the same for Madonna. He's so full of himself. And such a moron.
 
MattyJam said:
Michael has a God-given gift.

Madonna does not.

End of.
Click to expand...

I do believe Madonna does have some talent though, and was one of the first female pop starts to frequently use sexuality as an image via Music Video's and create an exaggerated persona of herself. (Something an artist like Lady Gaga does not need to do, as she has far more talent.)

But to compare Madonna to Michael? No contest she'd lose.
 
What bugs me about this comment is that Michael didn't "fail to do" anything. He was largely inactive for the last decade of his life. It's not like he released album after album and lost popularity and relevance (like Janet). He made a conscious choice to step out of the game and raise his children. After almost an entire lifetime spent in the industry, I think he more than earned the right to take a break. And lets not forget, he was "relevant" at least 15 years before Madonna even had her first hit.

Besides, I hate this word "relevance" - relevant to whom? Is Dangerous no longer relevant in spite of the fact that millions of dedicated MJ fans hail it as his best work 21 years after it's release?? If relevance is determined by who is currently number one, then does last weeks number one become irrelevant? Relevance is entirely subjective, and I would argue that someone who only three years ago sold out 50 nights at the o2 in a matter of minutes is hugely relevant. I doubt any of todays so-called relevant stars could achieve that (including Madonna).
 
Last edited:
MattyJam said:
What bugs me about this comment is that Michael didn't "fail to do" anything. He was largely inactive for the last decade of his life. It's not like he released album after album and lost popularity and relevance (like Janet). He made a conscious choice to step out of the game and raise his children. After almost an entire lifetime spent in the industry, I think he more than earned the right to take a break. And lets not forget, he was "releavant" at least 15 years before Madonna even had her first hit.

Besides, I hate this word "relevance" - relevant to whom? Is Dangerous no longer relevant in spite of the fact that millions of dedicated MJ fans hail it as his best work 21 years after it's release?? If relevance is determined on who is currently number one, then does last weeks number one become irrelevant? Relevance is entirely subjective, and I would argue that someone who only three years ago sold out 50 nights at the o2 in a matter of minutes is hugely relevant. I doubt any of todays so-called relevant stars could achieve that.
Click to expand...

That is true, relevance can be a subjective thing, but if someone is going to make a statement based on the generalized public about MJ's status, you would have to conclude that Michael WAS relevant in the 2000,s whether you look at ticket sales of This Is It concert and movie, ratings for the memorial, ratings of the trial, Living With Michael Jackson ratings, even the fact that Michael Jackson: Number Ones is still on the Billboard 200.

But I 100% agree with you!
 
By the was was it this guy who produced Madonna's latest, the one that was released before the Superbowl? That's a crappy song with an embarassing video, so I think he should rather worry about that than trying to lift up Madonna's name by shading others.

It's also interesting that this is the one sentence the media picked out of a radio interview he gave. So not sentences where he talks about Madonna and her work, but where he talks about Michael Jackson. Enough said about who's relevant...

What bugs me about this comment is that Michael didn't "fail to do" anything. He was largely inactive for the last decade of his life. It's not like he released album after album and lost popularity and relevance (like Janet). He made a conscious choice to step out of the game and raise his children. After almost an entire lifetime spent in the industry, I think he more than earned the right to take a break. And lets not forget, he was "releavant" at least 15 years before Madonna even had her first hit.

Besides, I hate this word "relevance" - relevant to whom? Is Dangerous no longer relevant in spite of the fact that millions of dedicated MJ fans hail it as his best work 21 years after it's release?? If relevance is determined on who is currently number one, then does last weeks number one become irrelevant? Relevance is entirely subjective, and I would argue that someone who only three years ago sold out 50 nights at the o2 in a matter of minutes is hugely relevant. I doubt any of todays so-called relevant stars could achieve that.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Plus let's not forget the false allegations, the trial and what a hard time the media has given Michael, basically since 1993. The constant verbal lyncing, lies, lies, lies, going as far as paying people to tell horrible lies about him! Yet, after all that in 2009 he still sold out 50 O2 shows in just minutes!

I doubt anybodye else's career would have survived things like what Michael went through, let alone survive it like that! Or like this:

 
I read this article this morning and it has taken me all day to remember who Martin Solveig is. Damn what a fool. This is my comment on the article's website:

‘Michael Jackson’ and ‘failed’ in the same sentence does not compute. Martin Solveig, you’re lulzy and moronic …and now you’re off my ipod.
Click to expand...
 
^I remember with that Performance, the press were crapping on saying Michael had forgotten the words, when In actual fact he wasn't meant to sing it anyway!
 
How many tickets sold for This is it ? A lot for an 'irrelevant" artist.
 
Unfortunately he is right:
[h=2]Madonna Producer: “She Has Succeeded Where Michael Jackson Failed”[/h]
Michael´s last/final artistically and commercially successful album was HIStory and HIStory era was MJ´s even last although the most successful in his career, everything after 1999 failed!!!!

On the contrary, Madonna with Ray of Light album started her second phase of her career, she literally exploded as an artist..., but Michael.... was falling down... on almost everything..., but he was Michael Jackson, and was an Icon, but all the failures had dramatic impact on him... artistically he was burn out, and financially was desperate=no cash.

During the last 15 years, Madonna vs. Michael... Madonna has ruled the music, from 1998 to 2008 -5x album + 4x world tour, but Michael from 1998 to 2009: only 1 album + 6 GHs compilations, NO WORLD TOUR, 1 catastrophic interview (LWMJ), allegations, trial and one never implemented (world) tour, death.

We as the MJ fans have to be fair and honest - we can admire Michael for everything he had ever done or recorded, but we can not :fortuneteller:
 
Moonwalker.Fan;3603963 said:
Unfortunately he is right:
Madonna Producer: “She Has Succeeded Where Michael Jackson Failed”


Michael´s last/final artistically and commercially successful album was HIStory and HIStory era was MJ´s even last although the most successful in his career, everything after 1999 failed!!!!

On the contrary, Madonna with Ray of Light album started her second phase of her career, she literally exploded as an artist..., but Michael.... was falling down... on almost everything..., but he was Michael Jackson, and was an Icon, but all the failures had dramatic impact on him... artistically he was burn out, and financially was desperate=no cash.

During the last 15 years, Madonna vs. Michael... Madonna has ruled the music, from 1998 to 2008 -5x album + 4x world tour, but Michael from 1998 to 2009: only 1 album + 6 GHs compilations, NO WORLD TOUR, 1 catastrophic interview (LWMJ), allegations, trial and one never implemented (world) tour, death.

We as the MJ fans have to be fair and honest - we can admire Michael for everything he had ever done or recorded, but we can not :fortuneteller:
Click to expand...


What a load of croak.

MJ not releasing new music between 2002 & 2009 was his personal choice. His last studio album (Invincible in 2001) still outsold Madonna's. Even in his younger days, MJ never released back to back albums...he always waited 4/5 year in between, unlike Madonna.

When will people understand the number of outputs isn't nearly as important as the QUALITY?
 
Ha Ha Ha~~~This is one of the most funny comment I've ever see. This must be a joke. For him needing to mention MJ in that sentence, we know who has more influence. If MJ is not relevant any more, people won't even mention his name.
 
If it wasn't for the false allegations i'm sure that Michael would have released more albums in the 00's. During the time of 2003-2005 Michael had bigger problems than releasing another album and after the 2005 trial Michael probably needed a good year or two to recover. Something like that can drain anyone, physically and emotionaly.
 
No one is denying Madonna released more music in the 2000s than Michael, but I think it's bad taste to make that comparison when you think of everything Michael had to deal with in the 2000s. I really don't think it's fair to blame him for not releasing more albums at that time.

And I don't see how it makes any sense to say that HIStory was Michael's last succesful era. Invincible wasn't his best-selling album, but it outsold all albums Madonna released in the 2000s. If Invincible was a commercial failure, then so were all of Madonna's albums.

Madonna's had a great career, and I have a lot of respect for her. It just bothers me that some people can't compliment her without insulting Michael. Why did Solveig even bring him up? He had nothing to do with the topic they were discussing.
 
Moonwalker.Fan;3603963 said:
Unfortunately he is right:
[h=2]Madonna Producer: “She Has Succeeded Where Michael Jackson Failed”[/h]
Click to expand...

OH PLEASE! LOL!

Wake me up when "somebody" ("anybody") sells out FIFTY shows in one city. (It "probably" could have been more, if he gave the okay.) Then we can talk.

No new music, nothing new to promote, but he was still able to pull that off. He had fans flying in from ALL OVER THE WORLD just to seem him. The man was pure magic, just because! There are a million & one artist out there who would cut off the tip of their pinky finger to have an OUNCE of that magic. REAL TALK!
 
Right,, Invincible still outsold all of Madonna's albums didn't it?
 
@ Moonwalker.Fan


Michael´s last/final artistically and commercially successful album was HIStory and HIStory era was MJ´s even last although the most successful in his career, everything after 1999 failed!!!!
Click to expand...

Funny that you say everything Michael did after 1999 failed and everything Madonna did was a success. If Invincible was a failure so were Madonna's albums in the 2000s! Invincible sold 10 million copies. It's not like Madonna's albums sold 30 million in the 2000s. The only Madonna album that outsold Vince in the 2000s was "Music" in 2000 which sold 15 million. Good for her, but considering the huge difference in the promotion of the two albums that's not too bad for Michael either. So how is Madonna a success when she sells 15 million of an album with huge promotion and how is Michael a failure when he sells 10 million copies of an album with hardly any promotion, with no artistic freedom as to what singles to release etc.? And after 2001 no Madonna album sold more than Vince! Her latest album in 2008 sold four million copies...

On the contrary, Madonna with Ray of Light album started her second phase of her career, she literally exploded as an artist..., but Michael.... was falling down... on almost everything..., but he was Michael Jackson, and was an Icon, but all the failures had dramatic impact on him... artistically he was burn out, and financially was desperate=no cash.
Click to expand...

"Ray of Light" was released in 1998, not after 1999, so that was closer to HIStory era Michael than to the 2000s Michael. "Ray of Light" sold 20 million copies, so did HIStory - as a double album (thus at a more expensive price). But while "Ray of Light" was one of Madonna's biggest commercial successes, Invincible (selling the same amount as "Ray of Light"!) was bashed as a "flop". It juts goes to show how biased journalists are or/and that they always set lot higher standards for Michael than even for Madonna.

During the last 15 years, Madonna vs. Michael... Madonna has ruled the music, from 1998 to 2008 -5x album + 4x world tour, but Michael from 1998 to 2009: only 1 album + 6 GHs compilations, NO WORLD TOUR, 1 catastrophic interview (LWMJ), allegations, trial and one never implemented (world) tour, death.
Click to expand...

Madonna ruled music beteween 1998 to 2008? LOL. I didn't realize that. The Madonna I saw in the 2000s was one who was desperate to keep up with her young pretenders, Britney, Lady Gaga and the like making shallow music that would fit in those trends - and that's not a compliment. Have you heard her latest single "Give me all your loving"? I'm sorry but I don't see her exploding as an artist, on the contrary. You know I'd rather have Michael release nothing at all than releasing something like that!

Madonna can be happy that that she was never treated like dirt by the media (perhaps something to do with race, I don't know) and that she was always a media darling whether she deserved it or not. I'd like to see how many albums Madonna would sell after being falsely accused with a horrible crime! How many world tours she would do if newspapers would pay people to tell horrible lies about her! I'd like to see how many albums she would do if she was put on trial with horrible false allegations and if virtually all the media turned against her and trashed her and ridiculed her! And I'd like to see Madonna sell out O2 50 times after she's gone through all that.
 
teli-mj said:
And how is relevance exactly defined?
Click to expand...

Doing cartwheels and dancing with pom poms when you're in your 50s apparently.

This 'producer' was stupid to use mj as an example of not being relevant, mj never ever had that 'elvis walking down sunset boulevard unrecognised' moment since he was 11yrs old. The man always was and is THE yardstick by which every music artist is measured by.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top