Latest on MJJC

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

Also to be fair, while her sales weren't bad Madonna never even had a number one album in the 90's! If it were MJ, no matter how well they sold his albums would have been called flops.
 
lom kit said:
With "Ray of Light" Madonna succeed to come away from the image as "stupid hoe" that has only sex in her mind.

But i have to say one thing, that not many would not agree, Madonna had developed artistically, where Michael, leave his troubles after 2000 aside, was stuck in the past. I mean watch her tours especially the "Drowned", "Re-invention" AND "Confessions" and you'll undestand what i mean. In all these tours she presented something new and different to her last tour. All her classics had new versions and new themes.
where Michael, although said he would like to make something different with his "oldies", he was afraid that people won't like it, cause they expect at an special point to do the special move and so on. And that was his problem, he should have done it. And as i say he was stuck, TII proved. He was doing the same old routines, hes been doing all these years. Ok, it was nice to see him back there, where he stoped.
In place of Thriller, Beat it, Sc, WBSS, HN, DD and 4 songs that have the same theme as MITM, he should have performed
Is it scary or Ghosts, Butteflys, 2000watts, YRMW, Unbreakable, WH, GITM, WII, 2bad and ect. that would have been awesome and fresh. Or do something inetresting with his "oldies but goodies". History was from dance point of view his best, else it was borring.
ok for TII, he had olny 4 months to get back in shape and put a show together. Michael always had his own head, but still, he was surrounded by "yes sayers", that didn't came or afraid to gave him some new ideas.

these commets by that producer aren't that wrong, just viewed from the wrong point of view.
Click to expand...

But fans voted for MJ to include these songs. He invited fans to take part & create the track listing, it's not fair to criticize him for going with what fans wanted to see.
 
The reason why MJ was doin his classic/oldies songs on TII was because MJ asked the fans what they wanted to here, like duh! Doesn't take a rocken scientist to figure that one out...unless u forgot!? So I don't see why that is even being brought up to compare him to Madonna Lom Kit?!

Also I could have sworn MJ definetly had new ideas and mix it in with his old routines for TII. That is what I saw when watching the movie! Which to me was pretty freakin awesome. But, it seems like some just wanted him to completly changed up routines and the songs like I Have seen Madonna do on her tours to the point where the songs that she was famous for where barely recognizable. And frankly I'm so glad MJ did not do that, because that is something I as a fan of over 20yrs wouldn't have enjoyed. I like MJ approach of mixing in something new but, keepin it still classic.

Also I find it disrespectful and selfish that anyone would say MJ took to long after the trial to get back to his career. Seriously, unless u were the one facing yrs in jail, loosing ur freedom/career and most important ur children over false allegations and greed u shouldn't even dare to say some ish like that! That isn't somethng u get over so quickly! MJ was a human being not a damn machine to make people like u happy!
 
Last edited:
bluetopez said:
The reason why MJ was doin his classic/oldies songs on TII was because MJ asked the fans what they wanted to here, like duh! Doesn't take a rocken scientist to figure that one out...unless u forgot!? So I don't see why that is even being brought up to compare him to Madonna Lom Kit?!

Also I could have sworn MJ definetly had new ideas and mix it in with his old routines for TII. That is what I saw when watching the movie! Which to me was pretty freakin awesome. But, it seems like some just wanted him to completly changed up routines and the songs like I Have seen Madonna do on her tours to the point where the songs that she was famous for where barely recognizable. And frankly I'm so glad MJ did not do that, because that is something I as a fan of over 20yrs wouldn't have enjoyed. I like MJ approach of mixing in something new but, keepin it still classic.

Also I find it disrespectful and selfish that anyone would say MJ took to long after the trial to get back to his career. Seriously, unless u where the one facing yrs in jail, loosing ur freedom/career and most important ur children over false allegations and greed u shouldn't even dare to say some ish like that! That isn't somethng u get over so quickly! MJ was a human being not a damn machine to make people like u happy!
Click to expand...

I saw the same thing. He took what he did and added new things and ideas to it to make it fresh but also keep to what people loved about the song and the performance. Michael loved his fans and gave them what they wanted. It felt like you were seeing it for the first time. He came back when he felt the time was right and he spent quality time with his children that are now the memories they carry with them now that he is gone.
 
It's funny, cos when ever someone Is compared to MJ's career people forget about the Mike as a kid. Maddona started out in her 20's and was IMO okay - but look at MJ he started out and became a star at 8 years old and was naturaly amazing. I think MJ's career from kid to teenager alone is up there with Maddona's entire career let alone what he did as an adult....!!

People really do forget how good, how many albums/songs and many many shows and performances MJ did with the Jackson 5 / and the Jacksons...... and all through that he was amazing!!!!!
 
Last edited:
marebear said:
I saw the same thing. He took what he did and added new things and ideas to it to make it fresh but also keep to what people loved about the song and the performance. Michael loved his fans and gave them what they wanted. It felt like you were seeing it for the first time. He came back when he felt the time was right and he spent quality time with his children that are now the memories they carry with them now that he is gone.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Plus, I don't know how anyone can argue ideas like Lightman, MJ air, using 3d on a tour, wanting to burn his beat it jacket on stage, having his billie jean outfit glowing on stage, the drill, adding threaten to the end of thriller and so on not being new ideas and the same ol same ol? Talking about wanting something different in ur face and not noticing it or appreciating atleast! SMH

It's funny, cos when ever someone Is compared to MJ's career people forget about the Mike as a kid. Maddona started out in her 20's and was IMO okay - but look at MJ he started out and became a star at 8 years old and was naturaly amazing. I think MJ's career from kid to teenager alone is up there with Maddona's entire career let alone what he did as an adult....!!

People really do forget how good, how many albums/songs and many many shows and performances MJ did with the Jackson 5 / and the Jacksons...... and all through that he was amazing!!!!!
Click to expand...
Thank u for saying this. Because I love young MJ and yes people do forget when comparing him to Madonna and Prince that he had a great career with amazing performances long before they did as a child star something niether one of them had. Not even Elvis was a child star! That's why no one compares to MJs career IMO!
 
Last edited:
What does Madonna, her producer and her album need right now? Attention.

They're obviously just trying to get some...
 
raz2911 said:
Also to be fair, while her sales weren't bad Madonna never even had a number one album in the 90's! If it were MJ, no matter how well they sold his albums would have been called flops.
Click to expand...

That's true. Michael Jackson is the only artist who can sell 30 million albums and have it be called a flop
 
So,i have a question. Do you all measure the importance of an artist based on how many records they have sold or how many people know them,or how many tours they have done? So, all those artists who have contributed to shape the music as we know it today but for whatever reason were not so prolific or active in their later years, they are all considered irrelevant because we don't see them or hear them as much as we did when they were at their prime? What kind of logic is that? How can some of you base someone's importance only in things like that?

And yes, MJ was not prolific at all on the time between 2000 -2009, does that make him less important than his peers or all the other artists? Just because he didn't do as many concerts as some people or write as many songs as some others as a solo artist, does that make him any less important? Just because he didn't do as many Rolling Stones or magazines covers as others, does that make him less relevant? If you think this way, then you what can i say.

Oh, i have something to say. Look around you and see the influence of Mike on music, dance, videos and then tell me how irrelevant he was or is. I personally i'm not going to let an idiot indicate to me how success or value or importance is measured. It's not measured with album sales, that's for sure. Because if it was that way, then Backstreet boys would be considered legends compared to Stevie Wonder, which, realistically, they are not.

This is why, this man's comment was totally stupid.


Oh, and by the way, Thriller, which is not my favorite MJ album, is not important because it sold that much, is it because of it's musically and artistically content and of the fact that is has influenced art, music, whatever, in so many ways. When some of you bring the sales up in order to prove MJ value as an artist, you actually do him wrong because people out there, people who know about music, don't give a SH*T about sales. It's the music, the art that it is important. And that's why MJ will always be relevant as much as some people don't like it. Because hi music, HIS ART are,in the most part, flawless. That is whats counts the most and not how many ten years old know him.

End of rant.
 
LMAO to Martin Solvieg. He can have his opinion. But to say Madonna succeeded where MJ didn't goes a bit far. When have you heard new and aspiring musicians and dancers say they were inspired by Madonna.....?? Oh wait.... I've never heard that, they are all inspired by Michael Jackson!
 
bluetopez said:
The reason why MJ was doin his classic/oldies songs on TII was because MJ asked the fans what they wanted to here, like duh! Doesn't take a rocken scientist to figure that one out...unless u forgot!? So I don't see why that is even being brought up to compare him to Madonna Lom Kit?!

Also I could have sworn MJ definetly had new ideas and mix it in with his old routines for TII. That is what I saw when watching the movie! Which to me was pretty freakin awesome. But, it seems like some just wanted him to completly changed up routines and the songs like I Have seen Madonna do on her tours to the point where the songs that she was famous for where barely recognizable. And frankly I'm so glad MJ did not do that, because that is something I as a fan of over 20yrs wouldn't have enjoyed. I like MJ approach of mixing in something new but, keepin it still classic.

Also I find it disrespectful and selfish that anyone would say MJ took to long after the trial to get back to his career. Seriously, unless u where the one facing yrs in jail, loosing ur freedom/career and most important ur children over false allegations and greed u shouldn't even dare to say some ish like that! That isn't somethng u get over so quickly! MJ was a human being not a damn machine to make people like u happy!
Click to expand...

I said few times that the things i mentioned don't refer to the comments by that guy. It was offtopic and how I see it where he did fail or not.
And you guys don't think that he was keepng doing the same old stuff in the same way. Ok, he did do changes, but they were minor.
Thats why critics say nothing happened in the 90's and later. they don't see the details that been added or changet like we do.

Yes I remember that "he" asked the fans to decide which songs to be performed. It wasn't planed bad, but could have been alot more. well who knows, maybe the London concerts were to be like the '87 Bad tour and then after that he would do new concept like it was in the '88. That was I beliving, before everything ended.

Saying "It took him to long" was wrong, yes. but I think the general public and critics saw it that way. Althrogh after '93 allegations, maybe it was pressure from Sony to comeback sooner. Don't go on that '93 was much harder to 2003, I know that. It also has to do that he decided to step away from music bussines and concentrate on his children and personal life.

TOO ME being relevant means to bring new music and do concerts, when you develop your self artisticaly. basicly the times in the 80's and 90's. And not GH albums (i know its Sony decision). Don't go in detail that he did with Invincible and that just you don't see Madonna as talented otr don't like what and how shes doing, that she wasn't inventing her self.
the things pointed out by others in early posts, like: Invincible has sold more then "Music" and ect, so that made him relevant. If the case was otherway you'll say thats irelevant.

For the fans Of course he's been relevant. But you see it differently then others who are not connected to Michael in the same way.
there is saying "even bad PR is good PR", but that doesn't make you relevant. You are singer and you are relevant to music by making music. You may have worked on new material, you may have planed things, if they aren't complished it doesn't matter.
your stile and moves copied by artist doesn't make you relevant, it shows your iconic status.

what this guy is comparing was flat. thats why I said, if anytnig Michael failed to succsed is to re-invent himself and stay relevant in music. thats how the general public sees it, like it or not.
Yes the allegations were the doom of it all.
You can disagree all you want with me. You don't have to be on same as me. you just see the "negative" things in my post, without trying to understand what i'm about.

I'm not big fan of Madonna. But saying no new and aspiring musicians and dancers say they were inspired by here is wrong and ignorant. Britney, Gaga and all the other new singers crawling for fame did say it. her accomplishments have been acknowledged, by fans, new musicians and critics just as Michael's.
 
Last edited:
lom kit said:
I said few times that the things i mentioned don't refer to the comments by that guy. It was offtopic and how I see it where he did fail or not.
And you guys don't think that he was keepng doing the same old stuff in the same way. Ok, he did do changes, but they were minor.
Thats why critics say nothing happened in the 90's and later. they don't see the details that been added or changet like we do.
Click to expand...

In the 90s he did two tours, both were highly successful, so again I can't see how this comes to the discussion about being relevant or not. If anything Michael's tours prove he was highly relevant any time he decided to step on a stage. Heck, even in 2009 when he didn't release any new material for almost a decade, he had a horrible trial behind him, horrible press, he still sold out 50 Q2 shows virtually in minutes! If that's not a relevant artist with relevant concert routines then I don't know who is.

TOO ME being relevant means to bring new music and do concerts, when you develop your self artisticaly. basicly the times in the 80's and 90's. And not GH albums (i know its Sony decision).
Click to expand...

Artistically you can develop in a positive or a negative direction. Like I said, I'd rather have Michael sit on his laurels and stay silent and release GH albums than to release something like Madonna's new song and video. So new music, trying new styles etc. doesn't necessarily means a positive artistic development.

Don't go in detail that he did with Invincible and that just you don't see Madonna as talented otr don't like what and how shes doing, that she wasn't inventing her self.
the things pointed out by others in early posts, like: Invincible has sold more then "Music" and ect, so that made him relevant. If the case was otherway you'll say thats irelevant.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. The discussion is about relevance and the claim of Madonna's producer about MJ not being relevant in the 2000s while Madonna was. The point of bringing up sales figures was to show that when Michael put out an album he was at least as relevant as Madonna, even with a bad press and lot less promotion. The difference is that Michael only released one album in the 2000s and Madonna more. But we all know the reason for that. Therefore it was unfair enough from Madonna's producer to make this comparison and ignore the circumstances, and it's even more shocking when MJ fans hold this against Michael and criticize him for not releasing more stuff in the 2000s. I can only echo Bluetopez: it's disrespectful and selfish. And I don't care what the so called "general public" thinks. At least fans should have a little empathy for Michael and realize what he went through was not something you can easily shake off and he's not a machine who is obliged to entertain you whether he feels good or bad.
 
:hysterical: I think he was trying to say "Madonna has failed where Michael Jackson has succeded". IMO Michael more than succeeded :yes:
 
I do think people forget Michael the child star and what he accomplished there. People tend to think of Thriller and beyond. I agree that what hed did there is success anyone would want. Once he went on his own it went beyond what he hoped for. Unfortunately life handed Michael cruel and heartbreaking times where he had tp step away for awhile and deal and recover from it. How many times did he plan new things and things got in the way?

Michael not re-inventing himself? I am sorry but watching This is It it seemed that is what Michael was doing. The production went high because Michael wanted the newest technology, costumes and sets. He was creating new dance moves with his own. The people who worked on the shows said Michael wanted to show people something different. If there were people who didn't know Michael and his music much this show would have introduced them to Michael in a new way. Even though Michael was not present as much in the music business the last years of his life didn't mean his influence and style wasn't there. You look at videos and all the dance sequences and the shows that people put on that has Michael's influenced all over it. The sad thing at that time was that people were embarassed or just didn't want to mention Michael's name because it wasn't in the "in thing" to do. Some did acknowledge him but most did not. Then he passes away and everyone says he inspired them. That just makes me mad to be honest.

Madonna has earned her status no matter what people think of her. There is no need to put down Michael or anyone to build her up. She is already built up if that makes sense. This guy is only pointing out a small part of Michael's career and making him sound like a failure in general. That is not right. When people want to judge Michael in term of relevance you better look at his whole career and life. Everyone knows who Michael is and his legacy will always be here.
 
Michael is one of those once in a lifetime legends that comes along and you are alive during his lifetime, then you are lucky. There really is no comparison of anyone to Michael. He did it all and he did it all for longer than anyone else.
 
T.N.A. said:
What does Madonna, her producer and her album need right now? Attention.

They're obviously just trying to get some...
Click to expand...

Yeah She need more attention now...her first single "Give me all your luvin" from upcoming album MDNA fall down in the charts and she fast release second single "Girl Gone Wild" to hide the first single fail and add to this news name "Michael Jackson" and you will have a big attention.......

Such a shame promotion way Mr.Sloveig. ......

Sorryfor my english :)
 
lom kit said:
TOO ME being relevant means to bring new music and do concerts, when you develop your self artisticaly.
Click to expand...

OK, I think I understand what you mean now. So I guess it's a question of how you define relevance. For me a relevant artist is not necessarily someone who constantly makes new music and does concerts, it's more about influence and whether people pay attention to you and are interested in you. There are plenty of artists who release new music, but are not successful or influential. They try, but the public just isn't interested in them. These kind of artists aren't very relevant IMO, no matter how much music they make.

By contrast, Michael didn't release much music in the 2000s, but when he did, the interest was there. The awfully promoted Invincible still sold well, and there was a huge interest in the TII concerts. You can also see his influence very clearly in newer artists, especially young male pop artists. So he was very much relevant, in the sense that I understand the word. To me, saying that Michael failed to be relevant makes it sound like Michael released album after album, but they flopped and people hardly even remembered he exists. That's clearly not the case. Not releasing more music was his own choice.

But I have to agree about Madonna - I think it's unnecessary to downplay her achievements and influence. She didn't make these comments, her producer did, and he does not speak for her. She's had an amazing career, and deserves respect.
 
Oh, really?
"Give Me Your Luvin'" is a bull**** for me, it a bad track, I don't like it.
And do you want to say that Madonna is more successful than Michael? You're wrong, man. Learn your lessons from masters.
 
How could Michael release new music and do tours when had the allegations and the trial to deal with? That wasn't his choice. He had plans and things he wanted to do. Maybe after the trial it was his choice but he needed to recover from what happened. For this guy to use it against Michael and call him not relevant is out of line and he is not looking at the whole picture. Madonna had nothing close to what Michael had to deal with in the 2000s. Her hands were not tied and people turning their backs on her. Nothing was stopping her from doing what she wanted to do.
 
marebear said:
How could Michael release new music and do tours when had the allegations and the trial to deal with? That wasn't his choice. He had plans and things he wanted to do. Maybe after the trial it was his choice but he needed to recover from what happened. For this guy to use it against Michael and call him not relevant is out of line and he is not looking at the whole picture. Madonna had nothing close to what Michael had to deal with in the 2000s. Her hands were not tied and people turning their backs on her. Nothing was stopping her from doing what she wanted to do.
Click to expand...

You're right. He worked so hard for his new album and he really had plans for his comeback, he was a visionary. We saw that he planned for "This Is It", a incredible show. Madonna's shows are not so incredible, I remember very well that she was booed in Romania in 2009 at her concert and in 1992/1996 Michael was so loved by his spectators at his concerts and visits. I remember that in Romania she wasn't loved so much like Michael in '90s in Romania.
She can't be compared with him, he was a perfectionist, she is not.
 
Florinrm said:
Madonna's shows are not so incredible, I remember very well that she was booed in Romania in 2009 at her concert and in 1992/1996 Michael was so loved by his spectators at his concerts and visits. I remember that in Romania she wasn't loved so much like Michael in '90s in Romania.
Click to expand...

To be fair, she got booed in Bucharest because she urged her audience to not discriminate Roma people/Gypsies...
 
lom kit said:
I said few times that the things i mentioned don't refer to the comments by that guy. It was offtopic and how I see it where he did fail or not.
And you guys don't think that he was keepng doing the same old stuff in the same way. Ok, he did do changes, but they were minor.
Thats why critics say nothing happened in the 90's and later. they don't see the details that been added or changet like we do.

Yes I remember that "he" asked the fans to decide which songs to be performed. It wasn't planed bad, but could have been alot more. well who knows, maybe the London concerts were to be like the '87 Bad tour and then after that he would do new concept like it was in the '88. That was I beliving, before everything ended.

Saying "It took him to long" was wrong, yes. but I think the general public and critics saw it that way. Althrogh after '93 allegations, maybe it was pressure from Sony to comeback sooner. Don't go on that '93 was much harder to 2003, I know that. It also has to do that he decided to step away from music bussines and concentrate on his children and personal life.

TOO ME being relevant means to bring new music and do concerts, when you develop your self artisticaly. basicly the times in the 80's and 90's. And not GH albums (i know its Sony decision). Don't go in detail that he did with Invincible and that just you don't see Madonna as talented otr don't like what and how shes doing, that she wasn't inventing her self.
the things pointed out by others in early posts, like: Invincible has sold more then "Music" and ect, so that made him relevant. If the case was otherway you'll say thats irelevant.

For the fans Of course he's been relevant. But you see it differently then others who are not connected to Michael in the same way.
there is saying "even bad PR is good PR", but that doesn't make you relevant. You are singer and you are relevant to music by making music. You may have worked on new material, you may have planed things, if they aren't complished it doesn't matter.
your stile and moves copied by artist doesn't make you relevant, it shows your iconic status.

what this guy is comparing was flat. thats why I said, if anytnig Michael failed to succsed is to re-invent himself and stay relevant in music. thats how the general public sees it, like it or not.
Yes the allegations were the doom of it all.
You can disagree all you want with me. You don't have to be on same as me. you just see the "negative" things in my post, without trying to understand what i'm about.

I'm not big fan of Madonna. But saying no new and aspiring musicians and dancers say they were inspired by here is wrong and ignorant. Britney, Gaga and all the other new singers crawling for fame did say it. her accomplishments have been acknowledged, by fans, new musicians and critics just as Michael's.
Click to expand...

So now u admit there were changes but, now the problem is that is wasn't enough for u? Umm...okay?! U want alot! A lil to much IMO! At some point u gotta respect the artist and what they are comfortable with too. Maybe MJ didn't like the idea of completly changing his performances around because it will loose their orginal meaning and what people love in them for so many yrs, if u get what I mean? For example if he completly changed around Bille Jean with no glove, no hat, no fedora, no moonwalk and changed the beat and added back up dancers...do u really think people would Cheer this change? I HIGHLY doubt it. I read some fans complaints about the fact he didn't moonwalk during BJ in TII and that was just rehersals, so u can imgaine if that would have been for a real live performance! That's why if anything he slighty changed his routines to add that something new but, still classic. So that's why I like his approuch. He wanted to please yet, not bore. Him asking fans what they wanted for TII really does make my point aswell! They picked the oldies and he agreed to do it and changed it up abit at the same time.

And why are u so worried about the critics and the general public? Those are the ones who criticize MJ the most. I be damned wasting my time about what they think!
 
Last edited:
teli-mj said:
So,i have a question. Do you all measure the importance of an artist based on how many records they have sold or how many people know them,or how many tours they have done? So, all those artists who have contributed to shape the music as we know it today but for whatever reason were not so prolific or active in their later years, they are all considered irrelevant because we don't see them or hear them as much as we did when they were at their prime? What kind of logic is that? How can some of you base someone's importance only in things like that?

And yes, MJ was not prolific at all on the time between 2000 -2009, does that make him less important than his peers or all the other artists? Just because he didn't do as many concerts as some people or write as many songs as some others as a solo artist, does that make him any less important? Just because he didn't do as many Rolling Stones or magazines covers as others, does that make him less relevant? If you think this way, then you what can i say.

Oh, i have something to say. Look around you and see the influence of Mike on music, dance, videos and then tell me how irrelevant he was or is. I personally i'm not going to let an idiot indicate to me how success or value or importance is measured. It's not measured with album sales, that's for sure. Because if it was that way, then Backstreet boys would be considered legends compared to Stevie Wonder, which, realistically, they are not.

This is why, this man's comment was totally stupid.


Oh, and by the way, Thriller, which is not my favorite MJ album, is not important because it sold that much, is it because of it's musically and artistically content and of the fact that is has influenced art, music, whatever, in so many ways. When some of you bring the sales up in order to prove MJ value as an artist, you actually do him wrong because people out there, people who know about music, don't give a SH*T about sales. It's the music, the art that it is important. And that's why MJ will always be relevant as much as some people don't like it. Because hi music, HIS ART are,in the most part, flawless. That is whats counts the most and not how many ten years old know him.

End of rant.
Click to expand...

^Loved this rant. You have given a broader view and thank you.

I notice that we have one fan who thinks Michael was not relevant and that he did not develop himself artistically. How does someone come to the conclusion that Michael did not develop himself artistically? Many who worked with Michael say he is always perfecting his craft. Even Debbie Allen said this recently. Sometimes I wish we could read more about Michael's creativity and work ethic before we make these broad statements.

I am one of those people who do not want to see Billie Jean done differently, for example. That is why he has such a strong legacy after his death.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking that even if Michael released music during the allegations and the trial it would have been ignored because people would not have focused on that. The focus would not be on the work at all. He couldn't leave the country so touring was not possibility. He had no choice but to take a step back from his career. He didn't stop creating and thinking of new things. He had to focus on his life and freedom and his kids.

Bruce Springsteen, Rolling Stones, U2, etc. what they do differently? I don't see any big difference. But people want to see them and hear the songs they love. This producer doesn't know Michael and seems ignorant as to why Michael didn't release much work in the 2000s. He calls him a failure. Sometimes things happen in life where your career has to take a backseat. Madonna was lucky she didn't have the obstacles that Michael had to deal with. Even with the trial and everything Michael achieved more than anyone could dream or hope for. He had a career to be proud of.

I am sure there were people who didn't think anyone would want to see Michael perform after the trial and everything. When the concerts were announced there were probably some people thinking the tickets wouldn't sell but they did and Michael proved them wrong. I am glad Michael knew that people still loved him and wanted to see him.
 
Last edited:
Wait wait wait are people here actually saying that Michael's new music wasn't relevant/he wasn't doing enough?

Let's break this down:

1. 2003-2005 Michael was basically murdered by the public and the media, not to mention the amount of time he spent in the courthouse. There was simply no time - and probably no energy - to work on new music during this period.

2. Um....are we forgetting Invincible? That album is NOTHING like anything he did before, he was so far ahead of his time that people are only NOW beginning to appreciate the craft behind it. The reason it flopped had nothing to do with the quality of the music, and honestly compared to other album sales it was still a HUGE success. We know Sony is to blame for a lot of what went wrong with Invincible. But if you listen to every track on that album, they'd all make amazing singles and there's no "fillers" to be found. The amount of different sounds and styles is just astounding.

3. TII was going to be his comeback. He was already working on new music from 2006 onwards, but was waiting for the right opportunity to release it. Had things panned out differently, we'd have a whole new era of Michael - a very RELEVANT era - happening right now.

Anybody who says that Michael wasn't relevant in the 2000s needs to take a seat and think about all of that - and there are things that I haven't even mentioned, there was just SO much going on during that time period.
 
Vici said:
To be fair, she got booed in Bucharest because she urged her audience to not discriminate Roma people/Gypsies...
Click to expand...

Yes that's why she was booed for but the highlight of her show in Romania was the Michael tribute, it is only then when the audience came to life and they started to scream Michael's name.Even her fans admitted that.
 
Not only was Michael still more than relevant in the 2000's (how on earth could someone irrelevant go on to sell 1.000.000 tickets in ONE city?!), but he was very much relevant in the 1970's as well! What was Madonna doing in the 1970's?

That being said, I like Madonna very much, I think she's fantastic and briliant, but come on - do not exagerate in her name because it only reduces HER credibility (besides yours as well!).
 
Patheric seek of attention by using Michael's name and impact once more. To be sincere, her new song is one of the worst songs I have ever listened. In her desperate attempt to be relevant she ridicules herself by making bimbo non quality hits and playing the 20 year old girly! The Madonna of "Ray of light" is my own peak. Other than that her new album will be a circus!!!
 
Just because Michael wasn't releasing albums after in Invincible it doesn't mean he wasn't relevant, had that damn Sneddon gotten in the way, I'm pretty sure Michael would've been a whole lot more relevant than Madonna, he was working on a new album, filming videos, and wanted to get into the movie scene. Even without those things, he had the most watched trial in like ever, unfortunately for him. The proof is in the pudding Mr. Producer Man, even after Michael was all in the headlines, good or bad, his TII announcement made worldwide news and some news stations even broadcasted it live, Madonna was releasing album after album, song after song, and still couldn't be that globally relevant. Wake up and smell the coffee, Mr. Producer Man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top