He became famous at what 5 years old ? He continued to be very famous up until his death at 50 years old. Thus he was famous for 45/50 years alive, 90% of his lifetime.
Who else can claim such a title ?
Paul McCartney has been famous for 62 years.
shareGood for him. It's because he's still alive. MJ died fairly young.
shareBut is it a question of who has been famous for the longest(while living) or who was the most famous? The level of worldwide fame & influence that Michael Jackson reached in his lifetime hasn't been matched. Many people however have been famous for a longer period.
shareMick Jagger and Paul McCartney just won't die. Mick has done everything under sun to shorten his lifespan and he's still going strong.
shareAnd at 82 as well. What about Keith Richards? He's drank and snorted everything and made it to 80. How is that possible?
It makes you wonder if the rock lifestyle of orgies and drugs is just sometimes a cultivated image and a lot of them really are in bed by 9 with a cup of hot chocolate😂
Dunno about Wacko Jacko being the most famous singer in human history, but he certainly was the most famous child molester in human history that's for sure.
Jackson was only relevant for the 70s, the 80s was his decade, 90s were set to be his biggest but saw the decline.
By 2000 nobody cared about his music, it was a time capsule. Overproduced nonsense with some good songwriting, down to the talented team of songwriters he hired to write all of his songs while he concentrated on dancing. But unfortunately, they aged like a cheap wine within a few years.
Apart from his best song Billy Jean, people now only dance to his music ironically as a strange artifact of the past, and all of his songs became a gimmick. Apart from the weird fanatics in pockets of Japan, Malaysia, Turkmenistan and India who are out of the loop and think he is still relevant.
The 80s nostalgia wave that has been going on for what seems like forever hasn't seemed to include any Jackson music or Jackson influences.
So the 80s itself be it music, TV especially MTV, movies and video games made a big cultural impact on today's media. So much so that they've been trying to replicate the style, pay homage, and recreate some of that magic for years.
Michael Jackson has been left out of this 80s nostalgia wave with not even a hint of any of his work. Unless somebody apes one of his dance moves, but even then it's done ironically.
Nobody cared about his music in 2000? I saw him at an appearance in Las Vegas in 2003 and it was complete & utter pandemonium unlike anything I'd ever seen before--or since. They were charging $2,000 just to have a photo taken with him. I was standing next to a woman whose two friends had dragged her there with them...she was complaining the entire time because MJ was late and she didn't want to be there. When he finally arrived, the place completely erupted and that same woman screamed out, "OMG--I DON'T EVEN LIKE MICHAEL JACKSON AND I'M SHAKING!!!" I think that pretty much sums up his level of fame right there.
share> I saw him at an appearance in Las Vegas in 2003
Most concerts are pandemonium. Go to see a Rolling Stone revival where 70-year-old men rock on stage, and it's pandemonium.
"Pandemonium" at a concert is not a measurement. And sure, he had his fans who were stuck in the past and out of the loop, listening to old overproduced pop music which was barely relevant musically at the time.
>They were charging $2,000 just to have a photo taken with him
Wow he was that poor that he had people lining up for photos for cash like they do at nerd conventions?
>"OMG--I DON'T EVEN LIKE MICHAEL JACKSON AND I'M SHAKING!!!"
Anecdotal. My friend said the exact thing when a British soap star was hired to turn on the Christmas lights at Blackpool, England. She saw the famous guy and was overcome with serotonin because she recognized said famous guy from TV.
His music, apart from Billy Jean was an outdated relic within a few years and didn't age well at all.
It's not looked at fondly, again, apart from Billy Jean and his Jackson 5 stuff. He and his music are only referenced ironically today. Add to that the 80's wave in the media that has been going on for over a decade. Jackson seems to have been discarded from the 80s wave, even though he was the hottest star of the 80s.
>Wow he was that poor that he had people lining up for photos for cash like they do at nerd conventions?
It was a charity event. The money was for charity :)
And I wouldn't even know a Rolling Stone member if I tripped over one in the street. I literally have no idea what they look like. Not even remotely on the same level of fame.
>And I wouldn't even know a Rolling Stone member
Anecdotal. It was just an example of an old band not a comparison.
This one is a comparison. At least the Rolling Stones have left a cultural impact with their music. Movies today still needle drop Rolling Stones songs. Never once heard a Michael Jackson song in a movie. In fact I never hear them anywhere now. A complete relic put in a time capsule and buried only to be dug up at a wedding party so dads can do a drunken moon walk ironically.
>Never once heard a Michael Jackson song in a movie. In fact I never hear them anywhere now.
Anecdotal! And do you have any idea how expensive it would be to license an MJ song for a movie? Clearly prohibitively expensive. There are many artists/labels/estates/catalog owners who don't want their songs being used in movies or who ask exorbitantly high prices making it unfeasible. GTA Vice City even removed Billy Jean from its soundtrack in later releases due to "licensing complexities."
And I can't even name a single Rolling Stones song. No clue! So much for cultural impact.
Meanwhile no matter where MJ traveled in this world, people recognized him and went berserk. Didn't matter which city or country. I can't imagine the same is true for the Rolling Stones, or any other human being for that matter.
>Never once heard a Michael Jackson song in a movie. Anecdotal!
No. If you have evidence to disprove this, deliver to prove it wrong. It's a tangible thing that can be researched through credits. Michael Jackson songs in movie soundtracks. Just use google, deliver the counter evidence and prove me wrong.
"Anecdotal" just isn't enough. We are not talking about personal experiences that can be fabricated to bolster arguments. We are talking about things that can be researched and proven incorrect. Except you couldn't be arsed to do the research. Move along now.
> GTA Vice City even removed Billy Jean from its soundtrack
Ha haa you actually researched one credit. Good on you man! The thing is, GTA has had many songs removed, it's not as special as you're attempting to imply.
I did some research (maybe you should try it), here's a list of songs removed from GTA:
https://www.reddit.com/r/GTATrilogy/comments/qqzvlb/confirmed_songs_removed_from_the_gta_trilogy/
>And I can't even name a single Rolling Stones song. No clue! So much for cultural impact.
Me neither. But if you watch a lot of movies, and you hear a needle drop, quite a lot of times it's a Rolling Stones song. Never ever a Michael Jackson song. And Hollywood does have the money to pay for songs. You know how much Led Zeppelin songs cost?
Whether you are aware of the Rolling Stones or not, that's on you. As you said earlier "anecdotal" because that's YOUR experience. It cannot be researched.
You like tacky, overproduced pop music from the 80s that sounded dated a few years after release. We can't expect you to know that much about music as a whole. Not my fault. That's on you. I can't research your shitty preferences.
>Meanwhile no matter where MJ traveled in this world, people recognized him and went berserk.
I agree, he blew up hot and was a world star, one of the biggest.
By the mid 2000s his music was a time capsule and only played ironically. Now it's never played at all.
This may be anecdotal, but zero young people are going back to Michael Jackson albums. "his" music is dead and seriously dated, even when there has been a major 80s nostalgia wave going on for years. Jacksons music has been passed by in this wave. Forgotten. You're the last holdouts in a dying fanbase.
Evidently you completely missed the point of my post. YOU were providing anecdotal evidence about the Rolling Stones while shooting down my points as being anecdotal. Try re-reading. And if you think kids today know who the Rolling Stones are then you're delusional. Bye.
share>Evidently you completely missed the point of my post.
I got the point of your post. There was no point.
You're angry that Michael Jackson music is a relic, overproduced pop music that barely gets a mention in today's world.
>And do you have any idea how expensive it would be to license an MJ song for a movie?
Sony owns the rights. I'm sure they would allow Jacksons music to be on movie soundtracks, but nobody director wants to insert it.
Not even films from Sony pictures needle drop Jackson songs when they can have it for free.
Exactly....
I think people are forgetting what a joke Michael Jackson became. He died a hopeless drug addict.
He had cosmetic surgeried himself to oblivion.
The business with almost dropping his kid from a balcony.
The absurd interview with Martin Bashir (I think that was his name).
He hadn't done anything musically in almost ten years.
Not to mention the second SA accusation.
Not like he was some kind of hero by the time he passed. IN fact, when he did pass, his time had passed, by close to 20 years.
PS - I saw it mentioned, even with all of this, MJ did sell out his "This is It" tour. Well, this is fine. I guess people like nostalgia. Lets remember Led Zeppelin, a group of guys in their 60s (at that time) sold out O2 in ten minutes. LZ also would have immediately sold out 50 shows.
Mainly agreed with Mitzibishi in this discussion.
Starting with, indeed, most of MJ's music sounds absurd today. "Off the Wall" still sounds pretty good. I'd only take "Billie Jean" from Thriller. The rest of it I have no use for.
If Hollywood wanted an MJ song bad enough, Hollywood would pay for it.
Been to a million concerts - always pandemonium. And why the He(*&^&^ would MJ be charging 2 grand for a pic? I have doubts on that story.
The Rolling Stones, especially in their prime (69-74) - this music has aged well - it still sounds great today.
Its news to me, but not a surprise that the youth of today are not interested in MJ's music. It really is true, most of his stuff sounds ridiculous today.
An absolutely huge star in his time, but not the most famous singer in history.
That honor, in my mind, goes to Paul McCartney.
>>And why the He(*&^&^ would MJ be charging 2 grand for a pic? I have doubts on that story.
As I thought I'd stated quite clearly, it was for charity. And you're right--it wasn't two grand. It was five grand. Here you go:
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2003/oct/27/vegasbeat----timothy-mcdarrah-jackson-not-off-the-/
Ok, I've never seen that article, thank you.
I'm very surprised. I'm surprised anyone even showed up let alone shelled out 5 grand - especially at that point.
If I remember correctly, at this moment in time, he'd have been coming off the second child molestation charge and trial.
A thousand people showed up. Very surprising.
Well, thanks for the information, however, a thousand people showing up doesn't mean anything.
In fact, it shows how much his star had dimmed. In 1984, 20,000 would have shown up.
Incidentally, I had 2,000 on my mind due to....
">They were charging $2,000 just to have a photo taken with him"
But we have that cleared up, 5 grand , for charity, and a thousand showed up. Of course we don't know how many of the thousand actually wrote a check.
And again, to me, this is an illustration of how far he had fallen from his heyday.
But , in any event, I respect your opinion.
Best wishes.
It was not possible for 20,000 to show up as the charity event was held inside of a music store inside a mall with limited space and (to my knowledge) the event hadn't been heavily advertised. I found out about it totally by accident. I was eating with friends at a restaurant in the same mall when I mentioned to them that I'd heard Michael Jackson was in town that weekend. The waitress just happened to overhear me at that moment and she said, "He's downstairs right now." I said, "Whut?" She said, "Yea he's downstairs at the music store doing a charity event." I've never abandoned my friends so fast.
I made it down there just in time thanks to MJ's being late. The space outside of the music store was completely packed full of people, many of whom were standing on crates or sitting on each other's shoulders to try and get a view of MJ through the store's glass windows. There were people up on the second floor of the mall looking down as well. At one point MJ was nice enough to come out of the store and greet all of us "poors" who didn't have the $5k to get inside. This was the scene when he came out of the store:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaJOOcYhiK4
As you can see, no one seems the least bit bothered by the SA allegations against him or the fact that his music was "a relic."
MJ returned the next day for a second appearance and that one was even crazier than the first, as people now knew about the event from his appearance the night prior. I skipped work in order to go. I dickered with one of the charity guys and got him down to $2k in order to "possibly" meet MJ (that's where that $2k number came from in my earlier post). That was a lot of money to me though--especially when they wouldn't even guarantee I'd get to meet him--and I knew from the first night that MJ was likely going to come out of the store to greet us anyway, and sure enough he did. For some reason there's no video footage online of that second day but I took many photos.
Well, I stand corrected on this one.
In my mind, he disappeared (I thought he left the country) soon after he was declared not guilty in the trial.
Plus I believe he was stone cold broke.
But on this, this charity event, I had no clue this ever happened so I stand corrected.
Must say one is very surprised.
It's quite likely I missed even more with MJ because I had no interest in him post, well one would say post "Dangerous".
Plus it seemed as if any time his name came up in the 2000s, it was for something completely bizarre. Also, one didn't know, till like a decade later, he had released an album in 2001. Didn't have a clue.
Then when he was accused again of molestation, I wasn't convinced he was guilty, I was stunned he'd be stupid enough to put himself in that position again, a position where he could be accused. Which he did. Proven by his bizarre interview with that Bashir guy.
ANyway, thanks for clarifying on the charity event, I had no clue it had even occurred.
All of this is off topic, earlier today I posted (rather rested my case LOL) on the most famous singer in history issue.
Anecdotal! And do you have any idea how expensive it would be to license an MJ song for a movie? Clearly prohibitively expensive. There are many artists/labels/estates/catalog owners who don't want their songs being used in movies or who ask exorbitantly high prices making it unfeasible. GTA Vice City even removed Billy Jean from its soundtrack in later releases due to "licensing complexities."
As they say: You can't argue with stupid!
shareMJ is worldwide famous. His concerts have always sold out.
shareLiterally sold out his "This is It" tour in a week but anti-MJ revisionists like to pretend that his career ended with the 1993 extortion case.
shareNo no no no - it wasn't the same for MJ after the 1993 accusation. Plus the fact he paid on it.
He didn't go completely down the tubes, yes, correct. But it wasn't the same - he was on his way down from that point on.
Not to mention he became a joke in the process.
Mainly agreed with Mitzibishi in this discussion.
Ok, you may think this way of Mitzibishi which is your privilege.
I can't say either way....
I can only say, from what Ive read of Mitzibishi's thoughts in this discussion...
I agree with him (or her).
And I don't hate Jackson one bit. In fact, one can tell you something he did better than pretty much anyone else - dance. He was great in his prime.
His ability as such an exciting and entertaining dancer holds up today.
It's not about having the privilege of "thinking of someone certain way" but instead acknowledging openly prejudiced individuals who argue in bad faith, pushing conjecture to the point of lying & trolling. Zero credibility there. Virtually never non-toxic or factual.
Weird...I was listening to Smooth Criminal just as this thread got bumped & showed up on the homepage!
shareI don't know about that.
Considering the length of his career, plus the fact he was in the biggest band in human history....
Not to mention a second band that was also huge....
And still going strong 5 decades later....
It has to be.....
Paul McCartney
Longer, active career? Yes but worldwide fame, influence & accolades? No. Mccartney was in what is probably the biggest band in history as you say but Michael Jackson managed to become the biggest artist in human history.
Sidenote: As a casual observer, Mccartney may have had significant commercial success in the 70s with Wings/solo but it definitely seemed to be very much of its time with nowhere near the lasting influence that the Beatles had. As a millennial Beatles fan, with the exception of a few songs, I could never get into Mccartney's solo/Wings stuff.
Well, if we are talking, yeah, about a ten year period, MJ was the biggest thing on this planet. No doubt about that.
From Thriller up until that first kid accused him - which I believe would be 1983-93. For this time frame MJ was the biggest star on the planet.
Still doesn't make him the most famous singer in history.
So, while I respect your opinion, I disagree.
I do agree the Wings material has not held up like Beatle material. However, in the 1970s, Wings was huge. Big tours, several #1 albums, several #1 singles.
I don't know, if you like The Beatles, I'm sure, if you tried, you could find some Wings stuff you like.
For fun, here are a couple personal faves.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR0UmZcf89E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re61B8sKQWk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRdnQSUO1OM
Still doesn't make him the most famous singer in history.
Ok fair enough.
I appreciate your opinion, thank you.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I've got a few here. Should probably engage Pepetoony as well.
I can see saying Michael Jackson is the most famous singer in history. I can see that, because it is true. Once Thriller went thru the roof - up until I'd say the mid 90s. You couldn't be more famous. If history consists of that time frame, yes he is the most famous singer in history.
The question is was anyone else more famous? I don't know because the candidates (ELvis, Sinatra, The Beatles) - I wasn't there for any of them - I don't know how big they were in their time periods.
But going back to Paul McCartney, he would have to be the most famous singer of all time. True, his last big hit was a duet with Jackson (SAy, Say, Say) - however, he does have several high charting albums since then (including a#1). Plus another hit or two ("No More Lonely Nights" comes to mind). Not to mention, generation after generation is finding The Beatles. He still tours to this day.
Jackson's day is over - his music has not carried over from generation to generation. 15 years since he passed - probably tons of people walking the planet today that don't even know who he is.
ANyway, yeah, in his heyday, Michael Jackson was the most famous singer in history. I can comfortably say this because I was there.
But the most famous singer of all time is Paul McCartney.
Ok, I think I rest my case, LOL
Your reply is a confusing contradiction. First, you agree that Michael Jackson is the most famous artist in music history but then you make this erroneous statement & do a 180 & arbitrarily declare Mccartney as the most famous.
Jackson's day is over - his music has not carried over from generation to generation. 15 years since he passed - probably tons of people walking the planet today that don't even know who he is.When the exact opposite is true by every relevant metric. Michael Jackson was selling out major tours to the day he died & I previously just explained how far Michael Jackson's fame reaches to this day, where even children in remote African & Asian villages still celebrate Michael Jackson's music.
This paragraph...
"When the exact opposite is true by every relevant metric. Michael Jackson was selling out major tours to the day he died & I previously just explained how far Michael Jackson's fame reaches to this day, where even children in remote African & Asian villages still celebrate Michael Jackson's music."
is so absurd it lets me know I don't need to continue this conversation. Believe whatever it is you believe.
Nice chatting with you - best wishes.
Well, since I have a few, Ill get into this.....
"Michael Jackson was selling out major tours to the day" - - Mmm hhmm, that was 15 years ago, and he didnt perform once. When was the last time he actually sold out a concert in which he appeared?
Mccartney sold out every date, in 2023, of the "GOt Back" tour. Twice getting crowds over 100,000.
"First, you agree that Michael Jackson is the most famous artist in music history but then you make this erroneous statement & do a 180 & arbitrarily declare Mccartney as the most famous. "
I said, in the period of which I have existed, in MJ's heyday, he was the most famous singer in history - again, in his heyday - which I claimed was a 10 year period. But, was he more famous than The Beatles, Elvis, or Sinatra? I don't know, I wasn't there for them. It is quite possible, in their time, those 3 were more famous than MJ.
MJ hadn't released an album since 2001. In the same time period, McCartney has released 7 albums. 6 of which charted in the top 10, and a #1. Maybe in some backwoods African territory where they are still in 1984, MJ is their hero. The rest of the world, the majority of it anyway, could care less about him now.
MJ is irrelevant today - McCartney still packs em in and can still sell records. Thus, in terms of all time, he is the most famous singer in history.
"Michael Jackson was selling out major tours to the day" - - Mmm hhmm, that was 15 years ago, and he didnt perform once. When was the last time he actually sold out a concert in which he appeared?"
It seems personal feelings are increasingly overtaking the conversation. I don't get this argument. It's kind of difficult to sell out concerts when you're no longer alive but no doubt he still would be if he were. I'm also not at all surprised about Mccartney being able to sell out concerts as he has a huge built-in legacy audience of Beatles fans. Pointing out that Michael Jackson's fame simply reaches further than McCartney's was never meant as a put down. Mccartney ultimately has an incredibly accomplished career in his own right. My position is balanced. I'm a fan of both. Clearly, you're a Mccartney fan & not a fan of Michael Jackson (which is fine) but it seems it's affecting your ability to be objective here. Like co-signing that dishonest anti-Michael Jackson troll earlier.
"I said, in the period of which I have existed, in MJ's heyday, he was the most famous singer in history - again, in his heyday - which I claimed was a 10 year period. But, was he more famous than The Beatles, Elvis, or Sinatra? I don't know, I wasn't there for them. It is quite possible, in their time, those 3 were more famous than MJ."
Okay. I don't believe that's an accurate barometer for a number of reasons but thanks for the clarification. Your original comment made that less clear. The standard of fame I'm taking into account is one that transcends race, gender, generations and continents. Michael Jackson didn't just overcome but in fact shattered racial barriers which makes his fame all the more astonishing & exceptional. His status is iconic pretty much everywhere around the world. Mccartney's fame while still very impressive, has never crossed over like that.
“MJ hadn't released an album since 2001. In the same time period, McCartney has released 7 albums. 6 of which charted in the top 10, and a #1. Maybe in some backwoods African territory where they are still in 1984, MJ is their hero. The rest of the world, the majority of it anyway, could care less about him now.”
Mccartney choosing to be more active with producing music during that time period is not a measure of his fame but more just a measure of his willingness to keep making music. I’m not sure what charts you’re talking about but as an American, I had no idea what he was doing musically during that time period. It makes sense that Mccartney’s fame is naturally far greater in the UK where he’s a national icon.
It’s also important to note that Mccartney’s career was never sabotaged, the way Michael Jackson’s was, yet his fame endured. It’s crazy to think about how much more he would have done otherwise. Also, I’m sorry but the somewhat racist conjecture that Michael Jackson is only famous throughout the corners of Africa because they’re “backwoods” & stuck in 1984. (They didn’t have smart phones to make viral videos with then btw). Also, you were keeping it somewhat respectable for a while before broadly speaking for the world claiming they “could care less about” Michael Jackson with absolutely nothing to back up that statement (Because it’s absolute nonsense) is really only something an anti-Michael Jackson troll like the one you co-signed would say.
“MJ is irrelevant today - McCartney still packs em in and can still sell records. Thus, in terms of all time, he is the most famous singer in history.”
Do you find anyone who's no longer alive to be irrelevant is or is it just something that you arbitrarily assign Michael Jackson despite the ample evidence to the contrary? Again beyond your Mccartney fanboying & increasingly not so low-key Michael Jackson hate, what metric are you basing this on? Michael Jackson is still selling records & his streaming numbers are in the 10s of billions. A recent Michael Jackson themed Broadway production has been a smash hit & there’s also an upcoming biopic in production. Again, his fame has endured & there remains a huge interest & demand in spite of the years of career sabotage & failed attempts to tarnish his legacy since his death. It’s a tough pill for Michael Jackson haters to swallow but it’s the truth.
Yeah, do some studying....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson_albums_discography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McCartney_discography
Jeez. 9 separate replies? What is going on with this thread? Anyway, "Do some studying" isn't a rebuttal to anything.
shareI do not hate Michael Jackson and I don't appreciate the insinuation.
I am not a Paul McCartney fanboy
I am not co-signed with anyone.
I'm telling you, MJ is a joke today, his music is a joke today. Ive been on social media for about 15 years now. I love music, I have countless conversations about it. Do you know how many times MJ's name was brought up (RE: his music/singing)? Once, this conversation we are having.
Despite the odd constructive conversation about movies, tv, and celebrities, Moviechat is alt-right central & hardly an accurate place to get an estimation how Michael Jackson is perceived.
shareBut to be clear, I do not hate MJ. He was the biggest in the world in his day.
His day has passed.
Paul McCartney was in the biggest band that has ever existed, and is still going strong to this day.
Plus, McCartney's only trouble wasn't child molesting, it was getting caught with weed In Japan, which people laugh about.
Michael Jackson's career was sabotaged in his prime, yet his fame & popularity has endured even after he was killed. You were given examples. Mccartney is indeed in what is probably the biggest band of all time & he is very successful & one of the most famous musicians in the world but he is simply not more famous than Michael Jackson. Jackson is famous throughout the continent of Africa for one example(the remote villages was just an extreme example) in a way that Mccartney simply is not.
shareNo tough pill to swallow - I simply don't agree with you.
And I'm never going to so we should probably just cut it right here. You have made it very clear how you feel, I have made it very clear how I feel.
Having said that, I respect you opinion - you are entitled. We're not in front of a jury, neither one of us is going to win or lose this debate.
Plus, I don't wish to change your mind. Believe what you wish, I'll believe what I wish.
Peace be with you and best wishes
Not really about opinion. It's about corroborating factors to formulate the conclusion that Michael Jackson is indeed the most famous musician of all time.
shareYou know I am home exercising tonight (plus waiting on a package delivery). MJ continues to roll around in my head.
These days, if it involves him, do you know what the conversation is about? Child molestation and who you believe (again, for the record, I have commented in these threads and have supported MJ).
No one talks of his music, no one posts any of his songs. Funny I posted a thread just the other day about Favorite British bands, The Beatles came up left and right.
I've never read anyone talking about Jackson's music. And there is a lot of musical discussion here on MC.
It's like the guy never even existed.
It goes back to what I said, he was huge in his day, his day has passed, it is that simple.
Ok, this should be it for tonight. Im just thinking as I exercise.
I assure you that the reality of Jackson's legacy & how he is perceived exists outside of the spaces that you frequent.
shareMy delivery just arrived so I am cutting out.
OK, no offense to you, I respect your feelings.
I don't agree with you - I'm sorry.
Having said that, I now definitely have nothing else to add.
Have a nice evening and best wishes.
Oh for Gods sake, if you are going to get into racism, find someone else to talk to.
Who mentioned Africa first???
Yes I said people today could care less about MJ
In fact, look at this thread, all you have is you and Pepetoony. No one else is on your side.
No one agrees with either of you.
Africa is a continent of almost a billion & a half people. Who do you think is more well known & revered there? Michael Jackson or Paul Mccartney? We both know the answer and that's an objective measure of their worldwide fame. Not my opinion. The popular opinions of moviechat/stormfront(dot)org are irrelevant.
shareJackson sabotaged himself.
You think he would have had the brains to not put himself in the same position twice, especially after a 20 million payout. DO I think he is a child molester, no I don't. Plus, I'll go on record saying Wade Robson and James Safechuk are completely FOS.
I fault Jackson for, after the original payout in 1994, getting himself in trouble again.
Apparently no one around him had the guts to tell him to cut it out.
HE made HIMSELF look like a very sick person.
Victim blaming. He was targeted for extortion. Twice. He can't be blamed for the first extortion case unless the argument is that he should have completely isolated himself from anyone & everyone who could potentially concoct false allegations against him for money. I agree that settling was a huge mistake as it ultimately just made him a bigger target for those looking for an easy payday but legally it made sense as California had a nonsensical law at the time that allowed for people to be sued, civilly before being tried criminally which would have given away his defense, so he was advised to pay & prepare for the criminal trial which of course never happened because the scumbag, lying extortionist Evan Chandler took the money and ran.
For the second case, It is crazy that he didn't have people around him to properly vet any strangers trying to weasel their way into his life, to the point where a well-known family of grifters with a track record of trying to scam celebrities were allowed to get that close to him before he was warned about them & by then it was too late. Of course, the grifter mom initially tried to sue, but unbeknownst to her, the law allowing a civil case before a criminal case had since been changed, so they didn't have a choice, if they still wanted their payday. It was a corrupt travesty that that absolute laughable case actually went to trial, despite the inevitable acquittal.
Unfortunately, enduring years of attacks & sabotage took their toll on his mental & physical health.
Many valid points, thank you.
A couple of quick thoughts. The point of the links is you can verify the kind of sales MJ and Paul have been doing. Paul is still going strong, MJ is not. Obviously him passing away has a lot to do with it - but even his boxed sets and compilations aren't really selling (I only saw two that made top 10 since he passed).
You're right, I have no idea what people in Africa think of Jackson.
At some point you have to take responsibility for yourself - he should have cut it with boys after the first mess. Then he speaks, in the Bashir interview, of sharing a bed with them. He did it to himself, although, as I said - the people around him should have had the guts to say something.
Same goes for drug usage. Yes, he could always find someone to give him what he wanted. But he is the one that took the drugs.
I hear what you are saying about MC - but in fact, I'm involved in several social media websites, by this barometer, MJ is ancient history. He barely even exists. No one ever mentions his music, it's always about child molestation.
Is this the best measure? Well, maybe not. I'm only going by what I have experienced.
Ok, this is all one has for now.
I'm heading out of my house in a few minutes here. I just happened to look at a couple of MJ threads.
A question for you and it is a serious question....
Why are you so vociferously in favor of Michael Jackson? Any time anyone would come up with a negative comment, you'd vigorously defend him. In fact, these type of comments came up a lot more than any positive ones. ANd every single time, you'd be right there to defend him.
In all seriousness, why? I really am curious.
Ok, I have to go, best wishes.
Sorry for the late reply but I haven't had much time to be on these boards recently. I appreciate you acknowledging that that you neglected to account for an entire continent of people (I include Asia as well) when postulating the extent of Michael Jackson's worldwide fame compared to any other music artist.
As I previously said, I just can't get behind any level of victim blaming. You can't blame someone for not being prepared "enough" for wildly false accusations/extortion attempts for money. Again as I said before, if it wasn't the "boys" angle, these bad actors who was ever in his presence at one point could have just as easily fabricated any number of lies against him. Not a good argument. The real issue is how shameful & corrupt it was the case wasn't simply thrown out for the completely frivolous lie that it was.
The Bashir interview was widely edited out of context & Michael was smart enough to have his own film crew filming simultaneously. He was never alone in his giant bed with the Garvizo kids. He slept on the floor and there were always other people around. He took precautions against false accusations, and it still happened anyway because of a corrupt system where bad actors with influence wanted to put him through the ringer, even though the obviously trumped-up farce would never stick. But yes, even though he took precautions to protect himself, that family of known scamming grifters should have never been allowed anywhere near him. His people screwed up on that for sure.
I'm not sure what you're on about drugs. If you're referring to his death, he put his trust into a doctor who killed him & went to prison for it.
Like i said. I don't know what to tell you other than the bubbles that you exist in do not reflect reality when you say things like try to speak for the world about having forgotten about impact of Michael Jackson worldwide superstardom and the legacy of his music. It's hyperbole to the extreme & simply incorrect.
Hello Thread - nice to hear from you....
"As I previously said, I just can't get behind any level of victim blaming. You can't blame someone for not being prepared "enough" for wildly false accusations/extortion attempts for money. Again as I said before, if it wasn't the "boys" angle, these bad actors who was ever in his presence at one point could have just as easily fabricated any number of lies against him. Not a good argument. The real issue is how shameful & corrupt it was the case wasn't simply thrown out for the completely frivolous lie that it was."
Well the second case was thrown out. I'm sorry, I don't agree with you. Jackson (and his people) should have known better. They already got burned for 20 mil. Anyone is allowed and entitled to making a mistake. When they do it again, make the same exact mistake twice- I have no sympathy.
"The Bashir interview was widely edited out of context & Michael was smart enough to have his own film crew filming simultaneously. He was never alone in his giant bed with the Garvizo kids. He slept on the floor and there were always other people around. He took precautions against false accusations, and it still happened anyway because of a corrupt system where bad actors with influence wanted to put him through the ringer, even though the obviously trumped-up farce would never stick. But yes, even though he took precautions to protect himself, that family of known scamming grifters should have never been allowed anywhere near him. His people screwed up on that for sure."
Right, exactly. I read that on Bashir - that the interview was heavily edited to make Jackson look bad. Fine, I believe that. But why leave any openings to look bad at all? First of all, Jackson establishes himself as a liar with the "I've only had one cosmetic procedure" comment. Then, he is sitting with the boy holding hands, fine. But he talks about sharing a bed and how loving it is to share your bed with someone. This came straight from Jackson's mouth. He should have had the sense to edit himself. Or, his people, I'm sure they knew he would say stupid things. Well, fine - then don't put him in front of an interviewer.
"Well the second case was thrown out. I'm sorry, I don't agree with you. Jackson (and his people) should have known better. They already got burned for 20 mil. Anyone is allowed and entitled to making a mistake. When they do it again, make the same exact mistake twice- I have no sympathy."
I'm not sure exactly what you expected him to do outside of not making the mistake of allowing shameless grifters near him. If he was falsely accused of shoplifting, would you it be his own fault if enough store falsely accused him of shoplifting? That seems consistent with the logic you're applying here.
Yes, allowing shameless grifters near him...
He and his people should have known better.
There is no excuse whatsoever. Do you think anyone of any cognitive ability, after shelling out 20 mil because they were accused of child molestation...
Would then appear on television exclaiming how wonderful it is to share their bed, and holding the hands of a child while they make the exclamation? Do you think anyone would be that dumb???
Now we can get into reality - Jackson was that dumb, and the people around him didn't have the guts to tell him.
"There is no excuse whatsoever."
Being completely innocent of something you're being falsely accused of is the best "excuse" possible. Jackson isn't responsible for your reading into things. Holding a child's hand? Who gives a shit other than people grasping for something nefarious?
Innocence & truth is not enough in the eyes of disingenuous bad actors so in that sense it made him somewhat tragically naive but hardly dumb. He still protected himself to a reasonable degree, but it didn't stop antagonistic entities from coming after him either way. It was his decency as a human being that compelled him to try helping people & not just shut everyone out because of those acting in bad faith who scrutinize his every move. Blaming the man for being relentlessly targeted & attacked is twisted logic.
Well, I didnt want to continue this - however, it's a Saturday and I have even more time than usual.
So here goes.....
I don't know, I'm not so sure, there may have been a tragic flaw inside of MJ. I tried to be open minded about it. Never in my life did I desire to share my bed with a little boy (or anyone else aside from a grown female).
He probably sincerely did want to help the boy (I believe he had cancer).
His people should have told him to do it on the QT.
"First of all, Jackson establishes himself as a liar with the "I've only had one cosmetic procedure" comment. "
That gratuitously deprecating assertion is uncalled for & erroneous. Especially when it comes to something so immaterial that's literally no one's business whatsoever.
I notice you consistently have a way of framing things in a way that reflects the most negatively towards Jackson.
Because it was such an obvious lie.
Getting back to cognitive ability - do you think anyone with any cognitive ability would take a look at Michael Jackson and actually believe he'd only had one cosmetic surgery??
Actually some people would buy it - blind people.
Look, we should just cut this, I respect your opinion, but I don't agree, and I never will. There is no point in continuing.
And lastly, I sincerely believe you are on the payroll of Jackson's estate. No one would (or has) taken the defense of him as far as you have.
Ok, having said that, I'm closing out on this. No offense to you at all - I appreciate (and have enjoyed) your counter arguments.
Best wishes.
“Because it was such an obvious lie.
Getting back to cognitive ability - do you think anyone with any cognitive ability would take a look at Michael Jackson and actually believe he'd only had one cosmetic surgery??”
Even if you were a medical expert which you clearly aren’t, your conjecture would still be completely irrelevant because again it’s 100% irrelevant and nobody’s business. You attacking Michael Jackson's character based on your conjecture over something so benign is beyond ridiculous.
I'm only saying he lied, publicly, in an obvious fashion.
You don't think this is a bit stupid?
It makes him lose credibility. WHich is relevant. It makes him look like an unabashed liar - it's extremely relevant considering this was done publicly.
As I said, your conjecture about what surgery he had is as irrelevant as how many bowel movements you think he had that day. It's a completely mundane issue that is no one's business to begin with. Your speculations about something innocuous has ZERO impact on Michael Jackson's integrity. You're merely biased, delusional & grasping at straws to think otherwise no matter how much you want to harp on it.
shareOk, now you are making it personal.
I haven't made this discussion personal at all.
Seems to me you're grasping at straws.
I'm cutting out of this conversation - I'll say it one last time, the most famous singer of all time is Paul McCartney - it is not Michael Jackson.
Think as you wish as I have no desire to change your mind.
It's been nice chatting with you.
Best wishes.
"Seems to me you're grasping at straws."
"I'm cutting out of this conversation - I'll say it one last time, the most famous singer of all time is Paul McCartney - it is not Michael Jackson."
Dude. "I know you are but what am i" & Nah uh! Because I say so!" aren't arguments. Particularly when I gave you specific examples that you couldn't refute. Note: It's a complete contradiction to concede that there are entire continents, communities, & cultures where Michael Jackson is indisputably more famous than Mccartney, yet insist that Mccartney is still arbitrarily more famous anyway because that's the reality you would prefer & because you say so.
"I'm not sure what you're on about drugs. If you're referring to his death, he put his trust into a doctor who killed him & went to prison for it."
Hahahahah, he was a massive drug addict. True, Murray killed him. I agree 100%. But if it wasn't Murray, it would have been someone else. What Jackson did was find the Doctors that would give him what he wanted. This guy was so far gone with drugs he was taking Propofol to go to sleep. He was getting 2-3 injections a week of high level painkillers - similar to heroin. When they searched his bedroom after he passed, there was essentially a pharmacy in there. He was totally out of control with drugs - a massive drug addict as I said.
Again, you have a very bad & consistent habit of framing things to reflect as negatively as possible on Michael Jackson. There's a big difference between developing an unhealthy dependency on medical treatments for legitimate health issues & being a "massive drug addict" like he was ever on meds just for fun. That's a gross misrepresentation.
shareHahahahaha
You must be on Jackson's payroll.
Either that or you're living in fantasy land.
Not an argument but okay. Consider Michael Jackson's life before it came under constant attack & sabotage. The toll that can take on one's health cannot be overstated.
shareYeah, he died a hopeless drug addict.
He wasn't born that way. It was the burning event in 1984 that started him on drugs.
And I'm really sorry, it is too bad.
But the fact remains, he died a hopeless drug addict - this is all I said, and it's a fact.
It's not putting him down, it's simply reality.
You are grossly misinformed about the facts of Michael Jackson's life & murder & you're being insulting to the point of trolling now.
shareGiven that this website has a strong Alt-right presence userbase it's no surprise that the attitudes towards Michael Jackson here would be dominantly negative. As I've touched on before Michael Jackson's unparalleled success & superstardom as a black man shattered racial barriers & surpassed all of their favorite white artists which indeed includes Paul Mccartney. After he entered uncharted territory, shattering records with the biggest album of all time & started making some serious business moves, he made powerful enemies within the industry. For all of his millions of fans across the racial spectrum, it still burned the souls of those who preferred the systemic status quo & these people have long held a vested interest in tearing him down ever since.
I think it's important to stand up & defend innocent people, especially someone like Michael Jackson who accomplished the impossible as an artist & also gave so much to the world that will carry on forever. There's no sense in allowing bad/woefully misguided people to get away with spreading lies about him in their desperate attempts to tarnish his legacy.
"Given that this website has a strong Alt-right presence userbase it's no surprise that the attitudes towards Michael Jackson here would be dominantly negative. As I've touched on before Michael Jackson's unparalleled success & superstardom as a black man shattered racial barriers & surpassed all of their favorite white artists which indeed includes Paul Mccartney. After he entered uncharted territory, shattering records with the biggest album of all time & started making some serious business moves, he made powerful enemies within the industry. For all of his millions of fans across the racial spectrum, it still burned the souls of those who preferred the systemic status quo & these people have long held a vested interest in tearing him down ever since. "
Ok first of all, I'm not tearing him down. I agree with you on the bogus molestation charges. I agree with you, in my lifetime, for about a ten year period, no one was more famous than Michael Jackson.
However, he is not the most famous singer of all time, once again, this honor goes to Paul McCartney. I feel even more strongly about this now. Paul, on his current "Got Back" tour sold out every date in 2023. He had 118000 in Mexico - 149000 in Brazil. And yes, you had mentioned Africa and Asia, I bet McCartney would sell out there as well.
Paul is still huge, Jackson, although yes, maybe still huge in Africa and Asia, is a joke in the USA. If his name comes up, it isn't about music, its about child molestation. Unfair yes, but a fact just the same. His music is irrelevant today.
So, the debate remains at a standstill as, although I do agree with you on some of the issues, I don't agree with you on the main issue.
"Paul is still huge, Jackson, although yes, maybe still huge in Africa and Asia, is a joke in the USA. If his name comes up, it isn't about music, its about child molestation. Unfair yes, but a fact just the same. His music is irrelevant today."
You keep making this ridiculous "Michael Jackson is a joke" claim which is so condescending & honestly nothing that someone who doesn't have a negative disposition towards Jackson would keep repeating so insistently. Mcartney's very long career has made him one of the most successful musicians/businessmen of all time but that doesn't make him the most famous. I'm sorry but you're crazy if you think Paul Mcartney is more famous than the Beatles as a group & Michael Jackson is more famous in the continent of Africa & Asia than the group as a whole, including a near universally renowned icon to the black Americans in the U.S. Michael has millions of passionate white fans around the world. How many black Mccartney fans are there exactly? Do you think the average person 40 & under would be able to name more Michael Jackson songs or more solo Mccartney songs? Like i said Michael Jackson reached a far wider & more diverse demographic & no amount of "Well I love Mcartney & I say so" is going to change that.
If this is what you believe, well, fine, no comment.
I'm speaking of American charts. Take a good look at the links I left you.
Elvis.
Sinatra.
Donny Benét.
I'd say Elvis & Sinatra are comparable (In the U.S.) but Jackson still surpassed them to become the biggest artist of all time. Absoltuely unprecedented & defied the impossible for a black artist. Definitely in terms of global fame/influence. Literally never heard of the third person
shareHard to say, you, Threadkiller may be like me...........
I didn't exist in the heyday of Elvis or Sinatra.
It's hard to tell how big they actually were if you weren't there.
One is comfortable saying Michael Jackson was the biggest star on the planet from 1983-93 - at which time I did exist.
Elvis was seen as a joke and a has been by many by the early 60's while he was making his pathetic films and Beatlemania took hold. I'm not saying he still didn't have the occasional big hit throughout the 60's, he did - Return To Sender for example - but the revisionism that he was A-list from the 50's until his death in 77 is nonsense.
shareSounds like you got some revisionism of your own going on.
Elvis was huge and still is.
It sounds like you can't read properly. The OP was on about lifetime. Elvis was a seen as a joke for most of the 60's while he was sidelined by The Beatles until he did his comeback special.
Where you alive then?
Who thought he was a joke?
You saying something doesn't make it true.
You're obviously an Elvis fanboy and your feelings are hurt by facts.
From 1961-1968, he only had two records Return To Sender and Crying In The Chapel that were amongst the Top 25 of any year. No concerts and his films were either mediocre or crap. He knew himself that his career had declined which was why he knew the importance of that Comeback Special. Priscilla says it herself in the Elvis By The Presleys documentary.
Five second search finds him in the top three of best selling artists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists
Tell us where the Elvis impersonator touched you.
Which has got nothing to do with what I said about his career while he was alive, shit for brains.
Admit it, you've no life without the Elvis pics on your wall have you😂
Did the Elvis impersonator hurt you with their big hunk of burning love?
This is a safe space, you can tell us.
Did it hurt when you found out Elvis was a child groomer?
Did it ruin your life😂
Who said I'm a big fan? There you go again, making stuff up.
Now, back to you being molested by an Elvis impersonator...
Bing Crosby will be remembered longer, and Fred Astaire will be remembered longer as a dancer.
shareSinatra
share