Ok i know there is Elvis and John Lennon and the Beatles, but just in pure entertainment terms i would put Michael first. Why? He worked on all his albums, he contributed on his songs, he changed his style to deal with his times, he was charismatic, the best dancer ever, first major entertainer to recognise videos.

He didn't really do it for me. I can see he was a good dancer but I found his music soulless and uninteresting.

No , his early stuff was very good but in the end he was just churning out generic pop music which kinda all sounded the same .

Thriller for instance was a masterpiece but I can't even name any song of his last two cd's

Rolf Harris.

no

what do you mean he worked on his albums? isn't that what anyone releasing albums would do?

thing is, his best music was put together by other people and he just sang on it

and best dancer? what about fred astaire?

and what about all the other acts who did videos long before him? like the beatles who did it over a decade before him? or queen?

surely this is a piss take?

Micheal was a very good dancer but after his Off the wall album his music was not a patch on his early stuff. And if it wasn't for the brilliant video for Thriller the single wouldn't be so well thought of.

No ! but he comes a close second to Shirley Bassey.

i never am/was a massive fan of his....in terms of entertainment he had slick routines,shows, videos....but slick....isnt monumental!

Fred Astaire, Judy garland, Doris Day, Lucille Ball, gene Kelly....timeless and they SLAY!

In terms of music, Madonna has more scope, innovative performances...she tells a story in music and style and performance thats why she is so diverse in opinion, Prince even just with his guitar bleeds art into his live performances, Kate Bush...PHENOMENAL lady The Tour Of Life is monumental for a reason and her videos are iconic...Bjork gave pure innovative eprformances throughout ehr life even most recently.

In terms of that....no way!

What do you think it means? It means that he WORKED on them.


Some so called 'artists' barely sing on their albums, let alone do anything else.


Utter nonsense. You really need to check your facts!


What about him? Do you know as much about him as you know about MJ?


Michael Jackson's videos elevated pop promos to a whole new level. He was a kid when The Beatles were together.


The only piss take here is your post. You're totally ignorant of the input MJ had on his adult solo works. He wrote and arranged and co-produced on every album from Off The Wall onwards.

wow.... someones set themselves up for a fall

ill let 'unique' reply to this !

no of course he isnt, what he is is the greatest hyped/promoted act in pop music history. no other act has attracted such hysteria, or is surrounded by so much bull.... which clouds and obscures his true worth. was he a great showman/entertainer?... yes. did he create some of pops all time great tracks? probably.

but the marketing men have spun a web of mysticism that the fans swallowed, elevating jackson to an almost god like figure who can do no wrong and is responsible for everything.

meanwhile the sober can see him for what he really was.

Elvis by a country mile, then sinatra. Jackson wasnt even in the same league as Elvis. Jackson was a poor mans James Brown.

Simply, yes. I think he had a bigger global impact than any other star has had or could ever hope to have.

Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire were wonderful dancers, but in terms of profile, MJ just gave so much more and was a bigger star.

I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. There's having an opinion and then there's being ignorant.

He was a fantastic performer but not the BEST
But i respect if you think he is

I'd say yes. Certainly the greatest I've ever witnessed, he had everything. Just an absolute master, the greatest entertainer I've ever seen. His music and dancing were simply top notch and I actually doubt it'll ever be matched to be quite frank. There's a reason why he inspired the majority of people in music today.

The only people to rival him for me would be Elvis and Madonna. I could understand somebody making an argument for Elvis that's for sure. I've always seen Jackson as the king of music and Madonna as the queen, they were/are just simply astounding at what they do and their creativity, ideas and just overall brains for the business is incredible.

Surely the question should be " WAS........ ", not "IS.... ". He is dead!!! And working and contributing to his albums and recognising video doesn't make him an entertainer. And I wouldn't say Lennon was much of an entertainer. There are plenty of dancers as good as he was. Basically if you are a jacko fan you will say he was. If you are a big Slipknot fan you will disagree.

MJ and Madonna are IMO the greatest entertainers ever!

No one ever put on a show like they did!

This I agree with.


This I agree with.


I'm not actually sure what you mean.

I remember around sometime after the release of Bad, there was a debate on Radio 1 (I think) on one of there more 'high brow' evening programmes, about what influence MJ had actually had on the music scene-there where contributions from many music 'authorities' both in the US and here and it was concluded that whilst yes the sales impact was huge and yes so had been the impact on video, MJ had not changed the course of musical history the way and The Beatles had-that is a view I agree with.

In fact of his 80s contemparies, Madonna had far more of impact both on and behind the scenes musically, the way she smashed the strangle hold of a male dominated industry-and that is'nt just the performers-its all aspects of the business. She kicked the s**t out of them.

As for the old Hollywood stars that have been mentioned, I have no idea how familiar you are with 'old Hollywood' and stardom in the 1930s/40s/50s.

I am not an expert, but I know enough about the era to know that these people (including the two that where mentioned) where akin to Royalty on a global basis, and just because they generally didn't have internet or TV as such, it doesn't mean that they did not have impact.

In fact with movie going the main entertainment sources(the UK literally had thousands of cinemas) culturally cinema led the way.

The ironically MJ cites Kelly and Astaire as an influence, just like the work of Bob Fosse-legendary choreographer influenced Beyonce-which she has made no secret about.

The original question asked was 'is MJ the best entertainer'-the answer IMO is no.

We dont live in the world of the 'all rounder superstar'-the likes of Kelly and Astaire who could literally do anything. Those days are over.

And MJ never had all those talents to begin with-he could sing sure-but was he the male equivalent to Striesand or Garland? He could dance sure, but was he any better than Gene Kelly? Could he act?

If the question had been 'is MJ the best pop star'-then possibly in with a shout, but IMO it would still be no. And I think Elvis and Madonna would have something to say about that as well.


Maybe this question/thread should have been put in the showbiz section?

I dont think so, I was never a fan of his, the music he came out with was just soulless and quite frankly uninteresting, most of his songs are grossly overrated, Thriller really wasnt that great, his dancing skills were good, but in terms of dancers that we have today make his moves seem quite average, I'm not hating, I just dont rate him that much. Spending a few minutes on stage grabbing your crotch and walking backwards like a camel with broken legs just doesnt do it for me.

I had the pleasure of seeing him live 6 times and met him twice. Anyone who can say he was not a great entertainer has never seen him live. he could mesmerize the audience. As katherine hepburn said ' he can do it and you can help but look at him' the greatest entertainer ever.

How many times did you Frank Sinatra and Judy Garland live then, and how did he compare?

Michael Jackson's vocal was based on soul, no other voice has ever touched my heart like that to be honest. He was a great dancer, up there with the very best...to be honest the Moonwalk and his incredibly quick spins dominated his other moves (I recommend some of his early TV shows or even the Black or White video which show much more than is normally documented). He also wrote or co-wrote most of his biggest hits which he has never got enough credit for. For me he was never the most pioneering musician but when it came to the whole picture, he was the master.

For me he is a true KING, standing alongside the likes of Elvis Presley (The King Of Rock 'n' Roll), The Beatles, Frank Sinatra (who once stated MJ was the only man who sang better than him!) and Madonna (The Queen Of Pop) in terms of influence, sales, achievement, fame etc. The King Of Pop/The World's Greatest Ever Entertainer! I'd personally put Prince up there too (his music is more of a dirty kind of soul/funk. Who plays 27 different instruments? Amazing).

Always look to the greats!!!

you are surely taking the piss with this

are you trying to say he is great because he did more on his records than the guys who fronted milli vanilli? the guys who's live performance vocals were extremely comparable to MJ's live performance vocals? memorex used on every solo tour?

as for facts, we'll i've been in the studio with people who wrote and produced and played instruments on records by MJ (and janet), and i think it's pretty widely known that other people like quincy jones produced his music. do you know what producing music means? do you know what a co-producer is? do you know what an executive producer is? i don't think so

about his music videos. again, he didn't create them. he appeared in them. the music videos were made by other established people, such as john landis and martin scorsese. his music videos are mainly copies of other ideas, using mainly 20s/30s/40s musicials as inspiration for the dance routines (that again other people did the choreography - one of my friends sings with the guy who taught MJ his most well known moves, including you know, THAT one), with some of his most well known videos copying an american werewolf in london, blues brothers and west side story as an example. nothing particularly groundbreaking there. not like the beatles starting the whole idea of creating films to accompany music as they couldn't be everywhere at once to make live appearances

if you knew anything about music you would laugh at your post as much as i did. comedy gold

Jackson's worth as an entertainer was in inverse proportion to his loopiness. He did very little of any note for the last part of his life and really didn;t progress in anyway from the Thriller days. Thus he cannot be called the greatest.
Nor can Elvis for that matter - in thrall to a crooked manipulator, he ended his days a bloated joke, a pale shadow of his younger self.

Too much crotch grabbing, silly faces and silly noises for me to take him seriously.