The 80's for me were the high point of pop culture, i lived throught all that as a teenager, people are right to say Madonna and Prince are fantastic talents, but that precisely proves the point, when a Michael Jackson album appeared or a new video, it was a EVENT, that he did this against so much good opposition shows that, Quincy Jones was a great producer but it is doubtful that music would have had the same impact without MJ, Jones made sure that Jackson would be the artist that represented his music, that says something.

i've long compared the two. MJ's death just made the comparissons even closer

good vocals, couldn't play instruments, long term drug abuse, both had interests in under age kids, both did some incredible daft things, both had failed movie/acting careers, and they both died in bad circumstances

quincy had a very long and successful career long before MJ came along. listen to give me the night by george benson, produced by Q and you can clearly hear for yourself how much influence Q had. you could change bensons vocals with MJ's and vice versa between that album and off the wall

one of quincys main talents as a producer was to get some of the best writers and musicians on board, and that's why the post Q material isn't a patch on Q's, as the later stuff was more "producer" based with keyboards and drum machines instead of live recordings in the studio. sequencing instead of a guy playing bass along to a guy playing drums and a guy playing guitar along with them, creating an organic musical process, collaborating and working with others, instead of a guy in the studio doing everything on his lonesome

'Bests' are totally subjective of course and this one is especially difficult as 'entertainer' is a very broad term and for some people it will be a case of who they believe puts on the best show. The problem here is that you don't really have to have much talent at all as a music artist to put on a good show: there are so many people involved in the process; so many aspects of the 'show' that it can be easy to take focus from the artist centre stage who may be quite bereft of any notable ability.

I guess to be regarded as an amazing 'entertainer' as opposed to merely a great singer, lyricist, composer, or instrumentalist you must put on great show but as I've determined, a 'great show' can be a distraction used to prop up an artist who has little to offer - resulting in their being overrated.

In this regard Michael Jackson was an extremely talented all-rounder. Regardless of whether his musical output was to anyone's personal taste you can't take away the facts that he had it ... a fine vocalist who could compose, write lyrics, arrange, produce, play, dance and steer the direction of his own career. Now this does not mean that he was better at everything than anyone else but he was a complete entertainer and certainly Madonna or Elvis, for all their showmanship, could not stand up to such scrutiny.

You can agree with unique's post all you want but bear in mind that their claims about MJ were totally incorrect.

Not at all, as I'm sure you well know since nothing I wrote in my post was incorrect. As for the rest of your post - little more than personal attack/ trolling/ attempting to big yourself up/ 'educate' someone whose knowledge you have zero insight into, so I'll disregard it.[/quote]

And if you knew anything about music, you wouldn't be posting this utter nonsense that you are. Stop insulting people like you're some music God that knows it all. Next you'll be claiming you worked alongside John Lennon and produced albums for The Beatles.

You need to actually learn something if you for one minute believe Michael Jackson never created/had the majority of input in any of his music videos, it seems you actually have little knowledge when it comes to Jackson, that was confirmed with your ridiculous comment about Quincey/Benson.

How anybody can sit and claim this guy didn't change music is beyond me. Jackson changed the face of music all over, from rhythms, dance systems and massively music videos, people seem to forget Jackson broke the colour barrier by getting Billie Jean the air play that he did, that alone did more for music than what the majority of artists did in their entire career.

Certainly one of the best but it's Madonna for me. She's consistently churned out fantastic albums since the early 80's and continues to break records with her tours. Her back catalogue of records is phenomenal and I've seen her twice and she is a fantastic dancer..I believe she started as a dancer and kind of fell into making music. She's not everyone's cup of tea but maybe that's because of her cold personality and some of her behaviours but as an entertainer she is unparalleled IMO

Michael Jackson is the best entertainer ever. There is a reason He is widely regarded as the best best entertainer and performer ever, this is because of his immense talent and impact on pop culture. No other artist can entertain and perform like Michael Jackson. Through his vocals, music videos, and performance he has always been innovative and taken it to the next level. Yes, he was influenced by James Brown and Fred Astaire however he took what they did and channeled it to his own style. Yes, he did not achieve everything on his own. A great entertainer and artist collaborates and learns from the best to be the best.

His music passes through generations. He has influenced some of the best entertainers today like Beyonce and Lady Gaga. Even Madonna cites him as an influence and a great entertainer. Off the wall, thriller and Bad are classic albums.

Madonna is the Queen of pop. She is the best female entertainer however Michael is more talented and his performances are better. He is the best all round entertainer ever.
Elvis is great but he can't sing, dance and perform like Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson made you go Wow when he performed.

It's all down to personal taste. To some people he is the greatest entertainer ever, to some he's overrated.

I was a big fan back when he was really popular and there's no denying he made a huge impact on the world. As much as it's nice to look back nostalgically at everything he did and elevate it to high heaven I don't find myself listening to him very often and don't find his music as appealing as I once did. I don't know if it's a reaction to how overrated he's been since his death but I have no desire to hear his songs or watch his videos ever again.

In my opinion, Madonna's music is more timeless and innovative as are most of her videos. There are other artists I could mention too who I think are superior to him. But few have had the impact he had. I won't deny that

At his peak, Jackson was almost unarguably the greatest entertainer of all time. He combined superb vocals with live, funky music, peerless dancing (Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly heaped praise on Jackson's abilities) and ground-breaking special effects. Not only that, but a lot of his material was self-written, which is unusual for most popstars of his ilk. Comparing Madonna to Michael Jackson is like comparing Amstrad to Apple.

But Jackson's peak was short-lived, perhaps lasting only two tours - Victory and Bad. By the time Jackson finished the Bad Tour, he was only in his 30s but had been a gigging performer for about 25 years. He was in a position most performers don't find themselves in until late middle age.

He announced at that point that he never wanted to tour again and his subsequent time on the road was largely due to record label pressure and, by This Is It, a necessity to deal with his financial problems. His heart wasn't in it so it's no surprise that the quality of his performances dipped.

But to judge Jackson's abilities as a live performer by those later tours is quite ridiculous; like being asked about Thomas Edison's role in scientific advancement 30 years after he invented electricity and saying, 'Sure, the whole electricity thing was great, but what has he done lately?'

The fact that Madonna is being cited in this thread more often than people like Jackie Wilson (from whom Elvis stole most of his act) and James Brown is frankly alarming.

Music is subjective and people like all different things. A quick peak at her achievements will indicate she is a living legend and just because you may not like her does not mean she is not an icon and among the all time elite

The fact that she can neither sing, dance nor write her own hits should serve as a pretty strong indicator that ranking her above the likes of Michael Jackson, Prince, James Brown, Jackie Wilson, Little Richard is beyond stupid.

But she can If she couldn't sing, dance or have any input in her own songs would she have lasted 25+ years in such a cut throat industry?

I have to be slightly controversial here and say I find him overrated.

The only songs I'd choose to listen to by him are Black & White, Man In The Mirror, Thriller, Earth Song and Scream. Perhaps a few others at a push.

Yes she would. See also: most contemporary popstars.

Hate to break it to you but she does all three. She also manages to sing live on tour which is more than MJ managed to do in his later tours

One problem is that footage of Jackson at his performing peak has never been put into the market place. The only examples commercially available are the Dangerous Tour, which he didn't even want to be on, and the This Is It rehearsal movie, in which a frail and sometimes lost looking Jackson seems completely overwhelmed by his surroundings.

Why the Dangerous Tour was put out instead of the Bad Tour is an enduring mystery. Maybe because Jackson was signed to CBS at the time of the Bad Tour, then moved to Sony for the Dangerous album and tour, so Sony had easier access to the Dangerous footage.

Jackson's lack of enthusiasm is clear when comparing the Dangerous footage to the Bad footage. The last Bad show was in 1989 and the first Dangerous show was in 1992, but Jackson appeared to have aged about a decade in the intermittent three years. He mimed half the Dangerous show and it was far more rigid than the Bad shows. During the Bad shows he would get lost in the music, improvise somewhat. There was a joy and spontaneity - he grinned widely throughout the gigs. The Dangerous shows look like far more of a chore.

Bit of a silly comment given that I already acknowledged that Jackson's later tours were half-hearted because he didn't want to be on the road anymore.

Madonna is a famous lip-syncher and is also famous in the music industry for getting outsiders to pen completed songs, then changing single words to earn a writer credit, or working out deals where songwriters are given lump sums upfront in exchange for signing away their credits and royalties.

She's a terrible dancer. Anybody who would claim with a straight face that she's even in the same galaxy as Michael Jackson when it comes to dancing is completely incapable of looking at or discussing the topic objectively.

As for Michael Jackson's miming: when he did sing live, he was good - which is more than can be said for Madonna.

Michael Jackson was i think a Genius blessed by God, extremely rare, Mozart would be in that category, whatever his official death certificate says, he was essentially driven to a early grave by a terrible press that did not mind leeching of him when he was in his prime.

in a word "no"
to me he is the most vastly overated entertainers that has ever been .
he wrote some good songs i will give him that but as for the genius he is often quoted as being i disagree entirely .
i liked the music but the person , , well thats another thing all together.

Hahaaaaaaaa!

Have I touched a nerve?

Listen, like I said, you'll just have to accept people have different tastes. I don't think trying to ruin the credibility of another artist to prove your point will get you anywhere. I've heard those same rumours about MJ and many other artists. It proves nothing. We don't know for a fact how involved or not artists actually are. We're here to talk about if MJ was the greatest entertainer of all time. Just because you think so doesn't mean everyone does and people have a right to prefer other artists over him

I think this section would be a lot more enjoyable and inviting if people didn't get so defensive over their favourite artists.

This thread isn't about Michael Jackson the person. It's about Michael Jackson the performer.

Said the person trying desperately to convince themself and everybody else that Madonna - who can't sing, dance or write - is more talented than a man who has been praised as a genius by everyone from James Brown to Little Richard to Fred Astaire.

Have you been reading something else because I never said any of that?

I never said Madonna is more talented than any of those people. What I said is her music is more timeless and innovative than MJ - and it is! He just repeated the same formulas over and over. You could tell he was bored by the time he got to Dangerous.

I'd love to know how I'm ''desperately'' trying to convince myself and others of my own personal belief. I think you need to calm down a bit. It's people like you who give the MJ fans the bad rep they deserve