|
||||||||
Is Michael Jackson the best entertainer ever. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#101 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I think he was talented. But as for being the greatest entertainer of all time. . . I don't think so.
![]() Quote:
A watse of time that list, like most, in my view: those are all BIG artists but they are certainly not all great singers. Bob Dylan is ranked above Otis Redding! Bob Marley is there because he was a mega-star but there are dozens of better Jamaican singers, many of whom I'd doubt those "3000 music industry" people may even have heard of!
ignore the evidence that disproves your point doesnt work...its still there. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#102 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,161
|
Quote:
WHAT?
are you serious? you think its acceptable for old men to ply kiddies with alcohol and show them porn? ![]() no, micheal was found NOT GUILTY of child molestation... he DID have sleepovers with various children for many years, he did give kids alcohol and he did show them porn. im michaels age, what would you think if i gave a ten year old girl alcohol, showed her porn, and offered her to sleepover at my place?... |
|
|
|
|
#103 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,643
|
This thread is about entertainers and not how well their private lives stand up to scrutiny. There are many in the music business with skeletons in the closet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#104 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
Get your facts right, it is my understanding he was was charged with THIRTEEN, not ONE, but THIRTEEN charges so basically he was was charged with everything under the sun apart from JFK slaying, jackson was charged specifically on giving drink and showing porn to children and found INNOCENT, so shut up, if you cannot say sorry for lies about a dead man.
if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck.... its a duck. |
|
|
|
|
|
#105 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,161
|
Quote:
you dont understand the difference between innocent and not guilty. he was found not guilty of child molestation, either because he didnt do it, or because there wasnt enough evidence to convict him.
if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck.... its a duck. |
|
|
|
|
#106 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
This thread is about entertainers and not how well their private lives stand up to scrutiny. There are many in the music business with skeletons in the closet.
the bottom line is... no matter how innocent it might have been, its unacceptable for any middle aged man to sleep over with unrelated pre-pubescent children. ignoring it condones it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#107 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
I hope you never have to stand for trial, and know you are innocent.
and you dont know he was innocent, you believe it. only the people there know the truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
#108 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,159
|
Yes.
End of. |
|
|
|
|
|
#109 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,161
|
Quote:
well i wont for child molestation charges, because im not stupid enough to invite children over for a sleep over, ill not give then alcohol nor show them porn, why? because im not a paedo!
and you dont know he was innocent, you believe it. only the people there know the truth. |
|
|
|
|
#110 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
He went into a legal process that found him innocent of these allegations, that is not my opinion, that is FACT, what you are saying is prejudice, you are darkening a man's name by inference.
he was found NOT GUILTY (not the same as innocent) of any child molestation charges, including getting one drunk in order to molest him... he DID give them alcohol and he DID show them porn, he DID have sleepovers with pre-pubescent kiddies. now in your world you might think thats ok... i just hope you never have kids, because if you think thats acceptable social services will have a ball with you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#111 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,161
|
Quote:
not so
he was found NOT GUILTY (not the same as innocent) of any child molestation charges, including getting one drunk in order to molest him... he DID give them alcohol and he DID show them porn, he DID have sleepovers with pre-pubescent kiddies. now in your world you might think thats ok... i just hope you never have kids, because if you think thats acceptable social services will have a ball with you! |
|
|
|
|
#112 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 6,740
|
Quote:
you dont understand the difference between innocent and not guilty. he was found not guilty of child molestation, either because he didnt do it, or because there wasnt enough evidence to convict him.
if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck.... its a duck. J. Randy Taraborrelli bio I realised he was probably innocent of child molestation (before, I was convinced he might be guilty-certainly paying a victim a huge sum of money to drop the charges didn't make him look good at all). Anyway, I think at his creative peak in the 1980s, Jackson was an amazing popular musician. He was an excellent singer and dancer, and "Thriller" and "Off the Wall" are brilliant pieces of pop music. |
|
|
|
|
|
#113 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,035
|
Quote:
That just about sums up your idiocy, what a pathetic comment right there, immature would be an understatement.
Yes, that's why the majority of top dancers in the music business credit Jackson as one of the greatest dancers to ever grace the business. That's why he schooled numerous people during a concert where he was unfit and unhealthy. That's why even people like Usher, people regarded as some of the best and most creative dancers in the business at the current time, credit him as the influence in their dance and him as the greatest mover there was. Get a grip. It's fine to dislike somebody, but to come in and start talking utter nonsense is beyond ridiculous. I'm not a fan of The Beatles, but I wouldn't go around spewing rubbish that they weren't all that great, because it's verging on a fact they were one of, if not the greatest band ever, just like Jackson is one of, if not THE greatest male to ever grace music. Of course people are so immature that this has gone from a decent discussion on top entertainers to 'OMGZ JACKSON MIMED HE COULDN'T DANCE WELL HE WAS VERY AVERAGE' and 'OMGZ Peado Jacko he slept with children'. Man, grow the hell up. i guess you miss the irony in your last couple of paragraphs eh? |
|
|
|
|
|
#114 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,035
|
Quote:
but he did change everything, thats the point. videos werent essential back then, but now they are.
i could do with a laugh |
|
|
|
|
|
#115 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,161
|
Love the black and white video and smooth criminal video especially the dancing just fantastic,i was a dancer, that was just brillant.
|
|
|
|
|
#116 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,161
|
|
|
|
|
|
#117 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,232
|
The only thing that would count against Jackson for me is would he be as entertaining as Michael Jackson?
By that I mean he was always surrounded by expensive sets, backing dancers, lights, mirrors, smoke, illusion. I sometimes tire when artists these days seem to be 99.9% presentation. If you stuck him on stage with a microphone and a backing group and nothing else, would he have been considered one of the greatest entertainers then? |
|
|
|
|
|
#118 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,904
|
Thought he was in the same league as Gary Glitter, professionally and privately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#119 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,439
|
Quote:
The only thing that would count against Jackson for me is would he be as entertaining as Michael Jackson?
By that I mean he was always surrounded by expensive sets, backing dancers, lights, mirrors, smoke, illusion. I sometimes tire when artists these days seem to be 99.9% presentation. If you stuck him on stage with a microphone and a backing group and nothing else, would he have been considered one of the greatest entertainers then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#120 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,161
|
Quote:
The only thing that would count against Jackson for me is would he be as entertaining as Michael Jackson?
By that I mean he was always surrounded by expensive sets, backing dancers, lights, mirrors, smoke, illusion. I sometimes tire when artists these days seem to be 99.9% presentation. If you stuck him on stage with a microphone and a backing group and nothing else, would he have been considered one of the greatest entertainers then? |
|
|
|
|
#121 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,022
|
If the same question was asked AND this wasn't in the music thread then I'd say Steven Speilberg
But as it is I'd say the Jackson brand was the best music based entertainer of all time. The shows were just spellbinding -- costumes, incredible dancing, great songs, effects etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#122 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,643
|
Quote:
we are in agreement!
![]() ... so you know better then the 300 industry insiders ignore the evidence that disproves your point doesnt work...its still there. Louis Walsh is in the music industry. Would I trust him to compile a list of greatest vocalists? Simon Cowell is in the music industry. Would I trust him to compile a list of greatest vocalists? Cheryl Cole is in the music industry. Would I trust her to compile a list of greatest vocalists? Danni Minogue is in the music industry. Would I trust her to compile a list of greatest vocalists? No I would not! These sort of sterile, predictable lists might impress you but they are fairly meaningless collections of names of huge-selling artists that the average Joe will own albums by and be pleased to see included. Their intention is to be populist, not to have average Joe going "Who the hell is that?" |
|
|
|
|
|
#123 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,674
|
Quote:
I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. There's having an opinion and then there's being ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#124 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
I do think Jackson was an odd person, but after reading the
J. Randy Taraborrelli bio I realised he was probably innocent of child molestation (before, I was convinced he might be guilty-certainly paying a victim a huge sum of money to drop the charges didn't make him look good at all). Anyway, I think at his creative peak in the 1980s, Jackson was an amazing popular musician. He was an excellent singer and dancer, and "Thriller" and "Off the Wall" are brilliant pieces of pop music. Quote:
Well, firsty it is 3000, not 300. 'Industry insiders' may impress some people but all it really means is people who work in the music industry, ie. not much. It's not evidence, it's OPINION. Or to be more accurate, it's collated from three-thousand opinions.
Louis Walsh is in the music industry. Would I trust him to compile a list of greatest vocalists? Simon Cowell is in the music industry. Would I trust him to compile a list of greatest vocalists? Cheryl Cole is in the music industry. Would I trust her to compile a list of greatest vocalists? Danni Minogue is in the music industry. Would I trust her to compile a list of greatest vocalists? No I would not! These sort of sterile, predictable lists might impress you but they are fairly meaningless collections of names of huge-selling artists that the average Joe will own albums by and be pleased to see included. Their intention is to be populist, not to have average Joe going "Who the hell is that?" either way, the rolling stone mag asked for opinions off the knowlegable, not 3000 'louis walshes', the point of the excercise was to try to gauge in reality who are 'the best' . the rolling stone mag had no agenda, if it did rock would have been far more widely reprisented. thats why they asked the opinions of a wide variety of people who know something about music and artists, people whos opinions count for something due to their knowlege and experience. jacko fans dont like it because it proves that outside his fan base he ISNT regarded as 'the greatest this, that or the other'. thats uncomfortable for them because it shatters their idealistic image of their god like figure. be a fan by all means, regard him on a personal level as the greatest, just dont expect everyone else to agree and dont get upset when its pointed out that in reality he isnt. |
|
|
|
|
|
#125 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
can i ask why, as the op, you pose a question but then argue against the replies that dont suit your prefered answer?is mj the greatest ever entertainer?... to the fans...yes to everyone else... no. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:58.







But as it is I'd say the Jackson brand was the best music based entertainer of all time. The shows were just spellbinding -- costumes, incredible dancing, great songs, effects etc.