typically fans of those artists are young and don't have much musical knowledge, and also often don't have a particularly good understanding of English to articulate themselves well. perhaps due to growing up in an era of txtspeak. there's been a number of instances where someone makes a claim that's false, it's shown to be false, then they argue the toss because they don't understand the true meaning of a word and don't bother fact checking, googling or checking what the dictionary says. so someone will make a nonsense claim, they will be set right, and instead of thanking people to giving them knowledge, the argue about it

there's also the nonsense of calling people the childish term "haters" if someone posts something they disagree with, no matter how factually correct it is. it makes you feel like you are back in a playground with 12 year olds when people post that stuff. so someone will make a thread about something that should perhaps be discussed in the appreciate thread where no-one will point out the flaws in what they say, and then call anyone proving them wrong a "hater" and then throw a strop. if they aren't banned shortly after, they will repeat the same thing again, usually about the same artist, and the cycle continues until they are banned. notably most of the people who do this have accounts of less than 12 months

the other thing about facts is these days it's so easy to find facts and verify what is being said before someone posts, yet so often people will post complete nonsense that's not true in the slightest, which they would have seen if they spent 2 seconds googling

This post is terrible! its full of snobbery and is basically nothing other than rude and oh my god its soooooo patronising! are you even allowed to be this rude and dismissive towards members on here? !!! surely being so rude about other members is against the rules?

I guess this post alone answers up my opening question.

i think your post partly proves my point. there's no snobbery or rudeness yet you completely missunderstand the post

What was to misunderstand? lets strip away the fancy dressing, you said typically fans of certain artists are very young and don't know how to use the English language. I'd call that patronising. The rest of your post makes it sound like you bait some users on purpose just to try and get them banned, reading between the lines of course... but that is what it reads like to me.

i didn't say that. again you prove my point that some people can't read and understand what is psoted


considering you misunderstand what i've said in the first example you mention above, it's no surprise you have misunderstood more

ive been in many disagreements with 'unique', but on this he (?) is spot on.

you cannot post a load of inaccurate, overhyped, nonsense in a general forum and expect to get away with it. theres is a dedicated fanzone forum for 'fans of'.

ive found that there are a lot of ... lets say more inexperienced often younger members whos debating skills are lacking and will not have anything said against their chosen hero.

I think I read it fine. I think your post was patronising and I think it sums up why 'new' members as you put it will not post here.


Well you said on the previous page that Michael Jackson fans on here give him far more credit than he deserves. I didn't live through Michael Jackson's era but I can safely say he is the most influential male artist who ever lived. To try and downplay any of his achievements would be a little bit foolish.



------


Also if you dislike an artist its really not so difficult to ignore a thread about them. Someone on a previous page is annoyed at Britney fans, well ignore the Britney threads, its simple. I don't rate Madonna so I don't go anywhere near her topics. I have no interest in an artist I dislike. Maybe follow my lead.

you may have read it "fine" but you have misunderstood it. you can see yourself that what you said i had said was not what i actually said

you will also note that someone else who frequently disagrees with me on these forums is also backing this up

what you are now doing is backing up one of the other statements i've made which is when someone is proven to be factually wrong, they will start to argue the toss about it

I'm not really sure what is to misunderstand.

You said fans of certain artists are usually young and can't debate in proper English. Dress it up how you want but that's what you have written and its patronising to those members.

I'm going to continue debating this with you.

it's not what i wrote at all.. again you are wrong. try looking at my post. by all means quote it and make the parts in bold if i actually said such words

Then it should be posted in the appreciation thread so like minded people can discuss it and not an open to debate music forum...I doubt the posters you criticize post in the appreciation forum of artists they dislike, but when it's in a general forum then it's open to debate and inaccuracies can be highlighted.

No one in the Britney threads is anything like the bit in bold thanks very much. I've not seen any members in any thread on the music forum even fit into what you have described here.

and yup I still think what you said was patronising.

So in other words you want to police the forum? why can't the fans of lets say Britney start a topic asking what your favourite album of hers is? this is what annoyed you the other day but just ignore the thread. Why does it bother you what they are posting?

Why would you go into a topic and post about an artist you dislike just to wind up their fans? wouldn't that be baiting? just leave them be, they aren't effecting you.

I've just contacted the mods to ask them if what you say is correct.

I did ignore the thread...the title was there on the music forum, the question asked was "Why is this part of the forum so quiet?" I gave an example by highlighting a thread title, which could easily have been put in the appreciation thread of such artist and like minded fans could debate.

The music forum is so heavily pop centric, it is no surprise that it is so quiet with one genre dominating the forum.

OK, I'll bite.

I would argue that Jackson's main influence on contemporary music is the idea of a black performer combining different styles and genres to create his own style, but before him there was Sly Stone and of course Jimi Hendrix. What actual musical influence has Jackson had on today's artists?

On the other hand there are still, even now, many artists whose music is influenced by James Brown or Bob Dylan.

Well you've certainly shot yourself in the foot with that one because you can't safely say that at all. He was a product of his time (and his producer). It's difficult to think of anybody who has been particularly influenced by him, althrough a couple of his videos woke a few record companies up to the idea that it was worth spending vast amounts of money on them.

I don't know why you felt you had to 'bite'.


Erm Justin Timberlake, Justin Bieber, Usher, Chris Brown, Jason Derulo, Beyonce.

In fact the list is endless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ichael_Jackson

^ 60 names there with sources.

All those artists cite Michael Jackson as an influence. So I'm not actually sure how I shot myself in the foot.

However I can see MJ is a sore subject on here, have I opened up a can of worms?

What I find funny now is that unique claimed above people my age can't debate on here as they know nothing about facts, well there is a list of 'facts' to back up MJs influence on artists. please don't try to dispute it, those artists said it themselves.

But you haven't said what influence you think Jackson has had that makes him the most influential male artist ever. Just listing people who say they were influenced by him does not explain why you think he is more influential than anyone else.

Because all the biggest pop stars of the last 20 years cite him as their idol. That's why.

I'm not even a fan of Michael Jackson but its really silly for anyone to down play his success and influence. Beyonce is one of the biggest artists in the world today and she calls Michael Jackson her biggest inspiration. This is his legacy. Who else aside from maybe Madonna, Elvis, David Bowie and The Beatles has a legacy like that?

Regardless of what you think of Michael Jackson his influence across the entire music spectrum is huge and cannot be denied. It was Jackson who gave birth to the music video and turned them into mini movies. A new Michael Jackson video was a national event in the 80s, it was the same for Madonna too. MTV have a lot to thank them for.

so as I said before, I didn't say what you said I said

so this just further backs up what I've been saying about people not being able to understand what is posted, and also what I've said about people continuing to argue about things after they've been proven to be wrong

it doesn't take much to simply quote what people have said and get some accuracy instead of misquoting and misunderstanding people

you are wrong again. I didn't claim that at all. again you can't read and understand what is said in black and white, even though earlier today that had been pointed out to you

It's not about downplaying his success, it's about what you mean by "the most influential male artist who ever lived". Being influential would generally be understood to mean that someone found a new or better way to do something and those who followed him (or her) used that person's ideas or discoveries in their own work. It's true that Jackson was hugely successful and he defined pop music for a generation, but as barbeler said he owed a lot of his success to his producer (and songwriters). He may indeed be an inspiration to Beyonce but how does her music reflect his influence on her?

that's nonsense. music videos were around before MJ made one, and remember MJ didn't actually make the "mini movie" you refer to. he appeared in it whilst a team of people, including the director of the 2 movies that were used as influences on the video, an American werewolf in London, and the blues brothers, who's dance routine on shake your tailfeather was used by the "zombies" in the thriller video

long before the idea of music videos there were musicals in the cinema with people performing dance routines to music, which is essentially what music videos do on a smaller basis

regarding MTV, they didn't want to play MJ originally. his record company had to force them to play him by threatening to disallow them to play works by their other artists

You did say that its there in bold. I'm not actually sure why you are denying saying it? have you actually forgotten what you posted? I've quoted it and I've highlighted it.

If I have misunderstood what you meant when you say members who are younger don't have much musical knowledge or tend to favour certain artists then please explain what you did mean by it because to me it not only read as rude and snobbish I think there was a degree of baiting without your post too. I have a vast taste in music and listen to many different artists. I take issue with anyone claiming younger people typically only favour certain artists or don;t have much musical knowledge..


You haven't pointed anything out to me as you haven't actually said what it was you meant. You keep saying I misunderstood your post, well tell me what you mean by it then in a way which doesn't come across as patronising.


Because who else has managed to influence as many popstars like Michael Jackson has? I would say MJ's influence explains itself.