.....the biggest story or the greatest entertainer of all time? The coverage of MJ's death is big, Princess Di was big, The Beatles were big, Elvis was big, even coverage of Buddy Holly was big.....for the time it happened. I think you have to factor in the capability the media has now and what the media had then and the capability people have/had to get info from all the sources available then and now. Is Michael Jackson being called "the greatest entertainer ever" chiefly because of his talent and body of work or are his fame and legacy more a result of the increased availability of his product and the vastness and immediacy of today's media coverage? Some of both is true, I think. Having a lengthy window with otherwise slow worldwide news happening is a factor too. And the ease of coverage matters also, concerning both the story's location and the amount of already canned material that's available. You can decide how much media inflation, etc., has affected Michael's career, talent and legacy, factoring all that in for yourself. Or you can simply say that MJ, The Beatles and Elvis were the biggest stories/entertainers/media darlings/etc. of their day and leave it at that as I'll probably choose to do. Or you can decide with defendable validity that because there's so much more media available to influence public opinion and preference evaluation today and since Jackson is the biggest story being currently covered by this vast, unprecedented media force, then, de facto, Michael is the greatest talent or entertainment story of this time and, by default or desert, of all time. But, Frank Sinatra would have been more famous with coverage like is available now. He dominated his arena, such as it was. So did Charlie Chaplin and Al Jolson and Mark Twain. World War II was all over every type of coverage available while it was going on. However, if WWII happened now, it would have more coverage simply because there's more media capabilty now. Would that make it a bigger war, if the same conflict that happened then got today's bigger coverage? It would probably seem like a bigger wsr, even if exactly the same number died and the same amount of damage, drama, bravery and tragedy ocurred just because we would know more of all that because of the better coverage. And, if Michael Jackson, The Beatles and Elvis all made the finals of American Idol or Britain's Got Talent or Friday Night at the Apollo or The Gong Show or Arthur Godfrey's Talent Scouts, which act would win? I have my preferences and opinions and you have yours. Michael made it big and the media that helped create him and which he also helped create has now paved the way for future big artists, just as Elvis and The Beatles helped create increased potential for MJ. Put those artists as contemporary unknowns in front of a judging panel in different decades and their ranking would depend on the preferences, biases and experience of those judges. And if pure talent was their only criteria, it would depend on what those judges were looking for or were ready to accept. Give any of those talented artists all the media attention and coverage capability and marketing and visibility available today and I think you'd have a fairly valid contest for greatest entertainer or biggest talent ever. Of course, some undefeated Roman gladiator or a now fogotten, but amazingly creative, prehistoric oral storyteller who sat around a campfire, doubtlessly were all the rage in their time and place. So, IMHO, it's all relative to the times and that era's coverage capability plus being subjective and personally preferential. JMO. RIP, Michael.
Michael Jackson wasn't even the greatest talent in the history of being Michael Jackson. He had one album that went supernova because it coincided with the invention of MTV and that was pretty much it. Seriously, his only body of work was his own freaky body mutations. He might have been a great news story for those masses of ignorant folk that thrive on the Enquirer and such, but other than that, what did he do that merits any attention whatsoever?
I agree that Prince is more "talented". I don't know why Prince is not in the same light or public realm of greatness but he isn't. Prince, flat out, is a bad ***. I will be more distraught when he passes. I actually like his music more.
Good grief guys. The original question was whether Michael Jackson was the greatest story or the greatest entertainer of all time. And you are not allowed to offer your opinion that he is at best a story? It's a direct response to the original question. Just because you like him doesn't mean that is the only opinion that can be offered. I never claimed I speak for the masses. In fact, I implicitly identified a difference between the masses and my opinion.
To my distant observation, mentioning Jackson in the same breath as Elvis, The Beatles, or The Rolling Stones is absurd. Jackson was a fabulous child singer and very popular as an adult, but he was a phenomenon more akin to a long-lived Backstreet Boys than the talents mentioned above. I think Nick Danger actually hits at part of Jackson's appeal with the remark about his mutations/mutilations. I think the defensiveness of some of his fans has more to do with attachment to Jackson's perceived tortured Peter Pan persona than the quality of his music. Jackson may have exceeded all of the above (except Elvis, probably) in generating a personal bond with his fans. It's a bond that makes little sense to me, but such is the nature of other persons' emotions. I'm sure I have attachments that are similarly puzzling. The bizarre tragic quality of Jackson became largely repulsive to me. Where others connected based on some universal condition of discomfort with the self, I saw a human melting into a freak before our eyes. To my eyes, only the pathetic freak remained at the end, and I am continually shocked that others see him differently. Throughout the child molestation trial, it seemed so strange that this oddest of characters was the object of the national camera and people would only discuss the charges as though their proof or disproof would make Jackson either normal or abnormal. What about what our eyes were telling us? Forget the charges and look at this poor guy. I wished him no ill, but I was old enough to think he was beyond the point of no return and headed to a bad end. I likely would have kept this opinion to myself, but alas, I've had enough of the beatification. The next phase will be the slow revelation of "facts" that will substantiate what we've been watching for the last two decades. He's been built up too high, now comes the delight in tearing down the false legend. And the big ol' world keeps turning.
Elvis had something that not many do when it came to winning a crowd over. But talented? Other than singing what did he bring. He didn't write his songs, he danced around but didn't really create any dance moves or crazes, he made a lot of movies but didn't do much acting. I prefer Prince over MJ. But will give MJ the edge on over all talent even if it wasn't my cup of tea.
I love MJ, but I dont think he was the greatest entertainer of all time. It all depends on what you think is entertaining... If you think dancing really good while lip-syncing youre songs live is entertainment, then yeah MJ was the best. If think really singing live and hitting harmonies, playing an instrument, and writing youre own music... then Id say Elvis or The Beatles. The Beatles for me are the greatest music composers/performers of our time. However, the Beatles and MJ might not even be comparable considering there were 4 of them, and one MJ. But The Beatles to me have longer lasting power than MJ, and better music IMO. They didnt "perform" if you consider "performing" a bunch of dancing... But they performed their music and their harmonies to perfection every night. That to me is what makes a great performer.
That's a good question. I'd be interested to see how the individual careers of each Beatle member stacks up against MJ's individual career. As for a good part of his fame being a result of becoming a freak, I completely agree. I think that there is good reason to believe that MJ would just be another legendary Motown singer / songwriter if he had chosen to keep his natural looks and ended up looking like the computer estimate that ABC offered up. The guy apparently reinvented himself several times over by continually disfiguring his appearance in an attempt to "never" grow up. That said, I think that it's safe to say that he would never have gotten away with this without an incredibly strong musical body of work.
The one element that none of the others mentioned in this thread share with Michael Jackson is the unprecedented popularity he enjoyed across the world. In practically every region of the world -- China, Central/Eastern/Western Europe, India, Europe, Southeast Asia, Japan, the Middle East -- he was probably even MORE popular....right up until his death, than he was in the U.S. We can talk all day about the "what ifs" regarding entertainers from other eras, but the fact of MJ's worldwide popularity is indisputable, and completely unprecedented by anyone --- entertainer, politician, religious leader, etc. I can't think of a single person, past or present, that was as famous as MJ was at the time of his death.
From the perspective that MJ was a good to very good singer and an incredible dancer I still put him no where near the top of the music chain of greats. With that said I absolute think guy is an incredible over all entertainer just not a musician. Singing and dancing is about showmanship, Being an incredible musician or songwriter is much different. BTW I do love the song Billie Jean.
Whether you like pop, indie or underground the chances of it being because of MJ and his influence on the artists down the line somewhere are pretty great. So the next time you listen to something that may be hip or underground, just know that band or artist was influenced by Michael somewhere down the line. It is just about unavoidable. I know guys in Metal bands that listened to his stuff growing up. They for sure don't now but when they were moving out of their id into their ego and super ego they did.
