Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Pop
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-02-2011, 09:05 AM   #11 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Ben Butler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Rudheath
Posts: 393
Default

For me he is a little overrated along with The Beatles and their music.
Ben Butler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 09:15 AM   #12 (permalink)
Supernatural anaesthetist
 
Dotoar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Posts: 434
Default

He's definitely the king of generic pop. Wether one likes it is another question though, and he would never surpass whatever he did in Beatles.
__________________
- More is more -
Dotoar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 11:55 AM   #13 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 936
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dotoar View Post
He's definitely the king of generic pop. Wether one likes it is another question though, and he would never surpass whatever he did in Beatles.
Well yeh how much someone likes a style is a matter of preference. He has done plenty of styles though from a rocker like Jet to the folk balladry of Callico Skies. Generic? Maybe not so much as some more modern mainstream pop. Not that I'm saying everything he has done is good of course, but he seems to have had many popular songs mixed in among his output.
starrynight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 06:31 AM   #14 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Screen13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,367
Default

A Definition of a "King of Pop" or a "Real King of Pop" is strictly one's opinion, but McCartney is among them in my book, no matter what.

Writing "Come and Get It" (Badfinger's breakthrough single)
Band on the Run (The whole album, possibly my only full 33 1/3 nomination)
"Maybe I'm Amazed"
"Smile Away"
"Hi Hi Hi"
"Listen to What the Man Said" (Cheesy, yes, but still a good Paul moment)
"I've Had Enough"
"My Brave Face"

He's had plenty of falls through the years, but at least in his case, all of those are mainly the work of one man, not a group of hired guns. I also have to admit that even if his side-projects are what one can call under achieving, there's still at least the ambition to look at (Although I'm still trying to pretend that his '84 flick never happened). Too many Live albums, though (Wings Over America and a choice of one of the others is enough), and too many weak tracks through the years, but there are those moments when he's at his best that still puts him in the league.
Screen13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 07:18 AM   #15 (permalink)
A.B.N.
 
djchameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
Surely. He must have wrote many more great melodies than Michael Jackson. The whole Michael Jackson as 'king of pop' was just a record company idea in the early 90s.
Blasphemy!

Quote:
Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American recording artist, dancer, singer-songwriter, musician, and philanthropist. Referred to as the King of Pop, Jackson is recognized as the most successful entertainer of all time by Guinness World Records. His contribution to music, dance, and fashion, along with a much-publicized personal life, made him a global figure in popular culture for over four decades. The seventh child of the Jackson family, he debuted on the professional music scene along with his brothers as a member of The Jackson 5, then the Jacksons in 1964, and began his solo career in 1971.
That's from MJ's wiki and I'm pretty sure you know most of this information but if you are regarded as the most successful entertainer of all time by Guinness World Records. I'm pretty sure you DESERVE the title King of Pop
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah View Post
IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You're a terrible dictionary.
djchameleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 07:38 AM   #16 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Screen13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,367
Default

Thinking on the first post...both of them are Kings in their own ways. They influenced quite a bit for the Mainstream Pop world through the years, and that's a very hard act to do in a quickly changing scene.
Screen13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 07:41 AM   #17 (permalink)
Crazyyyyyy Train
 
Celladorina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,831
Default

Not in my books he is.
Celladorina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 08:31 AM   #18 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 936
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djchameleon View Post
but if you are regarded as the most successful entertainer of all time by Guinness World Records. I'm pretty sure you DESERVE the title King of Pop
And how is most successful entertainer measured? Yes he was a good dancer, he had some charisma and people were interested in his image (although his image became more strange than interesting over recent decades). That's another thing he did seem to decline over the years more so than McCartney for sure.

But to me it's about music anyway, McCartney just wrote more great melodies from what I have heard. If pop is mainly about image then some may consider Michael Jackson more important, but to me pop is definitely more about music and and always has been.

Elvis started the whole pop star idol, dancer, charismatic image thing anyway didn't he? I can see how younger people might side with Michael Jackson as he is more recent but I wonder what people will ultimately see as his legacy. If it's mainstream pop of today then I'm not that impressed. I'll take a strong musical legacy over marketing hype any day.
starrynight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 11:41 AM   #19 (permalink)
A.B.N.
 
djchameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
And how is most successful entertainer measured? Yes he was a good dancer, he had some charisma and people were interested in his image (although his image became more strange than interesting over recent decades). That's another thing he did seem to decline over the years more so than McCartney for sure.

But to me it's about music anyway, McCartney just wrote more great melodies from what I have heard. If pop is mainly about image then some may consider Michael Jackson more important, but to me pop is definitely more about music and and always has been.

Elvis started the whole pop star idol, dancer, charismatic image thing anyway didn't he? I can see how younger people might side with Michael Jackson as he is more recent but I wonder what people will ultimately see as his legacy. If it's mainstream pop of today then I'm not that impressed. I'll take a strong musical legacy over marketing hype any day.
Normally I would agree with you that music trumps success as far as sales and things of that nature but when it comes to Pop. The main driving force behind it in my opinion is to have something light that anyone can get into. When you achieve that status and you get the radio play then you usually get people wanting to buy the albums. So this is the only case where I would say that sales trump music for the title of King of Pop.

Elvis was truly a pop star but look at the title he was given. King of Rock and Roll.

I also feel like if you truly want to be a King of Pop, dancing is heavily related to pop. If you excel at dancing and being a singer songwriter/performer than you are like the tri-factor
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah View Post
IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You're a terrible dictionary.
djchameleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 01:04 PM   #20 (permalink)
Stoned and Jammin' Out
 
Mrd00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern California; Eugene, OR; mobile
Posts: 1,597
Default

I read through so far, but must still agree with the OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
He must have wrote many more great melodies than Michael Jackson. The whole Michael Jackson as 'king of pop' was just a record company idea in the early 90s.
Michael Jackson... man, nobody gave a **** about him at all between 98 and his death. It was strange to even say you still listened to MJ. And he croaks and he's Over rated after death. Not saying anyone here, but that bandwagon "He's the king" mentality is awful, especially coming from folks that haven't broadened their musical palette (for example, those young enough to like MJ but not have heard the Beatles yet because they were older)
__________________
Mrd00d's Last.fm

Mrd00d is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2021 Advameg, Inc.