I came across an interesting debate online, basically about whether Michael Jackson or Drake is the #1 artist of all time. Now, Jackson was pretty clearly a bigger artist than Drake is or has been; I don't think that's up for debate. But it made me think deeper. The consensus was that Michael Jackson will always be the #1 music artist of all time for a few reasons: 1) Jackson achieved worldwide fame to a degree that no one else ever has; 2) many of Jackson's songs are, in many people's views, timeless, and will be iconic forever; and 3) with things like Spotify and SoundCloud, it's much easier to be an overnight sensation today than it was in the 20th century.
On the contrary, it was pointed out that Drake has more #1 albums and more #1 songs.
Of course, because it's music and because it's the Internet, you had your typical "I pass off my opinions as facts" people, who say stuff like "Drake's music is terrible, he's not #1", or the equivalent for Jackson. But let's put our personal tastes in music aside here.
While, at this point in time, Jackson would be the majority pick for GOAT artist, I am not convinced that it will stay that way forever. The claim that Jackson's songs are timeless while [insert hugely popular current artist here] songs' will not be, cannot be proven at all, because the majority of Jackson's avid fanbase is still alive, and we'll see what happens when that is no longer the case. And, obviously a 5 year old song can't be considered timeless because it's only been 5 years, but who knows, it might still be well known in 50 years.
While the Internet has obviously made it easier for artists to GET huge, I would argue that it has made it harder for artists to STAY huge. Nowadays some random teenager off the street can blow up in a week, steal the spotlight, and become the most popular artist, only for some other unknown to take their throne in six months.
I would agree it's "easy" to get big, but not stay there. A lot of these people seem to be kids who just get lucky with one hit song that blows up on YouTube or TikTok and then they ride that for a year or two until it becomes clear they can't do it again.
The emphasis on singles and being a one-hit wonder has grown even bigger with digital downloads.
Michael Jackson was 9 years old and had his family joining him. His career began in 1967 and had Music Lessons earlier than that. He also performed in numerous Genres Of Music.
I do not know of any other Musicians that have done any thing like this. Musicians of that time period had much larger success both in songs and length of careers.
I very much doubt that Random Teenagers with no Families, no Orchestras, not even any Managers, only their Smart Phones (!) to make Music.
If they make Videos as well, they are badly recorded.
I watch the Recommended Videos of Artists Vlogging, often updating Physical Fitness Videos, ... Not much long after, they have Regressed ... usually be cause of Drugs ... and then they do absolutely nothing except post Wads Of Cash ... and attempt to make Music instead.
And The Music that I have encountered is an Artist by them selves, and Their Smart Phones. They Rhyme Needlessly, Repeat Loud Beats more often than G-Force: Guardians Of Space, and attempt to Sing Or Rap Or Spit Bars Or What Ever The Correct Term Is Supposed To Be. The result is not even being able to hear what they are supposed to be saying.
Some say they are going to Blow Up, and post absolutely nothing at all. Are the Smart Phones supposed to Compose Music by them selves?!
Another Difficulty that Artists encounter is that every body is one.
Every Body Is A Musician. No Body Is In An Orchestra.
Keep in mind that India might surpass the United States in many areas within the next 30 years. It's already happened with the most subscribed YouTube channel.
It would be pretty hard. The amount of different genres Michael Jackson had songs in is pretty massive. There are a lot of all great songs that were preformed by Michael Jackson. A good portion of my 70s, 80s and 90s oriented MP3 player (a thing I still use) is weighted heavily by Michael Jackson songs.
One thing Michael was very consistent with.. messages in his songs. How many artists have positive meanings in the majority of their songs and the songs are still bangers? Sure Mike had songs that catered to the dance floor and some love songs (most of which were also bangers) but Mike didn't have to do what many have been doing for over 20 years now to get attention (being super sexual, [falsely] bragging about their money and class, being a "gangsta", etc.). He also basically led MTV to change what they were doing in the early 80's.. Yeah he had his issues but above anything else, he was purely about his music and being an entertainer. I really don't see anyone else pushing barriers like that.
Quote from: thspfc on November 18, 2021, 08:14:59 PM
I came across an interesting debate online, basically about whether Michael Jackson or Drake is the #1 artist of all time.
Based on what?
Elvis has the most #1 songs
The Beatles had the most songs on the top 40 at one time
The Eagles have the biggest selling album
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 18, 2021, 11:17:27 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 18, 2021, 08:14:59 PM
I came across an interesting debate online, basically about whether Michael Jackson or Drake is the #1 artist of all time.
Based on what?
Elvis has the most #1 songs
The Beatles had the most songs on the top 40 at one time
The Eagles have the biggest selling album
Between those two, mayyyybe Michael Jackson. Drake shouldn't even been in the top 500.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 18, 2021, 11:37:22 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 18, 2021, 11:17:27 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 18, 2021, 08:14:59 PM
I came across an interesting debate online, basically about whether Michael Jackson or Drake is the #1 artist of all time.
Based on what?
Elvis has the most #1 songs
The Beatles had the most songs on the top 40 at one time
The Eagles have the biggest selling album
Between those two, mayyyybe Michael Jackson. Drake shouldn't even been in the top 500.
I didn't even know who Drake was until I looked it up because of this thread.
(https://i.imgur.com/UMSK6vW.png)
I think it's a question without an answer. Nobody can be the greatest artist of all time because there's just no way to evaluate that in a way that makes sense. I could say the greatest artist of all time is, say, John Coltrane. And an argument could be had as to who was a better artist, Coltrane or Jackson. But it would boil down to a kind of meaningless comparison, because they didn't approach music remotely the same way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30FTr6G53VU
Listening to this, it's clear Coltrane was pretty damn talented. It's in the key of...everything, and somehow Coltrane was able to
improvise a coherent song out of that. You can find videos where people versed in music theory analyze this recording for longer than the song itself, just peeling back the layers of how he made it work.
Michael Jackson's songs were comparatively simple, straightforward pop songs. But on the other hand, you watch the "Thriller" video and it's just as impressive as what Coltrane was doing, just in a totally different way, using video and theatrics to catch the audience's attention rather than technical and composition ability. The two of them were both excellent artists, and both musicians, they just excelled in different crafts. So how can you say one of them is definitively better than the other?
Also, newer artists have the advantage of being able to build on what came before. Coltrane couldn't do what Jackson did because Jackson hadn't done it yet. An artist today could incorporate ideas from both Coltrane and Jackson and come up with something that ends up feeling totally new and original.
And I don't think that record or ticket sales have any place in the discussion at all. Sales figures say more about the competence of your marketing execs than your talent as an artist. And luck is a factor too. There might be some kid in Limon, Colorado right now fucking around and writing music that would blow the minds of everyone that hears it...who never gets discovered because he's too shy to show anyone his work, or he never manages to be in the right place at the right time to gain wider exposure.
Quote from: In_Correct on November 18, 2021, 08:51:39 PM
And The Music that I have encountered is an Artist by them selves, and Their Smart Phones. They Rhyme Needlessly
What is the difference between essential rhyming and needless rhyming? Sorry, Needless Rhyming.
One thing I'd say seems highly unlikely is for any particular artist ever to release something that has the massive impact of an album like Thriller where it's overwhelmingly popular across almost all sectors of society and receives near-universal airplay. The music market is far more fragmented than it was at the time and it's unlikely for any one album to become that sort of hit ever again in today's world–an album where pretty much everybody knows what album it is and is aware of at least some of the songs on it even if a particular individual hasn't actively listened to it. In the early 1980s, if you heard "Beat It," you knew what song it was.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 19, 2021, 09:00:17 AM
One thing I'd say seems highly unlikely is for any particular artist ever to release something that has the massive impact of an album like Thriller where it's overwhelmingly popular across almost all sectors of society and receives near-universal airplay. The music market is far more fragmented than it was at the time and it's unlikely for any one album to become that sort of hit ever again in today's world–an album where pretty much everybody knows what album it is and is aware of at least some of the songs on it even if a particular individual hasn't actively listened to it. In the early 1980s, if you heard "Beat It," you knew what song it was.
In the sense that we have so many more ways to make our own choices about what music to listen to, MJ will never be surpassed. In the 1980s, your only options for listening to music were on a terrestrial radio station or on albums or cassettes you had purchased. Now there are so many more ways to listen to music, so no single artist will ever get the market penetration that MJ had. It doesn't mean that Drake, or any other contemporary artist, isn't as good or better, just that they won't ever be as popular.
Much in the same way that no movie or television show will ever have the market penetration today compared to 30-40 years ago.
Pink Floyd's album "Dark Side Of The Moon" was in the Top 200 seller list for almost 40 years. That will be hard to beat!
Rick
The only reason I know who Drake is is because of his friendship with John Calipari.
I could not name you one song done by Drake, nor would I recognize him as the artist if I did hear one of his songs.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 19, 2021, 09:55:35 AM
The only reason I know who Drake is is because of his friendship with John Calipari.
I could not name you one song done by Drake, nor would I recognize him as the artist if I did hear one of his songs.
I know who he is, and had a CD or two of his back in college, but I am with you in general. MJ spanned all generations. Everyone knew "Thriller", "Beat It", or "Billie Jean". I'd say maaaaaybe 10-15% of the U.S. populace might know a new Drake song that "hits it big", and that might be overestimating. Not to mention that people in Brazil, Japan, South Africa, etc. all knew Michael Jackson. I'm guessing his music doesn't cross borders as well (except between his native Canada and the U.S.).
no. I love both, but Drake doing better commercially in some ways /=/ eclipsing Mj. Are we going to remember "What's Next" in 10 more years or "Billie Jean"? Most of you probably don't even know the former and it recently came out.
No.
Why's that, you ask?
Weird Al actually making a career (for a time, during the 80s) off of a couple of parodies of MJ's songs.
You can probably guess the two parodies.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 19, 2021, 09:55:35 AM
The only reason I know who Drake is is because of his friendship with John Calipari.
I was coached by John Calipari.
Actually, I'm just sort of impressed that there's someone out there with that many Number One hits in this day and age. I figured it would have been Taylor Swift or Beyoncé, but then again, George Strait has
45 in his genre.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 19, 2021, 02:18:34 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30FTr6G53VU
Listening to this, it's clear Coltrane was pretty damn talented.
I'll just keep this here because John Coltrane doesn't get enough mentions!
It's just a duck.
Quote from: Rothman on November 19, 2021, 05:46:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 19, 2021, 09:55:35 AM
The only reason I know who Drake is is because of his friendship with John Calipari.
I was coached by John Calipari.
Where?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 18, 2021, 11:39:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 18, 2021, 11:37:22 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 18, 2021, 11:17:27 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 18, 2021, 08:14:59 PM
I came across an interesting debate online, basically about whether Michael Jackson or Drake is the #1 artist of all time.
Based on what?
Elvis has the most #1 songs
The Beatles had the most songs on the top 40 at one time
The Eagles have the biggest selling album
Between those two, mayyyybe Michael Jackson. Drake shouldn't even been in the top 500.
I didn't even know who Drake was until I looked it up because of this thread.
On the other side of the coin, the greatest female singer category has been a tossup with Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston and Aretha Franklin each laying claim to that title. Whoever gets it will have just as tall an order to surpass, just like MJ (and Elvis before him) did.
Quote from: thspfc on November 19, 2021, 07:09:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 19, 2021, 05:46:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 19, 2021, 09:55:35 AM
The only reason I know who Drake is is because of his friendship with John Calipari.
I was coached by John Calipari.
Where?
UMass.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Summer basketball camp. :D
What's a "Drake"?
Quote from: dlsterner on November 19, 2021, 09:05:44 PM
What's a "Drake"?
As I said before, it's a duck, a male duck in particular. In addition, some works of fiction use the term for a small dragon-like creature.
Quote from: Rothman on November 19, 2021, 07:31:43 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 19, 2021, 07:09:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 19, 2021, 05:46:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 19, 2021, 09:55:35 AM
The only reason I know who Drake is is because of his friendship with John Calipari.
I was coached by John Calipari.
Where?
UMass.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Summer basketball camp. :D
Hey, that's still pretty cool.
Quote from: 1 on November 19, 2021, 09:08:27 PM
Quote from: dlsterner on November 19, 2021, 09:05:44 PM
What's a "Drake"?
As I said before, it's a duck, a male duck in particular. In addition, some works of fiction use the term for a small dragon-like creature.
"Drake" can be used to describe any dragon, regardless of size, descending from the Latin
draco via Middle English. As with ducks, I think it tends to imply a male dragon, while a female dragon is a dragoness. You know, should you need to specify the gender of the thing that's currently torching you and your belongings.
Dragon nomenclature usually depends on body plan, especially number of limbs (a true dragon has six limbs, while a wyvern has four, two legs and two wings). D&D has the psuedodragon (MM 254, CR ¼) and faerie dragon (MM 133, CR 1) which despite being in the Tiny size class nevertheless carry the full Dragon creature type, and all the implications that carries; e.g. they cannot be impersonated by a druid.
Quote from: 1 on November 19, 2021, 09:08:27 PM
Quote from: dlsterner on November 19, 2021, 09:05:44 PM
What's a "Drake"?
As I said before, it's a duck, a male duck in particular. In addition, some works of fiction use the term for a small dragon-like creature.
Also the makers of Devil Dogs and Funny Bones
Music (and music radio) are so fragmented these days that there may never be another artist that crosses over as big as Elvis, the Beatles, MJ or even Drake. It's more likely it'll be a female artist along the lines of Taylor Swift who is very popular among males.
A Drake is a descendant of a British circumnavigator.
I liked Drake when he was part of the Degrassi universe. Don't know much about him after that.
Drake was an astrophysicist? ;-)
Someday, someone may eclipse Michael Jackson, but likely no time soon.
Drake, a duck, a male duck.
Ray, a drop of golden sun...
Drake in no way comes anywhere close to MJ.
Quote from: GaryV on November 20, 2021, 12:58:00 PM
Drake was an astrophysicist? ;-)
Is! He's still among the living!
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 19, 2021, 09:47:43 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 19, 2021, 09:08:27 PM
Quote from: dlsterner on November 19, 2021, 09:05:44 PM
What's a "Drake"?
As I said before, it's a duck, a male duck in particular. In addition, some works of fiction use the term for a small dragon-like creature.
"Drake" can be used to describe any dragon, regardless of size, descending from the Latin draco via Middle English. As with ducks, I think it tends to imply a male dragon, while a female dragon is a dragoness. You know, should you need to specify the gender of the thing that's currently torching you and your belongings.
Dragon nomenclature usually depends on body plan, especially number of limbs (a true dragon has six limbs, while a wyvern has four, two legs and two wings). D&D has the psuedodragon (MM 254, CR ¼) and faerie dragon (MM 133, CR 1) which despite being in the Tiny size class nevertheless carry the full Dragon creature type, and all the implications that carries; e.g. they cannot be impersonated by a druid.
In Ultima games (or at least UO), drakes are simply young dragons. They breathe fire like their larger counterparts, but don't use magic, and use a smaller version of the same sprite.
Drake isn't gonna surpass Michael Jackson, he's way too famous and had more of a cultural impact, but all of the boomers in here pretending that Drake isn't internationally known and very successful is kind of crazy. Most of the obscure 1960s and 1970s bands you talk about in other music threads are completely irrelevant now, only the most successful ones of that era survive.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 04:55:10 AM
Drake isn't gonna surpass Michael Jackson, he's way too famous and had more of a cultural impact, but all of the boomers in here pretending that Drake isn't internationally known and very successful is kind of crazy. Most of the obscure 1960s and 1970s bands you talk about in other music threads are completely irrelevant now, only the most successful ones of that era survive.
I'm a generation ahead of Boomer and I didn't even know who the guy was. I thought that was just another "Max being Max" thing, but it appears I'm not the only who wasn't familiar.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 04:55:10 AM
Drake isn't gonna surpass Michael Jackson, he's way too famous and had more of a cultural impact, but all of the boomers in here pretending that Drake isn't internationally known and very successful is kind of crazy. Most of the obscure 1960s and 1970s bands you talk about in other music threads are completely irrelevant now, only the most successful ones of that era survive.
With all due respect, you weren't alive when MJ was at his peak. I listen to plenty of rap/hip-hop (although less of the poppy stuff that's on the radio admittedly). Drake's popularity here and abroad is NOTHING like Michael Jackson's was. Hence the boomers (and this late millennial) think the comparison is kind of laughable. I know Drake is famous. But he's maybe 1/10th as famous as MJ during his apex.
I agree with everyone - Jackson is far more famous than Drake. But, do remember that this forum skews older compared to the general population. You and your friends not knowing who Drake is doesn't mean that he's not a hugely popular artist, albeit not on Jackson's level.
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 09:25:46 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 04:55:10 AM
Drake isn't gonna surpass Michael Jackson, he's way too famous and had more of a cultural impact, but all of the boomers in here pretending that Drake isn't internationally known and very successful is kind of crazy. Most of the obscure 1960s and 1970s bands you talk about in other music threads are completely irrelevant now, only the most successful ones of that era survive.
With all due respect, you weren't alive when MJ was at his peak. I listen to plenty of rap/hip-hop (although less of the poppy stuff that's on the radio admittedly). Drake's popularity here and abroad is NOTHING like Michael Jackson's was. Hence the boomers (and this late millennial) think the comparison is kind of laughable. I know Drake is famous. But he's maybe 1/10th as famous as MJ during his apex.
I never said that Drake was MJ level but most people know who he is. The closest artist to Michael Jackson today is probably Taylor Swift but even she falls short.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 09:25:46 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 04:55:10 AM
Drake isn't gonna surpass Michael Jackson, he's way too famous and had more of a cultural impact, but all of the boomers in here pretending that Drake isn't internationally known and very successful is kind of crazy. Most of the obscure 1960s and 1970s bands you talk about in other music threads are completely irrelevant now, only the most successful ones of that era survive.
With all due respect, you weren't alive when MJ was at his peak. I listen to plenty of rap/hip-hop (although less of the poppy stuff that's on the radio admittedly). Drake's popularity here and abroad is NOTHING like Michael Jackson's was. Hence the boomers (and this late millennial) think the comparison is kind of laughable. I know Drake is famous. But he's maybe 1/10th as famous as MJ during his apex.
I never said that Drake was MJ level but most people know who he is. The closest artist to Michael Jackson today is probably Taylor Swift but even she falls short.
I'd actually maybe go Justin Timberlake?
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 11:01:59 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 09:25:46 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 04:55:10 AM
Drake isn't gonna surpass Michael Jackson, he's way too famous and had more of a cultural impact, but all of the boomers in here pretending that Drake isn't internationally known and very successful is kind of crazy. Most of the obscure 1960s and 1970s bands you talk about in other music threads are completely irrelevant now, only the most successful ones of that era survive.
With all due respect, you weren't alive when MJ was at his peak. I listen to plenty of rap/hip-hop (although less of the poppy stuff that's on the radio admittedly). Drake's popularity here and abroad is NOTHING like Michael Jackson's was. Hence the boomers (and this late millennial) think the comparison is kind of laughable. I know Drake is famous. But he's maybe 1/10th as famous as MJ during his apex.
I never said that Drake was MJ level but most people know who he is. The closest artist to Michael Jackson today is probably Taylor Swift but even she falls short.
I'd actually maybe go Justin Timberlake?
Musically, sure, in terms of fame, not even close. He's not even the most famous singer named Justin.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 28, 2021, 04:12:07 AM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 11:01:59 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 09:25:46 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 04:55:10 AM
Drake isn't gonna surpass Michael Jackson, he's way too famous and had more of a cultural impact, but all of the boomers in here pretending that Drake isn't internationally known and very successful is kind of crazy. Most of the obscure 1960s and 1970s bands you talk about in other music threads are completely irrelevant now, only the most successful ones of that era survive.
With all due respect, you weren't alive when MJ was at his peak. I listen to plenty of rap/hip-hop (although less of the poppy stuff that's on the radio admittedly). Drake's popularity here and abroad is NOTHING like Michael Jackson's was. Hence the boomers (and this late millennial) think the comparison is kind of laughable. I know Drake is famous. But he's maybe 1/10th as famous as MJ during his apex.
I never said that Drake was MJ level but most people know who he is. The closest artist to Michael Jackson today is probably Taylor Swift but even she falls short.
I'd actually maybe go Justin Timberlake?
Musically, sure, in terms of fame, not even close. He's not even the most famous singer named Justin.
Oh, are we really going to go with Bieber? :D. I think Timberlake is more popular due to having more of a cross-generational audience.
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 11:01:59 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 09:25:46 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 04:55:10 AM
Drake isn't gonna surpass Michael Jackson, he's way too famous and had more of a cultural impact, but all of the boomers in here pretending that Drake isn't internationally known and very successful is kind of crazy. Most of the obscure 1960s and 1970s bands you talk about in other music threads are completely irrelevant now, only the most successful ones of that era survive.
With all due respect, you weren't alive when MJ was at his peak. I listen to plenty of rap/hip-hop (although less of the poppy stuff that's on the radio admittedly). Drake's popularity here and abroad is NOTHING like Michael Jackson's was. Hence the boomers (and this late millennial) think the comparison is kind of laughable. I know Drake is famous. But he's maybe 1/10th as famous as MJ during his apex.
I never said that Drake was MJ level but most people know who he is. The closest artist to Michael Jackson today is probably Taylor Swift but even she falls short.
I'd actually maybe go Justin Timberlake?
Taylor Swift and Drake are both bigger than Justin Timberlake.
Quote from: thspfc on November 28, 2021, 10:48:08 AM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 11:01:59 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 09:25:46 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 04:55:10 AM
Drake isn't gonna surpass Michael Jackson, he's way too famous and had more of a cultural impact, but all of the boomers in here pretending that Drake isn't internationally known and very successful is kind of crazy. Most of the obscure 1960s and 1970s bands you talk about in other music threads are completely irrelevant now, only the most successful ones of that era survive.
With all due respect, you weren't alive when MJ was at his peak. I listen to plenty of rap/hip-hop (although less of the poppy stuff that's on the radio admittedly). Drake's popularity here and abroad is NOTHING like Michael Jackson's was. Hence the boomers (and this late millennial) think the comparison is kind of laughable. I know Drake is famous. But he's maybe 1/10th as famous as MJ during his apex.
I never said that Drake was MJ level but most people know who he is. The closest artist to Michael Jackson today is probably Taylor Swift but even she falls short.
I'd actually maybe go Justin Timberlake?
Taylor Swift and Drake are both bigger than Justin Timberlake.
Even if you include his NSYNC days? That kind of fandom is the closest thing we've had since MJ.
How popular are those singers outside North America? That's really the biggest question. Michael Jackson was globally popular. U2 perhaps approached that in the early 1990s (emphasis on "perhaps approached" because I don't think they equaled the level of universal recognition the Thriller album reached), but has anyone else really reached a global audience in the same way (including Australia, New Zealand, and Japan)?
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 28, 2021, 11:18:01 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 28, 2021, 10:48:08 AM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 11:01:59 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 09:25:46 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 04:55:10 AM
Drake isn't gonna surpass Michael Jackson, he's way too famous and had more of a cultural impact, but all of the boomers in here pretending that Drake isn't internationally known and very successful is kind of crazy. Most of the obscure 1960s and 1970s bands you talk about in other music threads are completely irrelevant now, only the most successful ones of that era survive.
With all due respect, you weren't alive when MJ was at his peak. I listen to plenty of rap/hip-hop (although less of the poppy stuff that's on the radio admittedly). Drake's popularity here and abroad is NOTHING like Michael Jackson's was. Hence the boomers (and this late millennial) think the comparison is kind of laughable. I know Drake is famous. But he's maybe 1/10th as famous as MJ during his apex.
I never said that Drake was MJ level but most people know who he is. The closest artist to Michael Jackson today is probably Taylor Swift but even she falls short.
I'd actually maybe go Justin Timberlake?
Taylor Swift and Drake are both bigger than Justin Timberlake.
Even if you include his NSYNC days? That kind of fandom is the closest thing we've had since MJ.
NSYNC was 20 years ago.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 28, 2021, 01:10:56 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 28, 2021, 11:18:01 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 28, 2021, 10:48:08 AM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 11:01:59 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 09:25:46 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 04:55:10 AM
Drake isn't gonna surpass Michael Jackson, he's way too famous and had more of a cultural impact, but all of the boomers in here pretending that Drake isn't internationally known and very successful is kind of crazy. Most of the obscure 1960s and 1970s bands you talk about in other music threads are completely irrelevant now, only the most successful ones of that era survive.
With all due respect, you weren't alive when MJ was at his peak. I listen to plenty of rap/hip-hop (although less of the poppy stuff that's on the radio admittedly). Drake's popularity here and abroad is NOTHING like Michael Jackson's was. Hence the boomers (and this late millennial) think the comparison is kind of laughable. I know Drake is famous. But he's maybe 1/10th as famous as MJ during his apex.
I never said that Drake was MJ level but most people know who he is. The closest artist to Michael Jackson today is probably Taylor Swift but even she falls short.
I'd actually maybe go Justin Timberlake?
Taylor Swift and Drake are both bigger than Justin Timberlake.
Even if you include his NSYNC days? That kind of fandom is the closest thing we've had since MJ.
NSYNC was 20 years ago.
And the majority of people alive remember 20 years ago.
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 28, 2021, 01:46:04 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 28, 2021, 01:10:56 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 28, 2021, 11:18:01 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 28, 2021, 10:48:08 AM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 11:01:59 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 09:25:46 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 04:55:10 AM
Drake isn't gonna surpass Michael Jackson, he's way too famous and had more of a cultural impact, but all of the boomers in here pretending that Drake isn't internationally known and very successful is kind of crazy. Most of the obscure 1960s and 1970s bands you talk about in other music threads are completely irrelevant now, only the most successful ones of that era survive.
With all due respect, you weren't alive when MJ was at his peak. I listen to plenty of rap/hip-hop (although less of the poppy stuff that's on the radio admittedly). Drake's popularity here and abroad is NOTHING like Michael Jackson's was. Hence the boomers (and this late millennial) think the comparison is kind of laughable. I know Drake is famous. But he's maybe 1/10th as famous as MJ during his apex.
I never said that Drake was MJ level but most people know who he is. The closest artist to Michael Jackson today is probably Taylor Swift but even she falls short.
I'd actually maybe go Justin Timberlake?
Taylor Swift and Drake are both bigger than Justin Timberlake.
Even if you include his NSYNC days? That kind of fandom is the closest thing we've had since MJ.
NSYNC was 20 years ago.
And the majority of people alive remember 20 years ago.
I polled all four of my under 13 nieces just now during breakfast. All four knew who Justin Timberlake was but only oldest knew who Drake was.
Regarding Bieber, he's definitely famous, but he's more disliked than liked.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 28, 2021, 01:56:40 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 28, 2021, 01:46:04 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 28, 2021, 01:10:56 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 28, 2021, 11:18:01 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 28, 2021, 10:48:08 AM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 11:01:59 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 09:25:46 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 04:55:10 AM
Drake isn't gonna surpass Michael Jackson, he's way too famous and had more of a cultural impact, but all of the boomers in here pretending that Drake isn't internationally known and very successful is kind of crazy. Most of the obscure 1960s and 1970s bands you talk about in other music threads are completely irrelevant now, only the most successful ones of that era survive.
With all due respect, you weren't alive when MJ was at his peak. I listen to plenty of rap/hip-hop (although less of the poppy stuff that's on the radio admittedly). Drake's popularity here and abroad is NOTHING like Michael Jackson's was. Hence the boomers (and this late millennial) think the comparison is kind of laughable. I know Drake is famous. But he's maybe 1/10th as famous as MJ during his apex.
I never said that Drake was MJ level but most people know who he is. The closest artist to Michael Jackson today is probably Taylor Swift but even she falls short.
I'd actually maybe go Justin Timberlake?
Taylor Swift and Drake are both bigger than Justin Timberlake.
Even if you include his NSYNC days? That kind of fandom is the closest thing we've had since MJ.
NSYNC was 20 years ago.
And the majority of people alive remember 20 years ago.
I polled all four of my under 13 nieces just now during breakfast. All four knew who Justin Timberlake was but only oldest knew who Drake was.
Wow, I'm pretty surprised. I would've thought Justin Timberlake was more relevant to the >20 crowd. I'm also surprised how few people in this thread know Drake. I can't say I know much of his songs, but I certainly know his name and face. Maybe because I'm from near Toronto?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 28, 2021, 01:56:40 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 28, 2021, 01:46:04 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 28, 2021, 01:10:56 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 28, 2021, 11:18:01 AM
Quote from: thspfc on November 28, 2021, 10:48:08 AM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 11:01:59 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 27, 2021, 09:25:46 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2021, 04:55:10 AM
Drake isn't gonna surpass Michael Jackson, he's way too famous and had more of a cultural impact, but all of the boomers in here pretending that Drake isn't internationally known and very successful is kind of crazy. Most of the obscure 1960s and 1970s bands you talk about in other music threads are completely irrelevant now, only the most successful ones of that era survive.
With all due respect, you weren't alive when MJ was at his peak. I listen to plenty of rap/hip-hop (although less of the poppy stuff that's on the radio admittedly). Drake's popularity here and abroad is NOTHING like Michael Jackson's was. Hence the boomers (and this late millennial) think the comparison is kind of laughable. I know Drake is famous. But he's maybe 1/10th as famous as MJ during his apex.
I never said that Drake was MJ level but most people know who he is. The closest artist to Michael Jackson today is probably Taylor Swift but even she falls short.
I'd actually maybe go Justin Timberlake?
Taylor Swift and Drake are both bigger than Justin Timberlake.
Even if you include his NSYNC days? That kind of fandom is the closest thing we've had since MJ.
NSYNC was 20 years ago.
And the majority of people alive remember 20 years ago.
I polled all four of my under 13 nieces just now during breakfast. All four knew who Justin Timberlake was but only oldest knew who Drake was.
I'm suprised. Most people my age know both.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 28, 2021, 12:12:25 PM
How popular are those singers outside North America? That's really the biggest question. Michael Jackson was globally popular. U2 perhaps approached that in the early 1990s (emphasis on "perhaps approached" because I don't think they equaled the level of universal recognition the Thriller album reached), but has anyone else really reached a global audience in the same way (including Australia, New Zealand, and Japan)?
Apple did release that U2 album to all iTunes users, so it may have gotten wide release by default. The idea was not very popular.
Y'all please. Justin Timberlake shouldn't have even been mentioned in this thread. Britney's fandom was (is) larger than NStink's.
Britney is free.
Quote from: kenarmy on November 28, 2021, 10:28:16 PM
Y'all please. Justin Timberlake shouldn't have even been mentioned in this thread. Britney's fandom was (is) larger than NStink's.
I don't care at all about pop music, but this has to be false. She hasn't had a single anyone cared about in 18 years or so. JT has been in movies, had #1 hits, etc.
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 28, 2021, 11:53:12 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on November 28, 2021, 10:28:16 PM
Y'all please. Justin Timberlake shouldn't have even been mentioned in this thread. Britney's fandom was (is) larger than NStink's.
I don't care at all about pop music, but this has to be false. She hasn't had a single anyone cared about in 18 years or so. JT has been in movies, had #1 hits, etc.
Britney Spears has had top 5 singles as recently as 9 years ago. She is also in the news a lot more now so she might be more well known.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 29, 2021, 12:06:54 AM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 28, 2021, 11:53:12 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on November 28, 2021, 10:28:16 PM
Y'all please. Justin Timberlake shouldn't have even been mentioned in this thread. Britney's fandom was (is) larger than NStink's.
I don't care at all about pop music, but this has to be false. She hasn't had a single anyone cared about in 18 years or so. JT has been in movies, had #1 hits, etc.
Britney Spears has had top 5 singles as recently as 9 years ago. She is also in the news a lot more now so she might be more well known.
Britney Spears was impossible to divorce from the MUTE symbol on my TV during her heyday. Her music ain't my bag and is heavily auto tuned. She was probably just as appealing to guys as Boy Bands were to girls.
Quote from: kenarmy on November 28, 2021, 10:28:16 PM
Y'all please. Justin Timberlake shouldn't have even been mentioned in this thread. Britney's fandom was (is) larger than NStink's.
I do want thank kenarmy for being the only person, in this thread, so far, to name a Drake song.
All these teeny-boppers (well, all two of them) trying to convince us as to Drake's popularity and unwilling to offer us "old-timers" something by the guy, just so we can see if we can recognize the part-owner (or is it "super-fan") of the Toronto Raptors.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 29, 2021, 01:50:31 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on November 28, 2021, 10:28:16 PM
Y'all please. Justin Timberlake shouldn't have even been mentioned in this thread. Britney's fandom was (is) larger than NStink's.
I do want thank kenarmy for being the only person, in this thread, so far, to name a Drake song.
All these teeny-boppers (well, all two of them) trying to convince us as to Drake's popularity and unwilling to offer us "old-timers" something by the guy, just so we can see if we can recognize the part-owner (or is it "super-fan") of the Toronto Raptors.
Pfft. If old-timers stopped listening to Top 40 stations, then they wouldn't know what's popular nowadays anyway. Selection bias...
Drake's #1 hit "God's Plan" befuddled me, as does the concept of mumble rap in general. But, I can't deny its popularity just because I don't like it.
Quote from: Rothman on November 28, 2021, 10:56:56 PM
Britney is free.
I hope she has someone responsible watching over her life and finances now that her father has been removed from his oversight as her conservator. Otherwise she'll probably be broke in six months and in who knows what kind of personal distress. She's lucky she's had someone to watch out for her all these years.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 29, 2021, 01:50:31 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on November 28, 2021, 10:28:16 PM
Y'all please. Justin Timberlake shouldn't have even been mentioned in this thread. Britney's fandom was (is) larger than NStink's.
I do want thank kenarmy for being the only person, in this thread, so far, to name a Drake song.
All these teeny-boppers (well, all two of them) trying to convince us as to Drake's popularity and unwilling to offer us "old-timers" something by the guy, just so we can see if we can recognize the part-owner (or is it "super-fan") of the Toronto Raptors.
Lots of Drake's new album, such as Way 2 Sexy and Knife Talk, is very popular on Tiktok. The old-timers don't really use it but it's very popular with Gen Z.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 29, 2021, 12:16:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 28, 2021, 10:56:56 PM
Britney is free.
I hope she has someone responsible watching over her life and finances now that her father has been removed from his oversight as her conservator. Otherwise she'll probably be broke in six months and in who knows what kind of personal distress. She's lucky she's had someone to watch out for her all these years.
Pfft. Given her treatment by her father, I am surprised she wasn't more out of whack.
Leave Britney alone.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 29, 2021, 12:06:54 AM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 28, 2021, 11:53:12 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on November 28, 2021, 10:28:16 PM
Y'all please. Justin Timberlake shouldn't have even been mentioned in this thread. Britney's fandom was (is) larger than NStink's.
I don't care at all about pop music, but this has to be false. She hasn't had a single anyone cared about in 18 years or so. JT has been in movies, had #1 hits, etc.
Britney Spears has had top 5 singles as recently as 9 years ago. She is also in the news a lot more now so she might be more well known.
Exactly. And even though she hasn't released any singles or albums in the last few years she is still very popular and has a HUGE fanbase. Otherwise, the freebritney movement would not have been so huge. JT hasn't done anything to even make noise recently except for his lackluster superbowl performance.
Quote from: Rothman on November 29, 2021, 02:19:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 29, 2021, 12:16:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 28, 2021, 10:56:56 PM
Britney is free.
I hope she has someone responsible watching over her life and finances now that her father has been removed from his oversight as her conservator. Otherwise she'll probably be broke in six months and in who knows what kind of personal distress. She's lucky she's had someone to watch out for her all these years.
Pfft. Given her treatment by her father, I am surprised she wasn't more out of whack.
Leave Britney alone.
Are you really defending the conservatorship?? She has never had monetary problems except when her FAMILY stole it under the c-ship and continue to mooch off of it. Not to mention her losing basic human rights such as being alone and driving her car. And the custody of her children was reduced because her FATHER tried to attack her son.
Quote from: kenarmy on November 29, 2021, 02:58:55 PM
Are you really defending the conservatorship??
Yes. I've never been consumed with Britney Spears news, but there for awhile it was omnipresent. You couldn't escape it. I can't remember exactly what dumb decisions she made, but she made a bunch of them at one time.
We'll see what her personal and financial situation is in a year or so. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it will be worse.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 29, 2021, 07:52:16 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on November 29, 2021, 02:58:55 PM
Are you really defending the conservatorship??
I've never been consumed with Britney Spears news, but there for awhile it was omnipresent. You couldn't escape it.
I still have no idea what has happened. Maybe I did escape it?
Quote from: hbelkins on November 29, 2021, 07:52:16 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on November 29, 2021, 02:58:55 PM
Are you really defending the conservatorship??
Yes. I've never been consumed with Britney Spears news, but there for awhile it was omnipresent. You couldn't escape it. I can't remember exactly what dumb decisions she made, but she made a bunch of them at one time.
We'll see what her personal and financial situation is in a year or so. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it will be worse.
HB aspires to be the father that Britney's father was...
Quote from: Rothman on November 29, 2021, 08:00:03 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 29, 2021, 07:52:16 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on November 29, 2021, 02:58:55 PM
Are you really defending the conservatorship??
Yes. I've never been consumed with Britney Spears news, but there for awhile it was omnipresent. You couldn't escape it. I can't remember exactly what dumb decisions she made, but she made a bunch of them at one time.
We'll see what her personal and financial situation is in a year or so. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it will be worse.
HB aspires to be the father that Britney's father was...
Yeah and that's quite disgusting. Forget the money. She earned and it she doesn't owe any of it to her family. But if drugging a 39 y.o. mother, forcing her to perform for years, monitoring her 24/7, and making her use an IUD seems fine to you then sure bud :-P.
Quote from: Rothman on November 29, 2021, 08:00:03 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 29, 2021, 07:52:16 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on November 29, 2021, 02:58:55 PM
Are you really defending the conservatorship??
Yes. I've never been consumed with Britney Spears news, but there for awhile it was omnipresent. You couldn't escape it. I can't remember exactly what dumb decisions she made, but she made a bunch of them at one time.
We'll see what her personal and financial situation is in a year or so. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it will be worse.
HB aspires to be the father that Britney's father was...
Sometimes I wish I'd had the father that she had. Maybe he could have kept me from doing some really dumb and costly stuff over the years.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2021, 03:29:26 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 29, 2021, 08:00:03 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 29, 2021, 07:52:16 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on November 29, 2021, 02:58:55 PM
Are you really defending the conservatorship??
Yes. I've never been consumed with Britney Spears news, but there for awhile it was omnipresent. You couldn't escape it. I can't remember exactly what dumb decisions she made, but she made a bunch of them at one time.
We'll see what her personal and financial situation is in a year or so. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it will be worse.
HB aspires to be the father that Britney's father was...
Sometimes I wish I'd had the father that she had. Maybe he could have kept me from doing some really dumb and costly stuff over the years.
You want a forced vasectomy? That's essentially what happened with Britney.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2021, 03:29:26 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 29, 2021, 08:00:03 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 29, 2021, 07:52:16 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on November 29, 2021, 02:58:55 PM
Are you really defending the conservatorship??
Yes. I've never been consumed with Britney Spears news, but there for awhile it was omnipresent. You couldn't escape it. I can't remember exactly what dumb decisions she made, but she made a bunch of them at one time.
We'll see what her personal and financial situation is in a year or so. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it will be worse.
HB aspires to be the father that Britney's father was...
Sometimes I wish I'd had the father that she had. Maybe he could have kept me from doing some really dumb and costly stuff over the years.
OK let's do it put HB under a conservatorship for the next 15 years and then we interview him afterward to see how he liked it.
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 30, 2021, 03:34:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2021, 03:29:26 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 29, 2021, 08:00:03 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 29, 2021, 07:52:16 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on November 29, 2021, 02:58:55 PM
Are you really defending the conservatorship??
Yes. I've never been consumed with Britney Spears news, but there for awhile it was omnipresent. You couldn't escape it. I can't remember exactly what dumb decisions she made, but she made a bunch of them at one time.
We'll see what her personal and financial situation is in a year or so. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it will be worse.
HB aspires to be the father that Britney's father was...
Sometimes I wish I'd had the father that she had. Maybe he could have kept me from doing some really dumb and costly stuff over the years.
You want a forced vasectomy? That's essentially what happened with Britney.
Except for the whole "reversible" part.
And Britney already has children. If she wants to be involved in a child's life, maybe that would be a good place to start.
Shouldn't matter whether it's reversible or not, or whether they have kids or not. Once someone is over the age of 18, it's immoral for their dad to have that degree of control over them and their body.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2021, 05:18:28 PM
Shouldn't matter whether it's reversible or not, or whether they have kids or not. Once someone is over the age of 18, it's immoral for their dad to have that degree of control over them and their body.
It's nobody's first choice. But she was unstable and lurching from one bad decision to another, hurting everyone around her as well as herself.
The choice wasn't dad as conservator vs. no conservator. It was dad as conservator vs. someone else as conservator, taking care of her money, reigning in her most destructive impulses, helping her keep her career together. If dad couldn't or wouldn't do it, maybe they would have gotten a different relative, or a lawyer or something.
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2021, 05:40:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2021, 05:18:28 PM
Shouldn't matter whether it's reversible or not, or whether they have kids or not. Once someone is over the age of 18, it's immoral for their dad to have that degree of control over them and their body.
It's nobody's first choice. But she was unstable and lurching from one bad decision to another, hurting everyone around her as well as herself.
The choice wasn't dad as conservator vs. no conservator. It was dad as conservator vs. someone else as conservator, taking care of her money, reigning in her most destructive impulses, helping her keep her career together. If dad couldn't or wouldn't do it, maybe they would have gotten a different relative, or a lawyer or something.
Eh, it's called your 20's.
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2021, 05:40:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2021, 05:18:28 PM
Shouldn't matter whether it's reversible or not, or whether they have kids or not. Once someone is over the age of 18, it's immoral for their dad to have that degree of control over them and their body.
It's nobody's first choice. But she was unstable and lurching from one bad decision to another, hurting everyone around her as well as herself.
If those are the criteria, we're going to need conservators for half of Congress.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2021, 03:29:26 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 29, 2021, 08:00:03 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 29, 2021, 07:52:16 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on November 29, 2021, 02:58:55 PM
Are you really defending the conservatorship??
Yes. I've never been consumed with Britney Spears news, but there for awhile it was omnipresent. You couldn't escape it. I can't remember exactly what dumb decisions she made, but she made a bunch of them at one time.
We'll see what her personal and financial situation is in a year or so. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it will be worse.
HB aspires to be the father that Britney's father was...
Sometimes I wish I'd had the father that she had. Maybe he could have kept me from doing some really dumb and costly stuff over the years.
That's a little messed up. Her father was extreme. Lots better fathers out there.
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 30, 2021, 05:45:30 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2021, 05:40:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2021, 05:18:28 PM
Shouldn't matter whether it's reversible or not, or whether they have kids or not. Once someone is over the age of 18, it's immoral for their dad to have that degree of control over them and their body.
It's nobody's first choice. But she was unstable and lurching from one bad decision to another, hurting everyone around her as well as herself.
The choice wasn't dad as conservator vs. no conservator. It was dad as conservator vs. someone else as conservator, taking care of her money, reigning in her most destructive impulses, helping her keep her career together. If dad couldn't or wouldn't do it, maybe they would have gotten a different relative, or a lawyer or something.
Eh, it's called your 20's.
My 20s weren't even that crazy as compared to a lot of people yet I still look back at them like "Oh, god"
Bumping this thread...
It's been only slightly over 2 years and we have a clear contender to answer the question after everyone was saying it was impossible in the previous discussion:
Taylor Swift.
Taylor's projects are putting out great numbers, but that's about it. I've never even heard "Is It Over Now?" or "All Too Well" in the wild. And "cardigan" and "willow" hit number 1 but quickly slid down the charts; in fact, "willow" held a record for biggest drop from number one. Artistry wise, Taylor is a solid song-writer, but she just not touching MJ. Hell he wrote Billie Jean himself and co-produced it for a start. I think what really tells the story is influence. Mj has obviously influenced Pop Culture way more than anyone else in this conversation. He has inspired artists such as Beyoncé, both Justins, Usher, and Lady Gaga just to name a few, and even Drake frequently jacks his style.
Anddddd Thriller is the best selling album ever WW, not The Eagles album.
Taylor hasn't even eclipsed Beyoncé. I hate to see their fans arguing all the time, but let's face it: Bey has been relevant since '97 with DC and is still keeping up. She's had a song chart every year for now 25 years. Time will tell if Taylor has the same longevity.
I know this conversation is about MJ, but I don't think Taylor has eclipsed Whitney either :D. MJ himself has cited her as an inspiration and SEVERAL singers have gotten record deals by singing her songs (off the top of my head I know Britney Spears did). Sales wise, Whitney has the best selling female album ever. She is also the only black artist with 3 diamond albums. Even during the digital era, she became one of the few artists with over a billion streams in the UK this year and she became the FIRST 20th century artist to have a billion views on Youtube with "I Will Always Love You." And let's not forget Whitney had SEVEN consecutive singles to hit number one. I don't think anyone is doing that, even though it is much easier to accomplish in the streaming era. Now this doesn't even account her actually being a great vocalist, which she definitely has Taylor and everyone beat in.
Now I will say that unfortunately, many of Whitney's hits aren't as remembered today by the GP compared to MJ. However, Whitney's (and Mariah's) older hits have seen a resurgence lately, but only time will tell.
P.S. I do enjoy some of Taylor's music and look forward to her re-recording of Reputation! I Knew You Were Trouble was like my favorite song at one point.
People still buy albums?
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2023, 06:53:07 AM
People still buy albums?
It's actually become in fashion again. I don't understand why, but it has.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 12, 2023, 07:06:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2023, 06:53:07 AM
People still buy albums?
It's actually become in fashion again. I don't understand why, but it has.
If the artist is obscure enough, it's the only way to hear their music. And if you want that artist to continue to make music, you should buy their album(s).
Quote from: formulanone on December 12, 2023, 08:31:15 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 12, 2023, 07:06:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2023, 06:53:07 AM
People still buy albums?
It's actually become in fashion again. I don't understand why, but it has.
If the artist is obscure enough, it's the only way to hear their music. And if you want that artist to continue to make music, you should buy their album(s).
If obscure, then the volume of sales will be low, anyway.
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2023, 09:40:48 AM
Quote from: formulanone on December 12, 2023, 08:31:15 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 12, 2023, 07:06:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2023, 06:53:07 AM
People still buy albums?
It's actually become in fashion again. I don't understand why, but it has.
If the artist is obscure enough, it's the only way to hear their music. And if you want that artist to continue to make music, you should buy their album(s).
If obscure, then the volume of sales will be low, anyway.
Sure, but so is their ego and overhead. If they sell all 25,000 pressed copies (or whereabouts) then they might make back their initial investment.
Quote from: formulanone on December 12, 2023, 05:43:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2023, 09:40:48 AM
Quote from: formulanone on December 12, 2023, 08:31:15 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 12, 2023, 07:06:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2023, 06:53:07 AM
People still buy albums?
It's actually become in fashion again. I don't understand why, but it has.
If the artist is obscure enough, it's the only way to hear their music. And if you want that artist to continue to make music, you should buy their album(s).
If obscure, then the volume of sales will be low, anyway.
Sure, but so is their ego and overhead. If they sell all 25,000 pressed copies (or whereabouts) then they might make back their initial investment.
So...people really aren't buying albums in the grand scheme of things.
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2023, 06:49:07 PM
Quote from: formulanone on December 12, 2023, 05:43:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2023, 09:40:48 AM
Quote from: formulanone on December 12, 2023, 08:31:15 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 12, 2023, 07:06:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2023, 06:53:07 AM
People still buy albums?
It's actually become in fashion again. I don't understand why, but it has.
If the artist is obscure enough, it's the only way to hear their music. And if you want that artist to continue to make music, you should buy their album(s).
If obscure, then the volume of sales will be low, anyway.
Sure, but so is their ego and overhead. If they sell all 25,000 pressed copies (or whereabouts) then they might make back their initial investment.
So...people really aren't buying albums in the grand scheme of things.
Probably not in the tremendous numbers in the days before streaming was commonplace, but maybe more than in [previous COVID-affected year]. It's been a few decades since I averaged 2-3 albums a month, and probably buy merely 2-3 albums a year for the last 15 years or so.
Drake doesn't even hold a candle to Bruno Mars, much less Michael Jackson or Prince. I do like some of Drake's music, but nothing he has will be considered classics except on throwback R&B stations 20 years from now.
Quote from: golden eagle on December 12, 2023, 09:30:08 PM
Drake doesn't even hold a candle to Bruno Mars, much less Michael Jackson or Prince. I do like some of Drake's music, but nothing he has will be considered classics except on throwback R&B stations 20 years from now.
Drake is objectively a bigger artist than Bruno Mars ever has been.
"Classic" is highly subjective. What are Bruno's "classics"?
Quote from: kenarmy on December 12, 2023, 01:00:20 AM
I know this conversation is about MJ, but I don't think Taylor has eclipsed Whitney either :D. MJ himself has cited her as an inspiration and SEVERAL singers have gotten record deals by singing her songs (off the top of my head I know Britney Spears did). Sales wise, Whitney has the best selling female album ever. She is also the only black artist with 3 diamond albums. Even during the digital era, she became one of the few artists with over a billion streams in the UK this year and she became the FIRST 20th century artist to have a billion views on Youtube with "I Will Always Love You." And let's not forget Whitney had SEVEN consecutive singles to hit number one. I don't think anyone is doing that, even though it is much easier to accomplish in the streaming era. Now this doesn't even account her actually being a great vocalist, which she definitely has Taylor and everyone beat in.
Now I will say that unfortunately, many of Whitney's hits aren't as remembered today by the GP compared to MJ. However, Whitney's (and Mariah's) older hits have seen a resurgence lately, but only time will tell.
P.S. I do enjoy some of Taylor's music and look forward to her re-recording of Reputation! I Knew You Were Trouble was like my favorite song at one point.
While Taylor and Beyonce are the two biggest superstar singers in this part of the 21st century, neither one will catch Whitney, as previously stated above.
The next generation (as well as the ones after them) will have daunting tasks that can only increase with each passing year, and they will fall just short. In other words, they'll continue to chase the ghosts of MJ and WH (pun intended) up to the end of time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the same thing said of Elvis (i.e., "would he be surpassed?") in the days before Thriller? And going back even further, I think Frank Sinatra would've been the one that everybody tried to top.
Quote from: thspfc on December 12, 2023, 10:22:34 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on December 12, 2023, 09:30:08 PM
Drake doesn't even hold a candle to Bruno Mars, much less Michael Jackson or Prince. I do like some of Drake's music, but nothing he has will be considered classics except on throwback R&B stations 20 years from now.
Drake is objectively a bigger artist than Bruno Mars ever has been.
"Classic" is highly subjective. What are Bruno's "classics"?
Uptown Funk...
Drake's got mumble crap.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 12, 2023, 07:06:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2023, 06:53:07 AM
People still buy albums?
It's actually become in fashion again. I don't understand why, but it has.
It's because people are tired of online services jerking them around and deleting music they already paid for. With a physical album, the only way the person who sold it to you can get it back is by breaking into your house.
Quote from: Henry on December 12, 2023, 10:39:50 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on December 12, 2023, 01:00:20 AM
I know this conversation is about MJ, but I don't think Taylor has eclipsed Whitney either :D. MJ himself has cited her as an inspiration and SEVERAL singers have gotten record deals by singing her songs (off the top of my head I know Britney Spears did). Sales wise, Whitney has the best selling female album ever. She is also the only black artist with 3 diamond albums. Even during the digital era, she became one of the few artists with over a billion streams in the UK this year and she became the FIRST 20th century artist to have a billion views on Youtube with "I Will Always Love You." And let's not forget Whitney had SEVEN consecutive singles to hit number one. I don't think anyone is doing that, even though it is much easier to accomplish in the streaming era. Now this doesn't even account her actually being a great vocalist, which she definitely has Taylor and everyone beat in.
Now I will say that unfortunately, many of Whitney's hits aren't as remembered today by the GP compared to MJ. However, Whitney's (and Mariah's) older hits have seen a resurgence lately, but only time will tell.
P.S. I do enjoy some of Taylor's music and look forward to her re-recording of Reputation! I Knew You Were Trouble was like my favorite song at one point.
While Taylor and Beyonce are the two biggest superstar singers in this part of the 21st century, neither one will catch Whitney, as previously stated above.
The next generation (as well as the ones after them) will have daunting tasks that can only increase with each passing year, and they will fall just short. In other words, they'll continue to chase the ghosts of MJ and WH (pun intended) up to the end of time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the same thing said of Elvis (i.e., "would he be surpassed?") in the days before Thriller? And going back even further, I think Frank Sinatra would've been the one that everybody tried to top.
Of course, not everyone wants to be the next "superstar". And for each artist or band that gets a world tour, there's thousands of other musicians who don't want that stress. The annals of modern music history is loaded with stories about how long tours were not necessarily the best for the health of that band. (Maybe it seems to be a better choice for those with a headline name and revolving door of talent behind the limelight?)
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 13, 2023, 02:43:53 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 12, 2023, 07:06:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2023, 06:53:07 AM
People still buy albums?
It's actually become in fashion again. I don't understand why, but it has.
It's because people are tired of online services jerking them around and deleting music they already paid for. With a physical album, the only way the person who sold it to you can get it back is by breaking into your house.
Sure, but there are still CDs and .mp3s. The hipsters seem to specifically be into vinyl though.
Quote from: Road Hog on November 20, 2021, 01:13:14 AM
Music (and music radio) are so fragmented these days that there may never be another artist that crosses over as big as Elvis, the Beatles, MJ or even Drake. It's more likely it'll be a female artist along the lines of Taylor Swift who is very popular among males.
Smartest thing I ever posted here.
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2023, 12:04:57 AM
Quote from: thspfc on December 12, 2023, 10:22:34 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on December 12, 2023, 09:30:08 PM
Drake doesn't even hold a candle to Bruno Mars, much less Michael Jackson or Prince. I do like some of Drake's music, but nothing he has will be considered classics except on throwback R&B stations 20 years from now.
Drake is objectively a bigger artist than Bruno Mars ever has been.
"Classic" is highly subjective. What are Bruno's "classics"?
Uptown Funk...
Drake's got mumble crap.
Bruno also has That's What I Like and his current work with Anderson .Paak as the duo Silk Sonic. At least, on a throwback R&B station in 20 years.
Quote from: golden eagle on December 23, 2023, 12:39:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2023, 12:04:57 AM
Quote from: thspfc on December 12, 2023, 10:22:34 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on December 12, 2023, 09:30:08 PM
Drake doesn't even hold a candle to Bruno Mars, much less Michael Jackson or Prince. I do like some of Drake's music, but nothing he has will be considered classics except on throwback R&B stations 20 years from now.
Drake is objectively a bigger artist than Bruno Mars ever has been.
"Classic" is highly subjective. What are Bruno's "classics"?
Uptown Funk...
Drake's got mumble crap.
Bruno also has That's What I Like and his current work with Anderson .Paak as the duo Silk Sonic. At least, on a throwback R&B station in 20 years.
Uptown Funk is the only one that beats Drake's biggest hits, and Drake has more big hits overall.
Quote from: thspfc on December 23, 2023, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on December 23, 2023, 12:39:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2023, 12:04:57 AM
Quote from: thspfc on December 12, 2023, 10:22:34 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on December 12, 2023, 09:30:08 PM
Drake doesn't even hold a candle to Bruno Mars, much less Michael Jackson or Prince. I do like some of Drake's music, but nothing he has will be considered classics except on throwback R&B stations 20 years from now.
Drake is objectively a bigger artist than Bruno Mars ever has been.
"Classic" is highly subjective. What are Bruno's "classics"?
Uptown Funk...
Drake's got mumble crap.
Bruno also has That's What I Like and his current work with Anderson .Paak as the duo Silk Sonic. At least, on a throwback R&B station in 20 years.
Uptown Funk is the only one that beats Drake's biggest hits, and Drake has more big hits overall.
Bruno has a broader appeal and his songs have slipped deeper into popular culture.
Drake's just going to slip into oblivion.
Quote from: Rothman on December 23, 2023, 08:55:43 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 23, 2023, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on December 23, 2023, 12:39:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2023, 12:04:57 AM
Quote from: thspfc on December 12, 2023, 10:22:34 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on December 12, 2023, 09:30:08 PM
Drake doesn't even hold a candle to Bruno Mars, much less Michael Jackson or Prince. I do like some of Drake's music, but nothing he has will be considered classics except on throwback R&B stations 20 years from now.
Drake is objectively a bigger artist than Bruno Mars ever has been.
"Classic" is highly subjective. What are Bruno's "classics"?
Uptown Funk...
Drake's got mumble crap.
Bruno also has That's What I Like and his current work with Anderson .Paak as the duo Silk Sonic. At least, on a throwback R&B station in 20 years.
Uptown Funk is the only one that beats Drake's biggest hits, and Drake has more big hits overall.
Bruno has a broader appeal and his songs have slipped deeper into popular culture.
Drake's just going to slip into oblivion.
That's politician speak. Words that sound nice together. No evidence or even possible methodology of proof.
Quote from: thspfc on December 24, 2023, 10:17:20 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 23, 2023, 08:55:43 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 23, 2023, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on December 23, 2023, 12:39:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2023, 12:04:57 AM
Quote from: thspfc on December 12, 2023, 10:22:34 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on December 12, 2023, 09:30:08 PM
Drake doesn't even hold a candle to Bruno Mars, much less Michael Jackson or Prince. I do like some of Drake's music, but nothing he has will be considered classics except on throwback R&B stations 20 years from now.
Drake is objectively a bigger artist than Bruno Mars ever has been.
"Classic" is highly subjective. What are Bruno's "classics"?
Uptown Funk...
Drake's got mumble crap.
Bruno also has That's What I Like and his current work with Anderson .Paak as the duo Silk Sonic. At least, on a throwback R&B station in 20 years.
Uptown Funk is the only one that beats Drake's biggest hits, and Drake has more big hits overall.
Bruno has a broader appeal and his songs have slipped deeper into popular culture.
Drake's just going to slip into oblivion.
That's politician speak. Words that sound nice together. No evidence or even possible methodology of proof.
Pfft. So's everything about this thread and the general subjectivity of musical taste.
Quote from: Rothman on December 24, 2023, 11:23:42 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 24, 2023, 10:17:20 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 23, 2023, 08:55:43 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 23, 2023, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on December 23, 2023, 12:39:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2023, 12:04:57 AM
Quote from: thspfc on December 12, 2023, 10:22:34 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on December 12, 2023, 09:30:08 PM
Drake doesn't even hold a candle to Bruno Mars, much less Michael Jackson or Prince. I do like some of Drake's music, but nothing he has will be considered classics except on throwback R&B stations 20 years from now.
Drake is objectively a bigger artist than Bruno Mars ever has been.
"Classic" is highly subjective. What are Bruno's "classics"?
Uptown Funk...
Drake's got mumble crap.
Bruno also has That's What I Like and his current work with Anderson .Paak as the duo Silk Sonic. At least, on a throwback R&B station in 20 years.
Uptown Funk is the only one that beats Drake's biggest hits, and Drake has more big hits overall.
Bruno has a broader appeal and his songs have slipped deeper into popular culture.
Drake's just going to slip into oblivion.
That's politician speak. Words that sound nice together. No evidence or even possible methodology of proof.
Pfft. So's everything about this thread and the general subjectivity of musical taste.
Music taste is subjective; how popular an artist is is not.
Quote from: thspfc on December 25, 2023, 02:59:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 24, 2023, 11:23:42 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 24, 2023, 10:17:20 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 23, 2023, 08:55:43 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 23, 2023, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on December 23, 2023, 12:39:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 13, 2023, 12:04:57 AM
Quote from: thspfc on December 12, 2023, 10:22:34 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on December 12, 2023, 09:30:08 PM
Drake doesn't even hold a candle to Bruno Mars, much less Michael Jackson or Prince. I do like some of Drake's music, but nothing he has will be considered classics except on throwback R&B stations 20 years from now.
Drake is objectively a bigger artist than Bruno Mars ever has been.
"Classic" is highly subjective. What are Bruno's "classics"?
Uptown Funk...
Drake's got mumble crap.
Bruno also has That's What I Like and his current work with Anderson .Paak as the duo Silk Sonic. At least, on a throwback R&B station in 20 years.
Uptown Funk is the only one that beats Drake's biggest hits, and Drake has more big hits overall.
Bruno has a broader appeal and his songs have slipped deeper into popular culture.
Drake's just going to slip into oblivion.
That's politician speak. Words that sound nice together. No evidence or even possible methodology of proof.
Pfft. So's everything about this thread and the general subjectivity of musical taste.
Music taste is subjective; how popular an artist is is not.
Not in the sense we're talking about.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 13, 2023, 10:31:17 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 13, 2023, 02:43:53 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 12, 2023, 07:06:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2023, 06:53:07 AM
People still buy albums?
It's actually become in fashion again. I don't understand why, but it has.
It's because people are tired of online services jerking them around and deleting music they already paid for. With a physical album, the only way the person who sold it to you can get it back is by breaking into your house.
Sure, but there are still CDs and .mp3s. The hipsters seem to specifically be into vinyl though.
An "album" does not solely mean an LP record. A CD, or a download of a full set of songs (e.g., if you download the Beatles'
Rubber Soul or whatever) is still an "album." The term originated in the era of 78-rpm records, when a "record" normally had one song per side (hence the Grammy Award category for "Record of the Year" referring to what is often called a "single" or to one track of an album) and an artist wishing to release a larger collection of songs released a set of records together in an "album." That term stuck when the invention of the LP made it possible to put more tracks on a single disc.
The one that always puzzles me is when younger people use the word "digital" to refer solely to downloads, as if a CD were somehow not "digital" despite it being right there in the full name and logo ("Compact Disc Digital Audio").
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 14, 2024, 02:18:58 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 13, 2023, 10:31:17 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 13, 2023, 02:43:53 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 12, 2023, 07:06:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2023, 06:53:07 AM
People still buy albums?
It's actually become in fashion again. I don't understand why, but it has.
It's because people are tired of online services jerking them around and deleting music they already paid for. With a physical album, the only way the person who sold it to you can get it back is by breaking into your house.
Sure, but there are still CDs and .mp3s. The hipsters seem to specifically be into vinyl though.
An "album" does not solely mean an LP record. A CD, or a download of a full set of songs (e.g., if you download the Beatles' Rubber Soul or whatever) is still an "album." The term originated in the era of 78-rpm records, when a "record" normally had one song per side (hence the Grammy Award category for "Record of the Year" referring to what is often called a "single" or to one track of an album) and an artist wishing to release a larger collection of songs released a set of records together in an "album." That term stuck when the invention of the LP made it possible to put more tracks on a single disc.
The one that always puzzles me is when younger people use the word "digital" to refer solely to downloads, as if a CD were somehow not "digital" despite it being right there in the full name and logo ("Compact Disc Digital Audio").
I'm guessing they mean an MP3 or similar file format that is portable. The option is disappearing fast, but it used to be you could either "rip" CDs to obtain the file or "burn" the file onto an audio CD. Those capable computers will soon be like gold, I predict.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 14, 2024, 02:18:58 PM
The one that always puzzles me is when younger people use the word "digital" to refer solely to downloads, as if a CD were somehow not "digital" despite it being right there in the full name and logo ("Compact Disc Digital Audio").
Digital vs. physical. You're right that a CD technically falls under both categories, but younger people think of digital as meaning "on a computer", in which case a CD is only digital once you burn the files off of it.
Quote from: Road Hog on January 14, 2024, 09:51:04 PM
I'm guessing they mean an MP3 or similar file format that is portable. The option is disappearing fast, but it used to be you could either "rip" CDs to obtain the file or "burn" the file onto an audio CD. Those capable computers will soon be like gold, I predict.
I doubt it. You can buy an external CD/DVD burner for $30CAD that plugs in to your computer via USB.
Quote from: Road Hog on January 14, 2024, 09:51:04 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 14, 2024, 02:18:58 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 13, 2023, 10:31:17 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 13, 2023, 02:43:53 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 12, 2023, 07:06:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2023, 06:53:07 AM
People still buy albums?
It's actually become in fashion again. I don't understand why, but it has.
It's because people are tired of online services jerking them around and deleting music they already paid for. With a physical album, the only way the person who sold it to you can get it back is by breaking into your house.
Sure, but there are still CDs and .mp3s. The hipsters seem to specifically be into vinyl though.
An "album" does not solely mean an LP record. A CD, or a download of a full set of songs (e.g., if you download the Beatles' Rubber Soul or whatever) is still an "album." The term originated in the era of 78-rpm records, when a "record" normally had one song per side (hence the Grammy Award category for "Record of the Year" referring to what is often called a "single" or to one track of an album) and an artist wishing to release a larger collection of songs released a set of records together in an "album." That term stuck when the invention of the LP made it possible to put more tracks on a single disc.
The one that always puzzles me is when younger people use the word "digital" to refer solely to downloads, as if a CD were somehow not "digital" despite it being right there in the full name and logo ("Compact Disc Digital Audio").
I'm guessing they mean an MP3 or similar file format that is portable. The option is disappearing fast, but it used to be you could either "rip" CDs to obtain the file or "burn" the file onto an audio CD. Those capable computers will soon be like gold, I predict.
It's possible to buy and download MP3s directly, at least from Amazon, although it seems like they keep making it less and less convenient to do so (I so miss the days when I could just add items to the MP3 cart, pay all at once, and then download a ZIP file with everything already organized in folders by artist/album). Between my desktop, my laptop, my phone, and my external hard drive with backups of my desktop and laptop, the copyright owners would have to hack into a lot of stuff to prevent me from playing something whenever I want (note that I don't use the Amazon Music app or anything like that; I just play the MP3s in VLC).