Non-Urban Music Johnny Cash vs. Michael Jackson vs. Jerry Lee Lewis
- Thread starter Illuminattile
- Start date
lmao.Are you saying that anything Michael Jackson released after Dangerous was excellent music.Anything released by MJ in the past 15 years was rubbish especially Earth Song.That song make me cringe.And i dont think he is ever going to release any more good music.He is finished since the mid 90's anyway imo.MJ has some great songs but i dont agree that he was more influential than Cash.Johnny Cash's music appeals to a more diverse audience.Shit, i know loads of people my age who listen to his music.Not to mention older people.For that reason he is more influential.
Yes, I am actually. HIStory is one of his best albums by a mile. Fair enough, "Earth Song" might not be to everyone's tastes BUT that album had amazing track after amazing track, off the top of my head - Scream ft. Janet, They Don't Care About Us, Stranger In Moscow (one of the best MJ songs ever), This Time Around ft. Biggie, Money, You Are Not Alone, Tabloid Junkie (in my top 10 all time MJ tracks), History, 2 Bad, even D.S (a wicked middle-finger diss track to that bastard Tom Sneddon with a SICK guitar solo by the god that is Slash, from Guns N Roses)......
Following on from that, the original tracks on 1997's Blood on The Dance Floor album were also amazing. The remixes sucked ass for the most part, with one or two exceptions, but the tracks Blood on The Dance Floor, Morphine, Ghosts, and Is It Scary were excellent. And the Ghosts short movie is fucking top notch.
I hate it when people say Dangerous was the last good thing he did cos it's simply not true. HIStory is also his most successful album after Thriller - it sold 18 million worldwide but since it's a double disc that counts as 36 million.
I agree that Invincible did suck ass but at the same time there were flashes of brilliance on there. I think Michael is going to come with some ill banging shit on the next album, for sure. If the '93 case inspired him to write some of the amazing stuff on HIStory then he is gonna be seriously inspired right now.
Johnny Cash's music does not appeal to a more diverse audience. That is an insane remark that can not be backed up at all! What is your basis for that? Go to any country in the world where people listen to contemporary music and a lot of repressed, third world countries too, and everybody knows Michael and his work, people from all walks of life.
There is not a single solid claim to say that Johnny Cash is more influential than Michael because it simply is not the case. Whether he should be more influential or whether his music is better is all subjective and comes down to personal opinions and tastes....but to say he is more influential is not true at all.
Following on from that, the original tracks on 1997's Blood on The Dance Floor album were also amazing. The remixes sucked ass for the most part, with one or two exceptions, but the tracks Blood on The Dance Floor, Morphine, Ghosts, and Is It Scary were excellent. And the Ghosts short movie is fucking top notch.
I hate it when people say Dangerous was the last good thing he did cos it's simply not true. HIStory is also his most successful album after Thriller - it sold 18 million worldwide but since it's a double disc that counts as 36 million.
I agree that Invincible did suck ass but at the same time there were flashes of brilliance on there. I think Michael is going to come with some ill banging shit on the next album, for sure. If the '93 case inspired him to write some of the amazing stuff on HIStory then he is gonna be seriously inspired right now.
Johnny Cash's music does not appeal to a more diverse audience. That is an insane remark that can not be backed up at all! What is your basis for that? Go to any country in the world where people listen to contemporary music and a lot of repressed, third world countries too, and everybody knows Michael and his work, people from all walks of life.
There is not a single solid claim to say that Johnny Cash is more influential than Michael because it simply is not the case. Whether he should be more influential or whether his music is better is all subjective and comes down to personal opinions and tastes....but to say he is more influential is not true at all.
That's not true at all. There are millions and millions of Michael Jackson fans over the age of 40.
The Jackson 5 at the height of the popularity as a group created the biggest mass worldwide fanbase since The Beatles, and their peak was in 1971. 99% of that attention was on Michael since he was the frontman.
So if the average age of your standard Jackson 5 fan at their peak was 16, then those people were born in 1955 and would now be 52 years old on average.
Michael's peak as a solo artist was arguably somewhere around 1987 and the "Bad" album.....if the average age of your millions and millions of Michael fans back then was 21 years old (since MJ as a solo artist appealed mostly to a slightly older crowd than the bubblegum-pop of the Jackson 5), then those fans would have been born in 1966 and would now be 41 years old on average.
How can you claim that MJ would not have any fans over 40 when the majority of this fans at the absolute peak of his fame, both in the group, and solo, will now be over 40?
Even without this, the simple fact is that MJ is a pop (short for popular) artist.....that alone means he would have a much much much more diverse audience than Johnny, a country/folk (both niche genres) artist.
The Jackson 5 at the height of the popularity as a group created the biggest mass worldwide fanbase since The Beatles, and their peak was in 1971. 99% of that attention was on Michael since he was the frontman.
So if the average age of your standard Jackson 5 fan at their peak was 16, then those people were born in 1955 and would now be 52 years old on average.
Michael's peak as a solo artist was arguably somewhere around 1987 and the "Bad" album.....if the average age of your millions and millions of Michael fans back then was 21 years old (since MJ as a solo artist appealed mostly to a slightly older crowd than the bubblegum-pop of the Jackson 5), then those fans would have been born in 1966 and would now be 41 years old on average.
How can you claim that MJ would not have any fans over 40 when the majority of this fans at the absolute peak of his fame, both in the group, and solo, will now be over 40?
Even without this, the simple fact is that MJ is a pop (short for popular) artist.....that alone means he would have a much much much more diverse audience than Johnny, a country/folk (both niche genres) artist.
all of this is good logic except for one problem: you are assuming that all the fans of the Jackson 5 were or are still fans of his work. when my mom was little she loved the Jackson 5, but she never listened to his solo stuff. i hear what you're saying because i know there are a lot of fans of MJ who are over 40, but your logic there is a bit flawed, considering he's lost a lot of fans over the years. oh and Johnny Cash definitely qualifies a s a pop musician if your definition is popular music. besides Willie Nelson, Johnny is the most beloved and popular country/western performer there ever was.
Hendrix was dead by that time, Page had gone past his peak and Clapton, whilst certainly a proficient player has never been known for hard rock playing.
Who was the biggest guitarist at that time in terms of both playing and commercial relevance....who's band were one of the biggest rock bands at that time? Van Halen.
Same way MJ used Slash for "Give in to Me" on the Dangerous album....Guns N Roses were the biggest band at that time.
Who was the biggest guitarist at that time in terms of both playing and commercial relevance....who's band were one of the biggest rock bands at that time? Van Halen.
Same way MJ used Slash for "Give in to Me" on the Dangerous album....Guns N Roses were the biggest band at that time.
Yeah Eddie was far and away the biggest guitarist of that time period due to a mix of his proficiency, originality, charisma and having a great vocalist in David Lee Roth.....and then Dave left 
Sammy Hagar is OK....but he's no match for Diamond Dave!
Anyway by the early 90s Eddie was a wreck.....there's a famous story about how at one point he was on his knees literally begging Kurt to let him jam with Nirvana....Kurt told him they didn't have any more guitars and Eddie start pointing at Pat Smear (of Nirvana) and saying "well let me play the mexicans guitar. Is he mexican, is he black?".
Then Kurt said something like "OK you go on the stage and jam by yourself after we've all left" or something. Lol.
I would never say definitively that Eddie is the biggest guitar god of all time.....there's definately some competition for that title.
Sammy Hagar is OK....but he's no match for Diamond Dave!
Anyway by the early 90s Eddie was a wreck.....there's a famous story about how at one point he was on his knees literally begging Kurt to let him jam with Nirvana....Kurt told him they didn't have any more guitars and Eddie start pointing at Pat Smear (of Nirvana) and saying "well let me play the mexicans guitar. Is he mexican, is he black?".
Then Kurt said something like "OK you go on the stage and jam by yourself after we've all left" or something. Lol.
I would never say definitively that Eddie is the biggest guitar god of all time.....there's definately some competition for that title.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.