Ngl, I like a few of her songsAll of em, ole Pete's a proud Swiftie
You're contradicting yourself.
Swift is only known to English speaking white girls in western countries. That's a target audience that is less than 3% of the population.
I would say in terms of massive tours as well these days its much more standard, big acts tend to focus heavily on touring and people tend to go and watch them more often post millenium as thats become were the real money is made, Jacksons big tours in the 80's to mid 90's were the kind of thing nobody else at the time was doing besides perhaps U2, GnR and The Stones.I know you're trolling, but still. I never said that she wasn't big, I said she's not on the level that MJ was. The whole 'Eras Tour' ie, movie, makes me cringe, but it does capture the zeitgeist of young millennial women and teenagers. Just look at the demographic distribution of ticket holders, nearly 80 percent are female and almost half of them Gen Z.
MJ connected to a much broader audience across generations and was, without a doubt, more famous globally. Not huge in some markets like Swift, but in all markets. Thriller is by most accounts the best selling album of all time.
Outside of units sold, the cultural impact of MJ and the way his moves, sounds, imagery and so on was copied and impersonated to the extent that is was in so many countries is extraordinary. Maybe a handful of artists has ever had that level of impact and Taylor Swift isn't one of them. Unless, perhaps, you're a teenage girl.
MJ wasn't just one of the most famous musicians, he was one of the most famous people in the world ever, period.
How does this contradict what I said?
Your cosplay of a zoomer girl is rather convincingThat outside of a niche fan base, Jackson's songs have been forgotten.
Also him being (or not being) a kiddy diddler has nothing to do with how big/talented he was.I'm not a MJ fan.
I'm not a TS fan.
But in the discussion of huge names across all genres of music like MJ, TS, The Beatles, etc in this thread... one name has been completely left out.
Garth Brooks
"According to RIAA, Brooks is the top-selling solo artist of all time with 157 million certified albums in the US.[2] American Music Awards honored him the "Artist of the 90s Decade" and iHeartRadio Music Awards also honored him the "Artist of the Decade".[3]"
And I'm not a GB fan, just saying he's owed his due respect.
As for the metric of concert tours revenue, its worth mentioning back when Jackson toured in the 80s & 90s tickets were $20 for nosebleeds and roughly a few hundred for close-to-the-stage seats. Taylor Swift's tickets typically go into the thousands of dollars, multiple times the rate of inflation over the last 3 decades.
And for the few that believe MJ is a child molester and mentioned it in this thread as a means to support TS, you're a special kind of stupid to not know the circumstances of MJ paying a settlement to that family, or you're still under the influence of the mass media's first public crucifixion over the course of two decades.
Reality check - There's never been any physical evidence of MJ sexually assaulting anyone.
Also him being (or not being) a kiddy diddler has nothing to do with how big/talented he was.
Your cosplay of a zoomer girl is rather convincing
Michael had about 80 more award, over 20 of them being international ie not American or English, of which Taylor has none.
I dont care if Michael diddled kids or not. He is not less of an artist if he did. Though I doubt he did.*Sigh*....
Imagine if somebody said -
"Although Jeffrey Epstein raped hundreds of children & arranged for celebrities & the world's elite to also rape hundreds of children... he did give alot of money to charity."
I listen to political commentators that are convinced MJ raped kids, although those who they support politically are routinely targeted & often character-assassinated by the media they're too stubborn to admit they were wrong - for upwards of 3 decades - about the world's most popular celebrity being crucified by the media they revile.
I dont care if Michael diddled kids or not. He is not less of an artist if he did. Though I doubt he did.
Same. I separate art from artist all the time. If I didn't, I would not get any interesting media at all, and that is not counting the unknown, only what could be proven. We all suck, so you're forgiven while I rock out to this tune.I dont care if Michael diddled kids or not. He is not less of an artist if he did. Though I doubt he did.
Michael still has 60 more awards by your distinction!American and English awards are the only ones that matter.
It's called the First World for a reason.