balloonoboy
Banned
- 9,784
- 481
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
Certainly you don't believe this.Originally Posted by Durden7
Bigger fanbase? Rowlings.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Certainly you don't believe this.Originally Posted by Durden7
Bigger fanbase? Rowlings.
Originally Posted by Mr Kuter
Durden7 wrote:
Bigger impact? MJ. Bigger fanbase? Rowlings.
This is an apples vs. oranges comparison though. One was an artist/icon, the other is a writer. One is famous for creating other characters, one is famous for being himself. The only similarity between the two is that they are able to reach a wide-spread audience.
Originally Posted by RetroSan
Originally Posted by RedMan
For the NTers who are saying Mike, may you provide reasons.
cause when Michael died, tears was shed (moms damn near went into withdrawal for like a week) and he has a bigger legacy
if JK died it won't hit you as much as it did with mike
EDIT: Plus EVERYBODY knows who Mike is, don't think JK is as wordly renown
How many people do you think were turned off based upon his personal life and everything that went with it? I think musically his fanbase is huge, but just in terms of MJ the man it's significantly lower.Originally Posted by Durden7
Originally Posted by Mr Kuter
Durden7 wrote:
Bigger impact? MJ. Bigger fanbase? Rowlings.
This is an apples vs. oranges comparison though. One was an artist/icon, the other is a writer. One is famous for creating other characters, one is famous for being himself. The only similarity between the two is that they are able to reach a wide-spread audience.
Since Mike made music for 40 years, I really think his fanbase is bigger.
Originally Posted by undefinedinc
Michael, easy
Sundizzle wrote:
So you feel as if had Micheal Jackson had the benefit of gobalization and the internet that J.K Rowland has that he would be comparable to her. Just look at it, she is comparable to him in this day and age. What if she wrote those books at a time where your work wasnt as readily available as it is today? Its like comparing Bath Ruth to dudes who use steriods.... it simply wouldn't be fair. And even with the crutch of modern day techonolgy she is being compared to an entertainer that didn't have those faculties at his advantage.
He may have the higher impact with one generation, but generally books stand the test of time. In 50 years people will still continue to be reading Harry Potter. Significantly less people will have that same attachment to Michael Jackson
This isn't true today due to books and music being equally available. As quick as you can find a book, you can download an album. I am sure you wouldn't disagree that people read less books now, in comparsion to 20, not to mention 40 years ago.
I don't know how you can definitively pick one over the other...it's a good question and I don't think there is a clear-cut answer
Judge it by percentage rather the numbers.
Judge it by percentage rather the numbers.Originally Posted by enlightendespot
I don't know how you can definitively pick one over the other...it's a good question and I don't think there is a clear-cut answer
Originally Posted by undefinedinc
Originally Posted by Durden7
How many people do you think were turned off based upon his personal life and everything that went with it? I think musically his fanbase is huge, but just in terms of MJ the man it's significantly lower.Originally Posted by Mr Kuter
Since Mike made music for 40 years, I really think his fanbase is bigger.
lol even with those who were turned off by his personal issues, his fanbase surpasses Rowlings 10 folds...How is this even a debate?
Originally Posted by deFOBking
harry potter is a stupid book...in my sense little red riding hood > harry potter lol n talking bout ppl turned off by mj's lifestyle, u can say tat many prob turned off by the witchcraft involved in HP series the pope said the book's about the devil...
Percentage of what? NT's OPINION? Again, it's subjective and generational. I said I think it's MJ, but I'm willing to accept other viewpoints because I don't follow Rowling/Harry Potter like that, but I understand the popularity and impact that the series has had.Originally Posted by DoubleJs07
Judge it by percentage rather the numbers.Originally Posted by enlightendespot
I don't know how you can definitively pick one over the other...it's a good question and I don't think there is a clear-cut answer
Originally Posted by DoubleJs07
Good question....I honestly, think it depends on the generation that you talk to.
Originally Posted by enlightendespot
Sorry if I came across as stating my opinion as fact, if I did.Originally Posted by DoubleJs07
Percentage of what? NT's OPINION? Again, it's subjective and generational. I said I think it's MJ, but I'm willing to accept other viewpoints because I don't follow Rowling/Harry Potter like that, but I understand the popularity and impact that the series has had.Originally Posted by enlightendespot
Judge it by percentage rather the numbers.
*And I do feel as though a lot of people are stating their opinion as fact.
I meant the percentages of numbers, like if MJ had 30 million followers in 1985, that most def surpasses 30 mil in 2011. With all the venues that are available to artists today. I think you would agree that it is easier to reach more people today than it has ever been. You said it is generational and it is, the internet generation.
DoubleJs07 wrote:
Sorry if I came across as stating my opinion as fact, if I did.Originally Posted by enlightendespot
DoubleJs07 wrote:
Percentage of what? NT's OPINION? Again, it's subjective and generational. I said I think it's MJ, but I'm willing to accept other viewpoints because I don't follow Rowling/Harry Potter like that, but I understand the popularity and impact that the series has had.
*And I do feel as though a lot of people are stating their opinion as fact.
I meant the percentages of numbers, like if MJ had 30 million followers in 1985, that most def surpasses 30 mil in 2011. With all the venues that are available to artists today. I think you would agree that it is easier to reach more people today than it has ever been. You said it is generational and it is, the internet generation.
As far as things being generational, you have to understand there there are MILLIONS of people in 2011 (kids/teens/young adults) who don't understand OR care for Michael Jackson and the "impact" he had in the entertainment industry.
That's just not true Millions of kids do know who MJ was and his impact on the world. Thriller is the biggest selling album of all time, having that kind of success doesn't limit you to one generation.
Originally Posted by Durden7
Originally Posted by undefinedinc
Originally Posted by Durden7
How many people do you think were turned off based upon his personal life and everything that went with it? I think musically his fanbase is huge, but just in terms of MJ the man it's significantly lower.
lol even with those who were turned off by his personal issues, his fanbase surpasses Rowlings 10 folds...How is this even a debate?
10 fold? No.
Whichever way it leans towards (MJ or Rowlings), the numbers are close.
And your statistics for "10 folds" are...??Originally Posted by undefinedinc
Originally Posted by Durden7
Originally Posted by undefinedinc
lol even with those who were turned off by his personal issues, his fanbase surpasses Rowlings 10 folds...How is this even a debate?
10 fold? No.
Whichever way it leans towards (MJ or Rowlings), the numbers are close.
I would love to see these statistics your getting to show the numbers are close