Re: Greatest entertainer of the 20th century
Date: January 5, 2005 04:03
bassaleman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza you are right and i should keep this to
> music but do you really think michael jackson has
> had that much of an impact on entertainment?
well,it wasnt me who suggested Michael, but to answer your question - yes. Absolutely. We live in an MTV/video-dominated generation dont forget, and the most significant and influential artist of that era is Michael Jackson. Only Madonna comes anywhere near close. He maybe hasnt had any impact on me, personally, but thats not the point. His impact on popular culture and entertainment in the last thirty years has been massive - actually, maybe even more so to his own generation than the Stones and many acts from the 60's and 70's were to their own, because in the last 20 years or so music has become so much more globally orientated and accessible through television and also relies on the video media so much.
and
> as far as frank goes ,he might have done some
> concerts when he was 80 but i don't think there
> were many in between...
He played thousands! but the question wasnt concerning "greatest live performer" (personally, I prefer Springsteen to Jagger as a live performer but thats just my own personal taste), it was "greatest entertainer", which is a title which requires a lot more than that (see Happy Jack's points above). I think also that people of our generation and taste in music dont tend to look beyond rock music when it comes to talking about greats and their impact on musical history. In reality, its only been around for less than half of the last century, unlike other forms of music such as jazz. Rovalle also mentioned Louis Armstrong, who would also be a definite contender..
We dont even have to limit it to music - you could certainly add in movies as well. When Rudolf Valentino died in 1924, he was the biggest movie star in the world and his death caused mass hysteria and suicides. It would be hard to imagine that happening now, partly because we're so different now and the music and movie worlds are so diverse and fragmented culturally, that even the death of any big movie or music star would have relatively little impact.
maybe the topic should have
> been for the most prolific artist......
Well...Mick's nowhere near the most prolific artist. Far from it!!
>anyway if mick
> is still singing when he is 80,maybe he will have
> a shot to be the Greatest entertainer
I'd say he already has a shot, but its a fun (but unwinnable) argument to compare different eras, styles and cultures!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-05 17:28 by Gazza.