Bigger Impact: Michael Jackson or J.K Rowling??

[balloonoboy]

Originally Posted by Durden7

Bigger fanbase?  Rowlings.

Certainly you don't believe this.

 

[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.
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.

  

 

[Pathos]

@ rowlings fanbase being bigger

 

[doublejs07]

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 

I don't think anyone is denying Mike's legacy.....but if JK Rowling died, you'd be flat out foolish to think there wouldn't be people out there affected just as much or MORE than when MJ died. 

 

[Ace Ready]

This was all cause of one man and his music.

MJ was one of the top 5 most known people in the WORLD, sure everyone knows harry potter but can anyone recite a line from a book just out the blue? Mike was pop culture in fact he's the king of pop so anyone including JK Rowling can never come close to his notoriety.

 

[undefinedinc]

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.

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?

 

[dmxgod]

I'm going with MJ for obvious reasons:

He still to this day has an impact on many artists' music..
His "Thriller" album was the greatest album and most successful one..
He inspired people from all over the globe to pursue their dreams

 

[2lipslegit]

Originally Posted by undefinedinc

Michael, easy

 

[enlightendespot]

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.

 

[doublejs07]

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

Judge it by percentage rather the numbers.
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.

 

[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...

 

[durden7]

Originally Posted by undefinedinc

Originally Posted by Durden7

Originally Posted by Mr Kuter


Since Mike made music for 40 years, I really think his fanbase is bigger.

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.

 

[legreyfoxx]

not even debatable, michael jackson hands down

 

[rolaholic]

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...

 

[enlightendespot]

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

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

Judge it by percentage rather the numbers.

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.

  
Sorry if I came across as stating my opinion as fact, if I did.
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.

 

[balloonoboy]

Fact of the matter is that MJ influenced so many people, not just musicians, that we will never know the magnitude of his impact. It's astronomical.

 

[limonyfresh]

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

Good question....I honestly, think it depends on the generation that you talk to.

same here.

 

[doublejs07]

Originally Posted by enlightendespot

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

Originally Posted by enlightendespot

Judge it by percentage rather the numbers.

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.

  

Sorry if I came across as stating my opinion as fact, if I did.
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.

I wasn't getting at you....but there are people in this thread who are stating opinion as fact. 

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.  These people may be more intuned with JR Rowling and what she's done with the Harry Potter franchise. 

Like I said, to me, Michael Jackson had the bigger impact.  I'm saying this because I grew up w. his music in the 80's.  My opinion on this is due to the fact that I am ignorant/naive to Harry Potter.  I could care less about the books/movies.  That being said, my ignorance of what Rowling has done doesn't blind me to the impact that she's had globally since started the series. 

Of course NT is going to be pro-MJ on this, but I hope that someone who is a big Harry Potter fan can chime in on this and give another POV. 

*Dude who brought up the Beatles made an excellent point.  I feel the same way about the Beatles as I do Harry Potter.  I'm ignorant to their music and could care less about them.  I do understand and respect their influence/impact to this day. 

 

[prymone]

thriller man... thriller

ive never seen a harry potter movie or read a harry potter book

come at me bro

 

[jordanhead718212]

Is this a joke? I guarantee if you go to Africa and talk to them about JK Rowling, they won't know who she is. And if they do, they probably dislike her and think she's a witch due to the large Christian and Muslim influences in Africa. MJ by a country mile.

 

[parada45]

Random intresting question lol

 

[calibeebee]

Better theme park? Rowlings or MJ????

 

[Ace Ready]

DoubleJs07 wrote:

---

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.

  

Sorry if I came across as stating my opinion as fact, if I did.
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.

 

[undefinedinc]

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.

I would love to see these statistics your getting to show the numbers are close

 

[whiterails]

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

And your statistics for "10 folds" are...??