You're still comparing apples to pears. OK, you mentioned the Nobel Prize of Literature. What kind of work do they award? Correct, literature, books, essays, short stories, novelists, playwrights, poets. But here, we're talking about RECORDING MUSIC, which is not just literature. It means so much more. It means harmonics, counterpointing, singing, instrumental playing, producing, composing etc.

Then I will name you an academy which is truly high endowed. It's the National Academy Of Recording Arts And Sciences (NARAS). Ever heard of them? Its members consists of professional musicians, arrangers, composers, producers etc. So, those people truly have an idea what good quality music needs, don't they? And you know what? They named MJ's Thriller as Album Of The Year within the period from 1st Oct 1982 to 30th September 1983. And not only this. Within that period the whole album won eight awards by that NARAS. So, those highly capable group of professional music people said it was a quality work of art. And you come with nonsense critics and the Nobel Prize of Literature, which has nothing to do with music.

And beside those accolade, I repeat myself, Thriller is the best-selling album of all time. As I said before, you are free to not like the album. But you cannot doubt its generally accepted quality after its success by both meaningful awards and public perception.

Meanwhile, Thriller is the 23rd best album ever according to critics :

1 The Beach Boys - Pet Sounds
2 Nirvana - Nevermind  
3 The Beatles - Revolver  
4 The Velvet Underground & Nico - The Velvet Underground & Nico
5 Marvin Gaye - What's Going On   
6 The Beatles - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band  
7 The Clash - London Calling  
8 Radiohead - OK Computer   
9 Bob Dylan - Blonde on Blonde  
10 The Rolling Stones - Exile on Main St.   
11 Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisited   
12 Sex Pistols - Never Mind the Bollocks
13 The Beatles - The Beatles
14 The Jimi Hendrix Experience - Are You Experienced?  
15 Van Morrison - Astral Weeks  
16 Bruce Springsteen - Born to Run  
17 Kendrick Lamar - To Pimp a Butterfly   
18 Public Enemy - It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back
19 David Bowie - The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars
20 The Beatles - Abbey Road   
21 Pink Floyd - The Dark Side of the Moon   
22 Bob Dylan - Blood on the Tracks 
23 Michael Jackson - Thriller  
24 Arcade Fire - Funeral  
25 Patti Smith - Horses 
26 Kanye West - My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy  
27 The Smiths - The Queen Is Dead   
28 Television - Marquee Moon  
29 Miles Davis - Kind of Blue  
30 Prince - Sign 'O' the Times

The Nobel prize of literature is most prestigious prize of all. Oscar award is ranked second.
The reasons for Dylan's award were e.g that created poetic espression in the American musical tradition.
I have followed Michael Jackson for a long time. Or hardly even had to follow.

TIME-magazine chose 100 most important person of the last century (1900-1999 ), including all genres from politics to athletes. This list is widely cited, because it is throughly compiled. Since only 100 person took part, the selection was tough. Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Madonna were not suitable and they had long discussions with the parties, criteria were simply so tough. (Elvis would be in the top 100, my opinion).
Eligible to participate are e.g Marlon Brando, Bob Dylan, Beatles and Robert Johnson, politicians and athletes were quite a lot.
I think Marlon Brando's and Dylan art is very similar, based largely on inspiration and improvisation, is creative and primitive.

Who are "critics"? You mean people like Robert Christgau, who is nothing but biased towards certain music styles? I wrote before that most of them are failed musicians without any attested profession. They work as editors for papers like Rolling Stone or New Musical Express, arrogantly thinking they have a better taste than others. In contrast to NARAS, which consists of actual music professionals, "critics" do not have any state-certified degree to judge/rate music with expertise. Therefore, I have had no respect for that so-called guild of music criticism and never will. So, you can endlessly come up with such lists, but I don't care... as most people, by the way!

Who claims it's the most prestigious prize of all? If that committee is predestined to judge literature, that doesn't mean they are also able to judge music. You're still comparing apples to pears on and on.

Bob Dylan is most awarded artist considering other art fields as well. Nobel, Pulitzer, Oscar, Academy Awards, 38 Grammy Awards (also recieved music awards). Leonard Cohen said about Dylan's Nobel." Bob Dylan winning the Nobel is like pinning a medal on Mount Evérest for being highest mountain". Most covered artist, songwriter credits about 230-250 records (EAS). By the way, Dylan turned 82 year 24.5. And he's coming to Europe next month, never ending tour continues.

Calm down, this whole discussion is about critics not liking Thriller and I just pointed out that they actually love Thriller...

Yes and? Now, what does this have to do with Michael Jackson? I won't comment on Bob Dylan either. But I don't understand why you don't present your pamphlet in the Bob Dylan section.

You don't understand many other things. This part was talking about music when you wanted examples.

I have no problem with any random person who has an opinion about a certain piece of art or whatever. The only thing I said that I don't care about so-called critics, because they have no credentials to show other than that they consider themselves important. I hope we can now both accept each other's points of view, right?

And Robert Christgau was fired by Rolling Stone and The Village Voice, who fans call critics are only a part of music Music Publications's journalists. Rockism was outdated long long ago.

Well, you're assuming I don't understand many things. Maybe you as a Dylan fanboy should learn to read and understand by yourself:

Firstly, Dylan hasn't won 38 Grammy Awards. He has received 38 Grammy nominations with 10 wins. Go and check before claiming such nonsense!

Secondly, I checked some of your other comments. As a Dylan fanboy you are desperately trying to convince people here and in the Dylan section to become Dylan fans themselves. I mean, how sick is that? Are you a little kid that can't accept that other people have different tastes than you?

Because we are here in the MJ section, but you endlessly talk about Dylan, so here are both artists in comparison:

At the moment MJ has 337 EAS and won a certain number of Grammys etc. At the moment Dylan has 145 EAS and has won a certain number of Grammys and an Oscar and a lot of awards, whose juries aren't qualified to judge music professionally.

But the difference of 192 EAS seems to bother you somehow, otherwise you wouldn't be making any desperate posts here in the MJ section all the time.

I'm not a Michael Jackson fan myself. I'm interested in stats, either from artists I really like or whose career accomplishments I accept even though I'm not a fan of them. That is why I am here. But you seem to convince everyone that if they don't like what you like they have inferior taste in music, which is embarrassing, especially since you most likely don't have any music-related references to educate people here about quality music, nor do your cited critics and literary experts. From your side, this is not only extremely shaming, but also quite disrespectful!

So, to wrap things up here. I accept everyone with their personal taste in art, including you. But your taste in music isn't worth more than anyone else's. You're not going to change that, no matter how often you post how great your Dylan is and how shit the other tastes are. So leave it as it is. I'm not going to change the fact that MJ is the most successful solo artist, neither can you, even if you do come up with the idea anytime that Dylan has won the Nobel Peace Prize because "Blowin' In The Wind" led to that all nuclear missiles would be destroyed. So, leave the world as it is and is good.

Critics can be very useful if you're interested in non-mainstream music, while the "meaningful" Grammys you mentioned are an absolute joke, their list of "Album of the year" is truly embarrassing...

20th century critics are terrible when it comes to post-disco Black music. Only within the last 20 years have reviews been more culturally sensitive. Thriller is the most important album of the last 40 years. Completely altered possibilities for non-white artistry and the way music interacts with media. That's why it continues to enjoy insane success among Gen Z. They can see it was a turning point.

It was Nobel Literature prize from Sweden. Peace prize is from Norway. Different thing, you should read the literature........
Michael Jackson songwriting share is about 50 %, that's half about 340 million EAS. From Billboard, It does 170 m EAS.........................................
Bob Dylan 160 EAS plus songwriting share from covers 70-90 million EAS.
Examples, Jimi Hendrix ---- Watchtower 17,3 million--
Guns'n Roses -- Heavens Door 10,7 million
Adele, Garth Brooks---Feel My Love 12 million, All Covers 70-90 m EAS. ........................................Dylan EAS 160+80= 240 EAS. ...
In addition most used in movies and TV-series 960 times, see Imbd.
Most live covers, see Fm set.list.

Dylan music 910 times on soundtrack, movies, tv-series (not 960 x).
Jackson has music 460 times mostly in tv-series.
David Bowie also does well, 870 x.
Big money is in the movies.
Live covers of artist (songwriter) songs can be checked at "fm setlist". Everything (every concert) from the beginning of
the 1960s has been registered.
Zimmerman also appears there.
Zimmy turns 82 on 24.5, so let's go to his site.

Firstly, I never claimed the Peace Prize is from Sweden. Where did I?

Secondly, Chartmasters collects data from RECORDING ARTISTS and not from songwriters. And as a recording artist, Dylan has 145 EAS at the moment. Full stop.

Now, I'm going to leave you on your desperate way fighting against other people's music taste.

Keep on having fun, but you won't change anything, except to make a fool of yourself.

You think the Grammys are joke and critics are meaningful. I'm totally fine with you having that opinion. But I and most other people disagree. And I explained it in my previous posts. From my side I've said enough.

You are childish and bit silly, girl or boy, or something else?

The vast majority of "Album of the year" at the Grammys are completely forgotten today and the opposite is true for critics, just look at the list I posted above, most of these albums are quite popular...

And surely you understand how critics have been historically essential for people interested in non-mainstream music? How else would they have discovered their favorite artists who weren't played on MTV or the radio?

I think this random is from Chartmasters. Check your alcohol consumption.

I'll just stop responding to your irrelevant insults. Also for the following reason: you just can't find counter-arguments. I've always kept to the point (musically related to the discussion here). You, on the other hand, left this field 2 to 3 posts ago and just insult. I will stop feeding trolls like you. You are quite simply below my level! Point.

Is this Martin?

There's the problem again with the terms you use. What is "quite popular" and "essential" for you? How do you define that? I take it you're probably saying that your great "critics" are more influential than even the Grammys. For me, "influential" means that I achieve a boost in sales figures. And looking at your list, I can't tell that said albums, after being praised by your amazing critics, would have sold more than, for example, Grammy-awarded albums would have done. But I could name many AOTY winners who also became commercially successful -> significant through their award success. I define that under popular or essential. You might have a different definition for that.

You ask how I came across artists I don't know from radio/MTV. Well, since I know roughly what genres of music I listen to, I naturally look at old charts and best-selling lists and actually also at the Grammys of the past decades. I've learned a lot of things there. For example, if Jeff Porcaro was with Toto (1982 AOTY winner), then I look at what else he did, e.g. played for Al Jarreau, but also for Bruce Springsteen. And with whom did Bruce Springsteen play... That's how my knowledge of what I consider to be relevant music interlocks. To be honest, that would never lead me to the Sex Pistols for example (a group that ranks high on your awesome list). And with good reason too, because they are totally below my understanding of good and aesthetic music. Since Robert Christgau can say so often that Never Mind The Bollocks is rated A. I know that this guy, like other critics, plays no role at all for me and many others because, as I said before, they have absolutely no authority whatsoever to judge music professionally.