Everything everyone has ever made will eventually be forgotten, Ozymandias style. But George Michael has been, for decades, far, far better known than most of the people, startups, etc., that are discussed on Hacker News. Which doesn't mean the latter oughtn't be discussed, but there's certainly no reason to refrain from discussing George Michael either.

What is so wrong with talking about the death of a beloved musician? (Did he kill your childhood pet or something?)

Wham! sold more than 25 million certified records worldwide from 1982 to 1986

Popularity is seldom a good indicator of quality. I mean, Avril Lavigne has sold twice that many records. Not that I'm saying George Michael wasn't any good; he was.

The point is, bringing those kinds of metrics into art is a slippery slope.

What is your measure of quality? I guess the point is that for millions he represented their view of quality, just because that does not meet the definition of other people's idea of quality does not make them wrong.

If you have ever noticed how pop music is used to subliminally "nudge"/suggest/control people, and if you realize just how accomplished he was at making that kind of music, you would know that what you have said is gravely mistaken.

That is true and that makes GM just another intelligence asset then (like the rest of the entertainment business).

Guessing from his public persona, he was probably oblivious to it.

The guy was a legend and a world class talent. On some of his big albums he wrote, produced and performed the music with multiple instruments. What is it you do that makes your commentary so worthwhile, besides demonstrating your ignorance?

Please don't respond to a bad comment by making the thread even worse.