Apart from film scores, what other music do you...?

Well, anyone of those chicks, it doesn't really matter who; if we were to count the levels of genius on a number of hits' basis

I'll have to bring ma buckit too, here.

You.
Are.
KIDDING!



Michael Jackson as a performer rode the "Shirley Temple" wind when he was but little (though he never got a movie career off the ground), had some hits in the eighties and then only catered to his band of followers, freak show visitors and spectators of trainwrecks, having long lost everything and anything that might conceivably have been innovative (though aside from the 'moonwalk', I'd be VERY hard pressed to come up with anything different or new the man came up with).

His extremely annoying vocal stylistics (alternating between castrato and freezing old man in range) have not changed for forty years, and as a performer, well, the only thing he did well was to employ Joe Dante to actually give him some character.

Jackson peaked with Thriller, indeed a very hard album to beat, and has never again, nor before, even come close to that.
To base a "genius" level on that is like saying Meat Loaf and Jim Steinman were geniuses based on Bat Out Of Hell.

Madonna, whatever you hold against her, has always strove to be innovative or to bring styles and structures together just before they hit mainstream, very much feeling the pulse of the time. While that doesn't make her a genius (or indeed a nice person), I respect her business and creative accomplishments on a level that Jackson will never reach!

I realize you feel strongly about it, Timmer.
And I'm sorry, but I... well, I disagree.

They might not be geniuses but at the time and even now that album is a stroke of genius!

-Erik-

As with the Williams vs. Goldsmith thing, I guess it's inevitable that one pits these giants against each other at some point, i.e. Madonna and MJ.

Madonna has certainly been at the forefront of pop music, but one must never forget that much of the credit MUST be given to the various producers she's used - from Pat Leonard to William Orbit. These guys have been totally in touch with what's happening on the pop scene, and used this knowledge to push things one step further.

MJ is more of a phenomenon, really, who has also run the gamut from Motown-style pop to a revolutionary beat-based pop music style that has stayed consistently throughout. He's not been as ....how shall I put it, "all-over-the-place" as Madonna.

Both are great artists, but as Tim says, MJ is really second only to Elvis Presley in terms of representing progressive movements in pop music and everything that surrounds it.

Well, there are several things:

He was one of the first African-American artists to truly hit it off with the urban, hip, MTV-loving 80's crowd. He was also instrumental in tranforming the art of music videos. Then there's the whole musical influence, whereupon guys like Timberlake and other hip hop/R'n'B artists quote him as THE major influence. Then there's the dance floor scene. Even people who HATE dancing, usually swing a muscle or two to a Jackson song.

No I am REALLY reaching for ma backit! Anyone else? It can fit a lot!

Well, i don't think anyone who knows some stuff about music during the last 20-30 years or so will actually disagree with that!

Give up D

You aren't adding anything constructive, negative or otherwise, just name calling.

As for Jacko, well, I ain't no big fan but I'll stand up for what I believe to be true.

Well, what do you want me to say? You are so biased,. Maybe i am too, i don't know, as everyone has their opinions, but I am not so passionate about it, that's why the seeming irony on my behalf which disturbed you.

As far as I am concerned, i truly think that his whole course shows that the whole thing that elevated him was the black-guy-against-all-odds-turned-popular (and then white) in an era which was indeed heavy on racism and generally tough for someone like MJ to make it SO big. He got goo pop timing and privileged with gifted producers that dressed his (not so many, really) big hits in fancy and particularly impressive (for that time) video clips escorted with stage shows of corresponding quality while he was throwing out the same tricks every time.After that he kept repeating himself in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, 'till he faded away when the whole world's trends, tastes, music, culture moved forward and he was stuck in the past. No biggy, the world OR music hasn't exactly changed 'cause of him.

I am sorry i can't add sugar ontop of all that so i can make it sound gentler.

I'm a passionate and life-long defender of Michael Jackson. He was my hero when I was very young, and in many respects still is today. On a rainy day I might watch performances of his for hours at the time on youtube. On a sad day I find comfort by only reminding myself that he exists (believe it or not), because I have always identified with his character and his lyrics. People fail to acknowledge that the Michael Jackson the media world has been continuously obsessed with for the past 30 years is in part a fictional creation, a real life science fiction fantasy conceived around the excitement he generates through the curious dynamic aspects of his character and physical appearance.

He is an energetic, spontaneous, fearless, and confident performer and also a uniquely inspired songwriter and singer. At the same time his personal life is kept very private, he almost never gives interviews, has had an upbringing impossible for anyone else to imagine what was like, and has due to these and other circumstances made himself vulnerable to all the media sharks looking to cash in on his curious nature by constantly inventing new twists in an evergoing soap opera that is at best only vaguely related to the man himself. I vehemently believe this to be fact.

A friend of mine said to me once that he hated Michael Jackson. I asked why, and he said he didn't know but he just did and always had. I warned him that his feelings were a form of prejudice and likely resulted by spin from the media, and insisted that he be critical of what he read from then on. But then he replied that he didn't ever read about Michael Jackson! A ridiculous comment, because when the same rumours and stories keep reoccurring in the headlines, people are in fact being fed subliminal impressions that can severely effect their judgement of something or someone. That is after all why the jurors were prohibited from seeing newspapers or watching any television during the 2005 trial against him.

I believe that the subliminal effect of a long time media spin is outrageously underestimated. How exactly do teachers in present day classrooms explain how Hitler and his generals kept their soldiers going during the climaxes of the second world war? It was through a long going campaign to manipulate and corrupt minds and make the German people believe that what their government was doing was defensible. Such a method is almost identical to the symptoms a concert poster generates if put up at least two months before it's event. If a concert promoter puts up posters all over town at such an early stage, people will likely walk by and view the particular graphic design multiple times. Such frequent exposure is proven to be effective in attracting attention. People may after a few weeks of exposure think (on a more or less subliminal level) something like "ah, that looks familiar, must be good, maybe I'll bring my husband...". On the other hand, putting up posters only a couple of weeks before it's event will reduce the possibility of frequent exposure and hence fail to capture much interest. Media works in exactly the same way, and it genuinely scares me how uncritical people are to the phenomenon often referred to as "media spin". And Michael Jackson is without a doubt it's biggest target, simply because the public's obession with him never seems to be satisfied. He has often been called the "most written about human being in the history of the world", and this is despite the fact that he for large periods of his adult life would almost never leave the gates of his current residence.

I recently saw a highly publicized tabloid article ranking the world's "worst" celebrities, questioning why they were even famous. It mainly concerned the Paris Hilton type of celebrity who haven't done anything particular to warrant their fame. But what a pointless way of reasoning, because obviously these people are celebrities for no other reason than that the media has created them to be just that! In other words, the tabloid media knows exactly how to collect royalties from their very own investments. The money they are making is truly a disgrace to society, because its a multi million dollar business what they are doing. Michael Jackson's previous lawyer, Tom Mesereau, made the point that the media corporations must have lost billions of dollars on his client's acquittal in 2005. This was because a conviction would have led to a whole world of spin-off franchise such as tv specials sensationalising the "rise and fall of Michael Jackson" or "suicide watch: day one!" etc. or specials about his health or the people who visited him. Imagine what a photograph of him inside a prison cell could be sold for. It is likely competitive television networks were more than halfway through production planning of such specials already by the time of his vindication.

The point I hope to be making make here, is that there is significant reason to believe that Michael Jackson is one of the world's most misunderstood human beings. But, I do know as a matter of fact that he is the single most mistreated celebrity of our time. Thats why I have always persisted in defending him. Because I have developed methods of seeking out the sources behind every rumour, the motivation behind every article that gets published, and how much it conflicts with the messages being fed to millions of people around the world every single day. People shouldn't judge the fantasy they believe to be Michael Jackson, they should judge the media that has decieved them through layers upon layers of lies and inuendo. You can say you don't like his music, but please keep personal insults out of the picture.

Notice I haven't been able to get around to describing his music, despite that I am a musician and have music as my most articulate area. Sadly, when it comes to Michael Jackson, I never seem to get around to that. I'm so eager to defend the man. But here is a one of my favourite solo performances by him. It is a rare intimate performance in tribute to Sammy Davis Jr on his 60th B-day celebration called "You Were There":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjmalHcQh54

On another note, Tom Mesereau has in recent years been Jackson's most articulate defender. Here he is justifiing his defense of Michael Jackson and more at the release seminar for "The Michael Jackson Conspiracy". The author of this book also talks about how publishers told her "we're sorry, but we can't publish anything pro-Jackson".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIwehjDP … annel_page

Mark, with the greatest respect for your obvious heartfelt and strong feelings, but readng through your post, this little sentence really sums up your points:


I'm just interested in how people here think Michael Jackson has changed modern pop music.
With D., I'm partially convinced there's some nostalgia going on.
But Thor has made some interesting points that I will look into.

I remain extremely unconvinced the man is anything but another top hit artist, with no more LASTING impact than any other pop celebrity.

I'll revisit this thread when I am more sober.

Yes.

I was going to take it easy tonight.


I failed.

Ah! Visual aids!