You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Michael Jackson was WAY more than a popular pop star. He was the King of Pop, the most successful pop star in history, one of the most recognizable celebrites across the entire world. A popular pop star is Justin Timberlake. Michael was WAY more than that. I'm not a fan of popular music per se, but you can't deny the enormous contributions he made to the genre. It isn't rock, so I don't see why the rock comparisons keep being made. Mozart was a fantastic composer but he couldn't dance like Michael or play the guitar like Hendrix, but what does it matter? They're on completely different levels and in different genres.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
madagas wrote:don't go there...Dylan completely changed the face of rock and roll in 1965 when he went electric and brought "art" to rock and roll. Michael Jackson isn't fit to be in the same breath as Dylan. You also need to go check the writing credits for all of Michael Jackson's solo albums...which I did today....he has easily less than 50% of the songs on his solo albums written by other writers and producers. Hesimply is not an artistic genius by any measure....it is a joke to say he is.
I got MJ's records and most or like you said 50% of his songs he wrote you can't change that. And go read my post again about Dylan. I never questioned his musical talent or songwriting talent. What I did say is that there should be a law that would keep him away from any microphone cause his voice is plain awful. His songs may be good but seriously man if you think Dylan has a beautiful voice and has an amazing singing talent well really I don't know what to say cause well he can't sing.
Actually, I love his voice and his delivery. It is all about inflection and tone. Sure, some people can't handle that...some people like a soft Brazilian singer. Anyway, Dylan's whole package is far far far beyond Jackson's and pretty much anyone in pop cultures package over the last 40 years. Sorry, but history will be on Bob's side and the Beatles and so on.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Madagas does have a point. Hell, he barely wrote anything for Off the Wall and that happens to be my favorite MJ record, and had song writing credits on half of Thriller.
I do agree that he had talent in spades, but you can see why some wouldn't place the guy up on a pedestal.
misterID, I'll respond to that post in the main MJ death thread. Similar discussion going on in three threads, and we need to narrow it down to one.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Michael Jackson was WAY more than a popular pop star. He was the King of Pop, the most successful pop star in history, one of the most recognizable celebrites across the entire world. A popular pop star is Justin Timberlake. Michael was WAY more than that. I'm not a fan of popular music per se, but you can't deny the enormous contributions he made to the genre. It isn't rock, so I don't see why the rock comparisons keep being made. Mozart was a fantastic composer but he couldn't dance like Michael or play the guitar like Hendrix, but what does it matter? They're on completely different levels and in different genres.
When I say pop music I am including rock and roll. Rock is "pop". You are missing my point. Jackson, as an artist, is not a genius. Mozart was, Dylan is, Jackson is not.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Madagas does have a point. Hell, he barely wrote anything for Off the Wall and that happens to be my favorite MJ record, and had song writing credits on half of Thriller.
I do agree that he had talent in spades, but you can see why some wouldn't place the guy up on a pedestal.
misterID, I'll respond to that post in the main MJ death thread. Similar discussion going on in three threads, and we need to narrow it down to one.
That's what pop music is though. Most pop artists have songs brought to them and they sing the lyrics. Even if Michael had written ZERO of his songs which obviously isn't the case, he became a cultural icon. I don't see how you can look past that.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
gnfnraxl wrote:madagas wrote:don't go there...Dylan completely changed the face of rock and roll in 1965 when he went electric and brought "art" to rock and roll. Michael Jackson isn't fit to be in the same breath as Dylan. You also need to go check the writing credits for all of Michael Jackson's solo albums...which I did today....he has easily less than 50% of the songs on his solo albums written by other writers and producers. Hesimply is not an artistic genius by any measure....it is a joke to say he is.
I got MJ's records and most or like you said 50% of his songs he wrote you can't change that. And go read my post again about Dylan. I never questioned his musical talent or songwriting talent. What I did say is that there should be a law that would keep him away from any microphone cause his voice is plain awful. His songs may be good but seriously man if you think Dylan has a beautiful voice and has an amazing singing talent well really I don't know what to say cause well he can't sing.
Actually, I love his voice and his delivery. It is all about inflection and tone. Sure, some people can't handle that...some people like a soft Brazilian singer. Anyway, Dylan's whole package is far far far beyond Jackson's and pretty much anyone in pop cultures package over the last 40 years. Sorry, but history will be on Bob's side and the Beatles and so on.
See I attacked Dylan cause I knew you pretty much idolize the man and even there you couldn't respect my opinion. I respect that you like his voice. I don't understand it but I do respect that. Your frustration towards MJ I can't understand. Maybe it's because as a kid you wanted an MJ jacket and you didn't get one but anyways. To some he is a genius I happen to agree. You you do not. And you are allowed to, just at least respect that. Cause some may not respect your opinions on Dylan and well that seems to tick you off my friend. 
With that said no hard feelings. 
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Madagas does have a point. Hell, he barely wrote anything for Off the Wall and that happens to be my favorite MJ record, and had song writing credits on half of Thriller.
I do agree that he had talent in spades, but you can see why some wouldn't place the guy up on a pedestal.
misterID, I'll respond to that post in the main MJ death thread. Similar discussion going on in three threads, and we need to narrow it down to one.
thank you...I wasn't demeaning Jackson as I love the J5 and alot of Michael's stuff. However, he is not a genius....Axl isn't a genius.......and so on. You can only say that about less than a handful of artists over the last 100 years.:peace:
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
faldor wrote:Michael Jackson was WAY more than a popular pop star. He was the King of Pop, the most successful pop star in history, one of the most recognizable celebrites across the entire world. A popular pop star is Justin Timberlake. Michael was WAY more than that. I'm not a fan of popular music per se, but you can't deny the enormous contributions he made to the genre. It isn't rock, so I don't see why the rock comparisons keep being made. Mozart was a fantastic composer but he couldn't dance like Michael or play the guitar like Hendrix, but what does it matter? They're on completely different levels and in different genres.
When I say pop music I am including rock and roll. Rock is "pop". You are missing my point. Jackson, as an artist, is not a genius. Mozart was, Dylan is, Jackson is not.
Pop and rock may have been interchangeable at one point but I don't consider them to be anymore. There's a reason "rock" doesn't rule the "pop" charts anymore.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
madagas wrote:faldor wrote:Michael Jackson was WAY more than a popular pop star. He was the King of Pop, the most successful pop star in history, one of the most recognizable celebrites across the entire world. A popular pop star is Justin Timberlake. Michael was WAY more than that. I'm not a fan of popular music per se, but you can't deny the enormous contributions he made to the genre. It isn't rock, so I don't see why the rock comparisons keep being made. Mozart was a fantastic composer but he couldn't dance like Michael or play the guitar like Hendrix, but what does it matter? They're on completely different levels and in different genres.
When I say pop music I am including rock and roll. Rock is "pop". You are missing my point. Jackson, as an artist, is not a genius. Mozart was, Dylan is, Jackson is not.
Pop and rock may have been interchangeable at one point but I don't consider them to be anymore. There's a reason "rock" doesn't rule the "pop" charts anymore.
I agree here. Rock and Pop are two completely different categories and styles of music. karma
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
James Lofton wrote:Madagas does have a point. Hell, he barely wrote anything for Off the Wall and that happens to be my favorite MJ record, and had song writing credits on half of Thriller.
I do agree that he had talent in spades, but you can see why some wouldn't place the guy up on a pedestal.
misterID, I'll respond to that post in the main MJ death thread. Similar discussion going on in three threads, and we need to narrow it down to one.
thank you...I wasn't demeaning Jackson as I love the J5 and alot of Michael's stuff. However, he is not a genius....Axl isn't a genius.......and so on. You can only say that about less than a handful of artists over the last 100 years.:peace:
Which is why I said before that the term "genius" is thrown around way too often. Let's settle with Icon.
