You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Gunslinger
- Rep: 88
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
I believe Michael, Elvis & The Beatles not only all deserve to be mentioned together but that they stand together in a category all by themselves.
I agree, their places in the history of music are solidified and uncontested.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Which did take place. I remember cranking songs like Billie Jean at a time, and practically got booed by people, because the tide had turned, and at the time he was a child molestor, convicted and sentenced in the court of public opinion, before people even knew the facts.
The U.S. turned on him like rabid dogs after that whole ordeal, and the second trial wasn't damaging on him at all. He had already been deemed a child molestor and forgotten for years. I think the album sales for Invincible prove that.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
I think the album sales for Invincible prove that.
Never mind the fact that the album only had one classic MJ song on it? 
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Elvis shouldn't be listed next to the Beatles. Elvis ripped off music from African American rock and roll pioneers and was able to sell it to white audiences because he was white. He had a good voice but he didn't write his own music and his massive success was very much a product of racial discrimination at the time. Elvis was a massive star, there's no denying his popularity. But he's no more legit than Michael Jackson. In fact, I would argue Jackson is more relevant because at least he wrote his own music and he actually has some really great lyrics.
That's a fair arguement and I can definately understand that point of view of MJ being more legit than Elvis. What you're doing though is basically blaming Elvis for being white and being the first to "rip off" black artists. Is that his fault? Maybe we all owe a huge debt to Elvis for bringing rock n' Roll to the masses. Was it fair that the African American artists were ignored? Nope. Is that Elvis's fault? Nope. I don't really think you can say Elvis "ripped them off" either. That's a pretty bold statement. Yes Elvis had writers but to say white people doing rock n' roll were ripping black people off is almost saying white people should've found their own style and left rock n' roll alone.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Janet and the Jackson brothers may tour to pay homage to Michael.
http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/jan … 8549.story
June 28, 2009 10:18 AM ET
Roger Friedman, The Hollywood Reporter
On the table for consideration is a Janet Jackson/Jackson Brothers tribute tour to celebrate the life of Michael Jackson, according to sources.
The proposal is either that the Jacksons fulfill some of Michael's London shows, or do a U.S. tour where they would perform his hits and theirs with him. Janet would be the star of such a show, substituting for Michael since none of the brothers would be remotely capable of being
the lead performer.
Stay tuned, as this is among many ideas to honor (exploit?) Michael takes shape.
And the word is that at least some or all of the Jacksons may turn up on tomorrow night’s BET Awards live from Los Angeles, hosted by Jamie Foxx. The appearance could be step one in showing family unity.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
tejastech08 wrote:Elvis shouldn't be listed next to the Beatles. Elvis ripped off music from African American rock and roll pioneers and was able to sell it to white audiences because he was white. He had a good voice but he didn't write his own music and his massive success was very much a product of racial discrimination at the time. Elvis was a massive star, there's no denying his popularity. But he's no more legit than Michael Jackson. In fact, I would argue Jackson is more relevant because at least he wrote his own music and he actually has some really great lyrics.
That's a fair arguement and I can definately understand that point of view of MJ being more legit than Elvis. What you're doing though is basically blaming Elvis for being white and being the first to "rip off" black artists. Is that his fault? Maybe we all owe a huge debt to Elvis for bringing rock n' Roll to the masses. Was it fair that the African American artists were ignored? Nope. Is that Elvis's fault? Nope. I don't really think you can say Elvis "ripped them off" either. That's a pretty bold statement. Yes Elvis had writers but to say white people doing rock n' roll were ripping black people off is almost saying white people should've found their own style and left rock n' roll alone.
He did rip them off though. "Hound Dog" is arguably his biggest hit and guess who sang it first: Big Mama Thornton.
Rock and roll started with the Mississippi Delta Blues. You can say that without a doubt if discrimination wasn't around, Elvis wouldn't have been as big as he was. But since he was as big as he was, he could have easily used his clout to point out the history of rock and roll to all the whites across the country who worshiped him. But he didn't. He played it safe and took all the credit. The Beatles did a far better job of pointing out the influence of African Americans on rock and roll. They weren't afraid to say who their biggest influences were and I think that is commendable.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Not surprising at all. Looks like those Jacksons are getting to do that reunion tour they've been wanting for years.
This will happen soon. They'll strike while the iron is hot.
They should get El DeBarge to replace Michael Jackson as Michael Jackson.
MJ impersonator is what that dude is doing these days.
