TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Michael Jackson
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 »

maybe if I can somehow get my ass and ankles to be large, without any ofhter parts of me getting big, I can do that 45 degree lean without the special shoes, hmmm

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J The difference between MJ's influence and The Beatles' (or Kraftwerk's, etc.) is that MJ just spread ideas through being very popular. The Beatles actually innovated and broke new ground. Your logic essentially says that who actually did something first doesn't matter. Credit should be given for whichever famous person jumps on an existing idea.

No, that was not my point. This whole debate started out of "influence". i don't know how you managed to turn it into a debate about creativity. You argued that Michael Jackson didn't influence anyone, that he didn't write most of his songs and that copied other people before him, but with better marketing and larger exposure.

My point was that it's irrelevant that most of his songs were written by other people, or that he didn't invent the moonwalk. The fact is, he was the one that made those things popular, and therefore he was the one that actually influenced a shitload of singers/dancers/performers that came after him. Such influence is undeniable.

The difference between The Beatles and Michael Jackson, regarding influence, is that The Beatles left a mark on and inspired much better musicians and artists than Michael Jackson.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 maybe if I can somehow get my ass and ankles to be large, without any ofhter parts of me getting big, I can do that 45 degree lean without the special shoes, hmmm

This is great, we have two people going at it over how influential and innovative Michael Jackson was, and in the midst of it a guy obsessed with doing "the lean."

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles This is great, we have two people going at it over how influential and innovative Michael Jackson was, and in the midst of it a guy obsessed with doing "the lean."

dont forget me im trying to figure out the

1. Michael Jackson dies
2. ????
3. PROFIT!

I fucking hate the Beatles.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar My point was that it's irrelevant that most of his songs were written by other people, or that he didn't invent the moonwalk. The fact is, he was the one that made those things popular, and therefore he was the one that actually influenced a shitload of singers/dancers/performers that came after him. Such influence is undeniable.

I totally agree with that.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar The difference between The Beatles and Michael Jackson, regarding influence, is that The Beatles left a mark on and inspired much better musicians and artists than Michael Jackson.

That's something which IMO is very difficult to proof. Even what's 'better' is a discussion on its own.

I also don't see why they must be compared. Both had huge influence, but at another time and in a different way.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar My point was that it's irrelevant that most of his songs were written by other people, or that he didn't invent the moonwalk. The fact is, he was the one that made those things popular, and therefore he was the one that actually influenced a shitload of singers/dancers/performers that came after him. Such influence is undeniable.

Made what things popular? Apart from the moonwalk, what exactly did MJ make popular that wasn't popular before? Motown, disco and synth pop: all popular already before Jackson worked in them. That's my point. I've established that he worked in pre-defined areas. I'm pointing out he didn't actually bring anything new to them.

His only real influence beyond ensuring that a lot of male pop stars danced (and that's the only connection between MJ and Will Smith I can think of) was making a lot of kids sat at home say "I want to be a pop star!" Massive artistic accomplishment.

I completely agree with SYSTEM-J. Michael Jackson was famous, that's all. There was nothing innovative or interesting about "his" music, and he made what, two or three albums that are considered important in pop, so he wasn't even a prolific artist. He had all the money and time in the world, if there was anything artistically credible in him we would have heard it, he sure had the freedom to create. Instead people got to see the decay of a human being so terrible he destroyed himself, not that it has anything to do with the music. He did have a singing voice, an annoying one if you ask me, and an annoying, overblown way of using it on top of that. Absolute bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC He did have a singing voice, an annoying one if you ask me,

If most people would agree then I guess there must have been a hidden message in his tracks which was: "Buy me"
It never reached my ears.

I will remember him for this game:

quote:

Originally posted by Trance-MB If most people would agree then I guess there must have been a hidden message in his tracks which was: "Buy me" It never reached my ears.

We've established that you like Michael Jackson, so can you now stop spamming up the discussion with appeals to popularity/authority?

That game was loltastic

even better is when angry video game nerd makes fun of it

quote:

Originally posted by SMC I completely agree with SYSTEM-J. Michael Jackson was famous, that's all. There was nothing innovative or interesting about "his" music, and he made what, two or three albums that are considered important in pop, so he wasn't even a prolific artist. He had all the money and time in the world, if there was anything artistically credible in him we would have heard it, he sure had the freedom to create. Instead people got to see the decay of a human being so terrible he destroyed himself, not that it has anything to do with the music. He did have a singing voice, an annoying one if you ask me, and an annoying, overblown way of using it on top of that. Absolute bullshit.

and he played with kids dicks~!

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I'm not talking about this thread. You seem to have made it your manifesto to be abrasive in the past few months. And I like Michael Jackson. Can You Feel It, Thriller, Billy Jean, Smooth Criminal and Beat It are all pop favourites of mine, to name but a few. I'm actually capable of seperating my biases from historical fact, which a lot of people in this thread aren't. The fact is that people in this thread have called him a god, have pulled the jealousy card and have said he pioneered modern dancing. All of these claims and more are ludicrous, and I'm making a case in opposition to them. You might not have made any of those claims, but saying "You sound butt hurt, you raped child" is not a constructive response to my arguments and neither is it funny. It's a long streak of dehydrated piss across the wall of this thread, and if you don't have anything to actually say then you can fuck off, because you're neither intimidating nor impressing me with your Internet Hardman Act. If you've got an argument, make it. Otherwise, save your keyboard from the strokes, lest you need them one day, because your reheated sarcasm is going to waste on me. Jackson is not on the same level as the acts I've described, and if anyone in this thread can muster an argument to the contrary, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, you're being plain old fashioned Fanboys, and if this were a Tiesto thread you'd be cumming in your pants in your enthusiasm to shoot it down. And Tom Savini is an SFX legend. I'm sorry mate, but if you think MJ is on the same level of influence and importance as the people I listed, you need a history lesson. MJ was a product of Motown, a graduate of disco and an artisan of 80s pop. But he neither created nor shaped any of these areas. MJ was always a follower, not a leader. He took the pioneering work of others and sold more records than anyone else. Fair play, but the only reason anyone would say he actually innovated these things is because they grew up on MJ and never realised the many people who paved the way for him. MJ was the expression of an era and for that he deserves credit. Should he dubbed a god, a creator or a genius? No. I'm simply arguing for the sake of historical accuracy in the face of sentimentality.

just like the beatles he moulded a genre. rock music / britpop was there before the beatles. they came in and transformed it. mj did that for RnB. using funk, synthpop and other genres he crafted modern pop music into what it is today. take a listen to your radio and tell me you dont hear his influences all over the place. im not arguing that hes more or less influencial than any of the guys you listed. im simply saying that he WAS influential. period. theres no denying it.

quote:

Originally posted by RapidFire just like the beatles he moulded a genre. rock music / britpop was there before the beatles. they came in and transformed it. mj did that for RnB. using funk, synthpop and other genres he crafted modern pop music into what it is today. take a listen to your radio and tell me you dont hear his influences all over the place. im not arguing that hes more or less influencial than any of the guys you listed. im simply saying that he WAS influential. period. theres no denying it.

I don't think MJ brought anything genuinely new to any of the areas he worked in. To say MJ transformed pop music is, for me, just a gross exaggeration. Even ignoring people like Prince, Rick James or Quincy Jones (!) who did the kind of things you're saying at the same time, modern pop and RnB was completely transformed by hip-hop, a movement Jackson had little or no involvement with.

We're not really going anywhere here, anyway. I do think Jackson was important, but I think his influence and importance is being massively exaggerated because he's just died, and people become legends as soon as they pass away.

i would embed - but im at work so it makes it impossible...

watch this song - some names may be obscure - but youll know some names - and the song will make sense terms re: michael jackson


the eulogy song:-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLVsIpejFgM

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I don't think MJ brought anything genuinely new to any of the areas he worked in. To say MJ transformed pop music is, for me, just a gross exaggeration.

Well, the same could be told about The Beatles, which you hold so high in regard. I didn't (and still don't) want to get into any kind of discussion, but your exaggerations about how innovative and original The Beatles were (and MJ weren't) made me look up for an old discussion where one highly respected (at least by me) rock enthusiast explained why The Beatles are worshipped more than they deserve to be (and I definitely agree with him):

Discussion is about crtic's Pierro Scaruffi dislike towards The Beatles:

The Beatles were my #1 favorite band a little over a year ago.

I think much of your aversion to Scaruffi's opinions has to do with the fact that you approach music from a very different angle than he does. Scaruffi's childhood musical heroes are classical composers, and classical music has generally been driven by what is new and surprising. Like myself and most music fans, I imagine your music heroes are pop musicians, and pop music has always been driven by what's fun and familiar.

Thus, Scaruffi sees an album like Revolver and sees violins and a sitar used to play common song structures and stolen melodies. "Classical" instruments had been used to back pop musicians for more than a decade already, and The Beatles didn't use a sitar to do anything different than they did with a guitar (simple pop harmonies). The Beatles' way of using violins and a sitar have more in common with "The String Quartet Tribute to U2" than with truly original music. Whatever instrument they're using, The Beatles generally still sang derivative pop songs and doo-wop chorus lines ripped from the 1950s.

The same goes for The Beatles' sparing use of avantgarde techniques, tape loops, etc. They use it as colorful dressing for standard (derivative) pop songs. Meanwhile, The Fugs, Red Crayola, and others were writing long suites of totally unprecedented musical structures, fusions, and techniques. And years earlier, Davy Graham and Sandy Bull had done something truly innovative with the Eastern/Western fusion by stylistically blending folk, blues, jazz and Indian raga. The same year, 1963, Pierre Henry wrote an electronic avantgarde piece that incorporated rock riffs and rhythm. In 1965, Robbie Basho fused raga, jazz, and blues in another way. These are the types of innovations that interest Scaruffi.

And I won't even mention what jazz and classical composers were doing. The aleatoric noise section in "A Day in the Life" is genius? Please. Play some pre-Beatles Ives, Antheil, Cowell, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Babbitt, Cage, Varese, Ruggles, Weill, Boulez, Stockhausen, Messiaen, Tristano, Coleman, Coltrane, Mingus, Ayler, and Mitchell and then try to tell me The Beatles were innovative.

There's no doubt that the Beatles are among the most-copied rock artists, but I think Scaruffi measures influence another way. Scaruffi attributes influence to the actual inventors of new structures, fusions, techniques, etc. and not to those who borrowed those ideas and got popular through massive marketing campaigns and catchy tunes.

Are The Tokens geniuses because their 1961 hit "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" was the first pop/rock song to use operatic singing, Neapolitan choir, yodeling, and an electronic instrument? That seems more impressive to me than anything The Beatles ever did, and still not as impressive as the inventions of Davy Graham, Sandy Bull, Pierre Henry, Robbie Basho, all those other artists I mentioned, and a hundred more.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I don't think MJ brought anything genuinely new to any of the areas he worked in. To say MJ transformed pop music is, for me, just a gross exaggeration. Even ignoring people like Prince, Rick James or Quincy Jones (!) who did the kind of things you're saying at the same time, modern pop and RnB was completely transformed by hip-hop, a movement Jackson had little or no involvement with. We're not really going anywhere here, anyway. I do think Jackson was important, but I think his influence and importance is being massively exaggerated because he's just died, and people become legends as soon as they pass away.

that is your opinion but mine is that he helped create the music we listen to today along with the very artists you mention. who was slightly more or less influential is trivial.

I do agree that more and more people are coming out and praising him for this now (with good reason, an artist should be celebrated for their work after they've passed) but i've been thinking it and saying it for years. many others have as well. he was dubbed "the king of pop" before he died, not after.

angry nintendo nerd never gets old

quote:

Originally posted by palm angry nintendo nerd never gets old

this guy is also HILARIOUS. Funniest shit I've seen.

quote:

Originally posted by sljiva Well, the same could be told about The Beatles, which you hold so high in regard. I didn't (and still don't) want to get into any kind of discussion, but your exaggerations about how innovative and original The Beatles were (and MJ weren't) made me look up for an old discussion where one highly respected (at least by me) rock enthusiast explained why The Beatles are worshipped more than they deserve to be (and I definitely agree with him): Discussion is about crtic's Pierro Scaruffi dislike towards The Beatles: The Beatles were my #1 favorite band a little over a year ago. I think much of your aversion to Scaruffi's opinions has to do with the fact that you approach music from a very different angle than he does. Scaruffi's childhood musical heroes are classical composers, and classical music has generally been driven by what is new and surprising. Like myself and most music fans, I imagine your music heroes are pop musicians, and pop music has always been driven by what's fun and familiar. Thus, Scaruffi sees an album like Revolver and sees violins and a sitar used to play common song structures and stolen melodies. "Classical" instruments had been used to back pop musicians for more than a decade already, and The Beatles didn't use a sitar to do anything different than they did with a guitar (simple pop harmonies). The Beatles' way of using violins and a sitar have more in common with "The String Quartet Tribute to U2" than with truly original music. Whatever instrument they're using, The Beatles generally still sang derivative pop songs and doo-wop chorus lines ripped from the 1950s. The same goes for The Beatles' sparing use of avantgarde techniques, tape loops, etc. They use it as colorful dressing for standard (derivative) pop songs. Meanwhile, The Fugs, Red Crayola, and others were writing long suites of totally unprecedented musical structures, fusions, and techniques. And years earlier, Davy Graham and Sandy Bull had done something truly innovative with the Eastern/Western fusion by stylistically blending folk, blues, jazz and Indian raga. The same year, 1963, Pierre Henry wrote an electronic avantgarde piece that incorporated rock riffs and rhythm. In 1965, Robbie Basho fused raga, jazz, and blues in another way. These are the types of innovations that interest Scaruffi. And I won't even mention what jazz and classical composers were doing. The aleatoric noise section in "A Day in the Life" is genius? Please. Play some pre-Beatles Ives, Antheil, Cowell, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Babbitt, Cage, Varese, Ruggles, Weill, Boulez, Stockhausen, Messiaen, Tristano, Coleman, Coltrane, Mingus, Ayler, and Mitchell and then try to tell me The Beatles were innovative. There's no doubt that the Beatles are among the most-copied rock artists, but I think Scaruffi measures influence another way. Scaruffi attributes influence to the actual inventors of new structures, fusions, techniques, etc. and not to those who borrowed those ideas and got popular through massive marketing campaigns and catchy tunes. Are The Tokens geniuses because their 1961 hit "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" was the first pop/rock song to use operatic singing, Neapolitan choir, yodeling, and an electronic instrument? That seems more impressive to me than anything The Beatles ever did, and still not as impressive as the inventions of Davy Graham, Sandy Bull, Pierre Henry, Robbie Basho, all those other artists I mentioned, and a hundred more.

Bahaha.

quote:

Originally posted by sljiva Well, the same could be told about The Beatles, which you hold so high in regard. I didn't (and still don't) want to get into any kind of discussion, but your exaggerations about how innovative and original The Beatles were (and MJ weren't) made me look up for an old discussion where one highly respected (at least by me) rock enthusiast explained why The Beatles are worshipped more than they deserve to be (and I definitely agree with him): Discussion is about crtic's Pierro Scaruffi dislike towards The Beatles: The Beatles were my #1 favorite band a little over a year ago. I think much of your aversion to Scaruffi's opinions has to do with the fact that you approach music from a very different angle than he does. Scaruffi's childhood musical heroes are classical composers, and classical music has generally been driven by what is new and surprising. Like myself and most music fans, I imagine your music heroes are pop musicians, and pop music has always been driven by what's fun and familiar. Thus, Scaruffi sees an album like Revolver and sees violins and a sitar used to play common song structures and stolen melodies. "Classical" instruments had been used to back pop musicians for more than a decade already, and The Beatles didn't use a sitar to do anything different than they did with a guitar (simple pop harmonies). The Beatles' way of using violins and a sitar have more in common with "The String Quartet Tribute to U2" than with truly original music. Whatever instrument they're using, The Beatles generally still sang derivative pop songs and doo-wop chorus lines ripped from the 1950s. The same goes for The Beatles' sparing use of avantgarde techniques, tape loops, etc. They use it as colorful dressing for standard (derivative) pop songs. Meanwhile, The Fugs, Red Crayola, and others were writing long suites of totally unprecedented musical structures, fusions, and techniques. And years earlier, Davy Graham and Sandy Bull had done something truly innovative with the Eastern/Western fusion by stylistically blending folk, blues, jazz and Indian raga. The same year, 1963, Pierre Henry wrote an electronic avantgarde piece that incorporated rock riffs and rhythm. In 1965, Robbie Basho fused raga, jazz, and blues in another way. These are the types of innovations that interest Scaruffi. And I won't even mention what jazz and classical composers were doing. The aleatoric noise section in "A Day in the Life" is genius? Please. Play some pre-Beatles Ives, Antheil, Cowell, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Babbitt, Cage, Varese, Ruggles, Weill, Boulez, Stockhausen, Messiaen, Tristano, Coleman, Coltrane, Mingus, Ayler, and Mitchell and then try to tell me The Beatles were innovative. There's no doubt that the Beatles are among the most-copied rock artists, but I think Scaruffi measures influence another way. Scaruffi attributes influence to the actual inventors of new structures, fusions, techniques, etc. and not to those who borrowed those ideas and got popular through massive marketing campaigns and catchy tunes. Are The Tokens geniuses because their 1961 hit "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" was the first pop/rock song to use operatic singing, Neapolitan choir, yodeling, and an electronic instrument? That seems more impressive to me than anything The Beatles ever did, and still not as impressive as the inventions of Davy Graham, Sandy Bull, Pierre Henry, Robbie Basho, all those other artists I mentioned, and a hundred more.

very legit point

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Made what things popular? Apart from the moonwalk, what exactly did MJ make popular that wasn't popular before? Motown, disco and synth pop: all popular already before Jackson worked in them. That's my point. I've established that he worked in pre-defined areas. I'm pointing out he didn't actually bring anything new to them. His only real influence beyond ensuring that a lot of male pop stars danced (and that's the only connection between MJ and Will Smith I can think of) was making a lot of kids sat at home say "I want to be a pop star!" Massive artistic accomplishment.

He revolutionized what an artist could become. Pop artist or not. Didn't matter. No one had ever gained that level of popularity. At his peak, you would have been hard-pressed to find a more popular person on Earth. Now why is this important? Well, there are people living in Lithuania, in Greenland, in Honduras, and in Africa who have no idea who Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Kraftwerk, or Pink Floyd are/were [all artists which I'm a huge fan of, by the way]. Everyone knows Michael Jackson. So that means that he appealed to people who ordinarily wouldn't listen to his music, and, as a result, these same people were now introduced to other great artists. He made people who didn't speak the English language listen. I'm not denying that some of that wasn't proper marketing. I know. But to dismiss him as merely a product of intelligent marketing would be foolish.

He had tremendous talent. He was a tremendous performer. He successfully transitioned from a child star into an adult superstar. That was thought of as nearly impossible during that time and he proved this by selling 60 million copies of Thriller. In my opinion, he took funk, pop, and disco and put his own spin on it. He was the first black artist to appear on MTV. That was a big deal back then.

I would call that a massive artistic accomplishment.

Re: the man was a legend

quote:

Originally posted by maximlee the man was a legend and he and motown inspired everyone...so very artist u like in some way was inspired by michael jackson... so if u diss him u are dissing music itself

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.