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

quote:

Originally posted by Renzo I would call that a massive artistic accomplishment.

Sounds to me more like a huge commercial accomplishment.

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)...

Some valid points, but it doesn't dispute what they did for the album as a format, which is probably their biggest contribution (hence why I listed it first). Also, jazz and avant garde musicians may have been using these techniques, but to take techniques from these genres and successfully deploy them into pop music is bringing something new to the pop genre, is genre-fusion, and avant garde-pop fusion deserves credit. Also, to reduce their later stuff to "doo-wop choruses" is obviously disparaging for the sake of making a point.

quote:

He revolutionized what an artist could become. Pop artist or not. Didn't matter. No one had ever gained that level of popularity.

I think you need to look more closely into record sales figures before you make statements like that.

Here's some:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lbums_worldwide

quote:

Originally posted by Stasis Here's some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lbums_worldwide

Wikipedia, eh? Okay, here's a more relevant list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...g_music_artists

Well, nevermind then

Yeah, I think Beatlemania was a bigger phenomenon than Jackson's popularity. Not that Beatlemania had very much to do with the music, of course.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Yeah, I think Beatlemania was a bigger phenomenon than Jackson's popularity. Not that Beatlemania had very much to do with the music, of course.

Exactly. The popularity of these acts shouldn't be an issue. Grandmaster Flash and King Tubby had relatively little commercial success, but their importance and influence on modern music probably exceeds both The Beatles and Michael Jackson combined.

If we're going to judge influence by spreading existing ideas to more people, The Beatles and Michael Jackson would dwarf these names. Comparing between them, The Beatles sold more records at a time when pop and rock were still very much formative. If we're going to judge it by Pierro Scaruffi's standards, The Beatles may not be as influential as I've argued, but they still made big contributions of their own, where as Scaruffi would presumably see Jackson contributing nothing at all.

And lest we forget, I have mentioned six names in this thread, and yet arguments are only being levelled against The Beatles.

So you're finally reckoning Jackson as an influence now?

If "influential" means "copied by lots of people," then Jackson was very influential. I think what some here want to say is that influence and originality are two different things. Some reckon musical importance more on the basis of originality than direct influence.

I've been talking about an influence that transcends the realm of music. An influence on pop culture itself. Michael Jackson did that and so did The Beatles.

You can become influential by being famous, by being innovative or by being both. Michael Jackson was famous. The Beatles were famous and innovative. The Velvet Underground were innovative.

Michael Jackson was innovative in the sense that he made music more than just music.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Michael Jackson was innovative in the sense that he made music more than just music.

What does that mean?

He made music more than just records to listen to at home. When you think of a Michael Jackson song you immediately, and inevitably associate it with an album, a music video, and a particular dance move, routine or something else attached to the music. He sold musical products in a time when everyone else was selling records.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar He made music more than just records to listen to at home.

And you think he was the first one to do this...how?

For decades before Michael Jackson rock musicians had been offering their fans plenty beyond "just music": namely, a lifestyle (hedonistic and recklessly anti-authority), a self-image (the poetic outsider), new philosophies (the whole New Age and Eastern spirituality bits), and a political ideology. You can't say with a straight face that people associated Bob Dylan or Jefferson Airplane, or the Beatles for that matter, with "just music." And all that is not even mentioning the extent to which pubescent sexual attraction entered into the whole "idol" phenomenon long before MJ was around.

All valid points, however none of them have anything to do with what I said. Michael Jackson never attempted to sell a lifestyle or a philosophy along with his music (up until his later stuff, when he decided to get political ). What he sold were eye-gazing products that went along with the music.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar All valid points, however none of them have anything to do with what I said.

I didn't want to say anything. I just thought he intentionally missed your point.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar So you're finally reckoning Jackson as an influence now?

When have I actually said Jackson wasn't at all influential? Citation, please. Things I have argued:

"He didn't pioneer any genres or movements. He's not on the level of The Beatles, Kraftwerk, James Brown or their ilk."

"Take any one of them out of the equation and modern pop music would be radically different, which you just can't say about Michael Jackson."

"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."

"MJ was the expression of an era and for that he deserves credit. Should he dubbed a god, a creator or a genius? No."

"Apart from the moonwalk, what exactly did MJ make popular that wasn't popular before?"

Re-read my posts and you'll find I'm not denying him a claim to being influential or successful. It's a mere strawman that I've claimed Jackson wasn't influential. It's fact I've claimed he wasn't as influential as people are claiming and he shouldn't be called a "god".

quote:

Originally posted by woscar All valid points, however none of them have anything to do with what I said. Michael Jackson never attempted to sell a lifestyle or a philosophy along with his music (up until his later stuff, when he decided to get political ). What he sold were eye-gazing products that went along with the music.

How is that? Your idea was that MJ made people associate him with more than his musical works. My point was that other people had been doing that for a long time, even if they were doing it with politics and self-image rather than videos and dance moves. Either way, the lifestyles and philosophies they were offering were totally intertwined with the music, just as MJ's dancing and videos were connected to his works.

Attributing the pioneering of any such phenomenons to Michael Jackson is just laughable. Ok, the music videos which he didn't single-handedly create were significant in making the format popular and thus contributing to the destruction of music, diverting the focus away from it and towards meaningless imagery, superficiality and all sorts of music industry bullcrap. Thanks a lot. If people weren't so amazed by his lame dance moves they maybe wouldn't have rushed to buy his equally lame albums. He did business on the expense of music, which is not morally condemnable, but not artistically praiseworthy either. Claiming Michael Jackson was important or good for music (as art) is nothing else than blasphemous.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J "Take any one of them out of the equation and modern pop music would be radically different, which you just can't say about Michael Jackson."

Here's the thing. There's no way to say he is influential to pop music, but then turn around and say without Michael Jackson, very little would be different in pop music. Contemporary artists like Justin Timberlake, Usher, Black Eyed Peas, etc. all have gone on the record to state that they try to emulate his look, his swagger, and his sound when they perform and record music. That, in itself, changes pop music's current path.

But in the end, I never truly understand the point of these threads. No one ever sees the opposing views. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.

For the N-th fucking time, influential =/= creating, pioneering. Influential = making popular.

quote:

Originally posted by Renzo Here's the thing. There's no way to say he is influential to pop music, but then turn around and say without Michael Jackson, very little would be different in pop music. Contemporary artists like Justin Timberlake, Usher, Black Eyed Peas, etc. all have gone on the record to state that they try to emulate his look, his swagger, and his sound when they perform and record music. That, in itself, changes pop music's current path.

Bad music influences even worse music, seems quite logical.

ownt LOL

quote:

Originally posted by woscar For the N-th fucking time, influential =/= creating, pioneering. Influential = making popular.

And for the third time: what did MJ make popular that wasn't already popular?

All you've done is give commercial reasons for his importance. He sold a certain kind of product, he sold a lot of records, he achieved a huge amount of visibility. For me, that's worth dick all.

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