|
|
|
|
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/29/2009 4:33:36 PM | Oh that's right the divorced father who was a Dentist who drugged his own son so he could record that his penis was fondled by MJ. -Yep, it's just more than a little crazy II again!
OMG! You're hilarious! I suppose the father spied on MJ in the shower so his son could identify "Little Michael" accurately enough to persuade MJ to pay them off too! Look, I was trying to give MJ credit where credit is due while drawing uncluttered, unsensationalized, logical conclusions from the case files. If you choose to believe this "non-fan's" statements, that everyone in that court case were dirty liars except poor Michael, like I said before, nothing anyone says is going to change his image for you.
I dispise all this, "Yeah, yeah, well... What if the people who testified were all drugged and from another planet" crap! Please, people! I encourage you to look beyond how awesome MJ looks doing the moon walk and check the facts. If you're content that the accusations against him don't matter and you just wanna boogie to his music, that's okay too. But don't pretend it didn't happen! | |
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/29/2009 5:44:08 PM | | i agree, it is sad. i don't really know what it was like for him, as i have never struggled with sexual thoughts of small children.... but to give all that away just for some kiddie ass... beyond me. | |
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/29/2009 5:52:13 PM | ********I work in a field where many innocent people have lost jobs over what children/teens accuse us of. And we are guilty til proven innocent. Now I realize some in my profession are definitely guilty and gone to trial and jail, many others you never see even in a trial because the kid recants, or it's proven unfounded but not before their career is ruined. Most often it's a case of ''oh i don't like this person, let's get him/her fired''. We can get investigated or at the very least raked over the coals by administration for something a kid claims we said or did. And I work with an age group that loves to make stuff up.
In many custody cases, accusations and lies are slung all the time. Kids can be coerced into lying especially by a parent. So it's not much of a stretch to believe these kids lied...especially when the parents had motive for them to lie. Again if kids start coming out of the woodwork now to say he did this to them, that is one thing...but two kids with questionable parent situations in a sea of thousands he had contact with....just is a bit unbelievable to me.
************Balboa most of his charity work did end when his finances were in crisis. And when he had kids of his own that he had to concentrate on raising.
******As for Bad and Dangerous....they spawned many hit songs....and just because you yourself may not hear them on the radio anymore, or when you're out and about doesn't mean the rest of us don't. I may be listening to entirely different radio stations than you. And the club I dance at has always played Jackson songs as part of their repetoire. I used to go to another club that played old skool and new dance tunes...and always Jackson songs would be played.
Now I'm not an expert on Elvis or The Beatles, both of whom I like...but Billboard.com has an article right now entitled "Michael Jackson: King of the Charts" and lists him as having 47 songs that made the chart and 13 number ones.....and that doesn't include Jackson 5 songs or "We are the World'' collaboration. Personally I would say that is pretty impressive. | |
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/29/2009 5:58:33 PM | | Oh and Sandor...obviously you have a preoccupation with little children's rear ends....that is quite unnerving. You keep bringing up that....using words that you feel will shock people, when all you really do is draw attention to yourself...and make me wonder why you have this preoccupation with pedophelia. And in doing so, almost make it a sick joke instead of the serious subject that it should be. | |
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/29/2009 6:11:48 PM | Ok so now I'm researching this, since I heard the first boy recanted the story altogether recently. I've been checking sources....and ended up reading this lengthy piece about the whole incident.
Again questionable parental influence....with both cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordy_Chandler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Jackson
I know wikipedia is not the best source...but the best i found at the moment that gives an overview of both cases. | |
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/29/2009 7:11:38 PM | Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band", "Magical Mystery Tour", "Revolver", "The White Album", "Abbey Road", "Let It Be", and probably "Yellow Submarine" and "Rubber Soul". WE'RE NOT TALKING SALES OR CHART POSITIONS. The music from those albums have been widely played and heard every year since 1970. Perhaps you need to take an objective breather from being submarined in a line of thought that is ignorant of the value of standard and logical discourse in which things can be compared. You call junk like Magical Mystery Tour art and another man calls it junk. Even at the time of its released it recieved poor reviews. But its obvious that you are simply listing Beatle albums regardless of their merit. Perhaps you are just a Beatlefan so inlove with the "legend" and men, objective discussion is not possible. The sales are 1 way of comparing popularity of a work of art. Others are merely subjective. You love the Beatles, we get it. I appreciate them however, I find them boring and priveledged of a time in which social issues heavily contributed to their popularity and still does via the mindless propaganda used by many who like you show great ignorance of the genre and history.
The Beatles were great to many Americans, however you can't find a wedding nor party in African American neighborhoods where "I want to hold your hand" was ever requested.
 Even 10 years after it was a mega hit for the Beatles "I want to hold your hand" just wasnt the kind of song played in many urban areas regardless of ethnicities. My point here is that most Beatles hits lacked longevity and never crossed genres nor ethnic boundries in popularity. In a sense time will tell about many Jackson hits but after 40-10 years for many of those hits they are still popular. Again, the Beatles never made hits collectively nor induvidualy in FIVE DECADES. What the Beatles did was ground breaking for the fad of the times and actually they set some precedent. I'd call them an extremely influential band, one of the 25 most influential in history. I would also say that Michael Jackson was the most popular entertainer in history.
As long as we're talking facts, you might want to own up to the FACT that "Thriller" as been passed by The Eagles "Greatest Hits Vol. 1" as best selling album of all time. Its about time you tried working with facts. However perhaps your ability to read should be questioned. The Eagles Greatest hits" is barely the top selling album in the USA. Thriller has THREE TIMES as many sales as Eagles GH globally. EGH is a COMPILATION album and still Thriller outsold it THREE TIMES! EGH recieved excellent sales in the USA but is weak outside of it. Which is another point, the WORLD has spoken as it relates to Micheal Jackson and the WORLD has found him more popular, more important and I dare say more relevant than Dylan, Lennon, Elvis and the Beatles.
can easily out-argue you on the cultural front UummmmNOT! You can easily out bore me, make more post, however why continue with the delussion of believing you can "out-argue" me.
Bascically you've argued the Beatles and Dylan are much greater than Michael Jackson because you love and admire them more. You've conceeded that your standards are based upon your own subjective persceptions. To this there is no need to debate. Find a logical and acceptable standard for measurement outside of your own mindset and perhaps a debate can begin. Otherwise, popularity will have to be measured by sales and longevity to at least some degree. On that standard, like it or not Michael Jackson is unquestionably the most popular entertainer in history. The King Of Pop.
He is credited, rightly or wrongly, with the start of rock and roll. Only credited by those too lazy, too ignorant or too biased to study the history of the genre AND the history of the USA. No rock historian credits Elvis with the start of a genre that started at least a decade (possible 3 decades)before he picked up a microphone. Surely you do not wish to debate Rock history with me. This is an area which is not nearly as subjective as setting a standard for influence and/or popularity(actually comparing sales to popularity is a great indicator, which is why my previous argument was a slam dunk). If you wish to debate rock history or Elvis or the Beatles, open another thread. Just be prepared to have a factual argument from an historical and social-political perspective. | |
|
| |
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/29/2009 8:36:15 PM | You call junk like Magical Mystery Tour art and another man calls it junk. -marathonman11X7
Magical Mystery Tour wasn't the best Beatles album but I've listened to it a whole heck of lot more often than I've listened to Thriller, so I wouldn't call it junk.
But you would.
And then I wouldn't.
Then you would.
Then I wouldn't. etc. etc.
Oh well. | |
|
| |
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/30/2009 4:07:27 AM |
You really don't get it. You have yet to have made a factual let alone logical argument.
Be careful there. Flustering grammar, syntax, and usage are "tells." I believe you meant to say "You have yet to make a logical, let alone factual, argument." "Let alone" phrases require the general to precede a more specific term, or the theoretical to precede the axiomatic. A "logical" assertion infers an unproven verity, whereas something that is "factual" is a given (absolute truth).
You use nonesense and heresay as your argument. Yet you actually make mention of a need to do homework!
A declarative assertion requires a citation. Saying "You use nonesense and hearsay as your argument" yet where is the reference to same. Just exactly what was the nonsensical thing stated? Moreover, once you refer to it, explain why it is nonsense.
Once you do your homework suffciently to understand the concepts and recognize those aspects a debate could be merited.
A clumsily worded statement. I suspect you mean when sufficient research (i.e., "homework") is done, the merits of a person's argument may be effectively debated. Debates may be warranted, but not "merited."
In a debate over which celebrity, Michael Jackson or the Beatles, was more cultural influential or relevant, it would be tempting to invoke popularity and scalar measurements (e.g. # of hit tunes, records sold, or even # of fans). However, the problem with that approach is it overlooks transgenerational considerations. Comparing 1960-70s popularity with that of 1980s-90s would pointless. The tastes were vastly different. In any case, I wouldn't use popularity as a direct indicator of cultural influence. The movie "Titanic" was extremely popular, highest grossing film to-date (though it may have been eclipsed recently). However, that movie's effect on culture is virtually nonexistent. Then again 1977's Star Wars was also phenomenally popular, yet that film (and more importantly, its director, George Lucas) led to FX innovations in the fields of not only cinema, but music, as well (performances).
Michael Jackson was and is indisputely the biggest and most popular performer of his generation. His involvement in charities with "We Are The World" is beyond reproach. He was at the forefront of the MTV movement, though his relationship with music videos was more symbiotic. MJ didn't invent the music video, but he certainly popularized it, and he benefited greatly from it and vice versa. He influenced many musical acts in his generation including Mariah Carey, Usher, R Kelly, Justin and Britney, and he broke racial barriers culturally and, some might say, physiologically. In fact, perhaps his biggest legacy is in that he helped foster a colorblind world.
The Beatles' influence on rock music and popular culture was—and remains—immense. Their commercial success started an almost immediate wave of changes—including a shift from US global dominance of rock and roll to UK acts, from soloists to groups, from professional songwriters to self-penned songs, and to changes in fashion (from haircuts to shoes to suits to hats... to mod youth..to psychedelic, to denim, and popularizing bright colors, etc.)
The Beatles revolutionized music. Prior to the Beatles' influence, record albums were of secondary consideration to singles ("45s") in mass marketing. Albums contained largely "filler" material (unexceptional songs) along with one or two hits. The Beatles rarely incorporated singles as part of their albums, thus defining the album as more important.
It's been said that everyone that watched the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show immediately started a band. Since the 1960s when the band were still recording and performing to this very day, the Beatles have inspired and influenced musicians from one end of the musical spectrum to the other, including Everclear, The Brodsky Quartet, MxPx, Phil Collins, Peter Gabriel, Genesis, King's X, Jerry Garcia, Elvis Costello, Brian Wilson, Neil Diamond, Rush, Jimi Hendrix, Skid Row, Buddy Miller, Alice Cooper, Jeff Lynne and ELO, Rich Mullins, Kiss, Nirvana, Los Lobos, Queensryche, Guns 'n Roses, Moxy Fruvous, and Run DMC.
In the studio, The Beatles were always experimenting with new recording techniques and even coined a few common studio phrases that are still in use today. For example, a common vocal or guitar effect where two copies of the same sound are overlapped and time-shifted slightly (producing a swirling, swishing sound), is now known as flanging, thanks to John Lennon who nicknamed the effect in the 1960s.
The Beatles use of various instruments is regarded as highly innovative. With the help of George Martin, they made wide use of string and brass overdubs for a variety of different musical effects, and experimented with some more unconventional instruments. An early example is the string arrangement on Yesterday; other notable examples include the use of the sitar on "Norwegian Wood", the exclusive accompaniment of a string octet on "Eleanor Rigby", and the amusing orchestral arrangement (with an initial reference to La Marseillaise) of "All You Need Is Love".
As for music videos, MTV itself acknowledges the Beatles as the ipso facto inventors of this art form. Movies like Help! and A Hard Day's Night were essentially feature length music videos.
Again, the Beatles' influence on other musicians and acts is nonpareil. The list is without comparison. Cover versions of their tuness number in the THOUSANDS, from Billy Joel to Stone Temple Pilots, from Bruce Springsteen to Earth Wind, and Fire, from Frank Sinatra to Diana Ross, from Peter Sellers to Robin Williams.
Their popularity is so palpable that for decades and up to today, emerging and promising acts are often touted not as the "next Led Zeppelin" or the "next Pearl Jam" or even the "next Rolling Stones", but as "THE NEXT BEATLES."
As for non-musical cultural influence, the Beatles paved the way for the anti-war movement and helped end the Vietnam War (All We are Saying... is Give Peace a Chance). | |
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/30/2009 4:27:51 AM | Markwing68
I'm not going to lie! I like your debating style and you've done your homework! You also haven't cracked and come off as rude in my opinion. I do find it unfortunate and a little distasteful that there couldn't be one tribute thread for the artist that wasn't polluted for the people that were true fans (way bigger fans than myself) to just put in their well wishes! Another thread could have easily been started for the verbal ping pong matches! My idea about music in general is that it should be something that brings peace to people. It's the ultimate catharsis IMO. I come here to share in that as well as expand on what I like but all people do here is have arguments that can't very well end because what you like isn't something that can be rationalized. It's an endless battle usually with the same handful of artist being thrown around monotonously to win some sort of musical battle royal. Just don't see the point! Who wins? Peace! | |
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/30/2009 4:55:55 AM |
Oh and Sandor...obviously you have a preoccupation with little children's rear ends....that is quite unnerving . You keep bringing up that....using words that you feel will shock people, when all you really do is draw attention to yourself...and make me wonder why you have this preoccupation with pedophelia. And in doing so, almost make it a sick joke instead of the serious subject that it should be.
no, i think pedophiles are less than human. i think they should all be publicly executed. i know i sound like a broken record with this, but all these people are supporting a man who prayed on the helpless. ..that to me is unnerving. | |
|
| |
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/30/2009 6:09:47 AM | In 1984 Michael Jackson out bid Paul McCartney for ownership of most of the Beatles catalogue, paying aprox. $54 million. It comprised about 200 of the most famous and valuable Beatles songs and a lot of songs of lesser value.
In 1995 Sony Corp. paid Michael about $95 million for half of that collection.
The collection is now worth somewhere between $700- 1 billion .
Considering MJ left about $400 million in debts his half of the collection would go a long way in making things even for his estate.
It's going to be a long time before the Michael Jackson collection is worth as much as the Beatles . | |
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/30/2009 8:52:08 AM | no, i think pedophiles are less than human. i think they should all be publicly executed. i know i sound like a broken record with this, but all these people are supporting a man who prayed on the helpless. ..that to me is unnerving.
To an extent I agree pedophiles should be castrated and wire their mouths shut so they can drink through a straw and even remove there hands. All to emanate all the possibilities of any sexual activities with children. Being said, to let them live like this. Because death would be to merciful and to quick.
Assuming MJ did this to many children is only your opinion. I personally don't think he did anything sexual with any of the kids at Netherland Ranch. I believe it was a money sucking father who tried his best to get money (unfortunately for MJ, he just had enough and gave in to it, to get past it, a mistake in my opinion) and a delusional mother who LOST in court who saw $$$ signs two years later. | |
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/30/2009 10:05:57 AM | Here's the deal. I was a victim...so trust me I think they should be killed as well. Castration doesn't work. I'll never forget this young girl on Oprah saying her rapist raped her with a broom stick.
But no where in my mind after hearing about each of the cases, hearing the evidence presented at the trial a few years back, am I convinced Jackson is a pedophile.
Yes he is strange, eccentric...he loved children, and people in general. The stars who shared his life with him, from early childhood on to adulthood all sing his praises and have nothing but words of kindness for him. That includes the stars who were children at some point and in that home with him, and spent lots of time at his house.
I think Micheal spent time with kids because he indeed felt like Peter Pan...like he would never grow up or old. He acted like a kid at all times. Until he had kids of his own, and even then had to do a lot of growing up fast in order to take proper care of them. He never had a proper childhood and felt unloved. Told by his father he was never good enough and even downright ugly. And because of this he took children in and gave them the love he never had. He cared for sick kids....and in all that time two decided to take advantage of that situation.
Yes, he put himself into a bad situation. But I go to work and do that everyday. I am at risk for the same types of accusations, simply by working with kids...and sometimes pissing them the hell off at me. Should Michael have had kids sleeping with him. Of course not. But should those parents have allowed it? If they honestly thought Michael was a pedophile why send your kids to live with him. Why sleep downstairs while your kid sleeps upstairs with a grown man??? So if he is guilty,which I do not believe, then who truly is at fault here???
Sandor I recognize your anger...but when you continually are crude and rude about a man who had shady accusations brought against him and was found not guilty.....by the way the first case never went to trial because they found NO evidence to take it to crinimal trial......then you just sound like a damn South Park episode. And not someone who is intelligent and making a rational opinion. Just parodying the entire situation.
If you want to be mad at a pedophile. Look up my adopted father...he's out there still somewhere...he pleaded no contest and got off because of the time frame involved. I dont even think he's listed on our sexual predator listings. But in my city alone hundreds of men are....and if you truly feel this strongly about pedophiles perhaps you should volunteer as a children's court advocate....or in some other capacity to help victims...or work to change laws. All that anger could be better put to use. All your screaming about Michael is helping no one....the man is dead. Where people LIKE YOU feel he should be...so you should be happy, and frankly take it elsewhere so you can be more helpful to children. THAT IS IF YOU REALLY WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. It's why I do what I do...to make a difference.
And someone said it right. A forum that could have been a nice tribute to a wonderful artist who brought joy to people all over the world....and put music into my feet....has turned totally sour. | |
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/30/2009 2:04:45 PM | As for the album that has sold more copies than any other... it isn't "Thriller". Quote from 1 of your post. Its of course false. Your attempt at a passionate and factual debate is flawed by your lack of understanding of history and the facts. But then again, why allow facts and history interfere with propaganda? Thriller has sold more copies than any other by a landslide. The album to which you refer is a compilation album which has barely outsold Thriller in the USA but has such weak sales outside of it that Thriller has THREE TIMES as many sales.
A declarative assertion requires a citation.
Be careful there. A declarative statement may stand alone. Upon request a citation may be given.
perhaps his biggest legacy is in that he helped foster a colorblind world. Perhaps you intended to say ....his biggest legacy is that he helped foster a less racists world(or perhaps less racially focused). Note that it would be quite foolish and even ignorant to wish upon anyone an inability see the beauty of colors. If MJ helped foster a less racist world his legacy is indeed great.
Comparing 1960-70s popularity with that of 1980s-90s would pointless. No, your argument simply has no merit. Of course taste change. The Beatles enjoyed the wave of popularity of an genre being discovered and explored by a segment of society whose forefathers previously tried to lock it out of the mainstream of American popular music. A remarkable quality of the King Of Pop is that he has enjoyed a career in which the popularity of his music has spaned five decades. Hits in the 60's - 2k's is actually a testament and point which makes your argument....pointless.
It's been said that everyone that watched the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show immediately started a band. More fanatical propaganda. Its been said but it is not fact. Its been said that everyone who watched MJ perform the moonwalk immediately got a glove and fedora and started practicing the move.
In 1977, virtually EVERYONE was stunned to hear of Elvis' death. NOT! Elvis's fanbase was mainly a Eurocentric one. In Mexico, Brazil, Cuba, India,China, Japan, Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, Russia and so many many more nations and regions it was far from stunning news.
A few years later, John Lennon's departure affected millions, as well (as though in
Lennon's case, the loss was attributed not only to his musical genius but also his symbol as a man for peace). The very same thing can be said of the loss of Michael Jackson. Musical genius and man of peace are both things said by artists and fans around the globe from China to South Africa to Brazil to Australia to Russia.
Michael Jackson was extremely talented, a showman extraordinaire, but the reverence shown to him by his most die-hard fans today is NOTHING like that given to Elvis or Lennon. Another laughable statement, the assertion is clearly part of a perception that is out of touch with reality.
Cover versions of their tuness number in the THOUSANDS When an artist does a cover version it is not testiment of influence nor popularity. Should Justine Timberlake do a cover of a Neil Diamond song it doesnt necessarily mean that he was influence at all by Neil Diamond,it means he and his handlers liked the song enough to perhap redo the song in a way to make it a hit. If Gym Class All Stars do a Tiny Tim song it could simply mean they'd want to spoof a tune and perhaps make it a hit.
Again, as I stated in a previous post(#106)"
What the Beatles did was ground breaking for the fad of the times and actually they set some precedent. I'd call them an extremely influential band, one of the 25 most influential in history. I would also say that Michael Jackson was the most popular entertainer in history."
Their popularity is so palpable that for decades and up to today, emerging and promising acts are often touted not as the "next Led Zeppelin" or the "next Pearl Jam" or even the "next Rolling Stones", but as "THE NEXT BEATLES." Fanatical yet mindless devotion to an era and act. The were many groups touted as "the next Beatles" none lived up to the standard nonetheless they existed even in that era...can we say "The Monkees"
As for non-musical cultural influence, the Beatles paved the way for the anti-war movement and helped end the Vietnam War (All We are Saying... is Give Peace a Chance). The Beatles paved the way for the anti- war movement? Interesting claim, you see the anti -war movement began in earnest in 1963. The Beatles stance on the war was made public in 1969! Can you do the math? Come on, why attempt to bolster an opinion by posting falsehoods? It seems to show a great deal of ignorance of history and the genre or arrogance that it would go unchallenged....perhaps both.
I'm not being negative....merely objective. Your posts show something other than objectivity."You are letting your fanatical devotion cloud your perspective". "I urge you to get some perspective, please."
not a fan of Kurt Cobain... not of his music in the least, but you know what... as a musician, Cobain was a genius. So was Bob Dylan Your contention seems to be that MJ was not in the class of Cobain, Dylan, Elvis nor Lennon. Yet you've offered NOTHING beyond opinion to show this.
I contend that Michael Jackson was as much genuis as any of them and certainly more popular than any of them. Without question,in terms of sales and global fanbase Michael Jackson was the most popular performer in history. With Hits in FIVE decades, more #1 hits than any of the fore mentioned artists combined, Michael Jackson stands alone as the King of Pop.
I urge you to get some perspective, please.He is not, was not the Messiah nor anything close to it. He was a man of many faults...peculiar, eccentric, misunderstood and I believe falsely accused...still the King of Pop...I simply give him his due respect. | |
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/30/2009 3:56:21 PM |
As for the album that has sold more copies than any other... it isn't "Thriller".
Quote from 1 of your post. Its of course false. Your attempt at a passionate and factual debate is flawed by your lack of understanding of history and the facts. But then again, why allow facts and history interfere with propaganda? Thriller has sold more copies than any other by a landslide. The album to which you refer is a compilation album which has barely outsold Thriller in the USA but has such weak sales outside of it that Thriller has THREE TIMES as many sales.
You're cherry picking. I qualified my statement and acknowledged the misstatement. In any case, you missed the point. It is not to lend credence to scalar measurements but to show that popularity does not always translate to critical achievement. You fell into the trap. The question was of cultural relevancy, and you have chosen to wax demagogic. Put another way, where, in any of your posts do you give "other guy" any due? You don't! As such your credibility is diminished.
"A declarative assertion requires a citation."
Be careful there. A declarative statement may stand alone. Upon request a citation may be given.
That's absurd. In a DEBATE, which is what this is, a declarative statement REQUIRES a citation or reference. You just don't make an assertion without backing it up.
"perhaps his biggest legacy is in that he helped foster a colorblind world."
Perhaps you intended to say ....his biggest legacy is that he helped foster a less racists world(or perhaps less racially focused). Note that it would be quite foolish and even ignorant to wish upon anyone an inability see the beauty of colors. If MJ helped foster a less racist world his legacy is indeed great.
Are you purposely being obtuse? "less racist = colorblind" You are misinterpreting. By colorblind, I am OBVIOUSLY referring to the refraining from ascribing INNER traits based on the color of a person's skin. More to the point.... I said this accomplishment was Jackson's BIGGEST legacy. Why you would choose to argue this is a waste of time.
Their popularity is so palpable that for decades and up to today, emerging and promising acts are often touted not as the "next Led Zeppelin" or the "next Pearl Jam" or even the "next Rolling Stones", but as "THE NEXT BEATLES."
Fanatical yet mindless devotion to an era and act. The were many groups touted as "the next Beatles" none lived up to the standard nonetheless they existed even in that era...can we say "The Monkees"
This is idiotic! fanaticism and devotion, mindless or otherwise, have NOTHING to do with the sobriquet "The NEXT BEATLES." The fact that the appellation exists is tribute to the act's cultural relevancy. If I were to to say this kid is the "next Einstein", it isn't because I have a fanatical devotion to Old Albert, but it's because I am using a SUPERLATIVE to characterize another person.
Cover versions of their (Beatles) tunes number in the THOUSANDS
When an artist does a cover version it is not testiment of influence nor popularity. Should Justine Timberlake do a cover of a Neil Diamond song it doesnt necessarily mean that he was influence at all by Neil Diamond,it means he and his handlers liked the song enough to perhap redo the song in a way to make it a hit. If Gym Class All Stars do a Tiny Tim song it could simply mean they'd want to spoof a tune and perhaps make it a hit.
Do you actually believe this nonsense? More times than NOT, when an artist covers another artist, he/she does so as a TRIBUTE. When Amy Grant covered Carole King's "It's Too Late" it is a tribute. To claim someone "covers" a tune there is no testament to popularity is RIDICULOUS! Tunes that are covered are covered because they were considered POPULAR. HELLO??? And yes, IF Justin Timberlake were to sing Travelin Salvation Show, it's not like he came across it by accident in a music catalogue with any regard to the original record! Do you really think the 480 different acts who covered "Yesterday" did so to spoof it?
not a fan of Kurt Cobain... not of his music in the least, but you know what... as a musician, Cobain was a genius. So was Bob Dylan
Your contention seems to be that MJ was not in the class of Cobain, Dylan, Elvis nor Lennon.
No, I made no such contention. In major respects Michael Jackson surpassed Cobain and Dylan, but in the strictest sense and definition of the word "genius", Cobain, Dylan, Phil Spector, Quincy Jones, Todd Rundgren, and Mozart were geniuses. Michael Jackson was not a genius, nor was Elvis Presley. Michael Jackson was extremely precocious, as was Sammy Davis Jr. You don't appear to have the capacity to appreciate the distinction. You also appear to conflate genius with popularity. They are not mutually exclusive terms.
In any case, this thread has long devolved into a debate over comparisons and contrasts of worthiness, and it's clear to me that you are either not able or not inclined to discuss objectively. One merely has to note your COMPLETE partiality. Frankly, your credibility is diminished sorely as a result.
I'll end by saying what I said before. I'm willing to give Michael Jackson his due, but I will not give in to hype. I also have refrained from demonizing him for characterological issues that, for me, are irrelevant. His passing is a loss to his fans. | |
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/30/2009 7:24:24 PM | San I'm sorry if you were hurt by some bad guy when you were a boy but this is not the place for your rants. MJ was not the guy who hurt you.
It is my understanding that MJ had 24/7 cameras on him at all times after the first boy's false claim. That is why he was not convicted he did not do anything wrong. He opened his home to a sick boy. Nothing happened. It is sad that a man would drug his own child. People have done much worse for money and any man who stood next to you in the men’s room could tell his son your details if you had something he wanted to extort. As the boy who in now a man said. Michael did nothing to him he just said what he was told to say.
Elvis never wrote a song he was mostly a cover artist with a very nice voice. | |
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 6/30/2009 7:24:30 PM | where, in any of your posts do you give "other guy" any due? You don't! Reading is fundemental. I give the Beatles (and John Lennon)their due. If you disagree with the amount of credit,that is on you. However, by misrepresenting the truth yet again...your credibility is diminished sorely.
The question was of cultural relevancy It appears you wish to argue at this point, simply to argue. I never disputed any cultural relevancy of the Beatles as a whole. I merely compared their popularity to that of MJ. There is a difference. I purposely outlined my points of contention and dispute. Your rant about the Beatles and Mozart simply was your own muse. Please do not attempt to confuse an argument I made with one someone else made nor one with an argument you wished to make.
In a DEBATE, which is what this is, a declarative statement REQUIRES a citation or reference. You just don't make an assertion without backing it up. Thats ABSURD! A declarative statement may stand alone. In a debate when a statement is made with which one disputes, it then may be challenged. Please don't bore me with more pettiness. You've made many statements without backing them up.Citation?
but in the strictest sense and definition of the word "genius", Cobain, Dylan, Phil Spector,(John Lennon)... were geniuses.
Michael Jackson was extremely talented, a showman extraordinaire, but the reverence shown to him by his most die-hard fans today is NOTHING like that given to Elvis or Lennon.
I personally do not claim Cobain, Dylan, Spector, Lennon nor Michael Jackson to be geniuses. I do make the point that IF Dylan, Lennon and Cobain are geniuses MJ is no different.
"less racist = colorblind" I was cherry picking. How ironic huh?
I believe you meant to say "You have yet to make a logical, let alone factual, argument." Indeed a waste of time.
Your contention seems to be that MJ was not in the class of Cobain, Dylan, Elvis nor Lennon.
No, I made no such contention.
Michael Jackson was extremely talented, a showman extraordinaire, but the reverence shown to him by his most die-hard fans today is NOTHING like that given to Elvis or Lennon.....I guess what I'm driving at is Jackson was the kind of artist whose musical appeal was not all that great IN THE LONG RUN, and I certainly doubt in 20 or 30 years people will have the same critical appraisal of it, compared to The Beatles, Elvis, Sinatra and other true musical icons.
No, I made no such contention. MJ is less revered than Elvis or Lennon? Less critical appraise than Elvis or Sinatra? Elvis and Sinatra were more true musical icons?Your contention seems to be that MJ was not in the class of Cobain, Dylan, Elvis nor Lennon.
No, I made no such contention. Hummmm....Are you purposely being obtuse?....not in the same class=less revered. More true musical icon=not in the same class. Seems you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. You've wasted time and space going on and on about Mozart and the Beatles. When the point of contention was that you clearly place Elvis and Lennon in iconic position above Michael Jackson. THAT is essentially the point which has been disputed which you fail miserably to prove. The rest is just you taking up space on this thread with irrelevant assertions and "cherry picking".
One merely has to note your COMPLETE partiality Careful, another declarative statement without citation.
I'm not being negative....merely objective. Thanks for the joke.
More of this could be refered to as "chat" and is certainly off thread topic. Should you wish to debate in a logical and factual mannor Michael Jackson's place as music icon in relation to Elvis or Lennon. Open a thread and I'd be happy to join.
I urge you to get some perspective, please.He is not, was not the Messiah nor anything close to it. He was a man of many faults...I wouldn't say genius(then again, I wouldn't refer to Lennon, Cobain, Dylan nor Elvis as genius)peculiar, eccentric, misunderstood and I believe falsely accused...still the King of Pop not just of his generation but of past as well...I simply give him his due respect. | |
|
| |
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:30:50 AM |
where, in any of your posts do you give "other guy" any due? You don't!
Reading is fundemental. I give the Beatles (and John Lennon)their due. If you disagree with the amount of credit,that is on you. However, by misrepresenting the truth yet again...your credibility is diminished sorely.
psst.. Reading is fundamental. Understanding and interpreting what is read, however, requires something more. You can start with the definition of the word "due." If I assert Enrico Caruso was a good singer, that is not giving him his due. The disagreement between us boils down to a desire to give more credit to one person, deserving or not, while minimizing the credit to another act, deserving or not. For example (this is where I back what I am saying), you would make the assertion that just because someone covers another person's tune, this is not a "testiment" (sic) to popularity...that it might also be to spoof them. Talk about being petty and not giving a person his due! 500 cover versions of a one of dozens of tunes {"Yesterday"), and you dismiss that as not necessarily an indication of popularity?? That's the difference between us. I don't try to lessen the import of Michael Jackson's achievements, whereas you are dismissive of the other guy's achievements or you minimize them. Consider what I wrote and which you cited:
~Michael Jackson was extremely talented, a showman extraordinaire, but the reverence shown to him by his most die-hard fans today is NOTHING like that given to Elvis or Lennon~.
"Extremely talented" and "showman extraordinaire" are not diminutive labels. They are phrases that do not minimize MJ, do they? Your inability to give the Beatles their due (i.e., "due" is more than simply "credit") by dismissing something as basic as 1000 different artists covering their tunes...or to assert they are just a band that benefited from changing times betrays what I earlier referred to as your complete partiality.
So now, you're resorting to kettle-pot tactics, and frankly, that is a waste of time on this thread.
--------------------------
In an effort to put this to rest, allow me to concede that Michael Jackson was the greatest entertainer the world has ever known, and that I predict that over the course of the next 30 years, hundreds of musicians will pay tribute to his genius by covering his tunes. His songs will also serve as themes to TV shows and play essential parts in movies.
I also predict the hospital where he died will be a tourist spot for thousands of people, who for years to come will be placing flowers at the site where he last breathed. I also predict the lyrics to his music will continue to have deep meaning for a generation of his legion of fans. I also predict Neverland will be a mecca of sorts for millions of admiring pilgrims. | |
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 7/1/2009 3:40:49 AM | From junipermoon>>
i do wish people would quit comparing him to people like mozart and the beatles. i consider that sacrilege. i put them in a class of transcendents, along with shakespeare, van gogh and martha graham (who, incidentally, trained madonna). no way he could compare with the true greats.
for the record, the most recorded song in history is yesterday,' with over 3,000 covers. none of jackson's music will come anywhere near that. the blend of the minor key, the chord progressions and that cello combine to create an actual masterpiece. when a songwriter can utilize unlikely instruments like that, you have someone pushing the envelope. and it happens over and over in the beatles music.
mozart also chose to feature instruments no one else of his time did.
i won't go into all of the ways great artists work within their forms. but they don't involve redundancy, popular pressure and predictability.
With apologies, I came across this post after submitting my prior post.
Junipermoon, I couldn't concur more with your commentary and observations. I defer to them and your astuteness. | |
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 7/1/2009 4:36:10 AM | Marathonman, besides the fact you can't seem to use puncuation and write clearly, you keep scribbling nonsense.
But its obvious that you are simply listing Beatle albums regardless of their merit.
Huh? I gave examples of Beatles albums that are still heavily played- and they are.
The sales are 1 way of comparing popularity of a work of art. Others are merely subjective.
Note that the sales are about the "popularity" and not the "art". When you talk of sales and charts, it's simply accounting. Art is entirely subjective: to somebody out there Boxcar Willie is the greatest recording artist ever. Soooo....when I'm talking about art, you keep mentioning...the numbers, as if that was relevant. Then you fess up that any other form of measuring art is "merely subjective", which then would apply to all your statements. It's simply YOUR subjective point-of-view. Like-
The Beatles were great to many Americans, however you can't find a wedding nor party in African American neighborhoods where "I want to hold your hand" was ever requested.
Hmmm...okay, to YOU this is a relevant anecdote as to why Michael Jackson carries more weight than the Beatles. But if I go to places where I keep hearing the Beatles, and I never hear anything requested or played by Michael Jackson since 1988, then that doesn't count? So why does your experience count more than mine?
Actually, it doesn't. We're all subjective, to our own experiences. So you have to extend the debate beyond your immediate world. However, not simply an accounting of sales figures or chart crap. Like-
"My point here is that most Beatles hits lacked longevity and never crossed genres nor ethnic boundries in popularity. In a sense time will tell about many Jackson hits but after 40-10 years for many of those hits they are still popular. Again, the Beatles never made hits collectively nor induvidualy in FIVE DECADES. What the Beatles did was ground breaking for the fad of the times and actually they set some precedent. "
See, first of all YOUR subjectivity is all over the place. YOU don't hear "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" at weddings: heck, the Beatles aren't that popular. Well, I haven't heard anything Jackson produced from "Dangerous" on, on the radio, in record stores...no one has come up to ME gushing over a Michael Jackson song in over 15 years. And yet I hear the Beatles all the time- on the radio, on TV, at work.....so you haven't gotten anywhere with that point. The Beatles have longevity in MY world and Michael Jackson was never played on AOR stations (saev for "Beat It" for a minute). Further more, this blather over a "Five Decade" career- get a grip. You're waving that around while counting the entire decade of the 60's, where the Jackson 5 had their first hit in the waning months of 1969. And I, yes just ME, haven't seen or heard anything noteworthy by Jackson THIS decade.
And finally, you're missing the irony of the claim. The Beatles were effectively a recording group from 1962 to 1970. They broke up because they had run their course. Obviously they didn't care about creating and maintaining some chart and sales run so someone could argue in some forum "The Beatles are the greatest because they have 85 # 1 hits!" They did not set out as solo members to storm the charts. They simply wanted to make music- unless they didn't. But, the point is they had no interest in continuing a commercial juggernaut just because they (maybe) could. As opposed to Michael Jackson, who honestly seemed to think the charts were a form of vindication (as opposed to just popularity and sales). AND YET that body of work, which ended in 1970, remains widely popular today. And there are facts aplenty to back that up (radio plays, CD sales, etc.). Which is in fact a tremendous acheivement, arguably greater than stretching their career over 5 decades.
(BTW, this is called "out-arguing" you)
The Eagles Greatest hits" is barely the top selling album in the USA.
Um, but it still IS. Right? If we're talking the top selling album in the US, it's not called "Thriller" then, is it? Then you go on a rant that it's a "compilation" album, as if it makes it some kind of horrible stepchild. (Actually, it makes it all the more impressive in a way since the 4 or 5 albums those songs were pulled from had already sold millions of copies by the time the "Greatest Hits" came out). But if I'm talking artistic acheivement, and point out that "Dark Side Of The Moon" is a concept album, as opposed to the 9 song parade that is "Thriller", and thus a more ambitious and greater accomplishment....that means butkus, right?
Bascically you've argued the Beatles and Dylan are much greater than Michael Jackson because you love and admire them more
No, I said they had greater cultural impact. And they have. It wasn't simply because I like them more. Yet you keep arguing Jackson's case- and YOU like him more than them- and do so with only chart figures and your subjectivity.
You've conceeded that your standards are based upon your own subjective persceptions. To this there is no need to debate. Find a logical and acceptable standard for measurement outside of your own mindset and perhaps a debate can begin. Otherwise, popularity will have to be measured by sales and longevity to at least some degree.
See, this is what you don't GET. There isn't a "logical standard for measurement" in the "culture". It's ALL subjectivity. If you're fixated on "measurement" then you're just counting records sold and chart positions- and that's just "popularity." And I said "cutural impact". You're the one that has to change their mindset.
See, ever hear of the Velvet Underground? They released their first album in 1967. It sold something like 15,000 copies- total. Big deal, right? Well, the joke is that everyone that bought that record started a band. Because, from that time on, when the members of any number of bands were interviewed (from The Cars, The Pretenders to U2 and R.E.M.) they ALL had that record. So, if we're talking records sold- no impact. But as a CULTURAL IMPACT, that record is enormous in that it influenced so many people who went on to have careers as musicians and songwriters. And not simply in the "I listened to it all the time" mode. As in "it made me want to be a musician" impact.
No rock historian credits Elvis with the start of a genre that started at least a decade (possible 3 decades)before he picked up a microphone. Surely you do not wish to debate Rock history with me. This is an area which is not nearly as subjective as setting a standard for influence and/or popularity(actually comparing sales to popularity is a great indicator, which is why my previous argument was a slam dunk).
First of all, you've had no slam dunks, so get over that.
You don't want to debate rock history with me. Don't say that no "rock historian credits Elvis with the start of the genre." Um, read ANYWHERE about it. It's not that Elvis "invented" rock and roll, it's not that he "started" it, or that the music "started" with him. Every "rock historian" traces "rock" music back to field music, the blues, race records, and the like. Which had been going on for some time....but not in the MAINSTREAM of American music. That is to say, yes, "white."
It would take another thread, but Elvis is always identified as the "crossover" artist. He was the vehicle that brought this form of music (albeit a smoother version) to white America. That was a tremendous cultural change. And in the context of 1950s America, it dwarfs the notion that Jackson did anything similar in the 1980s. That's the fact, pal. | |
|
| Goodbye Michael Jackson..................
Posted: 7/1/2009 5:37:13 AM |
You don't want to debate rock history with me. Don't say that no "rock historian credits Elvis with the start of the genre." Um, read ANYWHERE about it. It's not that Elvis "invented" rock and roll, it's not that he "started" it, or that the music "started" with him. Every "rock historian" traces "rock" music back to field music, the blues, race records, and the like. Which had been going on for some time....but not in the MAINSTREAM of American music. That is to say, yes, "white."
It would take another thread, but Elvis is always identified as the "crossover" artist. He was the vehicle that brought this form of music (albeit a smoother version) to white America. That was a tremendous cultural change. And in the context of 1950s America, it dwarfs the notion that Jackson did anything similar in the 1980s. That's the fact, pal.
He was a cover singer and his fans are allowed to use the freedom of the press to bill him as better than he was but he was never as good as Michael. Kidd Rock is a crossover artist He creates Elvis was pretty and had a nice voice. He was also a drug addict that financed the columbian slave trade. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
