Michael Jackson Dead

[JLP 6]

Have we gotten badmouthing the dead out of our system yet?

Let God or whatever you believe in judge the living and dead. Because, unless you were in Mike's bed or in the court room, you really don't know what happened.

That is for those who are taking a man's death as one last change to fire one more round. Peace.

Now,

I am sure that Crosby and Kelly were great dancers in their own right, and Mike certainly referenced them as inspirations, but did they really hold attention like Jackson?

All over the entire world, people doing the moonwalk, not to mention all the other dances Michael made popular. Something tells me if Crosby had moved like Michael he would have been booed even if it looked great.

Really, when it comes to dancing I rarely hear about the breakdancer. Mike got most of what the world loved about his dancing from them. They are nameless, but without them Michael would never have understood how fly the moonwalk was.

His voice was certainly NOT the Mighty Sam Cooke's. Who's was? Michael's voice was vastly underated. Listen to him hit nots as a child. Hard notes that he mastered.

"Never can say goodbye"

[Dogman_Tony]

If we don't speak ill of dead, who will.

[walshb]

Walsh,

I said FIRST impression of M.J., not vying for president of his fan club electoral speeches, and I think if you took a pole, most first impressions would not be of his music......

His music will linger on for a couple more years till they have squeezed that well so dry only Tito will remain, as they cash in on this spectacle.
Not doubting he had a few good songs, but not enough to warrant the extreme adulation placed on him.
Have you ever heard of a chap from Seattle named Jimi Hendrix?
A true genius whose influence and music is still reverberating around the world and crossing cultures, still rated the number one guitarist ever in most polls 36 years after his death, still relevant, and still not equaled in his influence not just to guitar players , but to musicians in general?
More mesmerizing to me then a gifted pedophile.......

But that's just me

Hendrix was an era ahead of Jacko, and as it stands, BOTH of their music lives on, so I wouldn't be so sure that Jackson's music will not last and last.
Time will tell, but it's lookin' good so far

[kikibalt]

Never, never in my life have I seen/read so much hate aim at one person.

[kikibalt]

If we don't speak ill of dead, who will.

Oh, I think we can depend you, dogman, to do so.

[TDKO]

Have we gotten badmouthing the dead out of our system yet?

Let God or whatever you believe in judge the living and dead. Because, unless you were in Mike's bed or in the court room, you really don't know what happened.

That is for those who are taking a man's death as one last change to fire one more round. Peace.

Now,

I am sure that Crosby and Kelly were great dancers in their own right, and Mike certainly referenced them as inspirations, but did they really hold attention like Jackson?

All over the entire world, people doing the moonwalk, not to mention all the other dances Michael made popular. Something tells me if Crosby had moved like Michael he would have been booed even if it looked great.

Really, when it comes to dancing I rarely hear about the breakdancer. Mike got most of what the world loved about his dancing from them. They are nameless, but without them Michael would never have understood how fly the moonwalk was.

His voice was certainly NOT the Mighty Sam Cooke's. Who's was? Michael's voice was vastly underated. Listen to him hit nots as a child. Hard notes that he mastered.

"Never can say goodbye"

JLP6

First let me say his voice as a child was very expressive and impressive, as was his showmanship and stage presence. It's what he morphed into that
is the cause of this chatter.
I remember reading about pornographic magazines being found in his bedroom where young boys spent sleepovers with him, and that he had shown them to some boys on occasions. Yes I wasn't there but,
I know he didn't want young boys to spend time with him to teach them to moonwalk........

[TDKO]

Never, never in my life have I seen/read so much hate aim at one person.

Not hate brother.......

Are you a parent?
Keeping your children safe in this world is a challenge,
there are predators everywhere, even the most normal appearing folks can
be quite messed up, the condoning of M.J's behavior is well.....sick,
because he was a superstar he gets a pass?

[kikibalt]

Not hate brother.......

Are you a parent?
Keeping your children safe in this world is a challenge,
there are predators everywhere, even the most normal appearing folks can
be quite messed up, the condoning of M.J's behavior is well.....sick,
because he was a superstar he gets a pass?

Not condoning anything he might done, what I will say is that there is no legal proof of him doing anything wrong with kids, there is innuendo and accusations that have being flying around. He went to trial and was found not guilty and as far as I know America is still a nation of laws, and for the record I know the family that accused him in that trial, not very nice people.

Do I have kids? a hand full....but they are probably older or as old as you with kids of their own.

Btw, I'm not your brother...

[TDKO]

Not condoning anything he might done, what I will say is that there is no legal proof of him doing anything wrong with kids, there is innuendo and accusations that have being flying around. He went to trial and was found not guilty and as far as I know America is still a nation of laws, and for the record I know the family that accused him in that trial, not very nice people.

Do I have kids? a hand full....but they are probably older or as old as you with kids of their own.

Btw, I'm not your brother...

Sometimes the dots are so close connecting them is too obvious,
Maybe you think O.J. is still going to find the real killer?

Btw: I'm relieved

[hagler04]

You'll never hear me talking up the merits of modern corporate radio, which has managed to reach new lows I never thought possible.

BUT

Considering MJ was such a huge POP star, I do find it significant that prior to last week you basically NEVER heard him on the radio (I'm talking solo not Jackson 5). Not on the 70s-80s soft rock stations, or the oldies, or anything. Maybe Billy Jean or Rock with You every now and then on your retro 80s or disco hour but never ANYTHING of his post-Thriller . . . why? Because his music was by and large complete fluff (and the best stuff he didn't even write himself) It has not and WILL not stand the test of time.

Some catchy songs? Sure, but to say his songcraft is in the league of Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards, Dylan and yes I'm a big Queen fan also Walsh so I'll add Brian May/Mercury . . .they were songwriters of great craft that could convey all sorts of emotions through melody and verse. Then with Jackson you have . . ."Black and White"???? "Bad"??? and his saccharrine crap like that Free Willy song and "We Are the World"??? . ."Do They Know It's Christmas" was a much better song and it came out earlier.

Sorry Walsh, you are on an island here. Which is fine . . to each his own. But don't start putting him up as some elite songwriter . . .that is sacriledge!

[PeteLeo]

I would take EVERYTHING on Pet Sounds over anything Michael Jackson ever recorded.

Me, too. PeteLeo.

[hawk5ins]

I just wanted to see his Head Frozen after he had died.

Something with a spark, to add to the legend.

Hawk

[10-8]

Sometimes the dots are so close connecting them is too obvious,

I agree with you 100% TDKO.

Around the time of the first molestation accusation, Jackson was hit with two separate lawsuits from different plaintiffs alleging plagiarism for two songs he recorded and claimed that he wrote. In both those suits Jackson went to trial and fought the allegations, losing one and and the other being dismissed.

In any event Jackson had a proven track record of going to trial in civil suits and fighting, yet when he gets accused of one of the most heinous acts imaginable he suddenly doesn't fight it in court and Jackson already strapped for cash, folds up and settles to the tune of 20 million dollars with an agreement written into the contract that the victim refuse to co-operate any further with the police and their investigation. Does this sound at all like the actions of an innocent man?

Then of course he gets accused years later once again and is charged criminally. Like Elvis though, the cloak of silence will soon be broken and we'll be flooded with tell all books, interviews and articles by those in his inner circle and the real truth about Jackson will surface.

[BoxofDaylight]

I'm not knocking MJ as an entertainer, but over the past 10-15 years, I cannot recall hearing any of his recordings being played on the radio stations I listen to, in movies released during this time, as "elevator music," or elsewhere--while I have heard The Beatles' music EVERYWHERE. Although these days with MJ's death his music is being played a lot, I too do not believe his musical contributions will outshine The Beatles', but will be a minor note behind his image, dancing, and death.

[10-8]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzdXcTIBDW0

Now before anyone attacks me, I don't condone the 'N' word and if you don't like vulgarity in your comedy dont watch, so don't say I didn't warn you.

[BoxofDaylight]

Stevie Wonder's musical legacy will out-last MJ's, for just only one example.

[walshb]

You'll never hear me talking up the merits of modern corporate radio, which has managed to reach new lows I never thought possible.

BUT

Considering MJ was such a huge POP star, I do find it significant that prior to last week you basically NEVER heard him on the radio (I'm talking solo not Jackson 5). Not on the 70s-80s soft rock stations, or the oldies, or anything. Maybe Billy Jean or Rock with You every now and then on your retro 80s or disco hour but never ANYTHING of his post-Thriller . . . why? Because his music was by and large complete fluff (and the best stuff he didn't even write himself) It has not and WILL not stand the test of time.

Some catchy songs? Sure, but to say his songcraft is in the league of Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards, Dylan and yes I'm a big Queen fan also Walsh so I'll add Brian May/Mercury . . .they were songwriters of great craft that could convey all sorts of emotions through melody and verse. Then with Jackson you have . . ."Black and White"???? "Bad"??? and his saccharrine crap like that Free Willy song and "We Are the World"??? . ."Do They Know It's Christmas" was a much better song and it came out earlier.

Sorry Walsh, you are on an island here. Which is fine . . to each his own. But don't start putting him up as some elite songwriter . . .that is sacriledge!

Hold it a second, I never said he was the worlds best songwriter. I did say that he wrote good songs and was a good songwriter. Look, there is IMO a whole lot more to an entertainer than JUST being a songwriter.

Elvis is the prime example of this. Didn't write much, if anything, but boy god was he a performer and singer. It's the complete package that is the key and ESPECIALLY the singing and delivery.


Dylan is a fine songwriter; but I wouldn't pay a dime to watch him. I'd pay to hear
Elvis sing Dylan songs

All in all, when you say the world entertainer, I feel that MJ was streets ahead of the likes
of a Bob Dylan. MJ is one of, if not the greatest all around entertainers in history.

You want to discuss the world's greatest songwriter, go ahead. You won't see me
elevating MJ to the top in this category. A bit like Little Richard; good songwriter, but an even better entertainer, right up there with the best of them!

As for the Beatles. As a band and complete package, YES, the tops, but take any
SINGLE one and compare them as all around entertainers, and they do not match
a Jackson or an Elvis or Little Richard. Charisma, magnetism and stage presence
are so important and the three greats I mentioned were blessed with each
so so much

As for his music standing the test of time? It has so far!

[PeteLeo]

Well, it didn't take these damned maggots long to settle onto the corpse, did it?

http://www.palluxo.com/index.php?opt...ogs&Itemid=284

Someday I hope that somebody dead does speak to the phony assholes, and I hope it's on TV, so we all can watch them soil their underpants. PeteLeo.

[Paulie W]

Michael Jackson's music has never done anything for me but I think we have to recognise that he was a great showman. I was interested to read this old review of one of Jacko's 80's gigs by a music critic (and music lover), the sadly late John Peel, whose views I have always respected above most others:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009...son-popandrock

[HandToMouth]

I think distinctions need to be made when comparing a peak Jackson with other peak artists. There are three distinctions. The singer, the songwriter and the performer. MJ was a complete blend of all three.

This is why he was IMO ahead of say, Bob Dylan.
Bob was purely a writer/poet/songwriter.

Would I ever pay to see Bob perform or sing ahead of MJ? No way.

I couldn't give a toss how great a songwriter Dylan was, I aint
paying to watch him.

Jackson gets a 10/10 for delivery and performance and
an 8 for singing and an 8 for songwriting. He overall
eclipses anyone as far as I would see.

Really, who pays to see someone because they simply
were magnificent songwriters? You pay to hear
the songs being sung and the performance whilst
singing

walsh, if your going to fully judge historical legacy and standing then I'd add a fourth & fifth criteria: influence to the direction of music; and influence to the greater culture.

many of the jackson critics on this thread have some valid points, imo w/ the former but underrate him w/ the latter.

in regards to your other 3 criteria I have some comments.

performance wise I agree w/ you, he deserves a 10. it was certainly his meal ticket & will be his strongest card legacy wise. dancing & choreography theres never been a pop music entertainer on his scale considering the size & scope of his shows. not even prince (someone I'm surprised hasnt been mentioned yet on this thread), madonna or elvis in their primes could put together the combination of dancing, stagecraft & public marketing momentum to their shows like jackson did. My guess is, as much as his career & reputation may have eroded, I think his tour if he had lived, wouldve gotten a net positive boost to his career & wouldve sprang a new revivial. esp in england.

singing, rated w/in the construct of what he was, a pop singer, not a rock, folk, blues or rap singer, I give Jackson also an 8. I'll grant the critics that his range & richness (esp post mid '80's) are only decent & of late, esp w/ resonance, sounded frail (ironically perhaps, it was in his youth that his voice seemed richest). however w/ singing, one thing so far thats been overlooked here is jackson was an excellent phraser & stylist of his words to music. people can laugh all they want at the high he, he, but the bottomline was he carved out a unique style in how he laid out tempo to the singin enuciation of his lyrics. he knew how to grab energy & steer momentum w/ his voice. instinctually he knew how to lean on lyrics into & over the note as good jazz instruments understand.

as an adult singer, he truely got the most out of a voice that in just power and tone alone, was only decent. he brought dynamics to it wh/ created something bigger and more distinct. like elvis, sinatra and other great phrasers he understand structure and how to get inside a lyric & then project that to his song. not blessed w/ the pure vocal tone & power of a elvis or sinatra he shouldnt be ranked the 9+ voice wise they are. Jackson was more like Dylan in the sense that dylan was someone lacking gifts resonance & tone wise in his voice, but w/in rock, dylan's singing still holds influential power. he took his obvious intelligence in lyrics & parlayed it w/ a unique ability to know how to phrase it. jackson, though far from the lyricist dylan was, nevertheless gets overlooked in his ability to effectively phrase his own lyrical vision.

songwriting if rated against great rock, & folk or even rap arrangers he would rate only avg. Simply b/c most of his music didnt have a lyrical depth that could mirror the time or push music into another realm. That said though, imo again, I dont think its fair to rate Jackson this way. You must rate him w/in the pop r/b genre.

If you judge it on that turf then he stands out amongst his competitors, but I still wouldnt put him on the elite level in this regards even in pop. But he should get credit for almost a workman like ability to construct really good grooves & hooks over a long period of time in changing styles of pop music. His songs structures were very functional & focused. Jackson wasnt a musical hack, its obvious he understood the tools & mechanics of composing. that by the way is something elvis nor sinatra can say. As great a feel & depth elvis for ex had in understanding a song, the fact still remains, he rarely composed them top to bottom.

With Jackson it was high end formula for the most part wh/ really struck well for the time it was made but didnt have as well a lasting power. It seemed w/ Jackson the fantasy element that pervaded much of his image seeped too much into the songs for people to hold onto to them over eras as heartfelt testaments. It can be done w/ pop, for ex., I think the underrated bee gees wrote some very tender love songs that standup to the test of time b/c the tone in voice seemed so real. Or high pop art like campbell's restructuring of witchita lineman wh/ proved country pop music can hold serious currency & depth over time. Even some of karen carpenters singing was so heart felt that the somewhat saccharine themes took on much more resonance & in some cases have aged well w/in that pop construct. Jackson lacked that integrity it seemed, fair or not, hence it didnt allow the song to transcend eras as well. & as others have pointed out it doesnt get much play time even on oldies pop loops. its the same problem I think madonna will have. You cant say the same, imo, for the beatles when they did some pop. they brought more integral depth to the themes in the song. I give jackson only a 8, even solely in the pop music genre, & its that high only b/c of his flexibility & execution of his skills over a long period. But he shouldnt rank w/ the elites in this critieria, even in the pop genre.

its that lack of depth, that hurts jackson in a criteria you didnt mention, wh/ I feel is important: the ability to influence the direction of music. Jackson in this regards was a lot like the Japanese auto makers. laser like focus in the ability to perfect well structured songs that gave the people what they wanted at that time, but not leaders in innovation or the art of changing styles. it can be argued thriller did, but I would conceed only in a marketing and packaging since. The music alone, as well structured and good as it was, really didnt break new grounds. For example, Princes purple rain pushed music itself into newer channels more then thriller did during that same era. Jackson was never able to have a sinatra like early 50's comeback b/c his image was too distorted by a fantasy element.

Pop music in fairness will never have the dynamic underlying risk, danger or power that a form like rock can have to push and change music directions. That said, at its best, it can help steer the wheel on the main interstate. Can Jackson's music alone (not the marketing or excellent showmanship) ever claim that on a profound level? I dont think so. Honestly, the time he was able to do this to some degree in pop was w/ the J5. He was able to take some of the sly stone/james brown grooves to a new level in pop, a form wh/ took the genuine joy in the music and trailblazed it to larger audiences of families & younger listeners. post J5, musically it never altered the eye. For the J5 work I'd push this ranking to a 6.

lastly, his influence to the greater culture is both overrated & underrated imo. He's not the sacred cow juggernaut of pop & greater society that much of the media has shaped him into over the last 2 weeks. But he's also not frivilious nor will he be wrote off as only a curiousity later in life like his critics claim. the outpouring of affection from media & fans this week should alone give proper clue.

Jackson's showmanship & marketing alone was executed on such a scale that it penetrated #'s of people that only elvis and the beatles could lay claim to. In this regards he reflected the significant flexing of power the media was transforming into by the early '80's. the amalgamation of: cable tv, global marketing corporatism, world media news embracing pop culture & a powerful spread of capitalism in the 80's gave Jackson a platform to exponentially penetrate markets. for a window in the '80's he grabbed that hurricane and steered it.

granted one can say those were times of materialism & little depth, but theres no denying his genious of mass marketing & having the musical goods to bring that to the stage would have impact. before madonna & aggassi he showed image was everything. Keep in mind the culture of the early to mid 80's had drastically changed from the cynical retreating mindset many had in the late '70's. Of course that materialist bent & explosion of marketing & image mindset was far from all jackson's doings. But in the pop world wh/ feeds the mainstream need for this direction, he was the main catalyst.

one may loathe his impact but to deny its exsistence is to deny reality. he paved the way for mega marketing tours like madonna & even U2. the youth culture itself in many ways was caught up in this engine of forces as shallow as it may have been. the glove, shoes, glitter & hat were as widely known by the mid '80's. artifice meets culture & marketing. is it any wonder it would become a decade were things like the nike swoosh symbols & jordans would mean much more to youth then the meaning of lyrics, war or national direction. again the force of Jackson ushered much of those forces earlist on in that decade in the pop world. Cultural impact was densely penetrating in this regards, hence i'd give him a 9 there.

your right, who would pay to see solely great songwriters, at least in the '80's. that in itself is a profound factor in measuring the jackson legacy. he was a powerful engine in his day to the culture. but he certainly was of his time. where you may be missing is, as the times alter & the artistic impact and needs change, so does impact & significance of an artist. dylan if he was 20 in 1981 wouldve never imo been the cultural impact he has become in a decade. but for his times, his artistic gifts showed that large #'s in a generation would indeed come to see solely a songwriter.

[walshb]

Great post and a lot of valid and good points.

The debate will always rage on, my whole issue is that to dismiss
the man simply based on the music not being
to one's liking is a little foolish.

As a performer, he was the best I have ever seen.
I am strictly referring to the delivery and showmanship
and stage presence and all around entertainment value.

Nobody did it better. Now, there were many right up
there with him, but to ME, he was the best I have seen.

Others may cite Presley or Sinatra, and I would have
no problem with that at all.

Also, this ludicrous claim that it would be embarrassing to admit
that you like him or owned his albums? Why?

Never ever have I encountered this.

His music was alive, funky, engaging, poppy, fun and strong and
a lot of his tunes were just damn catchy. The music and the lyrics
is what combine to make a good track and Jackson's
had both

My top ten acts that I would pay to see at peak were listed earlier and
Jacko steals the number 1 slot. Not by a bit, but by a teeny
bit. Elvis and Queen and The Beatles are so close.

As is the great Little Richard.

But, me personally, I do tend to place greater emphasis on
solo artists and I do believe that as a band, The Beatles
were superb, but would Macca or Lennon ever
have been as good if they had to go alone?

I think of Stevie Wonder and the amazing Billy Joel and even Elton
John as being more naturally talented than any SINGLE
Beatle. Billy Joel was one damn fine lyricist.

I honestly cannot see a Macca or Lennon delivering ALONE, what a Jackson or Elvis
or Little Richard could deliver. These three were just swamped with
charisma, stage presence and magnetism.

Now, Lennon could hold his own on a stage, but I would pay to see
many other solo artists perform before him, and definitely before
Macca, who IMO was not great as a solo performer

[Michael Frank]

One of my reasons for NOT liking the Thriller album, though I bought it, was the notion that this weakling/gay/child loving/freak would ever have to deny (in the song, "Billie Jean") that "The kid is not my son." The whole notion of that was ludicrous to me. No one thinks even his REAL kids are truly ones he fathered.

Same with his later grabbing his crotch--just ludicrous.

Same with his overused spinning and the single-leg kicks. This is simple for almost anybody to execute, and he does it as reflexively--like, all the time-- as a little kid wiping his runny nose. If he would sometimes have danced WITHOUT doing that stuff, he would have shown some variety, and it would have been more interesting to me. Instead, one knew what to expect in his dancing from 1982-2009.

[walshb]

Michael, regarding his dancing. I know that he does use a lot of the same moves over and over, but they are his signature moves. His overall repertoire is quite amazing and to really see this, simply watch when he is not even trying, but just relaxing and moving
with the music. "Don't stop till you get enough," "Rock with You," and the Motown performance all show serious variation, as does a lot of his typical moves from Beat it and Billie Jean and Thriller. The Remember the time video showed extreme variety.

[10-8]

Michael, regarding his dancing. I know that he does use a lot of the same moves over and over, but they are his signature moves. His overall repertoire is quite amazing and to really see this, simply watch when he is not even trying, but just relaxing and moving
with the music. "Don't stop till you get enough," "Rock with You," and the Motown performance all show serious variation, as does a lot of his typical moves from Beat it and Billie Jean and Thriller. The Remember the time video showed extreme variety.

Walshie, I'm impressed with your knowledge of dance moves. Have you ever done any choreography?

[Dogman_Tony]

Damn right, kikibalt. Should being dead make one immune from all judgments but God's? I don't think so and neither do most historians. You may like have history rewritten by the media--I do not.

The Jackson apologists on this board go on and on about his grand talent. I think it was Hand to Mouth who said it best, that Jackson was a marketing genius who came along in an era in which marketing was taking over every corner of our lives. He knew how to brand himself and ran with it and became hugely popular. If we're to buy that he was a great musician/dancer/singer then we would have to believe that Cheez Whiz is great cheese, tastier than any Stilton, because so many people have bought a jar. I'm quite content to say that Michael Jackson was great in those terms. He was the processed cheese food of music, the Cheez Whiz of pop. His bland and uninteresting music should be and is sold in supermarkets. His legend is right up there with that of Coco Puffs and Count Chocula.

The apologists say Oh, MJ wasn't Sam Cook, because by saying this they're trying to establish his greatness by acknowledging that there was one greater but that MJ belongs in the conversation with him. Let me tell you, there are lot of people Michael Jackson was not. Marketing aside, he just doesn't measure up. He was not, for instance, Otis Redding. He was not James Brown. He was not Stevie Wonder (though he was a far better dancer than Stevie). He was not Marvin Gaye. Compare his music in terms of melody and depth and lyrics, on any terms you choose, and Jackson falls short. Frankly I don't even think he was Simon and Garfunkel. You would have to go way, way, way down the list of performers during the past fifty years find someone Jackson WAS.

[10-8]

You would have to go way, way, way down the list of performers during the past fifty years find someone Jackson WAS.

Debarge?

[TKO11]

I can't understand what this argument is all about....

Michael called himself the "King of Pop", and that's exactly what he was - the king of lightweight, catchy little ditties that were designed specifically to get the kids on the dance floor at the block parties. Just look at the Wiki page on "pop music" - emphasis on technology, not musicianship; emphasis on artificiality or craftsmanship over artistic value; tendency to deal with simple or trivial themes; tendency to follow existing practice and fashionable trends over progressive developments; etc....

Michael HIMSELF called himself the king of this type of music. It is BY DEFINITION lightweight and fluffy without much substance. And he was GREAT at it. He wrote and performed simple, musically uninteresting, catchy fluff that made your toe tap. That is ALL. He was also a great showman, which is something completely different. Good Elvis impersonators are also usually great showman, but it doesn't mean they have anything to offer that has any substance, except that you might enjoy the performance. Ditto Michael.

Comparing the Beatles to MJ is like comparing Michaelangelo to James Audubon. Both very incredibly talented AT WHAT THEY DID - but one painted simple things that we have all seen and required no real vision (Audubon), the other created the entire vision and brought it to life, making people see and consider things that they had no idea about before they saw his work (Michaelangelo). The Beatles were the ones with vision, who totally changed things musically, and to a smaller degree, culturally. They did things in pop/rock that nobody had even CONSIDERED before, and they did it all by the seat of their pants. In their early 20s they were the first band to introduce secondary root movements to pop music, which had never been done in anything outside of classical and some very esoteric jazz. They changed music permanently. Later their music changed attitudes and even altered the political landscape.

Michael painted the landscapes. That isn't to say he was less that the best at it. For his generation, he was. But he didn't change anything except to add layers of techno to pop and increase showmanship. Certainly not unimportant, but far from the earth shaking ripple effects resulting from the music of the Beatles.

Comparing Michael to Dylan is like comparing a Jaguar to a Sherman Tank. They are not for the same thing. Michael's is ritualistic dance music with very little artistic substance. He did not make music that was supposed to be "listened to" - and that was ALL Dylan ever made. If I want to dance, Michael would be better - but if I want to lay on the bed with headphones and listen, Michael is out the window and 'Highway 61 Revisited' goes on. For some reason, if I am "listening", I'd rather have Bob ask me how it feels to be on my own, a complete unknown with no direction home, than to have Michael tell me to "Shomm on, shomm on, tell me, alright..."

As far as his recreational activities, we live in a land where someone is not guilty until proven otherwise. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is most likely a duck, but in a situation where it is "he said she said" it isn't inappropriate to be on either side of the fence. Luckily, I do not believe in the modern religion of celebrity, so whether or not he groped kids doesn't mean a damn thing to me, and never would have unless my kids would have been in his presence - which wasn't something that was ever going to happen anyway. So why does anyone give a shit?

[walshb]

Walshie, I'm impressed with your knowledge of dance moves. Have you ever done any choreography?

Funny you should mention that, for all my boxing ability, most always admired my footwork, serious, it was and is damn good!

[walshb]

I can't understand what this argument is all about....

Michael called himself the "King of Pop", and that's exactly what he was - the king of lightweight, catchy little ditties that were designed specifically to get the kids on the dance floor at the block parties. Just look at the Wiki page on "pop music" - emphasis on technology, not musicianship; emphasis on artificiality or craftsmanship over artistic value; tendency to deal with simple or trivial themes; tendency to follow existing practice and fashionable trends over progressive developments; etc....

Michael HIMSELF called himself the king of this type of music. It is BY DEFINITION lightweight and fluffy without much substance. And he was GREAT at it. He wrote and performed simple, musically uninteresting, catchy fluff that made your toe tap. That is ALL. He was also a great showman, which is something completely different. Good Elvis impersonators are also usually great showman, but it doesn't mean they have anything to offer that has any substance, except that you might enjoy the performance. Ditto Michael.

Comparing the Beatles to MJ is like comparing Michaelangelo to James Audubon. Both very incredibly talented AT WHAT THEY DID - but one painted simple things that we have all seen and required no real vision (Audubon), the other created the entire vision and brought it to life, making people see and consider things that they had no idea about before they saw his work (Michaelangelo). The Beatles were the ones with vision, who totally changed things musically, and to a smaller degree, culturally. They did things in pop/rock that nobody had even CONSIDERED before, and they did it all by the seat of their pants. In their early 20s they were the first band to introduce secondary root movements to pop music, which had never been done in anything outside of classical and some very esoteric jazz. They changed music permanently. Later their music changed attitudes and even altered the political landscape.

Michael painted the landscapes. That isn't to say he was less that the best at it. For his generation, he was. But he didn't change anything except to add layers of techno to pop and increase showmanship. Certainly not unimportant, but far from the earth shaking ripple effects resulting from the music of the Beatles.

Comparing Michael to Dylan is like comparing a Jaguar to a Sherman Tank. They are not for the same thing. Michael's is ritualistic dance music with very little artistic substance. He did not make music that was supposed to be "listened to" - and that was ALL Dylan ever made. If I want to dance, Michael would be better - but if I want to lay on the bed with headphones and listen, Michael is out the window and 'Highway 61 Revisited' goes on. For some reason, if I am "listening", I'd rather have Bob ask me how it feels to be on my own, a complete unknown with no direction home, than to have Michael tell me to "Shomm on, shomm on, tell me, alright..."

As far as his recreational activities, we live in a land where someone is not guilty until proven otherwise. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is most likely a duck, but in a situation where it is "he said she said" it isn't inappropriate to be on either side of the fence. Luckily, I do not believe in the modern religion of celebrity, so whether or not he groped kids doesn't mean a damn thing to me, and never would have unless my kids would have been in his presence - which wasn't something that was ever going to happen anyway. So why does anyone give a shit?

Exactly why I said that we must distinguish between a singer, songwriter and a performer and showman. MJ, like the Beatles, was a blend of the three.

BTW, the real musical genius behind the Beatles was George Martin.
The Beatles were as musicians go, quite average and lacked the real technical
proficiency. Could they even read music to a fine degree?

None of them were close to exceptional with any instrument. They had a musical ear, raw talent and a great arranger and composer in Martin.

Simplicity and melody is what made their work so good.

Compare them to say Billy Joel or Elton John, who were both
proficient musicians, well I know Elton was and I am sure
Billy was too.

[TKO11]

Walsh, anyone who would call McCartney a "quite average" bass player is clueless - I'm sorry. That he could play those basslines and SING AT THE SAME TIME has always amazed me. I will agree that Lennon and Harrison were only serviceable musicians. Ringo was the most underestimated musician I've ever heard of - no flash, but he was the strongest backbone I've ever heard, and given the racket the Beatles played to, that was what he always needed to be. Doing precisely what your band needs you to do is not average work - it is perfect work.

Speaking of musicianship, did Michael even play an instrument? I have never seen him get a note from any instrument other than his nuts.

As far as Martin being the musical genius behind the Beatles, while he was instrumental to their sound, to make that claim is flat out ignorant of the facts. The Beatles WROTE the songs - the words and the music. George Martin was their arranger. He also showed them how to get the sounds they wanted when they had an idea they didn't know how to execute it. But it was not him that came up with the chord changes that had everyone astounded when they heard any new Beatles album, or the lyrics that had people dreaming of a better world - that was ALL Lennon and McCartney.

To call their music "simple" when it did things nobody else had ever done is an astoundingly inaccurate comment. Their changes were groundbreaking. to this day there is nobody playing music with the type of movements in it that the Beatles did - that's why it holds up today.

Or was Quincy Jones really the genius behind Michael too?