Michael Jackson: dead at age 50

**Mario F.** · 06-27-2009

Originally Posted by Sharke

Nobody's disputing that he made a huge impact - but the question is, upon whom? Upon his fans, or upon other artists whose music was subsequently influenced by him?

Michael Jackson lend both an aesthetic and musical style to the pop genre that defined -- and is acknowledge by -- numerous artists that followed and musical critics. He gave three major contributions to music in my opinion.

1.
He broke free from R&B shackles, and moved into a pop style that bridged black and white music like no other artist before him. He was successful at bringing his own Motown into pop. After Michael Jackson, Pop become a colorless genre that evolved from the 50s and 60s white-dominated culture. At a quick glance, historic landmarks like the first black artist to earn more than the traditional 3 minutes on MTV display this achievement. But aesthetically, his music had all the ingredients to appeal to broader audiences which resulted in the first artist in music history to garner fans on equal amounts within the United States and across the world regardless of their skin color.

2.
You'd have to be there to understand. But before Michael Jackson there was really no dancing act. There was really no military flak jacket dressing artists, or band-aid fingers, or bandaged arms. And there was very little of the bad boy attitude. Michael Jackson shaped all this for future generations. His dancing with elements of James Brown and Elvis Presley is still highly inspirational to even the young audience today, it completely shaped pop dance and helped shape future achievements like Break Dance, Disco, and modern R&B dance. It even helped shape rap moves. All this acknowledged by the artists themselves. Meanwhile his dressing act and his attitude completely defined what would become the 80's and 90's pop music and even touched Disco.

3.
Music promotion underwent a total and complete revolution the day Thriller was released, three years after Off the Wall. Again, you would need to be there to understand. Thriller hit everyone on their heads like a thousand hammers screaming to the top of their lounges "WAKE UP!". It was a complete unexpected surprise. No one was really knowing what would hit them the next day when they went to bed. It wasn't just the musical, style. It wasn't just the fact this album forced critics to rewrite the rules about how many singles can come out of an album before it washes itself out. No. It was the music videos.

Thriller introduced into the music industry the concept of music videos as promotional tools with their highly aesthetic elements and completely revised production principles. I remember when I first saw the music video from Thriller. I was totally blown away. My jaw dropped. It's perhaps when I learned the real meaning of the word "Cool!". It blew everyone away. People even believed that there was a movie somewhere or the song was the soundtrack for a movie on the making. No one was ready for that... and the music industry? Man, you have no idea. It blew them off their socks. Since Thriller, everything changed.

Originally Posted by Sharke

Like I said, it's very hard to say that someone's music has been influenced by Michael Jackson because he was not really a composer or an arranger. He was a singer who worked with many different producers and songwriters.

Nope. You are in fact wrong. Michael Jackson was a performer, producer and writer. About all of his songs were written by himself. Of those that weren't, they were written in collaboration (a very common gig in the 80s since it was often used as a form of promotion). And he even helped write songs that weren't his, probably the most famous one being "We Are The World", witten with Lionel Richie as the anthem for USA for Africa.

Michael Jackson was also a producer. Suprisingly, even from tender age. He helped produce many of the Jackson's albums and produced most of his own solo work. No Michael Jackson Album or music video, was ever released that didn't have Michael Jackson work as a producer or writer.

Finally, Michael Jackson was the creative behind his own work. Nobody told him how to do it. He would tell others how he wanted it done on those things he couldn't put his own hand (like playing an instrument). Every song you hear is the work of Michael Jackson and Michael Jackson alone.

Please do not go that route. You are just absolutely wrong. The only thing you cannot see him doing is playing an instrument. But Michael could read musical notes and even defined the instrumentalization for his songs. This is someone that has been in constant daily professional contact with the music industry since he was 5!

**MK27** · 06-27-2009

Originally Posted by Mario F.

God forbid one day you finding yourself on the other side of the walk of life being aired as a pedophile, and after your innocence is proven, you will still have to deal with the ignorant and ravenous of the world who will keep preying on you.

It is interesting that this "major population" referred to by valaris, who probably would have little or no interest in Micheal Jackson (and probably little or no interest in real pedophiles), are united by some kind of cross fixation. This is a wacky form of irony demonstrated by many conservatives because of their unholy pact with outright malevolent hypocrites. Here I am thinking of some nasty catholic priest, secretly engaged in real child abuse, getting up in front of an audience three times a week to set up Micheal Jackson as a straw dog -- y'know, everything satan represents...

@sharke: you're just wrong man, give up. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. If a double digit percentage of extremely well sold popular people in the recording industry say thing like "I owe it all to MJ" or even "I own a lot to MJ, he was a huge influence" then he was by definition a revolutionary force in pop music, the same way Led Zeppelin could be seen as a revolutionary force in the hard rock music. It may not have been "the revolution" you or I or others would have liked to see, but it would be ridiculous to say he was "just playing along with a trend and doing it well". He came to personally and consciously define the trend.

To be honest, I find him and the Beatles equally boring, but they both were responsible for a lot of nice tunes, and a few very interesting ones that are not boring at all. I used to think it was a lot of hot air that the beatles did anything "revolutionary" or "ground-breaking"*, but I'm now kind of willing to concede the point.

*eg, "no they didn't, they just sold a lot of units and everyone thinks that means something". Of course it means something. And consider the impact MJ apparently had in the non-Western world...

**VirtualAce** · 06-27-2009

It is interesting that this "major population" referred to by valaris, who probably would have little or no interest in Micheal Jackson (and probably little or no interest in real pedophiles), are united by some kind of cross fixation. This is a wacky form of irony demonstrated by many conservatives because of their unholy pact with outright malevolent hypocrites. Here I am thinking of some nasty catholic priest, secretly engaged in real child abuse, getting up in front of an audience three times a week to set up Micheal Jackson as a straw dog -- y'know, everything satan represents...

@MK27:
For once remove your political feelings from a topic. The death of this legendary performer has nothing to do with politics. Everything in the world isn't about conservatives and liberals. It just seems that way since the last decade we've been bombarded with this crap from the media who tries to categorize people into nice neat little groups to serve their own needs. There is far more to America than liberals and conservatives and I am totally sick of hearing this garbage spouted all over the place and then listening to people who actually believe this non-sense and divisiveness and buy it hook line and sinker. Your statements are absurd because regardless of liberal or conservative fans everywhere are saddened by the death of Michael Jackson. You are ignorant to think this has anything to do with what side of the political fence you fall on. Your accusations are baseless, thoughtless, and quite honestly I'm a bit surprised at the complete lack of logic and understanding in your statement. You are better than that I know. Everyone is so concerned with judging others and yet the first thing we do is judge one another solely on our political bias which, let's be honest, won't mean a single thing in 5 years or so since the culture will have completely changed.

@Sharke:
Michael Jackson revolutionized music and even though it appears some are trying to re-write history out of ignorance it doesn't change the fact.
Having grown up in the 1980's I lived through Jackson's rise to fame, the Jackson five, the kid's trying to moonwalk at elementary school, the glove, the Michael Jackon costumes, the music at the local pool, etc. I remember when Beat It!, Thriller!, and Billy Jean came out and they completely blew people's socks off. You could say that Michael Jackson basically built MTV - his Thriller video proved you could do music videos that would actually promote an album and increase sales. Thriller was for music videos what the first Star Wars was for movies. After Thriller artists flocked to making videos and back when MTV actually played vidoes instead of the crop of reality non-sense mind-numbing trash they play now I actually used to watch a lot of them. MTV was extremely popular then and it was all in part due to videos like Thriller. I remember day one when MTV came on the air and everyone was like WTF? After Thriller no one questioned the idea of a music video.
So regardless of what you say or think you are completely wrong on this one. We lived it and Michael Jackson was a complete superstar who revolutionized the music industry forever.

**Sharke** · 06-27-2009

Originally Posted by Mario F.

1.
He broke free from R&B shackles, and moved into a pop style that bridged black and white music like no other artist before him. He was successful at bringing his own Motown into pop. After Michael Jackson, Pop become a colorless genre that evolved from the 50s and 60s white-dominated culture. At a quick glance, historic landmarks like the first black artist to earn more than the traditional 3 minutes on MTV display this achievement. But aesthetically, his music had all the ingredients to appeal to broader audiences which resulted in the first artist in music history to garner fans on equal amounts within the United States and across the world regardless of their skin color.

Pop became a colorless genre after Michael Jackson? Are you absolutely sure about that? It seems to me that there still exists quite clearly defined black music and white music. It's not exactly segregated but to call it "colorless" is just simply not true. Plus, black music had been immensely successful before MTV. Are we forgetting about artists like Stevie Wonder, who contributed as much if not more to popular music than Michael Jackson IMO? Pop music in America was never truly dominated by white music and black music has always played a tremendous part. I think this whole racial aspect with Michael Jackson is tremendously overplayed and hyped. So what if he was the "first black artist to earn more than the traditional 3 minutes on MTV" - someone had to be the first white artist to do so and someone had to be the first black artist to do so. It doesn't mean they changed the face of pop, necessarily.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

2. You'd have to be there to understand. But before Michael Jackson there was really no dancing act. There was really no military flak jacket dressing artists, or band-aid fingers, or bandaged arms. And there was very little of the bad boy attitude. Michael Jackson shaped all this for future generations. His dancing with elements of James Brown and Elvis Presley is still highly inspirational to even the young audience today, it completely shaped pop dance and helped shape future achievements like Break Dance, Disco, and modern R&B dance. It even helped shape rap moves. All this acknowledged by the artists themselves. Meanwhile his dressing act and his attitude completely defined what would become the 80's and 90's pop music and even touched Disco.

There was no military flak jacket dressing artists? Oh, OK. However relevant that is to "the face of pop." There was no dancing act? Well you said it yourself, James Brown and Elvis to name but two. Jacko may have originated his own style of dancing and he was a tremendous mover who influenced other artists, but changed the face of pop? I don't think so. Disco, R&B, rap - these are all styles that have a multitude of influences, just one of which may be certain elements of Michael Jackson. Helped shape rap moves? Well, the kids on the streets of Brooklyn may well have seen and copied a couple of Michael Jackson moves. But rap in its embryonic form was well and truly under way in the latter half of the 70's and the kids on the street were plenty innovative themselves, thanks very much. To say that his dressing act and attitude "defined what would become 80's and 90's pop music" is just a gross exaggeration. If we're talking about popular music in the 90's for example, I put it to you that Nirvana had more of an influence than Jacko.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

3.Music promotion underwent a total and complete revolution the day Thriller was released, three years after Off the Wall. Again, you would need to be there to understand. Thriller hit everyone on their heads like a thousand hammers screaming to the top of their lounges "WAKE UP!". It was a complete unexpected surprise. No one was really knowing what would hit them the next day when they went to bed. It wasn't just the musical, style. It wasn't just the fact this album forced critics to rewrite the rules about how many singles can come out of an album before it washes itself out. No. It was the music videos.

I would need to be there? I was there. Granted I was a kid, but I'm 36 years old, plenty old enough to remember these times. The number of singles that come out of an album may be an interesting aspect of the subject of music promotion, but I would hardly call this a groundbreaking influence on "the face of pop." Music to me is overwhelmingly about sound. Unless someone can give me some specifics regarding just how Jackson influenced the sound of pop music, then I'm just not convinced. Thriller may have been an incredible smash hit, but in terms of music it just wasn't that special. Here's a quote from an interview with Quincy Jones, who was responsible for much of the arranging on Thiller.

Have you listened to the whole Thriller album start to finish in one sitting recently?

God, no. I haven't done that in 20 years.

I would hazard a guess that it's the same for most people who bought the album. It's stayed on people's shelves. A smash hit that nobody really gets out any more. I wonder how many people who bought the album on vinyl all those years ago, went on to replace it on CD. Or does it, like so many albums, sit in people's vinyl collections - happy to be there of course, but having been nowhere near a turntable for over 20 years?

Jackson probably changed the face of Bollywood more than he changed the face of Western pop (I'm serious! Check out some of those Indian song and dance routines - heavily influenced by Jacko)

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Thriller introduced into the music industry the concept of music videos as promotional tools with their highly aesthetic elements and completely revised production principles. I remember when I first saw the music video from Thriller. I was totally blown away. My jaw dropped. It's perhaps when I learned the real meaning of the word "Cool!". It blew everyone away. People even believed that there was a movie somewhere or the song was the soundtrack for a movie on the making. No one was ready for that... and the music industry? Man, you have no idea. It blew them off their socks. Since Thriller, everything changed.

Of course, since Thriller everything has changed. But it was not because of Thriller, which was certainly not the first music video. One could say that Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" video from 1975 - years before Thriller - was as groundbreaking for its time. Sure, millions of dollars were pumped into Thriller and it was like a mini-movie production, but just how much has that shaped modern pop? Dollar amounts don't count. Thriller was Thriller, and very few music videos since have had any resemblance. Yes, Thriller was huge, but its influence on future pop music, well I just don't see it.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Nope. You are in fact wrong. Michael Jackson was a performer, producer and writer. About all of his songs were written by himself. Of those that weren't, they were written in collaboration (a very common gig in the 80s since it was often used as a form of promotion). And he even helped write songs that weren't his, probably the most famous one being "We Are The World", witten with Lionel Richie as the anthem for USA for Africa.

Again, this is just not true. He may have written many of his lyrics (not all) - which weren't anything to write home about by the way - but most of his music (do you know what I mean by "music"? The arrangement, the chords, the melody, the rhythm) was outsourced. Not that there's anything wrong with this, most solo vocal performers do the same. You'll have an arranger who works in collaboration with a producer and they're the ones working on harmonies, horn arrangements, guitar parts, bass lines, chord structure etc. Michael's input was primarily his vocal. Tell me, how often have you seen Michael Jackson playing a musical instrument? I didn't see him play anything once on stage. And none of this changes the fact that most of his music was basically middle of the road pop.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Michael Jackson was also a producer. Suprisingly, even from tender age. He helped produce many of the Jackson's albums and produced most of his own solo work. No Michael Jackson Album or music video, was ever released that didn't have Michael Jackson work as a producer or writer.

Sure - and Jerry Seinfeld wrote his own sitcom. It wasn't really the behind the scenes work of Larry David and Larry Charles. Nobody is suggesting that Jackson didn't make his own input into the music he released, but such works as Thriller and Off The Wall would have simply not existed without the creative skills of Quincy Jones, who did most of the producing and arranging.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Finally, Michael Jackson was the creative behind his own work. Nobody told him how to do it. He would tell others how he wanted it done on those things he couldn't put his own hand (like playing an instrument). Every song you hear is the work of Michael Jackson and Michael Jackson alone. Please do not go that route. You are just absolutely wrong. The only thing you cannot see him doing is playing an instrument. But Michael could read musical notes and even defined the instrumentalization for his songs. This is someone that has been in constant daily professional contact with the music industry since he was 5!

This is just not true and is getting a little close to being sycophantic for my liking! I think Quincy Jones - and the myriad of other composers, arrangers and producers he employed to make his music - would have something to say about that! Jeez, next you'll be telling me that Kim Jong Il is the world's greatest golfer.

**Sharke** · 06-27-2009

Originally Posted by MK27

@sharke: you're just wrong man, give up. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. If a double digit percentage of extremely well sold popular people in the recording industry say thing like "I owe it all to MJ" or even "I own a lot to MJ, he was a huge influence" then he was by definition a revolutionary force in pop music, the same way Led Zeppelin could be seen as a revolutionary force in the hard rock music. It may not have been "the revolution" you or I or others would have liked to see, but it would be ridiculous to say he was "just playing along with a trend and doing it well". He came to personally and consciously define the trend.

To be honest, I find him and the Beatles equally boring, but they both were responsible for a lot of nice tunes, and a few very interesting ones that are not boring at all. I used to think it was a lot of hot air that the beatles did anything "revolutionary" or "ground-breaking"*, but I'm now kind of willing to concede the point.

*eg, "no they didn't, they just sold a lot of units and everyone thinks that means something". Of course it means something. And consider the impact MJ apparently had in the non-Western world...

Sorry, not giving it up! Like I have said on many occasions, I don't deny that Jackson made an impact on pop, or was an influence to some pop artists, but I will consistently dispute that he changed the face of pop music. You are of course free to furnish me with evidence of this "double digit percentage" of artists who "owe it all to Michael" if you like. At this point nobody has provided me with any specific evidence whatsoever except to point out that Thriller was a huge album with the most expensive video for its time and that many people have copied his dance moves. But in terms of redefining pop as a sound....sorry, just not true. You're all going to have to give me something meatier than "number of units sold." Because this may comprise an "impact" of sorts, but not the one everyone's claiming. I don't really hear any more of a Michael Jackson influence in the pop music of the last 20 years than I do of many other influences.

And I still put it that the Beatles, regardless of what you think of them, ingrained the language of popular music more deeply than Jackson. Like I said, their music is more well known, more played, more covered than Jackson's. More of their songs are familiar to more people and the "mania" created by the Beatles when they hit the scene was far more significant for its time than any kind of comparable "Jackson mania," if such a thing existed. He may well have sold more records in total, but he just wasn't as great an influence, period.

**Sharke** · 06-27-2009

Originally Posted by Bubba

@Sharke:
Michael Jackson revolutionized music and even though it appears some are trying to re-write history out of ignorance it doesn't change the fact.
Having grown up in the 1980's I lived through Jackson's rise to fame, the Jackson five, the kid's trying to moonwalk at elementary school, the glove, the Michael Jackon costumes, the music at the local pool, etc. I remember when Beat It!, Thriller!, and Billy Jean came out and they completely blew people's socks off.

They blew the socks off of people who went in for that sort of thing. But no more than any number of other bands/artists that were huge. I grew up in the 1980's too. I remember kids trying to moonwalk at school. But that was just one of hundreds of brief crazes of the time. Didn't see any kids wearing the glove or the costumes. I remember a handful of kids that were into Michael Jackson, but there was so much else going on at the time.

Originally Posted by Bubba

You could say that Michael Jackson basically built MTV

You could say that. But it isn't necessarily true. MTV would have done just fine without Michael Jackson.

Originally Posted by Bubba

- his Thriller video proved you could do music videos that would actually promote an album and increase sales.

It may have been part of such a proof - even a major part - but Thriller was not the first promotional music video, they'd been used to promote albums and artists for years before 1983. That's why record companies spent the money to make them. If they weren't already increasing sales, then why spend the money?

Originally Posted by Bubba

Thriller was for music videos what the first Star Wars was for movies.

I was not aware that movies only really took off after 1977.

Originally Posted by Bubba

After Thriller artists flocked to making videos and back when MTV actually played vidoes instead of the crop of reality non-sense mind-numbing trash they play now I actually used to watch a lot of them. MTV was extremely popular then and it was all in part due to videos like Thriller. I remember day one when MTV came on the air and everyone was like WTF? After Thriller no one questioned the idea of a music video.
So regardless of what you say or think you are completely wrong on this one. We lived it and Michael Jackson was a complete superstar who revolutionized the music industry forever.

You said it yourself...."all in part due to videos like Thriller." Granted, Thriller was a music video on a new scale and MJ was a "complete superstar," but to claim that he "revolutionized the music industry forever" is just a gross exaggeration. If Michael Jackson had never lived, the music industry would look much the same as it is now.

**whiteflags** · 06-27-2009

If Michael Jackson had never lived, the music industry would look much the same as it is now.

I guess a true test of that statement would be to prove how often Michael Jackson's stuff is sampled by other artists. Of course, it's probably only a convincing argument if MJ influenced artists you like.

And it's really just an awful statement to make. Everyone's a damn critic these days, and you're going to belittle someone's accomplishments to the point where their existence served no lasting purpose. Damn you and all your words.

**VirtualAce** · 06-27-2009

Sorry, not giving it up!

Which proves your ignorance. In spite of the facts and even though all of the music industry recognizes his influence...you fail to.

But then you know everything so we should probably be learning from you.

**Mario F.** · 06-27-2009

Originally Posted by Sharke

[...]

I'm not going to discuss with you any further. The fact that you deny well established principles laid out by the artists themselves, the music industry, and music critics speaks more about you and your opinions than I could.

and... 36 years old? Nah. Sorry. You didn't live through it. You were 7 years old when he released Off The Wall and 10 when he released Thriller. Give me a break!

**MK27** · 06-27-2009

Originally Posted by Bubba

@MK27:
the first thing we do is judge one another solely on our political bias which, let's be honest, won't mean a single thing in 5 years or so since the culture will have completely changed.

Yeah, I judge people on their political bias. I don't make any attempts to hide that! Vis. "it won't mean a thing in 5 years" only a 5 year old would believe this...and I once heard a lil' birdie say "time is on my side" so there xP (I guess that was cause I make the easy choices, haha)

Originally Posted by snarkie

Are we forgetting about artists like Stevie Wonder, who contributed as much if not more to popular music than Michael Jackson IMO?

I'm a white person. I was at the gym today where they have that sirius radio stuff on and "alt nation", as I believe it is called, was on. I don't know who or which bunch of kids it was, but some song came on and I thought, I like the riff and the sound (basically a "I fought the law" kind of syncopated blues progression with the gain high) so then my thought was "it's got that Clash thing". But really IMO the Dead Kennedy's, altho slightly younger than the Clash and perhaps not as "pervasive", are a much more consistent and ultimately impressive band. Like much more IMO.

Likewise with Stevie Wonder and Micheal Jackson. Stevie has some nice songs but MJ still has that harder, more cutting edge.

@everyone

James Brown and Elvis

I'm gonna sit down for 30 seconds and consider this analogy carefully

Originally Posted by sharky again

Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody"

I've never seen the video -- will go check youtube. A very interesting call as I've heard that this is the #1 selling single of all time in the "muslim" world, probably because the german sounding slogan in the middle (which does mean "we will not let him go") is not actually German, it's Arabic.

I was born in 1973. I absolutely promise The Bohemian Rhapsody video did not make MTV to anywhere near the degree the Thriller video did. It was all MJ, Madonna, and Duran Duran to start with. Certainly Queen did pave part of the way for Jackson I think, sonically.

I also like the way sharky says "You're all going to have to give me something meatier than 'number of units sold.'" re Jackson but then says the Beatles are different because "More of their songs are familiar to more people and the 'mania' created by the Beatles" blah blah blah...it's units man, real people bought them.

@Mario F

and... 36 years old? Nah. Sorry. You didn't live through it.

WHAT!!?! You just feel that way now because you have gotten too old to remember *anything* about your feelings and impressions pre-21. I feel privileged in a way. I was a child then, so I didn't see music videos or Micheal Jackson or Ronald Reagan or anything as "new" -- they were just what was. And now I hear that stuff and it's surreal, my mind is so different. I would credit Reagan as a bigger influence

That man really woke me up...

**Sharke** · 06-28-2009

Originally Posted by whiteflags

I guess a true test of that statement would be to prove how often Michael Jackson's stuff is sampled by other artists. Of course, it's probably only a convincing argument if MJ influenced artists you like.

And it's really just an awful statement to make. Everyone's a damn critic these days, and you're going to belittle someone's accomplishments to the point where their existence served no lasting purpose. Damn you and all your words.

Oh pipe down Millhouse. Honestly, what a drama queen.

Injecting a little down-to-earth realism into a subject and pointing out that Michael Jackson didn't change the world is hardly "belittling his achievements."

Listen up, I was pretty upset when Frank Zappa died and I happen to think he composed some of the finest music of the 20th century and broke more musical ground than did Michael Jackson, but I'll tell you what - I sure as hell didn't throw a hissy fit when people didn't agree with me!

**Sharke** · 06-28-2009

Originally Posted by Bubba

Which proves your ignorance. In spite of the facts and even though all of the music industry recognizes his influence...you fail to.

But then you know everything so we should probably be learning from you.

Well here I am on a C programming forum and THIS is the standard of logic I'm confronted with. The fact that I disagree with you (and am prepared to explain why) is somehow "proof" of my "ignorance."

Do I know anything? No. Do I insinuate that I know everything? No. Did I express an opinion and back it up with some reasoning? Yes. That is all.

Does "all of the music industry recognize his influence"? I don't know, because unlike you I don't pretend to speak for "all of the music industry" and I don't make such bizarre statements. I will however hazard a guess that his influence is recognized in varying degrees, from those like me who recognize that he was one influence of hundreds but didn't "change the face of pop forever," and those like you who seemingly believe that today's pop music wouldn't exist without him.

**Sharke** · 06-28-2009

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I'm not going to discuss with you any further. The fact that you deny well established principles laid out by the artists themselves, the music industry, and music critics speaks more about you and your opinions than I could.

and... 36 years old? Nah. Sorry. You didn't live through it. You were 7 years old when he released Off The Wall and 10 when he released Thriller. Give me a break!

Well here's me thinking that I was "alive" at the ages of 7 through 10. Thank God I have someone like you to put me straight on the matter.

You don't want to discuss with me further, that's fine. Then the following question is rhetorical: What are these "well established principles" you speak of? And who are "the artists?"

I hardly think the word "principle" is appropriate in the context of the question of whether or not Michael Jackson changed the face of pop music. We're getting a little scientific here now, aren't we? I think some of us have deluded ourselves into thinking that there's some kind of blanket consensus throughout the music industry and that the phrase "Michael Jackson is God" is written in stone. I'm actually a little spooked out by the unconditional fawning and adulation on display here. The guy was just a popular singer and none of you knew him personally. To read some of this you'd think we were on a preteen forum discussing the death of the Jonas Brothers

**Sharke** · 06-28-2009

Originally Posted by MK27

I'm a white person. I was at the gym today where they have that sirius radio stuff on and "alt nation", as I believe it is called, was on. I don't know who or which bunch of kids it was, but some song came on and I thought, I like the riff and the sound (basically a "I fought the law" kind of syncopated blues progression with the gain high) so then my thought was "it's got that Clash thing". But really IMO the Dead Kennedy's, altho slightly younger than the Clash and perhaps not as "pervasive", are a much more consistent and ultimately impressive band. Like much more IMO.

Likewise with Stevie Wonder and Micheal Jackson. Stevie has some nice songs but MJ still has that harder, more cutting edge.

I guess you'd have to listen to the entire output of each to judge that matter. I got to listen to a lot of MJ through my brother in the 80's and although I will agree he had some superb pop tracks (Billie Jean is an absolute classic and I love it), I was never really impressed by 80% of the songs on his albums. Most of them just seemed like bland pop filler, or soppy ballads that went in one ear and out of the other. Stevie Wonder has also written a lot like this, but if you listen to his albums from the early 70's, in particular "Innervisions," there is just no comparison. Wonder is clearly the better musician, he knew jazz and he knew how to play those "outside" notes which give music an edge. You only have to listen to "Too High" to hear the edge Stevie Wonder had over Michael Jackson.

Originally Posted by MK27

I was born in 1973. I absolutely promise The Bohemian Rhapsody video did not make MTV to anywhere near the degree the Thriller video did. It was all MJ, Madonna, and Duran Duran to start with. Certainly Queen did pave part of the way for Jackson I think, sonically.

Sure, because Bohemian Rhapsody came out in the 70's before MTV existed. But that was perhaps the first major music video and broke a lot of ground. Furthermore, I guess MTV isn't everything. The majority of the world doesn't watch it.

Originally Posted by MK27

I also like the way sharky says "You're all going to have to give me something meatier than 'number of units sold.'" re Jackson but then says the Beatles are different because "More of their songs are familiar to more people and the 'mania' created by the Beatles" blah blah blah...it's units man, real people bought them.

You're comparing apples to oranges. To say that Michael Jackson sold more records is not the same as saying that more people are familiar with Beatles songs. Of course Jackson sold more records than the Beatles, but my point was that record sales do not necessarily reflect what that music ends up meaning to people and how deeply it pervades the popular culture. For all the hundreds of millions of copies of Thriller sold, I would guess that most copies got played for a few weeks and then never again, that even after a few days, most people were skipping past the filler tracks and just playing the singles. Certainly, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who could name more than 3 or 4 tracks from Thriller, or indeed any of his songs that weren't Top 40 hits. Whereas with the Beatles, people played their albums for years and virtually all of their songs are well known and loved. Even if people can't name them, you can play a Beatles album to someone and as each track starts they'll think "oh, this one...I like this one." My brother played "Bad" endlessly when that came out but I'll be darned if I can recall any of the tracks except the title track and maybe Man in the Mirror and The Way You Make Me Feel, all hit singles.

Originally Posted by MK27

I would credit Reagan as a bigger influence

That man really woke me up...

I really miss Reagan and Thatcher. Which makes me the polar opposite of most of my friends.

**whiteflags** · 06-28-2009

Originally Posted by Sharke

Oh pipe down Millhouse. Honestly, what a drama queen.

Injecting a little down-to-earth realism into a subject and pointing out that Michael Jackson didn't change the world is hardly "belittling his achievements."

Listen up, I was pretty upset when Frank Zappa died and I happen to think he composed some of the finest music of the 20th century and broke more musical ground than did Michael Jackson, but I'll tell you what - I sure as hell didn't throw a hissy fit when people didn't agree with me!

Well people disagree with you now and it's apparently a problem. I can honestly respect your opinion that MJ didn't do very much for music (in the "I will defend to the death your right to say it" sense), but it's getting a little ridiculous on everyone's part here. You've kept the discussion going for three pages like a little contrarian. Either you want everyone to agree with you eventually or you see something important going on in this discussion that I do not. I think everyone ought to remove their fingers from the keyboard for a while.