Wow. The King of Pop is gone. Very controversial figure, but I have to admit he use to be one of my favorite performers. Thiller was the first album I ever bought (1984).
Printable View
Wow. The King of Pop is gone. Very controversial figure, but I have to admit he use to be one of my favorite performers. Thiller was the first album I ever bought (1984).
Sad :( He might be a bit controversial but his works are legendary and will live on. I will miss his works.
Of course you have to ask yourself, is he really dead. There, I've said it.
Run for your lives!
1 word.
KARMA
I don't think I heard that one. Was it on Thriller?Quote:
Originally Posted by valaris
No. Karma as in, what goes around comes around ?...
Have some respect for the deceased.
He will be missed.
Oh, so it was on the B-side.Quote:
Originally Posted by valaris
One word: talent.
Keep in mind that he spent his *whole* life in the entertainment business. Last I checked that isn't exactly a recipe for sanity. Think about it: 95% of all child actors are screwed up. Is it any wonder why?
Michael Jackson made some great contributions to music. He wasn't perfect, and he certainly made terrible mistakes (he was human, after all). But he was also a very special person with an incredible gift, and deserves to be remembered on those merits, as well.
Rest in Peace, Michael!
Almost everyone in the entertainment business is screwed up to some degree. It's because they spend so much time in a fantasy world - whether it's on set or on stage or at celebrity parties or wherever - they lose contact with the basic metaphysics of reality.
I've had several minor (and one major) celebrities as clients in my business over the years and I've gotten to see the insides of their apartments....one thing I will say they all had in common was that they had wacky self-help books lying around everywhere. How to find yourself, how to get in touch with your inner soul, how to think positively, how to heal your inner spirit, how to love, how to feel, how to communicate with others etc. Now I know that many people read one or two books like this at some point in their lives, but these people really do have tons of these things scattered around, with bookmarks in each as if they're reading 7 or 8 of them at once.
They're always in therapy, always looking for answers which their unreal lives can't give them. There are some sad, sad celebs out there and many of them have mental illnesses. Most of them suffer from paranoia of one kind or another.
Is this a "wages of sin are death thing"?Quote:
Originally Posted by valaris
I imagine someone like you also believes this about Dr. Tiller, or the dead victims of gay-bashing.
Will miss him greatly :(
Grew up with his songs, his dancing and even his antics.
Despite anything that can be said about him, this is one man that changed the face of music forever. His songs, dancing and even music videos paved the road for most of what came next. A performer genious, the King of Pop, a record selling champion still waiting for a match, and an immense talent that was taken away from us two soon.
As VH1 is saying all day, "We will never forget you".
He may have sold way more records, but he was no John Lennon. Did he write his own music? Was he a musician, or simply a "performer"? I can't think of any of his songs that were really good pieces of music. How did he "change the face of music forever"? Did any of his songs actually change the music scene? Or are we talking about a very narrow band of influence within a narrow band of Top 40 pop?
Don't get me wrong I feel kinda sad that he's died - mainly because he's been a household name my whole life - but I think there is a tendency when people like Jackson die to completely overstate what he was and for everyone to feign a "no, I'm more upset than you" face. It reminds me of the death of Princess Diana, a time when the media were completely exaggerating her achievements and her influence, while grown men were openly weeping on the streets of London. It became a creepy display of peer-pressure grief and bizarre adulation.
I think to most people he was a curiosity - and if it wasn't for the "wackiness" (freakish plastic surgery, oxygen tents, Bubbles the monkey, Neverland, face masks, dangling kids over balconies etc) then he wouldn't have been half the superstar he was.
But as for his musical influence, hmmmm. I think the only thing I ever liked was the guitar solo on Beat It. And that was Eddie Van Halen.
Well, this was inevitable. Great stuff!
YouTube - BEAT IT YOU FANATICS!!! GET OUT OF MY LAND!
I don't have a TV so I imagine I am missing a lot of the all important media circus action on this one.
I never bought an MJ album, and I won't claim to be a huge fan, but if "really good music" in the "top 40 pop" genre means catchy tunes, he is responsible for a lot of really good music.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
I do think that from the very beginning many of his songs were lyrically advanced from a poli-sci perspective and still sound that way today, so he could not help but "change the face of music forever". He also was a pioneer in the edgy, slightly dark and disconcerting androgeny of 80's pop. Altho it may seem ubiquitous or cliched today, the fact that it could now seem ubiquitous or cliched is an accomplishment in itself. Micheal Jackson did not end up a cultural icon for no reason.
The fact that you have to ask that shows me you know little about music or the history of pop music. Yes he changed the face of pop music forever and he influenced many musicians along the way. Several called in to VH1 and MTV to say without Michael they wouldn't be in the industry. He was not perfect by any means but we don't remember people for being perfect we remember them for what they accomplished along the way.Quote:
He may have sold way more records, but he was no John Lennon. Did he write his own music? Was he a musician, or simply a "performer"? I can't think of any of his songs that were really good pieces of music. How did he "change the face of music forever"? Did any of his songs actually change the music scene? Or are we talking about a very narrow band of influence within a narrow band of Top 40 pop?
Someone like me finds child molestation outrageous. Someone like you may feel that a few top 40 records excuse this.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
Let me try and explain to you what I find positively outrageous about Michael Jackson.Quote:
Originally Posted by valaris
That after his death, and after this many years since the 1993 allegations and the 2004 trial people still accuse him of child molestation out of complete ignorance and unaccountability.
Michael was acquitted on all accounts and proven innocent.
Jackson cleared of child molestation | Music | guardian.co.uk
It's your prerogative that you may want to ignore a court decision (and thus refuse any faith on the judicial system with all its consequences). It's also your prerogative that you may want to ignore the fact everyone -- absolutely everyone -- who knew well and were close to Michael, among them such irreproachable people as Liz Taylor gave their testimony in court saying that Michael could never have done such a thing to a child. You may even want to ignore the fact that in reality you have no proof he did these things, but still accuse him of such.
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.
Did you just use Liz Taylor as an upstanding citizen to back up Michael Jackson? I guess Michael Jackson was proven innocent when he settled his FIRST child molestation allegation to the tune of 15 million dollars? Michael Jackson's Big Payoff - June 16, 2004.
Michael Jackson is seen by a major population as a pedophile. To be as interested in children as he was and to be accused numerous times of molestation and questionable acts towards children, it's only nature that people will start to believe this.
I'll pretty much stop here because it's obvious theres a lot of "die hard" Michael fans here.
Naturally, you choose the bombastic title to support the claim it was a payoff. And of Smoking Gun website, no less. Along with TMZ and others, websites specialized in gossip and slander. I, myself prefer Associated Press, BBC, NBC, and others. See the difference?
What I do not do is make an outrageous claim without feeling confident about it. And for me to feel confident on anything, I research. Extensively. You see, despite my unaccountability, I do not feel comfortable accusing people basing myself on incomplete information, and gossip magazines. It makes me look bad. Get it? Or do I need to spell it out to you, how it makes you look?
The 1993 allegations and the 2004 Trial case.
1. The 1993 allegations were deemed inadmissible in court by the judge.
2. The settlement establishes that there was in fact no child molestation. It was signed by both parties.
3. The settlement was made against Michael Jackson wishes. His legal representatives, family and friends wanted for a settlement. Why? Because during the accusations period and media coverage (particularly gossip media responsible for what you call "Michael Jackson is seen by a major population as a pedophile") Michael went into deep depression, became dependent on drugs and his health deteriorated dangerously. There's hospital entry records, medical testimonies and admission records on the rehab clinic he was forced to go. His friends and family feared he would not be able to sustain the even more exposition of a trial.
...
The fact is that gossip media did what they do best. They destroy lives. And people buy for the love of it. The "major part of the population" as you call it, don't buy the New York Times and doesn't read the Associated Press. They buy US Weekly and OK!, or The Sun in UK. They buy this crap and you just need to compare the circulation numbers of a serious newspaper and that of a celebrity magazine. And what do these magazines explore? Exactly the fact most people don't want to think for themselves. They want someone else to do the thinking and them just be served with the results. Our culture has become so asinine that a website like the Smoking Gun or TMZ can display the entire settlement text and they know nobody will bother to read it, much less interpret its contents or compare it to previous statements or news from other sources. They'll just buy whatever the big letters in the title of the article will tell them even if they are outright lies.
I'm glad you feel so strongly about Michael Jackson. See you at the candle light vigil. Or maybe not...
>> Someone like me finds child molestation outrageous. Someone like you may feel that a few top 40 records excuse this.
I agree with you, but the investigation was inconclusive (irrespective of the court ruling, that is). To be fair, we should give him the benefit of doubt until/unless we have evidence to indicate otherwise.
>> Michael Jackson is seen by a major population as a pedophile.
Though not by the mother of the accuser:
"An official investigation began, with Jordan Chandler's mother adamant that there was no wrongdoing on Jackson's part. Neverland Ranch was searched; multiple children and family members denied that he was a pedophile." (source: Wikipedia)
Furthermore, the father of the accuser was recorded as saying:
"If I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever...Michael's career will be over" (source: Wikipedia)
Sounds suspicious to me, anyway. As far as the settlement goes, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong here) it was actually related to Jackson's violation of an agreement to not publicly accuse the family of any wrongdoing, or lying, etc (which he broke by making such statements to the press), and not to the abuse case (where he was found innocent).
If you wanna see some firsthand "wierdness" towards children just watch Martin Bashir's documentary on him. He spent a few months at neverland ranch and approached michael at the end with his concerns after multiple children (cancer patietns etc...) admitted to sleeping in his bed etc. You can probably find it on youtube or google video if really interested.
Guilty until proven otherwise and guilty after proven innocent, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by valaris
Popular justice at its best.
As for Michael Jackson, I do admire and respect his work, yes. Particularly during the 80s when his geniality shown through. Slowly I lost interest during the 90s. I felt he went into an easy and highly marketable path of "humanitarian" themed songwriting that I could never identify myself with. Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad will thus remain to me his signature albums.
I'm by no means a die hard fan, though. I'm not of anyone when it comes to music or acting. Only classical music produced names that I could consider myself a die-hard fan. Of the arts, painting and writing are those two areas that touch me the most and where I'm willing to open myself to such levels of admiration.
It doesn't bother me that you think that in defense of Michael Jackson, that places me as a die-hard fan. That all my argumentation is reduced to the drivel of a blind follower. I felt you needed the disclaimer above. But that's about it. I've heard enough of you to understand that it's doesn't matter what I can say in my defense. To you, it only matters what your guts tell you.
EDIT: Ah yes, the Bashir's documentary.
Here... read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_...ichael_Jackson (especially point 4) And read other news on that. Again... research much, do you?
>> He spent a few months at neverland ranch and approached michael at the end with his concerns after multiple children (cancer patietns etc...) admitted to sleeping in his bed etc. You can probably find it on youtube or google video if really interested.
It is very wierd behavior, but coming from a person as eccentric as he was, it's difficult to definitively say whether or not this was pedophilic in nature. It's possible that he held the delusion that he, too, was a child, and thus felt that the idea of sharing a bed "with friends" as normal and healthy. Generally, I think you'll find that people who exhibit schizophrenic or similar disorders exhibit behaviour that just doesn't make sense. Condider, for instance, naturalist Timothy Treadwell. This guy was so delusional that he felt perfectly comfortable with approaching wild bears, and even "breaking up fights" between them! Is this sane? Is it reasonable or realistic? Of course not (he was later killed in a bear attack). My point is, you have to keep things in perspective and be objective when trying to identify the motivations and intentions of a person like this.
>> I'm by no means a die hard fan, though.
I wouldn't consider myself as a diehard fan, either. As a very young boy, back in the 1970's, I enjoyed the Jackson 5 quite a bit, and during the early 1980's, as a preteenager, like so many my age, I was practically obsessed with his music. But by 1986 I had basically lost complete interest in his music (as well as the rest of Top 40) and moved on to punk rock. I never really listened much to his music again after that.
But I still appreciate his work, and from time to time I'll even listen to one of his songs. I'll even do a bit of moon-walking every now and then. :) In contrast, there are a lot of bands that I use to love that I can't even stand to listen to now. Michael Jackson's music isn't like that. It has an undeniable groove, and a timeless quality that sets it apart from so much that has been produced by the music industry. It just doesn't fade away.
On the contrary, I know a lot about music and its history. I know for example that early Scottish religious music had more of an effect on gospel music and subsequently R&B (and therefore a huge amount of contemporary pop music) than anything Michael Jackson ever did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
A few Top 40 acts calling into VH1 and MTV and saying that they got into the industry because of Michael Jackson does not mean that he changed the face of pop music forever. I know a lot about music - chords, melody, structure, harmony etc - and I can hear with my own ears such things as "influence." Jackson's "sound" was basically comprised of whichever producer he happened to be working with, whichever songwriter gave him a melody.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
Name one famous pop act that is influenced by the "Michael Jackson sound." Point me toward one Michael Jackson track whose melodic form could be described as "trailblazing" or could be claimed to have changed the face of pop forever. If you talk to serious musicians, you will very rarely hear them say that they were influenced by the music of Michael Jackson. In fact if you trace back through the history of popular music you will see that those who have influenced pop the most are very rarely international superstars and showmen like Michael Jackson. For sure there are a few - James Brown influenced the popular music scene far more than Mickey J, as did the Beatles, the Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin etc. Then of course you have soul singers like Aretha Franklin and Otis Reading whose vocal inflections, sense of melody and interpretation could be described as having a huge influence on music. But there are far more subtle and lesser known (in terms of international stardom) acts who influenced pop in ways that aren't generally common knowledge, but when you interview contemporary musicians in turns out they've been very heavily influenced by them. Off the top of my head I can think of - Steely Dan, Joe Jackson, Talking Heads, Squeeze to name but four. All of them could genuinely be described as "innovative" and having influenced melody, harmony and structure to a significant degree.
But of course there is so much more. I could quite honestly say that early rap artists like Grandmaster Flash and Melle Mel changed the face of Top 40 music forever, in a way that Jackson just didn't. Then of course there are the trailblazing house music producers and DJ's that carved a niche that has been internationally huge since and whose musical elements have seeped into a huge proportion of Top 40 music.
Name one Michael Jackson song that changed things forever. You can't. Don't get me wrong, I think the man was a truly wonderful talent, had an amazing voice and entertained the world on a scale that has never quite been seen before, but a "trailblazer" this does not him make. It's all very well and good to mourn the untimely passing of a man who meant so much to so many millions and I fully respect your appreciation of him, but I just think everyone needs to calm down, sit back and think about the possibility that they're going just a little over the top with this whole "Michael Jackson was a musical pioneer" line. When someone as well loved as Jackson dies there is always going to be a little emotional overreaction and in the case of any loved one's death, rose colored spectacles will prevail. Musicians will call VH1 and MTV and exaggerate the musical impression he made upon them and melodramatic statements will be made by those who wish to make a name for themselves by going down on record as having said X, Y and Z when the whole world was listening.
Of course, I agree with you. But it doesn't help to portray him as something he wasn't. Let's remember him for who he was - a fantastic showman, a great dancer, a great singer, a very complicated and sensitive guy who brought joy to millions. Just not a "musical trailblazer."Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
>> In fact if you trace back through the history of popular music you will see that those who have influenced pop the most are very rarely international superstars and showmen like Michael Jackson.
The question is really subjective. You can't simply define "influential" as mere imitation of sound. He put certain feeling into his music. He performed with an attitude. He had a unique sense of style. And so forth. All of these things can "influence" others in one form or fashion.
>> Of course, I agree with you. But it doesn't help to portray him as something he wasn't. Let's remember him for who he was - a fantastic showman, a great dancer, a great singer, a very complicated and sensitive guy who brought joy to millions. Just not a "musical trailblazer."
That's one mans opinion, anyway. The bottom line is, though, is that there are many who feel he made a *huge* impact, and you can't simply write that off as a gross exaggeration from misguided fans. There is a reason why he is called "The King of Pop", you know!
No, musical influence is not just a mere imitation of sound. It's a complex interplay of melody, harmony and rhythm, certain elements and combinations of which can be incorporated into another sound to constitute "influence" without necessarily being imitation. For instance I have at one time or another been musically influenced by the quartal harmony of some of Joni Mitchell's music, without going so far as to imitate it. I've written guitar pieces that in parts are influenced by Italian Renaissance lute music in terms of harmony, but I'm not imitating any particular piece. A huge proportion of mainstream popular music uses harmonic devices that were pioneered by the likes of Beethoven, Mozart and Hayden. In fact I remember reading an article years ago written by some guy who had identified hundreds of musical phrases by Mozart in some of the worlds most successful pop songs. It's not as if these phrases were lifted directly as imitation, but rather that they have been ingrained into musical culture and have exerted a tremendous influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiani
Yes, Jackson put a certain feeling into his music (he had a distinct vocal style). He had a unique visual style. You can recognize his dance moves. But none of this means that he "changed the face of pop forever." I just don't really see the influence.
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? 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. We could then say his vocal style made a huge impact - but while it may well have been critically acclaimed and much loved, I just don't see any distinct element of pop vocals that could be said to have originated from Michael Jackson. Of course, anyone should feel free to point out any specifics they may have in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiani
Sure, he is called "The King of Pop" for a reason....because certain journalists in the media have thrust the label upon him. I see him as having released a few pretty good tracks. My brother was heavily into him in the 80's so I got to hear him a lot up until the time I left home, around 1991 or so. I was of the opinion that like many successful pop artists, his albums consisted of two or three "hits" surrounded by forgettable pop filler. You can play a Michael Jackson album and most people aren't familiar with at least half of the tracks. But play a classic Beatles album....the songs are far more ingrained into popular culture. And put it this way - how many times have you heard a street busker singing a Beatles tune, compared with a Michael Jackson tune? There is an element of monumental prestige surrounding the music of The Beatles which was obviously why Jackson spent a vast fortune to procure the rights to their songs. I just don't see the same kind of musical prestige and songwriting respect ever being heaped upon the songs of Michael Jackson.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
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!
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
@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...
@MK27:Quote:
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...
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
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?Quote:
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.
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)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
You could say that. But it isn't necessarily true. MTV would have done just fine without Michael Jackson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
I was not aware that movies only really took off after 1977.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
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.Quote:
If Michael Jackson had never lived, the music industry would look much the same as it is now.
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.
Which proves your ignorance. In spite of the facts and even though all of the music industry recognizes his influence...you fail to.Quote:
Sorry, not giving it up!
But then you know everything so we should probably be learning from you.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
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!
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by snarkie
Likewise with Stevie Wonder and Micheal Jackson. Stevie has some nice songs but MJ still has that harder, more cutting edge.
@everyone
I'm gonna sit down for 30 seconds and consider this analogy carefully :pQuote:
James Brown and Elvis
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky again
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
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 :p That man really woke me up...Quote:
and... 36 years old? Nah. Sorry. You didn't live through it.
Oh pipe down Millhouse. Honestly, what a drama queen.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteflags
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 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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
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 :eek:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
I really miss Reagan and Thatcher. Which makes me the polar opposite of most of my friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
Of course it's not a problem that people disagree with me. It's a problem when people get all shrill and theatrical and say things like "damn you and all your words" (sound familiar?). So for you to then go on and say "I respect your opinion" is a little disingenuous because "damn you and all your words" would suggest otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteflags
Also, how is it my fault or that of anyone in particular for "keeping the discussion going for three pages"? As far as I can see people have responded to what I've said and I've responded in turn. I don't mind a little sporting to-and-fro in a forum debate and I've been doing it for years, but what has always puzzled me is the attitude that some people take toward me when I don't just lie down and agree with the majority viewpoint. I get all this "why must everyone agree with you" and "what makes you think you're so right" nonsense which to be honest looks a little out of place outside of the teen Facebook/MySpace environment.
If you don't see anything important or worthwhile in the discussion then don't read it and don't respond, it's as simple as that. Your post above, therefore, is your share of "keeping this thread going," something you seem to have a problem with me doing.
Oh geez, would you look at that - we're onto page 4 now. Look what you went and made me do.
>> 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.
It's actually the other way around. I believe MJ sold around 750 million total, whereas the Beatles have sold well over a billion.
>> It's a problem when people get all shrill and theatrical and say things like "damn you and all your words"
Hey, that was the funniest line in this thread. :p
>> I really miss Reagan and Thatcher. Which makes me the polar opposite of most of my friends.
I really liked Reagan, personally. It's kind of funny too because my parents, who were basically 60's era "hippies", would sometimes jokingly refer to me as "Alex" (eg: P. Keaton) because of my apparently conservative opinions. :D
>> Oh geez, would you look at that - we're onto page 4 now. Look what you went and made me do.
While I have to disagree with you on your major points, you have done a good job of defending your opinion and you've made some interesting secondary arguments along the way as well. All things considered, I think this has been, for the most part, a constructive discussion (if not a little drawn out). But I really don't expect any converts from either side, so I think it's safe to say that the whole debate over just how important a role MJ played is open to interpretation. :)
I'm certainly not an MJ fan, but I'm a fan of our justice system. Innocent until proven guilty. So MJ is to be assumed innocent. No court has ever judged him guilty, yet the media basically destroyed him. You could say he was alive the last years, but you could also say that a zombie is alive in a way. For me, he was already dead, so the news of his "real" death were somewhat meaningless. Like "MJ died... again".Quote:
I'll pretty much stop here because it's obvious theres a lot of "die hard" Michael fans here.
I can remember that his video was only aired after 22:00 to protect minors. If you were allowed to stay up and watch it (the stations played it right at 22:00) you definetly were the "cool guy" in school the next day. Good times. I wouldn't say I miss him or his music, but some of my childhood memories will always have Dirty Diaaaana playing in the backgound.
Which makes him the first corpse to sell out 50 concerts in London in under 5 hours. 750,000 tickets.Quote:
Originally Posted by nvoigt
The first?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
err.. yes, the first.
I'm unaware of Keith Richards giving 50 concerts in one town at a time and selling out the 750,000 tickets in under 5 hours. Care to show me my evil ways?
Simmer down toots. It's called "comedic license."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Well I know I'm not going to win any popularity contests by bringing this up: we can speculate all we like about whether or not Mickey J was a kiddie-fiddler, but I don't think there's any doubt he was an anti-semite...
ADL: Michael Jackson has an anti-Semitic streak - Haaretz - Israel News
I can't even open the site without installing a foreign language package... care to point to something credible backing up your accusations?
I can't believe this thread isn't locked yet ...
I can't believe he's dead. Although he did have a rather unhealthy lifestyle. I'm not sure bleach is good for your skin... as if it was vitiligo. That's just like saying, "He got his nose operated on because it got broken" :\. Great music, from an "odd" guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ಠ_ಠ
Sure...it's an AP article after all so no shortage of sites...Quote:
Originally Posted by nvoigt
USATODAY.com - ADL demands Michael Jackson apology
What I can read there is a lot of talk about sueing, countersueing, tons of money and making somebody look as victim or victimizer in front of the jury for a process that is about a crapload of money, not religion. MJ has called jews leeches in a private conversation. If that makes him an antisemite, what would we be by that standards? I'd surely be a gay-hating, anti-catholic, anti-protestant, anti-reformed, anti-sunni, anti-shiite, anti-semitic, anti-hinduist, anti-buddhist, anti-atheist, anti-feminist, anti-vegetarian, anti-vegan, anti-bush, anti-obama, anti-whateveryoucanthinkof. I don't think there is a religion, political movement or any other topic I haven't stereotyped and talked crap about on the phone and/or in private conversations. If you'd pick 30 sentences out of my 30+ years of life, you could probably paint me as a monster worse than Hitler, Dschingis Khan and Nero all together. Multiply that by the media factor and you've got a lot of leverage to have the jury award you the money you want. If he made public hate speeches, I'll be on your side, but I'm not the 4th Reich thought police, I'll not judge someone based on parts of private conversations picked to make him look bad in court where all is about money.
That article is a joke. We are given a quote without a context. How can we be exactly sure what he was talking about and why? Besides, we even don't know who he was talking with. People often say things that the other person wants to hear, but which they actually don't believe in, in order to leave a "good" impression to someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
Could I ask you, what are you trying to do? You are posting random links about things that would discredit him and are totally off-topic. Most of those articles are ripped out of context, originated from unreliable sources or are accusations in which he has been found innocent. And should I remind you again that they didn't have anything to do with what this topic is about – his contributions to modern music? Also I don't think that other people's personal lives are any of our business.
You know you can't bring proper arguments to prove your opinion about him not having a huge impact on modern music, so you try to discredit him as a person. In politics this is called argumentum ad hominem and is a popular demagogy method.
I didn't even exist when Michael Jackson made his music, yet I know that he inspired artists that are popular today, like Kanye West, who states it in a song of his, if I'm not mistaken... I also think that Akon mentioned Michael Jackson inspiring him...
Also Michael Jackson did that retarded dance in his music video, thriller it was I think... Or something off that album, that must have made future artists dare more infront of the camera, although no one changed the music video industry more than Madonna ( woohoo to half naked women! ;) )
And then, everyone thinks that every old man is a pedophile these days...
Looks a bit thin to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
I did hear that he did 2000+ mics of LSD every day for a decade, sometimes intravenously, and that this caused the premature ageing he attempted to cover up with plastic surgery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvoigt
It depends on whether or not you've called Jews "leeches" too. I don't recall ever having done so. If you have, I guess you're an antisemite. And it looks like MJ was one too. You are free to defend him or excuse him at your leisure.
Furthermore, if you've criticized or attacked Obama, that doesn't make you a racist in the same vein. I could spend all night attacking the guy, his personality and his politics (not a fan) but that wouldn't make me a bigot just so long as I didn't try to attribute any of it to his physiological characteristics. Likewise it's perfectly OK to attack or criticize feminism or anything else that's a political ideology comprised of ideas and hence subject to scrutiny and criticism.
But if you were to claim that Jews were "leeches" then sure, you're an antisemite and that remains true whether you said it in public or in private. It doesn't matter whether the tape surfaced randomly or as part of suit - if he said it he said it. You might not have a problem with it, but to me it pretty much puts paid to this whole "he broke down racial barriers and united people" nonsense. He was just a pop star who made some largely mediocre music which happened to sell like hotcakes due to the fact that the market for well-marketed mediocre music is, well, the largest market of all. And he wasn't too keen on Jews.
Wait a moment. Are you trying to make this connection:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
MJ said stupid things. => MJ is a bad person => Bad people cannot make good music. => MJ made mediocre music.
That's so basic demagogy that it won't fool any one of us.
No, that particular chain of reasoning was neither asserted nor insinuated and is in fact nothing more than a figment of your imagination.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
I see... So Woody Allen, Mel Brooks or Alfred Einstein are anti-semite then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
And forget about context, or choice of words, or even a moment of anger. If anyone says black are ignorant, they are a racist.
Your logic keeps impressing me. Hope we never become neighbors.
You know who else was an anti-Semite and is now dead, and professed in music? Herbert von Karajan. So dead people hate Jews, are you going anywhere with this? Living people still hate Jews and that's probably a lot more important. And no one's thoughts about Jews had any impact on either person's musical career.
If Woody Allen or any other Jewish person has called Jews 'leeches' then there is another term for that - 'self hating'. Are you *seriously* suggesting that someone non-Jewish can get away with calling Jews a bunch of leeches without being an antisemite?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Or that it's OK to 'call blacks ignorant' as long as its 'in the right context?' I too hope we never become neighbors.
I say it's all OK if he was really doing that much drugs! Whew!!
Precisely. I'm *seriously*suggesting exactly that. It all depends on context and emotion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
Your politically correct drivel just hides another form of intolerance. That which makes you believe you can point fingers and tag people based on incomplete information. Tea party gossip and scandal addicts who can only see the worst in people and pretend their are the sole owners of ethics and morale.
It all depends on context and emotion? Tell me - is it alright for a man to beat his wife if it's "in the right context"? Can we excuse his actions as long as he was "really really angry?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
What about abusing a child? Is that OK in "some circumstances"?
Disapproving of antisemitism or any other form of primitive tribalism (racism) is not "politically correct drivel." And while the argument that intolerance of bigotry is "intolerance itself" may be an interesting curio and technically correct, it misses the point that the existence of a moral code in itself guarantees the intolerance of at least something. Specifically, that which is immoral. To tolerate everything is to have no values.
And it's all very easy to dismiss the bad side of someone by saying things like "it's just gossip" or "you only want to see the worst in people," but what you are arguing for really boils down to the abolition of morals. Such a path will tie you into pretzels of self-referential logic. For example, in attacking my assertion of a moral code, you are in fact yourself moralizing. All that is possible then is to separate the two sides of the argument and see which one stands:
1) Me condemning antisemitism
2) You condemning me for condemning antisemitism
It doesn't take much intelligence to work it out. And a forum for C programmers is the last place I'd expect to miss it.
If he was doing that much acid his eyesight was probably screwed up since LSD abuse damages the eyes. That would partly explain his appearance.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
Wagner also wrote some beautiful music but that doesn't change despite the fact that he was a Nazi-sympathizing piece of Hitler-loving scum. But since Michael Jackson's fame and notoriety was 30% music and 70% personality (or insanity) then I would say his character, his opinions and attitudes are a valid topic of discussion. Quite frankly I'm finding some of the blind worship of the man a little scary in much the same way as I find the blind worship of anyone - from Obama to Che Guevara to Oprah - a little scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteflags
Che Guevara shot a pregnant woman in the stomach at point blank range and had thousands of innocent people executed yet I still see naive kids wearing his image with pride. Obama spend over 20 years sitting in the pews of a church led by a close friend of his who preached anti-white and anti-Jewish hatred, yet a blind cult-like worship caused millions to completely ignore that side of him. Heck, Stalin murdered tens of millions of his own people and yet you'll STILL find Russians who speak of him affectionately. Blind worship is a very dangerous and unhealthy thing.
I'm sorry, but what the hell does that have to do with anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
Oh for pete's sake! I think I had enough.
OK but I'm keeping in mind that you brought up anti-Semitism to discredit Micheal as an artist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
Your earlier arguments didn't use personal attacks for support; those were better. Judaism is not a race. And he did unite people under the banner of Micheal Jackson fans, as the Pope unites people under the banner of Roman Catholicism, for example; that being the extent to which anyone can unite. Point to a lyric or measure that identifies with anti-Semitism and you will have a reason to connect these very different ideas. Musicians are frequently dicks and influential to people, through music, at the same time. Frank Sinatra had mob connections; Elvis Presley raped underage girls; you cannot claim that they weren't influential, didn't break barriers, because of these things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
Nice appeal to emotion. Just because others here think Micheal was an influential artist does not mean that people worship him blindly, only not pretentious enough label someone an evil person beyond the grave because he didn't do enough for music. "Down to earth realism" left you a long time ago, this is you being spiteful full force. Now kindly shove that opinion of yours where it belongs in this "debate."Quote:
Che Guevara shot a pregnant woman in the stomach at point blank range and had thousands of innocent people executed yet I still see naive kids wearing his image with pride. Obama spend over 20 years sitting in the pews of a church led by a close friend of his who preached anti-white and anti-Jewish hatred, yet a blind cult-like worship caused millions to completely ignore that side of him. Heck, Stalin murdered tens of millions of his own people and yet you'll STILL find Russians who speak of him affectionately. Blind worship is a very dangerous and unhealthy thing.
I've never called a jew a leech and meant it. But it's about context. And don't tell me you can get context from a one-liner taken out of a private conversation. If your private conversations are always picture-perfect and never contain politically-non-correct (read: fun) parts, then I pity you. You must be the most boring person I've never met.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
Wagner probably was an anti-semite, but I don't think he sympathized with a party founded about 50 years after his death and I doubt he loved a man born 6 years after his death. Maybe you should check your facts. And yes, I like his music. I probably also like clothes from people I would dislike in person. I probably also like food from people I would dislike in person. And the inventors of "fire" and "wheel" were probably primitive murderous bastards. And yet I use fire and wheel daily. Go figure.Quote:
Wagner also wrote some beautiful music but that doesn't change despite the fact that he was a Nazi-sympathizing piece of Hitler-loving scum.
Personally I have to confess a very strong dislike towards Zionism. That much can certainly be said of me. In this context, and especially during specific moments of Israel history, I'm pretty sure I have made similar or worst remarks. And yet, I'm far from being an anti-Semite, since I'm a strong supporter of religious freedom, I admire many aspects of the Jewish religion, have Jewish friends, defend the right for Jewish cult and despise anti-Semitism. And all this, despite the fact I'm an atheist.
So, there's a context.
Similarly, if in a feat of anger after having being fooled by a Australian cashier, I say something in the lines of "f*ing aussies!", while I find that deplorable and will certainly regret having lost to anger, that will not mean I'm anti-australian, or hate the Australian people. Or, that would put a dent on my marriage.
Che Guevara was a militant marxist revolutionary, which is the only reason anyone I've ever known wears the shirt. Militant marxists revolutionaries usually endorse violence as a means to an end, just like American Presidents usually do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharke
Anyway, I raise the question of how naive do you really believe these "kids" are? Being young and poor in Brooklyn probably does not make you "by definition" incapable of or unwilling to empathize with militant marxists, altho that struggle may be non-existent in the US. Of course, because of the cross-over here (said kid is a dead ringer for his friend, the equally young poor "artist", who's politics are softer or less clear) and before you know it, the soft black cap with the red star ends up in fashion magazines.
A few weeks ago I had to explain to a twelve year old what the big anarchy symbol on his new skateboard meant. I don't think he understood. I tried.
But that person was obviously not an adult, and this does not mean the circle A or the red star are now just fashion statements, altho it may seem that way to you, a consumer of "fashion statements" (that is a valid, albiet narrow perspective on life, the sort of innocent perspective a twelve year old might have). But methinks it is not necessarily the "kid" who is being naive there, Sharke. You better watch out. On the wrong night, he might drop you for the change in your pocket...having left the shirt at home :p Some sort of marxist with anarchist sympathies maybe....
sorry if this thread was too old :S
anyways, I never knew that Che did such things, that might be why 'kids' wear his mark with pride?
Also, concerning Michael Jackson, I think Jon Lajoie says it all -> YouTube - Michael Jackson is Dead ;)
Fortunately it is which means I get to close it. Now if only I had the same mod powers with the news media we would all be happier. :)