[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Talentless hack who only had the ablity to participate in entertaining choreography. His only good song was listenable due to the inclusion of Eddie Van Halen. And the only good parts of that song were the parts which involved Eddie Van Halen. Basically, he was the prelude to everything that was wrong with pop music in the 90's. [/QUOTE]
Sorry man, but that statement is just by far one of the most ignorant things I've heard on this board.
Michael Jackson wrote many of his own songs (not all of them), and there's absolutely no denial that he was the biggest musical phenomenon to come after The Beatles.
Sadly, his career has pretty much gone nowhere now that he's making more headlines based on controversy and not musical achievements.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Now, he's simply a grotesque lunatic, and it's nice to see that other people recognize that this man really doesn't belong anywhere.[/QUOTE]
I do agree with this to some extent... but you really sound like a complete moron by saying that it's "nice to see" the perception that people have of Michael Jackson nowdays.
I sort of pity Michael because he grew up being abused by his own father, and there's no doubt that he had his own childhood stolen away from him.
However, the things Michael does are not normal. As much as Michael thinks he's a sane human being, it's obvious that he is not. He really needs a lot of therapy.
Last thing I should mention is that it doesn't surprise me to hear such things coming from you after you were the same person who compared Nirvana to New Kids On The Block.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
What does anyone thing about the guy? He's a weirdo if anyone on Earth is, but he's an A list musician, A list singer and A+++ dancer. I don't like that he was said to have flipped out during his recording sessions with Queen/Freddie when he walked in on Freddie snorting away some booger sugar. I also don't like that he led them towards releasing Another One Bites The Dust. On one hand, it was their best selling single of all time and the biggest hit in America that year, doing more than anything else in raising Queen's popularity in the USA. That being said, this popularity encouraged Queen to explore a dance/R & B sound which led to some great music, but pulled them away from rock a bit, veering Queen off it's original path for a while. I think MJ's hits are strong and numerous, best of all they seem to be songs that still aound pretty good today in spite of their being WAY too overplayed.
Don't you at least have to admit that Michael Jackson is quite talented? I mean, he is a great dancer and well as a singer and songwriter. His style is also very original, even if he is very weird.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Freddies son wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]The prophet's song wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I prefer to listen to him with my eyes closed. He's a great musician, but now he just looks creepy. I tried to do the thriller dance the other day, didn't work at all...ha ha[/QUOTE]
Judgeing somebody because off they way they look how very sad [/QUOTE]
I'm not judging him, I just think he went to the plastic surgeons a few more times than he should. Anyway, I'm against plastic surgery unless it's for people who have been in an accident and have serious burns or if it is for any other medical reasons. If you get it just because you want to look better, you need to listen to Johnny Depp "gravity will get us all in the end".
Judgeing somebody because off they way they look how very sad [/QUOTE]
I'm not judging him, I just think he went to the plastic surgeons a few more times than he should. Anyway, I'm against plastic surgery unless it's for people who have been in an accident and have serious burns or if it is for any other medical reasons. If you get it just because you want to look better, you need to listen to Johnny Depp "gravity will get us all in the end".
Talented but he freaks me out!!!
Johnny Depp is the last man in this planet in the need for plastic surgery.
Michael Jackson on the other hand was a good looking and charming dude back in his 'Off The Wall' days. All those plastic surgeries were absolutely unnecessary.
He obviously has an obsesseion with his appearance, and all those surgeries ended up fucking up his entire face.
Michael Jackson on the other hand was a good looking and charming dude back in his 'Off The Wall' days. All those plastic surgeries were absolutely unnecessary.
He obviously has an obsesseion with his appearance, and all those surgeries ended up fucking up his entire face.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]daria k. wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Personally, I consider him as a talented musician who sadly became a victim of fame...[/QUOTE]
So very true!!!! You hit it right on the mark....
I'm african-american, and Micheal was once one of the people who was really looked UP TO in the afro-american community...all of my cousins, aunts, uncles, parents always talk about him, and I personally know a lady who used to live next door to him, a cousin of his!!!
I have all of his albums at home. I loved the old-soulful micheal (the jackson 5, off the wall), before he went POP, and his skin got light...lol. The mere fact that Freddie and Micheal used to be buddies almost brings tears to my eyes (2 of my favorite singers were friends!!!)...but keep in mind that with Queen, it seems like ALL OF THE MEMBERS OVERALL had a normal childhoods, THEY ALL WENT TO SCHOOL, COLLEGE, ETC...and music was actually something that they wanted to do, but Mike didnt get to do those things, so I really think he 'missed out' and he has some serious issues over that. (from what I read and see, I dont know the man personally). He also grew up being a Jehovah's Witness (so did I) and he celebrated no birthdays, no christmas, etc...so, overall what I'm trying to say, is that I think Micheal was and is the victim of his own situation....sad
As for the child abuse, I dont know. People start doing weird things when they have money, but no one knows what happened except for god and him.
So very true!!!! You hit it right on the mark....
I'm african-american, and Micheal was once one of the people who was really looked UP TO in the afro-american community...all of my cousins, aunts, uncles, parents always talk about him, and I personally know a lady who used to live next door to him, a cousin of his!!!
I have all of his albums at home. I loved the old-soulful micheal (the jackson 5, off the wall), before he went POP, and his skin got light...lol. The mere fact that Freddie and Micheal used to be buddies almost brings tears to my eyes (2 of my favorite singers were friends!!!)...but keep in mind that with Queen, it seems like ALL OF THE MEMBERS OVERALL had a normal childhoods, THEY ALL WENT TO SCHOOL, COLLEGE, ETC...and music was actually something that they wanted to do, but Mike didnt get to do those things, so I really think he 'missed out' and he has some serious issues over that. (from what I read and see, I dont know the man personally). He also grew up being a Jehovah's Witness (so did I) and he celebrated no birthdays, no christmas, etc...so, overall what I'm trying to say, is that I think Micheal was and is the victim of his own situation....sad
As for the child abuse, I dont know. People start doing weird things when they have money, but no one knows what happened except for god and him.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]the_hero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Does he still owns the Beatles tracks' rights?[/QUOTE]
Yep. Micheal pulled a quick one on Paul. I think he's gonna end up selling it back to him...lol
QUESTION FOR EVERYONE: WHY DID FREDDIE AND MIKE STOP BEING FRIENDS? WAS IT BECAUSE OF THE BEATLES THING??
Yep. Micheal pulled a quick one on Paul. I think he's gonna end up selling it back to him...lol
QUESTION FOR EVERYONE: WHY DID FREDDIE AND MIKE STOP BEING FRIENDS? WAS IT BECAUSE OF THE BEATLES THING??
Sorry for my late response. I had been out for the weekend after I had posted that, and the thread had been lost to the past, but I deemed it necessary to provide a rebuttal.
Obviously Michael Jackson has talent. He can dance and choreograph well, he can sing to some extent, he can market well, perhaps he's even an expert knitter...to be honest, I don't care.
When it comes to his music, there is literally nothing that appeals to me, much like Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears, or even 50 Cent, do not appeal to many of you. It is also quite ignorant to call these people talentless, however, to explain, "talentless" is an adjective commonly used in the music community to say, "I fucking hate so-and-so."
There are so many things in the world that take incredible amounts of talent, however, most of them mean nothing to me (including anything Michael Jackson has EVER done), and therefore, I couldn't care less. Think of all the world records in the Guinness Book. They all require massive amounts of "talent." However, for most of them, nobody cares. I feel even sorrier for the world records that do not even get to grace the pages of that book.
===
Then you talk about his influence. Michael Jackson indeed sparked an enormous movement in pop music. He was a pioneer of the "Artist who sings to a choreographed dance, who is spotlighted, with little or no emphasis on music and instruments, but rather a strong emphasis on skilled vocals." This movement was especially strong throughout and around the 90's, and produced such bands as the New Kids on the Block, the Backstreet Boys, NSYNC, 98 Degrees, all those artists' respective solo careers, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and other artists of the like. Perhaps you people enjoy such a genre, but I do not. Certainly I respect it, but not so much that I cannot heavily slag on it.
===
Finally, you talk about his monstrous record sales. All the previous artists I mentioned also received incredible record sales. This clearly means so much...
Shrek 2 was one of the highest grossing movies of all time. That must automatically put it far above certain movies as Citizen Kane, Casablanca, or Gone With The Wind. Surely, Finding Nemo is many times greater than Schindler's List or The Godfather.
Even in literature, it is obvious that sales define greatness. In fact, it is clear that none of the classics even come close to matching J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, clearly a literary masterpiece.
So if in all these, then why not in music? I mean, Queen had very moderate record sales, but since they were only an okay band, this makes perfect sense. However, Britney Spears' ...Baby One More Time and Oops!...I Did It Again, the Backstreet Boys' self-titled album and Millenium, Boyz II Men's II, Jewel's Pieces of You, NSYNC's self-titled album, Hammer's Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em, The Lion King's soundtrack, and Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory all represent some of the greatest albums to ever grace the music industry, each with sales of over 10 million dollars! The above artists who put out multiple $10+ million albums are the best of the best, and will forever claim a pedestal in music history.
===
Come on, to say that what I said was offensive, or that you disagreed with it, is fine. But to say it was one of the most ignorant things you have ever heard is either incredibly forgetful, or incredibly ignorant in itself. The second part of my initial post was obviously a tongue-in-cheek cheap shot against Michael - it is incredibly obvious that I couldn't care less what he currently looks like, or what he's been up to. It is only his detrimental legacy that I highly criticize.
Obviously Michael Jackson has talent. He can dance and choreograph well, he can sing to some extent, he can market well, perhaps he's even an expert knitter...to be honest, I don't care.
When it comes to his music, there is literally nothing that appeals to me, much like Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears, or even 50 Cent, do not appeal to many of you. It is also quite ignorant to call these people talentless, however, to explain, "talentless" is an adjective commonly used in the music community to say, "I fucking hate so-and-so."
There are so many things in the world that take incredible amounts of talent, however, most of them mean nothing to me (including anything Michael Jackson has EVER done), and therefore, I couldn't care less. Think of all the world records in the Guinness Book. They all require massive amounts of "talent." However, for most of them, nobody cares. I feel even sorrier for the world records that do not even get to grace the pages of that book.
===
Then you talk about his influence. Michael Jackson indeed sparked an enormous movement in pop music. He was a pioneer of the "Artist who sings to a choreographed dance, who is spotlighted, with little or no emphasis on music and instruments, but rather a strong emphasis on skilled vocals." This movement was especially strong throughout and around the 90's, and produced such bands as the New Kids on the Block, the Backstreet Boys, NSYNC, 98 Degrees, all those artists' respective solo careers, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and other artists of the like. Perhaps you people enjoy such a genre, but I do not. Certainly I respect it, but not so much that I cannot heavily slag on it.
===
Finally, you talk about his monstrous record sales. All the previous artists I mentioned also received incredible record sales. This clearly means so much...
Shrek 2 was one of the highest grossing movies of all time. That must automatically put it far above certain movies as Citizen Kane, Casablanca, or Gone With The Wind. Surely, Finding Nemo is many times greater than Schindler's List or The Godfather.
Even in literature, it is obvious that sales define greatness. In fact, it is clear that none of the classics even come close to matching J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, clearly a literary masterpiece.
So if in all these, then why not in music? I mean, Queen had very moderate record sales, but since they were only an okay band, this makes perfect sense. However, Britney Spears' ...Baby One More Time and Oops!...I Did It Again, the Backstreet Boys' self-titled album and Millenium, Boyz II Men's II, Jewel's Pieces of You, NSYNC's self-titled album, Hammer's Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em, The Lion King's soundtrack, and Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory all represent some of the greatest albums to ever grace the music industry, each with sales of over 10 million dollars! The above artists who put out multiple $10+ million albums are the best of the best, and will forever claim a pedestal in music history.
===
Come on, to say that what I said was offensive, or that you disagreed with it, is fine. But to say it was one of the most ignorant things you have ever heard is either incredibly forgetful, or incredibly ignorant in itself. The second part of my initial post was obviously a tongue-in-cheek cheap shot against Michael - it is incredibly obvious that I couldn't care less what he currently looks like, or what he's been up to. It is only his detrimental legacy that I highly criticize.
Hahahaha, fun topic.
I personally think he is a great muscician (with the acception of his slow balads, ICK!) and the fact that he is peronally so damn CREAPY just bums me out.
I personally think he is a great muscician (with the acception of his slow balads, ICK!) and the fact that he is peronally so damn CREAPY just bums me out.
to MusicMan:
That was a very nice "rebuttal", there, as you called it, but after reading the whole thing over I kind of thought to myself, "hm, this guy kind of basically said 'ok, so yeah he has talent... but some popular things get big and dont have talent... and it's my opinion that I dont like M.Jackson" alright. thats great that thats your opinion. NO one has a problem with your opinion.
Thing is this. I dunno what "music community" youre referring to... but gengerally, in the um... world, the word "talentless" is used to describe... a lack of talent: and what we were saying was, "woah, wait a second. Thats a riduculous statement to make about Michael Jackson." So, thanks, I guess, for clearing up that you actually were intending to say "its my opinion to dislike and or not listen to the music of Michael jackson" when you SAID "Michael Jackson is a talentless hack." It just takes some time for us non "music community" folk to catch on to these sort of trivals....
That was a very nice "rebuttal", there, as you called it, but after reading the whole thing over I kind of thought to myself, "hm, this guy kind of basically said 'ok, so yeah he has talent... but some popular things get big and dont have talent... and it's my opinion that I dont like M.Jackson" alright. thats great that thats your opinion. NO one has a problem with your opinion.
Thing is this. I dunno what "music community" youre referring to... but gengerally, in the um... world, the word "talentless" is used to describe... a lack of talent: and what we were saying was, "woah, wait a second. Thats a riduculous statement to make about Michael Jackson." So, thanks, I guess, for clearing up that you actually were intending to say "its my opinion to dislike and or not listen to the music of Michael jackson" when you SAID "Michael Jackson is a talentless hack." It just takes some time for us non "music community" folk to catch on to these sort of trivals....
Jackson de Michael está bem, nada especial... Hahaha
I concur. LOL!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]deadbird wrote: [/QUOTENAME]to MusicMan:
That was a very nice "rebuttal", there, as you called it, but after reading the whole thing over I kind of thought to myself, "hm, this guy kind of basically said 'ok, so yeah he has talent... but some popular things get big and dont have talent... and it's my opinion that I dont like M.Jackson" alright. thats great that thats your opinion. NO one has a problem with your opinion.
Thing is this. I dunno what "music community" youre referring to... but gengerally, in the um... world, the word "talentless" is used to describe... a lack of talent: and what we were saying was, "woah, wait a second. Thats a riduculous statement to make about Michael Jackson." So, thanks, I guess, for clearing up that you actually were intending to say "its my opinion to dislike and or not listen to the music of Michael jackson" when you SAID "Michael Jackson is a talentless hack." It just takes some time for us non "music community" folk to catch on to these sort of trivals....[/QUOTE]
No offense, but if you have never referred to or heard various pop musicians been referred to as talentless, then you are among the minority.
When I think of musical talent, having a decent singing voice and dancing and choreographing very well are not at the top of my list. Anyone who has ever complained about pop music in the 90's knows exactly what I'm talking about. As a man who favors rock, there are other traits which appeal to me.
That is basically what I was saying. You could say that mixing and production is the thing you look for in a band. This takes plenty of talent, but if a band is known for these particular traits, I will refer to them as talentless. In the future, perhaps bands will be known for their ability to produce clay pots, clearly a skill that takes talent. I don't care. I will still think of them as talentless when I think of music.
There are so many types of talent in this world. Practically anything can be considered a talent. Therefore, that is why I admit Michael is talented. That is all.
That was a very nice "rebuttal", there, as you called it, but after reading the whole thing over I kind of thought to myself, "hm, this guy kind of basically said 'ok, so yeah he has talent... but some popular things get big and dont have talent... and it's my opinion that I dont like M.Jackson" alright. thats great that thats your opinion. NO one has a problem with your opinion.
Thing is this. I dunno what "music community" youre referring to... but gengerally, in the um... world, the word "talentless" is used to describe... a lack of talent: and what we were saying was, "woah, wait a second. Thats a riduculous statement to make about Michael Jackson." So, thanks, I guess, for clearing up that you actually were intending to say "its my opinion to dislike and or not listen to the music of Michael jackson" when you SAID "Michael Jackson is a talentless hack." It just takes some time for us non "music community" folk to catch on to these sort of trivals....[/QUOTE]
No offense, but if you have never referred to or heard various pop musicians been referred to as talentless, then you are among the minority.
When I think of musical talent, having a decent singing voice and dancing and choreographing very well are not at the top of my list. Anyone who has ever complained about pop music in the 90's knows exactly what I'm talking about. As a man who favors rock, there are other traits which appeal to me.
That is basically what I was saying. You could say that mixing and production is the thing you look for in a band. This takes plenty of talent, but if a band is known for these particular traits, I will refer to them as talentless. In the future, perhaps bands will be known for their ability to produce clay pots, clearly a skill that takes talent. I don't care. I will still think of them as talentless when I think of music.
There are so many types of talent in this world. Practically anything can be considered a talent. Therefore, that is why I admit Michael is talented. That is all.
You know what I think of Michael Jackson ?
He killed Freddie Mercury and totally stole his look from the 70's. I mean, have you SEEN the man ?
He's pale, has long, straight, black layered hair, skinny little nose, scary little cheek-bones, and hollowish cheeks in general - who am I describing ? Well, I guess if it were Freddie, I would have to mention abuse of Ivory foundation - not mysterious who-knows-what palefication.
And that one glove thing. PUH-leeze.
He killed Freddie Mercury and totally stole his look from the 70's. I mean, have you SEEN the man ?
He's pale, has long, straight, black layered hair, skinny little nose, scary little cheek-bones, and hollowish cheeks in general - who am I describing ? Well, I guess if it were Freddie, I would have to mention abuse of Ivory foundation - not mysterious who-knows-what palefication.
And that one glove thing. PUH-leeze.