Originally posted by FMF"But the word 'crap' loses all meaning if you apply it to Jackson - who was a master of what he did, and he made all that money because no one else did it as masterfully as he did. At least for a time. And a fairly long time."
I didn't go for what he did either. Not at all. But the word 'crap' loses all meaning if you apply it to Jackson - who was a master of what he did, and he made all that money because no one else did it as masterfully as he did. At least for a time. And a fairly long time. Albums like Thriller seemed almost as big as some small countries in terms of economics. Hi ...[text shortened]... r his music. But let's save the word 'crap' for all the genuinely crap music out there.
This line of thinking makes little sense to me. Try substituting "McDonald's" for Jackson above. Of course, if you don't think McDonald's is "crap", the this will hold little sway over you.
Originally posted by rwingettBefore you knock choreography get a DVD of A Midsummer's Night Dream, the ballet, set to music by Schubert.
Personally, I had no use for Michael Jackson. I never liked his music at all. For me, music is when you sit on a stool and play your guitar. I have no use for dancing. I have no use for choreography. I just want to hear the music. And Michael was more a "performer" than a musician. I find all the attention he's gotten to be truly mystifying.
Plus he ups ...[text shortened]... ger. She was 29 when that poster was published in 1976. Can't believe it was 33 years ago.
As for Jackson, certainly not crap like other posters have said, but certainly not as great as it is made out to be either. Like FMF, count me among those who has non of Jackson's music. Did not care for it. I get mad when it is said he was greater than the Beatles or that he invented the music video.
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell yes - if you class 'rap' as music, there's loads of crappier 'stuff'..[for example]
Agreed, I don't really like his music, but there are heaps of crappier music out there.
However, being "less crappy" doesn't really improve his music as far as I'm concerned.
Originally posted by rwingettExactly my thinking too!
Personally, I had no use for Michael Jackson. I never liked his music at all. For me, music is when you sit on a stool and play your guitar. I have no use for dancing. I have no use for choreography. I just want to hear the music. And Michael was more a "performer" than a musician. I find all the attention he's gotten to be truly mystifying.
Originally posted by scacchipazzoIn fact, it was the beatles who created music videos.
Before you knock choreography get a DVD of A Midsummer's Night Dream, the ballet, set to music by Schubert.
As for Jackson, certainly not crap like other posters have said, but certainly not as great as it is made out to be either. Like FMF, count me among those who has non of Jackson's music. Did not care for it. I get mad when it is said he was greater than the Beatles or that he invented the music video.
watch the whole video and see it for yourself, it looks pretty sophisticated for 1966.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneArt is in the eye of the beholder. If you want to be all elitist about it than that is your perogative. Millions of people loved him. People have a primal urge to dance, and he made great dance music. If your argument is millions of people loved him so he must be crap is pretty silly. Mcdonalds is crap, but its cheap crap. MJ was an artist and was King for a short while.
[b]"But the word 'crap' loses all meaning if you apply it to Jackson - who was a master of what he did, and he made all that money because no one else did it as masterfully as he did. At least for a time. And a fairly long time."
This line of thinking makes little sense to me. Try substituting "McDonald's" for Jackson above. Of course, if you don't think McDonald's is "crap", the this will hold little sway over you.[/b]
Originally posted by generalissimoPreaching to the choir my friend. I believe MJ was simply a creation of marketing like many so called stars of today. Unlike the Beatles, MJ did not write most of his music and very little of what he did was original. Millions may have loved him, but that does not lend him any more legitimacy than many great acts which are great and simply don't have the marketing machine behind it that MJ did.
In fact, it was the beatles who created music videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNhMt-eNf_s
watch the whole video and see it for yourself, it looks pretty sophisticated for 1966.
2 edits
Originally posted by StTitoI can't help but find it amusing when people start throwing out terms like 'elitist' or phrases like 'Art is in the eye of the beholder' as a way of trying to justifying opinions that are based in ignorance. MJ was an entertainer - not an artist - and a wildly popular one at that. There is a difference. Seems like you still need to learn that just because something makes you 'feel good' doesn't make it 'good'. FYI, I'd also put Adam Sandler in the "crap" category. Do you have a 'primal urge' argument for him also?
Art is in the eye of the beholder. If you want to be all elitist about it than that is your perogative. Millions of people loved him. People have a primal urge to dance, and he made great dance music. If your argument is millions of people loved him so he must be crap is pretty silly. Mcdonalds is crap, but its cheap crap. MJ was an artist and was King for a short while.
"If your argument is millions of people loved him so he must be crap is pretty silly."
Reread my post. My argument was that just because something is popular, make a lot of money and is done better than the competition in it's niche isn't a valid argument that something isn't "crap".
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneyeah how about laughter as a primal urge. While art is in the eye of the beholder opinions are like @ssh@les, everybody has one. Who are you to define artist? Yeah I think people who start telling people what art is are elitists, I think the other word for them is music critic, lovely bunch of frustrated folk.
I can't help but find it amusing when people start throwing out terms like 'elitist' or phrases like 'Art is in the eye of the beholder' as a way of trying to justifying opinions that are based in ignorance. MJ was an entertainer - not an artist - and a wildly popular one at that. There is a difference. FYI, I'd also put Adam Sandler in the "crap" catego ...[text shortened]... e competition in it's niche isn't a valid argument that something isn't "crap".
1 edit
Originally posted by StTitoI'm thinking you might get a lot of benefit from a music and/or art appreciation class. It might open your eyes to a whole other world for you. Knowledge is a wonderful thing.
yeah how about laughter as a primal urge. While art is in the eye of the beholder opinions are like @ssh@les, everybody has one. Who are you to define artist? Yeah I think people who start telling people what art is are elitists, I think the other word for them is music critic, lovely bunch of frustrated folk.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYour trade mark snobbery blinds you to the fact that Jackson's music was far far better at being pop than McDonald's burgers are at being burgers.
[b]"But the word 'crap' loses all meaning if you apply it to Jackson - who was a master of what he did, and he made all that money because no one else did it as masterfully as he did. At least for a time. And a fairly long time."
This line of thinking makes little sense to me. Try substituting "McDonald's" for Jackson above. Of course, if you don't think McDonald's is "crap", the this will hold little sway over you.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by FMF"Trade mark snobbery" What an interesting concept. Since you've granted me a trademark, can you also arrange that I collect residuals from other "snobs"? I imagine you know quite a few.
Your trade mark snobbery blinds you to the fact that Jackson's music was far far better at being pop than McDonald's burgers are at being burgers.
Actually your comparison is seriously flawed. With Jackson, you narrow the focus from from a very general category (music) to a narrower one (pop) that is still pretty broad, while with McDonald's you use the same extremely narrow category on both sides. It seems like it'd be more appropriate to speak of Jackson's music and pop and McDonald's food and fast food.
Let's see how that reads:
"Jackson's music was far far better at being pop than McDonald's food is at being fast food".
Just doesn't ring true does it?
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYour trademark snobbery blinds you to the fact that Jackson's pop was far far better at being pop than McDonald's burgers are at being burgers.
"Trade mark snobbery" What an interesting concept. Since you've granted me a trademark, can you also arrange that I collect residuals from other "snobs"? I imagine you know quite a few.
Actually your comparison is seriously flawed. With Jackson, you narrow the focus from from a very general category (music) to a narrower one (pop) that is still pretty than McDonald's food is at being fast food".
Just doesn't ring true does it?
Originally posted by FMFlol. Nice try.
Your trademark snobbery blinds you to the fact that Jackson's pop was far far better at being pop than McDonald's burgers are at being burgers.
The following is much more appropriate:
"Your trademark snobbery blinds you to the fact that Jackson's pop was far far better at being pop than McDonald's fast food is at being fast food."
I'll let you figure out where you went wrong.