Nah, I don't rate Beyonce one bit.
Granted, she has a great voice, but that's it. Her performance style is just jacking Tina Turner and her music is generic and lifeless. Even the material on Janet's last few albums (which were well below-par compared to her 80s and 90s work) is stronger than most of Beyonce's music. Although I will admit to liking the song Deju Vu, which ironically seems to be one of the less celebreated Beyonce hits.
I find it absurd that she can have 21 Grammy's. It is completely undeserved and completely devalues the perceived prestige of the award (which was always a myth to begin with), especially when there are so many brilliant artists, singers, songwriters and bands who haven't once been acknowledged.
Same feelings here about Beyonce. I know she LOVES Michael. I know Michael loved her. I know she's a good singer, good dancer, all that. But whenever I tried to listen to her it was a torture. Sorry, don't mean to offend anyone or anything, but that's just what it is. Like you said, I just think her music is generic and soulless. To me she is like a hard-working craftswoman who is good at her craft, but not really someone who can move me artistically. But she has enough fans and won't lose sleep over my lack of fandom. LOL. I don't hate her. I appreciate that she always compliments MJ. It's just I can't get into her music.
What I find ironic is when artists like NY try to convey the punk-rock ethos, the anti-capitalism/anti-commercialism stance and get lauded for it by the critics and then become media darlings in the process. Nobody is more of a darling to the critics than Neil Young which in a sense is as blatantly and shamelessly corporate as signing a multi-million dollar contract with Pepsi in my eyes.
Totally! In an ironic way, it was exactly MJ who was always a bit anti-establishment - or outsider compared to the establishment. I mean he had to fight for getting on the cover of Rolling Stone, had to have the biggest selling album of all times to really get recognized by the Grammys ("I had to tell them I ain't second to none...") and generally the media have usually been pretty dismissive of him more often than not, not even trying to understand him as an artist or person. And the media of course ARE the establishment! They are the opinion leaders, they get to decide who is cool and who is not and of course have power over people's opinions and tastes. And MJ was just never the media's darling. They can say now that OTW was his best album all they want, but fact is they dismissed that album as well, when it was released. They only really praised him when they really did not have any other choice (Thriller era). I think MJ just did not play by their rules like other artists do. He never seemed to have a particularly good connection to and good relationship with a lot of the media, while I think other artists really put a big effort into it to have a good, long term relationship with certain media and journalists. MJ only ever really had that with some black publications like Ebony.
I've always been glad that Michael took no notice of industry critics and find it a little nauseating to see artists like Madonna, Beyonce, Neil Young, Eminem, Bob Dylan getting all the magazine covers, award coverage and four/five star album reviews year after year. Even when they make a shit album, these magazines will only acknowledge this years after the event, having piled on the praise at the time, as if they could no wrong. I remember seeing four and five star reviews for Hard Candy and American Life in many well-respected music magazines when those albums came out, only for the same rags to back-track on their gushing sentiments later on when the album flops and the public don't go for it.
Oh, actually Rolling Stone did that with Dangerous as well. Initially they rated it four stars but in their 2004 album guide it was suddenly rated two stars. Two! In the same album guide they rate Hard Candy four stars. It's things like this why I cannot take RS seriously as a music magazine. I bet their 2004 rating had to do with the fact that MJ was on trial and it was cool to trash him, rather than Dangerous suddenly starting to suck.
I firmly believe that history has its own way of judging music and no critic or industry committee can influence or sway this.
Yes and MJ is the proof for this more than anyone. Awards do not matter. How you remain in the public's memory and how you are liked by the public
on the long term is all that matters. I'm all good when I see it that despite of all the media hostility, bashing, two-star reviews, ridicule MJ's music still reigns supreme. Go to Spotify or YouTube and check out how much his music is played compared to the media darlings'. When I see that I'm all good. That's what keeps up an artist's legacy and not what is in RS's 2004 album guide.
Just to add my two-pence worth in...
1. You can't say Grammys are a joke, unless you're willing to accept the 8 won in 1984 are meaningless.
2. Bad went onto sell 32 million - that means more.
I know awards mattered to MJ but I think when you are really huge you do not need them. Queen, Bob Marley, Led Zeppelin etc. don't even have a Grammy, yet they will be remembered and listened to and be influential for a lot longer than some artists who have dozens of Grammys. It's nice that MJ has 13 (I think that's the number) Grammys, but it's really not essential to him either. It's more important that his music is liked (see above).
And not all Grammys are meaningless and undeserved, but there are a lot which are. Milli Vanili anyone? LOL. (And I'm not just talking about the lip-sync scandal.)
