Latest on MJJC

Does MJ's lack of respect from serious music critics/rock press/music snobs bother you?

MattyJam said:
These people weren't there before, and I guarantee 95% won't still be talking about him five years from now either.
Click to expand...

I got to say I joigned the fanbase right after his death only but I'm still here ! I think more than 95% still talk about him. I know a lot of people who began to love him when he died and who style true "Moonwalkers". Of course a big part of those who suddently loved his music don't care now but I still believe that when you start listening to him and enter his fanbase you never really quit it if you know what good music is. I don't know how to say it but most of the people who fell in love with his work very young (like me, I was 10) grew up with it and know what true music is and these kind of people are a huge part of the kids who entered his fanbase in 2009.

And I'm not okay at all with what this "Nathan" is saying. He does not recognize the great work our Michael did and the talent he had while the entire world keep singing his song and dancing on his music. How does he dare say that Michael wasn't adventurous in what he created while he has been said like the one who revolutionised the music industry ? ( I read and heard that in many documents) So yeah, he learned from Quincy like from many other great producers or artists, but then, he expressed even more talent and genius by himself. Who would put Mj's talent in doubt ? Mj's haters just can't talk about what they don't know.
 
Tony R said:
2. Too many affectations and vocal ticks
Click to expand...

I think we should be careful not to project our own personal preferences onto others. I personally was never bothered by MJ's vocal affectations and IMO it's a trademark of his vocals. One may not like it but to name it as one of the main reasons why snobish critics reject him seems a bit like reaching to me that is based more on your personal preference.

As for the miming, while it certainly does not help for MJ to gain respect in certain circles (but then you can always show concerts where he did not mime), but again I don't think this is one of the main reasons. The miming only became extensive in the mid 90s, but MJ has never been a critics darling, not even during Triumph, Victory or Bad tour. So I don't see the direct correlation here either.
 
I'm not worried about what the casual music lover, that's just option and I know I hold views that most music lovers would find horrendous ( I don't particularly care for Dylan or Marley for example).

It's more the so called critic or music station. And like I said in my first post, it shouldn't matter I know.
 
In addition to the points Tony R raised - of which I don't all completely agree with - there are more I think which play a big part in how Michael isn't always taken seriously, particularly in that white rock world.

Race is one. Michael's showtune theatrical influence is another. I think some of what Michael did was seen as schmaltzy and a little naive musically. Children's choirs never really go down well in that world. And of course his monstrous success.

From the period 1978 to 1995, Michael Jackson's musical metamorphosis was so dramatic with each new album, so much so that I am baffled by this nutty notion he couldn't move on from Thriller. Eventually Michael Jackson defied convention to such a degree that many found it impossible to categorise him - both as a person and musically. Those people retreated onto safer grounds (Thriller and Off the Wall) and ignored everything else.
 
respect77 said:
I think we should be careful not to project our own personal preferences onto others. I personally was never bothered by MJ's vocal affectations and IMO it's a trademark of his vocals. One may not like it but to name it as one of the main reasons why snobish critics reject him seems a bit like reaching to me that is based more on your personal preference.
Click to expand...

As with majority of posts it's an opinion that I don't need to justify.

I back it up however by the fact the if MJ is parodied (no problem with that as all famous people are) it's these vocal affectations that are picked on. In fact if someone says do an impression of MJ it's likely to be Ow or hee-hee. I feel this takes away from his true genius and errs on the side of mockery.
 
ChrisC said:
In addition to the points Tony R raised - of which I don't all completely agree with - there are more I think which play a big part in how Michael isn't always taken seriously, particularly in that white rock world.

Race is one. Michael's showtune theatrical influence is another. I think some of what Michael did was seen as schmaltzy and a little naive musically. Children's choirs never really go down well in that world. And of course his monstrous success.

From the period 1978 to 1995, Michael Jackson's musical metamorphosis was so dramatic with each new album, so much so that I am baffled by this nutty notion he couldn't move on from Thriller. Eventually Michael Jackson defied convention to such a degree that many found it impossible to categorise him - both as a person and musically. Those people retreated onto safer grounds (Thriller and Off the Wall) and ignored everything else.
Click to expand...

The shmaltzy part is a great point. As much as I like them, songs like Heal The World is never going to give him artistic kudos
 
Often when I speak with friends, colleagues and others playback is something they almost always mention.

He could not sing live etc. etc. many people say that - and it does not help that the only tour that has ever been showed many many times on TV is HIStory...

10-15 years ago I remember seing HIStory tour very often on TV. - it was both TV1000 and TV3 in Denmark if I remember correct - they showed the concert all the time - and if that is the only tour you have seen - and therefore the tour from which you judge MJ's live abilities... - Then I do understand that some people think he was not able to sing live. -

Imagine not being a MJ fan - you have only seen HIStory tour and live TV performances - MTV in 1995, Dangerous at VMA, Earth Song live at the Brit awards and that german TV show etc. etc. - ALL playback.... He should never have used playback IMO. Very bad move...
 
Tony R said:
As with majority of posts it's an opinion that I don't need to justify.

I back it up however by the fact the if MJ is parodied (no problem with that as all famous people are) it's these vocal affectations that are picked on. In fact if someone says do an impression of MJ it's likely to be Ow or hee-hee. I feel this takes away from his true genius and errs on the side of mockery.
Click to expand...

Actually, the nature of parody is that only true individuals can be great subjects of parody. It's not a shame to be parodied, on the contrary. In my country when a great artist is parodied, most of the time he or she feels honored and can laugh at it (well, those who have a sense of humour). So I don't feel being parodied is a bad thing. And of course parodies will exaggerate such things that are characteristic of an artist. That's what parody is about.
 
respect77 said:
Actually, the nature of parody is that only true individuals can be great subjects of parody. It's not a shame to be parodied, on the contrary. In my country when a great artist is parodied, most of the time he or she feels honored and can laugh at it (well, those who have a sense of humour). So I don't feel being parodied is a bad thing. And of course parodies will exaggerate such things that are characteristic of an artist. That's what parody is about.
Click to expand...

Thanks for another one of your ever patronising responses. My degree in English means I know what parody means, and like I wrote I have no problem with it, my point was that when you have one characteristic that overrides any other it becomes laughable to some people and detracts from the art.

I don't mind any of these point I raised (apart from the miming), I'm just answering the original question and discussing reasons why.
 
Tony R said:
Thanks for another one of your ever patronising responses. My degree in English meant I knew what parody meant, and like I wrote I have no problem with parody, my point was that when you have one point that overrides any other it becomes laughable to some people and detracts from the art.

I don't mind any of these point I raised (apart from the miming), I'm just answering the original question and discussing reasons why.
Click to expand...

Ok, I guess it's better to stop responding to you since you are very irritable today. If you have a personal problem with me please contact me in PM. Otherwise please stop with the ad hominems.
 
SheilaMJFan4Ever said:
They're both huge influences in their own right and there's no need to pit them against each other. I loved them BOTH, respected what both of them brought to the table. David just died, ffs. Show some respect!
Click to expand...

Yes there's no doubt about it, David and Michael have both a big influence now, no need to compare them and they were both great artists.
Still that Michael's work shouldn't be minimized by people like this "Nathan", in fact no one should minimize the work of any of the artists we had and we have today (even if I think that music evoluated in a no so good way nowadays).
 
Yes it does!! It's as if because he's the biggest selling artist of all time, he must be overrated. Instead of that being the greatest tagline in the history of music, it feels like a stick to hit MJ with. I'm sorry but if you think you're a fan of music and you can't separate the man from the myth, frankly your opinion has no value. People seem to forget Michael created some of the greatest music in history, and because of that he made his peers excel to make great music, that is the one thing will forever be missing in the music industry. Michael Jackson didn't need the music industry, the industry needed him :upside_down: rant over.
 
Hess said:
Often when I speak with friends, colleagues and others playback is something they almost always mention.

He could not sing live etc. etc. many people say that - and it does not help that the only tour that has ever been showed many many times on TV is HIStory...

10-15 years ago I remember seing HIStory tour very often on TV. - it was both TV1000 and TV3 in Denmark if I remember correct - they showed the concert all the time - and if that is the only tour you have seen - and therefore the tour from which you judge MJ's live abilities... - Then I do understand that some people think he was not able to sing live. -

Imagine not being a MJ fan - you have only seen HIStory tour and live TV performances - MTV in 1995, Dangerous at VMA, Earth Song live at the Brit awards and that german TV show etc. etc. - ALL playback.... He should never have used playback IMO. Very bad move...
Click to expand...

Are your colleagues seriously that myopic? They could easily do a search on the Tube for MJ Live performances! I f**king hate it when people treat MJ like this!
 
James Brown

Tony R said:
James Brown is a really good point of reference, JB, Sammy Davis Jr even Al Green and Sam Cooke....as far as I know all song and dance men rather than musicians.
Click to expand...
James is more than a song and dance man. He's one of the originators of funk music which influenced many other genres. There's not many acts who have basically created an entire genre. Without James, hip hop would have been different too and even rock. James put out a song called I'm Real in the late 1980s where there's a line that goes "You better take my voice off your records til I'm paid in full" because he was sampled do much. :rofl: In an indirect way, there wouldn't have been G-Funk rap without James as George Clinton was influenced by James and even had James' bassist Bootsy Collins and horn players Maceo Parker & Fred Wesley in P-Funk. So Dr. Dre wouldn't have made a lot of money from selling his headphones to Apple without James. :D Led Zeppelin & Red Hot Chili Peppers would have sounded different without James Brown. James even influenced music in some countries in Africa. Overall James is probably more important to popular music today than The Beatles and Bob Dylan, although he sold nowhere near the same amount of records as The Beatles. And Sam Cooke could not dance at all. But Sam was writing some of his songs when it was not common for acts to self-write. Sam also started his own record companies (SAR & Derby) and owned his publishing, when that was rare as well.

As far as the topic goes, if there's dancing or some kind of entertainment involved, rock critics are less likely to praise it or understand it. It's entertainment to them like a Broadway show. They considered rock as rebelling against their parents' Bing Crosby and showtunes from movie musicals. They're coming from a different background. It's like expecting someone who mostly listens to gospel or country to understand death metal and goth music. Even in the past there was an entertainment factor with black performers in the US. Duke Ellington sometimes had female dancers on stage. Also rock critics are less likely to praise music that has a large female audience. When there used to be AOR (Album Oriented Rock) radio stations, there were few women played. It was primarily white male rock bands/singers.

If you notice, rock critics tended to praise John Lennon & George Harrison songs more than Paul McCartney's, who made showbiz sounding songs like Honey Pie, All Together Now, & Maxwell's Silver Hammer. John's songs were considered more serious and about himself. Wings don't get the same kind of praise as The Beatles or even Traveling Wilburys which had George Harrison, Roy Orbison, Bob Dylan, Jeff Lynne, & Tom Petty in it. Dylan in a band is really a big plus to the boomer era critics. Paul responded to critics (including John Lennon himself) with Silly Love Songs. Rolling Stone style critics generally put blues based rock over other types of rock like prog, goth, & heavy metal. Prog had more influence from European classical music (not cool) than the blues. That's why there's not much of that in the Rock n Roll Hall Of Fame, nor electronic music like Kraftwerk or adult contemporary acts. If a white act is blues based (.ig Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, Peter Green era Fleetwood Mac) then that's cool with many rock critics. If they're soul music based, then they're usually not like Hall & Oates and Michael McDonald.
 
Re: James Brown

DuranDuran said:
James is more than a song and dance man. He's one of the originators of funk music which influenced many other genres. There's not many acts who have basically created an entire genre. Without James, hip hop would have been different too and even rock. James put out a song called I'm Real in the late 1980s where there's a line that goes "You better take my voice off your records til I'm paid in full" because he was sampled do much. :rofl: In an indirect way, there wouldn't have been G-Funk rap without James as George Clinton was influenced by James and even had James' bassist Bootsy Collins and horn players Maceo Parker & Fred Wesley in P-Funk. So Dr. Dre wouldn't have made a lot of money from selling ***** to Apple headphones without James. :D Led Zeppelin & Red Hot Chili Peppers would have sounded different without James Brown. James even influenced music in some countries in Africa. Overall James is probably more important to popular music today than The Beatles and Bob Dylan, although he sold nowhere near the same amount of records as The Beatles. And Sam Cooke could not dance at all. But Sam was writing some of his songs when it was not common for acts to self-write. Sam also started his own record companies (SAR & Derby) and owned his publishing, when that was rare as well.

As far as the topic goes, if there's dancing or some kind of entertainment involved, rock critics are less likely to praise it or understand it. It's entertainment to them like a Broadway show. They considered rock as rebelling against their parents' Bing Crosby and showtunes from movie musicals. They're coming from a different background. It's like expecting someone who mostly listens to gospel or country to understand death metal and goth music. Even in the past there was an entertainment factor with black performers in the US. Duke Ellington sometimes had female dancers on stage. Also rock critics are less likely to praise music that has a large female audience. When there used to be AOR (Album Oriented Rock) radio stations, there were few women played. It was primarily white male rock bands/singers.

If you notice, rock critics tended to praise John Lennon & George Harrison songs more than Paul McCartney's, who made showbiz sounding songs like Honey Pie, All Together Now, & Maxwell's Silver Hammer. John's songs were considered more serious and about himself. Wings don't get the same kind of praise as The Beatles or even Traveling Wilburys which had George Harrison, Roy Orbison, Bob Dylan, Jeff Lynne, & Tom Petty in it. Dylan in a band is really a big plus to the boomer era critics. Paul responded to critics (including John Lennon himself) with Silly Love Songs. Rolling Stone style critics generally put blues based rock over other types of rock like prog, goth, & heavy metal. Prog had more influence from European classical music (not cool) than the blues. That's why there's not much of that in the Rock n Roll Hall Of Fame, nor electronic music like Kraftwerk or adult contemporary acts. If a white act is blues based (.ig Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, Peter Green era Fleetwood Mac) then that's cool with many rock critics. If they're soul music based, then they're usually not like Hall & Oates and Michael McDonald.
Click to expand...

You're right, what I should have said was 'on the face of it, they are song and dance men', like MJ is misconstrued as such. Yet they get the respect Michael doesn't always get.
 
Agree with a lot of the reasons on here why MJ is disregarded artistically. @Chris C, great post.

This discussion is also one of the reasons why I feel MJ needs to be represented musically to a far greater degree than the current white suited board who fail to understand the significance of presenting Michael Jackson as an artist rich in creativity much the same as Dylan, Springsteen, U2, Bowie etc. The latest Dylan boxset I purchased contained 6 discs with over 100 tracks and 120 hardback book with pictures and essays. Some of the tracks are fragments and others are alternative takes, one disc is 19 versions of Like A Rolling Stone! Remove the gimmicks, the chalk, the pitbull remixes and bells & whistles, strip it down to the music. This is also why Destiny Triumph and Victory tours are so important and needed. Lip Syncing is pretty much frowned upon in this day and age and although a lot of us can appreciate the HIStory tour for what it was, critics and muso's will demolish it! At the same time, as Respect has said 'Who cares what these people think? Facts are facts and the numbers don't lie, MJ is the most popular artist.

As for the Bowie comment "the bandwagoners" I understand where your coming from but I think it's somewhat unfair. Here's why: In 2009 when MJ passed it brought many people to MJ's music, some old fans back and an entirely new generation that didn't know him for his music, and it was heartening to be among a level of positivity and outpouring of love and recognition for the music that hadn't been there or felt for years. It brought MJ back into the public consciousness in an all round possitive way. Completely different situation in comparison to Bowie I know but the ONE positive aspect lifelong fans can take from his unexpected passing is that it has brought his life's work front and centre and many people are being introduced to his wonderful and colourful back catalogue. I'm one of those people that was always aware of Bowie but never really delved into his work to the point I now am. I had a Best Of and a few albums and Labyrinth was such an integral part of my childhood as well as a number of videos Lets Dance, Ashes to Ashes, Life on Mars, Dancing in the Street and the Top of the Pops performance of Starman. His death knocked me for six, perhaps it brought back memories of MJ and I also thought Bowie, like MJ would cheat death. Another sort of Peter Pan who was ageless and took for granted that he would just always be around. Prince also fits into this category. So the world is now embracing an artist who like MJ gave his life to his art and that can only be a possitive thing.
 
aazzaabb said:
As for the Bowie comment "the bandwagoners" I understand where your coming from but I think it's somewhat unfair. Here's why: In 2009 when MJ passed it brought many people to MJ's music, some old fans back and an entirely new generation that didn't know him for his music, and it was heartening to be among a level of positivity and outpouring of love and recognition for the music that hadn't been there or felt for years. It brought MJ back into the public consciousness in an all round possitive way. Completely different situation in comparison to Bowie I know but the ONE positive aspect lifelong fans can take from his unexpected passing is that it has brought his life's work front and centre and many people are being introduced to his wonderful and colourful back catalogue. I'm one of those people that was always aware of Bowie but never really delved into his work to the point I now am. I had a Best Of and a few albums and Labyrinth was such an integral part of my childhood as well as a number of videos Lets Dance, Ashes to Ashes, Life on Mars, Dancing in the Street and the Top of the Pops performance of Starman. His death knocked me for six, perhaps it brought back memories of MJ and I also thought Bowie, like MJ would cheat death. Another sort of Peter Pan who was ageless and took for granted that he would just always be around. Prince also fits into this category. So the world is now embracing an artist who like MJ gave his life to his art and that can only be a possitive thing.
Click to expand...

For the record. I did not mean that it is necessarily a bad thing that an artist's death brings more attention on that artist. Especially if the interest is genuine and not just a desire to be a part of a hype. Obviously MJ had that same effect as well when he died. Many jumped on the bandwagon, some stayed, some left since then and moved on to the next hype. I also don't think it's a bad thing to be a post-death fan of an artist. Better late then never. On my part every young fan, pre-death or post-death is welcome. That's how MJ's legacy goes on if there are new fans and he is not just a nostalgia act for "old" people.

I rather referred to the person quoted in the opening post who pitted MJ and Bowie against each other. Maybe he is a hard core, life-long Bowie fan but I also would not be much surprised if it is the current hype why he said the things he said. I cannot know of course, but in any case pitting them against each other was very stupid (especially while the person showcased so much ignorance about MJ, not even knowing that he wrote most of his songs). Both are highly influential artists, but they are very different. I am sure they had respect for each other. MJ even taught Bowie the robot which he then incorporated in some of his performances.
 
Maybe some more Jason Malachi tracks and remix albums will change their mind.
 
everyone will have an opinion... the fact everyone has an opinion says he's done more than he gets credit for...

Simply put there is not 1 single person that has influenced music/entertainment culture like Michael..
 
respect77 said:
For the record. I did not mean that it is necessarily a bad thing that an artist's death brings more attention on that artist. Especially if the interest is genuine and not just a desire to be a part of a hype. Obviously MJ had that same effect as well when he died. Many jumped on the bandwagon, some stayed, some left since then and moved on to the next hype. I also don't think it's a bad thing to be a post-death fan of an artist. Better late then never. On my part every young fan, pre-death or post-death is welcome. That's how MJ's legacy goes on if there are new fans and he is not just a nostalgia act for "old" people.

I rather referred to the person quoted in the opening post who pitted MJ and Bowie against each other. Maybe he is a hard core, life-long Bowie fan but I also would not be much surprised if it is the current hype why he said the things he said. I cannot know of course, but in any case pitting them against each other was very stupid (especially while the person showcased so much ignorance about MJ, not even knowing that he wrote most of his songs). Both are highly influential artists, but they are very different. I am sure they had respect for each other. MJ even taught Bowie the robot which he then incorporated in some of his performances.
Click to expand...
Totally get the points Matty and yourself were making, just throwing in my take. I've been discussing it with my mate who runs a record store and we concluded the bandwagoners is mostly a good thing lol. Of course theirs also many that just want to empathise and be part of the moment. Yeah I agree the Nathon guy has so little of a clue about MJ that it's obvious he has no idea what he's talking about. Nothing worse than coming across people who are completely uninformed yet completely believe in an idea that supports their agenda to belittle Michael Jackson simply because their predisposed to white media driven nonsesnse. I've dealt with people like this in real life, prodding, laughing and taking the piss out of me for being an MJ fan. It's complete ignorance but their completely happy in it, they simply choose to look down on MJ. It's actually a choice a lot of these people make and they do it with an athoritive smirk on their face as if taking complete joy in feeling superior to you both in taste and intellectually. It's the hight of ignorance and arrogance.
 
Tony R said:
The shmaltzy part is a great point. As much as I like them, songs like Heal The World is never going to give him artistic kudos
Click to expand...
HTW isn't artistic?
So Imagine is artistic and HTW isn't.
A song like HTW is much more creative and complex in it's themes and it's musical scope than a song like Imagine and yet that song is often times considered by the racist music media to be among the greatest songs of all time.
As far this whole argument about being a song and dance man and how that isn't respected. Again that speaks to racism.
Taylor Swift plays the guitar. Are we going to start calling her one of the greatest artists ever.
Adele doesn't play an instrument and yet last time I checked no one was saying she wasn't an artist. Perhaps if she was Black and dancing the white music media would knock her.
To this day I don't believe anyone has been better than MJ in the 90's and it isn't like his work in the 80's isn't timeless.
 
MJJA said:
HTW isn't artistic?
So Imagine is artistic and HTW isn't.
A song like HTW is much more creative and complex in it's themes and it's musical scope than a song like Imagine and yet that song is often times considered by the racist music media to be among the greatest songs of all time.
As far this whole argument about being a song and dance man and how that isn't respected. Again that speaks to racism.
Taylor Swift plays the guitar. Are we going to start calling her one of the greatest artists ever.
Adele doesn't play an instrument and yet last time I checked no one was saying she wasn't an artist. Perhaps if she was Black and dancing the white music media would knock her.
To this day I don't believe anyone has been better than MJ in the 90's and it isn't like his work in the 80's isn't timeless.
Click to expand...

I know HTW is artistic! I'm giving reasons why music snobs may not agree.

Maybe it was a timing thing. when HTW was released we were in the midst of grunge & rock was very in so HTW stood out. Having said that until Earth Song, HTW was MJ's best selling single in the UK, so the piblic loved it!

I think Aazzaab has a great point with the productivity. I've said before that Michael preferred to be perfect rather than prolific, and when you compare his (adult) body of work against contempories such as Bowie / Dylan / Prince & Springsteen an outsider may consider it almost lazy.

We know differently and how many years were spent painfully polishing the final tracks that were selected, and in the 90s plus Invincible having 14-16 tracks on an album is hardly lazy - but again I'm giving reasons as to why he can be dismissed.
 
SheilaMJFan4Ever said:
They're both huge influences in their own right and there's no need to pit them against each other. I loved them BOTH, respected what both of them brought to the table. David just died, ffs. Show some respect!
Click to expand...

Get off your high horse. David is unknown in non Western countries. To even suggest he is as influential as MJ is laughable. Nothing to do with the man really.
 
Soundmind said:
Get off your high horse. David is unknown in non Western countries. To even suggest he is as influential as MJ is laughable. Nothing to do with the man really.
Click to expand...

Sorry now, but Bowie would have influenced a lot of people who werent influenced by Michael, and vice versa. What makes you say which group of people is more important?

It's an absolutely needless argument.
 
Adele doesn't play an instrument
Click to expand...

She plays the guitar:

adele-guitar.jpg
 
Last edited:
innuendo141 said:
Sorry now, but Bowie would have influenced a lot of people who werent influenced by Michael, and vice versa. What makes you say which group of people is more important?

It's an absolutely needless argument.
Click to expand...

when we speak of influence the size of the audience does matter. I did not say one group of people was more important than the other. But how come one is more influential than another when his audience was much less than the other. I have access to hundreds of channels and I live in a multinational society. Guess what no one even mentioned the death of David Bowie. I do not need to tell you what took place when MJ died.
 
I think playing 'who is the best dead celebrity' is ever so macarbe & distateful. Especially in only a week since David's passing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top