What exactly was so groundbreaking about MJ's MUSIC?

Anywho, all in all you can't simply ask what MJ contributed musically (even though he did contribute a lot) because he didn't JUST make music he was an all around entertainer.
Yes, you absolutely can focus on one particular dimension and discuss what Michael's impact was in that regard. Ironically, in your attempt to explain why you cannot, you do the EXACT same thing yourself in the sentences right after the one I quoted above.

In the music industry people mimick his sound, his falsetto, vocal hiccups,etc (for example, artist such as Justin Timberlake have legit made their whole career from trying to mimick ONE of MJ's eras).
You focus on his music and singing.

When it comes to the entertainment industry as a whole people (Kobe Bryant for example) laud and revere MJ for his unparalleled work ethic, and for the level of success he reached as an entertainer because they themselves want to reach the same level of success in their own field.
You focus on his work ethic.

Michael is also a fashion icon ( I shouldn't have to explain this).
You focus on his fashion sense.

You then go on to do the exact same thing with Elvis by discussing his singing, dancing and songwriting abilities separately.
 
People don't think songs like Morphine or Little Susie are groundbreaking? What about Abortion Papers?

Name me another popular artist who consistently wrote and sang about such diverse subjects. Listen to the compositions of many of MJ's own songs. If you can't see that that a lot of MJ's songs were groundbreaking, lyrically and musically - and, as an MJ fan, it needs explaining to you - then I almost give up.
 
Yes, you absolutely can focus on one particular dimension and discuss what Michael's impact was in that regard. Ironically, in your attempt to explain why you cannot, you do the EXACT same thing yourself in the sentences right after the one I quoted above.


You focus on his music and singing.


You focus on his work ethic.


You focus on his fashion sense.

You then go on to do the exact same thing with Elvis by discussing his singing, dancing and songwriting abilities separately.

What does MJ's work ethic and his status as a huge fashion icon have to do with his music?

I even provided an example of how MJ's work ethic influenced people OUTSIDE of music, but I didn't do the same for his fashion because that shouldn't have to be explained.

I brought up Elvis to show what was wrong with the argument of OP's friend, and I didn't have to bring up what MJ contributed musically, but I did because that's the topic of this thread.

Nonetheless, I brought up some of the other facets of Michael because once again Michael didn't JUST contribute to the music industry he contributed to the entertainment industry as a whole.

You yourself said I focused on his music, singing, work ethic, AND his fashion sense.
NOT just his music and singing.
 
People can mask their intentions all they want, but it's not going to wash with me.

The OP's 'friend' was clearly trying to downplay MJ's importance in the history of music. The only people trying to oblige this 'friend' are the same posters who pick apart MJ's career on here, day after day.
Who knows what the 'friend's' intentions were? Whether we like it or not, the perception expressed by the 'friend' is not uncommon. More importantly, why focus on the 'friend's' opinion anyway? The topic itself, MJ's musical influence and innovation, is not slanted one way or the other and could be very interesting.

I see an increasing amount of topics on here with negative connertations. "What was Michaels worst this/that?" type of topics. It's as if the same people come on here each time with one intention, what can we denigrate about MJ today.
I don't know which other topics or which people you are referring to, but I don't think most people who participated in this topic are trying to put MJ down at all.

If people want to negate Michael's influence, on an MJ forum, don't be surprised if some people fight back. If you main purpose is to tell us how great Elvis was or how fantastic the (most overrated band of all time?) Beatles are, then your probably on the wrong forum.

Some people might claim that I am being over sensitive about this issue, as that would suit their agenda, but I am speaking out because I believe there is way too much of this type of negativity pretending to be objectivity on here these days.
Ah right, I forgot that you are a conspiracy theorist as well. Yeah, I remember how you questioned the fandom of anyone (myself included) who dared to criticize Xscape (specifically the remixes and the lack of focus on Michael's own work, both of which do not even have anything to do with Michael), and kept implying they had some kind of hidden agenda.

Your 'speaking out' does not consist of engaging with the topic and presenting arguments to defend your position, which of course would be welcome, but of ad hominem attacks. The cheapest way to engage in a discussion like this is to claim that other fans who hold different opinions than you are not 'real fans', to claim that they have an 'agenda', and to justify your personal attacks by saying you do so 'for Michael'. Bravo, you tick all the boxes.

Lot's may not speak up about it, but don't expect me to sit quiet whilst it goes on.
l4TDHP6.gif
 
What does MJ's work ethic and his status as a huge fashion icon have to do with his music?

I even provided an example of how MJ's work ethic influenced people OUTSIDE of music, but I didn't do the same for his fashion because that shouldn't have to be explained.

I brought up Elvis to show what was wrong with the argument of OP's friend, and I didn't have to bring up what MJ contributed musically, but I did because that's the topic of this thread.

Nonetheless, I brought up some of the other facets of Michael because once again Michael didn't JUST contribute to the music industry he contributed to the entertainment industry as a whole.

You yourself said I focused on his music, singing, work ethic, AND his fashion sense.
NOT just his music and singing.
My point is that one can say something about these topics in isolation, just like you did in the sentences I quoted.

Yes, if you want to discuss Michael's overall influence on the world, of course you need to take all the things you mention things into account. But the topic here is to talk just about his music.
 
But considering the fact that YouTube is the most popular streaming platform I would disagree with the suggestion that dance and video are unimportant. You talk about people listening to music on the radio first. Well, this is 2016, not 1976. Most young people today watch music on YT. Video and dance is pretty much an integrated part of popular music today. Video in itself became an art form (and MJ had a great part in that) and dance is of course an art form in itself too - and again MJ had a great part in making it an element of music videos.

(For the record, MJ is doing very well on YT as well. He is currently #20. The Beatles are not in the Top 100. Pink Floyd is #100 currently. Elvis is not in the Top 100.)
That's why those acts have to lip sync in concert or use autotune. The old acts danced but sang live. Some Broadway shows have dancing and they sing live too. They weren't trying to recreate a music video where the choreography wasn't really designed for singing live simultaneously, especially if the act duplicating a series of video routines in a concert. A concert is longer than a 4 or 5 minute video. The video dancing might not have been done all in one take.
 
That's why those acts have to lip sync in concert or use autotune. The old acts danced but sang live. Some Broadway shows have dancing and they sing live too. They weren't trying to recreate a music video where the choreography wasn't really designed for singing live simultaneously, especially if the act duplicating a series of video routines in a concert. A concert is longer than a 4 or 5 minute video. The video dancing might not have been done all in one take.

Not every dancing act lip syncs or uses autotune. That's a gross generalization. But this is so far off the point of my post that I don't even get what it has to do with anything that I have written.

My point was that in 2016 you cannot act like we are still in 1976 and most people listen to music on the radio. You cannot say that because of that video and the art of dance is insignificant when the most popular streaming service in the world is YouTube.
 
People don't think songs like Morphine or Little Susie are groundbreaking? What about Abortion Papers?

Name me another popular artist who consistently wrote and sang about such diverse subjects. Listen to the compositions of many of MJ's own songs. If you can't see that that a lot of MJ's songs were groundbreaking, lyrically and musically - and, as an MJ fan, it needs explaining to you - then I almost give up.

You say I don't contribute, socav, then you omit to answer my question above.

Care to do so?

On your other point. Yes, in my opinion, you are very quick to contribute to negative topics. You and a few others on here. Just my opinion of course.
 
dance

Dancing is just one element that that commenter listed. I don't think dancing should be dismissed as unimportant either. Dance is an art form in itself.
I'm aware of that. I've posted videos of dancing in the music section. But the OP was clearly about music only. So I don't understand why people keep bringing up dancing, music videos, fashion, or how Mike can do it all. That's like saying The Beatles mop top hairdos, "Beatle boots", screaming girls, or the Ed Sullivan appearance was important in a discussion about their music. None of that has anything to do with the music itself. Those things are off topic, so that's why I said it doesn't matter to a blind person and that most acts don't dance, popular or otherwise.
 
I have a question for SoCav and DuranDuran.

Do you think MJ 's music was groundbreaking?
 
Re: dance

I'm aware of that. I've posted videos of dancing in the music section. But the OP was clearly about music only. So I don't understand why people keep bringing up dancing, music videos, fashion, or how Mike can do it all. That's like saying The Beatles mop top hairdos, "Beatle boots", screaming girls, or the Ed Sullivan appearance was important in a discussion about their music. None of that has anything to do with the music itself. Those things are off topic, so that's why I said it doesn't matter to a blind person and that most acts don't dance, popular or otherwise.

As I said earlier, actually OP himself (or his "friend") brought up other elements in favour of other artists than just the music. Eg. Elvis bringing already existing musical styles to a white audience is more about a cultural impact than musical innovation on his part (especially when he wasn't even a songwriter). So why is it fair to bring up other elements outside of music in favour of other artists but not fair when we mention an overall cultural impact in favour of MJ?

BTW, Elvis can be used as a great example to demonstrate the difference between innovation and influence and how it is not the same. Was he an innovator musically? IMO he wasn't. After all, he did not even write music. Was he very influential? Absolutely!
 
You say I don't contribute, socav, then you omit to answer my question above.

Care to do so?

On your other point. Yes, in my opinion, you are very quick to contribute to negative topics. You and a few others on here. Just my opinion of course.
You posted that while I was replying to your earlier post, so I did not see it.

In my initial post in this topic, I wrote that as the 80s progressed, MJ's music became increasingly innovative and difficult to classify. I specifically mentioned Little Susie to make the point that this is a process that started early on (because he wrote it in the 70s). Morphine is another example of a track that is among his most innovative. I do not feel the same way about Abortion Papers (Don't Be Messin is a better example of a more innovative track from that batch of demos, imo).

I have a question for SoCav and DuranDuran.

Do you think MJ 's music was groundbreaking?
Groundbreaking as in innovative? I think I also explained my position on that that in my first post in this topic so I won't rehash it in much detail: I think plenty of it is, particularly his later work and some of his unreleased work (and who knows what's still in the vaults). I do think, because Michael also tended to work with hitmakers, that he did not always fully show to the world how innovative he could be. And I pointed out that the work that is often mentioned as being his most influential (OTW, Thriller) is not among his most innovative - which does not mean it is not exceptionally well done.

As for your point about my posts. I am very critical of the Estate because I do not think they do right by Michael. I hugely admire Michael's work and like to talk about it in detail. And as great as I think Michael was, I do think there are other great artists out there and that not everything he did was perfect. If this makes me come across as negative, so be it. You of course have the right to your opinion and I do not mind that you dislike my posts. I do mind (as you can tell from my previous post) when discussions get derailed by personal attacks, so I hope we can move on from those.
 
Re: dance

As I said earlier, actually OP himself (or his "friend") brought up other elements in favour of other artists than just the music. Eg. Elvis bringing already existing musical styles to a white audience is more about a cultural impact than musical innovation on his part (especially when he wasn't even a songwriter). So why is it fair to bring up other elements outside of music in favour of other artists but not fair when we mention an overall cultural impact in favour of MJ?

BTW, Elvis can be used as a great example to demonstrate the difference between innovation and influence and how it is not the same. Was he an innovator musically? IMO he wasn't. After all, he did not even write music. Was he very influential? Absolutely!

Exactly!

Elvis didn't innovate in any way shape or form, but OP's friend brought him up as if he's better then MJ when in reality Elvis is one of the worse people for someone to put up on a pedalstool and say is better then MJ.

OP's friend is biased against MJ and brought up Elvis and the Beatles to put MJ down when MJ pound for pound is better then Elvis, and the Beatles can't really be compared to MJ because they're a band and MJ is a solo artist.
 
Last edited:
Do you think MJ 's music was groundbreaking?
Like James Brown or Kraftwerk? No, and neither was Elvis. Elvis was just doing rockabilly, pop, and gospel. I think James & Kraftwerk has influenced today's popular music more than Mike, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, or Elvis. To me, Mike music wise is more like Marvin Gaye, The Beatles, and Prince. Doing something already out there but putting their own stamp on it. I think Mike's influence is more his distinctive vocal style than his actual music. Like people copy the way Sam Cooke, Billie Holiday, Minnie Riperton, & Stevie Wonder sings. Singers copy Sam's vocals, which were unique, but Sam's music is not really that distinctive that if someone copies it the average listener will know the source. If I hear a slap bass, then I know Larry Graham is the source, even if the bassist has never heard of him or his music. Eddie Van Halen is credited with tapping, but Steve Hackett from Genesis was doing it before Eddie. Eddie has said he listened to Genesis records in the 1970s. Later guitarists might copy Eddie because he is more well known, but Eddie is not the source. It's like Teddy Riley is credited with New Jack Swing. But Full Force was doing it before him. But Teddy popularized it and named it, so he gets the credit. Full Force recorded Alice in 1984, when Teddy was in a New Edition style teen group called Kids At Work. Kids At Work had a synth sound common to the R&B of the period. When Full Force did proto-New Jack, the sound didn't have a name.
 
You posted that while I was replying to your earlier post, so I did not see it.

In my initial post in this topic, I wrote that as the 80s progressed, MJ's music became increasingly innovative and difficult to classify. I specifically mentioned Little Susie to make the point that this is a process that started early on (because he wrote it in the 70s). Morphine is another example of a track that is among his most innovative. I do not feel the same way about Abortion Papers (Don't Be Messin is a better example of a more innovative track from that batch of demos, imo).


Groundbreaking as in innovative? I think I also explained my position on that that in my first post in this topic so I won't rehash it in much detail: I think plenty of it is, particularly his later work and some of his unreleased work (and who knows what's still in the vaults). I do think, because Michael also tended to work with hitmakers, that he did not always fully show to the world how innovative he could be. And I pointed out that the work that is often mentioned as being his most influential (OTW, Thriller) is not among his most innovative - which does not mean it is not exceptionally well done.

As for your point about my posts. I am very critical of the Estate because I do not think they do right by Michael. I hugely admire Michael's work and like to talk about it in detail. And as great as I think Michael was, I do think there are other great artists out there and that not everything he did was perfect. If this makes me come across as negative, so be it. You of course have the right to your opinion and I do not mind that you dislike my posts. I do mind (as you can tell from my previous post) when discussions get derailed by personal attacks, so I hope we can move on from those.

Fair enough. Good reply. As far as you are concerned, with this issue, I will "move on".
 
People don't think songs like Morphine or Little Susie are groundbreaking? What about Abortion Papers?

Name me another popular artist who consistently wrote and sang about such diverse subjects. Listen to the compositions of many of MJ's own songs. If you can't see that that a lot of MJ's songs were groundbreaking, lyrically and musically - and, as an MJ fan, it needs explaining to you - then I almost give up.

MANY DAMN IT!!!! I can list you dozens of artists, whose lyrical topic range run rings around MJ's. But you keep trying to make outlandish and unsubstantiated claims about MJ being the only artist to do A, B and C.
 
Last edited:
Re: dance

As I said earlier, actually OP himself (or his "friend") brought up other elements in favour of other artists than just the music. Eg. Elvis bringing already existing musical styles to a white audience is more about a cultural impact than musical innovation on his part (especially when he wasn't even a songwriter). So why is it fair to bring up other elements outside of music in favour of other artists but not fair when we mention an overall cultural impact in favour of MJ?

BTW, Elvis can be used as a great example to demonstrate the difference between innovation and influence and how it is not the same. Was he an innovator musically? IMO he wasn't. After all, he did not even write music. Was he very influential? Absolutely!

My friend, who everyone on here seems to believe is imaginary, brought up these acts including Elvis. Now I don't particularly believe Elvis was that innovative musically speaking, matter of fact, I believe musically speaking that MJ's impact on the wider culture (merging genres, introducing music to wider audience) was reminiscent of Elvis's rise 27 years prior. They utilised similar artistic outlets (both primarily singer-dancers), the only difference being that MJ was more involved in the songwriting aspect of his artistry.

As for Elvis, he didn't innovate new ground musically, but he did like MJ exhibit phenomenal versatility both in their singing style and range and their musical genre pursuits. That's why I think the 'critics' and 'journalists' like Rolling Stone and NME have been pretty unfair to MJ insofar as his musical impact as it pertains to culture.

MJ on the other hand, like several before have pointed out, his most innovate moments were hit and miss. He didn't record a full album of songs like "In The Back" or "Morphine". He showed glimpses, but there was no real consistency of a clear musically direction.
 
Last edited:
Re: dance

My friend, who everyone on here seems to believe is imaginary, brought up these acts including Elvis. Now I don't particularly believe Elvis was that innovative musically speaking, matter of fact, I believe musically speaking that MJ's impact on the wider culture (merging genres, introducing music to wider audience) was reminiscent of Elvis's rise 27 years prior. They utilised similar artistic outlets (both primarily singer-dancers), the only difference being that MJ was more involved in the songwriting aspect of his artistry.

As for Elvis, he didn't innovate new ground musically, but he did like MJ exhibit a versatility. That's why I think the 'critics' and journalists have been pretty unfair to MJ insofar as his musical as it pertains to culture.

Disregarding the rest of this conversation how is Elvis versatile?
Elvis ONLY had a good voice.
He couldn't dance (no stepping around the stage and moving your hips doesn't count), he couldn't write music, and his live shows (to me at least) are very lackluster and dull.
But you're right.
Critics are unfair to MJ when from Thriller on Michael was and continues to be a bigger part of pop culture then Elvis is.:)
 
^Musically he covered much ground, Blues, Gospel, Country, Soul, Rockabilly, Rock-n-Roll etc.
 
What good is dancing, fashion, or videos to a blind person? They can only judge the music that they can hear. People don't go to a jazz concert or to a symphony orchestra to see dancing. When people buy a record, they don't see dancing or a pyro show either. Out of all the acts since the recording industry began, a very small percentage danced or did steps. If dancing is the main draw, how did any of those non-dancing acts become popular? Music is the primary draw, the rest is secondary. Not everyone goes to concerts, they might only listen to the radio. Before MTV and cable TV, most popular acts were not seen on TV much. There were only 3 major networks in the USA plus PBS and a few local channels on UHF. Maybe you could see an act occasionally on programs like American Bandstand, Soul Train, Shindig, Midnight Special, Ed Sullivan, etc. Those shows came once a week, and lasted 30 minutes or an hour. Really less than that with the commercials. So the radio is the main place the general audience heard music or maybe a jukebox at a club/bar. People who went to concerts most likely already liked a performer's music that they heard, not saw. Music videos were irrelevant pre-1980s, although some were made. They weren't really shown on TV. A few were shown in clubs or sent to foreign countries because this was cheaper than flying an act to different places just to do a TV show.
Mozart was greater then Dylan. Does that mean that Dylan wasn't great?.
Everything evolves and changes. That doesn't mean those who came before them didn't leave behind a legacy of importance and that in fact was influential.
Michael never hid behind the fact that he was influenced by numerous musicians and songwriters and dancers who came before him which makes him no different to anyone else except for the very first musician, songwriters and dancers.
Chaplin's entire career, for the most part, was in silent movies so does the mean his work is of more or lesser importance?
There were great actors before and after Brando.
The music industry evolved in the 1980's and MJ led the way in many ways. Even with that in mind though it isn't like MJ's music isn't among the most timeless and greatest ever recorded.
He truly wrote some of the best song's of his generation and in fact some all time great songs. That to me is far more important than if it is "revolutionary" as it isn't like classical music is modern or revolutionary today but it is still some of the most incredible music ever written.
 
Here's a very interesting article on MJ's influence, interesting enough the author makes it clear through that it's MJ the visual artist and not his music itself that is influential.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...ichael-jacksons-unparalleled-influence/58616/

Anyone can find an opinion on the internet supporting any kind of POV that someone wants to support (I could bring you dozens of articles about how the Beatles are overrated. So what?) - and obviously your goal is to support "your friend's" argument that MJ was not influential as a musician. Only you know why you are so hell-bent on downplaying MJ's artistic, especially musical and creative achievements (not the first time by you on this forum).

But eventually opinions are just that - whether it comes from a journalist or you. Ask the artists. Many artists cited MJ as an influence and very clearly a MUSICAL influence, not a visual. Funny how in your OP post you admitted at least OTW has a big influence on several artists today*, but by now you managed to reduce MJ to just a "visual artist" whose music wasn't actually influential. Congrats for your journey.

* Of course, you presented OTW's influence too as if it is nothing, saying that "only" OTW out of MJ's albums has an influence on today's music, as if that's not a big feat in itself. Well, how many 40 year old albums have an influence on today's music to begin with? Today I actually see more MJ influence - at least in the mainstream - than Beatles, Ramones, Funkadelic or Elvis. So yes, it's a big deal and it's a huge MUSICAL achievement by MJ. More than most artists can say. Nothing to do with the visuals either.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top