Think Today's Music is okay, but it's missing something...

LindaC781

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
3,199
Points
0
Location
Boston, MA USA
What do you think? I think today's pop scene is okay, but it's really missing MJ. Yeah, Justin is fine, but I really really want MJ to make a comeback....a comeback that is so big, it takes everyone by surprise and shuts everyone up for good. I sincerely hope that 1.) there IS a new album and 2.) The first cut, the first one they put out is a MONSTER hit....one that everyone dances to right off, and loves.
 
Well you know that AKON said Michael thinks Planets (smile)
so I believe MJ is going to knock this world off its Axis and
take us to Outer Space - THE OUTER LIMITS .. I have faith
 
I personally think todays music is worthless.. It's all cheap fast food music.. They pump it out like a factory.. NO THOUGHT INTO IT..

They just make music TO sell, not sell music that is made.
 
I so agree with that post you made KOPV todays Music really is worthless and i think it all sounds the same
 
it's just along the way the drive in the music industry SWITCHED..

Before it was the artists drive to make great music that drove records to sell.. Now it is the music industry trying to find someone who can sell AS talent. (he/she has the look, is basically willing to sell themselfs to us, and we can promote this BRAND)

Before artists struggled to find a record label, now it's it's the record label (THE FACTORY) trying to find so called 'artists'..

Before it was the drive to make great music that earned sales and $$. Now it's the $$$ that drives the music.

It's about the money not talent anymore..
 
it's just along the way the drive in the music industry SWITCHED..

Before it was the artists drive to make great music that drove records to sell.. Now it is the music industry trying to find someone who can sell AS talent. (he/she has the look, is basically willing to sell themselfs to us, and we can promote this BRAND)

Before artists struggled to find a record label, now it's it's the record label (THE FACTORY) trying to find so called 'artists'..

Before it was the drive to make great music that earned sales and $$. Now it's the $$$ that drives the music.

You summed everything up pretty much.
The music industry is now picking people out they know can sell and trying to make these artists into something that their not. People know the music is crap now and nobody is doing anything innovative but since the public and critics don't care about good music or talent anymore.. whocares right?. Some artist just making it off the street all of a sudden is the King of Pop, Bullish.. music is crap because record labels and the industry is running the artists, their just trying to promote a image thats sells and not good quality music that sells. Record labels will sign anybody now... its shame some of these artists have a deal because there is no foreal talent.

Thats why it pisses me off when they compare all these mediocrity to real talent such as MJ, Stevie Wonder, etc.. oh so and so is the next King of Pop or the next this or that.. Let me tell you something and what makes a tru legend. When MJ was hot back in the day in the nucleus of his career, peeps weren't saying oh MJ is the next James Brown or Jack Wilson. Why? because MJ was influence by these great acts but then he took it to the next level and did something innovative. Thats what ALL these artists out now are lacking originality. People are either copying off of MJ, Tina Turner, Janet etc. or their own artist peer. Yes you can be influence by these legends but just do your OWN thing and take it to the next level. Thats why music is crap because its not entertaining, none of the music is worth while and their just repeating the same ish over and over and over again. No not legends or icons just mediocrity that is fed to the masses.
It's about the money not talent anymore
 
You summed everything up pretty much.
The music industry is now picking people out they know can sell and trying to make these artists into something that their not. People know the music is crap now and nobody is doing anything innovative but since the public and critics don't care about good music or talent anymore.. whocares right?. Some artist just making it off the street all of a sudden is the King of Pop, Bullish.. music is crap because record labels and the industry is running the artists, their just trying to promote a image thats sells and not good quality music that sells. Record labels will sign anybody now... its shame some of these artists have a deal because there is no foreal talent.

Thats why it pisses me off when they compare all these mediocrity to real talent such as MJ, Stevie Wonder, etc.. oh so and so is the next King of Pop or the next this or that.. Let me tell you something and what makes a tru legend. When MJ was hot back in the day in the nucleus of his career, peeps weren't saying oh MJ is the next James Brown or Jack Wilson. Why? because MJ was influence by these great acts but then he took it to the next level and did something innovative. Thats what ALL these artists out now are lacking originality. People are either copying off of MJ, Tina Turner, Janet etc. or their own artist peer. Yes you can be influence by these legends but just do your OWN thing and take it to the next level. Thats why music is crap because its not entertaining, none of the music is worth while and their just repeating the same ish over and over and over again. No not legends or icons just mediocrity that is fed to the masses.
It's about the money not talent anymore

You are so right. MJ wasn't compared to James Brown, or Ray Charles or any other great performer, because MJ actually was a leader - an innovator. He was one to pave new paths to stardom, try new things, get people to jump up and dance and listen and watch him. He was mesmerizing (still is, by the way - in my own humble opinion). Todays talent isn't mesmerizing, or thought-provoking or even innovative. It is the same old, same old. You hear one, you hear them all. I for one am DYING to hear something new, something different. I'm not hearing it anymore...
 
Yes, i think it's very very sad what has happened, but i think Michael has the ability to change it a little.
 
Michael is a very smart man. He knows what needs to be done. Before Michael, MTV WAS all rock. He changed that. He made the mini-movie video plausible. He also had some very unique dance moves...that BAD video with the sideways skip was so good. His twirls and leg lifts are legendary. There is NOONE else like him out there today. Naysayers can say all they want to - MICHAEL IS the trailblazer in the industry. Before Michael, noone had thought of the things he incorporated into his videos.
 
Artists have always been compared to One another and taken things, but the difference is that back in the day we didn't have the same technilogy and also once the Producers became as big as the music it took over things. the 80's with video in the medium hurt the game as well and then the technilogy of instruments being all played on computers made it accessible for any and everybody. Madonna was in the 80's what Gweyn Stefani, and Britney spears is of today. the talent pool was deeper back in the day, but acts were always taken things off one another. read BB King's book and he says point blank that has always been the case. nowadays you get a hit and it is sold as a ringtone or a quick buck but as far as Artists development those days are long gone and fans don't sit around and wait for a artist to fully develop and the labels ain't spending money on 10 year careers either anymore. it is more like you got 10 months to delievery or else. alot of factors have contribute and for the record the industry always had alot of Jive going on. nothing new. acts always been sold through there image or a novelty gimmick it's just that now with the internet and technilogy it's allowing things to come full circle. stand out acts will always stand out,but the labels ain't looking for long term anymore and they want a Hit record and a hot act of the moment. nothing new there.
 
What do you think? I think today's pop scene is okay, but it's really missing MJ. Yeah, Justin is fine, but I really really want MJ to make a comeback....a comeback that is so big, it takes everyone by surprise and shuts everyone up for good. I sincerely hope that 1.) there IS a new album and 2.) The first cut, the first one they put out is a MONSTER hit....one that everyone dances to right off, and loves.
Well you are very kind because I think today's music generally sucks big time. Personally I think that it would take more than MJ to save music today.
 
You summed everything up pretty much.
The music industry is now picking people out they know can sell and trying to make these artists into something that their not. People know the music is crap now and nobody is doing anything innovative but since the public and critics don't care about good music or talent anymore.. whocares right?. Some artist just making it off the street all of a sudden is the King of Pop, Bullish.. music is crap because record labels and the industry is running the artists, their just trying to promote a image thats sells and not good quality music that sells. Record labels will sign anybody now... its shame some of these artists have a deal because there is no foreal talent.

Thats why it pisses me off when they compare all these mediocrity to real talent such as MJ, Stevie Wonder, etc.. oh so and so is the next King of Pop or the next this or that.. Let me tell you something and what makes a tru legend. When MJ was hot back in the day in the nucleus of his career, peeps weren't saying oh MJ is the next James Brown or Jack Wilson. Why? because MJ was influence by these great acts but then he took it to the next level and did something innovative. Thats what ALL these artists out now are lacking originality. People are either copying off of MJ, Tina Turner, Janet etc. or their own artist peer. Yes you can be influence by these legends but just do your OWN thing and take it to the next level. Thats why music is crap because its not entertaining, none of the music is worth while and their just repeating the same ish over and over and over again. No not legends or icons just mediocrity that is fed to the masses.
It's about the money not talent anymore
I wish that the music industry would just about sign anybody. But what they do sign is an Image, a Face....

You have to have beauty queen looks to be taken seriously as an artist. It matters not if you are talented or not. If you can hold a tune or even have a pleasant sounding voice, you are in. This is especially true for female R&B artists. I've said it many times before -- Aretha, Natalie, Gradys, Chaka and a whole host of others would not have been given the time of day if they had to compete with today's artists. Further the rap and hop-hop genre has basically replaced R&B music. Seldom can you hear a hit song without some rap collaboration these days.

Further, most pop songs are a wicked confection of some hot hip-hop producer who is skillful at taking music that's been already recorded and looping it into a synthesized beat and that is thought of as being hot, fresh and new.

No wonder peeps flip out over the new rock and pop bands out there. Because it's so rare that anyone under the age of 25 plays an instrument. Alicia Keys is afforded near genius status because of it, yet back in my day, it was unusual if an artist didn't play some sort of instrument, even if it's not used in their act.

The music of today is pathethic and what's sad is that many music listeners don't realize it.
 
Music has been on a downward spiral for a long time. Michael was able in part to aquire the skills and musical nurturing he needed because he got to learn from the last of the long term artists. I think it was like an apprentiship. The new artists got to learn at the side of the old. I understand the incredible genious Michael has but it still needed nurturing and I think that is missing today. The record industry doesn't care if someone develops or not as long as they can somehow convince the public to spend money on them. I was remembering an old 1997 article in The Nation magazine that first got me aware of how controlled the industry is.

It is called "Who Owns the Music?" and It was written for The Nation by Mark Crispin Miller. It was in the August 25, 1997 issue if you are interested. I'll just post a part of it since it is copyrighted and I don't want to get us in trouble. It is interesting in that it was written just as the DVD was being pushed.

WHO CONTROLS THE MUSIC?
MARK CRISPIN MILLER
’Wouldn’t it be nice if rock and roll was once a good time pure and simple-and not a cutthroat business, too? Sadly, that sweet music always had the Man behind it, counting the receipts and yelling “Shake your money-maker!” At first, there were crafty profiteers like Leonard Chess, who stiffed Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley; Roulette Records’ Morris Levy, whose broad influence on early rock--Variety dubbed him “the Octopus” in 1957-owed plenty to his mob connections; and “Col.” Tom Parker, who kept as much as 50 cents out of every dollar Elvis made from the end of 1955 until his death (and after it). But the biggest beneficiaries of pop’s commercialism, finally, were no lone goniffs, but the major record companies, which really cleaned up in the sixties. Though they’d been slow to spot the gold in rock and roll (because their people hated it), the majors soon caught on, and then prevailed: Warner, CBS, PolyGram, RCA, MCA and Capitol-EM1 had 81 percent of U.S. market share by 1974. (By the early eighties, the Six had also taken over distribution, driving out the many independent firms that had long supplied the record stores.) The profits were immense-high enough to lay the basis of the national entertainment state: Warner Bros. could not have gone on to become the largest media corporation in the world without that awesome income from electric blues and acid rock.
.
.
.

The Six went global in the eighties. After a calamitous Po&-disco crash in 1979, the industry bounced back, thanks mainly to the compact disc. As millions chucked their vinyl for the pricier CDs, the business surged again, and several media giants, hot to rock the whole wide world, came courting. Thus were the Six sucked into the transnational behemoth that now makes the whole world sing (and which is outlined in our latest gatefold chart): CBS went to electronics giant Sony of Japan in 1985, then RCA went to Bertelsmann of Germany; PolyGram (owned by the Dutch electronics giant Philips) bought Chrylalis, then Virgin; and MCA (now owned by the Canadian booze giant Seagram, and renamed Universal) bought Geffen Records. And so the Warner empire (Time Warner as of 1990) was the only major US.-owned purveyor of the great forms of American music-rock, r&b, blues, country, jazz-while Bruce Springsteen was making product for the Japanese, and Elvis Presley had become a German asset. Today, this international cartel is striking out-a crisis that’s the nervous buzz of all the industry, and a frequent topic in the business press. The slump began in 1994, when the rush on CDs ended. With our vinyl oldies all replaced, “sales of tried-and-true‘
catalog titles, from Sinatra to the Stones, have dried up,” Forbes reports. Meanwhile, the new stuff isn’t selling. Sales of rock have been going down-from 46 percent of the total U.S. market in 1987 to 33 percent last year-and pop has also slipped (from 14 to 10 percent). R&b and country have each jumped a bit (to 11 and 16 percent, respectively), and rap has jumped three points (to 9 percent). Yet even that bold, booming genre may be headed for a downswing, according to some close observers. Hip-hop’s market probably peaked in ’93 or ’94,” says rap label manager Jeff Chang. ‘Nobody wants to admit it, but it’s true.’,) In any case, overall unit sales are flat, so such slight generic increases don’t make much difference.

Typically, the business is now trying to save its bacon by promoting yet another costly format: the digital versatile disc (DVD), a six-track gizmo that promises extreme fidelity-and whose coming would force us all to buy new discs and a new thing to play them on.
 
You are so right. MJ wasn't compared to James Brown, or Ray Charles or any other great performer, because MJ actually was a leader - an innovator. He was one to pave new paths to stardom, try new things, get people to jump up and dance and listen and watch him. He was mesmerizing (still is, by the way - in my own humble opinion). Todays talent isn't mesmerizing, or thought-provoking or even innovative. It is the same old, same old. You hear one, you hear them all. I for one am DYING to hear something new, something different. I'm not hearing it anymore...
I think that MJ wasn't anointed the next 'whoever' is because back in the day, while peeps may recognize your potential -- that's all it is until you make something of it.

In other words, you had to earn it. It wasn't just 'given' to you on a plate or you declared the next 'whoever' in a magazine. And when you did earn it, you weren't the next anybody. You were the new YOU.

Anyone having to be called the next 'anybody' is likely not worth 'anything' because they lack originality and innovation.

I agree with you Linda on that point.
 
Music has been on a downward spiral for a long time. Michael was able in part to aquire the skills and musical nurturing he needed because he got to learn from the last of the long term artists. I think it was like an apprentiship. The new artists got to learn at the side of the old. I understand the incredible genious Michael has but it still needed nurturing and I think that is missing today. The record industry doesn't care if someone develops or not as long as they can somehow convince the public to spend money on them. I was remembering an old 1997 article in The Nation magazine that first got me aware of how controlled the industry is.

It is called "Who Owns the Music?" and It was written for The Nation by Mark Crispin Miller. It was in the August 25, 1997 issue if you are interested. I'll just post a part of it since it is copyrighted and I don't want to get us in trouble. It is interesting in that it was written just as the DVD was being pushed.

WHO CONTROLS THE MUSIC?
MARK CRISPIN MILLER
..."The slump began in 1994, when the rush on CDs ended. With our vinyl oldies all replaced, “sales of tried-and-true‘ catalog titles, from Sinatra to the Stones, have dried up,” Forbes reports. Meanwhile, the new stuff isn’t selling. Sales of rock have been going down-from 46 percent of the total U.S. market in 1987 to 33 percent last year-and pop has also slipped (from 14 to 10 percent). R&b and country have each jumped a bit (to 11 and 16 percent, respectively), and rap has jumped three points (to 9 percent). Yet even that bold, booming genre may be headed for a downswing, according to some close observers. Hip-hop’s market probably peaked in ’93 or ’94,” says rap label manager Jeff Chang. ‘Nobody wants to admit it, but it’s true.’,) In any case, overall unit sales are flat, so such slight generic increases don’t make much difference..."
Thanks for posting that EC! I love The Nation and MCM. And true to fore, rap/hip hop sales has slipped off in the '00's and the industry didn't anticipate digital downloading. And there is NOTHING they are going to be able to replace it with in the foreseeable future.

You would think that they would get a clue: try GOOD music for a change. Because nothing else will do....
 
I think that MJ wasn't anointed the next 'whoever' is because back in the day, while peeps may recognize your potential -- that's all it is until you make something of it.

In other words, you had to earn it. It wasn't just 'given' to you on a plate or you declared the next 'whoever' in a magazine. And when you did earn it, you weren't the next anybody. You were the new YOU.

Anyone having to be called the next 'anybody' is likely not worth 'anything' because they lack originality and innovation.

I agree with you Linda on that point.

I agree with that the difference between when MJ was first starting out and lets say... shoot let me throw out a clone, chris brown first came out. People instantly called CB the new King of Pop overnight. Now homeboy hadn't even released a second album by then and wasn't really taken seriously as an artist foreal. Still, people could see who he was imitating because the ish he was doing and STILL doing isn't innovative. His just copying off of MJ lol thats why people looked at him and was like KOP number 2. What do you know all of a sudden we have 5 new King of Pop's. Its ridiculous but thats what they do. MJ when he first came out of course he had foreal talented and when OTW came out peeps saw he had potential but it was innovative he wasn't copying off of anybody. You can see his influences in his craft but he was one of a kind and he took over the industry from there.

The way the state of the music industry is runnin right now we don't have solid acts like that anymore foreal real talk and if it keeps going the way it is music never will. MJ was the last foreal Big star lol MJ really has his own category.
1. Star
2.Superstar
3. Mega star
4. Legend
5. Michael Jackson
There hasn't been a artist like MJ in the 21 st century or even nearly close not even dangerously. If it is a lil something its just HYPE fake HYPE that half these artists don't live up to. LOL its silly.... the media/ music progams/ channels hype so and so up and then when I look at them perform or listen to the song. I'm struggling to find out what the big damn deal is? These artists out now are beyond overrated. I can't wait for my boy Mike to come back and show my generation what real music is, for his generation because I know there dying for some REAL music and for the music industry because they desperately need good music now and real performers.
 
I agree with that the difference between when MJ was first starting out and lets say... shoot let me throw out a clone, chris brown first came out. People instantly called CB the new King of Pop overnight. Now homeboy hadn't even released a second album by then and wasn't really taken seriously as an artist foreal. Still, people could see who he was imitating because the ish he was doing and STILL doing isn't innovative. His just copying off of MJ lol thats why people looked at him and was like KOP number 2. What do you know all of a sudden we have 5 new King of Pop's. Its ridiculous but thats what they do. MJ when he first came out of course he had foreal talented and when OTW came out peeps saw he had potential but it was innovative he wasn't copying off of anybody. You can see his influences in his craft but he was one of a kind and he took over the industry from there.

The way the state of the music industry is runnin right now we don't have solid acts like that anymore foreal real talk and if it keeps going the way it is music never will. MJ was the last foreal Big star lol MJ really has his own category.
1. Star
2.Superstar
3. Mega star
4. Legend
5. Michael Jackson
There hasn't been a artist like MJ in the 21 st century or even nearly close not even dangerously. If it is a lil something its just HYPE fake HYPE that half these artists don't live up to. LOL its silly.... the media/ music progams/ channels hype so and so up and then when I look at them perform or listen to the song. I'm struggling to find out what the big damn deal is? These artists out now are beyond overrated. I can't wait for my boy Mike to come back and show my generation what real music is, for his generation because I know there dying for some REAL music and for the music industry because they desperately need good music now and real performers.
I know you just randomly chose Chris Brown but I just read an article on him that was kind of interesting. They give him credit for innovation. They say he incorporates Michael's stuff together with others in something that is new. THey give him kudos for his ability for a particular type of dancing and say this:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/music/bal-al.brown09dec09,0,20994.story?track=rss
Artists such as MC Hammer, Vanilla Ice and insert-your-favorite-boy-band-here have made brief splashes as dancers - but none has had the chops that Brown possesses. Brown also has been compared to Justin Timberlake and Usher. However, their routines don't possess the same complexity, grace and fluidity as Brown's.
Brown, a native of rural Essex County, Va., has released two albums - Chris Brown and this year's Exclusive - to brisk sales and lukewarm reviews. Hits have included "Run It!," "Yo (Excuse Me Miss)," "Gimme That" and "Kiss Kiss."
But he's not a composer - and few of his songs list him as such. Nor is he really a singer. He sometimes lip-syncs his performances, but some attribute this to the complexity of his dance routines.
What Brown has to offer as a live performer is more in the vein of musical theater than a rock concert. While Jackson's style was born largely out of the funk and disco tradition of the '70s, Brown samples difficult elements of "b-boying" - the hip-hop dance form that developed in the 1970s and came to public attention from the Bronx, N.Y., in the early 1980s.
In the 60's we had fake entertainers too (Fabian comes to mind) but although black artists may have been both singing and dancing it was not expected mainstream. If you could do one of them better than anyone else you were considered good. Post MJ everyone is expected to do everything and of course the odds of people being able to do everything well are slim to none. Chris Brown works his butt off it seems and will continue to grow and rise above the other entertainers out there. By using the type of material that is best for him instead of being a clone he will go farther yet, but from what I read and have seen he still was not born with the overall natural gifts that Michael has. I don't know if we will ever see that again.

I found it interesting that an article showed up that recognized that.

More recently the internet and digitization (DVD's) has changed the playing field. There has been a lot of talk about artists doing net releases rather that through a record company. Will.i.am mentioned that Michael, because of his name recognition, would be capable of doing that. It remains to be seen if he will eventually do that. Either way, the fact that artists CAN do it starts to take some of the power away from the big record companies and I hope we will see a shift to better and more innovative music because of it.
 
Last edited:
The music today sucks. I hate it. You listen to records from the 60s, 70s, 80s and even the early 90s, it had great melody, serious talent, people who could SING. Not anymore. Now its just a bunch of ameteur singers who dance at about the same level. Blah. There's a few people who can sing, like Christina Aguilaera, but not many. And the music today is basically just one repetitive beat done over in a 4 minute loop. Either that or they take a song with a proven melody and rhythm and they "sample" it, meaning they use the entire body of the song, and put some shitty lyric over it. Lame.

The difference between today and other eras is, the true talent used to be the popular talent, used to be the talent that sells. Today, its the opposite. Its the media made acts which sell, while true artists struggle to even be played on MTV.

And Chris Brown has little grace as a dancer and he's sloppy. He can dance, but he isn't exceptional. You want proof of that, watch him attempt Michael's routines.

Don't hold your breath waiting for someone with Michael's talent level to come along, because you'll sufficate if you do. Michael has world class, elite talent as both a singer and as a dancer. That particular combination has never before been seen and has never since.
 
Last edited:
back in 74 the Jacksons were doing Vegas and Yes Michael Jackson almost was played out until dancing Machine kicked back there career. when MJ first emerged lets not act that Frankie Lymon's success along with James Brown and Jackie Wilson weren't on Berry Gordy's vision. He went through things.

also Destiny saved the Jacksons on Sony as well. what I'm getting at pressure to hit is always there. MJ is a Great Artist and a Musical Genius but he had to deal with alot of things as a Artist and had his ups and downs.

every Artist has to deal with Peaks and Valleys if you are gonna have a long term career,etc... it's a crap shoot basically.

every era hates and it never stops but you like what you like.
also for all of this Hating Michael Jackson the man of this very site embraces the New. so I think that if MJ can Embrace then you need to update as well. the world keeps on moving.
 
back in 74 the Jacksons were doing Vegas and Yes Michael Jackson almost was played out until dancing Machine kicked back there career. when MJ first emerged lets not act that Frankie Lymon's success along with James Brown and Jackie Wilson weren't on Berry Gordy's vision. He went through things.

also Destiny saved the Jacksons on Sony as well. what I'm getting at pressure to hit is always there. MJ is a Great Artist and a Musical Genius but he had to deal with alot of things as a Artist and had his ups and downs.

every Artist has to deal with Peaks and Valleys if you are gonna have a long term career,etc... it's a crap shoot basically.

every era hates and it never stops but you like what you like.
also for all of this Hating Michael Jackson the man of this very site embraces the New. so I think that if MJ can Embrace then you need to update as well. the world keeps on moving.
Michael Jackson is one of the few celebrities, let alone recording artists, that survived the transition from child star to adult star. That is what you just described is all about.

Yet today's artists aren't having peaks and valleys. This is not what this is about. This is about the prerequisite beginning level of talent that a performer possesses. And it's not about hate, either, at least not for me. Chris Brown has potential, but I'm not likely to buy his CDs because it's more hip-hop/rap orientated, vs. just songs so that one can really appreciate his voice. He has potential, but it will be limited until he moves beyond the genre of music that he is doing, if he does so at all.

And even with that, Chris Brown does not have the benefit of artist development. He needs that polishing. Although I'm not crazy about Beyonce, one of the main reasons she is at the top of the heap is that she has a Joe Jackson-ish father who drilled and drilled her and her DC compatriots. Mathew Knowles studied and understood the Motown drill and applied it to his girls and that is why Beyonce was in the position to excel when she got the right material.

Most of these young acts are blowing up on the charts without having 'paid their dues', if you will -- meaning that they are largely studio artists with little to no showmanship or stage presence. Most of them cannot sing very well at all to boot.

All you have to do is look at the band reunion acts who are making big band on touring these days, vs. the new genre who are lucky to sell out the House of Blues....
 
The music today sucks. I hate it. You listen to records from the 60s, 70s, 80s and even the early 90s, it had great melody, serious talent, people who could SING. Not anymore. Now its just a bunch of ameteur singers who dance at about the same level. Blah. There's a few people who can sing, like Christina Aguilaera, but not many. And the music today is basically just one repetitive beat done over in a 4 minute loop. Either that or they take a song with a proven melody and rhythm and they "sample" it, meaning they use the entire body of the song, and put some shitty lyric over it. Lame.

The difference between today and other eras is, the true talent used to be the popular talent, used to be the talent that sells. Today, its the opposite. Its the media made acts which sell, while true artists struggle to even be played on MTV.

And Chris Brown has little grace as a dancer and he's sloppy. He can dance, but he isn't exceptional. You want proof of that, watch him attempt Michael's routines. He doesn't have near the precisian or grace. He's just another kid from a street corner doing the popular styles of today while throwing half of Michael's steps in there for good measure. He doesn't have a style of his own. He dances like any kid today while ripping Michael. Krumping, popping, locking, acrobatics (which isn't dancing). They say Chris Brown's dancing is derived from the "difficult" b-boying styles. Michael's dancing in "Bad", which is jazz dancing, for example, is 10 times harder then anything Chris Brown has ever done. Michael's routines in "Black or White", "Remember The Time", "Thriller", "Beat It", "The Way You Make Me Feel", Chris Brown would fu*k up so bad, which he's already exampled by attempting "Thriller". If people can't see the difference in talent level, then they're blind or simply don't know what they're looking at. Plus he can't sing for sh*t. Bobby Brown is a better dancer. Prince is a better dancer.

Don't hold your breath waiting for someone with Michael's talent level to come along, because you'll sufficate if you do. Michael has world class, elite talent as both a singer and as a dancer. That particular combination has never before been seen and has never since.

The thing is Chris Brown says straight out that he is only beginning to learn. When someone has that attitude they continue to improve. Noone makes it on their own though, not even Michael. Listening to the interviews on BBC of the people involved in the production of Thriller you hear that loud and clear.

I was struck by either Quincy's or Swedan's (sp) comment about starting out with something like a hundred songs and going through them to pick out the ones that were best for Michael. Michael can rap but I read he says he doesn't because others do it better. Chris Brown's body is not suited for the some of the same types of dancing that Michael does. I don't think it is just a matter of sloppiness. It isn't fair to look at him dancing to Thriller and then say he is nowhere near the dancer that Michael is. He may not be but regardless he will look comparatively better if you choose a different type of dancing or 'performing' like break dancing. Same thing.

The article comments that Chris doesn't have the vocals. They don't candy coat but they still praise him for what he CAN do and what he IS good at. Michael worked like a dog to learn his trade but he also was born with a gift. If Chris' gift is not as great as Michael's or if Chris doesn't have the network behind him that Michael did, that does not make me think less of Chris. He has talent in some areas and works hard to be the best he can be. Let him base his success on that. What I tried to say before is that it never used to be necessary for and entertainer to do all things equally well. I doubt Fred Estaire (sp) was as good a singer as MJ and noone claims he was inadequate because of that.

Young artists need mentoring and aren't getting it. I agree with mistermax and Mello on that. I am glad Michael is mentoring these days as long as he has students who appreciate it. That is what I think he is doing in addition to bringing his own music back. He is now the James Brown of this era. There is more than one way he can help save the music and I think he is work on more than one front.
 
What do Elvis,James Brown, Beatles ,Michael Jackson, Madonna,Eminem had in common? These are some of the artists that changed the way all of us listen to music and see the world. They revolutionized music. Each one of them started a trend.

How about today's so called artists? everybody sounds alike. hell, they all even look and move alike! In other words, the music industry keeps on churning "talents" who are mere clones of one another.

If one is served the same dish over and over again, that dish will soon lose its palatability. Your buds will soon yearn for a different taste. despite the so called "talents" who can generate screams, no one has yet come forward who can create an impact so big that will once again shake up the music industry.


And they wonder why record sales are dwindling...
 
Last edited:
Well ec, body type has a lot to do with whether you are a good dancer or not. You're right when you say Chris Brown doesn't have the body to dance as well as Michael. It doesn't come down to the different forms of dance though. Dancing to me is defined by the movement between poses. Popping to me isn't dancing, that's muscle and joint control, acrobatics isn't dancing, etc...

When I see Chris dance, he has talent, I never said he didn't, but it isn't exceptional. Talent is talent, no amount of work will create it. Kids that go and audition for ballet schools are either accepted or rejected based on the natural talent they display. And they DO display it at a very young age.

Watching Chris dance, I look for one thing, how well does he move from one position to the next. And making that determination is based on several factors. Is he light and easy with his movement, is he tight and controlled, does he have good speed, is he clean with no excess movement. Now this may seem like an over the top analysis, but I don't think about it, you can just see all that for yourself, if you're really watching. The answer is, watching Chris, he has okay speed, he's sloppy however, he isn't very graceful, and he has okay fluidity. That says to me, at his age, that he's just an okay dancer, not a good dancer and not a great dancer. That's all. He's too tall, he's too big. The older he gets, the more he will fill out, and the harder it will be for him to move with as much ease and fluidity as he does now, which isn't much to begin with. You ever see Michael when he was 18? He was unreal. His speed and ease were out of this world.

Chris they say has been singing and performing professionally since he was 12. Now I assume that means he's been doing this in front of audiences such as school crowds, etc... So its not as if he just started yesterday.

Now I'll admit, Chris is better then Usher or Timberlake in the dancing department. He isn't as good of a singer though. And he'll improve before he gets worse. But he won't improve to exceptional quality. Because you display that potential at a far younger age then Chris is at now. If what that author is saying is correct, then why is Chris Brown a pop star? He should be part of some dance troop in LA. If he can't sing and he can't write, then why is he being called the next Michael Jackson? Michael is as much a singer as he is anything, and he is as much of a composer as he is anything. He displays equal ability in all three areas. Which brings us of course to what you said about today’s acts being expected to do it all.

Michael made that happen. But it was unintentional.

Michael hit the scene, and here you had a kid who could sing at the highest level, who could dance at the highest level (there's a reason Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly talked about how great Michael was and not others before him, such as James Brown and Jackie Wilson), and he could compose at the highest level in modern day music. Of course, the industry saw this, they saw Michael raise the standard, but at the same time, they realized that someone of Michael's talent level only comes along once in probably forever. So what do they do? They start producing people who, on appearance, can do everything Michael does. Sing, dance, write, blah, blah. But if you look more closely, they actually are only a shell of what Michael is. They can do all those things, sing, dance, write, but at an only passable level, and its this way in all areas. They are jacks of all trades, masters of none. You used to have people who were masterful in one area or maybe two, and if they were okay at another, great. But it was usually one area where they focused and one area where they thrived, one area they were recognized in as having great talent, and that was accepted as the standard. When Michael came along, that changed, and in order to compete, now you have a bunch of people who are okay at a bunch of things, but not good and certainly not great at anything. The overall standard has dropped because of Michael. Weird, but true.

Michael is one of a kind. You had Fred Astaire, who was a brilliant dancer. That's what he was. He would sing too. But no one thought of him as a singer like Frank Sinatra or Nat King Cole. You had James Brown. He was more of a singer then a dancer, imo. He was a really good dancer, but his strength above all else was his voice. You had Sammy Davis Jr. A brilliant dancer, with an average voice. He was seen more as a dancer then a singer.

Michael's the only person in history to be equally gifted in all three areas. That's something. You won't see that again.

So when I see today’s acts, Chris Brown, Justin Timberlake, Usher, Omarion, so on and so forth, I see a lot that are passable in each area they call their talents, but not special in either one. I would rather have someone who is exceptional in one area then someone who is just okay in a bunch. Quality over quantity, always.
 
Last edited:
Okay. I'll agree with you on most of that. What you are saying is largely what I tried to say. I know that Chris isn't as good as Michael. I know that the likely hood of someone out there as good as him in all areas is slim. What I do think you have to consider though is that even if there were someone out there as good as him they would not get what they need to raise them careerwise to the level Michael has achieved. For someone that has talent in only one area that is probably even more true, because the industry is sure not going to help them.

I have seen Michael dancing at 18 or so and know the grace he moved with and yes I could certainly see the difference between Chris dancing Thriller and Michael doing it. Jeez you couldn't miss it. I do think Chris is pretty good though and better than a lot/maybe most of the performers out there on the dance and 'entertainment' front and we can't have Michael be the only entertainer in the world just because noone is as good as him. Proper training makes anyone better, building on whatever talent they already have, be that Michael or Chris, but Chris won't get the training/drill that Michael had.

I would like to see us get back to having people do one thing well as opposed to three things medeocre just like you. That is why I mentioned it. You are right that in a strange was Michael brought the level of entertainers down.
 
Yeah, that's the jist of it. Training of course is important. Its what ultimately allows you to obtain your full ability, that is, what is naturally in you already but must be brought out. But with or without training, your pontential will remain the same and it will show. You cannot create innate ability. You can only bring out what is already there. Michael isn't a trained dancer. He's never been conditioned. Yet you see him routinely making those with training look average. That's natural talent, that's what's born in him. Of course he practices, but not nearly as much as those who consist of his backing troops, and its because he doesn't have time and he never was given the foundation. But he's still better. Again, that's all natural talent that makes him better. Its not the training or practice. Because most of his back up dancers are professionals who have worked since a very young age, taking lessons, going to dance class, gaining experience by being with dance company's, etc... They've spent much more time practicing then Michael. Those are pros, and all of them are much better then any of the singer/dancers you see today, MUCH better. Michael is better then they are. He can't do everything they can, but he moves better. That gives you an idea of what Michael's talent level is, without training. I don't even want to think of what he'd be like with it.

A lot of todays acts just simply lack real talent. Justin Timberlake has been performing since he was a child, as have many of todays most popular people. They've had time to learn and to "train", but they aren't as talented as yesterdays talent. Plain and simple. The industry today breeds replaceable acts, because it allows them to make as much money off of them as it can and then, when they start demanding things, the industry can then say bye-bye to them and put someone else in their place, with ease. When you have acts like Michael, like Stevie Wonder, or Billy Joel, or Diana Ross or Elton John, or Dionne Warwick, etc... you can't just go out and replace them, because they're special.
 
Last edited:
Michael Jackson is one of the few celebrities, let alone recording artists, that survived the transition from child star to adult star. That is what you just described is all about.

Yet today's artists aren't having peaks and valleys. This is not what this is about. This is about the prerequisite beginning level of talent that a performer possesses. And it's not about hate, either, at least not for me. Chris Brown has potential, but I'm not likely to buy his CDs because it's more hip-hop/rap orientated, vs. just songs so that one can really appreciate his voice. He has potential, but it will be limited until he moves beyond the genre of music that he is doing, if he does so at all.

And even with that, Chris Brown does not have the benefit of artist development. He needs that polishing. Although I'm not crazy about Beyonce, one of the main reasons she is at the top of the heap is that she has a Joe Jackson-ish father who drilled and drilled her and her DC compatriots. Mathew Knowles studied and understood the Motown drill and applied it to his girls and that is why Beyonce was in the position to excel when she got the right material.

Most of these young acts are blowing up on the charts without having 'paid their dues', if you will -- meaning that they are largely studio artists with little to no showmanship or stage presence. Most of them cannot sing very well at all to boot.

All you have to do is look at the band reunion acts who are making big band on touring these days, vs. the new genre who are lucky to sell out the House of Blues....


The thing about B is and the rest of the mainstream crap out now. I'm not hating just being REAL. There just commercial garbage fed to the masses. Once again it has nothin to do with REAL talent. If you sell and you have a certain appeal then you fit that description. B is a real good singer (when she is not screaming). She is though overrated and overexpose. She has some good songs but her music doesn't do anything for me. All her songs pretty much sound the same.She isn't the BEST female singer in the world lol as if and she definitly isn't the best out now. She doesn't write her own stuff, she can't dance I can go on forever. Once again not hatin! just keepin it real. It is what it is. She puts her self out there and since she is an "artist of now" media overrates and overexposes, even though she does overexpose her self on her own. She isn't doing anything INNOVATIVE. I don't care how much they hype these artists out now thats just for T.V. It doesn't mean anything because there is no foreal talent thats why they have media as HYPEMEN but they don't live up to it. Music is CRAP now along with the boring crappy award shows. I'm not saying ALL music is crap now because its not, you just have to find it. The good stuff is mostly underground though.
 
The music today sucks. I hate it. You listen to records from the 60s, 70s, 80s and even the early 90s, it had great melody, serious talent, people who could SING. Not anymore. Now its just a bunch of ameteur singers who dance at about the same level. Blah. There's a few people who can sing, like Christina Aguilaera, but not many. And the music today is basically just one repetitive beat done over in a 4 minute loop. Either that or they take a song with a proven melody and rhythm and they "sample" it, meaning they use the entire body of the song, and put some shitty lyric over it. Lame.

The difference between today and other eras is, the true talent used to be the popular talent, used to be the talent that sells. Today, its the opposite. Its the media made acts which sell, while true artists struggle to even be played on MTV.

And Chris Brown has little grace as a dancer and he's sloppy. He can dance, but he isn't exceptional. You want proof of that, watch him attempt Michael's routines.

Don't hold your breath waiting for someone with Michael's talent level to come along, because you'll sufficate if you do. Michael has world class, elite talent as both a singer and as a dancer. That particular combination has never before been seen and has never since.


Nuff said... Agree 100%
 
Back
Top