Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

Jesta said:
Bumper, have you seen this?


As for Monster being on the set list, I'm still hoping that it's an abandoned idea. After all, I'd imagine everything thought of won't make it to the show.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen it before. What is it about actually? Nice vid btw
 
It's basically Michael's directions for the California Raisins commercial that he was in. MaxJax released it recently and everyone loves it! Here's the actual commercial to see the influence he had in it!

 
Jesta said:
It's basically Michael's directions for the California Raisins commercial that he was in. MaxJax released it recently and everyone loves it! Here's the actual commercial to see the influence he had in it!

Click to expand...

And of course not a single trace of Mike influencing the Cascio songs. Everything was destroyed. Right.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
@Milka

Artistic freedom is allowed only when the artist masters at least the basics. Without that, it is called dadaism. Now, people have to agree if they consider dadaism as a form of art or not. Personally I don't see dadaism as a form of art, but as a pile of anything. Likewise, if a poet uses some expressions, of course he has the freedom to create and use the expressions anyway s/he wants. But if those expressions do not depict anything particular or is purely used to give impression that it sounds poetic (when it's not), then anyone could be a poet (which is not the case).
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but using symbolism and metaphors in song lyrics has nothing to do with dadaism. What I'm saying is that lyrics that seem "illogical" to some people are not evidence of anything. Now don't make me go through all of Michael's song lyrics (written by him or others) and post all the metaphors that I find in there that are also "illogical" in the way that Chamife s/he means it. That would take forever. :lol:

But my point is ... the lyrics that were mentioned are not evidence of anything. They are also not "illogical".

P.S. And artistic freedom is always allowed.
 
Also something of interest to point out, when Pentum was talking with Teddy on Twitter over Burn Tonight, he said something about Water and Black Widow and I think Teddy insinuated that Dr. Freeze is the producer of those tracks... I could be wrong though, but that's what it seemed like.
 
Milka said:
I'm sorry, but using symbolism and metaphors in song lyrics has nothing to do with dadaism. What I'm saying is that lyrics that seem "illogical" to some people are not evidence of anything. Now don't make me go through all of Michael's song lyrics (written by him or others) and post all the metaphors that I find in there that are also "illogical" in the way that Chamife s/he means it. That would take forever. :lol:

But my point is ... the lyrics that were mentioned are not evidence of anything. They are also not "illogical".

P.S. And artistic freedom is always allowed.
Click to expand...

From what I've read in Chamife's posts, s/he didn't criticize expressions or symbolism, but the way they were used and the grammar. Chamife focused on the wording "to see through s.o.'s eyes" vs "to see with s.o.'s eyes". Chamife also pointed out a huge grammatical mistake which has nothing to do with artistic freedom. "He gave all he got" is correct. "He gave all he's got" is a mistake. If you allow grammatical mistakes in the artistic freedom, then, as I said, anyone could be a poet.


You don't have to go far to see artistic freedom in Mike's songs. The first I think of is "break of dawn". The expression is not correct. It should be "the break of day (=dawn)". However, everyone understands that "break of dawn" is deliberately used as a slangish form of poetry, so it's not that disturbing.
 
Jesta said:
Also something of interest to point out, when Pentum was talking with Teddy on Twitter over Burn Tonight, he said something about Water and Black Widow and I think Teddy insinuated that Dr. Freeze is the producer of those tracks... I could be wrong though, but that's what it seemed like.
Click to expand...

I think it was Black Widow that had sounded the most like Michael :/...Could have been an ad lib though...but it was really, really difficult to tell as it was just a few seconds I think ...
 
Arklove said:
I didn't thought it was been Black Widow that had been sounding the mostest as Michel :/...Could have being been an ad lib dough...butt it was been real, real difficulty to told like it was been just a few seconds I thought ...
Click to expand...

What happened to you :p
 
Jesta said:
You've been gone a long time, Bumper. Times have changed. For instance, I had a girlfriend, but now I don't. So... That's like the world turning 360 degrees when you had your back turned :p
Click to expand...

Oh sorry to hear you broke up. But I am sure everything's gonna be alright, you'll find the right one.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET;3463513 said:
From what I've read in Chamife's posts, s/he didn't criticize expressions or symbolism, but the way they were used and the grammar. Chamife focused on the wording "to see through s.o.'s eyes" vs "to see with s.o.'s eyes".
Click to expand...

No mistake there, it's poetic.

BUMPER SNIPPET;3463513 said:
Chamife also pointed out a huge grammatical mistake which has nothing to do with artistic freedom. "He gave all he got" is correct. "He gave all he's got" is a mistake. If you allow grammatical mistakes in the artistic freedom, then, as I said, anyone could be a poet.
Click to expand...

Wow, there are tons, and I mean tons of songs and poems that don't follow grammar rules. Even in Michael's songs (yeah, sorry for pointing out the obvious). Either because they are written in some kind of "dialect" or "slang" or because they want to achieve a certain "sound", a certain "flow" (in poems, but even more so in lyrics to make them fit with the music - go listen to rap or some Red Hot Chili Peppers songs - the lyrics in their songs a lot of times don't make much sense, the vocals are basically treated just like another musical instrument, or how about "Falco" - for the older people in here, haha - mixing German with English to achieve a certain sound or "feel").

´
BUMPER SNIPPET;3463513 said:
You don't have to go far to see artistic freedom in Mike's songs. The first I think of is "break of dawn". The expression is not correct. It should be "the break of day (=dawn)". However, everyone understands that "break of dawn" is deliberately used as a slangish form of poetry, so it's not that disturbing.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with "break of dawn"? Don't see the problem there.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/at+the+break+of+dawn
 
love is magical said:
Hi bumper. :huggy:
Click to expand...

Hi love is magical :huggy:

tiger_beer_milkshake
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
Oh sorry to hear you broke up. But I am sure everything's gonna be alright, you'll find the right one.
Click to expand...

Thanks :) But the mourning cycle is over. I cried over it for a couple of weeks, tortured myself because I went to the prom when I got a ticket only because she wanted me to go and then got depressed at my friend's birthday party because she seemed to ignore me... But we've since caught up and we're pretty good friends... Even though she hasn't spoken to me seeing as she's on holiday despite her talking to another person on Facebook... :(

... Sorry, I can go off on a tangent sometimes :p
 
Last edited:
So... Is Bumper still an innocent person? Can we introduce him to sexy wine?
 
Milka;3463523 said:
No mistake there, it's poetic.
Click to expand...

There is nothing poetic in the Cascio songs. Only attempts. The Cascio songs are written in such a manner that the listener or the reader is constantly interrupted in his/her listening/reading either by the lack of context or lack of depth in those songs. It sounds just like a pale echo of MJ's previous songs.

Milka;3463523 said:
Wow, there are tons, and I mean tons of songs and poems that don't follow grammar rules. Even in Michael's songs (yeah, sorry for pointing out the obvious). Either because they are written in some kind of "dialect" or "slang" or because they want to achieve a certain "sound", a certain "flow" (in poems, but even more so in lyrics to make them fit with the music - go listen to rap or some Red Hot Chili Peppers songs - the lyrics in their songs a lot of times don't make much sense, the vocals are basically treated just like another musical instrument, or how about "Falco" - for the older people in here, haha - mixing German with English to achieve a certain sound or "feel").
Click to expand...

The tons you are referring to are not poems, just randomness. There is a clear difference between art and writing randomly things just to fit without worrying about the context. Anyone can do it. The art is different, not anyone is a poet/artist.

Regarding Falco (I presume you are referring to the songs such as "Jeannie" and "Rock me Amadeus"), there is nothing wrong in mixing languages. Many great poets did it. Pushkin wrote sometimes in French and Russian. The issue is not mixing the languages, but the content, the form, the meaning and even the shape. Take the booklet from Dangerous and look at the shape and the way the lyrics of the song Dangerous are written: that's both art and poetry.
´

Milka;3463523 said:
What's wrong with "break of dawn"? Don't see the problem there.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/at+the+break+of+dawn
Click to expand...

"Break of dawn" is not correct. The correct expression is "break of day" meaning "dawn". Now if you say "break of dawn", what does that mean? Night?

The reason you find it in the dictionary is because people use it, and that's why I said, it does not sound wrong or disturbing. But in reality it is wrong to say "break of dawn". It's a pleonasm.
 
Arklove said:
Bumper have you gone through what you missed in the thread? :lol:
Click to expand...

Yup, I tried to go quickly through things I missed. I decided to stop debating as I am extremely busy and have lots of work to do. But I'll still hang around. "Burn Tonight" was the song that simply pushed me to stop debating. It's a disgrace and I won't waste my precious time even to give a slightest possibility that the single note is sung by MJ in that song. My intention is not to disrespect the believers, but sorry, that song was it. If the believers still hear Michael in that song, we are not listening to the same MJ and we are not living in the same world, that's all I can conclude.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
Yup, I tried to go quickly through things I missed. I decided to stop debating as I am extremely busy and have lots of work to do. But I'll still hang around. "Burn Tonight" was the song that simply pushed me to stop debating. It's a disgrace and I won't waste my precious time even to give a slightest possibility that the single note is sung by MJ in that song. My intention is not to disrespect the believers, but sorry, that song was it. If the believers still hear Michael in that song, we are not listening to the same MJ and we are not living in the same world, that's all I can conclude.
Click to expand...

I agree...there's nothing to debate with that song...Although I feel the same about Soldier Boy and all the ballads we've heard so far....
 
Arklove said:
I agree...there's nothing to debate with that song...Although I feel the same about Soldier Boy and all the ballads we've heard so far....
Click to expand...

Of course you agree. If you disagreed, I'd request to ban you from this site definitely :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top