A site MJ fans should not visit.

Re: bigotry

Bigots are not all old folks. Many of the people that are anti-diversity and anti-"SJW" in entertainment are young and so are a lot of Trump supporters. That's what MAGA is all about, like build a wall or whatever. The guy (Dylan Roof) who shot the people at a black church a few years ago was 20 or 21.

That's because some of the older gen are teaching the younger gen this crap. I really wish these people die from a terrible disease so the world can be a better place. they don't even own the land it belong to the native. racist cu*ts.
 
I'm black and I like some of beetles music. Michael was black. he liked the beetles and did covers. my mother black and she start listen to some more beetles music when she find out Michael like them too. my mom is a big fan of 70's and disco music in general.

me and my mother like Michael more then we like the beetles. not saying we don't like their music just we like Michael more. we don't hate them at all. you see?

there's a different between race and music. at the end of day not all music is about race. Michael had fans all races and backgrounds. what that tell you? Michael been in this since he was child. he broke a lot of stuff. like it or not Michael was and still one of the best superstar on this planet.
 
You guys always pick me up when I'm brought down by things like this. Thank you. I love you all. Currently listening to Butterflies and just vibing.

your welcome. and i love that song. it's one my favorites from him.
 
guys, i made a mistake. I mentioned michael on the steve hoffman forums, in a thread where people were discussing when he "fell from grace." i defended him and began discrediting all of the tabloid answers that were being thrown my way. It's pathetic. And it's beginning to anger me, so i'm not visiting that site for a bit. People have said things like mike wasn't a great musician, prince was better reviewed etc... Mostly stuff about mike's personal life, but also saying he was not a creative genius, and the only reason thriller was good was because of the other people who worked on it. All the same crap, you can piece it together. I joined that forum expecting a good musical discussion about the best artist to ever walk the earth. And instead, i got spammed with boomers posting tabloids, because to them the "news" is always right. Apparently black or white's panther dance is nonsense and proves his insanity...

u g h
 
The point I'm talking about is not that the rock fans in the Steve Hoffman forum are directly racist, but they might be segregated. The majority of rock fans are white males. When there were AOR (album oriented rock) stations, the playlist had very few non-white acts and few women performers. Like Jimi Hendrix plus Heart/Pat Benatar for the female artists. Most of the biggest record sellers in history are rock acts, and a lot of the biggest selling albums are rock. Rock n roll is considered white music even though it originated with black artists and black music. The audience for country music is also primarily white people, so segregated in the same way. Also rock fans often go for the guitarist and maybe the drummer over the singer. Like Sammy Hagar replacing David Lee Roth did not make that much of a difference in the popularity of Van Halen. But Eddie Van Halen could not be replaced with another guitarist. Eddie has a particular playing style. Lionel Richie leaving the Commodores did hurt the band and so did Mike leaving The Jacksons, but they are R&B groups, where the lead singer is more the focus than the guitarist. Going by that, it can be understood that the average Beatles/classic rock might fan not dig Michael Jackson music. Not because he's black per se, but because he is not a rock act and does not have the same image. In the same way, it's unlikely there's going to be a lot of discussion about Bob Dylan, U2, & Bruce Springsteen on a forum about funk music.

M
ike does not play guitar solos or drum solos and dancing is unimportant for rock n roll. Dancing & choreography is more a thing for R&B related acts. Even the average dance music & disco artist do not dance such as Depeche Mode, Donna Summer, & Pet Shop Boys. Music video plots are not that important for rock either, many are just stage performance videos. So how well Mike can dance or his music video production does not really matter to them. They do not like The Beatles because of their videos, but because of their music. Music videos were not even really a thing in the 1960s. Some were made, but they were rarely if ever broadcast on TV. If a music act wanted to be seen, they went on a TV show like Ed Sullivan or American Bandstand. The Beatles popularity in the USA primarily started because of their Ed Sullivan appearance. There was no MTV for them.

From my experience, white males who like rock also tend to like other genres as well. So making assumptions like that is as pointless as others assuming racism.

It's no wonder people think MJ fans are nuts. There's almost no tolerance for anyone with different opinions, or even harmless comments. I got attacked on twitter by other fans a few weeks ago simply for saying that Paul McCartney had a bigger vocal range than Michael. Which is just a fact, but you'd think that I'd insulted Michael from the insane reaction I got. I understand being protective of him, but when people start shouting racism or jumping on every person who says something that doesn't align perfectly to their image of Michael, it makes us all look bad.
 
DuranDuran;4277880 said:
The point I'm talking about is not that the rock fans in the Steve Hoffman forum are directly racist, but they might be segregated. The majority of rock fans are white males. When there were AOR (album oriented rock) stations, the playlist had very few non-white acts and few women performers. Like Jimi Hendrix plus Heart/Pat Benatar for the female artists. Most of the biggest record sellers in history are rock acts, and a lot of the biggest selling albums are rock. Rock n roll is considered white music even though it originated with black artists and black music. The audience for country music is also primarily white people, so segregated in the same way. Also rock fans often go for the guitarist and maybe the drummer over the singer. Like Sammy Hagar replacing David Lee Roth did not make that much of a difference in the popularity of Van Halen. But Eddie Van Halen could not be replaced with another guitarist. Eddie has a particular playing style. Lionel Richie leaving the Commodores did hurt the band and so did Mike leaving The Jacksons, but they are R&B groups, where the lead singer is more the focus than the guitarist. Going by that, it can be understood that the average Beatles/classic rock might fan not dig Michael Jackson music. Not because he's black per se, but because he is not a rock act and does not have the same image. In the same way, it's unlikely there's going to be a lot of discussion about Bob Dylan, U2, & Bruce Springsteen on a forum about funk music.

M
ike does not play guitar solos or drum solos and dancing is unimportant for rock n roll. Dancing & choreography is more a thing for R&B related acts. Even the average dance music & disco artist do not dance such as Depeche Mode, Donna Summer, & Pet Shop Boys. Music video plots are not that important for rock either, many are just stage performance videos. So how well Mike can dance or his music video production does not really matter to them. They do not like The Beatles because of their videos, but because of their music. Music videos were not even really a thing in the 1960s. Some were made, but they were rarely if ever broadcast on TV. If a music act wanted to be seen, they went on a TV show like Ed Sullivan or American Bandstand. The Beatles popularity in the USA primarily started because of their Ed Sullivan appearance. There was no MTV for them.

You’re making some very valid points there, and I’d like to offer my “white rock fan” perspective on this. :)

To me, music is something very personal, and the music that I grew up on will always remain close to my heart. As a kid, I didn’t get to choose which music was available to me. I listened to whatever was on the radio, on the TV, and in my family’s record collections, which happened to be mostly what would be considered rock music. So, growing up, my personal taste evolved from that foundation, and I found my place in the rock and metal community.

I’ve always kept an ear on other music to check out, and frequently branched out into blues, jazz, classical etc., but for most of the time I listened to rock and metal, and the majority of concerts I attended were rock and metal shows.

So I can confirm that the expectations that I, as a rock fan, have when I go to see a show are quite different from the expectations a pop or R&B fan might have.

In most of rock and metal (There are exceptions, of course!), authenticity is key. Most people you see on stage are not much different from who they are offstage. You rarely see any choreographed moves or wild costumes, it is expected that everyone sings live and plays their instruments live, and lip syncing is frowned upon to a point where it may kill your career when you’re caught doing it. In return, the audience is very forgiving when someone screws up on stage. It’s considered human to make mistakes, and it’s not expected that a song played live sounds exactly as it does on the album. We all just want to have a fun time. That said, people screw up very rarely. The level of skills and professionality is just as high as in any other genre. :)

If you’re not familiar with current rock music, please check out this live video from a favorite band of mine, H.E.A.T. from Sweden, live at Sweden Rock Festival 2018. I’m interested to hear everyone’s opinion, especially from those who don’t usually listen to rock. :)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/75vZNQbHTzM" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

As you can see, this is very different from, say, the Dangerous Tour footage. It’s funny now, being here on this forum, to admit that the idea to see MJ live in the 90’s never appealed to me. But if you see where I’m coming from, it does make sense.

So, I agree with the sentiment that both cultures in some ways exist in parallel worlds that rarely touch. But it has honestly never occurred to me to attribute this to some kind of low-level racism. Sure, take any large enough sample of people, and you’ll find some racists among them, but at least from my European perspective, their percentage in the rock and metal community is not higher than in any other community.

Back in the day when Guns ’n Roses appeared on the scene, no one here (Germany) was talking about Slash’s skin color, for instance. Then there’s another band called King’s X that’s highly regarded in the metal scene, and their singer and bass player Dug Pinnick is black, and I can’t remember that being a huge topic in the metal magazines at the time. This is him:

dug-pinnick-04.jpg


He grew up on Motown music, and this is what his band sounded like when they first rose to fame:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J2SYPzKzD94" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

King’s X is an interesting example, because their sound is also heavily influenced by the Beatles. Again, let me know what you think. :)

Then we have, of course, the example of the Brazilian groove-metal band Sepultura, that featured the percussion group Olodum on their album “Roots”. Yes, the Olodum from MJ’s TDCAU film.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/F_6IjeprfEs" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is not something I listen to personally, because I don’t enjoy that singing style. :laughing: But I’m interested in your opinion. :)

My experience is that whenever there is some kind of crossover that works for the rock and metal trained ear, it’s usually welcomed with open arms, and the lack of crossover between the genres, to me, seems to be mainly rooted in the major differences of the art form itself and its presentation, that you pointed out.

So, please don’t let a handful of racist :censored: keep you from exploring the rock and metal genre. I can’t talk for the specific community that was the reason to start this thread, but the rock and metal community in general is usually very welcoming and open-minded, and we need more people to cross over and mix, so that the few racists that you’ll find in any group of people don’t stand a chance.

Horns up! :punk:
 
From my experience, white males who like rock also tend to like other genres as well. So making assumptions like that is as pointless as others assuming racism.

It's no wonder people think MJ fans are nuts. There's almost no tolerance for anyone with different opinions, or even harmless comments. I got attacked on twitter by other fans a few weeks ago simply for saying that Paul McCartney had a bigger vocal range than Michael. Which is just a fact, but you'd think that I'd insulted Michael from the insane reaction I got. I understand being protective of him, but when people start shouting racism or jumping on every person who says something that doesn't align perfectly to their image of Michael, it makes us all look bad.
I didn't say the people on the Hoffman site were racist against MJ as the reason they don't like his music. That was others. I did mention that some Beatle fans were racist because of comments I've seen about Yoko. But I said they tended to be boomers. They came around not that long after WWII. In the US the Japanese were put in camps and they were still made fun of in the 1960s like the Mickey Rooney character in Breakfast At Tiffany's. You can see some of that in old Bugs Bunny cartoons too.

I've been on the Hoffman site before and it has a lot of good information about music and sometimes people who have worked on records like engineers & session musicians post there.
 
You have to remember Michael fans are mixed with all different races and backgrounds. but his culture and heritage is who is and what he is from. while it's not all of us some of people his on race call out racism because we live in America and we know how it is being MJ race in America and he did too. I have to agree. it's good to call out racism and teach about what racism is.

least be honest, Michael was black and there were and still is people who hate him because he black. it's a fact. they don't have to like his music but racism is another thing.

I agree some fans do take it too far but i'm glad fans do speak up about it. it's important.
 
Anna;4277911 said:
From my experience, white males who like rock also tend to like other genres as well. So making assumptions like that is as pointless as others assuming racism.

It's no wonder people think MJ fans are nuts. There's almost no tolerance for anyone with different opinions, or even harmless comments. I got attacked on twitter by other fans a few weeks ago simply for saying that Paul McCartney had a bigger vocal range than Michael. Which is just a fact, but you'd think that I'd insulted Michael from the insane reaction I got. I understand being protective of him, but when people start shouting racism or jumping on every person who says something that doesn't align perfectly to their image of Michael, it makes us all look bad.

Let me just say that I don’t care what people think of me as a MJ fan. These haters would never say that about any other artists’ fans.
. Btw, a FEW Michael fans should not be the overall description of ALL MJfans. I am a passionate, die-hard Michael fan; however, I listen to and appreciate ALL genres of music from Gershwin, Mozart, etc., Jazz, blues, country, rock, pop, hip-Hop, et.al. Btw, IMO Paul McCartney does not have a bigger vocal range than Michael. That’s not only because I am a MJ fan, it’s because I am a musician/vocalist who work with and train other vocalists and I think Michael’s range is bigger than Paul’s. It’s a personal opinion and a professional opionion. Of course, other professionals may have a completely different opionion, and that’s ok. It is perfectly alright to disagree.&#128522;
 
somewhereinthedark;4277941 said:
Btw, IMO Paul McCartney does not have a bigger vocal range than Michael. That&#8217;s not only because I am a MJ fan, it&#8217;s because I am a musician/vocalist who work with and train other vocalists and I think Michael&#8217;s range is bigger than Paul&#8217;s. It&#8217;s a personal opinion and a professional opionion. Of course, other professionals may have a completely different opionion, and that&#8217;s ok. It is perfectly alright to disagree.&#55357;&#56842;

Hey, I recently saw this on YouTube. :)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9o_jBt2QUJI" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I&#8217;m not into comparing artists, I just found this very interesting on its own.
 
somewhereinthedark;4277941 said:
Let me just say that I don&#8217;t care what people think of me as a MJ fan. These haters would never say that about any other artists&#8217; fans.
. Btw, a FEW Michael fans should not be the overall description of ALL MJfans. I am a passionate, die-hard Michael fan; however, I listen to and appreciate ALL genres of music from Gershwin, Mozart, etc., Jazz, blues, country, rock, pop, hip-Hop, et.al. Btw, IMO Paul McCartney does not have a bigger vocal range than Michael. That&#8217;s not only because I am a MJ fan, it&#8217;s because I am a musician/vocalist who work with and train other vocalists and I think Michael&#8217;s range is bigger than Paul&#8217;s. It&#8217;s a personal opinion and a professional opionion. Of course, other professionals may have a completely different opionion, and that&#8217;s ok. It is perfectly alright to disagree.&#62986;
Michael had a big range, he also had beautiful tone and control, but Paul's range was significantly bigger. These things are well documented. There are quite a few other popular singers with more range than Michael.
 
Michael had a big range, he also had beautiful tone and control, but Paul's range was significantly bigger. These things are well documented. There are quite a few other popular singers with more range than Michael.

*rips shirt off and screams, incessantly babbling pro-MJ stuff*
 
Paul McCartney having a bigger range than Michael Jackson. I have never heard that one before.

No offence to any Beatles fans, but I have felt that all of the Beatles were very average and boring singers, which is why I have never been able to fully get into Beatles music. Michael Jackson is head and shoulders above McCartney, Lennon, Harrison and Ringo Starr as a singer.
 
Here&#8217;s a video on Paul&#8217;s vocal range. :)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kZOysTWIsns" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I love them both, and &#8211; again &#8211; I really don&#8217;t like to compare artists, because everyone has the right to express themselves artistically just the way they like. I think what can be said, though, is that MJ was more inventive with his voice. Paul can sing incredibly well and you can always tell it&#8217;s Paul when you hear him, but he&#8217;s nowhere near MJ&#8217;s vocal creativity. In my opinion, the vocal range doesn&#8217;t matter as much as how the artist decides to use it. And even as someone who grew up on the Beatles and adores them, I give that to MJ. :)
 
ScreenOrigami;4277948 said:
Here&#8217;s a video on Paul&#8217;s vocal range. :)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kZOysTWIsns" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I love them both, and &#8211; again &#8211; I really don&#8217;t like to compare artists, because everyone has the right to express themselves artistically just the way they like. I think what can be said, though, is that MJ was more inventive with his voice. Paul can sing incredibly well and you can always tell it&#8217;s Paul when you hear him, but he&#8217;s nowhere near MJ&#8217;s vocal creativity. In my opinion, the vocal range doesn&#8217;t matter as much as how the artist decides to use it. And even as someone who grew up on the Beatles and adores them, I give that to MJ. :)

Sinatra had a tiny vocal range, but by God he used it so well.
 
Come to America in the deep south then we can talk my dear friends.

I know some stories about the deep south but I also like to tell you that my dream trip is the States. You guys have amazing things but I know of course that a lot of the things that happens in there are horrible, like racism. But I love the States and I first discovered your country thanks to Michael!
 
Paul McCartney having a bigger range than Michael Jackson. I have never heard that one before.
Well, it's true. It's one of the reasons why he ranks so high on greatest singer lists. A lot of people just think of ballads when they think of Paul - and he sang ballads beautifully - but he also sang things like Kansas City, Long Tall Sally, Helter Skelter, and Oh! Darling.
 
ScreenOrigami;4277912 said:
[video=youtube;F_6IjeprfEs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_6IjeprfEs[/video]
This is not something I listen to personally, because I don’t enjoy that singing style. :laughing:
I think people call this the Cookie Monster style. "C is for cookie, that's good enough for me!"
tumblr_oa5rikxc7G1vp26y0o5_250.gifv
I have an album by an all female band called Kittie. The singer mostly sings in a regular voice, but she does bust out the growling on some tracks. There's also a band called Oceans Of Slumber. The lead singer Cammie Gilbert sings normally, but the guitar player growls on some of the background parts. I can rarely understand what a singer is saying when they do this. Then again I can kinda say the same for rappers who rap really fast like Twista. It's like John Moschitta Jr. on a beat. :D
 
DuranDuran;4277956 said:
I think people call this the Cookie Monster style. "C is for cookie, that's good enough for me!"
I have an album by an all female band called Kittie. The singer mostly sings in a regular voice, but she does bust out the growling on some tracks. There's also a band called Oceans Of Slumber. The lead singer Cammie Gilbert sings normally, but the guitar player growls on some of the background parts. I can rarely understand what a singer is saying when they do this. Then again I can kinda say the same for rappers who rap really fast like Twista. It's like [/COLOR]John Moschitta Jr. on a beat. :D


I must admit, I haven&#8217;t heard of those bands, but some death metal bands make some really wicked music, I just can&#8217;t deal with the growls. Personal taste, because I think it&#8217;s great that they&#8217;re doing this, it&#8217;s just not for me. :laughing:
 
Happy New Year! :punk:

This turned out to be a nice conversation! :)

ScreenOrigami;4277948 said:
I love them both, and &#8211; again &#8211; I really don&#8217;t like to compare artists, because everyone has the right to express themselves artistically just the way they like.

In my opinion, the vocal range doesn&#8217;t matter as much as how the artist decides to use it.
I agree wholeheartedly with both claims. There are so many great singers out there with wide range and whatnot but that's not enough to stand out. Plus it's possible to sing perfectly technicality wise but in an empty manner. I much prefer an emotional/characteristic/raw performance with some out of tune sound here and there than a perfect but empty one (but I don't mind imperfectness or unevenness to begin with anyway). Some of my faves are not great singers in that sense TBH, but they may be exceptional in delivering emotions or moods (e.g. a kind of "broken" singing can convey vulnerability in a very genuine manner).

Anna;4277911 said:
It's no wonder people think MJ fans are nuts. There's almost no tolerance for anyone with different opinions, or even harmless comments. I got attacked on twitter by other fans a few weeks ago simply for saying that Paul McCartney had a bigger vocal range than Michael.
It's unfortunate they were rude with you, but why the need for generalisation? Certainly not every MJ fans are like this, and this behaviour isn't exclusive to MJ's fans either, every major artists have "fanatic" fans out there. Considering MJ has quite a wide fanbase it's almost inevitable to run into some, but they aren't the majority or typical. It's most certainly disappointing, and we can and should condemn this behaviour, but we can't take responsability for other fans actions.

ScreenOrigami;4277912 said:
I can&#8217;t talk for the specific community that was the reason to start this thread, but the rock and metal community in general is usually very welcoming and open-minded, and we need more people to cross over and mix, so that the few racists that you&#8217;ll find in any group of people don&#8217;t stand a chance.
I agree with you on that, and thank you for the recommendations!

Too bad for the singing style of Sepultura, I would quite enjoy their music apart from that actually (I know it's a legitimate metal singing style but just can't get into it. And sorry about the inaccuracies regarding metal subgenres/styles, I once even read an illustrated guide for dummies with examples and metaphors, but still can't get them right, haha).

On a side note I first heard Olodum on Paul Simon's great The Rhythm of the Saints album (1990), like I first heard Ladysmith Black Mambazo (they perform The Moon is Walking in Moonwalker) on his Graceland (1986) album. Paul Simon was definitely ahead of MJ in these cases. :tongue:

The H.E.A.T. song is what I would identify as "melodic rock" (please feel free to correct me). Enjoyable listen.

I like the King&#8217;s X song, singing style, energy, overall style, everything! I don't get the Beatles vibe though (more like 80s new wave influence and Prince). Thanks again, it's a great discovery!

BTW cross-over is/was always there as cultures aren't and can't be isolated, it just often not recognised (or denied in worse cases), but in most cases it's simply just for the "fair use" of everyone. There's a thin, but identifiable line between ripping of something and being influenced by it.

E.g. the "rolls dance" was actually captured on film before Chaplin, by Roscoe Arbuckle:

[video=youtube;jNN7bd3QHFE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNN7bd3QHFE[/video]

It was probably an old vaudeville gag that comedians improved over and over during their carreers, so no one was really ripping anyone (but yeah, Chaplin did it best :) ).

Bonus :D:

[video=youtube;JBKFVyGjSjw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBKFVyGjSjw[/video]
 
Last edited:
The Beatles had some hits, but eh they aren't that special to me. So, some people feel the same about Michael. It's life. What can you do, Xeones? Cheers to the New Year, by the way.
 
Xeones my advice to you dear is to stay away from bad sites and MJ haters. if the site does have a board for MJ then talk about him on that board. if the site is a all white forum then I guess talk about white artists there. you have the right to like MJ and talk about him if you want. those people doesn't have to be friends with you. find other MJ fans on the site if you can. i'm not sure what website you went to but my advice is to stay away from that site if there's no black artists on it. and if there are black artists which ones are they? newer artists or older? or both? like it or not MJ should get his own board if black artists are on the website as well. people can say what they want about MJ but at the end of the day he still artist and an legend. they don't have to talk to you. you don't have to talk to them. also if there's mods on the site they need to do their job. having a opinion is one thing but if the opinion full with hate and hurt it need to be addresses. anyway like you said they just white racists baby boomers that can't deal with the fact they not in the 50's anymore. i can't wait when these people are off the earth.

also in the future be careful when you make threads like these. your new so i understand. threads like these start a lot of trouble if your not careful. how? i can't answer that but just be careful.
 
I know some stories about the deep south but I also like to tell you that my dream trip is the States. You guys have amazing things but I know of course that a lot of the things that happens in there are horrible, like racism. But I love the States and I first discovered your country thanks to Michael!

Well thank you but it all not like it seems though. we may be free but we not are when it comes to justice. most likely if your any but white. it's sad that this stuff still exists. come here if you want just be careful. you don't wanna go to the deep south though. too much stuff be going on and it's too hot in the summer. heck it's even kind of warm in the fall in winter months. the weather not sure what it wants here. i totally believe climate change because it been feeling like that for a few years now and they really need to do something about it.
 
That forum is known for being more on the snob/elitist side and a lot of those types of forums tend to look down on Michael's music, unfortunately from my experience
 
Maybe it's best to not join that site if they treat Michael like trash. if there any other black artists on there then stay away completely because if they bashing on MJ they gonna bash on any black artists. racists hags.
 
Back
Top