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

[barbee0715]

Re: White male rock bias

Sorry. I found the picture and added it to my post later. I was just guessing the date. I was trying to take 4 yrs off his age instead of 2 I guess.

I'd really like to find that article though!!

 

[analogue]

Re: White male rock bias

Rolling Stone is a joke. When they did their top 50 greatest Michael Jackson songs there was no mention of songs like Who Is It, Give Into Me, They Don't Care About Us etc. But of course they just HAD to include two Paul McCartney duets (The Girl Is Mine and Say Say Say). I was surprised that Girlfriend and The Man didn't make the list.

And that top 50 list had way to much Jackson 5 songs for my liking. They felt that genius songs like Who Is It wasn't worthy enough for the list but ABC was

 

[DuranDuran]

Jann Wenner

When Rolling Stone was started by Jann Wenner, the whole idea was to write about rock music, specifically blues based rock and some folky style rock. That's why they praised The Rolling Stones, The Byrds, & Eric Clapton and less so for progressive rock & heavy metal or white acts who were more R&B (instead of blues) like Hall & Oates/Teena Marie. Jann Wenner & Rolling Stone is behind the Rock n Roll Hall Of Fame and how many heavy metal and Styx/Journey type bands are in it? ;D R&B was not the focus of RS (except maybe ones who crossed over) and Mike is basically considered R&B. The rock press like Rolling Stone & Creem made self-writing important and in general, R&B acts did not and neither what was called pop. Technically, pop is not a music itself, it's just short for popular music, whatever was hits on Top 40 radio. That's why they featured Marvin Gaye & Stevie Wonder more than acts like Lou Rawls & Teddy Pendergrass, who were mainly popular on R&B radio and didn't really crossover much, and did little if any songwriting. Rolling Stone today is a bit different than the earlier version, less rock.

 

[analogue]

Re: White male rock bias

Here's something I find interesting. Most rock music fans say that Elvis Presley was a better vocalist than Michael, but I've seen tons of Elvis tribute artists who can copy his voice and they do a damn good job at it. I have never seen anyone successfully imitate Michael's singing voice.

 

[Psychoniff]

Re: White male rock bias

Bingo!!!

 

[SoCav]

Re: White male rock bias

Here's something I find interesting. Most rock music fans say that Elvis Presley was a better vocalist than Michael, but I've seen tons of Elvis tribute artists who can copy his voice and they do a damn good job at it. I have never seen anyone successfully imitate Michael's singing voice.

I don't think that's a fair observation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing you're not an Elvis fan. If you're not particularly familiar with someone's voice then it might seem like the impersonators are successfully copying their voice. Many people also think guys like Malachi, Jean Walker and Marcus Joseph Williams do a great job copying Michael's voice. Heck, how many times have we seen people fooled by those guys even here or on other fan boards? It's not a rare occurrence. As a fan of Elvis I've never heard an impersonator who can imitate his voice at a much higher level than MJ impersonators have copied Michael. That is: none of them come really close.

 

[reibish]

Re: White male rock bias

^ pretty much 100% this entire post above. Don't think I could have said it better myself, especially about Bob Dylan, and he's one of my hometown heroes. Just 'cause he sounds like Christopher Walken on helium, and it's something we haven't heard before, doesn't mean it's good! Michael truly trained his voice and it shows.

Like others said - I don't mind if people don't like or understand Michael's music. That's fine. But to discredit it as poorly manufactured when that is just factually untrue is frustrating.

And then, I just scamper off 'cause well, I generally just feel sorry for people who don't get it

 

[MAQ]

Re: White male rock bias

Rolling Stone isn't a credible magazine when it comes to MJ. It's more like a tabloid really.

 

[Smooth72]

Re: White male rock bias

Here's something I find interesting. Most rock music fans say that Elvis Presley was a better vocalist than Michael, but I've seen tons of Elvis tribute artists who can copy his voice and they do a damn good job at it. I have never seen anyone successfully imitate Michael's singing voice.

I have to disagree with your statement most rock music fans say Elvis is a better vocalist than Mj. I am a rock music fan and so are my friends. None of them think that at all. I would say most rock music fans say Mj is the greatest ever.

 

[Soundmind]

Now Bowie is a bigger influence than MJ?!! lol

 

[analogue]

Anyone who says that Michael wasn't adventurous in the 90's have no idea what they're talking about

 

[Tony R]

Yes, it shouldn't but it does.

I listen a lot to 6 Music in the UK as I do like a lot of I guess what you'd call 'credible' music as well as love of perfect pop/R&B/dance music (MJ, Madonna) and the way they dismiss some of these artists is abhorrent, especially MJ & Madonna.

Somehow Prince gets the love and is not put down at all yet MJ is seen as a lesser talent.

We've discussed that before and I put it down to the fact that MJ wasn't an instrumentalist. But then neither was Bowie really.

I would never seek to put down Bowie as he's one of the best & most influential British artists ever.

Maybe MJ's popularity got too high so the old 'familiarty breeds contempt' kicked in, plus there was potentially too many gimmicks (the Ow's / hee hees/ crotch grab etc) that made it all too easy to become parody.

Same with Madonna with her sexual boundary pushing.

It does irk me that in a serious music conversation it is fine to say Prince/Bowie/Dylan/Springsteen but Jackson is scorned.

And like I am sure we'd all agree on, if they heard his 90's output in more detail, their views would be proved erroneous. They know the 'poppier' & more commercial TYWMMF, Beat It, Black or White, Smooth Criminal, Bad but if they only paid attention to Give In To Me, Who Is It, Morphine, Little Susie, Will You Be There etc...etc... and opened their mind then I'm sure it would start to change their opinions.

 

[Doggone]

Yep. Nathan is a hardcore MJ hater. But I don't care, because he is just embarrassing himself.

 

[analogue]

What's funny is that these people will say MJ did not take any chances musically in the 90's, but will then turn around and praise Off The Wall, and that's probably his ''safest'' album.

 

[Tony R]

I think you raised a good point there Tony and it's one I've never really considered before. MJ came with a lot of bells and whistles, from the elaborate music videos to the space rockets and jet packs on his tours. He loved Vegas entertainment and you could see that in his live shows. I think perhaps what MJ never realised though, was that most fans favourite parts of his shows were the times when it was just him and the spotlight. Billie Jean or Human Nature or Dirty Diana. I think in a way he did himself a disservice attempting to recreate his music videos in concert and it has contributed in some respects to this image of MJ only being this flashy popstar who made great pop music, as opposed to someone who can stand alongside serious singer/songwriter types such as Bowie, Dylan, Prince etc. And of course, the miming didn't help either.


Oh, and just for the record, Bowie did play instruments on his records and in concert. He wasn't a virtuoso or anything, but he was more than competent.

Was just questioning myself on the last part! I was just thinking of many Bowie performances compared to Prince and where Prince played guitar (Ziggy Played Guitar!!) more times that not, I can only picture Bowie occasionally. So I apologise.

On the MJ gimmick part, i know many times when playing a 'rare' MJ song to my wife/friends, if it is too full of affectations then I cringe a little.

I know that Xscape is not the best example as he didn't oversee the production but the beginning of DYCWYCA is a prome example of why this may mean people do not take him seriously and the fact that his on stage banter did not usually amount to more than the same.

I mean, I have loved MJ for 35 years & I love 97% of everything he ever did artistically but for this reason & can see why there were doubters, it just annoys me that the music quality did not overshadow it.

And you read my mind not to go over very old ground, but I also wonder if lip-syncing ever had anything to do with it? If every time they put on an MJ TV appearance or a live show it was lip-synced that will not have helped his credibility.

On the Madonna example, I was fraught with rage last week when 6 Music journalists totally dismissed her Bowie tribute where as Springsteens & countless otehr guitar band's were lauded.

 

[HIStory]

There is snobism and there is ignorance. I would put this guy in the latter category. I mean to have an opinion about what music you like or don't like is one thing but to be ignorant about facts, such as who wrote what song ("Anyone who actually believes that has no right to call me stupid.") is indeed stupid. It's not a matter of "belief" who wrote Don't Stop Til You Get Enough, Billie Jean, Beat It, Wanna Be Startin Somethin, Earth Song, Black or White, Smooth Criminal, The Way You Make Me Feel and many more of his songs. It's a fact MJ wrote them. Who else did if not him? Can Nathan name us the real writers of these songs then? LOL.

MJ also brought in co-writers or co-producers, yes, but the majority of his songs and especially his most significant songs were written by him (and usually by him alone). Nathan's refusal of believing FACTS does not amount to anything other thanwillful ignorance on his part.

That he does not even want to face facts tells it all. I don't think it is worth debating with him because what do you do with someone who refuses to even acknowledge basic facts that are so easy to look up? It shows a deep seated prejduice and closed-mindedness on his part against MJ where he seems to have decided that his personal beliefs about what MJ was or was not capable of writing are stronger than actual facts.

LOL at him bringing up Madonna doing Evita as an example of adventurous music. With that he lost all credibility to me. LOL. And LOL at him calling songs like WII, TDCAU, Is It Scary etc. standard, average pop songs. Who else did songs like that? But like I said I would not take this guy seriously. Someone who is so biased that he is not even willing to acknwoledge facts isn't worth debating with. Let him be in his little bubble of delusion where MJ did not write any of his songs and never created anything but generic songs.

(I see now everyone jumped on the David Bowie bandwagon. Suddenly he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I say it as someone who is a long time casual fan of Bowie, not a post-death bandwagoner.)

 

[SarahJ]

This is just a few examples of a conversation I had on another forum comparing MJ to Bowie:[/QUOTE]

Evita? Now that made me laugh.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Yeah, there's even a blog online with the title Who Really Michael Jackson's Billie Jean and Beat It? http://superiorshit.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/who-really-wrote-michael-jacksons.html

My theory is that MJ was so gifted and was so far-reaching in his impact that I think some people like to diminish his own contribution to his work. They like to believe that other people were responsible for MJ's success. To those people who say that Quincy was the one who made OTW, Thriller and Bad such great albums, I would point out that MJ continued to write great songs and sell millions of records long after he stopped working with Quincy, whereas what has Quincy done since Bad?

how was Quincy Jones done after Bad when his 1989 LP Back on the Block won a grammy for best album of the year? and the album won a total of 7 grammys

then working with Tevin Campbell in the early 90s producing many hit records for him too

and he was producing hit TV shows in the process and founded Vibe Magazine in the early to mid 90s

his career just kept on rolling after MJ

 

[HIStory]

I think you raised a good point there Tony and it's one I've never really considered before.

MJ came with a lot of bells and whistles, from the elaborate music videos to the space rockets and jet packs on his tours. He loved Vegas entertainment and you could see that in his live shows. I think perhaps what MJ failed to realise though, was that most fans favourite parts of his shows were the times when it was just him and the spotlight. Billie Jean or Human Nature or Dirty Diana. I think in a way he did himself a disservice attempting to recreate his iconic music videos onstage and it has contributed in some respects to this image of MJ only being this flashy popstar who made great pop music, as opposed to someone who can stand alongside serious singer/songwriter types such as Bowie, Dylan, Prince etc. And of course, the miming didn't help either.

Where did he do that?

If anything, most of his tours were surprisingly simple in terms of stage sets. Mostly it WAS just him on the stage and nothing else. How is the Bad Tour, for example, some big flashy show in terms of the surroundings (stage set etc.)? Of course, at times he had four dancers for the choreography, and the occasional costum change, but that's only natural - he was a dancer as much as a singer, it was a part of his art. He did not have to be anyone else to be accepted by some snobby critic who only values music if it is performed by a guy who stands on stage with a guitar. Compare stage sets from other pop stars (eg. Madonna, Beyonce etc.) to MJ's stage sets and MJ's are very, very simple and the show is mainly about him, not the stage or an army of dancers or butt-shaking girls in flashy costumes surrounded by an elaborate laser show. The lip-syncing in his later career definitely did not help, but MJ's critical rejection did not start with that. It actually started with Off the Wall. LOL. Remember when Rolling Stone wrote this:

IMO these music magazines who mainy dictate what is considered cool and what is not in snob circles simply never understood Michael Jackson and his art. During Thriller they did praise him but that was basically the only period of his career when they did and that was only because then he was so big that they could not ignore him ("I had to tell them I ain't second to none."), not because they really liked him even then. I think these music magazines who dictate what is considered sophisticated, good and cool aesthetically in music have a very clearly detectable bias for certain "values" and "rules" in music. Most of these mags are in the hands of white, upper-middle class men, many of whom are of baby boomers. It's no coincidence there is such a heavy bias in Rolling Stone for the Beatles and Bob Dylan and Springsteen and U2 and stuff like that. MJ never fit into that aesthetics.

They consider a guy standing on stage with a guitar more "authentic" than a singing-dancing act. They rate playing an instrument higher than dancing. I think this is clearly a bias for a certain "value" system in music - shall I say the white man's aesthetics? Because singing-dancing acts (James Brown, Jackie Wilson etc.) were traditionally black singers. Most white artists could not dance on that level, so most white artists played a guitar instead. And what did the white dominated music industry do? Over the decades they put this white dominated formula - the guy with a guitar - on a pedestal as "authentic" and "artistic" while looking down on singing-dancing acts as just "cheap entertainment". Think about that...

The good news is that Michael does not need these music mags and musical snobs to keep up his legacy. He is bigger than snobs, bigger than music magazines and his music keeps living on and keeps selling and keeps streaming like no one else's from his generation. So we can laugh off critics and haters. It's not their opinions that will determine what Michael's art means to people. Eventually people will like what they like. And Michael's music seems pretty well liked by many generations.

 

[HIStory]

I'm not so much talking about the staging, but the way he tried to re-create his music videos onstage, adopting the same choreography, dance routines and costumes (Thriller, Beat It, Smooth Criminal etc). I just think it limited him somewhat as a performer and made many of his live shows very rigid. He had this very fixed idea that this is what people wanted from him and rarely strayed off the beaten path, which ultimately, is why I think he lost interest in live performing.


Most fans would've chopped off their left arm to see him do an MTV Unplugged, something raw, stripped back, showcasing his God given vocals and stage presence in a far less theatrical, intimate way. I don't know why Michael never did this, but I think it would've helped him in terms of being taken more seriously, as opposed to just being viewed as one of the best song and dance men of the twentieth century, which imo, is an insult to the mans talents.

What is wrong with doing the choreography on stage that he did in videos? If anything it shows that he is able to perform the same stuff live as he did in videos. He was always amazingly light footed and he did that Beat It choreography or Smooth Criminal choreography with such an ease that it was amazing.

I am sure MJ could have shone in an MTV Unplugged surrounding as well and I am not saying I would not have loved to see it had he decided to do it, on the other hand that MTV Unplugged thing became such a cliché back in the 90s that I am kind of glad he did not do it. I would have loved to have seen the HBO special though.

Also, when fans long for MJ performing on a stool at MTV Unplugged like Eric Clapton, don't they really want to make another artist out of him than who he was as an artist? Because he wasn't the "sitting on a stool" type of artist. Dancing was an inherent part of his art. He danced like no one else, that was a part of his art, his talent and Eric Clapton sat on a stool because he did not have that talent. Do Eric Clapton fans say "I wish Eric had done some big dance choreography on stage like MJ did"? I doubt that. It seems to me that there is a general acceptance of these aesthetics (even here among MJ fans) that sitting on the stool with a guitar in an intimate surrounding is inherently more superior artistically than a dancing-singing show (when in fact the latter is very difficult). Or is it just the desire to show off to snobs?

I get it that some fans would have loved him to change his shows a bit more, but I doubt it has anything to do with why he is not accepted by snobs. Does he have to, by the way? Why? Why does it matter what snobs, especially extremely ignorant ones like the one in the OP, think about him? I am actually glad MJ never tried to cater to snobs. I cringe when I see artists who can hardly play three accords take a guitar and play an acoustic verson of their songs just to show off how "artistic" they are.

 

[SarahJ]

I honestly dont think it matters what he did, someone, somewhere would have been unhappy. The fact is people had a certain expectation for Michael as a performer which I think he knew full well. They wanted to see him dance and perform at his fullest. Which he did. Even if he had simplified it more, they (the press and industry) would have still him bashed it for it. Probably would have said he had lost his showmanship or his ability to dance at his fullest etc..

And there is footage of his J5 days where it is just him and a mic. He knew what people expected of him and he tried to give them that.

 

[HIStory]

I honestly dont think it matters what he did.

This. I don't think it mattered what he did or did not do (unless he had fully changed to some blues-rock genre LOL). He simply did not fit into the genre/formula/image that snobs generally like and that's it. But I don't think it is a bad thing he did not. His music will survive, snobs' opinions won't.

What is a "serious" music critic anyway (re. the title of the thread)? I think serious critics are not closed-minded but many of these crticis that bashed MJ at these so called "serious" music magazines were extremely closed-minded about him. So how is that serious music criticism? How is it serious music criticism when in critiquing his album they do not focus on the actual content of the album but on his (assumed) private life? How is it serious music journalism when in a so called "tribute" article after his death Rolling Stone focuses more on rumours about his nose and interviews Brooke ******* instead of talking about his music?

 

[dewey]

^^^^I'm having the same thoughts about Knopper's book. He writes well in some areas, but adds what I consider 'digs' into the text; Michael's preoccupation with his nose, his relationships with boys, how he had great initial ideas for a song or songs, but needed music professionals around him to 'complete' his vision. It's taking me forever to read it. How is this Michael's genius? Sigh.

 

[Psychoniff]

I've already established a thread similar to this: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/135484-White-male-rock-bias

 

[Psychoniff]

I know that Xscape is not the best example as he didn't oversee the production but the beginning of DYCWYCA is a prome example of why this may mean people do not take him seriously

What you mean here?

 

[Tony R]

What you mean here?

What I mean is the inordinate amount of hee-hee's in the first 20 seconds.

It's like a Bo Selecta parody

I love the album but this remix & specifically this opening segment is awful.

 

[HIStory]

how he had great initial ideas for a song or songs, but needed music professionals around him to 'complete' his vision.

Like said before in this thread it almost seems like they are so jealous of his many talents that they just feel the need to diminish them. Each and every artist has collaborators, producers and helpers in the studio. George Martin was called the fifth Beatle for a reason. Tony Visconti was David Bowie's life-time producer and collaborator. Just because these people weren't so much in the spotlight as Quincy Jones they were there.

Robert Hoffman (Robmix)

"Michael actually does come up with incredible guitar parts as well as drums, strings, piano, and whatever else is needed. He’ll sing every note and beat of song to his programmer du jour or the session musicians. In some cases he’ll multitrack his beatbox and vocal melody lines then build the song piece by piece, choosing the appropriate sounds to replace his voice. It really is incredible !!!!! On one session MJ sang each note of every chord and passing tones to a session guitar player. Insane. On a horn session with Jerry Hey, MJ sang each note of a 4 part horn section line by line. And, Steve Porcaro once told me story where MJ sang each note of an orchestral arrangement to the arranger while the string players waited in the live room. And his time, his groove is just out of this world."
— Rob Hoffman (sound engineer)

"One morning MJ came in with a new song he had written overnight. We called in a guitar player, and Michael sang every note of every chord to him. “'Here’s the first chord, first note, second note, third note. Here’s the second chord first note, second note, third note', etc etc. We then witnessed him giving the most heartfelt and profound vocal performance, live in the control room through an SM57," says Hoffman.

"He would sing us an entire string arrangement, every part. Steve Porcaro once told me he witnessed MJ doing that with the string section in the room. Had it all in his head, harmony and everything. Not just little eight bar loop ideas. He would actually sing the entire arrangement into a micro-cassette recorder complete with stops and fills."

http://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/the-incredible-way-michael-jackson-wrote-music

Brad Sundberg

I have watched him write many songs, and the process is amazing. I asked him where they came from, and he said they were gifts from God. He could hear the entire song in his head before we could get tape on the machines. He would sometimes sing the drums, bass, percussion, keyboards, etc., and we would later bring in musicians to replace his demo tracks.

 

[Superfly King]

What I don't like is how some people write off MJ as just another generic pop artist just because he had the audacity to work for a major record label and sell millions of records. They think just because something is "mainstream" it's automatically bad and that MJ didn't have "true artistic integrity". Which is complete B.S because he always put 110% in every song. His success is not purely based on commercialism, it's based on his amazing talent as a songwriter and a performer. He's called the King of Pop for a reason.

 

[analogue]

Because he wasn't the "sitting on a stool" type of artist. Dancing was an inherent part of his art

This is the same guy who can't resist pulling out some dance moves for Heal The World. I think him sitting on stool for an entire show would have been impossible for him

 

[Tony R]

I get what you're saying about different types of performers, and I completely agree, James Brown is no less of an artist than Eric Clapton just because he didn't sit at a stool and play an instrument. I also agree with you that their is a heavy bias towards these artists and it most likely stems from the culture of racism in the music industry. Throughout history and right up until this day, black artists have never been afforded the same exposure or respect as their white contemporaries and the history books have (successfully to some degree) done everything they can to gloss over the influence and impact of so many black luminaries. They never get celebrated in the same way compared to the likes of Elvis, Dylan, Springsteen and the usual suspects. I'm sure you already know that, so I don't need to go into it.

Having said that, I think the desire to see Michael strip things back isn't anything to do with trying to get him to fit into the mould set by white rock guitarists (seemingly the only type of people who can be taken seriously by these elitist magazines and critics). I think it's because, unlike Clapton or Springsteen or Dylan, MJ could've done both. He was an amazing dancer and showman and yes, that is where his roots lied, inspired by the likes of James Brown and Jackie Wilson etc. But he also had a remarkable singing voice which so often gets overshadowed by the MJ package of bells and whistles. If he had of done an MTV Unplugged, and sang completely live for an hour and a half, doing acoustic versions of One Day In Your Life, She's Out Of My Life, Who Is It, Billie Jean etc, it would've blew all the other try-hards out of the water. Forget Nirvana, forget Clapton... MJ would've owned it. It just frustrates me, as a fan, that he is not recognised or given credit for being an amazing singer, beatboxer, songwriter and musician.

James Brown is a really good point of reference, JB, Sammy Davis Jr even Al Green and Sam Cooke....as far as I know all song and dance men rather than musicians.

I'd put it down to points referenced previously:

1. Familiarity breeds contempt - much trendier to praise a less popular artist
2. Too many affectations and vocal ticks
3. Too many mimed performances