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

His critics won't like this then..The Dangerous album is currently at #32 on the Worldwide iTunes Albums Chart. It was at #44 the last time I saw it.
http://kworb.net/aww/
 
His critics won't like this then..The Dangerous album is currently at #32 on the Worldwide iTunes Albums Chart. It was at #44 the last time I saw it. http://kworb.net/aww/
Rock critics are not as likely to care about most of what is popular on the charts in the 1st place as that is commercial sellout trash to them. I recall a Rolling Stone best albums list from the 1980s and they had the Sex Pistols Never Mind The Bullocks as #2 and a Velvet Underground album was in the top 10 too. Sex Pistols didn't sell much in the US as punk rock was not a big thing here in the 1970s, disco & arena rock was. I think punk was maybe well known in certain areas like New York City. Velvet Underground was not a well known mainstream group either, their name fits. :rofl: I'm not saying more sales = better quality, but just to illustrate the kind of stuff rock critics consider cool. They might have liked when the Commodores was a R&B/funk band instead of later being known as the Lionel Richie AC ballad band, lol.
 
It's probably because Mike is considered a R&B singer (and that is his primary field). For the most part, R&B and soul as a genre has never really got the same respect by rock critics as blues, particularly blues guitarists. That's why blues based guitar acts are more likely to be praised. So called "blue-eyed soul" acts such Average White Band, Teena Marie, and Hall & Oates do not get the same rock critic recognition as blues based acts (ig. Eric Clapton, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Rolling Stones). The light rock acts of the late 1970s were not really considered cool and they usually had some R&B/soul influence. In the US, R&B is considered music mainly for a black audience, and they have to "cross over" to the Top 40 pop stations to get mainstream recognition and media attention. The rock press also created the idea that a act has to self-write, which was popularized by The Beatles and Bob Dylan in the early 1960s. Few popular acts pre-British Invasion wrote their own material. Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Johnny Mathis, Bing Crosby, etc didn't write songs and the audience of that time didn't care about that. R&B acts in general do not write songs either. It's more producer and/or professional songwriter driven like Holland Dozier Holland, Curtis Mayfield, Gamble & Huff, Jam & Lewis, Norman Whitfield, Babyface, etc. Rock critics consider self writers to be more important than just a singer.
 
Nope it doesn't bother me one bit.

The haters can seethe and write all the articles and reviews they want but they'll never change the fact that Michael is the best artist and entertainer of all time.
Additionally, Michael has been inducted into both the songwriters and rock hall of fame (ironic isn't it).

As for Michael placing low on Rolling Stones list and Elvis placing so high, it's no secrect that the Rolling Stone has a bias against Michael, and honestly they only place Elvis on a pedalstool because they feel the need to try and affirm his place as being the best when they know that in reality Michael is the best, and has had much more impact and influence on the music industry then Elvis ever had.

Don't believe me?
If you don't all you have to do is look at the media that seems to be obsessed with finding the next MJ, and also notice how every current artist and entertainer wants to be MJ or reach his level of success (which will never happen), but the media doesn't seem to care about finding the next Elvis (or anybody else for that matter).

This is beacause Michael is the best, and naturally everyone else wants to be the best.
 
I think some people think that to be a great vocalist you have to be a powerhouse vocalist. I consider that a very narrow-minded view about what great vocals are but I have seen a lot of times that the more a singer "shouts" and "screams" people tend to rate it the more (for example at talent shows). Some also mistake lound screaming for conveying emotions IMO. Michael wasn't a powerhouse vocalist like Whitney or Freddie Mercury, although of course he could deliver very powerful vocal performances (eg. Earth Song). But the way he used his vocals were very creative - eg. his tendency of using it as an instrument, particularly percussion - and unique. He was a very versatile vocalist which is why he sounded good in almost any genre. Most singers only sound good within their own genre, but MJ could do a just as convincing rock delivery as he did soul. He had very flexible vocals, he was very soulful, he conveyed emotions in his vocals very well. One may not like the tone of his voice or prefer more masculine voices for male vocalists but, but to say he wasn't a great vocalist is idiotic IMO.

Last week on the UK version of ''The Voice'' there were two singers singing ''I Just Can't Stop Loving You'' and they were using powerhouse vocals, and also using vocal acrobatics. It sounded terrible, and didn't fit the song at all. Those powerhouse vocals that they were using took all the emotion out of the song.
 
Yes of course it does! I wish Michael was given the amount of respect Elvis Presley in his time and I know Michael wished the same. Michael is not given the gratitude he deserves and that is so unfair
 

LOL, you shouldn't think stuff like this too seriously.

There are a lot of problems with the conclusions of this article. The methods based on which the data was colleced pre-destines the result to be favourable towards typically white upper-middle class males and thus the typical musical taste of that class. Not surprising that Radiohead rather dominates the taste of that class than R&B music. I kind of agree with this comment under the article:

I read the article as it is trying to connect "dumbness" with black music with which the lower half is filled.
If the author is only a bit more sensitive about the difference of correlation and causation, s/he would have easily found it inappropriate.
Black people would like musics by black people. That's natural.
Black people also tend to have lower income, thus the lower standard of education, thus the lower SAT score.
Without saying, SAT score is not the only way to measure the intelligence.
The figure says nothing but these trivial facts, however it implicitly tring to connect "music" and "dumbness". That's unfair.
I see lot of smart people who like rap music. They sometimes make one. Google Hacking Rap.
Finally. Show it to the professor in the class you are attending/have attended. You will be ashamed.

People with higher SAT scores aren't necessarily naturally smarter than others but they have the social advantages (money, better lower educational and familial background etc) to go to the best colleges and universities where they (including their musical taste) then will dominate the culture, of course.

Like this commenter said:

Great example of how NOT to do research. Correlation does not imply causation. Now, I'm gonna go put on some Beethoven... :^)

There is also a level of self-determination in the chosen music of a class. I mean a little bit of sheep mentality. I used to go to a relatively "elite" high school and I saw that you were supposed to have a certain music taste to fit in with that group, so of course that makes even people "choose" that music (or at least display it as their fave music publicly - like on FB) who naturally maybe would not necessarily gravitate towards it.

Like this commenter said:

My question about this study is did it actually track their spotify or pandora or just what the student claimed to like on FB. Because that is a huge difference. A lot of people claim to like the "cool" music while listening to Taylor Swift secretly.

And lastly, being good at science, maths, liberal sciences or whatever that is required at a university does not necessarily mean that you have a great sense of music. The two are two different things.

I'm glad many commenters call out the dumbness of the article. LOL.

did they confuse the word smart with smartass

How about an article that is called, "Articles that make you dumb"?

I am a statistician, and to everyone out there articles like these are not valid. Most people don't understand how to carry out proper statistical analysis. If I was given any sort of data I can most likely find associations within it between two factors. This is most definitely a biased article trying to get attention.

The person who wrote this article is an idiot.

Actually though, if they're sorting by SAT scores, there's a lot of issues having to do with race and class, and economic and educational opportunity, that have impacts on SAT scores and college attendance, which means that there could be, on average, differences in scores between racial and cultural groups, and those cultural groups have a lot more influence on musical tastes than do intelligence - or SAT score.
 
Last edited:

Yup, I'm aware of all the things that you said, but regardless of the bias of such research, articles like these promote greater inequalities and ostracise those that do not conform to the rules dictated by the privileged. It's easier to mock rappers and R'n'B artists than classical musicians and composers, unfortunately.
 
Nope it doesn't bother me one bit.

The haters can seethe and write all the articles and reviews they want but they'll never change the fact that Michael is the best artist and entertainer of all time.
Additionally, Michael has been inducted into both the songwriters and rock hall of fame (ironic isn't it).

As for Michael placing low on Rolling Stones list and Elvis placing so high, it's no secrect that the Rolling Stone has a bias against Michael, and honestly they only place Elvis on a pedalstool because they feel the need to try and affirm his place as being the best when they know that in reality Michael is the best, and has had much more impact and influence on the music industry then Elvis ever had.

Don't believe me?
If you don't all you have to do is look at the media that seems to be obsessed with finding the next MJ, and also notice how every current artist and entertainer wants to be MJ or reach his level of success (which will never happen), but the media doesn't seem to care about finding the next Elvis (or anybody else for that matter).

This is beacause Michael is the best, and naturally everyone else wants to be the best.


Where were the haters at during OTW and Thriller, that word didnt exist then. There were no conversations then about hating
 
Last edited:
It bothers me a little, especially when imitators like Justin Timberlake get more consistent respect than Michael ever did. Every time someone cracks a horrible "joke" about MJ I usually groan in response. Some have resulted in laughter out of shock, but the groan usually follows afterward.
 
this all plays with racial issues - If Michael was not a black man he would no doubt would have over shadowed anyone far beyond he already has.. Simple!
 
Hound Dog

Elvis's very first hit was written by a black queer woman, Big Momma Thornton. Shame she didn't get enough recognition for that.
Not true. Hound Dog was written by 2 white songwriters, Jerry Leiber & Mike Stoller, but Big Mama did record it first. Elvis actually remade the Freddie Bell version, which had different lyrics from the original song.
 
KOPV;4139041 said:
this all plays with racial issues - If Michael was not a black man he would no doubt would have over shadowed anyone far beyond he already has.. Simple!
I definitely agree with this!!! You are right, to a certain extent. Add to that the fact that he was once a child star when he began his career and has largely been thought of as a “song-and-dance man,” or an “entertainer,” instead of a “serious” artist; The media’s pinpointing its focus on his personal, private life —— especially after the success of “Thriller” —— the changes in his outward physical appearance, etc.
 
Last edited:
Fullip was talking about his first hit... Hound Dog wasn't it!
 
Every time someone cracks a horrible "joke" about MJ I usually groan in response. Some have resulted in laughter out of shock, but the groan usually follows afterward.

When people laugh at those jokes, I've noticed that's usually a really uncomfortable kind of laughter.
 
That's Alright

Fullip was talking about his first hit... Hound Dog wasn't it!
If you're talking about That's Alright, that's not Big Mama either. That was Arthur Crudup, who is black but not a woman. :cheeky:
 
this all plays with racial issues - If Michael was not a black man he would no doubt would have over shadowed anyone far beyond he already has.. Simple!

That's like saying Beyonce would be bigger if she was a man.
 
That's like saying Beyonce would be bigger if she was a man.

You do realize that we are not in the 80's anymore right? The 'struggle' is a little different my friend... A history lesson really should no be needed for this right?
 
FullLipsDotNose;4139014 said:
Elvis's very first hit was written by a black queer woman, Big Momma Thornton. Shame she didn't get enough recognition for that.
FullLipsDotNose, what, exactly, does “queer” mean? I do remember either hearing or reading that “Big MamaThornton was the first artist to record “Hound Dog,” though. I believe that Elvis Presley just copycatted, ripped off and outright stole from not only her (like a lot of early “Rock-and-Roll” performers ending up becoming world-famous did with “Blues” singers, most of whom, O.T.O.H., never got recognized nor credited for their music), but from other Black “Blues” and early performers who sang and played what would become the forerunner of, and would lay down the groundwork for, “R&B”/“Soul” music.

Black music, and its musicians, came out of an entire culture and its people who were mostly looked down upon, in so-called “mainstream” society, as being whatever despicable, vile names that racists called them by. Anything that originated way back in Africa was/is thought of as beneath White society, but at the same time, many White young people copy and admire what they see someone else wearing, the music someone plays or sings, etc., as a way of rebellion against their parents’ values and mores, and because the clothing styles, music, hairstyles and so forth are considered “hip” and “cool.” What do you think, about this?
 
Last edited:
GGVVGGCC22331122;4139078 said:
FullLipsDotNose, what, exactly, does “queer” mean? I do remember either hearing or reading that “Big Mama” Thornton was the first artist to record “Hound Dog,” though. I believe that Elvis Presley just copycatted, ripped off and outright stole from not only her (like a lot of early “Rock-and-Roll” performers ending up becoming world-famous did with “Blues” singers, most of whom, O.T.O.H., never got recognized nor credited for their music), but from other Black “Blues” and early performers who sang and played what would become the forerunner of, and would lay down the groundwork for, “R&B”/“Soul” music.

Black music, and its musicians, came out of an entire culture and its people who were mostly looked down upon, in so-called “mainstream” society, as being whatever despicable, vile names that racists called them by. Anything that originated way back in Africa was/is thought of as beneath White society, but at the same time, many White young people copy and admire what they see someone else wearing, the music someone plays or sings, etc., as a way of rebellion against their parents’ values and mores, and because the clothing styles, music, hairstyles and so forth are considered “hip” and “cool.”

Queer is an umbrella term for non-straight or non-binary people (those that don't identify as either a man or a woman, are gender-fluid and so forth), which means that it encompasses, among others, homosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, transpeople, people questioning their sexuality or gender...

If I'm not mistaken, BMT was a butch lesbian: http://bugsburnett.blogspot.cz/2011/07/all-star-tribute-to-blues-legend-and.html
 
One of the most ironic parts about any current artist being more respected then Michael is that the only reason that they themselves are successful is because they followed Michaels blueprint.

But then again no current artist is as successful as Michael, so do more haters mean you're more successful LOL.
 
Last edited:
^^Has that word come back in fashion or something? When I was young, that was quite a slur.

From what I read on Wiki, it used to be a slur, but it was reclaimed by the community. There may be people that don't like straight cispeople using the word - I'm not one of them - and so there are other acceptable terms like QUILTBAG, LGBT+ or whatever else. I say either queer or QUILTBAG, I don't like saying LGBT+, because it seems to me we are pushing some people under that plus and not giving them full recognition.
 
GGVVGGCC22331122;4139078 said:
I do remember either hearing or reading that “Big MamaThornton was the first artist to record “Hound Dog,” though. I believe that Elvis Presley just copycatted, ripped off and outright stole from not only her (like a lot of early “Rock-and-Roll” performers ending up becoming world-famous did with “Blues” singers, most of whom, O.T.O.H., never got recognized nor credited for their music), but from other Black “Blues” and early performers who sang and played what would become the forerunner of, and would lay down the groundwork for, “R&B”/“Soul” music.

Black music, and its musicians, came out of an entire culture and its people who were mostly looked down upon, in so-called “mainstream” society, as being whatever despicable, vile names that racists called them by. Anything that originated way back in Africa was/is thought of as beneath White society, but at the same time, many White young people copy and admire what they see someone else wearing, the music someone plays or sings, etc., as a way of rebellion against their parents’ values and mores, and because the clothing styles, music, hairstyles and so forth are considered “hip” and “cool.” What do you think, about this?
Elvis and rock n roll was not just accepted by whites just because he was the same race. Many whites of the era called Elvis a n-lover and that rock n roll music was a bad influence on youth and caused juvenile deliquency. People complained about Elvis dancing and so he was shown waist up on TV. Johnny Cash did an interview in the mid-1980s and said a country singer (he didn't name who it was) at the Grand Old Opry told Elvis to his face that he made n- music with disdain and walked off. The irony of this is that country & western originally had some influence from the blues. Maybelle Carter, who is considered the "mother of country music", had guitar lessons from black guitarist Lesley Riddle. 1940s country acts like Bob Wills mixed country with jazz. Johnny said Elvis cried and never returned to the Opry. The popularity of rock is why the payola hearings happened in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The powers that be tried to shut it down. Payola had always existed in the record business, but only when rock/R&B caught on with white teenagers, that's when payola became a "problem" to punish. Elvis mentioned his influences, he didn't try to hide it. So I never got this Elvis ripped off black music idea. Little Richard got his scream from Marion Williams and his piano style from Esquerita, but nobody says he ripped off anybody. Richard's early records were slow blues, not the later style he became known for. Ray Charles originally copied Nat King Cole, but it's only considered a ripoff (not an influence) when a white person does it. Early R&B itself copied from gospel, in some cases by changing the words of a gospel song to secular.
[video=youtube;xd1pXw1DmsA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd1pXw1DmsA[/video]
[video=youtube;8IC3areNetI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IC3areNetI[/video]
 
Back
Top