Latest on MJJC

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

FullLipsDotNose said:
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.
Click to expand...

^^Thanks. I've just noticed it here recently so thought I'd ask you about it. It used to be a pretty word that I was very sorry turned nasty.*

I've never heard of quilt bag either, but I'll look it up. Thanks.
 
For Elvis fans, I don't think anyone is taking away from his talent nor are they taking away from his actual love for Rock n Roll.. He had it in his heart, the part MJ fans are mentioning is the fact he became 'King Of RocknRoll' with support of white media and white propaganda.. You could have taken a black guy with the same talent, same moves, same everything aside from look/race and that person would have never reached a fraction of what Elvis did..

His race help him and it would be silly for anyone to say otherwise considering the time period... He still was awesome! no one is taking that away
 
KOPV said:
For Elvis fans, I don't think anyone is taking away from his talent nor are they taking away from his actual love for Rock n Roll.. He had it in his heart, the part MJ fans are mentioning is the fact he became 'King Of RocknRoll' with support of white media and white propaganda.. You could have taken a black guy with the same talent, same moves, same everything aside from look/race and that person would have never reached a fraction of what Elvis did..

His race help him and it would be silly for anyone to say otherwise considering the time period... He still was awesome! no one is taking that away
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Elvis is cool and nobody is saying that he wasn't talented, but overall MJ is better and has had more impact and influence on the music industry and the world then Elvis ever did (so has The Beatles tbh).

However, the main reason I even like The Beatles is because without them we wouldn't have that amazing Come Together cover MJ did (that song and video slays).

MJ is also much more popular among young people then Elvis. :)
 
Last edited:
Re: Elvis

DuranDuran said:
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.
Click to expand...



anytime your career in entertainment last over 20 years, that means you had talent of your own
 
Re: White male rock bias

No, I don' t care. I also don't care for the notion that black artists need white approval to be validated.
 
KOPV said:
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?
Click to expand...

Edit: Never mind. You picked me up wrong.
 
Last edited:
FullLipsDotNose;4139082 said:
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
Click to expand...
Thanks, for telling me, FullLipsDotNose. So, you are saying, then, that anyone who chooses not to “identify” as what he or she genetically, physically, truthfully and actually was born, and is by nature - (who considers himself/herself in any way other than exclusively so-called “CIS-gendered”) - who also prefers to live a non-heterosexual lifestyle, is viewed as “queer”?

I’m just trying to understand your meaning of that term, because I, or someone else, might have a different view of it, and what group of people it once had referred to.

As to the issue of outright stealing from an entire people and its culture, this type of what is now called “appropriation” (which is the same thing as copycatting and ripping off, often without giving credit to the true originators - the vast majority of whom remain unknown - of a particular way of singing or dancing, a style of wearing the hair or the clothing, a certain style of music, etc., or anything culturally significant to groups who have a long history of undergoing oppression, and having things taken from their culture to be used by the dominant “mainstream” society) has been going on for decades, even for centuries.

So, it’s nothing new, and some form of this “appropriation” still goes on, to this day. You hear certain “artists’ ” songs and see their music Videos. There was, at one point - some time ago, I believe - an article in one issue of “Rolling Stone” Magazine calling Justin Timberlake “the new ‘King of Pop,’ ” as if he were to “replace” Michael Jackson!!! Since Michael had passed, there have been other attempts by the media to either declare some far less-talented performer the “new,” or the “next” media-driven fake title (which, I strongly feel, was far too limiting for Michael’s scope of pure talent, anyway) or publish some big story every time one of these younger lesser-knowns (who can never hold a candle to him, no matter how hard they try) “breaks his record” for such things as “chart position,” or sales of their latest “hits,” and so forth.

Whatever is despised and looked down upon now becomes “hip,” “cool,” “daring” and “rebellious” when it’s fully accepted by society in general. Meanwhile, the real people who originated such “hip” styles remain mostly unknown, unrecognized, nearly, if not completely, forgotten about (like “Big Mama” Thornton and many of the early “Blues” singers were) and treated with disdain, if not with outright contempt. Do you think, FullLipsDotNose, that this goes back many hundreds of years, to the way Africans, and the first generation of African-Americans born in the United States, were treated, historically? I would like to know your answer to my question, about this.
 
FullLipsDotNose


between the lines between people talking to you about the term queer are just saying some people find that offensive and is not the best choice of words... Especially from a straight person... It's been used as a derogatory term towards homosexuals.

better just to drop It over defending it... Even if you didn't mean it that way!
 
KOPV said:
FullLipsDotNose


between the lines between people talking to you about the term queer are just saying some people find that offensive and is not the best choice of words... Especially from a straight person... It's been used as a derogatory term towards homosexuals.

better just to drop It over defending it... Even if you didn't mean it that way!
Click to expand...

That's how it's taken where I'm from anyway... No need to use a questionable phrase when it's completely and seamlessly avoidable.
 
GGVVGGCC22331122;4139198 said:
Thanks, for telling me, FullLipsDotNose. So, you are saying, then, that anyone who chooses not to “identify” as what he or she genetically, physically, truthfully and actually was born, and is by nature - (who considers himself/herself in any way other than exclusively so-called “CIS-gendered”) - who also prefers to live a non-heterosexual lifestyle, is viewed as “queer”?

I’m just trying to understand your meaning of that term, because I, or someone else, might have a different view of it, and what group of people it once had referred to.
Click to expand...


Firstly, there's nothing like "truthful" identification. What you're mentioning is the way someone is born biologically. That way, you can be either biologically male, female or intersexual (a mix of other sexes, basically). Intersexual people are, in my opnion, also queer. In fact, there are very few countries (only Germany, India and Australia) that recognise this gender. Otherwise a baby has to undergo a reassignment surgery. Not fun :(

But yeah, basically anyone that doesn't fit the heteronormative standards of sexuality, gender or sex, is queer in my opinion. There may be queer people that view it differently as we don't have the same opinions about everything. In fact, some homosexuals practise bi-erasure, which means they don't recognise bisexuals or actively attack them (not necessarily phisically).

As to the issue of outright stealing from an entire people and its culture, this type of what is now called “appropriation” (which is the same thing as copycatting and ripping off, often without giving credit to the true originators - the vast majority of whom remain unknown - of a particular way of singing or dancing, a style of wearing the hair or the clothing, a certain style of music, etc., or anything culturally significant to groups who have a long history of undergoing oppression, and having things taken from their culture to be used by the dominant “mainstream” society) has been going on for decades, even for centuries.

So, it’s nothing new, and some form of this “appropriation” still goes on, to this day. You hear certain “artists’ ” songs and see their music Videos. There was, at one point - some time ago, I believe - an article in one issue of “Rolling Stone” Magazine calling Justin Timberlake “the new ‘King of Pop,’ ” as if he were to “replace” Michael Jackson!!! Since Michael had passed, there have been other attempts by the media to either declare some far less-talented performer the “new,” or the “next” media-driven fake title (which, I strongly feel, was far too limiting for Michael’s scope of pure talent, anyway) or publish some big story every time one of these younger lesser-knowns (who can never hold a candle to him, no matter how hard they try) “breaks his record” for such things as “chart position,” or sales of their latest “hits,” and so forth.

Whatever is despised and looked down upon now becomes “hip,” “cool,” “daring” and “rebellious” when it’s fully accepted by society in general. Meanwhile, the real people who originated such “hip” styles remain mostly unknown, unrecognized, nearly, if not completely, forgotten about (like “Big Mama” Thornton and many of the early “Blues” singers were) and treated with disdain, if not with outright contempt. Do you think, FullLipsDotNose, that this goes back many hundreds of years, to the way Africans, and the first generation of African-Americans born in the United States, were treated, historically? I would like to know your answer to my question, about this.
Click to expand...

Yup, cultural appropriation definitely exists and it indeed has its roots in colonisation, orientalism and all that jazz (no pun intended). Personally, I try to unlearn it and learn more about the cultures whose aspects I enjoy.

I don't know if Elvis stole anything - AFAIK, he always credited the artists whose work he was interpreting. At the same time, though, he benefitted from white privilege. That's undeniable. I believe I and my fellow white people have to be aware of the fact we have this privilege. Whenever I buy Michael's/Janet's/Erykah Badu's/Jean Grae's/whoever else's albums or singles, I make a decision as to what music will be supported (entertaiment industry caters to white people's preferences). Whenever I dance hip-hop, it's not the same as if it is performed by black people. Whenever I paint Arabic or Persian calligraphy, it's not the same either. Some people of colour think that what I do is also cultural appropriation. I respect that.
 
KOPV said:
FullLipsDotNose


between the lines between people talking to you about the term queer are just saying some people find that offensive and is not the best choice of words... Especially from a straight person... It's been used as a derogatory term towards homosexuals.

better just to drop It over defending it... Even if you didn't mean it that way!
Click to expand...

I'm not straight. I'm willing to discuss my word choice with other people like me, but not with straight and binary folks.
 
FullLipsDotNose said:
Excuse me, but why should people who are both straight and binary tell me how I should identify, how I should refer to myself and other oppressed folks within my community?
Click to expand...

They are not telling you how to identify.. but without knowing your that you are not straight, people could read your comment thinking it is from a straight person.. in no where in your message did you say you are identifying with the term 'queer'.. This convo would not have even happened.. You not being straight should be able to understand why the term could be off putting coming from someone, even if you are fine with it.. the term has bad connotations behind it in is definitions 'strange' and 'odd'.. That term has been used in abusive ways throughout history and it is someones right to feel off put by that word ... (or not) In your case..

SOME in the homosexual community embrace the word and use it differently but that in itself not its definition.. Similar to other words in history when a set of people embrace a negative word and make it ok within the community..
 
FullLipsDotNose said:
Excuse me, but why should people who are both straight and binary tell me how I should identify, how I should refer to myself and other oppressed folks within my community?
Click to expand...

What KOPV said. You immediately rushed to the defensive in such a dismissive way to "straight and binary folks". Get off your high horse.
 
KOPV said:
They are not telling you how to identify.. but without knowing your that you are not straight, people could read your comment thinking it is from a straight person.. in no where in your message did you say you are identifying with the term 'queer'.. This convo would not have even happened.. You not being straight should be able to understand why the term could be off putting coming from someone, even if you are fine with it.. the term has bad connotations behind it in is definitions 'strange' and 'odd'.. That term has been used in abusive ways throughout history and it is someones right to feel off put by that word ... (or not) In your case..

SOME in the homosexual community embrace the word and use it differently but that in itself not its definition.. Similar to other words in history when a set of people embrace a negative word and make it ok within the community..
Click to expand...

This is what I wrote earlier in the thread: "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." So yeah, I implicitly stated I'm a part of that community.
 
innuendo141 said:
What KOPV said. You immediately rushed to the defensive in such a dismissive way to "straight and binary folks". Get off your high horse.
Click to expand...

Dismissive way to straight and binary folks? Wait, did I hurt their fragile egos? /irony

Straight and binary folks are discriminating against us, killing us, executing us, harassing us, raping us, erasing and dehumanising us every single day. We have to be defensive in order to survive.

PS: Whoever rushes here saying, "But not all straight and binary ppl...!!!" wins bingo.
 
off topic

^^What does all that have to do with the rock press, Mike, or music? I don't know why this subject was brought up in the first place, it has nothing to do with this thread.
 
Re: off topic

DuranDuran said:
^^What does all that have to do with the rock press, Mike, or music? I don't know why this subject was brought up in the first place, it has nothing to do with this thread.
Click to expand...

lots of threads randomly derail. that's nothing new
 
How about we make another thread for this and lets get back on track at least a little with MJ and how awesome he was and how people don't give him the right respect.... along with the reasons behind it!!

1. his race
2. allegations

These are two big things
 
FullLipsDotNose;4139219 said:
Firstly, there's nothing like "truthful" identification. What you're mentioning is the way someone is born biologically. That way, you can be either biologically male, female or intersexual (a mix of other sexes, basically). Intersexual people are, in my opnion, also queer. In fact, there are very few countries (only Germany, India and Australia) that recognise this gender. Otherwise a baby has to undergo a reassignment surgery. Not fun :(

But yeah, basically anyone that doesn't fit the heteronormative standards of sexuality, gender or sex, is queer in my opinion. There may be queer people that view it differently as we don't have the same opinions about everything. In fact, some homosexuals practise bi-erasure, which means they don't recognise bisexuals or actively attack them (not necessarily phisically).

Yup, cultural appropriation definitely exists and it indeed has its roots in colonisation, orientalism and all that jazz (no pun intended). Personally, I try to unlearn it and learn more about the cultures whose aspects I enjoy.

I don't know if Elvis stole anything - AFAIK, he always credited the artists whose work he was interpreting. At the same time, though, he benefitted from white privilege. That's undeniable. I believe I and my fellow white people have to be aware of the fact we have this privilege. Whenever I buy Michael's/Janet's/Erykah Badu's/Jean Grae's/whoever else's albums or singles, I make a decision as to what music will be supported (entertaiment industry caters to white people's preferences). Whenever I dance hip-hop, it's not the same as if it is performed by black people. Whenever I paint Arabic or Persian calligraphy, it's not the same either. Some people of colour think that what I do is also cultural appropriation. I respect that.
Click to expand...

Thank you, for your honest answers to each of my questions, FullLipsDotNose. I may not quite agree with your definition of “truthfulness” (which, to me, means what is real and undisputed fact) when it comes down to a person’s inner molecular, chromosomal and D.N.A. make-up rather than just his/her outward physical body parts, in and of themselves, but I do agree with you about “cultural appropriation,” though.

I’d much rather take stories of Elvis’ (supposedly) giving Black people credit for anything with a grain of salt. However, if you truly believe he actually did that, that’s fine. You get right to the point, when you mention that he benefitted from “White privilege.” Indeed, he did!!! The way American society was during the 1950’s and Early-1960’s, it was extremely difficult for most Black people, in those days.

The music industry was no different, in the way it would heavily promote certain performers to particular audiences. Most Black entertainers were little-known and mainly ignored, even then. There were a few that were very well-known, but not at the level Elvis was, nor would become. Any sort of taking advantage of another people, for copycatting and exploitative use of certain aspects of its culture, to mainly benefit the dominant society, is “appropriation.” Your description of what you consider as “appreciation” is what others might view as “appropriation.” You’re right. But, it depends upon whom you ask. You might get a different answer or response each time. I like that you, with your background, at least put forth the effort to appreciate other cultures and peoples, without any intention of exploiting them for personal recognition or financial gain.

One more question, for you, FullLipsDotNose. Who is or was Jean Grae? I’m just asking, because I have never heard of this person, whom you referred to in your comments.
 
Last edited:
Re: White male rock bias

SheilaMJFan4Ever said:
No, I don' t care. I also don't care for the notion that black artists need white approval to be validated.
Click to expand...

I don't know if my annoyance has been because I feel he needs to be validated. Or that I resent he didn't get the "fair" treatment and "respect" that he should have. But then when he died, all the mags had him on their covers and those issues ranked as some of their biggest selling ones. So they USED him in death when it was wildly advantageous to them, but not at times when it could have been mutually beneficial to MJ as well. Those kinds of things have bugged me...at least in the past...now I'm where you are more often than not, and don't care much. Cuz they can't hurt him anymore, and the abject ignoring of him, his talents, and contributions did bother him at times.
 
Back on topic. One of the reasons why rock snobs didn't take and continue to not take MJ seriously is because of his good-boy 'peter pan' image. I watched a clip on YouTube below, an I noticed that a radio host by the name of David Brudnoy had these annoyed tone in his voice about how controversial-free MJ's life was at that point (Thriller era).....

from 3:23 to 3:51



Notice how he uses words like 'calculated' and 'con-job', as if a person like MJ couldn't actually be teetotal. It got me thinking that maybe if MJ was a chain-smoking, drug-induced bad-boy then he would have ironically gotten MORE respect from rock snobs the way the Beatles and Rolling Stones and Elvis did.
 
Psychoniff said:
Back on topic. One of the reasons why rock snobs didn't take and continue to not take MJ seriously is because of his good-boy 'peter pan' image. I watched a clip on YouTube below, an I noticed that a radio host by the name of David Brudnoy had these annoyed tone in his voice about how controversial-free MJ's life was at that point (Thriller era).....

from 3:23 to 3:51



Notice how he uses words like 'calculated' and 'con-job', as if a person like MJ couldn't actually be teetotal. It got me thinking that maybe if MJ was a chain-smoking, drug-induced bad-boy then he would have ironically gotten MORE respect from rock snobs the way the Beatles and Rolling Stones and Elvis did.
Click to expand...

No, he'd just be labelled as "ghetto" and they would mistake him for Kanye West.
 
image

Psychoniff said:
It got me thinking that maybe if MJ was a chain-smoking, drug-induced bad-boy then he would have ironically gotten MORE respect from rock snobs the way the Beatles and Rolling Stones and Elvis did.
Click to expand...
Donny Osmond has said that his manager in the mid-1980s was going to plant a fake story about Donny getting arrested for drug possession to get street cred and get rid of his 'goody two shoes' image. Donny thought about it and said no, that such a story would hurt his family and children and that he wanted to make a comeback without that.
 
What was 'Calculated' was the portrayal the white media has playedon Michael Jackson...

Kept him a 'black artist' until he busted through that boundary and that's when he became a "*****" artist.
 
Re: White male rock bias

gerryevans said:
I don't know if my annoyance has been because I feel he needs to be validated. Or that I resent he didn't get the "fair" treatment and "respect" that he should have. But then when he died, all the mags had him on their covers and those issues ranked as some of their biggest selling ones. So they USED him in death when it was wildly advantageous to them, but not at times when it could have been mutually beneficial to MJ as well. Those kinds of things have bugged me...at least in the past...now I'm where you are more often than not, and don't care much. Cuz they can't hurt him anymore, and the abject ignoring of him, his talents, and contributions did bother him at times.
Click to expand...

I used to be upset about that (when I was in high school) then became content with the love and respect he was shown by the millions of us that enjoy his music. In the end that's all that matters and I hope he was satisfied with that.
 
KOPV said:
What was 'Calculated' was the portrayal the white media has playedon Michael Jackson...

Kept him a 'black artist' until he busted through that boundary and that's when he became a "*****" artist.
Click to expand...

:confused: I'm not sure why you'd use a mocking quotation method for what I bolded. Mike is black as well as being an artist. Why would anyone have an issue with him being described as such? Our ethnicity doesn't disappear due to success (or failure). That is a part of who he is/was/always will be and he was proud of it. Unless you see being black as a limitation, which feeds right into the mindset of the white music critics that psychoniff spoke of in the op of this thread.
 
I say that because that term was stragically used by white media to exclude black artists... ask yourself how often you heard the term white artist... not much id assume.. when white media excludes black music from general music it catorgorizes it in a way where it can not be mixed... theres a reason why michael said he doesnt want to be thought of as a black artist or a white artist etc.. because it was used by the media as a term to sublimonaly amd litterally segregate black musicians from the rest..

I am not saying it as in he was not a black artist, but the way the media used it was intentiinal... used it to keep black artists in there lane and know there "place"
 
Another thing when it comes to MJ being respected as an artist and entertainer is people lie but numbers don't.
Michael has the best selling album of all time, is the most awarded artist in music history, and is one of the most streamed "non- current" artist.
Also the sheer amount of current artist and entertainers that cite MJ as their main inspiration is huge and unparalleled by any other artist.
Michael's impact and influence cannot be denied.
Even in death he's setting records, and some people are salty about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top