Psychoniff;4149320 said:
I thought it would be a great idea to just discuss on this thread, about MJ as a 'producer'. I understand that it gets people upset that we have to talk about it because, talking about that aspect of his artistry is not well understood. And many here and on other forums sort of put MJ in the myth status without knowing everything. So establishing a thread that shows what his collaborators say about his bec noir and actions and how he was able to function behind the scenes was always something that i thought would be a great thing for this forum.
Sadly, what I has come to fruition is not so. People throwing around words like 'shades', 'diminish', 'twist', 'bait', 'troll' to deflect from the thread discussion that was posted. I think if we can just get back discussing MJ the 'producer', and stop getting emotional and angry we may be able to have better discussions.
It would be nice just to talk about him as a producer.
I think you have long past the mark when anyone will buy it from you that these bait threads are attempts at any genuine and honest discussion on your part. Someone who genuinely wants to discuss MJ as a producer will not start the thread with loaded questions and passive-agressive remarks on MJ (note: the original title of the thread was already changed by the mods). Someone who wants a genuine discussion will not cherry-pick just the supposedly "negative" things out of a book, an article or an interview while omitting information or the context which contradicts that negativity and rather makes MJ look positive. I said "supposedly negative", because often they aren't really negative in the context, it is the twist that
you put on them and your deliberately negative interpretation that will make them sound negative or worse than what they are. And you do that too
all the time. Someone with an intention of a genuine discussion would not behave like that.
Moreover, like I said in my previous post, when people address the things you claim, most of the time you will just float over the great arguments that refute your stance, you rarely ever address them, instead you will just pick out another half sentence from a long post and will go on about some insignificant detail instead of addressing the actual main points of a post. Once again it's not a sign of a desire of a genuine discussion.
The interview in the OP is a great one. By no means it is negative on MJ. My no means it questions MJ's creativity or genius. On the contrary. You are the one who out of a whole almost 2 hours long positive interview wanted to make a negative one based on simply your twist on a couple of things said in it. Once again, your focus and insistance on twisting things to be more negative than they are in their original context is not a sign of a desire for a genuine discussion. And when you do that over and over and over again it is actually a sign of trolling.
And you still keep making the same fallacious arguments that have been addressed over and over again by others in this thread. You just ignore all of that and you keep repeating your initial stance like a bad mantra. Eg:
And many here and on other forums sort of put MJ in the myth status without knowing everything.
Which "myth status"? You take issues with fans supposedly believing MJ did everything alone in the studio. Except no one ever said that or if someone ever did that's a rare opinion in the fandom because most fans are perfectly aware of how he worked. It looks like it is news
to you how he worked because you keep acting all shocked about it, but it's an information that most fans have know for decades. It's never been a secret. If this is all news to you then maybe you are one of the Johnny-come-latelys then whom you so condescendingly referred to once in another thread.
So basically your argument is a strawman argument because you take issues with something that people generally do NOT say in the MJ fandom. They do not claim that MJ did everything in the studio all alone. You mix up MJ fans with Prince fans, it seems.
We
DO say MJ was a producer, though - without any quotation marks. That's not a myth, that's the truth. Because being a producer doesn't require to do everything on your own. Being a producer doesn't require not to have any assistance. Being a producer doesn't require not to have other people do certain jobs for you. Quincy did all that too and he is considered a great producer, isn't he?
Ironically, reading Making Michael I just came to this part. Said by Brad Buxer whom you so love to use against MJ.
"Future producer Brad Buxer said Michael wasn’t angry with his one-time mentor (Quincy Jones). “He has always had an admiration for him and an immense respect,” Buxer said. “But Michael wanted to control the creative process from A to Z. Simply put, he wanted to be his own boss. Michael was always very independent, and he also wanted to show that his success was not because of one man, namely Quincy."
