MEGA article: Rating Michael Jackson’s Albums

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

There are a lot of fans of other artists who have an itch they just can not scratch.

Lots of big artists have died since MJ passed away, and their worldwide sales have been dwarfed by those of Michael. Just look at his numbers of singles, albums, and DVDs (how many 'This Is It'!!??) shifted after he passed. They're astronomical.

This is exactly why we get other artist's fans/casual MJ 'likers' coming on pretending to be 'reasonable' and 'balanced', yet a actually being anything but.

I'm not gullible enough to be taken in by anyone that throws a compliment Michael's way, whilst sticking a hundred knives in his back at the same time.

As for anyone that thinks they can attack his fan base, labelling them with one broad swipe, well they can go to hell. Their opinions warrant the same disdain as dog's mess I happen to pick up on my shoe.

Preach!
That's why whenever I type about those kinds of "fans" I use quotes (yeah I know they're probably the wrong ones but imagine two fingers on each side of the words where the two little lines are, LOL).
Whether they have an axe to grind with MJ because they're a fan of another artist so they pretend to be a MJ fan to cover up their hate, or if they legit believe they're actual MJ fans, I personally don't consider those type of "fans" actual fans.

 

[OnirMJ]

For me any solo adoult MJ album is better than any Jacksons or Jackson 5 album. I'll rank my favourites, but I'll separate them into categories because it would be very hard to do it if I put all the albums together.

MJ solo EPIC:

1. Dangerous
2. Bad
3. Thriller
4. HIStory
5. Invincible
6. Off The Wall
7. Blood On The Dance Floor (just because it is EP, and not a full album)

MJ Posthumous albums:

1. Xscape
2. MICHAEL

The Jacksons:

1. Triumph
2. Destiny
3. Victory
4. The Jacksons
5. Goin' Places
6. not counting 2300 Jackson Street as Michael alredy left the group but it would be at the last place

MJ solo Motown

1. Got To Be There
2. Ben
3. Forever Michael
4. Music and Me

The Jackson 5

... I'm not familiar enough with their studio albums. Most often I just play Greatest Hits collections so I'm not capable of rating their studio albums. But I will one day .

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

Some people are funny, they come to a dedicated Michael Jackson forum and are shocked and appalled that people here think that MJ was the best singer/dancer/entertainer.. Like MJ fans are the only fans that think highly of their idol lol.

I also can't get with this strawman argument that all MJ fans are delusional. Every fanbase has their sheer of hardcore fanatics, the beyhive (beyonce), the navys (Rihanna), the beliebers (justin). Some beyonce fans started self mutilating themselves after beyonce accidentally cut herself on stage and some justin fans threatened to kill a journalist who talked bad about his music. My point is there are irrational fans in every fanbase. I just wish people would stop judging the whole based on past experience with a few. I have been in forums for more than 15 years now and I have had some great, insightful, constructive and analytic discussions with my fellow MJ fans about his music. So I don't buy his argument one bit.

 

[AlwaysThere]

It's unfair to call the entirety of the fan base delusional, but it certainly is accurate to a substantial part of it.

I still cannot begin to understand why people are so upset over this article. I grasp exactly where the author is coming from with almost every criticism he makes, even if I don't agree with them (which I quite often don't). I find it rather hypocritical that fans attack the first person to use a less-than-positive word to describe something Michael did, but in other threads have viciously attacked producers like Timbaland as "terrible" or "untalented".

Regardless of who he is, Michael Jackson should be held to the very same standard as any other artist when it comes to criticism, i.e. if someone believes something he did was terrible, they have every right to say so.

Do we have to agree? No.

But do we have the right to question their sanity, call them idiots for their opinion, or accuse them of not being true Michael Jackson fans? NO, we do not.

Ridiculous.

 

[Tony R]

It's unfair to call the entirety of the fan base delusional, but it certainly is accurate to a substantial part of it.

I still cannot begin to understand why people are so upset over this article. I grasp exactly where the author is coming from with almost every criticism he makes, even if I don't agree with them (which I quite often don't). I find it rather hypocritical that fans attack the first person to use a less-than-positive word to describe something Michael did, but in other threads have viciously attacked producers like Timbaland as "terrible" or "untalented".

Regardless of who he is, Michael Jackson should be held to the very same standard as any other artist when it comes to criticism, i.e. if someone believes something he did was terrible, they have every right to say so.

Do we have to agree? No.

But do we have the right to question their sanity, call them idiots for their opinion, or accuse them of not being true Michael Jackson fans? NO, we do not.

Ridiculous.

This is great. And the reactions on here fully back up the view the OP holds.

How many of you know enough about every J5/Jacksons album to be able to write about each one?

I don't agree with a lot of it, personally I don't think the albums were formulaic and I'd put Dangerous first and HIStory higher. But he's right about a lot.

Admittedly I know this guy, so I know some of it is deliberately provocative, but his point that many MJ fans are over the top and delusional is only backed up by some of the over reactions here.

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

It's unfair to call the entirety of the fan base delusional, but it certainly is accurate to a substantial part of it.

I still cannot begin to understand why people are so upset over this article. I grasp exactly where the author is coming from with almost every criticism he makes, even if I don't agree with them (which I quite often don't). I find it rather hypocritical that fans attack the first person to use a less-than-positive word to describe something Michael did, but in other threads have viciously attacked producers like Timbaland as "terrible" or "untalented".

Regardless of who he is, Michael Jackson should be held to the very same standard as any other artist when it comes to criticism, i.e. if someone believes something he did was terrible, they have every right to say so.

Do we have to agree? No.

But do we have the right to question their sanity, call them idiots for their opinion, or accuse them of not being true Michael Jackson fans? NO, we do not.

Ridiculous.

People clearly do not agree with him but more than anything fans call him out because he's being provacative for the sake of it. J5xmas and posthumus releases before real studio albums? Michael's failed attempt to be sexy, michael crying at the end of every ballad. He says his albums are formulaic but then places his most creative and different work at the bottom of his list? Starts by saying his Live shows are lackluster, his fans are delusional and yet again someone has to compare him to prince to point out his "inferiority ut isn’t quite the authentic hard rocker we have all been led to believe it is despite Eddie Van Halen’s blistering solo (Prince’s early rock songs RAWKED way more He even spends more time talking about the negatives than the positives on some of the albums that are rated high on his list.

A lot of you clearly have no idea how biased and intense other fanbases are. At least we don't go around cyber bullying other people like some other fans or are so threatened that we feel the need to knock down another artist to elevate our favorite artist.

Edit: A lot of members in here are pointing out somethign i see far too often, not only in the MJfancommunity but elsewhere in the real world and cyberworld, this "Keeping it real" attitude. It's so fallible and so warped that I cringe everytime someone says they're "Keeping it real". That's just something peopl esay to be mean and pick on someone or something. It's cool to critize and knock someone down under the pretense of "keeping it real". It's so obvious and fake that you can see through that. "keeping it real" is just an opinion and if someone disagrees with that view they're "delusional" and living in a "fantasty world"

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

People clearly do not agree with him but more than anything fans call him out because he's being provacative for the sake of it. J5xmas and posthumus releases before real studio albums? Michael's failed attempt to be sexy, michael crying at the end of every ballad. He says his albums are formulaic but then places his most creative and different work at the bottom of his list? Starts by saying his Live shows are lackluster, his fans are delusional and yet again someone has to compare him to prince to point out his "inferiority ut isn’t quite the authentic hard rocker we have all been led to believe it is despite Eddie Van Halen’s blistering solo (Prince’s early rock songs RAWKED way more He even spends more time talking about the negatives than the positives on some of the albums that are rated high on his list.

A lot of you clearly have no idea how biased and intense other fanbases are. At least we don't go around cyber bullying other people like some other fans or are so threatened that we feel the need to knock down another artist to elevate our favorite artist.

Edit: A lot of members in here are pointing out somethign i see far too often, not only in the MJfancommunity but elsewhere in the real world and cyberworld, this "Keeping it real" attitude. It's so fallible and so warped that I cringe everytime someone says they're "Keeping it real". That's just something peopl esay to be mean and pick on someone or something. It's cool to critize and knock someone down under the pretense of "keeping it real". It's so obvious and fake that you can see through that. "keeping it real" is just an opinion and if someone disagrees with that view they're "delusional" and living in a "fantasty world"

 

[mjprince1976]

Yet another article pretending to be from an MJ fan, just to have dozens of digs at him. Probably a Prince fan in disguise.

Sad. Very sad.

Oh dear, your stereotype of Prince fans, not all of us are backstabbers. Many if not most Prince fans are also Michael Jackson fans and not just big ones, but pretty much Michael Jackson is the next artist after Prince, or in many cases Prince is after Michael.

We all get annoyed when pseudo journalists write the same nonsense about Prince, there was a rash of this after his death and we took it harder as Prince albums in general are of a lower overall quality that Michael Jacksons.I mean the least MJ solo album Invincible has maybe 2 or 3 fillery songs, compared to Princewho out of his 40 or so albums, only 5 have no filler and most of his best 20 have 2 or 3 fillery tracks at least and the worst 10 albums are practically all desparate filler and trend chasing, with only 1 or 2 good songs. But we swallow it and defend on the prince.org. We love Prince and know he was not perfect and recorded and issued a lot of rubbish. But with Michael Jackson, there is little to criticise, but this journalist manages to.

I would say the author of this article was neither Michael Jackson or a Prince fan, most likely they are an old head listening to Lawrence Welk and the Chordettes or they are raised on urban music and nu metal of the late 1990s and 2000s frothy pop.

At the heart of every Prince fan, is or was a MJ fan, most when asked will say they were hardcore Michael, but then found Pirnce and stuck with him as Prince was issuing more and the wait between MJ albums was too long, but a bigger group found they could handle both and like more artists still.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Oh dear, your stereotype of Prince fans, not all of us are backstabbers. Many if not most Prince fans are also Michael Jackson fans and not just big ones, but pretty much Michael Jackson is the next artist after Prince, or in many cases Prince is after Michael.

We all get annoyed when pseudo journalists write the same nonsense about Prince, there was a rash of this after his death and we took it harder as Prince albums in general are of a lower overall quality that Michael Jacksons.I mean the least MJ solo album Invincible has maybe 2 or 3 fillery songs, compared to Princewho out of his 40 or so albums, only 5 have no filler and most of his best 20 have 2 or 3 fillery tracks at least and the worst 10 albums are practically all desparate filler and trend chasing, with only 1 or 2 good songs. But we swallow it and defend on the prince.org. We love Prince and know he was not perfect and recorded and issued a lot of rubbish. But with Michael Jackson, there is little to criticise, but this journalist manages to.

I would say the author of this article was neither Michael Jackson or a Prince fan, most likely they are an old head listening to Lawrence Welk and the Chordettes or they are raised on urban music and nu metal of the late 1990s and 2000s frothy pop.

At the heart of every Prince fan,is or was a MJ fan,most when asked will say they were hardcore Michael, but then found Pirnce and stuck with him as Prince was issuing more and the wait between MJ albums was too long, but a bigger group found they could handle both and like more artists still.

Now, not all Prince fans are MJ haters, and the writer of this article may not be a Prince fan at all, but that right there is a bit of a reach.
You personally may not be one of them, but many Prince fans can be hateful as hell toward MJ, and they love to revise history too, which I don't like.

 

[HIStory]

People clearly do not agree with him but more than anything fans call him out because he's being provacative for the sake of it. J5xmas and posthumus releases before real studio albums? Michael's failed attempt to be sexy, michael crying at the end of every ballad. He says his albums are formulaic but then places his most creative and different work at the bottom of his list? Starts by saying his Live shows are lackluster, his fans are delusional and yet again someone has to compare him to prince to point out his "inferiority ut isn’t quite the authentic hard rocker we have all been led to believe it is despite Eddie Van Halen’s blistering solo (Prince’s early rock songs RAWKED way more He even spends more time talking about the negatives than the positives on some of the albums that are rated high on his list.

A lot of you clearly have no idea how biased and intense other fanbases are. At least we don't go around cyber bullying other people like some other fans or are so threatened that we feel the need to knock down another artist to elevate our favorite artist.

Edit: A lot of members in here are pointing out somethign i see far too often, not only in the MJfancommunity but elsewhere in the real world and cyberworld, this "Keeping it real" attitude. It's so fallible and so warped that I cringe everytime someone says they're "Keeping it real". That's just something peopl esay to be mean and pick on someone or something. It's cool to critize and knock someone down under the pretense of "keeping it real". It's so obvious and fake that you can see through that. "keeping it real" is just an opinion and if someone disagrees with that view they're "delusional" and living in a "fantasty world"

+1000.

Placing Invincible below Victory, Skywriter, Michael and the J5 Xmas album is just being provocation for the sake of it. There is nothing on any of those albums that could compete with YRMW, Speechless, Threatened, Butterflies or Whatever Happens (and that's coming from one of the few people who actually likes the Victory album).

His shamefully low ranking of Invincible and his dismissal of the brilliant new tracks on BOTD says to me that his opinions are based less on musical content, and more on the man himself, as we all know how in vogue it is to pretend that MJ stopped making good music around the time he announced his vitiligo to the world.

And putting HIStory on #17 is ridiculous too. Especially after starting the article by complaining about MJ's albums supposedly being formulaic (way exaggerated by this person, BTW). Then about HIStory he says that it's MJ's least formulaic album but still puts it behind stuff like the J5 Christmas Album and other J5 albums that ARE formulaic and only really have one-two good songs on them? Really? Even if you think there are a couple of weaker songs on HIStory, there are a lot that are great and more than make up for it.

I didn't read the whole article to be honest, but the HIStory part that I read is nothing original. It is a the VERY clichéd, superficial view of that album that you often read by mainstream critics who just don't get it and don't get MJ in general. Mention the Brit Awards and MJ "playing Jesus"? Check. Mention the HIStory statue and his "infalted ego"? Check? Mention "pretentious title" and "the self-indulgence"? Check. Mention Triumph of the Will? Check. Yawn. He must have copy&pasted it from some Joe Pereles article.

And don't even get me started on this.

Of all his big albums, I would say that this is the one least bound to the MJ formula, and for the first time he sounds like he is genuinely feeling the things he is singing about, rather than pretending to feel them.

Wow, just wow. That about an artist who could convey emotions like hardly anyone else since he was 10. Who made people cry and lose their minds when listening to him. Okay.

He desperately tries to sound witty and "I-am-so-keeping-it-real" but instead what he does is just repeating mainstream media clichés about MJ and all the ill-willed and unfair and often just forced criticism of him. If he shares those opinions alright, but one would think a fan would pay more attention to MJ's art than those often shallow and superficial views.

By his ranking it seems to me this is a person who is more drawn to MJ's early career - up until Bad, which is fine, but to this extent where the Christmas Album or Looking Through the Window is placed above HIStory or Invincible is placed dead last (even behind J5 albums or posthumus albums) it does seem like someone just wanted attention by the way of provoking fans. I guess he got it. The MJ fandom must be really bored these days.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

+1000.



And putting HIStory on #17 is ridiculous too. Especially after starting the article by complaining about MJ's albums supposedly being formulaic (way exaggerated by this person, BTW). Then about HIStory he says that it's MJ's least formulaic album but still puts it behind stuff like the J5 Christmas Album and other J5 albums that ARE formulaic and only really have one-two good songs on them? Really?

I didn't read the whole article to be honest, but the HIStory part that I read is nothing original. It is a the VERY clichéd, superficial view of that album that you often read by mainstream critics who just don't get it and don't get MJ in general. Mention the Brit Awards and MJ "playing Jesus"? Check. Mention the HIStory statue and his "infalted ego"? Check? Mention "pretentious title" and "the self-indulgence"? Check. Mention Triumph of the Will? Check. Yawn. He must have copy&pasted it from some Joe Pereles article.

And don't even get me started on this.



Wow, just wow. That about an artist who could convey emotions like hardly anyone else since he was 10. Who made people cry and lose their minds when listening to him. Okay.

He desperately tries to sound witty and "I-am-so-keeping-it-real" but instead what he does is just repeating mainstream media clichés about MJ. If he shares those opinions alright, but one would think a fan would pay more attention to MJ's art than those often shallow and superficial views.

By his ranking it seems to me this is a person who is more drawn to MJ's early career - up until Bad, which is fine, but to this extent where the Christmas Album or Looking Through the Window is placed above HIStory it does seem like someone just wanted attention by the way of provoking fans. I guess he got it.

I agree with all of this.
The guy sounds like a pretentious, misinformed, asshole TBH.
At first I thought it was a joke it was so cringeworthy, but at this point I'm thinking it might not be, and I find that quite sad.
Looks like an Onion article.

 

[mjprince1976]

Now, not all Prince fans are MJ haters, and the writer of this article may not be a Prince fan at all, but that right there is a bit of a reach.
You personally may not be one of them, but many Prince fans can be hateful as hell toward MJ, and they love to revise history too, which I don't like.

I agree with you, some are just awful. One dude on prince.org basically says MJ was a [aedophile in every thread, even one about Donald Trump comapring his taste in young bimboes akin toMJ's taste inyoung boys. I got angry at him and he replied by saying that if I approved of MJ's behaviour, then I am also a paedophile!!! I called him a name and complained. I got a warning and he got exonerated. The people who run prince.org are huge MJ haters and it annoys us greatly, as they limit MJ threads to one sticky which closes up after 5 pages or whenever a flame war begins over "He was a child molester" crowd hop in.

They accuse us of flooding the boards with Michael threads when in reality there were like 4 or 5 after he passed away. I agree with you and feel that it is silly, to me you don't really "hate" artists, but just either dislike them or ignore them. I shouldn't hate anyone, but the occasional artist or performer comes a long who is just so detetsable to yourself or others, that you can not hold back. At the moment I have 2 artists in this category and not just for their music, but them as people and they are Justin Bieber and Nicki Minaj.

 

[SmoothMJ]

There is sooo much wrong with this guy's article only the really gullible will be taken in by it being "balanced" or "keeping it real".

 

[AlwaysThere]

People clearly do not agree with him but more than anything fans call him out because he's being provacative for the sake of it. J5xmas and posthumus releases before real studio albums? Michael's failed attempt to be sexy, michael crying at the end of every ballad. He says his albums are formulaic but then places his most creative and different work at the bottom of his list? Starts by saying his Live shows are lackluster, his fans are delusional and yet again someone has to compare him to prince to point out his "inferiority ut isn’t quite the authentic hard rocker we have all been led to believe it is despite Eddie Van Halen’s blistering solo (Prince’s early rock songs RAWKED way more He even spends more time talking about the negatives than the positives on some of the albums that are rated high on his list.

A lot of you clearly have no idea how biased and intense other fanbases are. At least we don't go around cyber bullying other people like some other fans or are so threatened that we feel the need to knock down another artist to elevate our favorite artist.

Every. Single. Thing. You. Just. Listed. Is. His. Opinion. He feels Michael's sexually-driven songs are failed attempts at maturity. He feels that his albums are formulaic and does not share our consensus that they are excellent offerings. He feels his live shows are lackluster. He feels the fans are delusional. He feels that "Beat It" isn't as excellent as many people believe it is and that Prince has better offerings in that genre. Whether or not we agree with it, he is allowed to say whatever he wants. And if you thoroughly read through his post, he makes several EXCELLENT points which I, as a fan, can't even pretend is wrong.

But to call him an "idiot" just because he doesn't like History as much as the rest of us? To question his judgment because he favors Xscape over Invincible? That's massively hypocritical coming from people who get so up in arms when anyone on this forum does the same to them. If I were to call someone an idiot for enjoying Invincible, you know I'd be torn a new one.

And no, perhaps this forum isn't as intense as the Beliebers or Directioners in several senses. But what we are doing is going onto the forum of an artist we all care for, logging onto accounts that shield our identities, take this man's unpopular opinion and proceed to question his sanity, mind set, and taste in music in the process. And that, as far as I'm concerned, is just as bad.

 

[AlwaysThere]

Edit: A lot of members in here are pointing out somethign i see far too often, not only in the MJfancommunity but elsewhere in the real world and cyberworld, this "Keeping it real" attitude. It's so fallible and so warped that I cringe everytime someone says they're "Keeping it real". That's just something peopl esay to be mean and pick on someone or something. It's cool to critize and knock someone down under the pretense of "keeping it real". It's so obvious and fake that you can see through that. "keeping it real" is just an opinion and if someone disagrees with that view they're "delusional" and living in a "fantasty world"

Whenever we discuss a concert or tour or song or music video, there are always people who simply don't care for it. Some members shrug it off and figure, "It's not for everyone, I get that; let them feel how they feel" and let it go. But there are other members who feel the need to hop up and say, "Well, you know, Michael did it for this reason, and it had this level of personal significance to it, so the fact that you didn't like it is essentially like saying you don't care about Michael or his feelings!" Or better yet, as has happened in this very thread, "You don't like this song? Are you stupid or something? Do you have a crap taste in music? That album is great! Your opinion is stupid." THAT is delusional behavior - hearing someone's opinion and desperately seeking for any way to invalidate it.

Michael Jackson is as prone to criticism as any other artist on the face of this planet. Unfortunately, there are people who simply don't like certain songs in his catalog. And to condemn that stance as "harsh" is hypocritical considering that every single person in this thread has, at some point in their lives, said something to the effect of, "I absolutely hate [insert artist, song title or album title here]! It sucks!"

"Keeping it real" is not an excuse for swamping a review with unnecessary hatred, but it breaks up from the delusion of being unable to express an opinion. And honestly, the author is 100% right. Do you know how much flak certain users receive on a daily basis for even suggesting that a certain album/song is less impressive than another? Or that a certain tour may not be too great? Or that certain music videos shouldn't be held to a high standard? And then the very same people who criticize have the audacity to turn around and demand that we respect their opinion.

That's the problem with not only this fan group, but countless others. The first hint of criticism, whether harsh or innocent, gets torn down. Sure, we don't send death threats or stalk Twitter accounts like some, but we aren't that much better by indulging in every other action they do.

 

[HIStory]

Every. Single. Thing. You. Just. Listed. Is. His. Opinion. He feels Michael's sexually-driven songs are failed attempts at maturity. He feels that his albums are formulaic and does not share our consensus that they are excellent offerings. He feels his live shows are lackluster. He feels the fans are delusional. He feels that "Beat It" isn't as excellent as many people believe it is and that Prince has better offerings in that genre. Whether or not we agree with it, he is allowed to say whatever he wants. And if you thoroughly read through his post, he makes several EXCELLENT points which I, as a fan, can't even pretend is wrong.

But to call him an "idiot" just because he doesn't like History as much as the rest of us? To question his judgment because he favors Xscape over Invincible? That's massively hypocritical coming from people who get so up in arms when anyone on this forum does the same to them. If I were to call someone an idiot for enjoying Invincible, you know I'd be torn a new one.

And no, perhaps this forum isn't as intense as the Beliebers or Directioners in several senses. But what we are doing is going onto the forum of an artist we all care for, logging onto accounts that shield our identities, take this man's unpopular opinion and proceed to question his sanity, mind set, and taste in music in the process. And that, as far as I'm concerned, is just as bad.

But don't you see it is the same on the flip side? Some of you guys (always the same 3-4 people, BTW) constantly complain about this supposed supression of any other opinion of MJ than that he was an angel (once again an extremely cliché and untrue thing to say, but the common mantra of these "keeping-it-real" types)? Yet your issue is basically people reacting to these negative opinions by expressing their opinions. No one said he wasn't allowed to say whatever he wants to. But people are allowed to disagree as well and they are also allowed to criticise him just as much as he is allowed to criticize MJ or the parts of the fandom he expressed his disdain for. That's the part that "keeping-it-real" people do not seem to get - that not only they have a right to their opinion, but if they choose to discuss their opinion on any public forum then other people have the right to react and disagree and call them out on things they feel is unfair and that is not some sort of supression of their opinion. It does seem like some of these "keeping-it-real" folks basically just want a ticket to bash MJ (and other fans) unopposed and unchallenged. And because they are getting opposed and challenged (why is that even surprising on a forum dedicated to said celebrity?) they start whining about supposedly being supressed.

Someone said in this thread earlier that they knew this guy they are friends with him and he is bascially deliberately provocative. So maybe we aren't even dealing with someone who wants to express an honest, genuine opinion, but someone who just wants to provoke and piss off other fans, for his own entertainment or just for the sake of it. Some of these "keep-it-real" folks get off on things like that indeed and then they have the nerve to complain if they get opinions that are not so nice. Don't you realize the hypocrisy? You can express the same opinion in ways that is not so offensive and you can express an opinion in a deliberately offensive and provokative way. If you choose the latter do not be surprised if you get heated responses. Wasn't that what you wanted, after all, by being deliberately offensive and provokative? So why do you then whine about it?

 

[HIStoric]

Yeah so even though I have a good idea where I stand on the issue, I'm not gonna get into the current debate.

He says his albums are formulaic but then places his most creative and different work at the bottom of his list?

Perhaps he feels that Michael's execution of those albums weren't good enough? As in, sure they were his least formulative but the execution of the final product still wasn't good enough to rank it higher? No clue if thats what he was thinking of course, but it popped into my head when I read your post this morning.

 

[HIStory]

One thing I found noticeably telling about this guys rankings, is how, on many of the lesser-known Jacksons/J5 releases - many of which he ranked over the likes of HIStory, BOTD and Invincible - he actually talks very little about the actual music. On most of the J5/Jacksons albums pre-Destiny, he only really namechecks the big singles or the title tracks, and for the most part, just harps on about how old Michael was at this time, or their relationship with Motown etc. He also doesn't exactly brim with enthusiasm about these works.

Take a look:


On Skywriter he openly admits "I don’t think I could tell you any of the songs on this album off the top of my head," and yet he still lists this above Invincible, despite his own admission that Invincible does contain "moments of brilliance."

He goes on to review Maybe Tomorrow, The Jacksons and Third Album, all of which he places above HIStory, and yet if you actually read what he writes about these albums, he is fairly lukewarm in his assessment, most of the time only highlighting the odd standout track. He uses phrases like "the initial Jackson 5 formula starts to wear a little thin by 1971" and "it’s still all a bit 'meh'" and "here is really where the old magic starts to wear off". Contrast this to the one positive remark he allows himself to make about HIStory, where he admits there are "many interesting, genuinely brilliant moments." His rankings don't match up with the content of his reviews.

I love some of the J5/Jacksons albums just as much as some of MJ's adult solo releases, but let be realistic here, Lookin Through The Windows or Third Album have, at best, two or three good songs. And what gets me is, his choice of words and language in these reviews expose him as a bit of a fraud. He talks about moments of brilliance on Invincible, HIStory and BOTD, yet he ranks them lowly whilst at the same time, he can barely bring himself to find any redeeming qualities about albums like Skywriter, Ben, Goin' Places, Farewell My Summer Love, all of which he decides to put above the majority of MJ's post-80s work.

Exactly.

 

[HIStory]

Perhaps he feels that Michael's execution of those albums weren't good enough? As in, sure they were his least formulative but the execution of the final product still wasn't good enough to rank it higher? No clue if thats what he was thinking of course, but it popped into my head when I read your post this morning.

Sorry, but no. The review is simply very inconsistent. You say maybe he meant delivery but that's not what it seems like. In fact, he says this about MJ's delivery on HIStory:

Of all his big albums, I would say that this is the one least bound to the MJ formula, and for the first time he sounds like he is genuinely feeling the things he is singing about, rather than pretending to feel them. There are positives and negatives that come with that, as no matter how great it is to hear him cut loose, he also sounds like he doesn’t quite know how to handle it.

I disagree completely, but this is what he says so you cannot defend his inconsistency by saying that maybe he meant delivery because there is no sign he did - if anything, he suggests this was one of MJ's better deliveries.

(And I don't even know what to make of the "he also sounds like he doesn’t quite know how to handle it". It rather "sounds like" someone just tried too hard to insert something negative so that he doesn't sound too praiseful and fall out of his "keeping-it-real" role, but couldn't come up with any better than this frivolous line.)

So, according to this guy HIStory is 1) his least formulaic album, 2) his delivery is the first time ever that sounds like he actually means it, 3) he admits there are several brilliant songs on it (along with songs that he calls "eye-rollingly tedious"). Even with those "eye-rollingly tedious" moments, if he was consistent the album should be much higher. But then again, I don't think giving a consistent, well-thought out review here was really the goal.

 

[HIStoric]

^^Good points on the inconsistency! Thanks.

I do think it was odd how he seemed to focus more on the negatives than he did with the positives. I can definitely understand that for the albums at the bottom, but it's odd he'd focus so much on the negatives for albums in the Top 5. That was running through my head when I was reading his review on Thriller for example.

Like I said earlier, really must disagree with his positioning. I don't know if I'd ever put an actual studio album underneath a posthumous album (let alone Michael of all albums...)

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Even the "keeping-it-real"guys have their biases, all of us have our biases in some way or another. So don't claim to be ballanced, being objective and "keeping-it-real" with being rude, offensive, cynical and arrogantly dismissive towards MJ and/or the things you don't like about him or his artistry. I'd lie if I told I like everything Michael released, I don't and I have no problem expressing it but I truly believe you can do so with RESPECT to Michael and his work because most of it is stellar without recurring to those negative attitudes I mentioned earlier.

 

[HIStory]

^^Good points on the inconsistency! Thanks.

I do think it was odd how he seemed to focus more on the negatives than he did with the positives. I can definitely understand that for the albums at the bottom, but it's odd he'd focus so much on the negatives for albums in the Top 5. That was running through my head when I was reading his review on Thriller for example.

Because the point here isn't really to give a genuine review. The point is to provoke and piss off other fans and then when they express their displeasure to whine about "fans who think he cannot do wrong and he is an angel". It is very transparent. Line after line he deliberately uses terms and expressions that are unnecessarily offensive and provokative, while he could have expressed the same opinions in much less offensive and provokative ways, if getting a genuine review out there was really the point. I don't believe it was.

 

[Psychoniff]

Every. Single. Thing. You. Just. Listed. Is. His. Opinion. He feels Michael's sexually-driven songs are failed attempts at maturity. He feels that his albums are formulaic and does not share our consensus that they are excellent offerings. He feels his live shows are lackluster. He feels the fans are delusional. He feels that "Beat It" isn't as excellent as many people believe it is and that Prince has better offerings in that genre. Whether or not we agree with it, he is allowed to say whatever he wants. And if you thoroughly read through his post, he makes several EXCELLENT points which I, as a fan, can't even pretend is wrong.

But to call him an "idiot" just because he doesn't like History as much as the rest of us? To question his judgment because he favors Xscape over Invincible? That's massively hypocritical coming from people who get so up in arms when anyone on this forum does the same to them. If I were to call someone an idiot for enjoying Invincible, you know I'd be torn a new one.

And no, perhaps this forum isn't as intense as the Beliebers or Directioners in several senses. But what we are doing is going onto the forum of an artist we all care for, logging onto accounts that shield our identities, take this man's unpopular opinion and proceed to question his sanity, mind set, and taste in music in the process. And that, as far as I'm concerned, is just as bad.

Just ignore them, the guy is proving by the very posts in this thread that you can't say much about MJ without getting the backlash you see here.

 

[Psychoniff]

Because the point here isn't really to give a genuine review. The point is to provoke and piss off other fans and then when they express their displeasure to whine about "fans who think he cannot do wrong and he is an angel". It is very transparent. Line after line he deliberately uses terms and expressions that are unnecessarily offensive and provokative, while he could have expressed the same opinions in much less offensive and provokative ways, if getting a genuine review out there was really the point. I don't believe it was.

REALLY, so he can't have an opinion? I see you're the REAL troll.

 

[HIStory]

That's not what she said at all. And respect 77 is one of the most well-liked and respected members on MJJC, definitely NOT a troll.

Psychoniff has a tendency of misinterpreting my posts. I don't know if it is deliberate or he really has reading comprehension problems but I told him today that he is gonna be ignored by me from now on, so he is now trying to poke me to react to him. LOL.

 

[SmoothMJ]

When someone writes an article, with so much wrong with it that it's hard to know where to start, then it is more than sensible to question his sanity. Or, at the very least, his motives.

The supporters of this 'author', seem to think he should be able to spout any old nonsense without people smelling it like it is. If I remember right someone even suggested that he does this sort of bull's hit article to provoke. Well, if that's the case, even more reason to give him both barrels.

The article is a joke. But not a very funny one. And It's the same old people desperate to defend yet another baseless, tasteless, pointless, anti-MJ article dressed up as 'keeping it real'.

In fact, it's like this guy has come on here and read all the negative threads/comments from his 'defenders' and stuck them all in one massive attack of muck throwing.

Sorry guys. Be as gullible or duplicitous as you like. Just don't expect me to join you.

 

[SmoothMJ]

REALLY, so he can't have an opinion? I see you're the REAL troll.

He CAN have an opinion.

That opinion can be total sh1t though.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

REALLY, so he can't have an opinion? I see you're the REAL troll.

Not someone who is a known troll saying that a person who has never trolled is a troll. :rofl:

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

It's all about point of reference.....

It really boils down to in consensus, when a person first became a fan of Michael which determines which album during his adult solo career they find to be his best.

If that person became or watch MJ's career occur from 1979-1984, they are either going to say OTW or Thriller was his best album.

if that person became a fan of his during the late 80s, that person is going to say BAD was his best album.

if that person became a fan of his during the early 90s, that person is going to say DANGEROUS was his best album.

if that person became a fan of his during the mid 90s, that person is going to say HISTORY was his best album.

and if we are to be honest.....

most of his black fans are going to say OTW or Thriller was his best.

most of his white fans are going to say BAD, DANGEROUS, or HISTORY was his best

this has been consistent throughout.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

But don't you see it is the same on the flip side? Some of you guys (always the same 3-4 people, BTW) constantly complain about this supposed supression of any other opinion of MJ than that he was an angel (once again an extremely cliché and untrue thing to say, but the common mantra of these "keeping-it-real" types)? Yet your issue is basically people reacting to these negative opinions by expressing their opinions. No one said he wasn't allowed to say whatever he wants to. But people are allowed to disagree as well and they are also allowed to criticise him just as much as he is allowed to criticize MJ or the parts of the fandom he expressed his disdain for. That's the part that "keeping-it-real" people do not seem to get - that not only they have a right to their opinion, but if they choose to discuss their opinion on any public forum then other people have the right to react and disagree and call them out on things they feel is unfair and that is not some sort of supression of their opinion. It does seem like some of these "keeping-it-real" folks basically just want a ticket to bash MJ (and other fans) unopposed and unchallenged. And because they are getting opposed and challenged (why is that even surprising on a forum dedicated to said celebrity?) they start whining about supposedly being supressed.

Someone said in this thread earlier that they knew this guy they are friends with him and he is bascially deliberately provocative. So maybe we aren't even dealing with someone who wants to express an honest, genuine opinion, but someone who just wants to provoke and piss off other fans, for his own entertainment or just for the sake of it. Some of these "keep-it-real" folks get off on things like that indeed and then they have the nerve to complain if they get opinions that are not so nice. Don't you realize the hypocrisy? You can express the same opinion in ways that is not so offensive and you can express an opinion in a deliberately offensive and provokative way. If you choose the latter do not be surprised if you get heated responses. Wasn't that what you wanted, after all, by being deliberately offensive and provokative? So why do you then whine about it?

Well Damn.