Psychoniff
Proud Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2015
- Messages
- 933
- Points
- 0
What was his stronger artistic outlet? Was he equally good at both? Did reach his full potential with either? etc
Michael was an entertainer. A once-in-a-life-time creative genius. My immediate instinctive reaction is to say that he was a DANCER who could sing....and BOY could he sing! His dance skills were inate, instinctive, automatic.....he didn't have to think about them....he could watch a dance sequence just once and then do it better than anyone else. He moved with rhythm, in tune with the music, from a very, very young age. Vocally, his tone was like no other's; he practised and took vocal lessons and trained his voice, to make it what it was. I think, if a survey of just random people in the street could be conducted, by asking them, "Michael Jackson - singer or dancer?" Most would say "dancer" off the top of their heads......the visual images of his dance are ingrained deeply into everyone's mind....even those who are not mega-fans, like us. LOL.
What was his stronger artistic outlet? Was he equally good at both? Did reach his full potential with either? etc
I think they'd say dancer ONLY if they thought of him in the adult phase of his life. But he was first known as a nine year old singing phenom. I think of him as a singer first, but you're right, his prowess was equal in both talents.
Excellent points, but don't forget he was dancing up a storm as a little kid too, the Jackie Wilson and James Brown moves he had down pat in the Motown auditions and of course he was showing the others how to dance even as a child. Joe "Watch Michael!" . Anyone who has seen the American Dream, will see Michael was obsessed with his moves at an early age, watching Jackie Wilson and the Temptations in the wings.
There's no point in trying to argue in favor of one or the other, imho. Michael Jackson was a performer, entertainer. He could write a song, sing and record the song and then dance to the same song in a way that nobody else could. And he did all of that equally well. He was a whole package in that sense. That's also what I admire about him. It's not like he was an amazing singer and an ok-ish dancer or an amazing dancer and an ok-ish singer - he was extraordinarily talented at both.
gerryevans;4145263 said:I don't think there's arguing on this one. Just good discussion.