What exactly was so groundbreaking about MJ's MUSIC?

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Re: music

That's why I'm reluctant to highlight too much the artist that cite MJ has an 'influence' when there actually maybe little in the way of musical imprints.

That's the thing people don't realize about MJ.
He was more then just an artist he was an all around entertainer.

It's nearly impossible for any popular artist now to not have some facet of Michael present in them, and it doesn't always have to be musical.

 

[Psychoniff]

Re: music

Influence doesn't always have to be obvious.

It's kinda like how although boy bands today don't try to mimic the Beatles sound, we know that the Beatles are the benchmark for all boybands.

Actually the Jackson Five are the true benchmark for 'boybands'. The Beatles weren't classified as a 'boyband'. They were straight rock not a vocal/harmony/choreography setup likes Jackson Five/Jacksons, Backstreet Boys, NSYNC, etc.

 

[DuranDuran]

None of them have one as varied as MJ. Get real.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Re: music

The Beatles were actually a band. A so-called "boy band" is a singing group. A doo-wop group would be more of an influence since some of them were known for doing steps or choreography. 1930s and 1940s vocal groups like The Ink Spots and The Mills Brothers were the influence for the doo-wop groups. If The Beatles were the influence instead of Frankie Lymon & The Teenagers, then the boy bands would play instruments rather than dance. The Beatles weren't known for choreography in their act. The Temptations were a vocal group that did dance. You could say that New Edition is pretty much were the modern boy bands started and they've said that they were influenced by The Temptations, Blue Magic, The Dramatics, O'Jays, Jackson 5, & The Spinners. Not The Beatles.

Yes I know about groups such as Temptations, The Chords, etc (their some of my favorites actually!), but the Beatles are more popular so people will look to them as the best boy band (even if they technically don't fit the classification).
For example, I recently saw a comparison between the Beatles and One Direction (don't ask me where I saw it because I can't remember).

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Re: music

Yes I know about groups such as Temptations, The Chords, etc (their some of my favorites actually!), but the Beatles are more popular so people will look to them as the best boy band (even if they technically don't fit the classification).
For example, I recently saw a cringeworthy comparison between the Beatles and One Direction (don't ask me where I saw it because I can't remember).

Add on to my other post:

Additionally, many people now will look at the Beatles and see four males singing together and look at One Direction and see four males singing togther and compare them.

And the comparison will happen to the Beatles first because the Beatles are one of if not the most known (not necessarily the best) band/group in the world.

 

[Psychoniff]

Re: music

Something got me thinking about MJ's penchant for mixing his album tracks marrying uptempo dancefloor burners and downtempo sultry numbers. "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough" & "She's Out of My Life", "Billie Jean" & "The Lady in My Life", "Smooth Criminal" & "I Just Can't Stop Loving You" etc. This is certainly something to consider for an R'n'B act.

 

[Psychoniff]

Well, you asked what was groundbreaking, not innovative. And it might not seem like a big deal for a black R&B artist to record a rock song, but it was in 1982. Of course, he wasn't the first black artist to do a rock track (rock music itself derives from black musicians), but rock was predominantly a white genre in the 70s/80s. You had bands like Funkadelic or Jimi Hendrix etc, but they weren't having mainstream commercial hits with their rock songs. They were more album artists than anything else.

Whether or not he was technically the first black artist played on MTV or not is not really the point, he was certainly the first black artist to get the same treatment as a white artist, as in his songs getting played on constant rotation by the station etc.

You raise a valid point about whether or not these are musical accomplishments or just industry accomplishments, but I would argue there's a reason why MJ was the one who broke down these barriers, and it's because he was one of the few artists who had the versatility to do all these different things and package them altogether. Yeah, there's nothing particularly innovative about Beat It as a song, I guess it's a pretty traditional rock song, but with MJ it was always about the whole package.

You say if MJ played instruments the results still would've been the same, but the very fact that he used his voice in such an unorthodox way to create entire compositions is pretty impressive if you ask me.

Is there much a difference between 'groundbreaking' and 'innovative'?

 

[DuranDuran]

Re: music

Something got me thinking about MJ's penchant for mixing his album tracks marrying uptempo dancefloor burners and downtempo sultry numbers. "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough" & "She's Out of My Life", "Billie Jean" & "The Lady in My Life", "Smooth Criminal" & "I Just Can't Stop Loving You" etc. This is certainly something to consider for an R'n'B act.

That wasn't unique. Many funk bands and R&B singers had uptempo and ballads, often called "slow jams". There is even a radio program called Quiet Storm, named after a Smokey Robinson song.

 

[Psychoniff]

Re: music

So having single handedly written some of the greatest pop songs of all time is not groundbreaking enough for you? Jeez, some people are so hard to impress.

See, it's comments and responses like this that get genuine debates about MJ shut down by fans.

 

[Psychoniff]

Re: music

That wasn't unique. Many funk bands and R&B singers had uptempo and ballads, often called "slow jams". There is even a radio program called Quiet Storm, named after a Smokey Robinson song.

True. Like James Brown.

 

[Psychoniff]

There is a different I think. For example, I would say that Beat It was groundbreaking in what it accomplished, but not innovative as a song.

Like Elvis being more groundbreaking and Chuck Berry being the innovative one, right?

 

[Psychoniff]

^Innovate though?

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

I'm okay with debates about MJ, but often times those "debates" simply become MJ's own "fans" saying that he really isn't that good, overrated, nothing special, etc.
And honestly the media, and music critics do a more then good enough job of downplaying MJ's talent, so why should his own fans?

I honestly can't think of another solo artist whose talent has been downplayed and nit picked as much as MJ.

 

[SoCav]

Re: music

So having single handedly written some of the greatest pop songs of all time is not groundbreaking enough for you? Jeez, some people are so hard to impress.

It is groundbreaking in terms of setting an incredible standard of excellence, but that does not mean it has to be musically innovative. OTW is often cited as influential, but personally I think that's more because it is simply disco-funk at its finest, not because it was novel. The same goes for Thriller with regards to LA Funk. It's not difficult to find albums with similar songwriting and production styles that were released prior to it, but Thriller just took it to an entirely different level. The first half of Dangerous is another example of this. New jack swing was already on its return so those songs were not particularly new stylistically, but I do think they were the finest the genre ever produced.

That's not to say that the works mentioned above were not innovative at all of course. Michael's songs contain signature elements that make them instantly recognizable as his. For instance, often a pretty straight beat but with a complex arrangement of rhythms and counter-rhythms playing off of each other, an emphasis on string arrangements (particularly noteworthy in his uptempo tracks), loud snares (lol), staccato vocal melodies, heavy use of beatboxing, etc. You can find these kinds of 'typically MJ' stylistic elements all throughout his career, but he'd apply them within the style of music he was working in. And even though he'd give it his own twist, that style itself was certainly not always novel (e.g. disco-funk, LA funk, new jack swing, etc.)

I do think as the 80s progressed and he matured as an artist, Michael's released output started to become increasingly innovative and increasingly difficult to classify. Of course, this process started very early on already (remember that Little Susie was written in the 70s, for instance). He also seemed to compartmentalize his work to some degree: he'd make his own compositions with his usual close collaborators on the one hand, and then on the other would seek out hitmakers like Akon and Will.I.Am and try to work with them. I do think his desire for hit records prohibited him a bit from showing his innovative side to the world. Some of his most innovative compositions are ones that did not get finished or released on a studio album, like In The Back. I'd be very curious to see what else is left in the vaults, even in terms of just rough sketches.

So I'd say that there is plenty of innovative stuff to be found in Michael's back catalogue, but that what (perhaps ironically) he had most success with commercially and what is often deemed to be his most influential work (mainly OTW & Thriller) was not among it. Rather, he just worked within existing parameters, put his own stamp on it and did so at a very high level.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

This is kind off topic but I wonder what MJ's unreleased music sounds like.
I know that MJ can't give the okay to release the music to the public, but hey they already released some of it on Xscape so the flood gates are open right?

 

[HIStoric]

How am I downplaying anyone else, did I say anything about any other artist that wasn't factual?

In your very first post, you literally downplayed one of the most influential artists in the history of music: The Beatles.
"2. The Beatles are great (the first really popular boyband), but I see very little of their influence in the current music industry."

Admittedly, I tried to respond and write about some of the significance and groundbreaking aspect of their music, as well as their influence into a short post but it was hard to at that length. I ended up writing a longer-than-average post, but given this is a topic about Michael and not The Beatles, I felt it was too much for this thread.

So here's what I'll do. To save space and hopefully not distract the conversation much, I'll link you to a few interesting sources that discuss the significance and ground breaking aspects of their music and then I'll briefly link to my response on some ways they influence modern artists.

First off, here's the links: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Once you've read that... here's the rest of my response... http://textuploader.com/5nukn

Hope that helps We really need that spoiler option you see on other forums, so you can write a bunch of text but other members only see it if they click "Reveal"

 

[HIStoric]

Re: music

So having single handedly written some of the greatest pop songs of all time is not groundbreaking enough for you? Jeez, some people are so hard to impress.

*sigh*

See, it's comments and responses like this that get genuine debates about MJ shut down by fans.

Ugh, THANK YOU.

MattyJam, let me put it this way. While I consider myself to be relatively knowledgable about music (certainly the bigger artists), I'm much more knowledgable about film than I am with music. I could talk about in reasonable detail why Citizen Kane, for example, was so technically groundbreaking when it came out in 1942.

With music though, unfortunately I'm not as educated and while I've read on here that his music was groundbreaking, I have struggled to articulate why past the "oh its one of the greatest pop songs in history!". Like, I know some of them are and they're amongst my favourite pop songs, but I want to know how and why exactly.

See what I just posted about The Beatles? In my post I linked to a few discussions about their music, in which the significance and groundbreaking aspects of their music is discussed by multiple people. I've seen a lot of people do that for The Beatles and that's why I can talk about them more than Michael.

Let's do that for Michael but in more detail! So Billie Jean is considered one of the greatest pop songs of all time. Awesome! Let's pull that song and the rest of his music apart and investigate how and why it's considered that! What is so groundbreaking about some of his lyrics, what studio techniques did Michael pioneer in his music that was groundbreaking at the time, was he one of the first major artists to apply a certain concept to his song, especially one that has continued to be influential to this day? Etc etc. Honestly if people actually did this in depth, this could become one of the most educating and fascinating topics discussed on this fanboard in a long time.

I haven't read most of the posts for the past page or two, so I'll go check them out now and see what people have posted

 

[DuranDuran]

Re: music

DuranDuran - Are you even an MJ fan? I mean, I never see you say anything positive about Michael's music.

Where have you seen me put down Mike's or anybody else's music? Saying not everybody is influenced by Mike's music isn't negative. There is no one act that everybody is influenced by. I don't make statements like "so and so is the greatest of all time", because there is no such thing. No one has heard every act in history to determine who is best anyway. It's not a fact that can be proven, it's an opinion of the listener. Popularity, sales, awards, and Rolling Stone lists does not make it so.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

In your very first post, you literally downplayed one of the most influential artists in the history of music: The Beatles.
"2. The Beatles are great (the first really popular boyband), but I see very little of their influence in the current music industry."

Admittedly, I tried to respond and write about some of the significance and groundbreaking aspect of their music, as well as their influence into a short post but it was hard to at that length. I ended up writing a longer-than-average post, but given this is a topic about Michael and not The Beatles, I felt it was too much for this thread.

So here's what I'll do. To save space and hopefully not distract the conversation much, I'll link you to a few interesting sources that discuss the significance and ground breaking aspects of their music and then I'll briefly link to my response on some ways they influence modern artists.

First off, here's the links: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Once you've read that... here's the rest of my response... http://textuploader.com/5nukn

Hope that helps We really need that spoiler option you see on other forums, so you can write a bunch of text but other members only see it if they click "Reveal"

I don't see how that's downplaying the Beatles.
Not seeing their influence in the current music industry doesn't mean that they weren't good, and that they didn't have a large impact on the music industry as a whole, heck I even said they were great.
I "downplayed" the Beatles no more then MJ himself is being downplayed in this thread.

 

[HIStoric]

I don't see how that's downplaying the Beatles.
Not seeing their influence in the current music industry doesn't mean that they weren't good, and that they didn't have a large impact on the music industry as a whole, heck I even said they were great.
I "downplayed" the Beatles no more then MJ himself is being downplayed in this thread.

Firstly, I never said you thought The Beatles weren't good, I've observed your comments about them on this board and I've never really ever felt you saw them that way. In fact, I've always seen your comments on them as someone who doesn't listen to their music or might not be that knowledgable in it (and thus there are times I don't agree with you on them), but generally you still show respect for them, which is good. I think that is how we should handle most artists tbh

And maybe you personally don't see a lot of their influence in the music industry today, but there is. Happy to agree to disagree.

I don't really see MJ being downplayed in this thread, I see people challenging these broad statements in an attempt to find out more and go more in-depth in them. I guess the equivalent is going on a Star Wars fan forum and asking how the original Star Wars was so visually groundbreaking for it's time. I mean you've always read how Star Wars has some of the best visual effects of all time, but you have others coming in who are not as knowledgable asking how and why exactly. They're not downplaying the visual effects (or the achievements of the filmmakers), they're wanting people to expand on it. I guess the way I see it, if the artist or the art can truly live up to such a broad statement, someone with the right amount of knowledge should be able to explain how and why.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Firstly, I never said you thought The Beatles weren't good, I've observed your comments about them on this board and I've never really ever felt you saw them that way. In fact, I've always seen your comments on them as someone who doesn't listen to their music or might not be that knowledgable in it (and thus there are times I don't agree with you on them), but generally you still show respect for them, which is good. I think that is how we should handle most artists

That's the thing though.
When it comes to MJ people either see his talent or they don't, there doesn't seem to be a natural respect for what MJ has done for music like the Beatles get.
For some reason people feel the need to act as if MJ didn't earn his stripes.
For example, people love to say he started calling himself the King of Pop to discredit him having the title.

 

[Psychoniff]

Re: music

*sigh*



Ugh, THANK YOU.

MattyJam, let me put it this way. While I consider myself to be relatively knowledgable about music (certainly the bigger artists), I'm much more knowledgable about film than I am with music. I could talk about in reasonable detail why Citizen Kane, for example, was so technically groundbreaking when it came out in 1942.

With music though, unfortunately I'm not as educated and while I've read on here that his music was groundbreaking, I have struggled to articulate why past the "oh its one of the greatest pop songs in history!". Like, I know some of them are and they're amongst my favourite pop songs, but I want to know how and why exactly.

See what I just posted about The Beatles? In my post I linked to a few discussions about their music, in which the significance and groundbreaking aspects of their music is discussed by multiple people. I've seen a lot of people do that for The Beatles and that's why I can talk about them more than Michael.

Let's do that for Michael but in more detail! So Billie Jean is considered one of the greatest pop songs of all time. Awesome! Let's pull that song and the rest of his music apart and investigate how and why it's considered that! What is so groundbreaking about some of his lyrics, what studio techniques did Michael pioneer in his music that was groundbreaking at the time, was he one of the first major artists to apply a certain concept to his song, especially one that has continued to be influential to this day? Etc etc. Honestly if people actually did this in depth, this could become one of the most educating and fascinating topics discussed on this fanboard in a long time.

I haven't read most of the posts for the past page or two, so I'll go check them out now and see what people have posted

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!!!:bow::yes::agree::clapping::clap::jump:

It's like you can read my mind.

 

[Psychoniff]

I don't see how that's downplaying the Beatles.
Not seeing their influence in the current music industry doesn't mean that they weren't good, and that they didn't have a large impact on the music industry as a whole, heck I even said they were great.
I "downplayed" the Beatles no more then MJ himself is being downplayed in this thread.

Two wrongs certainly don't make a right.

 

[HIStoric]

That's the thing though.
When it comes to MJ people either see his talent or they don't, there doesn't seem to be a natural respect for what MJ has done for music like the Beatles get.
For some reason people feel the need to act as if MJ didn't earn his stripes.

You know why many people don't seem to have a natural respect for Michael's music? Because the music itself isn't discussed in-depth that much. What's the thing that most people primarily respect Michael for? His dancing and his music videos. Why? Because his dancing and his music videos have been questioned, challenged and dissected, they've been discussed in-depth into how the respective art was so ground-breaking, how it continues to hold influence to today. Everyone knows Thriller was one of the first music videos to merge the idea of telling an actual story in a music video, everyone knows how and why music videos today continue to be influenced by it, that's why the music video itself is so naturally highly praised.

It's the same thing with The Beatles music, it has been discussed so ridiculously in-depth and so many people have questioned it, challenged it. What they did to their music to make it sound groundbreaking, the incredible writing behind all of the songs, the techniques they helped invent/innovate in/popularise etc etc etc, these all continue to be discussed in-depth. Literally some of the links I posted were people questioning and challenging the significance of their work, followed up by people discussing their works and sharing their knowledge on the subject.

And yet here we are, trying to do the same to Michael's music and you're complaining about people not showing him respect here? I really don't get it. Disrespecting him would be instantly shooting him down and hands down refusing to believe he's had any sort of impact. That's not what people are doing. Questioning it with the intent and desire to be educated is not disrespecting the artist or their art. Some people simply don't know, they want to be educated and that is perfectly alright.

You can't really complain that no-one shows any respect for Michael and his art while simultaneously trying to shoot down any in-depth discussions of it. If anything, this discussion could be a great tiny stepping stone for this kind of talk! If more and more people did this, it could lead to more natural respect for Michael's music over time!

 

[Psychoniff]

That's the thing though.
When it comes to MJ people either see his talent or they don't, there doesn't seem to be a natural respect for what MJ has done for music like the Beatles get.
For some reason people feel the need to act as if MJ didn't earn his stripes.
For example, people love to say he started calling himself the King of Pop to discredit him having the title.

And I completely agree here. With MJ, critics tended to be divided because the consensus among journalists is that while his dancing and singing are top touch, the music lacked innovation. And many non-fans tend to see the gimmicks (gloves, vivid outfits etc), which distract from the music at times.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Two wrongs certainly don't make a right.

Let's not downplay either then.

MJ certainly doesn't need to be downplayed anymore then he already is.

People can't seem to talk about MJ's talent at all without making a snide remark of some sort, so his own fans needn't add to the negativity.

 

[Psychoniff]

You know why many people don't seem to have a natural respect for Michael's music? Because the music itself isn't discussed in-depth that much. What's the thing that most people primarily respect Michael for? His dancing and his music videos. Why? Because his dancing and his music videos have been questioned, challenged and dissected, they've been discussed in-depth into how the respective art was so ground-breaking, how it continues to hold influence to today. Everyone knows Thriller was one of the first music videos to merge the idea of telling an actual story in a music video, everyone knows how and why music videos today continue to be influenced by it, that's why the music video itself is so naturally highly praised.

It's the same thing with The Beatles music, it has been discussed so ridiculously in-depth and so many people have questioned it, challenged it. What they did to their music to make it sound groundbreaking, the incredible writing behind all of the songs, the techniques they helped invent/innovate in/popularise etc etc etc, these all continue to be discussed in-depth. Literally some of the links I posted were people questioning and challenging the significance of their work, followed up by people discussing their works and sharing their knowledge on the subject.

And yet here we are, trying to do the same to Michael's music and you're complaining about people not showing him respect here? I really don't get it. Disrespecting him would be instantly shooting him down and hands down refusing to believe he's had any sort of impact. That's not what people are doing. Questioning it with the intent and desire to be educated is not disrespecting the artist or their art. Some people simply don't know, they want to be educated and that is perfectly alright.

You can't really complain that no-one shows any respect for Michael and his art while simultaneously trying to shoot down any in-depth discussions of it. If anything, this discussion could be a great tiny stepping stone for this kind of talk! If more and more people did this, it could lead to more natural respect for Michael's music over time!

Joe Vogel's book, probably is the closest thing we as fans have to an in-depth analysis of his music full scale. But believe it or not, his book as been criticised by some fans (not on this forum) have accused Vogel of being a 'stan'.

 

[octavio_]

Let's be honest, some people here have to open their eyes and see that music industry isn't all about Michael Jackson.

Musically speaking, bands like Pink Floyd or The Beatles are just as big as MJ is, if not bigger. And in my eyes they are more influential and innovative than MJ.
The reason why, Michael was what he was because he had the whole package. He was an singer, dancer, songwriter, performer, actor, etc.
He was talented in every aspect and all of it together is what made him massive as an artist.

But when it comes ONLY to music, people can argue (and rightly so) about it and Michael is not being downplayed when people do it.

Being back to the topic Michael not being so groundbreaking after Off The Wall.
It doesn't necessarily mean its a bad thing. I think Michael felt comfortable to do music that way, which is what define his musical style

Sorry if some words are misspelled english isn't my first language.

 

[HIStoric]

Joe Vogel's book, probably is the closest thing we as fans have to an in-depth analysis of his music full scale. But believe it or not, his book as been criticised by some fans (not on this forum) have accused Vogel of being a 'stan'.

Yes, I read it some years ago. We need more discussions of that kind (which I guess is why we're in this thread ).

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Let's be honest, some people here have to open their eyes and see that music industry isn't all about Michael Jackson.

Musically speaking, bands like Pink Floyd or The Beatles are just as big as MJ is, if not bigger. And in my eyes they are more influential and innovative than MJ.
The reason why, Michael was what he was because he had the whole package. He was an singer, dancer, songwriter, performer, actor, etc.
He was talented in every aspect and all of it together is what made him massive as an artist.

But when it comes ONLY to music, people can argue (and rightly so) about it and Michael is not being downplayed when people do it.

Being back to the topic Michael not being so groundbreaking after Off The Wall.
It doesn't necessarily mean its a bad thing. I think Michael felt comfortable to do music that way, which is what define his musical style


Sorry if some words are misspelled english isn't my first language.

Tbh, I find it hard to compare bands to solo acts.
They're too different to compare and weigh against each other.