What exactly was so groundbreaking about MJ's MUSIC?

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

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!

Good luck with that.

 

[Psychoniff]

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

The irony in this posters comment on the Beatles is second to none.

"Agreed.
Interestingly, I've only ever encountered this with Beatles fans (and hipsters, but that's a discussion for another time).
I've never seen another fandom aside from the Beatles' that consistently is so uncomfortable with the idea of anyone not sharing in their opinion that they feel the need to invalidate anyone who doesn't fit the mold.
Tell nearly any "serous" Beatles fan that you don't particularly care for the band and more often than not, you'll get back some form of "clearly you've never listened to xyz" or "you have no taste".
Usually I'll ask them how many Beatles songs one would have to listen to before they'd accept that the person just wasn't a fan, and rarely do I get a straight answer. Then I'll ask how they feel about some current pop star like Lady Gaga and after the inevitable response, I ask if they ever even listened to one album the whole way through."

 

[DuranDuran]

technology

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.

There's a documentary called Everything Is A Remix and it shows the first Star Wars movie was bits and pieces of earlier movies combined together.

Things from the past might not seem impressive to later audiences, like Ray Harryhausen special effects. Atari 2600 might not look like anything to the generation who grew up with today's video game systems. But it was a big thing at the time. Modern rap fans might say early rappers like The Furious 5, Kurtis Blow, Fat Boys, or Run DMC are corny. Someone who is into fast guitarists might not see what is special with blues guitarists like B.B. King. Without blues music the speed metal guitarists probably wouldn't have existed.

 

[DuranDuran]

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.

That's because that's seen as old showbiz like Broadway or Las Vegas. The thing the early rock 'n roll fans in the 1950s were rebelling against. They didn't want to hear their parents Andrews Sisters & Dean Martin records or watch Singin' In The Rain. Lawrence Welk & Liberace was not cool. Rebel actors like James Dean & Marlon Brando was the in thing. It's the same thing when people trash glam metal. They make fun of it and call them hair bands. That's probably why a big deal is made about Nirvana knocking Dangerous from #1. Nirvana was seen as anti-show biz. I don't think anything would have been said about an Ace Of Base or C+C Music Factory album taking the top spot from Mike. Grunge is also said to have killed the hair metal bands too.

 

[MJJA]

Dumbest conversation on this board ever.
MJ's influence is clearly unparalleled in the history of music.
The sound, the vocals, the dancing, the videos, the live performances, the imagery, the fashion, the energy.
MJ was not some guy who stood there and played some ****ing guitar or piano or sung ballads.
MJ's greatness is in the totality of his work which is why it is so ****ing stupid to compare him to the beatles none of whom could sing or dance or could perform and they weren't even particularly great musicians.
To Dylan who was one dimensional. It was a great dimension in that he was a great songwriter but that is it.
To anybody because MJ was unique and that is what makes him special.

 

[DuranDuran]

The sound, the vocals, the dancing, the videos, the live performances, the imagery, the fashion, the energy.

What good is dancing, fashion, or videos to a blind person? They can only judge the music that they can hear. People don't go to a jazz concert or to a symphony orchestra to see dancing. When people buy a record, they don't see dancing or a pyro show either. Out of all the acts since the recording industry began, a very small percentage danced or did steps. If dancing is the main draw, how did any of those non-dancing acts become popular? Music is the primary draw, the rest is secondary. Not everyone goes to concerts, they might only listen to the radio. Before MTV and cable TV, most popular acts were not seen on TV much. There were only 3 major networks in the USA plus PBS and a few local channels on UHF. Maybe you could see an act occasionally on programs like American Bandstand, Soul Train, Shindig, Midnight Special, Ed Sullivan, etc. Those shows came once a week, and lasted 30 minutes or an hour. Really less than that with the commercials. So the radio is the main place the general audience heard music or maybe a jukebox at a club/bar. People who went to concerts most likely already liked a performer's music that they heard, not saw. Music videos were irrelevant pre-1980s, although some were made. They weren't really shown on TV. A few were shown in clubs or sent to foreign countries because this was cheaper than flying an act to different places just to do a TV show.

 

[HIStory]

I think already the premise of the thread is somewhat unfair.

For example, OP declares Elvis "innovative" and "groundbreaking" for nothing else than performing black music as a white man (and remember, he did not even write those songs), but when someone brings up something in MJ's favour, like his breaking racial barriers as a black man on MTV and in terms of popularity, he is quick to dismiss it and are all excuses like "but that was done before him" (yeah. I guess Musical Youth had the same impact on MTV and its segregationist culture as MJ... NOT). Guess what? The things Elvis did were done before him as well. He just took it to a wider (white) audience, he was not the innovator. Hell, he was not even a creator like MJ was, since Elvis did not write songs. But somehow Elvis is a groundbreaking innovator and MJ is not. Sorry, but sounds like double standards to me.

So do we include cultural innovations as well or just simply musical? Because if it's the latter, then I am sorry but Elvis was not innovative. But if we bring him up as culturally innovative (bringing black music to a white audience) then let's be fair to MJ and not dismiss his cultural innovations which were at least as significant as Elvis', if not more.

Musically and thematically, I think a lot of MJ's songs have a uniqueness to them and I agree with SoCav that actually in his later career that was more so than during OTW or Thriller (although hipsters and snobs will always only praise those albums - many of them don't even know much more from him). I am not a musician so I have a hard time explaining what it was but a unique MJ style definitely exists musically and thematically. He was probably not the most innovative artist ever, but did he have to be to be one of the greatest? You mentioned the Ramones, Funkadelik/Parliament etc. who might have been innovative/experimental in their field but are they considered the greatest bands ever - even in their own genre? Eg. I don't know if the Ramones would be considered the greatest punk band ever even though they were the pioneers of that genre. So it's usually more complex than to say most innovative artist=greatest artist.

Like said before that MJ was great at combining many different art forms (singing, songwriting, dancing, video etc.) on a very high level - I don't know why that gets dismissed and overlooked as if that is artistically and creatively nothing or not significant when that set the pace for a whole new generation of artists (the MTV generation) and when until today a lot of artists cite that as an influence. To say that all other elements don't matter just the innovativeness of one's music in terms of who is great or who is not is pretty much an arbitrary (snobby) categorization IMO. We could just as much set other categories where MJ would come out as the greatest. All in all IMO, to be considered one of the greatest it has to be a combination of many things. You can be the most experimental artist ever musically, but if no one cares for your music does that really make you great? That's an extreme example, of course, because there are artist who are experimental and popular too, but then they are lacking in other areas compared to MJ.

I think the problem is often with these snob criterias of greatness that they are biased for certain genres and certain type of artists and arbitrarily dismiss other skills as unimportant (that's why innovation in dance is not considered as important as in music) and arbitrarily elevate other skills as all-important (experimental, playing instruments etc).

 

[HIStory]

What good is dancing, fashion, or videos to a blind person? .

If these are the kind of arguments we are going to have: what good is music to a deaf person?

And where did he say "dancing was the main draw" in MJ's art? He said this:

The sound, the vocals, the dancing, the videos, the live performances, the imagery, the fashion, the energy.

Dancing is just one element that that commenter listed. I don't think dancing should be dismissed as unimportant either. Dance is an art form in itself. Like I said it usually has a snobby, elitist attitude behind it IMO when people declare it unsignificant, and a certain bias towards a certain kind of art and artists.

But to see that dancing and visuals aren't the only attractive things in MJ's art go and check out Spotify play statistics as Spotify does not have videos or visuals, just music. MJ is pretty much the only non-current artist that is regularly in the Top 100 (around 60-70, actually - currently #67). He is ahead of the Beatles (#100), he is ahead of Elvis (#294), Funkadelic/Parliament (neither is in the Top 500), Pink Floyd (#226) etc. - he is ahead of any other legendary artist.

I know this has nothing to do with innovation, but your post didn't either. Just with how people only care about the music, not the dance. Even if it is so MJ has nothing to be ashemed of because his MUSIC is actually doing very well, both in record sales and on streaming services that only stream audio.

But considering the fact that YouTube is the most popular streaming platform I would disagree with the suggestion that dance and video are unimportant. You talk about people listening to music on the radio first. Well, this is 2016, not 1976. Most young people today watch music on YT. Video and dance is pretty much an integrated part of popular music today. Video in itself became an art form (and MJ had a great part in that) and dance is of course an art form in itself too - and again MJ had a great part in making it an element of music videos.

(For the record, MJ is doing very well on YT as well. He is currently #20. The Beatles are not in the Top 100. Pink Floyd is #100 currently. Elvis is not in the Top 100.)

 

[octavio001331]

It's quite funny to see how people feel insulted when you discuss about it. As many of you, I too had my time of thinking MJ was the greatest in everything he did. But how I explained my thoughts earlier, Michael was an merge of many talents, he could do these things in a brilliant way (singer, dancer, songwriter, performer, actor, etc). All of it together made him a true legend, but when it comes ONLY to his music, there are musicians that can be compared to him (in my opinion there are some better). But no problem to me, none of them can perform or dance like MJ. That's exactly why I like Michael, he was different, unique.

Peace.

 

[Psychoniff]

**Sigh** will never get anywhere with this kind of talk. I'm done.

 

[SmoothMJ]

But these are exactly the kind of arguments the haters use to try and devalue MJ's massive influence over many aspects of not just the the music world, but all kinds of performance art. They ignore 95% of what made him the greatest, to focus on the 5% they can nit pick against, often 'to big up' their own personal favourite. It's a nonsense perspective.

You might as well say, "Leonardo Da Vinci was ok, but his helicopters were nowhere near as good as X, Y, or Z's!".

You might as well say, "Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done?"

You might as well say, "The Beatles were OK. But my friend was asking what they actually contributed to modern dance, and I was stuck on how to answer him".

Sorry, but it's bullshite of the highest order. You can't ignore 95% of what made someone great to suit your argument. If a 'fan' doesn't get that, then what hope do we have with the haters? You might as well cast pearls before swine, as someone once said.

And, by the way, if the Beatles were not a boy band, then neither were the J5. Unless black people playing instruments is on some lesser scale to white people playing instruments.

 

[HIStory]

You might as well say, "Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done?"

Classic.

 

[SmoothMJ]

I like to think it helps makes my point, respect. ;D

 

[HIStoric]

And, by the way, if the Beatles were not a boy band, then neither were the J5. Unless black people playing instruments is on some lesser scale to white people playing instruments.

Why do some people bring race into everything?

From Wikipedia: Although the term "boy band" is mostly associated with groups from the 1990s onwards, the earliest predecessors of this format were groups such as the Jackson 5, the Osmonds, and the Monkees, which helped form the template for boy bands. While The Monkees were originally a manufactured act turned real band that featured members with distinct (albeit fictional) personality types, the Jackson 5 were a family group that established many musical conventions that boy bands follow. For instance, their music featured close harmonies from soul music and catchy pop hooks influenced as much as they were by Motown and acts like the Supremes. All members of the band sang, which is a common convention of a boy band, as opposed to having a front man and the rest on instruments; thus, no one person dominated the stage. Even so, the members conveniently fitted into the convention of having stereotypical personality types (e.g. Michael Jackson being the "cute one").

So I don't know if they entirely meet the definition of a traditional boy band, but they certainly meet some of the "criteria" and like Wikipedia said, at least helped establish such conventions.

- Not everyone in the group plays instruments, at least on stage. It seems like with The Jackson 5, you had two of them playing guitar and the other three singing/dancing. This seems to have somewhat evolved overtime to all of the members singing/dancing on stage (Backstreet Boys/NSYNC/One Direction). Contrast this to The Beatles, who all played their instruments on stage. They don't just stand there and sing (like 1D), or dance around (like J5).

- Put together by one "producer" or "higher up". Think how One Direction were essentially chosen and put together by Simon Cowell, similarly Joseph Jackson chose and put his children together to form a band. The Beatles on the other hand were not put together by their manager (or a similar higher up).

- There is also that stereotypical personality type thing mentioned, but this is one I remember The Beatles having too in their early days (off the top of my head, George Harrison was known as the "quiet one" and Paul McCartney as the "cute one"?). I think that sort of image was shed for them after 2-3 years though.

- Creative control too is another aspect? It's stereotypical for boy bands to not have a large amount of control over their music or image and I remember the Jackson 5 didn't like how Motown essentially controlled them creatively, which essentially was why they left them. The Beatles on the other hand, fortunately, were not intervened in by their label creatively and were left to their own devices.

I don't think them helping establish the template for what a "boy band" is is exactly a bad thing either... at least I don't consider it so.

 

[HIStory]

- Put together by one "producer" or "higher up". Think how One Direction were essentially chosen and put together by Simon Cowell, similarly Joseph Jackson chose and put his children together to form a band. The Beatles on the other hand were not put together by their manager (or a similar higher up).

I don't think anything can be more organic than being a family. So it's not the same as a band being put together artificially by a manager, regardless of the fact that Joe Jackson managed his sons. Not at all the same as Simon Cowell putting together One Direction.

 

[HIStoric]

I don't think anything can be more organic than being a family. So it's not the same as a band being put together artificially by a manager, regardless of the fact that Joe Jackson managed his sons. Not at all the same as Simon Cowell putting together One Direction.

I don't consider it exactly the same either, hence I said "similarly" because at the end of the day, Joseph still decided who was in and who wasn't in a manager-like role (I think he refused Michael at first? My memory of knowledge in this area is admittedly a bit sketchy).

I suppose the difference is, in a "band" it's the musicians who control who's part of the group. Whereas your traditional "boy band", it's someone in a more manager-like role.

 

[SoCav]

But the topic of discussion is not whether MJ is great or not, or whether he had an influence on the world/pop culture in general. The OP clearly states it's specifically about the degree to which his music was innovative and/or influential. Why can't we tease apart his different abilities and discuss them separately? I think doing so allows for a discussion that goes into much more detail on in this case his music than a general "Was MJ groundbreaking?" could.

And unpacking artists' skills sets is not uncommon at all. This is exactly how students at music schools learn to understand the greats. Some of the most interesting books I own are solely devoted to the songwriting of various artists, which completely ignore everything else. The level of detail in those books has made me understand and as a result appreciate their work much more. It'd be a hell of a lot less interesting if the authors had felt the need to replace half of the book with surface-level discussions about their cultural impact, live performance, singing, and so on, or added a disclaimer to every analysis saying "of course we must not forget that artist x also did y and z".

I'd actually love to read a similar book about Michael's songwriting, or his dancing. It's a shame that it does not exist yet...

 

[HIStory]

I don't consider it exactly the same either, hence I said "similarly" because Joseph still decided who was in and who wasn't in a manager-like role (I think I recall he refused Michael at first? My knowledge in this area is admittedly a bit sketchy).

Still it's not an artificial thing like in the case of boy bands where they have auditions to pick members, deliberately pick different type of guys to appeal to all type of girls etc.

Family groups existed before and ever since. I would not call it a similar mechanism of formation as in the case of boy bands. Obviously in case where children are involved you will have to have some adult influence and co-ordination. 8-10 year old kids are not going to go to Motown auditions all by themselves.

I don't disagree that the Jackson 5 had an influence on the boy band template (and I don't think that's a bad thing either - they themselves, however, were more than just a boyband) but I disagree on this particular point.

 

[HIStoric]

Still it's not an artificial thing like in the case of boy bands where they have auditions to pick members, deliberately pick different type of guys to appeal to all type of girls etc.

Family groups existed before and ever since. I would not call it a similar mechanism of formation as in the case of boy bands. Obviously in case where children are involved you will have to have some adult influence and co-ordination. 8-10 year old kids are not going to go to Motown auditions all by themselves.

I don't disagree that the Jackson 5 had an influence on the boy band template (and I don't think that's a bad thing either - they themselves, however, were more than just a boyband) but I disagree on this particular point.

Hmm, when you put it that way..

But the topic of discussion is not whether MJ is great or not, or whether he had an influence on the world/pop culture in general. The OP clearly states it's specifically about the degree to which his music was innovative and/or influential. Why can't we tease apart his different abilities and discuss them separately? I think doing so allows for a discussion that goes into much more detail on in this case his music than a general "Was MJ groundbreaking?" could.

And unpacking artists' skills sets is not uncommon at all. This is exactly how students at music schools learn to understand the greats. Some of the most interesting books I own are solely devoted to the songwriting of various artists, which completely ignore everything else. The level of detail in those books has made me understand and as a result appreciate their work much more. It'd be a hell of a lot less interesting if the authors had felt the need to replace half of the book with surface-level discussions about their cultural impact, live performance, singing, and so on, or added a disclaimer to every analysis saying "of course we must not forget that artist x also did y and z".

I'd actually love to read a similar book about Michael's songwriting, or his dancing. It's a shame that it does not exist yet...

Exactly! I sort of see it like a film to be honest. Michael Jackson was this incredible artist who shined because he was able to do so well in multiple areas and each aspect is just as crucial as the next to his artistry. Similarly, a critically acclaimed film shines because it does so well in each of it's various aspects (story, direction, cinematography, editing, sound, etc etc), each of these aspects is just as crucial as the next, and you need all of these aspects to be at a certain level for the film to be that amazing.

And yet there are millions of essays and articles out there that study a film and notably one aspect of it. Just like there are many essays out there that might unpack the editing of Raging Bull, it'd be great to see some discussion that unpacks solely the music side of the multi-talented artist that is MJ!

 

[HIStory]

But the topic of discussion is not whether MJ is great or not, or whether he had an influence on the world/pop culture in general. The OP clearly states it's specifically about the degree to which his music was innovative and/or influential.

Actually, the OP is not very clear to me in that regard. Yes, the title says "What exactly was so groundbreaking about MJ's MUSIC?" but then he (or his friend at least) makes a case for other artists based on not simply musical grounds. (And dismisses those not simply musical grounds in MJ's case ever since in this thread.) Eg. Elvis brining certain type of music to the mainstream is not MUSICAL innovation yet it is represented as the basis of claiming that Elvis was a groundbreaking and innovative musician as opposed to MJ (when in reality Elvis did not even write his music, while MJ did most of it). He also says "Bob Dylan's folk music was influential" - so there he talks about being influential, not only innovation and groundbreakingness.

So to me the original argument is already a bit all over the place.

Also, if even this "friend" (who does not seem to be a big MJ fan) acknowledges OTW as innovative/groundbreaking album how much more groundbreakingness you need from one artist? It's not like most of those other artists kept innovating with each of their albums. Bob Dylan sounded the same and used the same formulas for most of his career. Actually MJ was a lot more adventorous (or experimental, if you like) with his music during his lifetime than that.

(Not that I really agree OTW is necessarily the most groundbreaking album of MJ, but I guess this recent OTW documentary influences such opinions. Maybe if albums like HIStory, Dangerous would finally get to be discussed in a serious manner then people would discover the value in those as well.)

 

[SoCav]

^You rightly point out that the OP's 'friend' seems to not apply his criteria consistently and of course we can discuss when something/what is considered influential or innovative, so there's no disagreement from me there. To me it is clear that the purpose of this topic is to discuss the impact and influence of his music though, so bringing up that he was an amazing dancer or that there was no one as all-round as him seems clearly irrelevant to me.

I mainly just do not get why some react so defensively and deem the topic itself to be out of bounds.

 

[HIStory]

To me it is clear that the purpose of this topic is to discuss the impact and influence of his music though

Impact and influence are different than innovation and being groundbreaking though. You can be innovative but not particularly influential and vica versa.

 

[SoCav]

^I totally agree. Like I posted earlier, to me it is somewhat ironic (but perhaps not surprising) that what is always referred to as Michael's most influential work was among his least innovative. Of course that does not mean it is of lower quality, these are two separate things.

I think disentangling the two concepts is interesting.

 

[Psychoniff]

Actually, the OP is not very clear to me in that regard. Yes, the title says "What exactly was so groundbreaking about MJ's MUSIC?" but then he (or his friend at least) makes a case for other artists based on not simply musical grounds. (And dismisses those not simply musical grounds in MJ's case ever since in this thread.) Eg. Elvis brining certain type of music to the mainstream is not MUSICAL innovation yet it is represented as the basis of claiming that Elvis was a groundbreaking and innovative musician as opposed to MJ (when in reality Elvis did not even write his music, while MJ did most of it). He also says "Bob Dylan's folk music was influential" - so there he talks about being influential, not only innovation and groundbreakingness.

So to me the original argument is already a bit all over the place.

Also, if even this "friend" (who does not seem to be a big MJ fan) acknowledges OTW as innovative/groundbreaking album how much more groundbreakingness you need from one artist? It's not like most of those other artists kept innovating with each of their albums. Bob Dylan sounded the same and used the same formulas for most of his career. Actually MJ was a lot more adventorous (or experimental, if you like) with his music during his lifetime than that.

(Not that I really agree OTW is necessarily the most groundbreaking album of MJ, but I guess this recent OTW documentary influences such opinions. Maybe if albums like HIStory, Dangerous would finally get to be discussed in a serious manner then people would discover the value in those as well.)

OTW is indeed 'groundbreaking', 'influential', 'innovate', what ever you want to call it, look at the producers/musicians and trying to recapture the sound of the album in the last 5 years, Pharrell, Daft Punk, Mark Ronson, Bruno Mars, Justin Timberlake Rodney Jerkins etc.

Who's trying to recapture the NJS sound of Dangerous?

History and Invincible have nearly limited bearing on today's music, sadly (unless you guys can point to it)

 

[Psychoniff]

^I totally agree. Like I posted earlier, to me it is somewhat ironic (but perhaps not surprising) that what is always referred to as Michael's most influential work was among his least innovative. Of course that does not mean it is of lower quality, these are two separate things.

I think disentangling the two concepts is interesting.

How so?

If you're referring to OTW and Thriller, then those the album which most musicians/artists today cite as MJ as an influence refer to most.

 

[Psychoniff]

Edit:

 

[HIStoric]

Let's clear things up

Innovate - to do something in a new way : to have new ideas about how something can be done

Influence - the power to change or affect someone or something : the power to cause changes without directly forcing them to happen
: a person or thing that affects someone or something in an important way

Groundbreaking - introducing new ideas or methods

These terms seem similar in meaning to me, so I think it's safe to say we don't need to get into petty arguments about semantics.

Might not be a bad idea to edit the first post, add that in and clarify what exactly to talk about here, so people don't have to come looking through 7 pages to find this

 

[HIStory]

OTW is indeed 'groundbreaking', 'influential', 'innovate', what ever you want to call it, look at the producers/musicians and trying to recapture the sound of the album in the last 5 years, Pharrell, Daft Punk, Mark Ronson, Bruno Mars, Justin Timberlake Rodney Jerkins etc.

Who's trying to recapture the NJS sound of Dangerous?

History and Invincible have nearly limited bearing on today's music, sadly (unless you guys can point to it)

You are still using terms interchangably that do not mean the same. Influential is NOT the same as innovative. And no, it's not just semantics. One can be innovative but not influential and vica versa. Read the definitions again that you copied here. Not the same at all.

If you want to talk about the specific issue of the influence of an album on today's music, I would say today OTW, Thriller and Bad seem to have the most influence on artists of today (The Weeknd, for example, cited Dirty Diana as one of his biggest influences) out of MJ's albums. That's already 3 albums, so how does it make MJ look bad compared to anyone in terms of influence? It's not like each and every album of those other artists you mentioned were influential. So why is MJ held up to such high standards like no one else is? Because we do not demand that each and every Bob Dylan, Funkadelic, Ramones, Beatles, Elvis album have an influence on today's music, do we?

Actually, I do not see particularly much influence of Elvis on today's music. No one really plays that kind of music any more. I don't see particularly much influence of the Ramones on today's music - not in the mainstream anyway. Yes, they influenced the punk movement a great deal, but today that's more underground than mainsteam. The Beatles are influential and Dylan is probably influential to certain type of singer-songwriters, but MJ is influential just the same to certain other types of artists.

With other artists we just generally say they are influential (if they are) but for MJ for some reason you want to set the impossibly high standard that each and every one of his albums be influential on today's music or else he isn't influential enough for you? Why?

BTW, if something is not influential on today's music that doesn't mean it cannot be great. There is lots of great music that isn't particularly influential on today's music, yet it is great. HIStory may not be MJ's most influential album, but it's a great album. It's easy to see why light hearted, fun albums with more fun and general topics of party, romance etc - like OTW and Thriller - can have more influence on today's party oriented music than heavy, thematically more specific and darker albums. Although I have to note that TDCAU recently became a social anthem in the Black Lives Matter movement, so that album is not quite without influence either. It also has to be considered that Dangerous/HIStory and their respective eras are just not known in the US as much MJ's 80s albums, for various reasons. That also plays a part in why those albums get more ignored than OTW, Thriller or Bad.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Wow, this thread is still going.

Anywho, all in all you can't simply ask what MJ contributed musically (even though he did contribute a lot) because he didn't JUST make music he was an all around entertainer.

Michael contributed to the whole entertainment industry not JUST the music industry (which is part of what makes him so legendary).
In the music industry people mimick his sound, his falsetto, vocal hiccups,etc (for example, artist such as Justin Timberlake have legit made their whole career from trying to mimick ONE of MJ's eras).

When it comes to the entertainment industry as a whole people (Kobe Bryant for example) laud and revere MJ for his unparalleled work ethic, and for the level of success he reached as an entertainer because they themselves want to reach the same level of success in their own field.

Michael is also a fashion icon ( I shouldn't have to explain this).

OP's friend also seems like he's a biased MJ hater.

The Beatles are a band, so I can't really compare them to MJ who is an all around entertainer and a solo act, but I find it laughable when people use Elvis of all people to try and discredit Michael when although Elvis was a good singer (I'll give him that) he couldn't truly dance, he couldn't write music, and even though he did have some talent his overall success was a result of him being in the right place at the right time.

Using Elvis to discredit MJ is like sending off a ship that you know has a hole in it, which leads me to believe OP's friend is a MJ hater that will say anything (regardless of how little sense it makes) to belittle MJ.

 

[SmoothMJ]

People can mask their intentions all they want, but it's not going to wash with me.

The OP's 'friend' was clearly trying to downplay MJ's importance in the history of music. The only people trying to oblige this 'friend' are the same posters who pick apart MJ's career on here, day after day.

I see an increasing amount of topics on here with negative connertations. "What was Michaels worst this/that?" type of topics. It's as if the same people come on here each time with one intention, what can we denigrate about MJ today.

If people want to negate Michael's influence, on an MJ forum, don't be surprised if some people fight back. If you main purpose is to tell us how great Elvis was or how fantastic the (most overrated band of all time?) Beatles are, then your probably on the wrong forum.

Some people might claim that I am being over sensitive about this issue, as that would suit their agenda, but I am speaking out because I believe there is way too much of this type of negativity pretending to be objectivity on here these days. Lot's may not speak up about it, but don't expect me to sit quiet whilst it goes on.