Bryan said:When it comes to true musicianship
Bryan said:Michael Jackson won't even rank as a footnote in history.
Bryan said:s.a.f said:And likewise does it matter that Jackson could'nt do opera. Its abit like saying Tiger Woods is crap at tennis.
I think Pavarotti was far, FAR more likely to sing "Billie Jean" successfully than Michael Jackson was to sing "Nessun Dorma" successfully!
For the love of god, why are we even wasting time discussing the pseudo-accomplishments of some weird little "Pop" performer whose main claim to fame was being able to walk backwards on a stage? Come on, folks, that's stuff for the little kiddies to get excited about! When it comes to true musicianship, Michael Jackson won't even rank as a footnote in history.
Bryan said:When it comes to true musicianship, Michael Jackson won't even rank as a footnote in history.
optimus prime said:Bryan said:I guess I'll have to take your word for all that. Personally, I've never listened to his "music" (notice how I feel it necessary to enclose that word in quotation marks), except for brief snippets of it that I've heard accidentally when I'm changing channels on TV.
Bryan said:It depresses me that the public pays so much attention to that kind of "music", instead of serious music.
Bryan said:I suppose my complaint lies more with the people who buy his "music", rather than Michael Jackson himself. Why do people pay hard-earned money for that stuff? What accounts for such poor taste in music?
So lets see, you state you have never listened to his music and then complain because people buy it. Bizarre.
I am impressed how you are able to make an opinion on music you have never listened to. Quite the talent.
Bryan said:When it comes to true musicianship, Michael Jackson won't even rank as a footnote in history.
Axl_Rose said:Bryan said:When it comes to true musicianship
Define "True musicianship".
Axl_Rose said:Bryan said:Michael Jackson won't even rank as a footnote in history.
Even though you may not like it he already has so just accept it.
s.a.f said:Who said we were discussing musicianship?
We were discusing Michael Jackson who was probably the most successful entertainer ever and the most famous man on the planet.
Bryan said:Michael Jackson does rank as a footnote in history, but you have to understand that it's not for musicianship. As Andy Warhol said (I believe it was Andy Warhol who first used those words), MJ was "famous for being famous": he could put on a big show with lots of backup singers and dancers, he could do his famous "moonwalk" to put a thrill into the kiddies, he was constantly making the tabloids due to his (ahem) extracurricular activities and his other personal eccentricities, etc. But a true musician in any serious sense of the word, he was not.
Do you remember who Fabian Forte was, or are you too young for that? He was a teen idol during the late 50's and early 60's. He was soooo famous, he just went by his first name "Fabian". He had all the teenage girls simply SQUEELING over him with delight at every public appearance! Was he a "musician"? Yeah, about as much as _I_ am a "musician". Does anybody today give a hoot in hell about Fabian? No, and the same will probably be true of Michael Jackson in another 20 years or so.
Bryan said:I don't feel like writing a page or two just to try to describe a quality that all of us already know and understand.
dudemon said:For instance, MJ was no where nearly as talented of a musician as Steve Vai is. Nor was he as talented as Joe Satriani...or Yngwie Malmsteen...or...Eddie Van Halen...or Zack Wylde...the list goes on and on.
askas said:Did MJ created all the shows by himself? I guess no. So we must appreciate not only him, but other people who put efforts in making him a star. It's not a single person show, as they want us to think and adore the star. He was a great dancer, less talented singer. The show was great, but once again, it's not his own achievement, but of the team.
askas said:The same way we can appreciate Britneay Spears, or Madonna. Those are made stars, with some talent definitely, but to a certain extent, which then is extended by the performance and advertising. The amount of sold albums and known-to-all doesn't mean talent, definitely. Britneay Spears is not less famous than MJ.
askas said:Once agian, the number of copies does not mean quality. Fame does not equal quality.
Bryan said:askas said:Once agian, the number of copies does not mean quality. Fame does not equal quality.
Truer words were never spoken. Michael Jackson has gotten waaaaay more than his alloted 15 minutes of fame. It's time to let him rest in peace, and make room for the next kiddie Phenom.
Bryan said:askas said:Once agian, the number of copies does not mean quality. Fame does not equal quality.
Truer words were never spoken. Michael Jackson has gotten waaaaay more than his alloted 15 minutes of fame. It's time to let him rest in peace, and make room for the next kiddie Phenom.
Bryan said:Truer words were never spoken. Michael Jackson has gotten waaaaay more than his alloted 15 minutes of fame. It's time to let him rest in peace, and make room for the next kiddie Phenom.
Bryan said:Truer words were never spoken. Michael Jackson has gotten waaaaay more than his alloted 15 minutes of fame. It's time to let him rest in peace, and make room for the next kiddie Phenom.
Bryan said:Oh damn...I realize now the big mistake I made in that previous post. I'm very embarrassed, and I apologize to everybody here for what I said: there are TWO t's in the word "allotted", not just one.
Bryan said:Bryan said:Truer words were never spoken. Michael Jackson has gotten waaaaay more than his alloted 15 minutes of fame. It's time to let him rest in peace, and make room for the next kiddie Phenom.
Oh damn...I realize now the big mistake I made in that previous post. I'm very embarrassed, and I apologize to everybody here for what I said: there are TWO t's in the word "allotted", not just one.