You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Jackson's music is definitely timeless. Listen to Billie Jean (for instance)
compared to MOST songs that came out during the time, it holds up. But hey...800,000,000 record sales is probably just a fluke, there was no essence to the music he made!http://www.gnrevolution.com/img/smilies/16.gifI will be fair however, U2 is also one of those groups that do stand the test of time. Elvis does too if you get rid of the cheesey stuff. Songs like "If I Can Dream" are so powerful they transcend. The same can be said for GNR with songs like Estranged and even Sweet Child, It's So Easy and My Michelle. Don't get me wrong you can "peg" all these songs from the era they come from but they don't come off as "man what was I thinking back then" the way crap by some flash in the pan would. Poison anyone? lol
Exactly dude. Thank you. Jackson's stuff all sounds pigeon holed to that era. His music is dated the way Madonna's music is dated. It's great pop music but you just can't help but hear and feel the 80's vibe and often times think "wow that stuff was bad". That's pop music for ya. Pop music is based on trends and fades. What can ya do. What makes it successful also in time makes it stale.
Anyone who says Gn'R sounds dated in the same vain as Poison, or Motley Crue or Kiss or any other 80's rock band just doesn't get it. AFD sounds like it could be released next week and top the charts just like James said.
Thanks for making me laugh.
Throw on a Beatles, Elvis, or early U2 record and it sounds dated. The U2 albums that don't sound dated are the ones released after 2000.
Well Saikin you've obviously never really listened to The Joshua Tree cause if you had you'd know that you could honestly drop that album in the middle of any decade and it would not be out of place one bit and it would be unique to itself. In fact The Joshua Tree sounds less dated than HTDAAB and ATYCLB and it's 13 and 17 years older respectivley.
As for Jackson I'll open up the debate:
I'm not saying he was a fluke, I get that billions of people adored him. I would argue though that maybe, just maybe it had more to do with him as a performer than as a singer / song writer. Is it really his songs as a whole that are legendary or was it the image that came with the songs. He was no doubt an iconic ground breaking dancer and his videos were all about DANCE. I'd argue that had he not been such an amazing dancer his songs fade alot quicker. Everybody wants to dance like Michael Jackson when Billie Jean comes on but if Michael didn't dance, does that song stand up for all these years the way it has? I think if people are honest they'd admit most of his stuff hasn't. To be honest I've dj'd alot over the last 12 years. Weddings, clubs, highschools and Billie Jean is his only song that gets a strong reaction everytime. Mind you that could be an ethnic thing. Mostly white people around these parts 
But for such a legend who's all about pop music and dance he's really low on the list of people who get requested.
I can't take anything away from his stage presence and his ability to wow people, but I would argue that his image propelled the songs much further than maybe they really deserved. Awesome performer, slightly better than average(if that) songs in opinion. All just my opinion though folks. Don't get bent out of shape over it. I realize this is the biggest celebrity death since Lennon or maybe Princess Di. I'm just not so sure I fully understand the full merit behind it.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
PaSnow wrote:James Lofton wrote:The vids added to the cheese. That Bad video is vomit inducing. He thinks he's "bad"? Really? Liberace walking through downtown Compton would have been more intimidating.
HA! C'mon James, Mike was bad.. Just not bad in a back alley type bad. Bad as in multi-talented & a show stopper, could steal the show.
Well, the image being portrayed in Bad and Beat It didn't really go with who he was. Might have seemed cool to a certain extent at the time, but really came off as tacky.
It was basically his way of trying to flaunt masculinity that was clearly contrived.
I was just kidding about Bad. Yeah, it was pretty cheesy. To be honest, in hindsight I think, I even let the cheesyness get in the way. I should listen to the song gain, it's prob better than I remembered. But yeah,. I remembered seeing the video & thinking, HA Micheal Jackson. He's not "Bad".
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
As for Jackson I'll open up the debate:
I'm not saying he was a fluke, I get that that billions of people adored him. I would argue though that maybe, just maybe it had more to do with him as a performer than as a singer / song writer. Maybe. Is it really his songs as a whole that are legendary or was it the image that came with the songs. He was no doubt an iconic ground breaking dancer and his videos were all about DANCE. I'd argue that had he not been such an amazing dancer his songs fade alot quicker. Everybody wants to dance like Michael Jackson when Billie Jean comes on but if Michael didn't dance does that song stand up for all these years the way it has? To be honest I've dj'd alot over the last 12 years. Weddings, clubs, highschools and that is his only song that gets a strong reaction everytime. Mind you that could be an ethnic thing. Mostly white people around these parts
I can't take anything away from his stage presence and his ability to wow people, but I would argue that his image propelled the songs much further than maybe they really deserved. Awesome performer, slightly better than average(if that) songs in opinion. All just my opinion though folks. Don't get bent out fo shape over it.
I guess one thing to think about is Beat It & Billie Jean are never played on classic rock stations, yet songs like Panama & Bad Medicine are. Do you really think those songs are much better than Mikes, or do you think he was pigeonholed??
Edit: Even Sunday Bloody Sunday. Good song, but no better than Beat It or Billie Jean imho, yet I hear it all the time on the radio still. I guess cause they're U2 it's still played, yet Mike got tossed aside as "pop 80's"
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Gunslinger wrote:Jackson's music is definitely timeless. Listen to Billie Jean (for instance)
compared to MOST songs that came out during the time, it holds up. But hey...800,000,000 record sales is probably just a fluke, there was no essence to the music he made!http://www.gnrevolution.com/img/smilies/16.gifI will be fair however, U2 is also one of those groups that do stand the test of time. Elvis does too if you get rid of the cheesey stuff. Songs like "If I Can Dream" are so powerful they transcend. The same can be said for GNR with songs like Estranged and even Sweet Child, It's So Easy and My Michelle. Don't get me wrong you can "peg" all these songs from the era they come from but they don't come off as "man what was I thinking back then" the way crap by some flash in the pan would. Poison anyone? lol
Exactly dude. Thank you. Jackson's stuff all sounds pigeon holed to that era. His music is dated the way Madonna's music is dated. It's great pop music but you just can't help but hear and feel the 80's vibe and often times think "wow that stuff was bad". That's pop music for ya. Pop music is based on trends and fades. What can ya do. What makes it successful also in time makes it stale.
Anyone who says Gn'R sounds dated in the same vain as Poison, or Motley Crue or Kiss or any other 80's rock band just doesn't get it. AFD sounds like it could be released next week and top the charts just like James said.
Saikin wrote:Thanks for making me laugh.
Throw on a Beatles, Elvis, or early U2 record and it sounds dated. The U2 albums that don't sound dated are the ones released after 2000.
Well Saikin you've obviously never really listened to The Joshua Tree cause if you had you'd know that you could honestly drop that album in the middle of any decade and it would not be out of place one bit and it would be unique to itself. In fact The Joshua Tree sounds less dated than HTDAAB and ATYCLB and it's 13 and 17 years older respectivley.
As for Jackson I'll open up the debate:
I'm not saying he was a fluke, I get that billions of people adored him. I would argue though that maybe, just maybe it had more to do with him as a performer than as a singer / song writer. Is it really his songs as a whole that are legendary or was it the image that came with the songs. He was no doubt an iconic ground breaking dancer and his videos were all about DANCE. I'd argue that had he not been such an amazing dancer his songs fade alot quicker. Everybody wants to dance like Michael Jackson when Billie Jean comes on but if Michael didn't dance, does that song stand up for all these years the way it has? I think if people are honest they'd admit most of his stuff hasn't. To be honest I've dj'd alot over the last 12 years. Weddings, clubs, highschools and Billie Jean is his only song that gets a strong reaction everytime. Mind you that could be an ethnic thing. Mostly white people around these parts
I can't take anything away from his stage presence and his ability to wow people, but I would argue that his image propelled the songs much further than maybe they really deserved. Awesome performer, slightly better than average(if that) songs in opinion. All just my opinion though folks. Don't get bent out of shape over it. I realize this is the biggest celebrity death since Lennon or maybe Princess Di. I'm just not so sure I fully understand the full merit behind it.
Dude, he wasn't just a good dancer. He had a hell of a voice. "Billie Jean" is my favorite song of his and it has nothing to do with his dancing. It's just a kickass song even 27 years after the fact.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
Dude, he wasn't just a good dancer. He had a hell of a voice. "Billie Jean" is my favorite song of his and it has nothing to do with his dancing. It's just a kickass song even 27 years after the fact.
I never liked his voice. I never disliked his voice. It was distinct but nothing special in my honest opinion. I also never said he was "just a good dancer". That's you not reading what I'm saying.
I guess one thing to think about is Beat It & Billie Jean are never played on classic rock stations, yet songs like Panama & Bad Medicine are. Do you really think those songs are much better than Mikes, or do you think he was pigeonholed??
Even Sunday Bloody Sunday. Good song, but no better than Beat It or Billie Jean imho, yet I hear it all the time on the radio still. I guess cause they're U2 it's still played, yet Mike got tossed aside as "pop 80's
I think Panama sucks. In fact I think Van Halen sucks. I like Bad Medicine better than any MJ stuff but I also think Bad Medicine is terribly dated. Michael Jackson gets very little radio play where I live. Rock stations, retro stations or pop stations. Just the way it is around here. I can't comment on what it's like in other places.
As for Sunday Bloody Sunday being no better than Beat It or Billie Jean, well.... whatever to each their own. But get over U2 being on radio They are a rock band that have been on pop, rock and classic rock stations for ages now. I know people on this board sometimes can't grasp that they truely are one of the greatest bands of all time but just deal with it. There's a reason why U2 songs get played on all radio stations and other artists don't. If they're getting radio play cause "they're U2" what does that tell ya? Maybe people in the year 2009 still wanna hear U2. Old bands don't stay on current radio unless people wana hear them.
And seriously you guys this isn't about U2 for christ sakes. I gave an example of bands having a timeless quality and if you don't get what I mean move on. I really don't give a shit if anyone likes MJ more than U2. I honestly don't, it was just an example but I used GNR, The Beatles and Elvis as well.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
I think Mike gets no airplay in most areas, just mho. He got pigeonholed into 80-'s pop fluff. But he was better than alot of 80's stuff.
And that is a great example of what I was getting at when I suggested he had much more susbtance as a performer than his music ever did. For someone larger than life the way he was his music should never have been able to be relegated to cheesey 80's pop/dance music and yet in many cases it has been. Maybe it just was. I mean when you talke about the greatest of all time and you have The Beatles, Elvis, Michael Jackson? I mean let's be real. There's a big difference I think. I think there's the greatest artists/bands of all time and then there are the greatest pop artists/bands. Michael fits into the second category.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
PaSnow wrote:I think Mike gets no airplay in most areas, just mho. He got pigeonholed into 80-'s pop fluff. But he was better than alot of 80's stuff.
And that is a great example of what I was getting at when I suggested he had much more susbtance as a performer than his music ever did. For someone larger than life the way he was his music should never have been able to be relegated to cheesey 80's pop/dance music and yet in many cases it has been. Maybe it just was. I mean when you talke about the greatest of all time and you have The Beatles, Elvis, Michael Jackson? I mean let's be real. There's a big difference I think. I think there's the greatest artists/bands of all time and then there are the greatest pop artists/bands. Michael fits into the second category.
Elvis shouldn't be listed next to the Beatles. Elvis ripped off music from African American rock and roll pioneers and was able to sell it to white audiences because he was white. He had a good voice but he didn't write his own music and his massive success was very much a product of racial discrimination at the time. Elvis was a massive star, there's no denying his popularity. But he's no more legit than Michael Jackson. In fact, I would argue Jackson is more relevant because at least he wrote his own music and he actually has some really great lyrics.
Re: Michael Jackson Discussion
I agree with Bono. But I'm young so chances are "I don't understand."
I'm not a big MJ fan, not because I'm purposely trying to "be different".. I just don't really feel his music. Alot feels held back. When I listen to it I just hear all the composers behind it... and I tried liking his stuff for a really long time.
Even his really great songs have so many things about them that make it unlistenable to me, and I would say it's definitely dated stuff. The synth bass? MIDI toms? Random break downs in the middle? His voice sounds great, I just think the actual creation of the music was done poorly.
The songs were soundtracks, and people are always gonna remember MJ, but I could care less about most of the music.
The Way You Make Me Feel is pretty awesome though... heh. Same with Get On The Floor.
