Michael Jackson dead at 50

[maninblack]

Arguably, as you said. My argument being that he didn't. I could name you a barrelfull of artists, producers and writers with more of an impact on music than he had. He made some good pop music, all of it more than twenty years ago, and spent far more of his time cultivating his image as "The King Of Pop" and "the greatest performer on Earth", when neither had been anywhere near accurate in a long, long time.

If Michael Jackson had been an ordinary guy, who hadn't built this mystique around himself, he'd be remembered as having some good songs in the '70s and '80s. That's it. He really didn't do an awful lot else. I'd love to hear of anything truly earth-shattering that he achieved outside of the music business, as "his influence outside of music" is a phrase thrown around a lot lately, and I for one can't think of a single bloody thing. Cut away the "King Of Pop" facade, and you're left with a guy who used to be a damn good pop singer, but who spiralled into drug abuse, irresponsible behaviour, child abuse (sexual or otherwise) and financial difficulty - not to mention a lot of conveniently forgotten terrible songs and creative disasters along the way.

I hate to have to resort to the Scroobius Pip argument here, but I will. He was a bloke who made music. That's it, alright? And that's hardly belittling of him, millions of people dream of making a career making music, and he made some fantastic songs. But let's not get carried away and imagine he was ever anything more - all of this "a talent like his only comes along once in a lifetime" nonsense.

A Rebuttal:

I posted this on The Lesson forum of Okayplayer’s message board this past winter when asked if Thriller was merely a pop album with no artistic value.

I’ve been asked to re-post it, here it is.

I’m still composing my words about what happened yesterday, so I give you this for now.

-Scorp

The Artistic Merit of Thriller

while we all might be sick of hearing it and while it may not be as heavy as a What’s Going On or Innervisions…the fact is many records we regard as “art” dont have the sociological or spiritual depth of those records…

it would be easy to say that the work of Leroy Burgess or even James Brown is fluff based on the subject matter and dismiss it as not being artistic..which is in fact what mainstream music press does to Black music as a whole…and I have a problem with that…

it would be easy to say that I Want You is just a record abt being horny just the same as a Jodeci record is….

now as far as Thriller is concerned, it is an artistic as well as a commercial landmark for these reasons:

A) you said in another post that you do not regard MJ as a songwriter or producer…which is unfair because he CLEARLY does both…as far as his first 2 albums w/Q…..people tend to overestimate Q’s role…they tend to think that without a producer at the helm, Mike is helpless…it was Mike(w/the help of Randy Jackson) who created the the Jackson sound….it wasnt Jackie, Tito, or Marlon….and you see how well Jermaine faired on his own….

the the biggest issue that led J5 to leave Motown was lack of creative control….Mike was tired of being a singing puppet…he wanted his freedom in the studio…

CBS was unsure and made the group do two albums w/Philly Intl…after that it was time to put up or shut up…

so Mike and the boys got in the studio….CBS sent some studio pros in to make sure the shit didnt go wrong….the result was the Destiny album…the album that put them back on top….

with the exception of Blame It On The Boogie, ya boy wrote every song on that record…

he wanted to distance himself from his family and create a new sound for himself….since he’d already lent his sound to the family brand he brought in Q….

NOBODY else wanted Q…the word was that he was too old, that his track record in pop was unproven…look at the facts….before OTW and Thriller, Q was known as a bandleader and film composer, NOT a pop hitmaker….he’d had success w/the Brojays but that’s it…the last pop hit that he was responsible for before that was It’s My Party by Leslie Gore….

if you hit you tube and listen to the demos that Mike brought Q, you will see that very little is different from the album versions…

matter of fact, here ya go:

Dont Stop demo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCWJfzH6FDY

Working Day and Night demo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t51jUmABMlc

let’s go to the Thriller demos….

The Girl Is Mine demo 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztXxORezhpg

Girl Is Mine studio demo 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWUgNAAfcfU

Billie Jean demo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E_1eYWx4fM

so…my point…is that Mike created these albums from his own vision….he hired Quincy for a)legitimacy and 2)to run the studio 3) for his connections 4)quality control

so what you hear is his vision not Quincy’s…so from an artistic standpoint, he didnt just sit around and sing what Quincy put in front of him….he knew what he wanted and hired Q to translate….

after OTW, Mike went and cranked out another Jacksons album, Triumph…where he wrote every song except two…

so w.out Master Quincy, Mike was responsible for:

Shake Your Body

Heartbreak Hotel

Lovely One

Can You Feel It

Walk Right Now

Things I Do For You

…and the remaining songs on both Jacksons albums of that period…

but the music snobs like to think that Maestro Quincy sat Green Mike down and told him what to do….we can also add the folks that think Rod Temperton wrote every song on those two albums…and that’s the reason why those records came out the way they did…

Mike created those albums from his own creative muse, so artistically for him, that’s a W….

B) as far as Thriller specifically…Mike did something that no one else had done….he created the musical bridge for mainstream music from the 70’s to the 80’s…he was the cat who survived the 70’s and led the way to he 80’s, where most other 70’s cats were tryna figure out what to do next…most of them were doing disco knock-offs and praying for their survival…

people glaze over it now…but what soul/R&B figure could create a hit rock record that was embraced across the board…AND considered authentic by the rock audience?(the snobs may have been pissed off, but they werent the ones buying the records)…what soul/R&B cat was collaborating with Van Halen….and have it WORK?

it wasnt Prince….w/out Beat It, could you have a Let’s Go Crazy?

what other soul/R&B cat could get one of the Beatles on Black radio in the 80’s?

what soul/R&B cat would get Vincent Price to drop spoken word in the middle a funk/R&B cut cum horror movie?

who was else at the time was incorporating African chants and percussion at a time when everyone was whitening it up sonically(including MJ)…and who would reference Soul Makossa in the 80’s?

listen to the fact that a Black artist who was considered strictly soul/R&B decided to do a stylistic tour de force in one album when it hadnt been done before…

Thriller had:

Funk

straight R&B

Quiet Storm

MOR Pop

Rock

…all in one album by a Black aritst when such a thing was not only unheard of but frowned upon…..

futhermore, on Thriller he spoke abt teen preganancy, gang violence, challenging the social constructs of manhood, the culture of gossip, emotional blackmail, obsession, false accusations of paternity, and belief in one’s self…

fluff?

these are ARTISTIC RISKS….they could have gone horribly awry, but they didnt….he did the record HIS way….and in a rare occurence that we will only see once in a lifetime, hit the bulls-eye and pleased EVERYBODY…the effects of that had both deep positive and negative effects on his work and the entire music industry after that….

let’s remember…when Thriller was being conceived and recorded, MJ was still thought of as strictly an R&B act (Rolling Stone refused to do a cover story on him at the time), a boy band singer made good and the success or failure of the record was of little consequence to anyone BUT MJ…so pulling those strings wasnt as easy as we’d think it to be….

but WHY did he want to make a record like Thriller?….was it just to win the awards and make copious amounts of dough?

partially, yeah…but beyond that…why would MJ risk his entire career (which he’d done a few times before at that point) on a record that everybody, even QUINCY, thought would only be a mild follow up to OTW?

because he wanted out of the box…he wanted the limitations placed on Black musical artistry lifted…to end the segregation, so to speak…to send a message that you can follow your muse no matter what people say or think…you can do the kind of music you want to do and nobody should get in your way or try to stop you….

and he DID that…he achieved that goal of ARTISTIC freedom that reaps commercial success where it is unusual that the two paths EVER cross…

and whether you believe it or not is beside the point….MJ kicked down a huge barrier with Thriller…and many artists, regardless of culture or genre have reaped the benefits…

so at a superficial glance, it could appear that Thriller is nothing but the hottest chick in school for a couple years…but what happens when you talk to that chick and find out that there’s more there than just eye candy…

so like I said….people can feel how they wanna feel abt the artist and the record, we’re all entitled to our opinions…but give credit where credit is due is all Im saying….

Edited July 10, 2009 by maninblack

[apsham]

That was written by perhaps THE BIGGEST living\walking\breathing stereotype that I have ever read.

[Skummy]

You do realize that the dude donated a shitload of money to charities right?

....which you could say of pretty much anyone with the kind of income he had. The cynic in me would point out the usefulness of charity donations for tax purposes, but let's assume (probably accurately) that Jackson was a charitable soul...so are countless others around the world, who don't get recognised for it. "They gave money to charity", while perhaps noble in intention, is a stock response when defending public figures with a less than stellar reputation.

And beyond that, the sheer amount of commercial success and the impact he's had on a fuckton of musicians and performers pretty much elevates him above "some guy who wrote music" status. I agree that there's no need to deify anyone in music but to deny Jackson's importance is honestly pretty silly.

I'm not denying his commercial success, or influence on individual musicians, but I don't see the innovation in his work that so many other people claim to. All the "crossover" between genres that he's been accredited to could just as easily be credited to any number of people...Prince being the most obvious, but George Clinton and James Brown being other examples just off the top of my head. Hell, everything that that horribly written last post credits Thriller with "achieving" had been done over and over again by both James Brown and Parliament/Funkadelic. I'm also not denying his importance, because obviously he was important, I'm just stating that said importance has been vastly overstated - his public persona far outshines the genuine worth of his music.

Ummmmmm. Michael Jackson accomplished a lot outside of the music business. The guy is a pop icon - he influenced entertainers in every realm (from television, to acting, to music, to dance, to fashion, heck even to wrestling). The guy has had a tremendous impact beyond being some guy who sang. I think to argue otherwise is to be blunt, completely uninformed. Between 1983-1984, everyone wanted to be MJ ... whether you were a singer, an athlete, or some regular joe.

I wouldn't say I'm uninformed at all. I think it would be nigh-on impossible to be uninformed on Michael Jackson - which perhaps goes some way to argue your point more than it does mine, but I find it interesting that nobody can actually pinpoint what it is that he actually "achieved" outside of music, when every news source claims that his achievements are immeasurable. He became a pop culture icon, sure, but then, so did Elvis, and I'd argue that Elvis never achieved anything of worth outside of music either.

The guy also played a huge role in racial politics in the entertainment business. I know people will say he bleached his skin (which is untrue), but the guy clearly made it a lot easier for black people to be successful in the entertainment business.

This is something I find it difficult to argue...mostly because, even moreso than creative merit, it's difficult to quantify progress in racial politics. Obviously there's no concrete way of "proving" that Jackson was directly responsible for any kind of progress in racial politics. The only progress I'm aware of is that MTV refused to play his videos - allegedly based on genre, rather than race; they had the same restrictions against country music, which (despite strong black involvement) could never be called a "black" genre in the way that R&B and soul could be. But who's to say that, in a pop idiom, that's not just because he was better than black artists who came before him? I'd like to think that society, for the most part, is based on merit - maybe my abhorrence for racism and inability to comprehend it, and thus the assumption that the majority of people are themselves not racist, is the one hole in my cynicism - and that, black or white, an artist of Jackson's quality would have reached providence regardless of any race, and conversely, that his videos wouldn't have initially been played even if he were white - and that if he were, his management wouldn't have had the racial motivation to argue with MTV into playing them. If you look at the psychology of racism, minds aren't changed over one individual - a racist white man with a black friend will argue that they are "different" in some way, they won't place in the same out-group - so if it were racism and not genre bias holding Michael Jackson's videos off MTV, then it's unlikely that Jackson's videos would have created the deluge of R&B and pop coverage on MTV that followed.

Again, this is all speculation, and I won't deny that he transcended race in the simplest of forms - in giving black youth something to strive for, someone to point to and say "I could be like them" when perhaps beforehand they had no such role model.

As I said, though, you may be right, but I don't think it's really possible to pinpoint moments in race relations - it's a constant struggle, not a series of signposts.

not to mention a lot of conveniently forgotten terrible songs and creative disasters along the way.

I'd love to hear which of these songs are terrible? I know I'm biased because I am clearly a huge MJ fan, but the guy really only had one misstep - Invincible - and even than it wasn't a huge critical or commericial flop - it sold over 10 million and many stated that while it wasn't bad, it just didn't stack up against his earlier work. And heck, I even think Invincible is a great album if you just accept that it's a tad long.

Creative disasters? Well, Invincible was, in my opinion, utterly dire. It would have been panned as a cheap Jacko rip-off if released by anyone else. His album tracks were, on the whole, forgettable (perhaps not too great a sin for a "pop" artist). Any ballad he ever recorded was the epitome of schmaltz - his up-tempo tracks, even the worst or most cookie-cutter of them, were carried by the fact that his greatest strengths were obviously as an entertainer, rather than as a songwriter or even as a singer in anything outside that context, as his ballads, everything from Black & White and Earth Song to Ben, were dire. Maybe a matter of opinion, but when not playing to his strengths, he faltered. The aforementioned Prince, for example, is the most obvious comparison to Jackson - falsetto voice, air of mystery, androgyny, almost a-racial as well a-sexual - excelled far more in musicianship and songwriting than Jackson ever did - though that's not to say he didn't have his terrible moments either.

I'm not arguing for argument's sake here, as much as it may look like it, nor am I trying to discredit Michael Jackson as an important figure in pop history. Perhaps it's just coming from my personal perspective, never having had a particular pop "phase", never having been too enthralled by his music, and never being remotely interested in the man himself, that has allowed me to see how much of the "King Of Pop" act is a bit of a facade, or maybe I really am missing something, some kind of Michael Jackson Gene that opens me up to this well of knowledge that so many others seem to have available to them, but whatever it is, to me it seems like people are getting awfully carried away praising a musical artist who ceased to be artistically relevant over ten years ago and whose name was only kept alive as the butt of bad jokes and as the victim of (largely deserved) bad press.

Not to mention, as I said before, there is nothing wrong with being "a guy who made music". Ninety percent of my heroes are "guys who made music". Making music is a wonderful, noble talent, but let's not get carried away and think that it means anything more than that.

[RPS]

I wouldn't say I'm uninformed at all. I think it would be nigh-on impossible to be uninformed on Michael Jackson - which perhaps goes some way to argue your point more than it does mine, but I find it interesting that nobody can actually pinpoint what it is that he actually "achieved" outside of music, when every news source claims that his achievements are immeasurable. He became a pop culture icon, sure, but then, so did Elvis, and I'd argue that Elvis never achieved anything of worth outside of music either.

The reason I say uniformed is because to even try and say the guy didn't have an impact outside of the music business is insane. Look at how many people were inspired by the guy - as I stated earlier, fashion designers were inspired by Michael Jackson, dancers were inspired by Michael Jackson, actors were inspired by Michael Jackson, even wrestlers were twittering about Michael Jackson and the affect he had on their lives. I mean, that alone that he managed to span across so many different mediums and affect and influence so many different people - not necessarily in a direct way (aka, people wearing military jackets), but in a way that inspired and influenced people. I mean, we could sit here and pin point all the direct influences Michael Jackson had over the world, but I think that it's much easier to simply say "look at how many people said they wouldn't be doing what they were doing if it wasn't for Michael Jackson..."

This is something I find it difficult to argue...mostly because, even moreso than creative merit, it's difficult to quantify progress in racial politics. Obviously there's no concrete way of "proving" that Jackson was directly responsible for any kind of progress in racial politics.

Obviously there is no proof, outside of the dozens and dozens of journalist, entertainers and academics who have stated that he did. Michael Jackson was able to kick down walls in the entertainment business for black people. I'm not even really going to address your other point, because I think it's fairly obvious to me (and most other people) that MJ DID indeed play a substantial role in helping black entertainers and their visibility. I use the word entertainers on purpose because this isn't just about music, its spanned the entire entertainment business.

Creative disasters? Well, Invincible was, in my opinion, utterly dire. It would have been panned as a cheap Jacko rip-off if released by anyone else. His album tracks were, on the whole, forgettable (perhaps not too great a sin for a "pop" artist). Any ballad he ever recorded was the epitome of schmaltz - his up-tempo tracks, even the worst or most cookie-cutter of them, were carried by the fact that his greatest strengths were obviously as an entertainer, rather than as a songwriter or even as a singer in anything outside that context, as his ballads, everything from Black & White and Earth Song to Ben, were dire. Maybe a matter of opinion, but when not playing to his strengths, he faltered. The aforementioned Prince, for example, is the most obvious comparison to Jackson - falsetto voice, air of mystery, androgyny, almost a-racial as well a-sexual - excelled far more in musicianship and songwriting than Jackson ever did - though that's not to say he didn't have his terrible moments either.

As I said before, I understand that a lot of people hated Invincible. I think it was a bit overly long and obviously not Michael Jackson's finest work. Obviously I'm in the minority as well, because I think Dangerous is by far his best work. I can't really sit here and argue with you about your thoughts on his music, because that is why they are... your thoughts (although I take issue with you calling Black or White a ballad... clearly not a ballad ). I am not the biggest fan of Michael Jackson's ballads (heck, I'm not a fan of ballads in general...) but I still enjoy them and think that MJ was an amazing entertainer, even when he wasn't doing something that was my thing. I didn't mean to come across as a jerk, because clearly you have some reasoning behind what you are saying and you are completely entitled to your belief... I just disagree with it. I think your acknowledgement that MJ was an important pop figure shows that you are levelheaded, I just think that MJ went above and beyond being someone who just wrote and sung songs... the guy represented something far more to an entire generation of people. But eh, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

[Skummy]

I don't have the time for a lengthy post, but I was thinking about this today, and I think a lot of the differences in opinion here are cultural - I was brought up in the north of England, where Jackson was undoubtedly a huge star, but never as astronomically successful as he was in America, and here he spent an awful lot more time as nothing more than tabloid fodder.

Specifically in terms of Jackson as a figure that "everyone wanted to be like", and definitely in terms of race relations (again, it may be naive of me to say this, but I consider the UK's music industry to be somewhat less racially segregated, historically, than it's American counterpart, to the point that Jackson's race was rarely if ever a real issue), I'm beginning to realise that there is a cultural difference here perhaps as much as a difference of opinion.

[Powerhart]

Never again, referr to the United States as America, America is the whole continent, not just that damn country, it's annoying that they are called Americans when in fact we all (in the continent) are Americans, they should be United Statians or some crap like that.

Second, I don't like Michael Jackson's music too much, I've heard his songs and all that and know lot of things about him but still I think people make too much of a deal with his death (I'll probably get flamed for that though). The fact that every single Music Channel shows like five straight videos from Michael Jackson (Thriller, Billie Jean, Bad, the one where it's like Egyptian and Smoothe Criminal) It's annoying.

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

America is not acceptable shortening of the United States of America?

[Skummy]

I apologise for using standard accepted geographic terms, I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. Wouldn't want to upset the Mexiconians.

[Powerhart]

Shouldn't be...

[apsham]

But it is so stop being such a rebel.

[Crybaby Bunting]

Ultimately the way I see it, the pro Jackson fanbase seems to consist of the following: those who idolised him when he was in his peak, and those who grew up in the knowledge of those fans.

I think we're heading for a Nirvana style problem where the youth of today grow up thinking that stars of yesterday were much bigger than they technically were on the basis of OTT judgements that are understandable considering the media coverage of the incident and those hardcore fans that have led them to believe this.

Think about it, what is the biggest name in music at the moment? We've all got conflicting ideas of who are at their peak: some would say Muse are the biggest band, some would say the Liberines, some would say Radiohead, some would say Rhianna. The further back you go, the more things are skewed a bit because some idolised bands simply were forgotten about and regarded as a phase. At the same time some smaller bands are brought into the public light through gradual name recognition. Some people genuinely think that the Misfits and The Smiths were huge bands back then simply because they're big now in their circles... but they were just small local bands that a lot of people would just write off until later on.

Ask a teen who they think was the biggest band or greatest singer of all time and they'll probably point you in the direction of Queen, David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Kiss etc. Only a few of those are smaller nowdays than they were then, and most of them were the opposite.

You'll probably wonder where I'm going with this, but I think the thing with Michael Jackson is that there were huge influential bands before him and there will be huge influential bands after him. It's just once you've reached a certain point of fame, you can be interchangable with any other band or singer, because there's so many different variables that can be used to determine the greatest or best, and at the end of the day it's a pointless exercise of personal opinion.

Jackson was good and understandably moved pop forward... but did he really? Are we forgetting that during that period of the late 70s, early 80s where so many bands simplified pop and brought the genre forward (and in some cases backwards). True, Jackson was one of the biggest spenders and created extravagant music videos... but didn't Axl Rose? And when Rose did it, wasn't there loads of criticism over the outlandishly ott videos that bordered on the same self indulgent level as auto fellatio? It's how things go, when someone makes a shedload of money, they'll try and drop at least one huge dollap of it on something that they might be remembered for long after they're old. It's happened before Jackson (see Kubrick. S ¬_¬) and it'll happen again, Jackson just did it for music.

Michael Jackson was just one of the people who defined a generation, but got a little too popular in the process and ended up being one of those who are looked back on as the defining members of that generation. It's something that people will eventually get round to thinking, but whilst he's still warm in the media spotlight that's not going to happen.

[METALMAN]

Personally I thought Skummy got it spot on.

As far as my own experiences with Jackson's music go - I wouldn't say I am a great fan of his music. He has good songs and he has bad songs, just like hundreds of others. However, one thing I will credit him with is me appreciating pop music a lot more - rather than my previous where I would automatically arrive at the conclusion that it's shit because it is pop. It was my rediscovery of Michael Jackson a couple of years ago that helped me along with this, and that's what his main influence over me has been.

Prince is still better though.

[The Kraig]

Never again, referr to the United States as America, America is the whole continent, not just that damn country, it's annoying that they are called Americans when in fact we all (in the continent) are Americans, they should be United Statians or some crap like that.

In all the years on this board, that is quite possibly the pettiest argument I've ever seen. And you're wrong. The continents are the Americas. North and South America.

When Americans stop calling themselves Americans, I might see your point.

[Mr Evil Guy]

Never again, referr to the United States as America, America is the whole continent, not just that damn country, it's annoying that they are called Americans when in fact we all (in the continent) are Americans, they should be United Statians or some crap like that.

...are you for real? You actually take offense to that shit?

I can't even comprehend this.

[Asuka's Gonna Kill You]

Arguably, as you said. My argument being that he didn't. I could name you a barrelfull of artists, producers and writers with more of an impact on music than he had. He made some good pop music, all of it more than twenty years ago, and spent far more of his time cultivating his image as "The King Of Pop" and "the greatest performer on Earth", when neither had been anywhere near accurate in a long, long time.

If Michael Jackson had been an ordinary guy, who hadn't built this mystique around himself, he'd be remembered as having some good songs in the '70s and '80s. That's it. He really didn't do an awful lot else. I'd love to hear of anything truly earth-shattering that he achieved outside of the music business, as "his influence outside of music" is a phrase thrown around a lot lately, and I for one can't think of a single bloody thing. Cut away the "King Of Pop" facade, and you're left with a guy who used to be a damn good pop singer, but who spiralled into drug abuse, irresponsible behaviour, child abuse (sexual or otherwise) and financial difficulty - not to mention a lot of conveniently forgotten terrible songs and creative disasters along the way.

I hate to have to resort to the Scroobius Pip argument here, but I will. He was a bloke who made music. That's it, alright? And that's hardly belittling of him, millions of people dream of making a career making music, and he made some fantastic songs. But let's not get carried away and imagine he was ever anything more - all of this "a talent like his only comes along once in a lifetime" nonsense.

Yes, please do name me these artists and writers. Bullshit to your claim that if he was an ordinary guy he'd be remembered as just having good songs. He was seen as one of the most promising and huge talents in the entire world as a fucking kid for crying out loud, before the media tried to destroy his career. To me it just sounds like you listen to the shit that the papers spew out, which is 95% complete and utter bollocks (and continues to be today, just in an attempt to sell a paper). On his game, there was nobody better than Jackson. I find it almost laughable that there's still people here who refuse to admit he's one of the greatest of all time. Claiming he was a guy who made good music is pathetic and undeserving. I don't really even see the point in having a huge debate, when everything is there for you to see already as to how important and huge Michael Jackson was to music in general. And you know you're a fucking amazing musician when you're inspiring people even outside of music (too many to name).

Some people dislike his music or the person himself and therefore refuse to admit to how important this guy was. And yes, without him there would of been a hell of a lot of difference. It's arguable that nobody ever has or ever will have the impact on music he had, or the talent for that matter. From videos to dance to the actual music itself. And once again, please point out these forgotten terrible songs, because I'd love to hear about those. As somebody mentioned years ago, even when an album from Michael didn't sell as good as something like Thriller, it still sold as much as almost any other album to come out. Of course you'll tell me that's because he was 'weird' and the image he had, right? Nonsense. Fact of the matter is that after all Jackson went through in the 90's, he did damn fantastic to produce what he actually did produce. Also, History and Dangerous say hello to you, for seemingly thinking he didn't do fuck all in the 90's. I find it almost pointless even debating things about the guy if you're going to sit and even believe he's just a guy that made 'good music'. Whether you like him or not, I don't even see how it's debatable that he's one of the greatest to ever grace music and entertainment, because it's not far from being a hard fact. He raised a bar that NOBODY has ever been able to top, which includes himself.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Scum Fan 4 Life

[METALMAN]

Arguably, as you said. My argument being that he didn't. I could name you a barrelfull of artists, producers and writers with more of an impact on music than he had. He made some good pop music, all of it more than twenty years ago, and spent far more of his time cultivating his image as "The King Of Pop" and "the greatest performer on Earth", when neither had been anywhere near accurate in a long, long time.

If Michael Jackson had been an ordinary guy, who hadn't built this mystique around himself, he'd be remembered as having some good songs in the '70s and '80s. That's it. He really didn't do an awful lot else. I'd love to hear of anything truly earth-shattering that he achieved outside of the music business, as "his influence outside of music" is a phrase thrown around a lot lately, and I for one can't think of a single bloody thing. Cut away the "King Of Pop" facade, and you're left with a guy who used to be a damn good pop singer, but who spiralled into drug abuse, irresponsible behaviour, child abuse (sexual or otherwise) and financial difficulty - not to mention a lot of conveniently forgotten terrible songs and creative disasters along the way.

I hate to have to resort to the Scroobius Pip argument here, but I will. He was a bloke who made music. That's it, alright? And that's hardly belittling of him, millions of people dream of making a career making music, and he made some fantastic songs. But let's not get carried away and imagine he was ever anything more - all of this "a talent like his only comes along once in a lifetime" nonsense.

Yes, please do name me these artists and writers. Bullshit to your claim that if he was an ordinary guy he'd be remembered as just having good songs. He was seen as one of the most promising and huge talents in the entire world as a fucking kid for crying out loud, before the media tried to destroy his career. To me it just sounds like you listen to the shit that the papers spew out, which is 95% complete and utter bollocks (and continues to be today, just in an attempt to sell a paper). On his game, there was nobody better than Jackson. I find it almost laughable that there's still people here who refuse to admit he's one of the greatest of all time. Claiming he was a guy who made good music is pathetic and undeserving. I don't really even see the point in having a huge debate, when everything is there for you to see already as to how important and huge Michael Jackson was to music in general. And you know you're a fucking amazing musician when you're inspiring people even outside of music (too many to name).

Oh for god's sake. Skummy's whole argument was based on him not judging Michael Jackson by what the papers say. Do you even read what you quote?

[Asuka's Gonna Kill You]

And so that makes it fine to disregard everything the guy has done and claim he's just a guy who made 'good music'?

[METALMAN]

I'm sure Michael Jackson would want to be remembered for his music rather than his extra-curricular activities.

[DMN in the House]

Elvis was a hero to most, but he never meant shit to me.

[GoGo Yubari]

I honestly have seen absolutely no proof that he was racist, though, so Chuck D was wrong on that part.