Quote:
Originally Posted by arX
what i said is a very realistic generalisation. you'd be fooling yourself to think that we live in euphoria where anywhere near the majority know enough of and appreciate or even respect most genres/artists equally.
i'm sure in your 4-year and 10,000 post journey through this board you've come across an awesome amount of muppets who try to conclude objectively on any given artist/genre with blatant minimal knowledge on what they're droning on about.
the overwhelming majority of us, if not all, have a limited niche in the universe of music. to try and be objective on all aspects of it is fake.
|
No , what you said is that nobody on this forum has a worthwhile opinion because our soul/funk forum isn't the busiest.
I know people do what you say. I said your going from one extreme to the other , I never said what you said is false.Just that your taking a very narrow view of it.
But that was never in question or anything to do with the point I was making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arX
and how does that argument revoke his work in his prime?
it doesn't, hence why many folk still talk about it.
|
Because you need to pull your head out of the sand and realise something.
A large majority of this forum is under 20 years old. Like I said earlier Jackson hasn't made anything worth listening around 20 years, Maybe if he made some music that actually appealed to these people instead of constantly releasing middle of the road dross and relying on his back catalogue people might start talking about his music again. As far as they are concerned Jackson has never put out a decent record in all the time since they've been born , so when they see a guy who's repeatedly on the news for sleeping with children why would they talk about his music?