Unpopular Music Opinions

~~Soulflower~~ · 02-14-2014, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

Or by you totally misquoting people.

I never said his songs sound all the same, I said I didn't think his non albums tracks are much different to the ones that are released as singles.

I grew up slap bang in the middle of his popularity, I've heard those albums far more than I ever care to. There's nothing you could play me that will ever convince me he's a 'diverse artist'.

I haven't misquoted anybody. Most of the discussion here have been on things unrelated to Michael Jackson's music. Now how am I misquoting that? There have been a few posters that have even came in to defend MJ on those unrelated topics

Also, my post was not directed at you so not sure why you are getting defensive like it was.

And he is a diverse artist.

He has done many many genres. He has done salsa, new jack swing, soul, disco, jazz, folk, dutch, gospel, rock, etc I can go on and on he has done it. I think it is fair to call him a diverse artist since he has done many genres in music.

FRED HALE SR. · 02-14-2014, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle11

What song is that?

I disagree by the way.

I don't even listen to Arctic Monkeys. This was just a segue into any other discussion besides Michael Jackson. You people failed me.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 02-14-2014, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by realtalk92

Just because a song is 20 minutes long does not mean it is better than songs that are shorter. A song that is that long has to have a lot of creative and artistic production going on to keep people interested in it. If it is just a song that is dragged 20 minutes out without a lot of creativity it can get very boring and repetitive. JT had a few songs on 20/20 experience that were like that that should have been much shorter and the production would have been more interesting and creative if he used real live instruments.

Quality over quantity is very important in that respect.

Can you point out a JT song where he fuses funk/soul/jazz/soft rock/r&b/disco on one song and he uses live instruments to demonstrate these genres?

I can name a bunch of Michael Jackson songs that does...

You totally missed the point.
The point is all his songs are commercial & radio friendly there are no risks anywhere. His records were made with nothing more than sales being a factor using types of music that were already popular and had a proven track record in the charts.

My definition of a diverse artist is when someone begins to take risks with their music. Like when Bowie ditched his rock audience to make records with Brian Eno or When Radiohead put out Kid A when the whole world wanted The Bends pt2, or when Scott Walker stopped crooning and started putting out weird ambient records. Jackson isn't even fit to tie their shoes in that regard.

As for Justin Timberlake you're arguing with the wrong person, I couldn't care less about him.

FRED HALE SR. · 02-14-2014, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by realtalk92

I haven't misquoted anybody. Most of the discussion here have been on things unrelated to Michael Jackson's music. Now how am I misquoting that? There have been a few posters that have even came in to defend MJ on those unrelated topics

Also, my post was not directed at you so not sure why you are getting defensive like it was.

And he is a diverse artist.

He has done many many genres. He has done salsa, new jack swing, soul, disco, jazz, folk, dutch, gospel, rock, etc I can go on and on he has done it. I think it is fair to call him a diverse artist since he has done many genres in music.

His point was its still pop no wonder if he adds different instrumental elements or sings it in Swahili. You can put lipstick on a pig...................

**Goofle** · 02-14-2014, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

I don't even listen to Arctic Monkeys. This was just a segue into any other discussion besides Michael Jackson. You people failed me.

Sorry guy.

But I agree with the sentiment.

**Goofle** · 02-14-2014, 05:58 PM

And RT, I prefer JT's music to MJ's in general. Doesn't mean I froth at the mouth when I hear MJ, I just prefer JT.

~~Soulflower~~ · 02-14-2014, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

You totally missed the point.
The point is all his songs are commercial & radio friendly there are no risks anywhere. His records were made with nothing more than sales being a factor using types of music that were already popular and had a proven track record in the charts.

My definition of a diverse artist is when someone begins to take risks with their music. Like when Bowie ditched his rock audience to make records with Brian Eno or When Radiohead put out Kid A when the whole world wanted The Bends pt2, or when Scott Walker stopped crooning and started putting out weird ambient records. Jackson isn't even fit to tie their shoes in that regard.

But there are radio songs that are creative and diverse.

You don't think Don't Stop Till You Get Enough is that creative or diverse?

Bee Gee's songs "Staying Alive" is overplayed to death but it is still a very good pop song that is creative and fuses different genres.

It sounds to me that you have a prejudice towards popular music specifically because it is very possible to be creative while still being commercial.

Now I will be the FIRST to say that I do not like alot of the popular music in today's generation. However, I do like pop music and it is possible to be artistic and creative while still being commercial.

Being commercial has nothing to do with diversity and being artistic. Although, in today's mainstream scene these are two things that are lacking tremendously.

However, there have been alot of popular artists that have been diverse and creative with their music and Michael Jackson is definitely one of them.

Michael Jackson songs like Tabloid Junkie or Little Susie were not songs that were very popular in 1995 on the radio. You would not find songs similar to those songs on the radio

Would you think he was a more diverse artist if he was not commercial? He has done a wide range of genres that warrants the title of being called a diverse artist.

Now compared to other artists its arguable that some artists have been more diverse than him, yes that is true. However,it still does not change the fact that he is a diverse artist that had his own share of genre diversity.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 02-14-2014, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by realtalk92

B

It sounds to me that you have a prejudice towards popular music specifically because it is very possible to be creative while still being commercial.

No I like loads of commercial artists, I just give them credit for what they are and not something they're not.

**Goofle** · 02-14-2014, 06:10 PM

@ RT - Using your logic: Justin Timberlake made progressive Pop music popular. His album consists of something like six tracks that are around 6/7 minutes long, with a unique approach to them (within the mainstream at least). It combines elements of R&B, Pop, Soul and various styles of electronic music.

You can dislike it as much as you want, but please don't ignore the ambition of the "20/20 Experience".

~~Soulflower~~ · 02-14-2014, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

No I like loads of commercial artists, I just give them credit for what they are and not something they're not.

I've listed you genres that Michael has done and some of those genres are not even mainstream genres.

So I am not sure why you think he is not a diverse artist. Would you rather me post some songs?

If that is your opinion I can dig it because I at least appreciate that you have explained your opinion but not sure why you still think this way after telling you some of the genres he has done.