Don't act like calling him a weirdo isn't warranted. Yes , he had international fandom but that doesn't exclude the fact that he was a bit more than eclectic.

Actually I think people on this board make this argument about 'Boring' music not 'Popular' music. And as most of the charts are (and always have been) filled with lowest common denominator crap to appeal to the masses I don't see what the problem is. Any artist with any proper talent will be given credit among music fans no matter what their personal tastes. I don't happen to like Pavarotti, that doesn't mean I can't respect his vocal talents.

And how can you seriously go on and on and on about how many successes someone has had with awards & hit records, airplay & general mainstream exposure and then claim that someone 'havent bothered to listen to all his music before making a generalized assumption' is quite frankly laughable. The guy released about 7 singles off each album. It was more of a challenge NOT to hear him.

Actually the guy released 9 songs off the Bad album as singles in the UK, there was only 11 songs on the album :laughing:

Well thats already a given.

He didnt call him a "weirdo" though. He called him out his name.

Thinking Michael Jackson was just a puppet or whatever is almost silly. Actually, it is silly. The man was a perfectionist to the extreme, working on his tracks obsessively, his live performances just as much or even more excessively.

He was a consummate performer, who (I know this isn't the point of the thread) never really got to experience a childhood.

He had immense talent, and total dedication to his craft. If you'd ever looked at one of his tour rehearsal videos, or an interview when they asked him about tour rehearsal, you'd know that the man lived it and breathed it. He never wanted to disappoint, and was always looking to perfect whatever he was doing.

Very talented soul, cut short far too soon.

As an unrelated aside, he died the day my theatre company's all-white production of "The Wiz" had opening night.

We had non-white cast members, but they either left to do different shows, or left because they thought they didn't get the part they deserved. I was heading to opening night, and my mom texted me and is all, "Michael Jackson is in critical condition..."

And I still believe to this day that, albeit inadvertently, my cast killed Michael Jackson.

I still feel bad that I was hella stoned, and said that Michael Jackson's Thriller zombie was going to come out of the woods to stop the show. Most people laughed at it, but they were stoned, too. The Wiz was a very marijuana-hazed show.

What exactly is boring music? I agree that there is such a thing but just want to know your definition of it and can you give an example.

Your right.

However

I think this case is mostly for the music industry TODAY.

The music industry over the last 10 years is alot different then how it was during the6 0s, 70s, 80s and when Michael Jackson was dominating. During Michaels prime he was competing with the likes of Al Green, Stevie Wonder, Lionel Ritchie, Gap Band, Prince, etc I personally dont think these artists are the lowest of the demoniator when they are some of the greatest artists of their time. Alot of there hits (radio hits) are also classics that are not generic.

Are you honestly implying songs like Billie Jean, Lets Stay Together, Sign O Times, If Really Love Me are generic songs? Just because they were popular during their time doesnt mean they are generic.

Fast forward 30 something years later... 2013 pop industry is a sham and most of the Top 20 artists dont have a spec of the talent most of the above artists have. There also is not alot of competition as far as talent and variety. The quality of music is very different as well but that is because the music industry today is not about music and is a business out to make money. It has always been about making money but its very structured differently today.

I just dont think its fair to say the past eras of the industry is the same as how it is now because they are completely different.

There isnt a problem.

I just dont think its fair to argue that ALL pop music has always been garbage just because the current pop scene is garbage.


I agree.

So would you agree that Michael Jackson was talented? (Whether you are a fan or not)


I have not mentioned any awards Michael Jackson has won or discussed any of his achievements. A poster questioned his involvement in his music making process which I disagreed with. I just argued that he was involved in making his music with writing his music and even produced some of his songs. There are even demos on youtube where he created alot of the songs on Thriller, OTW, Bad at his house with instruments prior to Quincy even receving the songs.


He did not release 7 singles on each of his albums and singles does not represent an artists entire catalogue especially if someone is arguing an artist was not experimental by relying on JUST their "singles" to generalize their entire catalogue.

Agree
Michael Jackson was one of the greatest, no question.
From a entertainer perspective, he has no equal.

I'll say that Freddie Mercury had an aspect of perfectionism in his character, but Michael Jackson was a lone wolf. He worked hard, every moment of every day he was awake, to make the best show he possibly could, and then he still thought it wasn't good enough.

I love Freddie Mercury as well but I think as a overall showman, performer, singer and dancer nobody compares to Michael. There isnt anybody that was exceptional in all those areas like he was. The fact that he wrote and produced his own music is icing on the cake. Freddie was a good showman but he wasnt much of a dancer not that that takes away from him but Michael just was a special talent.

Real talk, I think Freddie could have. Queen reached their apex at live aid, and Freddie was already AIDS diagnosed at that point.

I still stand by my opinion :D I think Freddie is special in his own way as well but I guess I just prefer MJ.