| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 Posted - 06/26/2009 : 16:34:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ro�k G01f, MD+
As another who was there in '77, the coverage now goes WAY beyond what happened with Elvis.
Of course back then there were no 24 hour news shows, no internet.
But IIRC, Elvis' death didn't even make the cover of People Magazine. I can't imagine any magazine that touches on entertainment not having MJ on the cover of the next several issues.
This is more like the reaction when Lennon was murdered.
In 1980, it was *Newsweek* which did the portrait/border cover. But I think they identified him. |
 |
|
|
MguyX 
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 06/26/2009 : 16:50:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
His music was so-so.
Salopian, you are officiially a fucking idiot.
While I do not know whether you make any distinction between music that Michael wrote and that which he performed -- your blanket statement indicates no distinction -- only an absolutely blind and deaf gnat could conclude that Michael Jackson's "music" was so-so. randall has stated the matter correctly ands succinctly: "he rocked. For a short but blazing time, he *defined* the music business." Michael's "music" was not merely the songs: it was also his movement, his impeccable timing, and the impact he made on these several generations during this past 40 years.
People still talk about Elvis, but his songs would probably not fare as well on today's music charts. Not everything Elvis did musically was golden. But Elvis was "music" as well, and Elvis's "music" touched millions, and Elvis's "music" crowned the generations of his time span. I am fond of only a few Elvis songs in particular, but I would never deign to attempt summing up him or his "music" as so-so.
So on to Michael. Where the fuck do you get off passing off your ill-informed, unappreciative, troglodytish opinion as commentary on Michael? Do not confuse his unquestionable talent with your opinions about his personal sexual proclivities. I never saw Michael molest a boy, but I believe he did, and I find that heinous. But that doesn't make "Thriller" retroactively an insignificant event in modern music history! It doesn't retroactively eliminate the absolute excitement and electricity that Michael's spin and moonwalk could create in an instant. Only a goddamned fool would try and ignore that, as if the rest of the world had not been witness.
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I was always especially uncomfortable with the fact that many black people still held him in high regard and were prepared to pretend that his colour change was a skin condition. What a bad example he set.
FUCK YOU! Do you realize that you have just called into question (and in the process, insulted) a whole race of people?!?!?! You just said effectively that most Blacks are stupid!!!!! Don't you dare try to speak on behalf of Black people! YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED!!! After centuries of being despised and ridiculed by a significant many as monkeys and baboons, and in the atomic glare of the Euro-centric conception of beauty that has owned all media and art since the invasion and rape of the New World, it should come as a surprise to no one that some Black people would like to mute or eliminate their Afro-genetic traits!
Michael apparently fell victim to that pressure more spectacularly than most; but that doesn't erase the overall pride his earlier image, and his lasting talent, made accessible and that most American Blacks (in particular) find in his legacy!
His image, and that of his brothers, was part of a seminal era of social revolution for Black Americans and Black people around the world. He didn't free the slaves. He didn't draft the Civil Rights Act of 1968. He didn't organize any march on Washington. He didn't spend 25 years in jail for his political beliefs. NO! He did none of those things. But his talent remained as uplifting and inspiring as any and more than most. Did Marvin Gaye's cocaine problem make him historically any less the soulful singer who warmed millions of hearts? It was the implacable and infectious fact of Michael that remains significant to Blacks, for which we are appreciative. And given that Blacks did not run out wholesale and start bleaching their skin, I would dare say that Michael's excess actually set a good example of what not to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I wonder what will happen to the children that he bought.
They will be fabulously wealthy with all of the money Michael smartly tucked away in trust funds that were immune to his creditors, and they will build monuments to their mountain of a father, in the shadow of which your offensive opinion will measure and mean the equivalent of a speck of shit. |
Edited by - MguyX on 06/26/2009 19:58:37 |
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 06/26/2009 : 16:57:36
|
Wax off. |
|
|
|
damalc 
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 06/26/2009 : 17:24:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ro�k G01f, MD+
It is no exaggeration to say that Michael Jackson, for better or worse, has shaped what current pop music sounds and looks like.
It's also hard to believe that until "Billie Jean", MTV wouldn't play videos by black acts. Columbia records had to threaten to withdraw every video they had before MTV gave in.
Good call for MTV.
With the emphasis on video and high-productions albums, he set the standards for Prince, Madonna, and just about every pop idol since. Before Jackson, what you sounded like was more important. After Jackson, what you look like is the more critical factor.
my musical taste was shaped by Michael Jackson and MTV. in the old days of MTV, MJJ was the only black artist it played. so when John Lennon was killed and other kids at my high school were in shock, i was like, "who?" i've learned better since.
anyway, Run-DMC eventually snuck into Music Television's rotation. i would sit through hours of Journey, Motley Crue, Twisted Sister, Duran Duran, Genesis and many others waiting to see the black music.
however anyone feels about MJJ's eccentric (that's what they call RICH crazy people) lifestyle, his stamp on music and culture cannot be underestimated. you know you can still do the Thriller-video dance.
|
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/26/2009 : 18:03:45
|
I find his music, or all of it that I can think of, so-so. That's just a fact. It doesn't do anything for me.
MguyX, I'll address your more important points later, when I'm not on my mobile. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 06/26/2009 : 21:01:38
|
Uh, yeah, guys, vitiligo is an actual condition and depigmentation is considered a legitimate (though not without issue) method of dealing with the problem.
Salopian is under no obligation to like Michael Jackson's music. I myself am much more of a Prince disciple than I am of M.J. That's not really the point. And "the horrible things he did"... well, that's up for debate. I myself have never seen a case that proved one way or the other what he may or may not have done to any little boys. A much more verifiable crime is that he accused his record label of being racist, when in fact he received more record label support than any black artist in history and never took a stand on black issues in his life. Many have said he was a bad man. Many more have said he was an insane man. Maybe they were right.
But is he going to be forgiven whatever crimes he may or may not have committed? Yes. Yes, he is. Because he's dead. Michael Jackson is, as of 3:15 p.m. yesterday, a historical figure. It is the time to praise Caesar, not to bury him. Michael Jackson's legacy is complicated, and the bizarreness of the last half of his life difficult to ignore, but there comes a point not to speak ill of the dead. Henry Ford had noxious racial views, Winston Churchill was a sexist drunk, and Martin Luther King cheated on his wife, but to focus on those things is to bypass the significance of those men's lives. I don't mean to elevate Michael Jackson to that level, but the simple fact is that he inarguably changed the pop landscape, and if you care at all about the world of popular music and even if you don't, you recognize the profound influence he has had on it. You don't even have to like that influence -- I myself have doubts that it was for the better -- but the world has, and should have, acknowledged the passing of a man who did, in fact, change the world we live in. So if all you have to say about the man is "I wonder what will happen to the children that he bought," maybe you should shut up. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 06/26/2009 21:03:32 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 06/27/2009 : 00:34:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I was always especially uncomfortable with the fact that many black people still held him in high regard and were prepared to pretend that his colour change was a skin condition. What a bad example he set.
Errmmm... I thought he suffered from vitiligo? Have I missed something?
Another article on vitiligo.
Some pictures of it.
Edit:- Yep, MBI has also mentioned it. |
Edited by - Sean on 06/27/2009 00:53:57 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 06/27/2009 : 00:48:45
|
I think I'd better point out here that even though I could never stand MJ's music, there's no doubting his massive significance. The hundred(s) of millions worldwide who love his music can't be wrong. I can't stand the Beatles's music either. 'Nuff said...
BTW Salopian, it's possible to say "I don't like MJ's music" without declaring that the music is inherently "so-so" and by implication that the millions who absolutely love it are guilty of poor taste. There is nothing wrong with saying YOU dislike the art, but attacking someone else's taste in art commonly angers them. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 06/27/2009 : 01:21:54
|
It's not a matter of whether or not you can stand MJ's music, any more than Beethoven's or Ravel's or Philip Glass's. All God's children are free to their opinions [although I personally couldn't give less of 1/2 of a shit about the opinions of certain particular fwiffers].
But did the Beatles, MJ, Mozart, change popular music? Yep, they all did. Like it or not, ignorant or not, earless or not, the change has been made, no matter how any atonal bleating clangs against a final, futile echo. |
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 06/27/2009 : 03:03:41
|
 ...bloody Mozart. Spoiled for everyone he did! |
|
|
|
damalc
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 12:08:24
|
| i just saw a kinda odd clip of dad Joe. he said something like, he wished people would have shown their appreciation for Michael when he was alive. WTF?! |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 12:38:13
|
Psychoanalysts call this Projection.
|
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 12:56:12
|
I can't believe that Michael kids are going to end up in the supervision of this guy (and Michael's mother). Both are over eighty, they have no genetic connection to the kids. (The mother has now stated that Jackson was not the father.)
But most of all, Joe Jackson was an exceedingly abusive father by all accounts, including Michael's own. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 14:28:01
|
I wouldnt jump to conclusions about custody.
It could also go to the birth mother(s).
Or the maid has been mentioned as a possible guardian.
And there's even a rumour that Bubbles has hired a legal team to fight for custody.
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 15:54:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I wouldnt jump to conclusions about custody.
It could also go to the birth mother(s).
Or the maid has been mentioned as a possible guardian.
And there's even a rumour that Bubbles has hired a legal team to fight for custody.
Maybe Madonna can fit them in.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Holy Crap! Michael Jackson - RIP
