New topic
PrintableBecause Michael Jackson is no Mozart.
There´s no difference between them. Both were/are geniuses in their fields. "When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
dag said: Because Michael Jackson is no Mozart.
There´s no difference between them. Both were/are geniuses in their fields. Yeah, but that's like saying an astrophysics genius is the same as a fashion designer genius. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
GEnius is a genius! PERIOD! You can´t put one thing over another! You can´t! It´s like saying that a person who is better at school in maths is smarter than the one who is better at writing! Sorry! "When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dag said: GEnius is a genius! PERIOD! You can´t put one thing over another! You can´t! It´s like saying that a person who is better at school in maths is smarter than the one who is better at writing! Sorry!
Sorry hun, I don't think any sane person puts Michael Jackson or any modern artist in the same class as Mozart. But different strokes for different folks, I guess. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BTW I don´t understand what´s the problem. They both made music, right? I don´t understand why people think that classical music is "better" or "higher quality" than popular music. It´s like saying that a comedy is better or higher quality than drama! C´mon! "When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dag said: BTW I don´t understand what´s the problem. They both made music, right? I don´t understand why people think that classical music is "better" or "higher quality" than popular music. It´s like saying that a comedy is better or higher quality than drama! C´mon!
See, maybe one day you'll get some perspective outside of Michael. Classical music is the foundation of modern music. Read Mozart's biography, listen to his music, and then listen to the music of others from that time period, and maybe you'll know what I mean. I will give you a more modern example. You see, you take someone like Prince, who as a teen taught himself 27 instruments in the shithole basement of a friend's place, then actually was incredibly prolific and MADE music, some of it derivative, some of it not. And then you have someone like Michael, who really can't play much, but who can write an occasional great song without help. Even then there is no comparison, when you are talking about MUSICAL talent. Without people like Quincy and Rod Temperton, where would Michael be, I wonder? Probably not where he is, and I hope you can admit that. If Michael was forced to write an entire album on his own, produce it, and arrange it, what would it sound like? Probably not nearly as good as what has come before in his repertoire. [Edited 2/22/05 7:51am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: dag said: BTW I don´t understand what´s the problem. They both made music, right? I don´t understand why people think that classical music is "better" or "higher quality" than popular music. It´s like saying that a comedy is better or higher quality than drama! C´mon!
See, maybe one day you'll get some perspective outside of Michael. Classical music is the foundation of modern music. Read Mozart's biography, listen to his music, and then listen to the music of others from that time period, and maybe you'll know what I mean. I will give you a more modern example. You see, you take someone like Prince, who as a teen taught himself 27 instruments in the shithole basement of a friend's place, then actually was incredibly prolific and MADE music, some of it derivative, some of it not. And then you have someone like Michael, who really can't play much, but who can write an occasional great song without help. Even then there is no comparison, when you are talking about MUSICAL talent. Without people like Quincy and Rod Temperton, where would Michael be, I wonder? Probably not where he is, and I hope you can admit that. If Michael was forced to write an entire album on his own, produce it, and arrange it, what would it sound like? Probably not nearly as good as what has come before in his repertoire. [Edited 2/22/05 7:51am] I agree completely. There is no way that MJ is a genius on the same level as someone like Mozart and it has nothing to do with the differentiation between classical and pop music. And just to hark back to the comment I made earlier about separating an artist from their music - during Mozart's career in Vienna he wrote a play in the German language. Despite this being the national language it was despised for being common and bringing the high art of opera down to the lower classes. It didn't matter that the music was brilliant. Mozart was condemned for it and the opera was a flop. My point is that now we can appreciate it without these prejudices but because MJ's troubles are very much in our faces - it is harder to separate his music from his personal situation. Incidentally people - I am in NO WAY comparing what Michael Jackson is accused of doing with what Mozart did when he wrote a German opera.... just making the point that you need to put these things in context. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 I find it hilarius when people deny MJ's musical genius by saying "he's here becasue of Quincy" when Quincy HIMSELF says "Producer's main job is to choose the right tunes" when talking about Michael.
Where would MJ be without Quincy? Where The Beatles would be without George Martin | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
And just to hark back to the comment I made earlier about separating an artist from their music - during Mozart's career in Vienna he wrote a play in the German language. Despite this being the national language it was despised for being common and bringing the high art of opera down to the lower classes. It didn't matter that the music was brilliant. Mozart was condemned for it and the opera was a flop. My point is that now we can appreciate it without these prejudices but because MJ's troubles are very much in our faces - it is harder to separate his music from his personal situation.
Incidentally people - I am in NO WAY comparing what Michael Jackson is accused of doing with what Mozart did when he wrote a German opera.... just making the point that you need to put these things in context. I see your point. See, maybe one day you'll get some perspective outside of Michael. Classical music is the foundation of modern music. Read Mozart's biography, listen to his music, and then listen to the music of others from that time period, and maybe you'll know what I mean.
Well again, Mozart was born earlier, classical music was here first, yeah, but that doesn´t mean it´s better. As for the influence, when you turn on MTV you see most of them immitating Mj in everyway, so the influence is there as well. I will give you a more modern example. You see, you take someone like Prince, who as a teen taught himself 27 instruments in the shithole basement of a friend's place, then actually was incredibly prolific and MADE music, some of it derivative, some of it not. And then you have someone like Michael, who really can't play much, but who can write an occasional great song without help.
I wouldn´t also say that Prince is better than MJ or vise versa. YOu just can´t say that. OF course Prince has learned all the instruments himself etc, but he had time to do so. He hasn´t spend his childhood being busy as others planned it for him. You can´t say that MJ wouldn´t be able to learn those instruments if he had the chance. Without people like Quincy and Rod Temperton, where would Michael be, I wonder? Probably not where he is, and I hope you can admit that. If Michael was forced to write an entire album on his own, produce it, and arrange it, what would it sound like? Probably not nearly as good as what has come before in his repertoire.
It´s hard to say where Mj would be without QUincy or Rod. Of course they had their share on his succes, but you can´t also give all the credit only to them, because if you turn it vice versa, where would Quincy and Rod be without MJ. Do you think that anyone would know about them? I don´t think we should give all the credit either to MJ, Quincy or Rod. And what would MJ´s album sounded like if he did it alone? I don´t know. But I don´t think that the music would be THAT bad. MJ´s sure is a great talent in songwriting and everyone who saw his mexican deposition knows that. (I should remove my MJ icon, cause than you know I am his fan and tend to see me too fanaticaly.  )"When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: Without people like Quincy and Rod Temperton, where would Michael be, I wonder?
In the Rock n' Roll hall of fame as a member of the Jackson 5 
http://www.rockhall.com/h...asp?id=125 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I've been forced to jump on this thread intended to bring out the haters. MJ has done hot shit that Quincy never laid a finger on. One of my fav self-produced tracks is That's What You Get (For Being Polite).
Three of the Jackson’s albums went platinum, and 2 multi-platinum the year they came out…so somebody was buying them. So Mike has made and written great pop songs. He's also one of the greatest dancers, singers and visual artists. When I see Mozart do the Robot and sing in perfect pitch than I'll think about comparing them. When Mike can compose music on the level of Mozart than I’ll compare them. The only thing they have in common is their love for big urns and both their musician fathers loved to show them off...  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
MJ is no way a genius, but he's a great singer and dancer...
But I think that sometimes his talent is underrated... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
krayzie said: MJ is no way a genius...
Yes he is.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think he highly deserved the title. There are very few artists who can write catchy enough songs that will become huge worldwide hits, and still be considered timeless classics after decades. I adore nice HUGE hits, but get bored of them after a month or two. It's not the same with MJ.
And alot nonfans consider him one of the greatest singer/dancers of all time. Not to forget that he was the one who created the whole 'short film' thing. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LightOfArt said: I think he highly deserved the title. There are very few artists who can write catchy enough songs that will become huge worldwide hits, and still be considered timeless classics after decades. I adore nice HUGE hits, but get bored of them after a month or two. It's not the same with MJ.
And alot nonfans consider him one of the greatest singer/dancers of all time. Not to forget that he was the one who created the whole 'short film' thing. I honestly thought you said "tits" there. And I was gonna ask "Wtf has that got to do with anything?"
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: krayzie said: MJ is no way a genius...
Yes he is. I love it when you don't feel the need to explain yourself while I'm trying to write long paragraphs, and getting headaches doing it! 
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I adore nice HUGE tits. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: I honestly thought you said "tits" there. And I was gonna ask "Wtf has that got to do with anything?"
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LightOfArt said: Cloudbuster said: Yes he is.
I love it when you don't feel the need to explain yourself while I'm trying to write long paragraphs, and getting headaches doing it!
Well, sometimes someone's genius is so obvious that it needs no explaining. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: LightOfArt said: I love it when you don't feel the need to explain yourself while I'm trying to write long paragraphs, and getting headaches doing it!
Well, sometimes someone's genius is so obvious that it needs no explaining. I'll remember that  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dag said: And just to hark back to the comment I made earlier about separating an artist from their music - during Mozart's career in Vienna he wrote a play in the German language. Despite this being the national language it was despised for being common and bringing the high art of opera down to the lower classes. It didn't matter that the music was brilliant. Mozart was condemned for it and the opera was a flop. My point is that now we can appreciate it without these prejudices but because MJ's troubles are very much in our faces - it is harder to separate his music from his personal situation.
Incidentally people - I am in NO WAY comparing what Michael Jackson is accused of doing with what Mozart did when he wrote a German opera.... just making the point that you need to put these things in context. I see your point. I wouldn´t also say that Prince is better than MJ or vise versa. YOu just can´t say that. OF course Prince has learned all the instruments himself etc, but he had time to do so. He hasn´t spend his childhood being busy as others planned it for him. You can´t say that MJ wouldn´t be able to learn those instruments if he had the chance. Yes, I can say that. The bottom line is that Michael didn't learn those instruments, etc., and I'm not going to make excuses for him now. Maybe Michael could have figured out the meaning of life if he had the time, who knows? Without people like Quincy and Rod Temperton, where would Michael be, I wonder? Probably not where he is, and I hope you can admit that. If Michael was forced to write an entire album on his own, produce it, and arrange it, what would it sound like? Probably not nearly as good as what has come before in his repertoire.
It´s hard to say where Mj would be without QUincy or Rod. Of course they had their share on his succes, but you can´t also give all the credit only to them, because if you turn it vice versa, where would Quincy and Rod be without MJ. Do you think that anyone would know about them? I don´t think we should give all the credit either to MJ, Quincy or Rod. And what would MJ´s album sounded like if he did it alone? I don´t know. But I don´t think that the music would be THAT bad. MJ´s sure is a great talent in songwriting and everyone who saw his mexican deposition knows that. I agree with this. None of them deserves full credit. But Quincy and Rod would have done just fine without MJ. I'm positive that Michael would never have been able to put together an Off The Wall or Thriller without help from outside producers and songwriters, however. (I should remove my MJ icon, cause than you know I am his fan and tend to see me too fanaticaly. )I would consider Michael a genius performance artist, and I think he deserves all the props he gets for that, even if he does tend to recycle himself a bit too much. But, no, musically, he isn't a genius on the level of Mozart, who could sit down and write a symphony. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LightOfArt said: Cloudbuster said: Well, sometimes someone's genius is so obvious that it needs no explaining.
I'll remember that | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Jackson is probably the only artist that not only do I not get, I can't understand why anyone likes him. I find his music to be so laughably bad. At it's best it reminds me of little kid music, maybe something one of those bubblegum boy bands would make. Good lord do I not like anything by him. :OjitheFanKeybumpersticker: | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I would consider Michael a genius performance artist, and I think he deserves all the props he gets for that, even if he does tend to recycle himself a bit too much. But, no, musically, he isn't a genius on the level of Mozart, who could sit down and write a symphony.
OK, than. We shouldn´t really compare anyone, cause Mozart can´t dance like MJ! They both are the best at their own things. I don´t consider any of them better. Well, sometimes someone's genius is so obvious that it needs no explaining.
Jackson is probably the only artist that not only do I not get, I can't understand why anyone likes him. I find his music to be so laughably bad. At it's best it reminds me of little kid music, maybe something one of those bubblegum boy bands would make. Good lord do I not like anything by him
Wow, you´re the first one I´ve ever "met" that doesn´t like MJ´s music at all. "When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dag said:[quote] I would consider Michael a genius performance artist, and I think he deserves all the props he gets for that, even if he does tend to recycle himself a bit too much. But, no, musically, he isn't a genius on the level of Mozart, who could sit down and write a symphony.
OK, than. We shouldn´t really compare anyone, cause Mozart can´t dance like MJ! They both are the best at their own things. I don´t consider any of them better.
Sorry Dag - that is quite frankly the cutest thing you have ever said! I now have visions of Mozart moonwalking... But seriously though,  Mozart, MJ - there really can't be a comparison. Let's just say that MJ is good at what he does. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sorry Dag - that is quite frankly the cutest thing you have ever said! I now have visions of Mozart moonwalking... But seriously though, Mozart, MJ - there really can't be a comparison. Let's just say that MJ is good at what he does. Thanks. I am happy to keep you entertained.
Let's just say that MJ is good at what he does.
at dancing - the best (sorry ). No Usher, no Timberlake cam move with such a uniquness, precicion, elegance and naturality."When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dag said: Sorry Dag - that is quite frankly the cutest thing you have ever said! I now have visions of Mozart moonwalking... But seriously though, Mozart, MJ - there really can't be a comparison. Let's just say that MJ is good at what he does. Thanks. I am happy to keep you entertained.
Let's just say that MJ is good at what he does.
at dancing - the best (sorry ). No Usher, no Timberlake cam move with such a uniquness, precicion, elegance and naturality.Yup, at dancing. Not at music, though, which is what we were talking about
Michael is about the whole package - take away the dancing and performance skills and you're missing part of the whole. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: dag said: at dancing - the best (sorry ). No Usher, no Timberlake cam move with such a uniquness, precicion, elegance and naturality.Yup, at dancing. Not at music, though, which is what we were talking about
Michael is about the whole package - take away the dancing and performance skills and you're missing part of the whole. Yeah, but the two (Mozart & MJ) aren't even in the same genre. As a pop/r&b music artist I would say that Michael is one of the very best. His songs are brilliantly constructed. This is a ridiculous discussion. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: VoicesCarry said: Yup, at dancing. Not at music, though, which is what we were talking about
Michael is about the whole package - take away the dancing and performance skills and you're missing part of the whole. Yeah, but the two (Mozart & MJ) aren't even in the same genre. As a pop/r&b music artist I would say that Michael is one of the very best. His songs are brilliantly constructed. This is a ridiculous discussion. And if he wrote, produced and arranged all his songs, I'd put him in the same class as Prince (we're still a long way off from Mozart) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: Cloudbuster said: Yeah, but the two (Mozart & MJ) aren't even in the same genre. As a pop/r&b music artist I would say that Michael is one of the very best. His songs are brilliantly constructed. This is a ridiculous discussion. And if he wrote, produced and arranged all his songs, I'd put him in the same class as Prince (we're still a long way off from Mozart) Absolutely. However, the songs MJ does actually do by himself are generally his better ones. He should work on his own more often. That is, of course, assuming he'll be in a position to work at all in the coming months. Prince is arguably the better musician, but in my opinion Michael makes better music. If that makes sense. Mozart is a different trip entirely. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |