SoulAlive said:

I don't think just because an artist is not doing things right now, they will be dismissed. If that were the case Elvis, John Lennon, Marvin Gaye and Tupac should have been dismissed considering they have all been dead for years now. And then there are the likes of Stevie Wonder and Aretha who haven't done much for a while but they are still respected and revered.


I think the main problem with Michael is the negative reputation of the worse kind that has accummulated over the years. Secondly, there are promises of "bigger and grander" things to come from him and yet 5 years later fans are still waiting for something to happen.

If Michael had retired after Thriller, or tried not to chase the success of Thriller, which he has been doing since Thriller, and stayed scandal free regardless off what Madonna is doing now we wouldn't be comparing them at all now. Michael's work would have been done and his credibility and respect would have remained intact. There would be no sense of desperation from fans and there would truely be nothing to prove to anyone. However because of the bad publicity and other things there is a sense that he still needs to prove something, both to the world and himself.

whatsgoingon said:

Too bad we live in a "at the moment" world.

I blame the "King of Pop" title. The media, a number of fans, and the general public all expect him to sell millions of albums again with a new studio album. Too bad that so few of us realize that he does not need to prove himself a commercial "thriller" like he was in the late '70s, '80s, and '90s. He just needs to make great music like he is more than capable of doing, and above all be more open with his fans. Do not keep them waiting on a new album that seems to be going nowhere. Be honest. He needs to realize that there remains a lot of people who care about his music and past accomplishments.
[Edited 8/13/07 4:50am]

whatsgoingon said:

I hate to break this to you, but Aretha and Stevie are widely seen as being past it. Their reputation rests on their past achievements. The question is whether or not we can now put Michael into that category. And my answer would be a loud and emphatic "YES!!!"

midnightmover said:

If you believe this to be the case, do you agree with me that the main question of this thread should not have been asked at all. IMO, Madonna and MJ should not even be compared since the former started her music career almost fifteen years after the latter debuted with The Jackson 5.

But, is it not possible that artists accomplish some of their greatest work in their later years and that some of their work is not even acknowledged or celebrated until after their death? Just because Aretha Franklin and Stevie Wonder -- both of whom are still alive -- are respected, like you said, for their past achivements, does not rule out the potential for artistic growth and output. Some of the great novelists (I doubt that The Brothers Karamazov could have been written by a young Dostoevsky) and musicians have produced their best work in the later years of their lives sometimes after a long period of artistic stagnation or mediocrity or even indifference to their work.
[Edited 8/13/07 5:07am]

whatsgoingon said:

This is exactly why I think he should do an MTV "Unplugged" special and CD.Strip it down and get up there and SING! No hype,no gimmicks,no games,no expensive videos,no dancers,no grand expectations....just him onstage,singing and reminding people why they became fans in the first place.He could do alot of fan favorites like "I Can't Help It","Liberian Girl","Human Nature","Maybe Tomorrow"....songs that have actual melodies and well-written lyrics! He could begin the show by announcing that he is retiring the "King of Pop" title...maybe joke around between songs...laugh a bit and show the world that he can still be "human" sometime.That's a side of him that very few people get to see these days.

SoulAlive said:

That would be fantastic! And if he has new songs, or songs recorded some time ago that none of us have heard, he could sing a couple of those as well. In fact, he was planning to do something along those lines during the time of his divorce from his first wife. But I heard he collapsed while in rehearsal -- and the show was cancelled. He needs to realize that a lot of people want him to come back musically not commercially. Even the ex-fans, now that I think of it.

Rodya24 said:

Thanks for pointing this out.I hate to say this,but many MJ fans point to his past record sales because that's all they can brag about.They can't talk about anything he's doing now,or anything he's done in the last few years.There are no recent achievements to brag about.Furthermore,they can't brag about how he's grown and evolved as an artist because he really hasn't.This is the main difference between Madonna and Michael.

Rodya24 said:

I'm thinking he could write a really good new song and dedicate it to James Brown....a tribute song.

Rodya24 said:

I agree that the whole premise of the thread is fundamentally flawed. If MJ was "desperate" for a hit he'd be working wholeheartedly to make it happen. He'd be passionate, committed. Hell, I wish he was desperate. As for Madonna to say she was "desperate for a hit" would imply that she hasn't had one in a while. I hate to break it to MJ fans, but Madonna's been doing very nicely in the hits department for sometime now, unlike MJ who's only had one notable hit single in the last decade and even that was less succesful than most of Madge's.

I have two words for that. The first one is "So" and the second one is "what?". Regardless of when they started they are both 80s icons of the same age. They competed for the same audiences on the same charts. They were peers. One of them is still in the game. One of them might as well be retired for all we know. When they started is irrelevant.

Possible, but extremely rare in pop music. Artists who still produce vital work in later years are ones who maintain their passion, curiosity and hunger. Ones who continue to challenge themselves. Michael began stagnating a long time ago. Furthermore, I see no evidence that he is still hungry, but I see a wealth of evidence to the contrary. Even in the Bashir documentary we saw him holed up in a hotel room, bored, playing computer games all night. This confirms testiments from those who knew him in the late 90s, early 00s who described him as a man with "no motivation" and a "shadow of his former self". For the record those are the words of that Jewish Brit who accompanied him to Oxford University in 2001 and hung out with him a lot in those years. Everything we see of Michael now tells me that, if anything, he has even less passion and belief now. Look at the WMAs. A hugely important gig if he was serious about reclaiming his throne and changing public perception, yet it was obvious he hadn't even rehearsed properly. That is not the sign of a man with passion.

midnightmover said:[quote]

Rodya24 said:

I agree with you except for where you said "when they started is irrelevant." Sure both are '80s icons. But MJ would not be MJ without his work at Motown and with The Jacksons at Epic. Hell, a number of his fans would not even be fans if it was not for the work done during the '60s and '70s. And I think the fact that he has been in show business for a long time must have something to do with his lack of drive and hunger. Of course, others also have musical careers lasting over five decades -- Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder -- but with the exception of the latter, none of them were child stars.

But you disagree with me, and that is fine. No need to go back and forth and argue with one another. This thread is already too long.

Yes, you are right. He looked out of it (and bored) throughout the late '90s and in particular during the Invincible era. I am curious to know if he was high during this time?

I also wonder if he would be so lackluster if the child molestation accusations had never occurred. I guess we will never know. I remember how angry and driven he was following the 1993 scandal. And I was hoping to see something of that fire once again after he was acquited in 2005. I hope he proves both of us wrong, and finds a way to channel his creativity again -- before Madonna celebrates her fortieth anniversary. LOL.

BTW, are you still a fan of his music?

Rodya24 said:

That is true.

That "King of Pop" title makes laugh and it gets the public in the mood to nail him now that he is over.

It reminds me of Mike Tyson's title of " The Baddest Man on the Planet". After Tyson was exposed by Buster Douglas & Evander Hoylfield you would see the news media always bringing that Title up.

Rodya24 said:

I agree with you that when they started their career is very relevant. We don't whether Madonna would have continued to be as "creative" as she is, if she started her career age 10. For all we know she could have ended up like many child stars and be burnt out by 18. Michael first 10 years in the biz as the lead singer of the Jackson 5/Jacksons is what has consolidated his legacy. I doubt very much MJ could have become legendary on the basis of his solo work alone, inspite of the awesome success of Thriller. It is because of he was a child star that makes his life and career even more fascinating and the reason so many people still care.

whatsgoingon said:

It might be relevant to Michael's psychology, but I think it's perfectly natural for people to compare how these 80s icons have turned out. I'm pretty sure both Madge and Mike must do it themselves in private moments. I also find it hard to believe that you and others don't look at Madonna's current status (headlining Live Earth, always releasing new material, regularly touring, selling well. etc.) and instinctively contrast it with Michael's current situation. You'd be very strange if you didn't.

btw, I should point out that I don't judge Michael for being where he is. Like all of us, his life is a product of circumstances. His sexuality and a lifetime's fame are IMO the two factors that underpin his problems. It all starts there. He is as much a victim as anyone else. My beef is more with his deluded fans than with him. I stopped expecting anything from Michael well over ten years ago when I saw History 97 and realised he'd lost it. It's taken a lot longer for some others to realise this and some are still kidding themselves even now.

Rodya24 said:

My opinions about his music have never changed. Up until Bad his music was magical, his voice was phenomenal. Then it started getting very hit and miss, and contrived. There were still great songs and incredible moments, his impassioned adlibs for instance on songs like Who Is It, etc. Phenomenal. More than enough to keep me happy. But overall you could feel the work too much, particualrly by the time of History. Also, his voice was clearly deteriorating, which led to more and more miming which was shameful for an artist of his pedigree. It also meant we never again heard the smooth, vibrant voice we heard before, even in studio recordings.

By this point it was mostly his dancing and performing skills that kept me interested, but after the allegations, his dancing slowed down too. By the time of History 97, the only moves he could still do with any authority were the robotic moves which he started relying on heavily. There was just nothing left by that point, but we still had the old tapes. I liken it to Muhammed Ali. We all know he couldn't even beat up a girl nowadays, but that doesn't mean we're any less respectful of his former greatness. We'll always salute him for that. But sometimes you have to just accept when something's over. Even if MJ does release another album it will mean nothing, because he doesn't have it anymore. You guys need to get over it and quit fantasizing about acoustic albums and whatnot. Move on.
[Edited 8/13/07 7:48am]

midnightmover said:

Sure, it is natural for people to compare them, but I think it is also common for some to forget that MJ was in show business when Madonna was in school (like most children their age).

I understand where whatsgoingon is coming from as a fan of MJ from his time at Motown and Epic (circa late '70s until Thriller), but I have a hard time understanding where YOU are coming from. From your posts, you seem to know a lot about MJ, and you are (or were) a fan considering you saw him in concert. If you do not expect anything further from him and believe that he has "lost it," why even bother to spend your time talking about him? Were you that big of a fan in the first time? Because you seem to have been. I remember someone arguing with EmbattledWarrior that MJ had "lost" his voice? Was that you or krayzie? I cannot remember.

I agree with most of your posts but the latter bothered me -- if it was you who argued this. While he almost never sings live (an indication of something wrong), he sounds great on his latest recordings (of course, there are pitch machines, etc., but no studio technology can hide the fact that someone i.e. Janet Jackson, Madonna cannot sing well). Well, whatever the case might be, thank god for modern technology since we can still listen to his earlier soulful singing from the '60s and '70s.

Oops! I posted this before reading what you wrote above!
[Edited 8/13/07 8:03am]

midnightmover said:

God, this is depressing. But like I said earlier, his solo work at Motown and Epic, and with The Jackson 5 and The Jacksons keep me more than satified. But still, I wish he was desperate, and would get the creative juices flowing; but like you and others pointed out, this is more than likely not going to happen.

However, I hope in the future, b-sides and unreleased tracks from the '60s and up to Invincible (yes, even Invincible) are made available for the public.
[Edited 8/13/07 8:10am]

Rodya24 said:

That's why I'm glad I've got such extensive musical tastes. My heart goes out to these poor bastards who are relying on MJ to get their fix. Hell, I remember it was agony waiting for MJ albums twenty years ago, and that was when there was something worth waiting for. God knows what it must be like now. Fortunately I had Prince dropping masterpieces every year. Even then I respected him more as a recording artist than Michael, because his music was so much freer. He seemed possessed by the music. I didn't get that feeling from Michael, but his videos were much better, and of course Prince couldn't do the moonwalk
[Edited 8/13/07 8:22am]
[Edited 8/13/07 8:30am]
[Edited 8/13/07 8:31am]

midnightmover said:

Sure, Prince is amazing, and along with MJ, John Lennon, and David Bowie, he is one of my favorite male artists in modern popular music. But even his albums from the '80s never appeal to me or work on the same level as MJ's. Now that MJ is releasing nothing right now, and Prince is releasing boring albums (btw, what do you think of his current output?), I keep going back to their older recordings. I thought MAYBE Justin Timberlake could fill their shoes, but NO, I thought wrong. Why do most popular musicians have such a short span of brilliance?

Rodya24 said:

RE: Prince. He lost his mojo years ago, but onstage he still kills it. His Superbowl performance this year was brilliant. Much better than Michael's predictable mime job 14 years earlier. It's good to see him still out there, giving his all night after night. His charisma is also undiminished. As for P's 80s work, I'm afraid it dwarfs Michael's two albums in both quality and quantity. But there's a good reason why it won't appeal as widely as MJ's. Prince gives you the perverse, the wild, and sometimes the darn right weird in his music. Now for someone like myself who sees life on a deeper level, that's great. But a lot of people are turned off by things they can't understand. It's a lot easier to understand "I'm bad, I'm bad, you know it", than to understand "If I was your girlfriend would you run to me if somebody hurt you, even if that somebody was me?". That's a head fuck right there. You don't get that from PYT.

This is one of many reasons why Michael's fans are quite an unsophisticated bunch (I'm not talking about you here, it's just a general observation). Because so much of his music is juvenile. Prince just has a lot more depth. He's funkier, dirtier, and also just a much better songwriter. Look at the great songs he wrote for others like Manic Monday, Nothing Compares 2 U, etc, not to mention the hundred or so classics he recorded himself. I can imagine if Prince was nothing but a songwriter he could be succesful at that. If Michael was nothing but a songwriter he'd have to ask Joseph to get him a job in the steel yard.
[Edited 8/13/07 10:40am]
[Edited 8/19/07 4:55am]

Madonna is OVER. Fox News had a segment on, about two years ago, how Madonna's career is over. They said Mariah is still the greatest.

musicismydrug said:

fox news? that's what feeds U?... shit-eater!

midnightmover said:

I didn't say they were still active, and I wasn't implying that they are still popular. I was implying that they are respected still, inspite of being "past it" and yes, the reason why they are probably respected is because of their great, past achievements and there is nothing wrong with that. It's better than being ridicule on a daily basis. If Michael were put into that catergory it wouldn't matter, because the fact of the matter is Stevie and Aretha left their mark, they inspired and influence a generation of artists and they have nothing left to prove.

There are so many other artists that are "past it" but continue to be a source of inspiration; Bob Dylan, The Beach Boys etc they may have retired or be inactive but at the end of the day once they' ve left their mark people will not forget them. The problem with Michael is that he doesn't seem to know whether he wants to keep on going or retire. If he does keep on going what direction will he be taking? Would he continue to chase the success of Thriller or would he change his direction and go back to his roots and start using his most precious asset, which has always been his voice and not his feet?

As I said he could have retired after Thriller, by then I think we had seen him at his best and at his most innovative.
[Edited 8/13/07 9:23am]
[Edited 8/13/07 9:24am]
[Edited 8/13/07 9:26am]

midnightmover said:

I think your bias as an unabashed Prince fan just came across in your past. LOL. I would argue that yes, I am a huge Prince fan, but there are a lot of arrogant assholes who revere Prince because he can "OMG play this and that," as if he is the only multi-instrumentalist in popular music. It can get irritating as I am sure you are aware -- just as irritating as those MJ fans who count up his album sales. But I digress... I disagree with you about MJ and his abilities as a songwriter (btw, I am sure you are aware that he did not write the version of PYT on Thriller). And to label an entire fanbase as unsophisticated considering that a number of them overlap as Prince fans is too much of a generalization. Sure, MJ was not nearly as prolific as Prince in the '80s, but I think his work on Destiny, Triumph, Off The Wall, and Thriller speak for themselves.

Also, I think you are onto something when you say that Prince and his music is less appealing due to the fact that he is "funkier, dirtier." It is not difficult to imagine why MJ, and not Prince, was seen as the sweet, mysterious face of American music in the '80s. But the fact that he is "funkier, dirtier" does not necessarity mean that his music leads to a greater appreciation or revelation about life in general, or that it is "deep." Sometimes simplicity, directness, and tongue-in-cheek innuendoes, which may come off as simple, are far more effective.

Ah... now I love this discussion!

Anyway, I can see how Madonna isn't as desperate like I'd originally thought. I mean, she's already established herself so if the album flops, she'll probably be like and move on to the next thing. That's Madonna for you.

I have to agree that I think Michael or some of his fans expect this big grandiose thing all the time he does something and when nothing comes out, some fans start getting BITTER because they've been waiting eight years. Yeah, blame it on the trial and the many lawsuits but even with that, you saw R. Kelly continuing to release product.

Maybe it's because Michael seems too stuck in his ways and if he isn't stuck, then he's sure giving us a poor example of that because we only hear speculation that he's as good as he's always has been while certain media junkets claim he's "over". Sales don't define an artist, it's always the talent.

And for me, his talent outranks how many sales his albums have done. His talent also is bigger than some stupid title like "King of Pop". I cringe every time I hear "King of Pop" or "Queen of Pop", it's stupid to me.

Unfortunately, Michael has a stigma that I don't think he's gonna get rid of no matter what he does because he's been ridiculed for so long and has been stressed out over people throwing the books at him.

I'll always respect him as a legend and as an innovator and for his work he did between 1969 and 1992 (mostly, though I love some of his material on "HIStory" and "Invincible") but I don't want him to be lampooned for his recent efforts if we go another year without an album. It's not a gloom and doom thinking, I'm just stating my opinion, real talk.

Rodya24 said:

A "biased, unabashed Prince fan"? Boy, you don't know much about me, do you? I've pissed off tons of Prince fans by calling the bullshit card on them too. I oppose zealots and fools whatever camp they fall into. Prince has plenty of those, but Michael has much more. I'm afraid it's also a fact that Michael attracts a less sophisticated audience. I was in school in the 80s and 90s. MJ was everyone's favourite. Kids always loved him. Kids are unsophisticated. No one liked Prince. He was strictly for the grown ups. Sorry if you take that as a personal insult, but that says more about your defensiveness than anything else. Nowhere did I say all his fans are unsophisticated. There will always be exceptions.

As for MJ and P's talents as songwriters I have to question just how much of P's work you're familiar with. He has classics sprinkled all over the first 20 years of his career. The MJ albums you're talking about were largely other people's work (Destiny, OTW, Triumph, etc.). Please don't make me explain this. All you have to do is look at the credits. If you think those few made-by-commitee albums entitles MJ to equal ranking with Prince's single handed rain of genius year after year, you're smoking crack.

It has to be said also that MJ's work generally lacks the uniqueness and edginess of P's. TWYMMF, Bad, BOW, etc may be fun tunes, but they're juvenile. Read the lyrics to When Doves Cry or Strange Relationship. If you're honest you'll have to concede that there is a depth there that is way beyond anything Michael could ever conceive of. Let me repeat those key words, "If you're honest". Check it out for yourself. Read them. Then come back to me.
[Edited 8/13/07 10:39am]
[Edited 8/13/07 11:01am]

whatsgoingon said:

You need to take Bob Dylan off that list. His best work is behind him and he's not as prolific as he used to be, but two of his last three albums have had some brilliant work on them. He still has the power to surprise.

RE: Michael. My issue is that a lot of people here are kidding themselves. Even you are too timid to come out and say "it's over". You talk about "Will he chase Thriller or go back to his roots?" WTF!? I wish that was the issue, but IT'S NOT! Michael ain't doing EITHER!! That's the point you're not getting. He don't have the fire to chase Thriller or go back to his roots. You're fighting an old battle there from an old war. That ship sailed a long time ago. He ain't ever going back to his roots. He doesn't know he ever left them.

You talk about his voice as his most precious asset, but in live situations that voice is shot. Michael doesn't mime for the fun of it, you know. There is no mystery here. Michael will eventually release an album and it won't matter, because he's past it. That's the point. It will generate tons of publicity as the latest instalment in a train wreck, but that's all. The only other option is if he never releases a new album at all, which is also a very real possibility. Recapturing his soul roots is NOT a possibility.
[Edited 8/13/07 11:00am]

midnightmover said:

Please, calm down. You are reminding me of myself. I respect most of your opinions and often read your posts for their biting sense of humor and keen bullshit detector. I did not grow up in the '80s so I do not have the personal knowledge like you to state for certain who appealed to whom. But, of course, I am aware that MJ appealed to all generations, in particular children (i.e. the popularity of the "Beat It" jacket and the "glove"). I see no problem with that. And I still stand by my opinion that MJ is (or was) a talented songwriter. I never said that MJ is more talented with words than Prince. I just stated that because Prince brings a certain level of depth that you claim MJ is not capable of does not mean that the former is more effective -- to me (I should have qualified the statement in my previous post). This is just an opinion, and one you disagree with. That is fine. And yes, some of the lyrics that Prince wrote are amazing.

And yes, I am aware that albums such as Destiny, Triumph, Off The Wall, and Thriller were not single-man affairs. But I still admire, respect, and appreciate the obvious traces over these four that MJ had. And yes, I have listened to the albums released by Prince in the '80s, and enjoy them very, very much. But no, none of them appeals to me as much as Off The Wall or Thriller. Call me unsophisticated. Perhaps I was wrong in pinpointing the difference in their appeal to songwriting alone. Perhaps MJ's vocals touch my soul more so than Prince's. Again this is just an opinion. And I sure it differs for a number of people.

Perhaps the fact that I grew up in a household where popular music (with the exception of my dad's love for the songs "Human Nature" and "Beat It") was almost non-existent compared to the abundance of classical music booming out of the speakers speaks volumes to how I feel about music. I never understood the words that opera singers sang, but I felt them. I apologize if I insulted you in any way.
[Edited 8/13/07 11:15am]

Rodya24 said:

One thing that redeems many of even Michael's crappier songs is his incredible voice. There's just something in his voice that can't be described. That is one tremendous asset Michael's work has. As for the lyrics I focused in on those not just because Prince is so clearly Michael's superior in that department. But also just because they're easier to describe in words which is all we have in forums like this. I could just as easily talk about P's greater musical range, but it would probably descend into muso speak and I would sound like some prick from Rolling Stone. What am I talking about Rolling Stone? I have opinions, I don't kiss ass and I care about music. I could never work for Rolling Stone.

Yall took this thread and ran with it. Rodya24, the comment about MJs voice, that's what got me. There's something about his voice that resonates deeply with me. Unfortunately, I've noticed over the years that the quality of his voice isn't what it once was (when he's truly singing) and this bugs me.

While Whatever Happens is one of his best songs, his voice to me on that track sounds different than every other song on that album. At first I thought it was just me until someone here on the Org mentioned it awhile back. Maybe he had a cold that day but he should have waited to record until he was 100%.

With Prince, sometimes his voice gets me, sometimes he doesn't but his music, dayum. Sometimes I love, sometimes I don't, sometimes it's over my head and I have to come back but I love the layers he brings lyrically and musically. I love that sometimes I have to work a little bit to get that groove or that message depending on the song. I love the grit, dirt, sex, spirit, arrogance, romance, rock, funk, jazz and all that his music brings. Then he performs live and it's even better!

Sometimes I think Michael is just paralyzed with fear. He sees his peers still throwing down. The kids are stealing from him like thieves. Record sales are low, hip hop has taken over, Janet is struggling and the producers he's passed over have had success with other artists.

Why did he never reschedule One Night Only? Even if he and HBO couldn't work things out you telling me he couldn't schedule that show in a small venue some where? He's had over 10 years to do that show. All that hard work and production just went out the window? WTF?

Why must everything be the biggest, the brightest, the most expensive, etc. If you've got art, you're going to put it out regardless because you have to. You're an artist. You crave the stage or you miss the audience, you go to the House of Blues and grab the mic. You show up at the blah blah concert in the park and sing a song. He doesn't do any of this which is why I think he doesn't care and/or is scared.

Put out an album in a cardboard jewel box with no multiple covers, no secret prize, no statues and robots, no greatest hits disc or DVD included... while that's nice, don't give a gimmick to buy your album. Stream a few tracks on a decent up to date website. If the music is good, I'll buy it.