First, i am from outside the US.

Second, i see so many people on here, grown ups i assume, threatening MJ as some semi-God, and reacting like sect-followers when anyone dares to criticize their beloved deceased 'leader'.

If anyone is acting ridicolous and outrageous here, it are the ones who don't take any criticism towards Saint Michael, like you.

Its your choice to live in a fairytale world, but simply respect the choice of other people to use their common sense.

it's always like that, i suppose . on a side note, i was at the strip club a few weeks ago and even they was playing rock with you . i was like . i'm tryna look at naked ass and whatnot and i gotta be reminded of dude here too . if man in the mirror would've followed, i'da been outta that motherfucker quick

punkofthemonth said:

~ brings back horrible memories of that night I was dragged to a Parisian strip club and the girl pole danced to 'Purple Rain' 3 feet away from me ~


As for the thread topic: I agree with PurpleMedley122, Vendetta, SoulAlive and rocknrolldave.


I'm not tired of MJ - just the sensationalist headlines and nonsense that's been reported. Let the man rest in peace - however, you'd get that with any star that died unexpectedly. When it's MJ... multiply that considerably. Unfortunately, it's to be expected.


I'm glad to see that the focus is back on his music once again - although I do sympathise with long-time, hardcore fans; it must be a double-edged sword. I was never the biggest fan - although I love his music - and had been listening to him LOADS in the run-up to the O2 concerts. The day of his death, I was walking around town blasting the 'Dangerous' album... then, that night, the news broke. It didn't chage the fact that the same album I'd been listening to the day before was the one I listened to the next day; however, not that it matters, I did think 'I hope no-one thinks I'm jumping on the bandwagon'. Suddenly, everyone's a 'fan'. When Prince dies, God forbid, I know it's going to annoy the hell outta me when people crawl out from under the woodwork stating how much they 'loved' his music and 'what a genius' he was. As I say, double-edged sword.


Overall, though, I'm not sick of MJ - only the tabloid sensationalism.


.
[Edited 8/1/09 4:37am]

I am not really tired with people paying attention to him on here, I mean: that is what you get when someone so immensely popular dies rather suddenly.

But what rather annoys is that some people here seem to lose sense of perspective in dealing with his legacy / and about what he really was. IMO he was a great ENTERTAINER, a very, very, very succesfull POP-artist, but:

- Just because he did sell the most albums, doesnt make him the most influential musician ever (I am not going to use the B... word here, i am not.. lol). Britney Spears and Shania Twain, to name a few, sell a lot of records too, does that make them important to the history and evolving of music?

- Just because he brought you spectacular 'live'-shows with lots of dancing, figurants and fireworks doesnt make him the greatest live-musician. I mean: therefore you have to sing live in the first place, your band has to play their instruments, not playback to tapes, and it has to be about the music in the first place (the chemistry between the musicians, the ability to improvise) and not about the equivalent of a Hollywood blockbuster / amusement park attraction being performed on stage.

- Just because he was so popular world-wide and perceived as some semi-god by many gullible people (people are easily 'fooled' when they get their simple entertainment...) doesnt mean you have to hijack threads that are about artistical achievements in the first place. An entertainer is not the same 'species' as an artist.

I dont mind when you enjoy the entertainer MJ, but don't start talking shit about his artistic legacy. When it comes to that its obvious that:
- James Brown, Marvin Gaye, Sly Stone and George Clinton, to name a few, have been far more influential on the sound and development of R&B / funk / Soul then MJ.
- Elvis Presley (rock and roll) and the Beatles (pop and rock) have had a far broader and deeper influence on pop music in general.
- People like Hendrix, Prince, Van Morrison, Bruce Springsteen, Queen and David Bowie, to name a few, were far better live ARTISTS.
- There have been and are hundreds (probably thousands) of artists who don't sell as much albums like MJ, but simply deliver better / more touching / more 'real' music on an artistical level then the entertainer MJ does.

The fact that the gossip press is speaking about you constantly and that people faint when they see you lip-synching on stage, might make you a great 'entertainer', it doesnt automatically make you a great artist.. that simple it is.
[Edited 7/31/09 15:02pm]

I am not really tired with people paying attention to him on here, I mean: that is what you get when someone so immensely popular dies rather suddenly.

But what rather annoys is that some people here seem to lose sense of perspective in dealing with his legacy / and about what he really was. IMO he was a great ENTERTAINER, a very, very, very succesfull POP-artist, but:

- Just because he did sell the most albums, doesnt make him the most influential musician ever (I am not going to use the B... word here, i am not.. lol). Britney Spears and Shania Twain, to name a few, sell a lot of records too, does that make them important to the history and evolving of music?

- Just because he brought you spectacular 'live'-shows with lots of dancing, figurants and fireworks doesnt make him the greatest live-musician. I mean: therefore you have to sing live in the first place, your band has to play their instruments, not playback to tapes, and it has to be about the music in the first place (the chemistry between the musicians, the ability to improvise) and not about the equivalent of a Hollywood blockbuster / amusement park attraction being performed on stage.

- Just because he was so popular world-wide and perceived as some semi-god by many gullible people (people are easily 'fooled' when they get their simple entertainment...) doesnt mean you have to hijack threads that are about artistical achievements in the first place. An entertainer is not the same 'species' as an artist.

I dont mind when you enjoy the entertainer MJ, but don't start talking shit about his artistic legacy. When it comes to that its obvious that:
- James Brown, Marvin Gaye, Sly Stone and George Clinton, to name a few, have been far more influential on the sound and development of R&B / funk / Soul then MJ.
- Elvis Presley (rock and roll) and the Beatles (pop and rock) have had a far broader and deeper influence on pop music in general.
- People like Hendrix, Prince, Van Morrison, Bruce Springsteen, Queen and David Bowie, to name a few, were far better live ARTISTS.
- There have been and are hundreds (probably thousands) of artists who don't sell as much albums like MJ, but simply deliver better / more touching / more 'real' music on an artistical level then the entertainer MJ does.

The fact that the gossip press is speaking about you constantly and that people faint when they see you lip-synching on stage, might make you a great 'entertainer', it doesnt automatically make you a great artist.. that simple it is.
[Edited 7/31/09 15:02pm]

Riverpoet31 said:

I've always thought of MJ as a GREAT entertainer when it came to his music and an artist when it came to his music videos.....

Now of course, Mike has shown his "artist" side from time to time on songs like "Stranger In Moscow"...There's nothing 'song-and-dance-man' about those type of compositions....But for the most part, Mike did aim to please...He was indeed the consummate entertainer....

As far as the other acts you named, I'm scratching my head on how you could place Elvis in the same category as the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix...Yes, Elvis was an influential artist....And his late '50s material is as great as advertised....But he didn't even write his own material like Chuck Berry and Little Richard...Hell, MJ even wrote some of his best known songs....

Yes, Elvis' impact was indeed HUGE.....But let's get real here...Part of Elvis' impact was because he was able to translate an African-American artform to the WHITE populace...Elvis' impact was fueled by the fact that he was one of the pioneers of a new musical artform call rock n roll (following Little Richard and Chuck Berry, of course)...

Elvis fit the same "entertainer" bill as MJ...To make Elvis different is bias at best....

Riverpoet31 said:

I've always thought of MJ as a GREAT entertainer when it came to his music and an artist when it came to his music videos.....

Now of course, Mike has shown his "artist" side from time to time on songs like "Stranger In Moscow"...There's nothing 'song-and-dance-man' about those type of compositions....But for the most part, Mike did aim to please...He was indeed the consummate entertainer....

As far as the other acts you named, I'm scratching my head on how you could place Elvis in the same category as the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix...Yes, Elvis was an influential artist....And his late '50s material is as great as advertised....But he didn't even write his own material like Chuck Berry and Little Richard...Hell, MJ even wrote some of his best known songs....

Yes, Elvis' impact was indeed HUGE.....But let's get real here...Part of Elvis' impact was because he was able to translate an African-American artform to the WHITE populace...Elvis' impact was fueled by the fact that he was one of the pioneers of a new musical artform call rock n roll (following Little Richard and Chuck Berry, of course)...

Elvis fit the same "entertainer" bill as MJ...To make Elvis different is bias at best....

I only get tired of it when I come here Other than some J5 playing in a restaurant the weekend it happened, I really don't hear a lot about it. & when the autopsy results hit there's gonna be a whole new wave of reports so get ready. I don't listen to him anymore than I did before he died, & I'll always be tired of the corny/overplayed MJ songs, dead or alive...