I am so happy to see this discussion taking place.
It even appears that some are finally beginning to grasp the artistry of Michael Jackson. Yes yes. Michael Jackson music is fantastic, but even more fantastic is his overall performance art. Michael Jackson is first and foremost a PERFORMER, a role that encompasses all aspects of his art (music, dance, media, film, television, acting, storytelling, modelling, etc) Once one is able to step back from the immediate presentation, the bigger picture becomes more clear. [Edited 1/20/10 19:51pm] | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
babybugz said: ViintageJunkiie said: I dont think so. Listen to The Fame...then listen to Monster...Vocally and lyrically, Monster is on another level! The songs on The Fame all connect to each other. I don't think it would have sounded quite right if the songs (from both albums) were merged. Some of her best work are the out-takes from The Fame session and songs before The Fame era. She not that deep and I don't think it's much of a difference .Just better beats , better lyrics that's it. I play the fame monster more than the fame even though I enjoyed the singles from the fame. She add both it would have been a better album but I'm interested in her second LP if it's like the fame monster it should be good. [Edited 1/20/10 18:34pm] I think lyrically it's a big difference. If you listen to The Fame, she's pretty much talking about FAME and LOVE. Monster, she seems to avoid that by singing about "phobias". I listen to Monster more than The Fame. HAVE to listen to Monster at least once a day, I'll listen to The Fame maybe once or twice a week. Her new album is coming out this year, and i'm also interested in what she'll be doing this time around. She starts filming for "Telephone" next week. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sLUT. "Dead in the middle of Little Italy little did we know
that we riddled some middleman who didn't do diddily"--BP | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |