New topic
Printable
Whatever Mike wanted to be, obviously he got you obsessed. "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 |
I always find it ironic and laughable that Prince fans are jealous or worry about Michael and Michael fans never worry about or are jealous of Prince's acheivements. I am not a Prince fan; however, I respect his talent and achievements and that is what I see on most MJ boards. The fans respect Prince's talent and work. The jealousy and hatred of Prince fans toward Michael smacks of insecurity on their part. FTR, there is noting wrong with wanting your work to sell and wanting to succeed and be the best at what you are doing. Any artist that says they don't care if their album sells or that they want their work to be the best is a LIAR,imo. Artists who are not big-sellers use that "I don't care line" as a cop-op and it is not being honest. I like when a person is honest enough to admit and want their product to sell instead of pretending that they don't care if it sells or not. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
It ain't Prince fans in general, it's just some people who want to put one down to praise the other, when there's really no need to. I'm a fan of both and have never seen the need to make a "vs" thing out of it "We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Word. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Michael wanted to be the biggest star in the world, and he wanted to be the best. He was a entertainer in the truest form, along with people like Sammy Davis Jr.
Reading Sammy's bio right now, the parallels in his career with Michael, Prince, James Brown, and others who came after him and before him, you wonder the cycle always has to repeat itself [Edited 6/5/11 15:05pm] "We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
To be fair - as a fan of both I've seen it on both sides. It has less to do about the artist and more the niggling insecurities of the fans in question who are overly invested in *their* star being the best, the most talented, etc and they themselves feel threatened by success of others. They try and make themselves feel better by putting others down - it's childish and often not based in any reality. You can spot them by their statements of massive inaccuracy, straight out lies, and are obvious inflamatory as if to say "hey look at me - I matter". It all smacks of insecurity.
Give me a fan who can give props to others, admit when they are wrong, can objectively talk about the work and I'll happily engage them in chat and seek their opinion. "I'm not human I'm a dove, I'm ur conscience. I am love" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Exactly, Michael's work was driven by a passion to craft great work, present the best he could do and yes he gauged success by sales but that was also a by product of how he was raised. Besides I don't know of any band or artist who when hitting number 1 said - nah, don't want it. Even the most artsy or indie of bands - Nirvana comes to mind - all celebrated when they hit number 1 as it meant something to them.
As you say bboy MJ wanted to the be the biggest and the best - the fact that his Thriller video for example is still the best video in the world as voted by critics more than 25 years after it's release proves that he could be both. "I'm not human I'm a dove, I'm ur conscience. I am love" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
You are right. I have seen it on both sides, also. However, the hateful and jealous statements are much more prevalent from Prince fans. I have yet to see that on the MJ boards that I visit. It seems as if most MJ fans give a concentrated effort to NOT diss Prince and give him respect even if they are not a fan of his. I don't see the same from Prince fans, unless they are a fan of both. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
"We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The truth. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dot com. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Oh, that's such BS
Hell, I ended up getting clusterfucked and ultimately banned from an MJ forum yearsssss ago, when I stated that there's other artists just as talented as MJ and named Prince specifically. MJ fans have a big, big hangup about other musicians usually, and if you don't insist that Michael invented music the first time he farted, then you're a 'hater'.
It's so stupid and I've never understood it, because I love both Prince and MJ. "I don't think you'd do well in captivity." - random person's comment to me the other day | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I would say the hairy arms definitely are not like Michael's, and his hands are way larger than that. Is that what you meant too? "You put water into a cup, it becomes the cup...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." - Bruce Lee
"Water can nourish me, but water can also carry me. Water has magic laws." - JCVD | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The hairy arms were a dead giveaway it wasn't him. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Thank you!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
"We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ahh...Thanks a lot!!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I said that the Michael Jackson forums I(emphasis on the word "I") visit, have respect for Prince. I don't know which MJ forums that YOU visit or were banned from YEARS ago. I can only speak about MY experience. Btw, I know that there are some MJ fans who don't want to hear anything bad about Michael and rightfully so. Prince fans don't want to read or hear anything negative about him. Let's not try to act as if defending our favorite artist is exclusive to MJ fans. ALL fans defend their favorite artist. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Now back to the music...
"I'm not human I'm a dove, I'm ur conscience. I am love" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
In 9 days...HIStory will be 16 years old. Happy (soon to be) birthday to my favorite MJ album ever released. MJ Fan 1992-Forever
My Org Family: Cinnie, bboy87, Cinnamon234, AnckSuNamun, lilgish, thekidsgirl, thesexofit, Universaluv, theSpark, littlemissG, ThreadCula, badujunkie, DANGEROUSx, Timmy84, MikeMatronik, DarlingDiana, dag, Nvncible1 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Wow 16 years - time flies. HiStory remains one of my faves for how personal an album it was. I was glad than rather than avoid the elephant in the room, Michael gave His side of the Story and confront the issues head on.
I know a lot of critics felt it was an angry album, but hey considering everything that had transpired he had a right to be pissed.
I always felt sony missed a promotion hook by not running a line like "You haven't heard the truth until you've heard HiStory." "I'm not human I'm a dove, I'm ur conscience. I am love" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I can't really agree with this and I will tell you why:
1. If you are Michael Jackson fan, there is a HUGE possibility that you have never even heard of Prince.
2. If you are a Prince fan, there is a very HIGH possibility that you are familiar with Michael Jackson.
While I do agree that stans, in general, tend to want to talk shit about other acts. It goes for most fandoms. I doubt I'm going to go to a Star Wars fan and have them agree with me that Star Trek > Star Wars. NOPE. Not gonna' happen.
With some Prince fans though, I think that a lot of them tend to follow that school of thought that unless you have an instrument in your hand, you cant' call yourself a musician. This also, includes, the thought that unless you make rock or jazz, you are creating throw away music. It's kinda based on racism. Only those black artists who create rock music are seen as 'real' musicians who make 'real' music. It's a very, very stupid school of thought imo. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Have to disagree with that one - I think the majority of MJ fans know who Prince is and could name his tracks.
I've always argued the fans of either that are so one-eyed that they can't see the good and bad in each let alone seek out the other's music objectively are robbing themselves of great music on both sides. "I'm not human I'm a dove, I'm ur conscience. I am love" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Great article here on MJ's career from a Jazz Perspective.
Michael Jackson (1958-200... Jazz CampMichael Jackson, for all his considerable talents, never enjoyed a large following among jazz devotees. His songs are rarely covered by jazz bands (although with one very famous exception), and if you raise his name in a discussion with serious jazzistas, they will usually change the topic to his former producer Quincy Jones, whose artistry is more closely aligned with jazz values.
Yet jazz fans are not immune to the appeal of pop. They will embrace a great songwriter like Joni Mitchell; or a pop star who fills his band with jazz players like Sting; or a hitmaker who shows some impressive instrumental chops like Stevie Wonder. But Michael Jackson did not fit easily into any of these categories. Yet Jackson had a better sense of the changes transforming the entertainment world during the late 20th century than any of these figures. Jazz fans not only should mourn his passing, but perhaps learn from his example, Then as now, formulas were changing, technologies were evolving, and Michael Jackson was the perfect talent to seize the opportunities of this new era. In particular, the concept of the singer-songwriter so powerful during the 1970s (and whose individualism was very congruent with the jazz sensibility) would collapse as a platform for popular music during the 1980s. The intimacy and nuanced effects of this approach were not well suited to a multimedia age, which wanted something larger and more spectacular. Michael Jackson provided thispanem et circenses spectacle, although in his case it was a spectacle that sometimes continued offstage and in private life. The arrival of music videos and cable television was almost like a second coming of talking movies. Just as during that earlier age, audiences were attracted to stars who could exploit the full potential of the new medium. A half-century before, movie releases had been marketed for their all singing, all talking, all dancing grandeur. The screen might be smaller at the home entertainment center during the 1980s, but the appetite for powerful visual effects was much the same. A Stevie Wonder or Joni Mitchell, for all their musical talent no doubt deeper than Jackson's when measured in mere sharps and flats were not capable of operating on this level. In truth, no musical performer of his generation had a more powerful visual impact on the screen than Michael Jackson. He was so dynamic in front of the camera, that the Disney corporation even built a 3D film for its theme parks around him and got Francis Ford Coppola to direct it and George Lucas to serve as executive producer. What a strange turn of events: after all, 3D films had always focused on massive effects, scary or scenic, something on a Grand Canyon type of scale. Now a 3D film was built around a personality? But Michael Jackson was not just another personality he also operated on a Grand Canyon kind of scale. And I can assure you from the lines I encountered when I went to see Captain EO at Disneyland, that this was a hugely popular attraction. How many films do you know that enjoy a decade-long run? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the movie has a return engagement in the near future. But it was in the more downsized and compact format of the music video where Michael Jackson crystallized his artistry and built his enormous audience. Here is the core of his legacy, one that you will not be able to appreciate if you simply listen to the compact disks or study the lead sheets. This is not to dismiss his purely musical talents Jackson's genuine skills as a singer had been clear from his earliest years. And through some strange biological fluke perhaps aided by who-knows-what Jackson retained the childlike quality of his voice even after he reached adulthood. To some degree, he reminded me of Ella Fitzgerald, who also managed to convey a sweet innocence, almost the exact opposite of the sassiness and sultriness around her, and put its stamp on everything she sang. Jackson was the same, and in the midst of a music scene that featured some of the most brazen and push-the-envelope acts in the history of music the Sex Pistols were formed at almost the same moment that the Jackson 5 left Motown he always held on to the ingenuous aura of the child star. But it was as a dancer that Michael Jackson parlayed his talents into superstardom. It was the moonwalk that killed the singer-songwriters, who stayed hidden behind their pianos and guitars while Jackson strutted the big stage. Youngsters everywhere imitated his steps, not his voice, and even today, his footwork is admired and emulated by countless stars and wannabe stars. (See some example here.) All of this is foreign to the jazz sensibility. Jazz once had a close relationship with popular dance not coincidentally during its period of greatest financial success. But in the 1980s, jazz had lost this connection. Jazz bands might be able to cover Jackson's tunes (not often, as I noted above I still remember working in a combo where the sidemen rebelled after the leader wanted to play Beat It; he gave up and called another tune); but they could not assimilate the full effect of Michael Jackson, which started with his toes and only gradually arrived at the vocal chords and cerebellum. Jazz fans did know about Quincy Jones, however. They had known about Jones long before Jackson and the mass audience had discovered him. They would give him much of the credit for Jackson's hits, and certainly he played a key part in the elevation of this pop superstar. Yet Jones's brilliance lay in adapting his techniques to Jackson's inherent strengths and potent charisma and not merely applying some formula he had learned from his jazz days. The production tricks Jones brought to these hit tracks are fascinating to study. And sometimes daring in bizarre ways. How did Jones ever get the idea of taking little snippets of Jackson squeaking out high notes, and use them as background effects almost like birds chirping on the trees? Then Jones would mix this amalgamation of quasi-ambient sounds with a lead vocal, hypnotic bassline and a very 80s-style rhythmic sensibility. All this was a far cry from what Jones had done with Sinatra and jazz players, but give this man born in 1933 his due for understanding the new sensibility in a a way that no one of his generation could approach. If you had any doubts that this was the right formula, you merely needed to look at the Billboardcharts. The Jackson-Jones collaborations sold around 200 million albums. The duo eventually parted ways, and Jackson was focused on producing his own music. Yet he never came close to matching the sales of his work with QJ. Jazz fans might think that this success was driven more by technology (videos, cable TV) than by musical factors. But a close examination of the history of jazz shows that the same marriage of music and technology has driven its own success. The possibility of jazz as an improvised art form with large scale distribution depended on the invention of sound recordings. Benny Goodman's immense success and indeed the whole phenomenon of the Swing Era would not have been possible without the widespread adoption of radios in American households. Without long-playing records there would have been no Kind of Blue or A Love Supreme. Music and technology have always been interlinked, ever since the first cave dweller figured out how make a bone into a flute, the hide of an animal into a drum. If the jazz world didn't embrace Jackson, it was due to the fact that the technologies he parlayed into fame were those which jazz players were either unable or unwilling to assimilate into their own creative endeavors. Yet it's clear to me that, two decades after Jackson's biggest hits, the jazz world can still learn from his example. Only nowadays, the stakes from comprehending the symbiotic relationship of music, technology and media are even higher.
This blog entry posted by Ted Gioia
"I'm not human I'm a dove, I'm ur conscience. I am love" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
...This.
This, a billiion times. "I don't think you'd do well in captivity." - random person's comment to me the other day | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I have to disagree again, because there are MJ fans I have spoken to who have never even heard of Janet Jackson's or Prince's music. At all. (Crazy right.) If they do know about Prince and not his music, I am willing to bet my right hand that it was because someone who may have also been a Prince fan mentioned it. I know that album sales aren't a measure of what is good or not, but they are great gauge of popularity, especially in specific regions of the world and/or markets.
Oh my fucking god THANK YOU!
I've been trying to tell these people this. I don't know why people think this kinda shit is only exclusive to MJ fans. It's NOT. Not in the least. Especially on an artist specific fanforum.
It's just as unbearable on the Prince and More forums here as well. In general, though, I like to stick to general music forums or non-(insert artist) subforums. There's a lot more room for way more discussions about other artists I like to listen to.
Though some people want to stick to their favorite artist too. That's ok with me.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
No one was saying that only MJ fans defend their favorite artist. I certainly didn't. But let's not bullshit around about this - any one who has ever spent ANY real amount of time online in the MJ fan community, knows that they take that shit to another level - it's an entirely different beast. You know this, I know this.
There's a reason why the MJ fan community is the laughingstock of all fan communities, and the one that people are warned away from on a regular basis. And contrary to what a lot of obsessive fans want to think, it isn't solely because MJ's public image was so bad in the last years of his life.
It's because most MJ fans are fucking psychotic. "I don't think you'd do well in captivity." - random person's comment to me the other day | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I'm not doubting that - I was just disputing that you seemed to place them in the majority which clearly isn't the case - some fans may not but I think that's kinda true of any fan who just listens to one artist at the exclusion of others. Sad but true. "I'm not human I'm a dove, I'm ur conscience. I am love" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |