Imaginative said:

MattyJam said:

I think that resonse was meant for that "MJ Fan Fiction" forum!

"Behind the Mask" was a track from Yellow Magic Orchestra's 1979 album Solid State Survivor, with English lyrics by Chris Mosdell sung by Ryuichi Sakamoto using a vocoder.

In actuality, Michael Jackson wrote, "an extra melody line and a few extra lyrics," probably in the hopes of slapping his name on the copyright credits to steal some of the publishing rights from the original authors, per his usual M.O.

In the wake of his death, I'm sure the authors were more than happy to capitalize, even if it meant reliquishing 1/3 of the publishing to Jackson's estate.

Go learn something...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ask_(song)

I suspect that once you learn the true origins and Jackson's actual contribution (seek out the earlier versions, and it speaks for itself), you'll no longer run around claiming that it's ”better than half of Thriller and 3/4 of Bad,” in true Wacko Jacko denial fashion.

[Edited 7/7/11 12:28pm]

He didn't just write a few extra lyrics, he wrote the complete lyrics. The original was an instrumental except for a couple of lines during the chorus part. Michael wrote complete verses and a melody line to the song. In many songs, he'd write the melody line and lyrics and then someone would come up with the music. That's the case when it comes to songs like

Get On The Floor

Tabloid Junkie

In The Closet

Can't Let Her Get Away

slapping his name on the copyright credits to steal some of the publishing rights from the original authors, per his usual M.O.

Imaginative, could you provide me with some song titles where this happened? The songs on he co-wrote from The Jacksons to Blood On The Dancefloor were collaborative efforts. Invincible on the other hand.....

ViintageJunkiie said:

bboy87 said:

What was that?

CLEARLY it was an unreleased Michael Jackson record! I hope that makes the final cut for the next album!

puts VJ in shopping cart and rolls him down a hill.......again

The original version by Behind The Mask by Yellow Music Orchestra from 1978

on the mask you're wearing
it's hairy and scary
doesn't care to shield your fears
only old, but just as cold x2

There is nothing in your eyes,
to mask the way you cry
all is grand,, all is bright
focus on me in your mind x2

is it me, is it you
behind this mask I ask,
is it me, is it you
who wears another face
is it me, is it you
behind this mask I ask.

The 2010 remix of Michael Jackson's 1982 version of Behind The Mask

All along I had to talk about it
But like a two edged sword
It cuts you and it stabs me

All along I knew you were a phony girl
You sit behind the mask
And you control your world

You sit around and I watch your face
I try to find the truth, but that's your hiding place
You say you love me, but it's hard to see
'Cause when he's in your arms, you're throwing rocks at me

Who do you love? Is it me with you?
I don't know
Who do you love?
I don't want ya if you can't answer
But you know me

(There is nothing in your eyes)
There is nothing in your eyes
(But that's the way you cry)
But that's the way you cry girl
(Cry girl)

(All is grand, all is bright)
All is grand, all is bright
(You're just studying my mind)

I walk around, I'm suffering in my doom
When I come to you, you're sitting in your room
You sit around in the strangest place
So take off the mask, so I can see your face

Who do you love? Is it me with you?
I don't know
Who do you love?
I don't want ya if you can't answer
I know you

(Heaven must be wary)
Heaven must be wary
(Your smile is scary)
You got me spinnin', girl

(Insincere, empty tears)
Every year, yours are good
(Where's your soul? Where'd it go?)
You got me scared, girl

(Heaven must be wary)
Heaven must be wary
(Your smile is scary)
You know where you've been

(Insincere, empty tears)
Every year, na na na
(Where's your soul? Where did it go?)

I walk around, I'm suffering in my doom
When I come to you, you're sitting in your room
You sit around in the strangest place
So take off the mask, so I can see your face

Who do you love? Is it me with you?
I don't know
Who do you love?
I don't want ya if you can't answer
I know you

Who do you love? Is it me with you?
I don't know
Who do you love?
I don't want ya if you can't answer
I don't know

I don't wanna talk about it
(Let's talk about it)
I don't wanna talk about it
(Let's talk about it)
I don't wanna talk about it
(Let's talk about it)

so it's plausible that he'd want publishing rights to the version he worked on, since he created another melody line and added full verses

bboy87 said:

ViintageJunkiie said:

CLEARLY it was an unreleased Michael Jackson record! I hope that makes the final cut for the next album!

puts VJ in shopping cart and rolls him down a hill.......again

Seriously though where do they come with this shit they post?

bboy87 said:

NaughtyKitty said:

Thats incredible!

What was that?

I'ma gonna say....something along the lines of "A Little Less Converstation". Y'all remember that, right? They made a brand new song by Elvis using his vocals?

I guess that might be Michael's fate sometime in the future...

Imaginative said:

Swa said:

For someone who thinks comparisons are ridiculous, you sure make a lot of them - and why would you call Prince Sammy Davis Jnr?

As for your definition of ability - I have to disagree. There is evidence Michael had the ability to produce more albums than needed (as evident by the amount of songs he would write and record for each release) he simply choose not to. That is the distinction.

I also disagree that Jackson had good timing being able to "milk" singles of an album for 2 years. Obviously the singles would only sell if the songs could stand on their own. The fact that he could release an album with so many hit singles on it, and release them over a longer period of time is only evidence of the ability and strength of the songs to exist beyond the albums and draw in new people to the album. If the songs weren't good, and weren't selling then there would be pressure to release new material. In fact the opposite was true in the case of Billie Jean and Beat It. Sony actually wanted to delay the release of Beat It as they feared it would cannabalise the ongoing success of Billie Jean. As we all know, they released Beat It and both songs stayed in the top 10.

The whole "timing" argument is flawed in that Jackson wasn't operating in a vacuum. There were heaps of other artists with big albums during these release periods, many that you noted but they still only managed to release 4 hits off the albums - this speaks more about the content of the albums and the appeal of the album than it does to anything else. And your argument that MJ compensated for poor music with MTV videos also doesn't hold up when 7 songs were released off Thriller (all of which went top 10) and only 3 had videos.

Yes, as a fan of Michael's I would have liked to see more releases from him during his solo years, but truth be told it's only post HIStory that I wanted to see more frequent releases. I would have especially liked to have see a follow up to Invincible and especially a 2005+ release.

So your position is that Jackson could have been as prolific as any of his peers, but chose not to. That makes sense. That's why there is SO much material coming out now that he's dead. Do you also feel that he cured Cancer and was the first person to walk on Mars? Was he also a great piano player and guitarist? I'm glad to see you feel that someone who averaged writing ONE SONG PER YEAR by himself in the years following Off the Wall was prolific.

You must have me confused with someone else; I never made the argument that Jackson compensated for poor music with MTV. On the contrary, I stated that during the Thriller period, the quality was high! He compensated for a lack of prolificness by stretching out the release of singles and music videos from a single album for several years.

My position is that Jackson worked on crafting great albums that lived long lives, spawned multiple hits, and he toured the world in support of each release due to his world-wide appeal.

Your resort to hyperbole in order to make a point just proves how lacking your argument is. As soon as anyone strays from the issue at hand - such as your irrelevant move into the cure for cancer debate - you know their argument is weak.

Also no where did I state Michael was a great piano player or guitarist (although he could play both but by no means would I call him great at them) - I don't see what this has to do with your argument on ability. Jackson could still compose songs using his vocal to illustrate guitar melodies, piano chords etc etc.

Again my argument is that Jackson's quality of each release allowed for the album to produce multiple singles and continue to sell and have a lifespan of two years. His choice not to release something a year after major releases was his artistic right.

Also with regards to SO much material coming out after his death, yes there is. Rather than release a all in one box set, Sony have already stated that they plan to release multiple albums of unheard material - something that they couldn't do if that man didn't have a back catalogue of work to draw from. It's a business decision rather than flood the market, to schedule releases - this strategy is a hard one to figure out - a similar thing has been done with other deceased artists.

Imaginative said:

Sorry again if you can't handle hearing someone with a different opinion than yourself.

Hello pot, meet kettle.

BBoy97: Let's just say I work in the entertainment business and have been employed by a company that also employed Jackson, and I have some anecdotal evidence. Can I prove it? No, but I do believe it and I consider my sources credible.

As kind and gentle Jackson was with his friends and children, he was also a ruthless businessman. This ruthlessness sometimes helped him and sometimes hurt him. Many would consider the ruthless side of him in business to be an extension of his talent, i.e. the gift of entrepreneurship. But it was not always nice, and many good and talented people were taken advantage of along the way.

This is not at all an uncommon practice, especially when you have the clout Jackson. Logic dictates that if you have write a song and can either have it be guaranteed multi-platinum but lose a perentage of the publishing because the singer wants to add a little something of his or her own, OR not play ball and stand on principal, the writer is going to go with the millions of dollars.

Imaginative said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Yes, exactly. The songs that Jackson chose to cover when he had a hard time coming up with enough original material to fill his own albums, even though he generally only released them every five years or so. Another positive thing I can say about Jackson, he had incredible taste.

How many other artists did he cover on his albums, again?

So if an artist is covering songs then he is struggling to fill quality tracks on an album huh?

Guess Prince has struggled on a lot of his releases then too huh?

Matty and Smooth

Threads only get ruined by trolls when they get what they want which is a reaction. It is the whole point of them coming into the thread in the first place. Arguing your point is...well it's pointless. Report them and ignore them. How annoyed do you get being ignored???? It drives me MAD lol, best way of dealing with deez bitches

Swa said:

Imaginative said:

Sorry again if you can't handle hearing someone with a different opinion than yourself.

Hello pot, meet kettle.

I'm very tolerant of other people's opinions, and would like you to point out evidence to the contrary. As far as the quality of his material, I've said that much of it was of a very high quality, at least through the 80's. (I've been more specific earlier in the thread, but am sick of repeating myself.) I am not debating the QUALITY of his material, as it's a fruitless argument that simply boils down to opinion.

What is NOT opinion, is the RATE at which he released materal from Thriller forward. It is this RATE that I address by using the coreect term, PROLIFICNESS. It is not my opinion that he averaged writing one song per year [give or take] alone after Off the Wall. It's a statistical fact. His motives are largely irrelevant.

He released 3 albums between 1991 and his death in 2009 (18 years). Not sure on what planet that is considered "prolific." The fact that I consider those albums to be weak compared to his best material is besides the point, even though it is generally agreed upon.

Swa said:

So if an artist is covering songs then he is struggling to fill quality tracks on an album huh?

Guess Prince has struggled on a lot of his releases then too huh?

It's an indication he is struggling to write, yes. It would be one thing if it was one cover on an album of original, solely-composed material. But that was never the case. The closest Jackson ever came to composing a whole album is Bad, and even that was made up of 20% material from outside writers.

I may be wrong, but the first Prince studio cover version came on Emancipation, no? Whatever it is, I'm not a fan of Prince putting cover songs on his studio albums, and I'm not aware of any cover songs on any of the albums considered to be his 15 or so best.

[Edited 7/7/11 17:20pm]

GettOffMyLand said:

Matty and Smooth

Threads only get ruined by trolls when they get what they want which is a reaction. It is the whole point of them coming into the thread in the first place. Arguing your point is...well it's pointless. Report them and ignore them. How annoyed do you get being ignored???? It drives me MAD lol, best way of dealing with deez bitches

Yeah, I'm done. There's no point trying anymore.

Imaginative said:

BBoy97: Let's just say I work in the entertainment business and have been employed by a company that also employed Jackson, and I have some anecdotal evidence. Can I prove it? No, but I do believe it and I consider my sources credible.

As kind and gentle Jackson was with his friends and children, he was also a ruthless businessman. This ruthlessness sometimes helped him and sometimes hurt him. Many would consider the ruthless side of him in business to be an extension of his talent, i.e. the gift of entrepreneurship. But it was not always nice, and many good and talented people were taken advantage of along the way.

This is not at all an uncommon practice, especially when you have the clout Jackson. Logic dictates that if you have write a song and can either have it be guaranteed multi-platinum but lose a perentage of the publishing because the singer wants to add a little something of his or her own, OR not play ball and stand on principal, the writer is going to go with the millions of dollars.

I understand what you're saying. On some songs, he'd change something like a couple of words or add something and he'd get songwriting credit, which is a common practice in the music industry

He did just that on Invincible. There's songs that were submitted to him and Rodney Jerkins and they'd add something and they'd get songwriting credit for the song (i.e Whatever Happens, Heaven Can Wait)

I was simply saying in the case of Behind The Mask, Jones played for him to consider remaking it, he took the original that had a couple of lyrics in the chorus, added an extra melody line and complete verses, thus getting credit for the version he made

the same can be said about various songs on Dangerous and HIStory. For instance, on Tabloid Junkie, Jam and Lewis had an instrumental, Michael joined in, added the beatbox foundation, wrote the lyrics, and got credit

I know he was a ruthless businessman. I've read some of his handwritten letters he'd send to Epic or his managers and I've heard some of the things his associates have spoken about.

The estate has been SERIOUS about recent leaks AND people posting released material on Youtube

It looks like they let a couple slip because this is the first time I've seen the demo to Beat It on Youtube in awhile

the studio demo of The Girl Is Mine (1981- recorded at Allen Zentz Recording)

bboy87 said:

the studio demo of The Girl Is Mine (1981- recorded at Allen Zentz Recording)

Love this demo, one of my favs.

Imaginative said:

Swa said:

Hello pot, meet kettle.

I'm very tolerant of other people's opinions, and would like you to point out evidence to the contrary. As far as the quality of his material, I've said that much of it was of a very high quality, at least through the 80's. (I've been more specific earlier in the thread, but am sick of repeating myself.) I am not debating the QUALITY of his material, as it's a fruitless argument that simply boils down to opinion.

What is NOT opinion, is the RATE at which he released materal from Thriller forward. It is this RATE that I address by using the coreect term, PROLIFICNESS. It is not my opinion that he averaged writing one song per year [give or take] alone after Off the Wall. It's a statistical fact. His motives are largely irrelevant.

He released 3 albums between 1991 and his death in 2009 (18 years). Not sure on what planet that is considered "prolific." The fact that I consider those albums to be weak compared to his best material is besides the point, even though it is generally agreed upon.

Actually sweeping statements like "generally agreed upon" is again just your opinion. As you state what you consider quality verses someone else is just an opinion - you have the right to express is, as do I if I disagree.

Once again you discuss PROLIFICNESS and here you are correct. Jackson wasn't prolific in his releases post HIStory. But you equate PROLIFICNESS with ABILITY - and again here this is opinion. You have stated yours, others, including myself have stated ours.

As far as evidence to the contrary of you respecting others opinions - didn't you write that because I disagreed with your opinion you claimed that then I must be someone who "found the cure for cancer and was the first person to walk on the mars?" This isn't respectful - but rather a deliberate ploy to rial and inflame, if not belittle an argument that you didn't agree with.

Might I suggest if you want to engage in discussing the music you think so highly of - then do so - I'm yet to actually read any discussion you have made that actually discusses the music you like off Thriller and Off The Wall without it being an escape clause to fall back on when you want to inflame a discussion.

If you have been here for a while you would have no doubt seen many pieces by myself and others discussing the music in depth, and you would see it's not all glowing but is handled with a degree of respect. I'm always open to someone who really likes Baby Be Mine as a song for example, though it's not a fave of mine, as their insight into the song might help me listen to it in a new light.

And if that is the case then I think everyone's opinion on the music is respected and heard.

Swa said:

Once again you discuss PROLIFICNESS and here you are correct. Jackson wasn't prolific in his releases post HIStory. But you equate PROLIFICNESS with ABILITY - and again here this is opinion. You have stated yours, others, including myself have stated ours.

As far as evidence to the contrary of you respecting others opinions - didn't you write that because I disagreed with your opinion you claimed that then I must be someone who "found the cure for cancer and was the first person to walk on the mars?" This isn't respectful - but rather a deliberate ploy to rial and inflame, if not belittle an argument that you didn't agree with.

Actually, I asked you if believed Jackson had "...found the cure for cancer and was the first person to walk on the mars?" This was done in the context of, "if you believe he is prolific, do you also believe...?"

I never said or implied that YOU found the cure for cancer or walked on Mars. Now you say he was NOT prolific. Then we agree. Regarding the relationship of ability to prolificness, I do find it to be absurd to say "he could have been more prolific, if he wanted."

It simply makes no sense.

To me, that's like someone saying they could have cured Cancer if they had just gone to college. Or "This Is It," would have been the best tour in the HIStory of music, if he had lived. He didn't, he wasn't and IT wasn't.

What's the point of conjecture?

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

Don't you hate it when fans take a small snippet, loop it, add effects then say it's the full song? the same thing happened with Another Day until it was released

There's a lot of great discussion and lot of trolling in here as well as some obvious bullshit being posted. I will answer what I can:

BULLSHIT:

When 20TEN came out and anyone who didn't like the album or criticized it were criticized for their opinions. Go lurk properly before talking out of your ass.

You did not live with with him or his children. You were not his therapist. How about improving your own poor reading comprehension instead, before you try to play armchair therapist.

Who the fuck cares? Even if he released so little, his catalogue, by far, is still far more well known and far reaching than most others. Merzbow is more prolific than Prince OR Paul McCartney. He's released an, astonishing, 35+ albums in way less time than those two. Does this mean that Merzbow > Paul McCartney or Prince when it comes to being a musician. NO. Also, I doubt you have worked with MJ. I trust the words and opinions of those who worked with him in an actual studio than some asshole sitting behind his computer spewing out total bullshit.

As an example though, Bach was more prolific than Mozart or Beethoven, but what does that mean? Does it mean that Mozart and Beethoven were lazy fucking asses compared to Bach? According to you? Yes.

As someone who just went through all of your posts, the little bit of praise you do afford him is, immediately followed by criticisms and then you go on to talk about another artists (The Beatles) who you feel is more superior, but mostly you have just been criticizing him. Your posts solely criticizing him and us far outweigh where you just solely praise him.

Oh fuck, even MOL came out. Wherever you came from MOL, please GO BACK THERE.

Imaginative said:

I'm very tolerant of other people's opinions, and would like you to point out evidence to the contrary. As far as the quality of his material, I've said that much of it was of a very high quality, at least through the 80's. (I've been more specific earlier in the thread, but am sick of repeating myself.)

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Boy ain't this some bullshit if I ever read it. NO you are not tolerant of anyone else's opinions as you have been fighting them the ENTIRE time and calling people delusional because of them. Also, for someone who 'loves' this man's earlier work you have yet to point any songs from his catalog that you actually like. You haven't even mentioned any particular song off of Off The Wall. NONE at all.

Just to be clear though. Even though I did say that disagreeing is not trolling and that you were not a troll, I also did say that you do come in here to troll though. I knew this from your first posts in here when you posted that picture of inside MJ's gravesite. The jig is up now. You can stop it now Beatles stan. No matter how hard you troll this little thread, it's not going to stop or hurt Michael Jackson's posthumous legacy. There's no reason for you to go to such lengths to try and protect the Beatles this way. They have their own and he has his own. What you are doing is really pathetic.

U mad that there's no 'Discuss Anything and Everything Beatles' thread here?

I also wanted to point out to everyone, about how you were all complaining about crazy MJ fans, when I keep telling you that other fandoms are just as fucking crazy. Take this Beatles stan for instance. He is so threatened by MJ's posthumous success that he has to come in here and do this shit as if it's really making a difference to either MJ or The Beatles. Anytime someone talks shit about being 'prolific' and pulls up Billboard chart info that's an automatic sign of a Beatles stan in your presence. I shit you not.

Music isn't just about sound. Music in an entire culture as well as representative of it. His, ultimate, claim to fame is the fact that he combined a lot of other elements, such as drama, to his music. All those things are supposed to coexist together as they heighten the experience, for some. Escapism was a big theme in his work. It could be because he was may have been trying to escape his own world, but whatever. It's something that worked, obviously.

[Edited 7/7/11 18:17pm]

bboy87 said:

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

Don't you hate it when fans take a small snippet, loop it, add effects then say it's the full song? the same thing happened with Another Day until it was released

That I do...but hey, I appreciate the effort.

But that guy usually has good demos..

Imaginative said:

Swa said:

Once again you discuss PROLIFICNESS and here you are correct. Jackson wasn't prolific in his releases post HIStory. But you equate PROLIFICNESS with ABILITY - and again here this is opinion. You have stated yours, others, including myself have stated ours.

As far as evidence to the contrary of you respecting others opinions - didn't you write that because I disagreed with your opinion you claimed that then I must be someone who "found the cure for cancer and was the first person to walk on the mars?" This isn't respectful - but rather a deliberate ploy to rial and inflame, if not belittle an argument that you didn't agree with.

Actually, I asked you if believed Jackson had "...found the cure for cancer and was the first person to walk on the mars?" This was done in the context of, "if you believe he is prolific, do you also believe...?"

I never said or implied that YOU found the cure for cancer or walked on Mars. Now you say he was NOT prolific. Then we agree. Regarding the relationship of ability to prolificness, I do find it to be absurd to say "he could have been more prolific, if he wanted."

It simply makes no sense.

To me, that's like someone saying they could have cured Cancer if they had just gone to college. Or "This Is It," would have been the best tour in the HIStory of music, if he had lived. He didn't, he wasn't and IT wasn't.

What's the point of conjecture?

Again you demonstrate your inability to apologise. You asked for me to point out where you were disrespectful and I did. Yet you can't even say "ok, I was out of line with that".

What I was debating with you is that you seem to link Prolific with Ability. And again this is just your opinion. What you seem to be equating is Prolific with released Output. Even your own research into the Bad, Dangerous, HIStory etc would show that Michael would write, demo, finish many songs and then whittle them down - figuring out which songs to focus on and which finally made the release.

As for your obvious This Is It bait, coming from someone who admits hasn't watched it, I won't enter into a discussion you are obviously not qualified to debate it.

As for future discussions, until you can post with respect, I don't see why any of us should bother giving you the respect of responding to you.

Timmy84 said:

This just about sums up this ENTIRE thread.

NaughtyKitty said:

What do you guys think Michael's life would have been like if he had never recorded Thriller? I've often wondered about how different his life would have been. I'm sure he'd still perform and record, but perhaps without the crushing, crazy, isolating fame it brought maybe he would've had a happier, free-er existence? Thriller was a tremendous blessing for him, but sometimes it seems like it was a kind of a curse for him as well. Thoughts?

[Edited 7/7/11 13:54pm]

Well? Anyone?

NaughtyKitty said:

NaughtyKitty said:

What do you guys think Michael's life would have been like if he had never recorded Thriller? I've often wondered about how different his life would have been. I'm sure he'd still perform and record, but perhaps without the crushing, crazy, isolating fame it brought maybe he would've had a happier, free-er existence? Thriller was a tremendous blessing for him, but sometimes it seems like it was a kind of a curse for him as well. Thoughts?

[Edited 7/7/11 13:54pm]

Well? Anyone?

I think he would've been more free to do other things. He wanted to do movies and I think he would've gotten the opportunity to do so

One of the best piano covers of "I Want You Back" I've heard in a while...but the man needs to play with a lil more soul. It sounds a bit mechanical..but it's still damn awesome...

Unholyalliance said:

There's a lot of great discussion and lot of trolling in here as well as some obvious bullshit being posted. I will answer what I can:

Imaginative said:

This is a PRINCE board, and folks have absolutely no problem dealing with negativity about him. Why don't you just be an adult and GROW UP?

BULLSHIT:

When 20TEN came out and anyone who didn't like the album or criticized it were criticized for their opinions. Go lurk properly before talking out of your ass.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Boy ain't this some bullshit if I ever read it. NO you are not tolerant of anyone else's opinions as you have been fighting them the ENTIRE time and calling people delusional because of them. Also, for someone who 'loves' this man's earlier work you have yet to point any songs from his catalog that you actually like. You haven't even mentioned any particular song off of Off The Wall. NONE at all.

Just to be clear though. Even though I did say that disagreeing is not trolling and that you were not a troll, I also did say that you do come in here to troll though. I knew this from your first posts in here when you posted that picture of inside MJ's gravesite. The jig is up now. You can stop it now Beatles stan. No matter how hard you troll this little thread, it's not going to stop or hurt Michael Jackson's posthumous legacy. There's no reason for you to go to such lengths to try and protect the Beatles this way. They have their own and he has his own. What you are doing is really pathetic.

U mad that there's no 'Discuss Anything and Everything Beatles' thread here?

I also wanted to point out to everyone, about how you were all complaining about crazy MJ fans, when I keep telling you that other fandoms are just as fucking crazy. Take this Beatles stan for instance. He is so threatened by MJ's posthumous success that he has to come in here and do this shit as if it's really making a difference to either MJ or The Beatles. Anytime someone talks shit about being 'prolific' and pulls up Billboard chart info that's an automatic sign of a Beatles stan in your presence. I shit you not.

smoothcriminal12 said:

That's true. He wasn't just about the music - everything had to be an extravagent show, which is quite sad, because it takes away from the real focus - the music.

Music isn't just about sound. Music in an entire culture as well as representative of it. His, ultimate, claim to fame is the fact that he combined a lot of other elements, such as drama, to his music. All those things are supposed to coexist together as they heighten the experience, for some. Escapism was a big theme in his work. It could be because he was may have been trying to escape his own world, but whatever. It's something that worked, obviously.

[Edited 7/7/11 18:17pm]

More black pixels in MY honor?!

I wonder what it says. Actually I don't.