Azz said:

Azz said:

aardvark15 said:

Dangerous, HIStory, and Invincible were all done without Quency and those are probably my 3 favorites by Michael, and I know many fans can agree on Dangerous.

Dangerous is my favourite.

HIStory has some superb tracks on it, but others are fillers.

Invincible was a disaster in my opinion.

It wasnt a complete distaster it had its underrated gems

mjscarousal said:

Azz said:

Dangerous is my favourite.

HIStory has some superb tracks on it, but others are fillers.

Invincible was a disaster in my opinion.

It wasnt a complete distaster it had its underrated gems

Such as?

Azz said:

I absolutely love "Don't Walk Away."

Azz said:

mjscarousal said:

It wasnt a complete distaster it had its underrated gems

Such as?

Unbreakable, Butterflies, You Rock My World, Speechless, Threatened, Don't Walk Away, Whatever Happens, Break Of Dawn and Heaven Can Wait...

mjscarousal said:

SoulAlive said:Michael's best album is Off The Wall.Are we clear on that?

Absolutely. Not even 'Thriller' is as tight as Off the Wall.

His first solo LP 'Got to be There' is a favorite of mine too.

SoulAlive said:

Michael's best album is Off The Wall.Are we clear on that?

I'd certainly have OTW and Thriller up there as my two favourite albums from him... which also happen to be the two most Quincyesque ones, given that he was arguably more of an executive producer by the time Bad came around.

aardvark15 said:

Azz said:

Dangerous is my favourite.

HIStory has some superb tracks on it, but others are fillers.

Invincible was a disaster in my opinion.

I've never understood the hate on Invincible. I LOVE it. I think it's actually a stronger album than Off The Wall

aardvark15 said:

Azz said:

I think you need to re-consider how influential he was in Michael's career.

Michael's best stuff had little to no involvement from QJ

They said "hits" not "best"

Timmy84 said:

And also, some of y'all forget that saying "what may be trash to you may be genius to someone else".

I mean I know you don't shove the Village People down people's throats but you'd spit at anyone who don't agree with you because they're not willing to suck dick for disco.

Like I said, it's the same old story. People who hate a genre are gonna always compare it to someone else.

What is garbage to you may be filet mignon for someone else.

True, to each is own, but speaking for myself, I wish P-Diddy was more innovative. Why should any producer spend their whole career on sampling? Didn't Biggie tell him about himself on that in the movie? He didn't want to rap to 'Juicy'. He wanted his own music.

Quincy Jones speaks the truth, Diddy isn't a musician, he can't read sheets, play an instrument, sing etc. He doesn't even write his own "raps", but I will give him credit for building his empire.

This argument just boils down to "real music" vs "generic bubble gum hip hop"......

aardvark15 said:

Azz said:

Dangerous is my favourite.

HIStory has some superb tracks on it, but others are fillers.

Invincible was a disaster in my opinion.

I've never understood the hate on Invincible. I LOVE it. I think it's actually a stronger album than Off The Wall

I like Invincible to. Threatened rivals any jam off any other album. I'm not gonna

knock the Off The Wall fans because it is good but i like Thriller better sans The

Girl is Mine.

duccichucka said:

For the record,

As far as I know, Jimi Hendrix couldn't read music either;

does the fact that he couldn't recognize a Bb if it hit him

make him a lesser musician than Jones?

No. You don't need the knowledge in order to play rock/

blues that you probably and most likely need to have in jazz.

Having an ear for music is great, but I think every musician should learn how to read music. It will make their craft more easier. As for P-Diddy, I just think he should be more innovative, but as mentioned here, he's a businessman, and that seems to be first and foremost

mjscarousal said:

angel345 said:

But isn't sampling taking notes from somebody else's creation, and making it your own, sort of like cheating on an exam type of thing?

Basically....

I had a friend in highschool who did this (producer who sampled beats, he was good by the way) and we always got into arguements because I didnt think it was innovative or creative and he insisted that it was. I guess it depends how you look at it. I think there are some producers that have made creative beats/production with sampling. However, I dont think its as creative as they try to make it to be. Its not not technically original and while the product might be creative, I dont think its innovative since it incorporates someone elses idea.

[Edited 6/29/12 7:15am]

I do agree with duccichuka that musicians may take a few bars here and there, and add their own mix to it, but to spend your whole career sampling other people's ideas, but your own is not innovative at all.

angel345 said:

duccichucka said:

For the record,

As far as I know, Jimi Hendrix couldn't read music either;

does the fact that he couldn't recognize a Bb if it hit him

make him a lesser musician than Jones?

No. You don't need the knowledge in order to play rock/

blues that you probably and most likely need to have in jazz.

Having an ear for music is great, but I think every musician should learn how to read music. It will make their craft more easier.

How, specifically?

NDRU said:

angel345 said:

Having an ear for music is great, but I think every musician should learn how to read music. It will make their craft more easier.

How, specifically?

If I can't read music, but I have an melody, would I need someone who can read it to put it on paper for me? If you read music, then it is easier to jot it down, correct?

angel345 said:

NDRU said:

How, specifically?

If I can't read music, but I have an melody, would I need someone who can read it to put it on paper for me? If you read music, then it is easier to jot it down, correct?

But it's even easier to press record

I'm certainly not against reading music, but keep in mind that music notation was invented before recording devices. So Beethoven didn't have the option to record his stuff. Maybe he would have.

angel345 said:

duccichucka said:

For the record,

As far as I know, Jimi Hendrix couldn't read music either;

does the fact that he couldn't recognize a Bb if it hit him

make him a lesser musician than Jones?

No. You don't need the knowledge in order to play rock/

blues that you probably and most likely need to have in jazz.

Having an ear for music is great, but I think every musician should learn how to read music.

I totally disagree. Theory kills creativity.

NDRU said:

angel345 said:

If I can't read music, but I have an melody, would I need someone who can read it to put it on paper for me? If you read music, then it is easier to jot it down, correct?

But it's even easier to press record

I'm certainly not against reading music, but keep in mind that music notation was invented before recording devices. So Beethoven didn't have the option to record his stuff. Maybe he would have.

I forgot about the recording devices, but when you go to orchestras at Carnegie Hall, for an example, you do notice the musicians there with sheet music or syphonies. Why? Is there a time or place for it?

angel345 said:

NDRU said:

But it's even easier to press record

I'm certainly not against reading music, but keep in mind that music notation was invented before recording devices. So Beethoven didn't have the option to record his stuff. Maybe he would have.

I forgot about the recording devices, but when you go to orchestras at Carnegie Hall, for an example, you do notice the musicians there with sheet music or syphonies. Why? Is there a time or place for it?

It's essential to read music if you are a classical musician. It's an old tradition and they play old music, so they use old methods.

Jazz players tend to read very well too.

Again, I am not against reading music, it just isn't necessary for everyone. Specifically, it's not important for pop/rock/blues/r&b/hip hop/country/folk musicians

Graycap23 said:

angel345 said:

Having an ear for music is great, but I think every musician should learn how to read music.

I totally disagree. Theory kills creativity.

If you noticed, my statement was an opinion.

NDRU said:

angel345 said:

I forgot about the recording devices, but when you go to orchestras at Carnegie Hall, for an example, you do notice the musicians there with sheet music or syphonies. Why? Is there a time or place for it?

It's essential to read music if you are a classical musician. It's an old tradition and they play old music, so they use old methods.

Jazz players tend to read very well too.

Again, I am not against reading music, it just isn't necessary for everyone. Specifically, it's not important for pop/rock/blues/r&b/hip hop/country/folk musicians

Thanks for the info

Reading sheet music helps, but that is normally relegated to classical genres. Beethoven or any classical artist would never needed to record any songs as long as they have sheet music. The instructions are all in the notes.

For modern music, with the improvisational nature of blues, jazz, gospel, rock, the structure isn't as rigid or defined as classical music....With classical you have to play the piece exactly as written or there will be problems...with the audience or your Professor who will mention, "Only Bach can deviate from that progression. Are you Bach?"

R+B, Jazz, Gospel, etc, you can play a g min chord, play a descending g minor scale down to a c minor 7th/9th then back up to g minor and add some tension with a d minor 9th.....More tolerant of freeplaying as there roots and origins are based on lead sheets, where a C Major chord is listed, but it is entirely up to the musician on how to play it...

Then you have musicians who a) have perfect pitch and can play anything and require no sheets (somewhat rare combination) b) musicians who have a strong theory background and can sight-read/sing etc....

Diddy doesn't fall into any of the categories mentioned.

Again, this all falls into how real musicians and entertainers are viewed in current society.

I totally get what Vainandy is saying regarding the fact that pop music usually has a serious change in the way that it sounds every five years or so. It seems to me that the same boring, drab "beats" are destroying R&B music right now because their hasn't been a significant change in the SOUND. It's the same lazy beats over and over again to different lyrics. Put on a R&B song from the late 90s or early 2000s and then put on a song from say, 2007-today, you're not going to hear a significant difference. However, music from the year 1960 sounds WAY different from music in 1969/1970. In my opinion, I just can't hear anything that sounds unique or different in most pop music (aside from Lady Gaga). Now more than ever, people who have zero musical ability or visible talent (i.e. Rihanna, Katy Perry) are wildly popular. Music has become cheapened a bit because of lazy producers and we live in an era where you can be "all hat and no cattle" so to speak when it comes to really having anything more than a superficial "stardom" attached to your name without having much to back it up.

angel345 said:

Graycap23 said:

I totally disagree. Theory kills creativity.

If you noticed, my statement was an opinion.

Graycap offered his opinion on that. I agree with him, based on my experience learning theory and sight reading.

Cinny said: