Firstly, let me make clear that the reason I didn't post this on the MJ sticky is because the overall theme of the content doesn't go with the general MJ love-in ambient verified in said thread.

I used to be a huge Jackson fan...then I grew up. But, apparently, not everyone did as Jackson is today defined as "a musical genius", "a gift to music", "the best" and so on. It baffles me! A myth has been constructed and carefully produced: the Michael Jackson delusion. And no one seems to realize it.

Needless to say, Jackson was not a musician. He couldn't read a music sheet to save his life, had no musical knowledge per se and couldn't play an instrument. Most of the times, he sang in playback (even as a kid!) and his shows became increasingly cheesier and tackier- as did his music- as time went on. Remember how he used to start his shows coming from a space ship? How he tried to replicate his music videos on stage? Or him wearing a wolf mask to sing Thriller? Or, perhaps, inviting the likes of Nsync and B. Spears hoping their fame would rub on him?

Moreover, Jackson didn't write his own songs. Or better yet, he did: the tacky "Earth" and the cheap "Y.A.N.A.". I.e., Jackson was a very poor songwriter. Add to that his non-existent talent in producing, arranging and composing and you have an inept inside the studio.

But that's not all. We could forgive his obvious musical shortcomings and intensely cheesy music videos and on-stage performances if the music was any good. However, it was not. I mean, is there anyone above the age of 15 who can listen to "Bad" with a straight face (and I'm not mentioning the music video)? If Bad is, nevertheless, passable, Dangerous is cheap-made-in-laptop-music, HIStory is terrible and Invincible is life-threatening. Jackson's music is childish, bubblegum-ish and cientificless.

So, what exactly makes MJ so memorable?

Keep in mind that I'm not even refering to his personal life, which was low-life-ish, undignified and circus-like at best.

Does the voice not count as an instrument? MJ composed with his voice (of which he had absolute control) and wrote many of his best songs using this. Don't Stop Til You Get Enough, Billie Jean, Beat It, and so on: he composed all of those. He could also beatbox like an absolute champ. Also I think the viewpoint that you need to have sudied music theory or be able to read sheet music to have an understanding of music is untirely unfounded. Many musicians don't read sheet music or study music theory, they just play by ear and strengthen whatever creative mechanism they have in their brain. Case in point: D'Angelo, Prince, Stevie Wonder to name a few.

I'm not going to comment on the rest as it's just your opinion, but that's the one aspect I think you should get straight.

getfunked said:

Does the voice not count as an instrument? MJ composed with his voice (of which he had absolute control) and wrote many of his best songs using this. Don't Stop Til You Get Enough, Billie Jean, Beat It, and so on: he composed all of those. He could also beatbox like an absolute champ. Also I think the viewpoint that you need to have sudied music theory or be able to read sheet music to have an understanding of music is untirely unfounded. Many musicians don't read sheet music or study music theory, they just play by ear and strengthen whatever creative mechanism they have in their brain. Case in point: D'Angelo, Prince, Stevie Wonder to name a few.

I'm not going to comment on the rest as it's just your opinion, but that's the one aspect I think you should get straight.

No, voice doesn't count as an instrument. That's the argument Jackson fans use to deviate reality.

Yes, Jackson did write some of his song. SOME.

I never said one needed to study music theory to be a musican. I said one needed to have musicianship, which Jackson didn't and Prince and Stevie Wonder do.

Michael Jackson is a genuis to me. He couldn't read music, did lipsync, was cheesy, chasing trends etc....BUT what makes him a genius to me and Prince not one was his uniqueness. There will never be anyone like him.

Talent wise, sure he was not half as musically talented as Prince or Paul McCartney. But loads of people have talent, but to be as unique as he was is very rare. We won't see another Michael Jackson ever again.

Schubert said:

getfunked said:

Does the voice not count as an instrument? MJ composed with his voice (of which he had absolute control) and wrote many of his best songs using this. Don't Stop Til You Get Enough, Billie Jean, Beat It, and so on: he composed all of those. He could also beatbox like an absolute champ. Also I think the viewpoint that you need to have sudied music theory or be able to read sheet music to have an understanding of music is untirely unfounded. Many musicians don't read sheet music or study music theory, they just play by ear and strengthen whatever creative mechanism they have in their brain. Case in point: D'Angelo, Prince, Stevie Wonder to name a few.

I'm not going to comment on the rest as it's just your opinion, but that's the one aspect I think you should get straight.

No, voice doesn't count as an instrument. That's the argument Jackson fans use to deviate reality.

Yes, Jackson did write some of his song. SOME.

I never said one needed to study music theory to be a musican. I said one needed to have musicianship, which Jackson didn't and Prince and Stevie Wonder do.

And why exactly does the voice not count as an instrument? It's producing an intonated, musical sound. Just like any other instrument. What makes it any less of a 'real' instrument? Why does being able to make use of your voice not count as a form of musicianship?

And he actually wrote not just some, but MOST of his songs. In the latter half of his career he was the lead writer on most of his albums.

You don't have to play an instrument to be a musician. A voice is an instrument itself, why "vocals" are even part of liner notes of each album????
Jimi Hendrix never read music, yet he played guitar like no other.
Michael Jackson was creative in terms of stye and image, you might say that it has nothing to do with music, but it frankly & apparently does. Look at how many stars emerged because of Michael Jackson's Thriller phenomen? Even Prince was inspired by MJ's superstardom & visual creativity.
Michael Jackson wrote Billie Jean's lyrics, came up with the bassline, had the whole instrumental in his mind, and the song is one of the best songs of all time. That's even more genius than playing the instruments on the song.
MJ indeed never wrote the better part of OTW and Thriller, but it was he who wrote the best songs off BAD, such as Dirty Diana, and Smooth Criminal.
It is true that there is an overall delusion about Michael Jackson, because he rarely showed anything genius post 1992, his shows became cheesy, all he did was lip synching and screaming, but you just can't deny how genius & influential he was during the 80s, he was a perfect musician

If you describe Bad as passable then keep in mind that there are music critics older than your grandparent who see it as a masterpiece of genre bending music. Michael Jackson was memorable in terms of creating a definition of what pop albums mean, what pop sounds like.... Before Michael Jackson, all we had was Led Zepp's hard rock, Eagles' mellow rock ballads, Sly & Family Stone's funk, Stevie Wonder's musical journeys, but none of them shaped up or managed to make a pop sounding album, something you'd play in every bar, every street, every club... Beat It was the first mash up of a rock driven song with pop aspects, and had eveyr rockhead jamming to it as well as natural pop listeners, same goes with Billie Jean, and Thriller... Michael was everybody's cup of tea... And that's a fact.

[Edited 6/19/14 18:36pm]

thesexofit said:

Michael Jackson is a genuis to me. He couldn't read music, did lipsync, was cheesy, chasing trends etc....BUT what makes him a genius to me and Prince not one was his uniqueness. There will never be anyone like him.

Talent wise, sure he was not half as musically talented as Prince or Paul McCartney. But loads of people have talent, but to be as unique as he was is very rare. We won't see another Michael Jackson ever again.

Gott Sei dank!

Michael Jackson is SO influential that without him JT, Britney Spears, Aguilera, Usher, Chris Brown and Bruno Mars wouldve never made it.

You can argue about the quality of these artists, but just the fact that without a person MANY persons wouldve not do something IS just a sign of greatness

See this video

[Edited 6/19/14 18:45pm]

getfunked said:

Schubert said:

No, voice doesn't count as an instrument. That's the argument Jackson fans use to deviate reality.

Yes, Jackson did write some of his song. SOME.

I never said one needed to study music theory to be a musican. I said one needed to have musicianship, which Jackson didn't and Prince and Stevie Wonder do.

And why exactly does the voice not count as an instrument? It's producing an intonated, musical sound. Just like any other instrument. What makes it any less of a 'real' instrument? Why does being able to make use of your voice not count as a form of musicianship?

And he actually wrote not just some, but MOST of his songs. In the latter half of his career he was the lead writer on most of his albums.

He was indeed. Coincidently, the latter half of his career was also his worst.

In that case, an ass is also an instrument. I know a guy who can fart along to Bach's Mass in B minor. Well, the first two minutes.

The voice argument is an excuse invented by Jackson fans to deviate from the fact that he did NOT play any instrument. Oh, and you forgot, however, the percussion-argument. I mean, didn't Jackson play percussion in some track of his? I hear he also played the triangle!

"What makes it any less of a 'real' instrument?"- The fact that it is not one.

"Why does being able to make use of your voice not count as a form of musicianship?"- It makes you a singer, not a musician.

Schubert said:

thesexofit said:

Michael Jackson is a genuis to me. He couldn't read music, did lipsync, was cheesy, chasing trends etc....BUT what makes him a genius to me and Prince not one was his uniqueness. There will never be anyone like him.

Talent wise, sure he was not half as musically talented as Prince or Paul McCartney. But loads of people have talent, but to be as unique as he was is very rare. We won't see another Michael Jackson ever again.

Gott Sei dank!

Fair enough LOL. I think your being unfair about his later music. I understand if you find his music immature, but seriously, who was singing and making songs like "Bad" "the way you make me feel" "black or white" "who is it" "dangerous" etc.... not saying all his music is unique and amazing, but he did have his own way of writing and singing.

He may of copied himself and he was far from perfect etc..., but again there was no one like him. And thats a big hyperbolic statement that for once most would agree with LOL.

Schubert said:

getfunked said:

And why exactly does the voice not count as an instrument? It's producing an intonated, musical sound. Just like any other instrument. What makes it any less of a 'real' instrument? Why does being able to make use of your voice not count as a form of musicianship?

And he actually wrote not just some, but MOST of his songs. In the latter half of his career he was the lead writer on most of his albums.

He was indeed. Coincidently, the latter half of his career was also his worst.

In that case, an ass is also an instrument. I know a guy who can fart along to Bach's Mass in B minor. Well, the first two minutes.

The voice argument is an excuse invented by Jackson fans to deviate from the fact that he did NOT play any instrument. Oh, and you forgot, however, the percussion-argument. I mean, didn't Jackson play percussion in some track of his? I hear he also played the triangle!

"What makes it any less of a 'real' instrument?"- The fact that it is not one.

"Why does being able to make use of your voice not count as a form of musicianship?"- It makes you a singer, not a musician.

So if someone is classed as a 'celloist' does that exclude them from the group 'musician'?
And again, you just restate your opinion without backing it up with any real reasoning.

Shawy89 said:

Michael Jackson is SO influential that without him JT, Britney Spears, Aguilera, Usher, Chris Brown and Bruno Mars wouldve never made it.

You can argue about the quality of these artists, but just the fact that without a person MANY persons wouldve not do something IS just a sign of greatness

See this video

[Edited 6/19/14 18:45pm]

Exactly. See, you got my point. The generics aren't any good if the original is not. Jackson did influence a lot of artists: none of them with actual musical talent. That proves my point that Jackson wasn't great.

Shawy89 said:

getfunked said:

Schubert said:

He was indeed. Coincidently, the latter half of his career was also his worst.

In that case, an ass is also an instrument. I know a guy who can fart along to Bach's Mass in B minor. Well, the first two minutes.

The voice argument is an excuse invented by Jackson fans to deviate from the fact that he did NOT play any instrument. Oh, and you forgot, however, the percussion-argument. I mean, didn't Jackson play percussion in some track of his? I hear he also played the triangle!

"What makes it any less of a 'real' instrument?"- The fact that it is not one.

"Why does being able to make use of your voice not count as a form of musicianship?"- It makes you a singer, not a musician.

So if someone is classed as a 'celloist' does that exclude them from the group 'musician'?
And again, you just restate your opinion without backing it up with any real reasoning.

No. You got it wrong. You misinterpreted me. It's quite the opposite. A celloist is a musician: that's an instrument (get it?). A singer, someone who only sings, however is not.

Once again, going in circles. You're a treat.

People that can sing are called "singer" or "vocalist".

People that can play an instrument are called "musicians".

People that can write music are called "composers" or "songwriters"

.

So as MJ didn't play an instrument he was a "singer" and partially a "songwriter".

.

Easy.It's not rocket science really.

.

thesexofit said:

Schubert said:

Gott Sei dank!

Fair enough LOL. I think your being unfair about his later music. I understand if you find his music immature, but seriously, who was singing and making songs like "Bad" "the way you make me feel" "black or white" "who is it" "dangerous" etc.... not saying all his music is unique and amazing, but he did have his own way of writing and singing.

He may of copied himself and he was far from perfect etc..., but again there was no one like him. And thats a big hyperbolic statement that for once most would agree with LOL.

"Black and White" is for children. Story, coloured book music. "Ta-na-na-na Ta-na-na-na"- Come on! And that little rap in the middle! Oh, and the Macauly Culkin videoclip! And the infantile lyrics! I loved it as a child. As an adult, however, I realize it is not serious music.

Schubert said:

getfunked said:

And why exactly does the voice not count as an instrument? It's producing an intonated, musical sound. Just like any other instrument. What makes it any less of a 'real' instrument? Why does being able to make use of your voice not count as a form of musicianship?

And he actually wrote not just some, but MOST of his songs. In the latter half of his career he was the lead writer on most of his albums.

He was indeed. Coincidently, the latter half of his career was also his worst.

In that case, an ass is also an instrument. I know a guy who can fart along to Bach's Mass in B minor. Well, the first two minutes.

The voice argument is an excuse invented by Jackson fans to deviate from the fact that he did NOT play any instrument. Oh, and you forgot, however, the percussion-argument. I mean, didn't Jackson play percussion in some track of his? I hear he also played the triangle!

"What makes it any less of a 'real' instrument?"- The fact that it is not one.

"Why does being able to make use of your voice not count as a form of musicianship?"- It makes you a singer, not a musician.

Seriously man, who gives a fuck if he was a musician. He could and did write songs by himself, but you know it's like the Paul McCarney/John Lennon thing. Paul is hugely talented, prolific, multi instrumentalist who could write hits in his sleep. John was not like this. Yet why is it that John is considered the "genius"? Again its the unique "x factor". Paul never wrote anything as magnetic as "Imagine" in my eyes, and Paul wrote an awful lot more songs and hits then John...

..... just something about John that Paul didn't have

...and Jackson was not a musician and was very slow at releasing music (unfortunately), but despite his horrible personal life, insane spending habits and no doubt huge ego, his music, singing and dancing speaks for itself in my eyes..

...most genuis's also seems to have huge personal problems aswell LOL. They say there is a very thin like between madness and genuis. Jackson definately fits that criteria LOL.

Again, it depends on your definition of 'instrument'.

SoulAlive said:

The voice IS an instrument.And it takes talent to write a classic song like "Billie Jean".Not just anybody can do that.Michael was also one of the greatest performers of all time.How many other artists can dance like he did? Nowadays, you have all these weak ass imitators trying to do what Michael did,but they can't.

SoulAlive, still here! You're one of my contemporaries. Didn't you have a heart as your avatar? Remember MOL, one of Jackson fanatics? Always defending him on this forum, 3-4 years ago? Well, that's me! Great to see you in here!

The proper distinction is between "vocalist" and "instrumentalist" (or a mores specific "guitarist," "pianist," "cellist," and so on. Both are "musicians," and to be any good both varieties have to know how to use the soundmaking apparatus that they've chosen to make their music. The "singers aren't musicians" argument is a load of bull, made by people (I suspect) who don't like the fact that some people are born with just plain better voices than others, and thus start out with a marked advantage in the game. That doesn't mean they are, in the end, better than people with "weaker" voices--that's where the musicianship comes in.

As to Michael... there was something there. What he wound up with relied to a large degree on who he was working with, but there was a core talent. I rarely cared that much about what he was doing, and wouldn't call him a genius... but he wasn't a hack, either.

thesexofit said:

Schubert said:

He was indeed. Coincidently, the latter half of his career was also his worst.

In that case, an ass is also an instrument. I know a guy who can fart along to Bach's Mass in B minor. Well, the first two minutes.

The voice argument is an excuse invented by Jackson fans to deviate from the fact that he did NOT play any instrument. Oh, and you forgot, however, the percussion-argument. I mean, didn't Jackson play percussion in some track of his? I hear he also played the triangle!

"What makes it any less of a 'real' instrument?"- The fact that it is not one.

"Why does being able to make use of your voice not count as a form of musicianship?"- It makes you a singer, not a musician.

Seriously man, who gives a fuck if he was a musician. He could and did write songs by himself, but you know it's like the Paul McCarney/John Lennon thing. Paul is hugely talented, prolific, multi instrumentalist who could write hits in his sleep. John was not like this. Yet why is it that John is considered the "genius"? Again its the unique "x factor". Paul never wrote anything as magnetic as "Imagine" in my eyes, and Paul wrote an awful lot more songs and hits then John...

..... just something about John that Paul didn't have

...and Jackson was not a musician and was very slow at releasing music (unfortunately), but despite his horrible personal life, insane spending habits and no doubt huge ego, his music, singing and dancing speaks for itself in my eyes..

...most genuis's also seems to have huge personal problems aswell LOL. They say there is a very thin like between madness and genuis. Jackson definately fits that criteria LOL.

Jackson was NOT genius. Great dancer, great entertainer if you are 14 or 15, great vocalist and wrote some great songs. Genius? No.

And yes, genius have huge personal problems. Prince is one crazy MF, Mozart was immature and uncapable of anything that required adult emotions, Beethoven had his head on the clouds, Miles Davis isn't your go-to guy. MJ?

SoulAlive said:

If it's sooooo easy to do what Michael did and if it doesn't take a lot of talent to do it....let's see YOU try to do it,and try to accomplish what he did! Good luck

SoulAlive said:

If it's soooooooo easy to do what Michael did and if it doesn't take a lot of talent to do it....let's see YOU try to do it,and try to accomplish what he did! Good luck

No, I won't. But Britney Spears, Bruno Mars, Lady Gaga, Nsync, Usher, Chris Brown have.

Which tells one something.

BTW, great, mature and stand-up post. It seems MJ's fandom hasn't changed a little.

Schubert said:

thesexofit said:

Fair enough LOL. I think your being unfair about his later music. I understand if you find his music immature, but seriously, who was singing and making songs like "Bad" "the way you make me feel" "black or white" "who is it" "dangerous" etc.... not saying all his music is unique and amazing, but he did have his own way of writing and singing.

He may of copied himself and he was far from perfect etc..., but again there was no one like him. And thats a big hyperbolic statement that for once most would agree with LOL.

"Black and White" is for children. Story, coloured book music. "Ta-na-na-na Ta-na-na-na"- Come on! And that little rap in the middle! Oh, and the Macauly Culkin videoclip! And the infantile lyrics! I loved it as a child. As an adult, however, I realize it is not serious music.

I know it's only pop music, but you shouldn't demean it because of it though. Fuck serious music anyway LOL. You can rip apart any artist like you have done to Michael. You picked an easy target with Michael LOL. And your point about his influence is baseless as again, there will never be anyone like him so why compare anyone to him? That was his greatest strength.

His amazing career from child star to the biggest star on the planet is something that by itself is amazing. He had done it all by his mid 20's. In that respect everything was going to be downhill after that point. He was not a Bob Dylan or Leonard Cohen or whatever "serious" music you bang on about. I love some of Dylans stuff but the comparison is pointless. Jackson was always commercial and thus always made music for pop audiences and yet you scold him for that? Do you scold Walt Disney or Charlie Chaplin for similar reasons? Are the Marx Brothers merely idiots?

No one said you have to like his music, but you can't deny the mark he left on this world. That to me, is what makes him a genuis. Talent is everywhere. Genius is not.