CharismaDove said:

Free2BMe said:

"Morphine", "is It Scary", " Blood On the Dance Floor" are different from other Michael songs.

I was a teen back then and should have loved a "new" album from him, but those sounded like DANGEROUS outtakes (even though his last album was HIStory).

I understand what someone said about Michael, being a fan i have felt the same about his music he stuck to a formula, painfully even more in live shows after Bad, he was not spontaneus. What i think

is that he limited himself artistically because of the success of Thriller, he just got obsessed with it.

214 said:

What i think is that he limited himself artistically because of the success of Thriller, he just got obsessed with it.

Right.

Thriller loomed so large in his psyche that it stunted his creativity. If he wasn't so goddamn
competitive (with himself, too) then he could have let the success of Thriller "go" and moved
onto the next album without having to feel like he had to top himself all the time.

Free2BMe said:

Of course, Michael's music evolved. Dangerous was completely different from Bad or Thriller? History was different than the aforementioned albums. "Morphine", "is It Scary", " Blood On the Dance Floor" are different from other Michael songs. Michael was no "one trick pony". Most of his hits were written(lyrics AND music) and produced by him. As far as stage shows, I think THIS IS IT would have been really different from Michael's other shows. Of course, the classics would have been there, but presented in a new and fresher way. Lest, people forget, Michael hadn't released a new album I almost a decade when he sold out 50 shows in ONE CITY. Therefore, the THIs IS IT tour would have focused on his classics, instead of new material because he didn't have a new album out. It was said that he was working on a new album, and you can bet that the new music would have been incorporated into the tour. The bottomline is that Michael's music evolved with every album.

Obviously I disagree with you; you can read my posts in this thread where I provide reasons
why he was a one trick pony.

But I do want to clarify MJ's musicianship. He "wrote" those songs, but I use that word loosely
as his process included singing instrumental parts and vocal melodies into a tape recorder. Then,
he would bring them to the producer who would play the sung melodies on the piano. After,
the producer would bring the melodies to the studio sessionists who would then structure the
song. For example, MJ nicked the bassline from Hall & Oates' "Maneater"*, sang a reconfigured
version into a tape recorder, presented that to Quincy Jones who then had Johnson and Phillin-
ganes work it instrumentally and voila - "Billie Jean" was on its way. So, rarely did MJ actually
sit down and "write" a song at the piano, charting out chord arrangements and etc. I'm not
knocking his process, just clarifying it and trying to present him faithfully.


*the song is actually "I Can't Go For That (No Can Do)"

[Edited 9/28/15 16:56pm]

MJ definitely had the need to please the fans who bought Thriller, unlike another artist who decided to follow up his landmark album in less than a year with a curveball.

Cinny said:

MJ definitely had the need to please the fans who bought Thriller, unlike another artist who decided to follow up his landmark album in less than a year with a curveball.

That is an excellent, excellent point, Cinny.

If MJ had followed up Thriller with his own curveball, as opposed to trying to catch lightening
in a bottle again, his musical evolution could have contained a bit more substance. As a musician,

I respect artists who are more concerned with their own artistic vision than trying to one-up
themselves by selling us re-treads of landmark albums.

duccichucka said:

Cinny said:

MJ definitely had the need to please the fans who bought Thriller, unlike another artist who decided to follow up his landmark album in less than a year with a curveball.

That is an excellent, excellent point, Cinny.

If MJ had followed up Thriller with his own curveball, as opposed to trying to catch lightening
in a bottle again, his musical evolution could have contained a bit more substance. As a musician,

I respect artists who are more concerned with their own artistic vision than trying to one-up
themselves by selling us re-treads of landmark albums.

A lot of people were competing with Michael Jackson with the format-straddling blueprint of Thriller. I don't really mind Michael Jackson continuing with the legacy of his own winning "formula" that he pioneered.

Cinny said:

I don't really mind Michael Jackson continuing with the legacy of his own winning "formula" that he pioneered.

That's fine and dandy; but can we really say that MJ was growing as a musician/performer/song-
writer and evolving as an artist when we look at what Prince did immediately after Purple Rain?

My answer is "no."

duccichucka said:

Cinny said:

I don't really mind Michael Jackson continuing with the legacy of his own winning "formula" that he pioneered.

That's fine and dandy; but can we really say that MJ was growing as a musician/performer/song-
writer and evolving as an artist when we look at what Prince did immediately after Purple Rain?

My answer is "no."

´Prince didn´t care how big PR was and he did the opposite to Michael, not followin the formula, and that allow him to more creatively freedom without care about sales exprectation. I wish Michael have made the same as Prince.

duccichucka said:

Cinny said:

I don't really mind Michael Jackson continuing with the legacy of his own winning "formula" that he pioneered.

That's fine and dandy; but can we really say that MJ was growing as a musician/performer/song-
writer and evolving as an artist when we look at what Prince did immediately after Purple Rain?

My answer is "no."

Furthermore, I would have loved a Purple Rain 2 Happy with what we got instead.

Cinny said:

MJ definitely had the need to please the fans who bought Thriller, unlike another artist who decided to follow up his landmark album in less than a year with a curveball.

I still wonder what MJ's career and life might have been like if Thriller hadn't happened... [useless thoughts 101].

purplethunder3121 said:

Cinny said:

MJ definitely had the need to please the fans who bought Thriller, unlike another artist who decided to follow up his landmark album in less than a year with a curveball.

I still wonder what MJ's career and life might have been like if Thriller hadn't happened... [useless thoughts 101].

Not just that, but the music industry, cause sales were down as a whole until Thriller came out, then people were buying others albums again when purchasing, that's how we got the fabulous 1983 and 1984 years. And CD's were starting to be sold in that time, so in a way, the timing of that worked for Thriller's timing too, especially with the sales extending to 1984 and throughout the 80's, since most had it on LP already and were probably buying copies for cassette and CD on top of it. I don't think a lot of mj fans will like reading that cause I'm playing devil's advocate saying that, but there is some truth to it, though mj's talent and vision was also everything. It would be naive to not look at the greater context of that time

[Edited 9/29/15 9:02am]

Cinny said:

duccichucka said:

That's fine and dandy; but can we really say that MJ was growing as a musician/performer/song-
writer and evolving as an artist when we look at what Prince did immediately after Purple Rain?

My answer is "no."

Furthermore, I would have loved a Purple Rain 2 Happy with what we got instead.

David Hill's Prince: A Pop Life very artfully discusses the contrast between MJ's post-Thriller choices and Prince's post-PR choices. In the 5 years between Thriller and Bad, Prince made 5 albums(2 of those double albums), as well a slew of "killer B's," a shelved triple album, and other associated projects under a label he started. He took a critical and commercial hit, but in hindsight, that body of work is legendary.

Hill also makes the case that ATWIAD has more similarities to PR than may meet the eye.

namepeace said:

Cinny said:

Furthermore, I would have loved a Purple Rain 2 Happy with what we got instead.

David Hill's Prince: A Pop Life very artfully discusses the contrast between MJ's post-Thriller choices and Prince's post-PR choices. In the 5 years between Thriller and Bad, Prince made 5 albums(2 of those double albums), as well a slew of "killer B's," a shelved triple album, and other associated projects under a label he started. He took a critical and commercial hit, but in hindsight, that body of work is legendary.

Hill also makes the case that ATWIAD has more similarities to PR than may meet the eye.

Ooh! Never read it. Thanks, namepeace!

Yo what happened to peace

namepeace said:

Cinny said:

Furthermore, I would have loved a Purple Rain 2 Happy with what we got instead.

David Hill's Prince: A Pop Life very artfully discusses the contrast between MJ's post-Thriller choices and Prince's post-PR choices. In the 5 years between Thriller and Bad, Prince made 5 albums(2 of those double albums), as well a slew of "killer B's," a shelved triple album, and other associated projects under a label he started. He took a critical and commercial hit, but in hindsight, that body of work is legendary.

Hill also makes the case that ATWIAD has more similarities to PR than may meet the eye.

-

I'm sure that's an interesting read! Prince's output during that time was special.

Cinny said:

namepeace said:

David Hill's Prince: A Pop Life very artfully discusses the contrast between MJ's post-Thriller choices and Prince's post-PR choices. In the 5 years between Thriller and Bad, Prince made 5 albums(2 of those double albums), as well a slew of "killer B's," a shelved triple album, and other associated projects under a label he started. He took a critical and commercial hit, but in hindsight, that body of work is legendary.

Hill also makes the case that ATWIAD has more similarities to PR than may meet the eye.

Ooh! Never read it. Thanks, namepeace!

Yo what happened to peace

-

PEACE! PEACE! Peace! peace. peace

-

Sorry couldn't help it. That line was from one of my favorite albums man!

purplethunder3121 said:

Cinny said:

MJ definitely had the need to please the fans who bought Thriller, unlike another artist who decided to follow up his landmark album in less than a year with a curveball.

I still wonder what MJ's career and life might have been like if Thriller hadn't happened... [useless thoughts 101].

God only knows, i'd love to Michael went in the Destiny album musical direction, with songs more personal and sincere.

God no! Before I read 80 or so replies about this (Most of the 30 I read were anti Taylor), I mean who even makes these comparisons. Taylor Swift is a hick ass country singer who sings poorly about relationship break ups ad nauseaum and silly party girl songs.

.

On the other hand Michael Jackson was a force of nature and the greatest pop artist of all time, all of his albums were Godlike and he had a heavenly voice and was the greatest dancer, okay he did not play all the instruments like Prince, but he wrote most of his own songs and did all the dances and organised the dancers and the rest. Plus MJ was a great humanitarian whereas Taylor is spoilt little bitch singing about how Billy Bob McCraw did not treat her right. Her album sold 5 million copies because 16 year old bimbettes love her and there are a lot of those. Like Prince said, people only digging it because its a hit.

.

She can play the geetar quite well, but so can every other Yamacraw country and western hick musician. The only good thing about her, is that she is not a shit hopper and she is not singing about raping bitches, selling meth and how many bling bling chains and bouncing cars she owns.

214 said:

duccichucka said:

Free2BMe said:

Allow me to clarify your "clarification" of Michael's songwriting and composing skills. It has been said by People who have worked with Michael that he would dictate his composing into a recorder with Full instrumentation of how he wanted every instrument to sound. A composer doesn't always have to sit at the piano and "write" a song. Michael always said that melodies came to him quicker than lyrics. Michael didn't, formally read music; however that doesn't diminish his songwriting and composing skills. Let's not equate writing melodies and lyrics with these so-called "songwriters who write a few lyrics and are deemed to be songwriters. Michael composed entire songs-melodies and lyrics. Nothing is going to diminish his songwriting skills. FTR, I don't think that Micharl gets the credit that he deserves as a composer/songwriter. I know people who are ignorant to the fact that Michael wrote and produced some of his biggest and best hits. I find it amazing that the biggest artist that the world has ever known was not only an amazing singer, dancer, performer, humanitarian; he was also an extraordinary songwriter who wrote songs that will be in our consciousness forever. [Edited 9/29/15 21:50pm]

And please allow me to correct you, for you obviously missed the part of my post where I clearly
stated, concerning MJ's songwriting practice:

"I'm not knocking his process, just clarifying it and trying to present him faithfully."

And you actually don't clarify anything! MJ's songwriting process involved humming melodies
into a tape recorder and bringing it to the producers and instrumentalists who worked out the
arrangements and song structures with him - you're basically uttering what I've already said!
I think what is happening here is that you feel some need to protect MJ's honor/legacy as you
think I'm being too critical. Well, MJ's honor/legacy is fully intact in my criticisms of his talents
and abilities and work. If anything, I believe he had all kinds of talent that he didn't nourish
properly. He suffered from thriller-itis, that is, a recording artist's preoccupation with former,
otherworldly success that makes it difficult for him/her to move forward creatively as their art-
istic gaze is forever focused on duplicating, replicating, and recapturing the aforementioned.

As a musician, I absolutely know that composition doesn't have to take place near a piano; in
fact, I had a composition teacher who advised us to compose away from the piano as it could
be a source of distraction. I place no premium on the composer archetype: dude at the piano
with a pencil behind his ear, furiously scribbling notes on staff paper. MJ was just as much
a "composer" that Beethoven was as he authored musical sounds and realized them in some
fashion.

However, you are viewing MJ's songwriting skills through a horribly subjective lens. Michael
Jackson was not an extraordinary songwriter: his songwriting was very much ordinary. He
didn't challenge any songwriting conventions or established new forms of songwriting in a
pop context. He was not a great melodicist like McCartney; not a great lyricist like Lennon; he
wasn't particularly sophisticated harmonically like Stevie Wonder; nor a great instrumentalist
and all-around one man band like Prince. But for what he did possess, he was the greatest
pop entertainer of all time; that doesn't mean, however, that Michael Jackson wasn't limited or,
even sadder, limited himself.

duccichucka said:

Free2BMe said:

Allow me to clarify your "clarification" of Michael's songwriting and composing skills. It has been said by People who have worked with Michael that he would dictate his composing into a recorder with Full instrumentation of how he wanted every instrument to sound. A composer doesn't always have to sit at the piano and "write" a song. Michael always said that melodies came to him quicker than lyrics. Michael didn't, formally read music; however that doesn't diminish his songwriting and composing skills. Let's not equate writing melodies and lyrics with these so-called "songwriters who write a few lyrics and are deemed to be songwriters. Michael composed entire songs-melodies and lyrics. Nothing is going to diminish his songwriting skills. FTR, I don't think that Micharl gets the credit that he deserves as a composer/songwriter. I know people who are ignorant to the fact that Michael wrote and produced some of his biggest and best hits. I find it amazing that the biggest artist that the world has ever known was not only an amazing singer, dancer, performer, humanitarian; he was also an extraordinary songwriter who wrote songs that will be in our consciousness forever. [Edited 9/29/15 21:50pm]

And please allow me to correct you, for you obviously missed the part of my post where I clearly
stated, concerning MJ's songwriting practice:

"I'm not knocking his process, just clarifying it and trying to present him faithfully."

And you actually don't clarify anything! MJ's songwriting process involved humming melodies
into a tape recorder and bringing it to the producers and instrumentalists who worked out the
arrangements and song structures with him - you're basically uttering what I've already said!
I think what is happening here is that you feel some need to protect MJ's honor/legacy as you
think I'm being too critical. Well, MJ's honor/legacy is fully intact in my criticisms of his talents
and abilities and work. If anything, I believe he had all kinds of talent that he didn't nourish
properly. He suffered from thriller-itis, that is, a recording artist's preoccupation with former,
otherworldly success that makes it difficult for him/her to move forward creatively as their art-
istic gaze is forever focused on duplicating, replicating, and recapturing the aforementioned.

As a musician, I absolutely know that composition doesn't have to take place near a piano; in
fact, I had a composition teacher who advised us to compose away from the piano as it could
be a source of distraction. I place no premium on the composer archetype: dude at the piano
with a pencil behind his ear, furiously scribbling notes on staff paper. MJ was just as much
a "composer" that Beethoven was as he authored musical sounds and realized them in some
fashion.

However, you are viewing MJ's songwriting skills through a horribly subjective lens. Michael
Jackson was not an extraordinary songwriter: his songwriting was very much ordinary. He
didn't challenge any songwriting conventions or established new forms of songwriting in a
pop context. He was not a great melodicist like McCartney; not a great lyricist like Lennon; he
wasn't particularly sophisticated harmonically like Stevie Wonder; nor a great instrumentalist
and all-around one man band like Prince. But for what he did possess, he was the greatest
pop entertainer of all time; that doesn't mean, however, that Michael Jackson wasn't limited or,
even sadder, limited himself.

Thoroughly agree, except for Lennon, great lyricist? come on, that goes to Dylan Lennon is overrated as lyricist. Michael made great songs with memorable melodies, i don't know about musically i am not a musician and don't understand even the basics about composition in music.

duccichucka said:

And I'm one of the few posters here who thinks MJ was a one trick pony (it was the greatest
trick of all time, but he was a limited performer).

Please elaborate on that? How exactly was MJ a one trick pony? Honestly not starting any ish, I am just curious about your opinion. I have heard MJ called many things..but never a one trick pony.

DonRants said:

duccichucka said:

And I'm one of the few posters here who thinks MJ was a one trick pony (it was the greatest
trick of all time, but he was a limited performer).

Please elaborate on that? How exactly was MJ a one trick pony? Honestly not starting any ish, I am just curious about your opinion. I have heard MJ called many things..but never a one trick pony.

I defend this in several posts throughout this thread.

duccichucka said:

DonRants said:

Please elaborate on that? How exactly was MJ a one trick pony? Honestly not starting any ish, I am just curious about your opinion. I have heard MJ called many things..but never a one trick pony.

I defend this in several posts throughout this thread.

Callling him a one trick pony is just too much, even when i understand your whole point throughout the thread

214 said:

Cinny said:

namepeace said:

David Hill's Prince: A Pop Life very artfully discusses the contrast between MJ's post-Thriller choices and Prince's post-PR choices. In the 5 years between Thriller and Bad, Prince made 5 albums(2 of those double albums), as well a slew of "killer B's," a shelved triple album, and other associated projects under a label he started. He took a critical and commercial hit, but in hindsight, that body of work is legendary.

Hill also makes the case that ATWIAD has more similarities to PR than may meet the eye.

Ooh! Never read it. Thanks, namepeace!

Yo what happened to peace

Musicslave said:

namepeace said:

David Hill's Prince: A Pop Life very artfully discusses the contrast between MJ's post-Thriller choices and Prince's post-PR choices. In the 5 years between Thriller and Bad, Prince made 5 albums(2 of those double albums), as well a slew of "killer B's," a shelved triple album, and other associated projects under a label he started. He took a critical and commercial hit, but in hindsight, that body of work is legendary.

Hill also makes the case that ATWIAD has more similarities to PR than may meet the eye.

-

I'm sure that's an interesting read! Prince's output during that time was special.

It's still the best of the handful of books I've read about Prince.