IMHO, this article is dead-on, if a bit more gemerous to Justin than he deserves. He's a manufactured pop-act, not a musician.
Just shows how out of touch with real music Rolling Stone has become. Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones. (Ecclesiastes 7:9) | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator
|
JANFAN4L said: DMSR said: Timberlake can sing, but his voice lacks any genuine depth or emotion. He's a hard-working performer, but he's also like the smartest kid in the class who mostly succeeds by memorizing his lessons without having any real concept as to what it all means. There's nothing wrong with admiring and drawing inspiration from great artists, but the key is bringing an added level of personal artistry, so that a performance is more than just a wan imitation. And unless Timberlake can discern the difference, the so-called "new King of Pop" will never be more than a pretender to the throne. Damn, that line struck me. Wish I would've written that. Excellent article. I agree with Graham, it's too early in the game to dub Timberlake the new King of Pop. He usurped the throne and it's not his anyway. Michael's still the King of Pop and to compare a 23-year-old, one solo album to his name Timberlake, to Stevie Wonder is blasphemous. I wish I had written this too... I concur with your response. I concur You concur We all concur... (but, I still like the album! |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
God I am sick of hearing about Justin Timberdick almost as much as I was tired of hearing about bennifer.. The day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom - Anais Nin
"Unnecessary giggling"... | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
paisleypark4 said: namepeace said: 2. Justin's no Michael, but in all fairness, everyone that credits Pharell for "making" Justin should also recognize that even the great performer Michael Jackson needed the legendary producer Quincy Jones to make his "OTW" and "Thriller" classics. So did The Beatles need their 'producer' 4 them 2 be real musicans and write their own shit? By the sounds of those bootlegs, they knew what the fuck they were doing. I understand your comparison, and I don't think it's accurate. MJ wrote many of his own songs, that's true. But MJ can't play an instrument. It is therefore obvious than MJ is more reliant on musicians and producers than the Beatles were. Quincy's fingerprints are all over those two albums. Reasonable minds can disagree, but I think you underestimate Q's contribution to those classics. But let's compare the two acts carefully, using a signature album from each artist. Take a look at "Off The Wall." Rod Temperton wrote "Rock With You" and "Burn This Disco Out," McCartney wrote "Girlfriend," Stevie Wonder and Susaye Green-Browne wrote "Can't Help It," Carol Bayer Sager wrote "It's The Falling In Love," Louis Johnson co-wrote "Get On The Floor." Michael played no instruments on the LP as far as I can tell. By comparison, take a look at the Beatles' signature album, "Sgt. Pepper." They played instruments on all the songs and all the songs were composed by John or Paul with the exception of one . . . written by George. I am not denigrating Michael's songwriting or performing genius. He "knows what . . . he's doing." He just can't do as much as the Beatles could, which makes him more dependent on a producer. Good thing he had a great one. That's all I'm saying. Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BabyCakes said: God I am sick of hearing about Justin Timberdick almost as much as I was tired of hearing about bennifer..
Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones. (Ecclesiastes 7:9) | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |