starrynight

And all of those Michael Jackson tunes have a funk-pop influence except the classical piece (a cover you admit) and the ballad wrote by Rod Temperton a British songwriter from Cleethorpes. Funk and R&B aren't really that far apart either, the rhythms and/or his vocals often gravitate to that at points even though you say they are all different styles. And the Beatles had classical influences on their albums sometimes. And McCartney has actually wrote classical music as well. And for a purer gospel type song listen to Let it Be.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

Soulflower

Did you listen to ALL the songs or are you just making that ridiculous analysis to be cute because you only make your own self look foolish this is getting ridiculous now because you are not open minded and you are going to think what you want to think OR you simply dont have good ears.

TRUST ME I know who wrote what which is why all the songs Michael wrote I STATE IT.. thanks but that was LEAST important to your arguement which you dont have


Little Susie is NOT a cover while the genre style he did not innovate he experimented with a Russian Dutch sound which you can clearly hear which is why ur pop funk analysis is ridiculous.

Dirty Diana is clearly a Rock song not a funk r&b song..

Remember the time is a new jack swing style song that was produce by the innovator of New Jack Swing Teddy Riley.

Get on the Dance Floor is obviously a Disco Dance song with some R&B.

Stranger in Moscow is a Russian inspired song as well.

Lady in my life is a slow r&b song

You are biased towards Michael Jackson as well as black music which you have not a clue about since you oddly seem to think Rhythm and Blues is the same as Funk. Whatever.


I am just trying understand why are you in here when you dont like Michael Jackson? You just want to start cheap arguements over the Beatles get over yourself. I dont mine discussing but if your going to act like a fanboy and not accept objective evidence than what is the point in coming back in here.

While Michael is a pop singer clearly with those examples you see the diveristy in his music... PERIOD.


Your example of Let It Be as a "proper" gospel song is subjective

There is a Beatles thread here and you can GO IN THAT THREAD and talk all day long about them.

starrynight

Necromancer actually brought up the comparison to The Beatles. And I just don't find the styles you put up as diverse as The Beatles, the classical one is the most diverse. Most of Jackson's styles are soul in some way or another. And yet the claim was made here that Michael Jackson appeals to a broader audience, puzzling. The Beatles did more styles while also doing soul (funk, gospel, blues) too

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

Soulflower

Thats YOUR OPINION that you dont find it as diverse as the Beatles.

Are you living under a rock? This is MICHAEL JACKSON he is a global superstar whether you like it or not. Even NON fans will admit to this that just cant be denied as well as his relevance to pop culture You question his appeal but yet he has countless fans and sold out international tours that show otherwise at this point I dont know what else to say to you. I have given you all the facts. He deserved the right, accolades, possess the talent to be mentioned in the same sentence as the Beatles which he IS countlessly.

Michael's roots is R&B but he sings a variety of genres and he has a diverse catalogue. You want to compare that to the Beatles though BUT then state they shouldnt be compared? Your arguement isnt consistent and just biased in general

starrynight

Somebody else started the comparison to The Beatles, not me.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

chipper

i think it is unfair to compare the two with each other. they came from two different generations and that in itself sets the demarcation line. both are great artists and both contributed to greatly to music.

The Beatles [and Elvis] certainly contributed to the acceptance of artists writing their own material to the mainstream. Before them, singers were manufactured by labels. They were fed the music they were going to sing and the image they were going to portray. The Beatles [and Elvis] broke that boundary. They were highly experimental in their music and introduced a lot of the styles that became the basis of the many progression in music today.

Michael Jackson is one of the performers who reaped from that but he definitely progressed it. In fact, he is the most successful in progressin his music. He was a multi genre artist, something that was uncommon in his era. He popularized the use of naratives in songs. He put MTV in mainstream. He bridged disco and hiphop. The list could go on.

You just can't compare.

I'd say Michael Jackson is up there with The Beatles and Elvis on my Level 1 Greatest Artist list.

__________________

real love letters to exes

The Virgin

this pretty much should explain the whole thing.
i couldn't agree more.

starrynight

Elvis didn't write his own material (and Michael Jackson only wrote some of his) and was very much a manufactured image I think. The Beatles probably started off as a manufactured image (as did Michael Jackson) but ended up remaking themselves in many different ways. Not sure Elvis did that much, apart from becoming the oversized Las Vegas crooner at the end of his life. Michael Jackson will have remade himself but he was hardly the first to do it, others certainly did it for example Dexy's Midnight Runners had 3 completely different looks across 3 albums with different music styles during the 80s. So I am not sure he was as different in doing that in his time as you think. The 80s was about image as well as some good pop-dance. In America Madonna has changed her style many times across 3 decades. The most successful at changing their style and keeping the quality up seems to have been The Beatles though.

As for blending hip hop and disco you may wish to look at this effort from Blondie back in 1979, way before Michael Jackson did it. Don't know if you or The Virgin know or a few others in this thread recently know about this.



Also there was plenty of music video invention before Michael Jackson did his Thriller video. Music video telling a story, how about Pink Floyd's video Another Brick in the Wall (1980)?

Dailymotion - Pink Floyd - Another Brick In The Wall - een Music video

Don't know if you or The Virgin or some others here know about that. The problem is I think people often make huge claims for originality now without actually knowing the full details of the eras they might be talking about, or even earlier eras as well.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

chipper

i didn't say michael jackson was the first to reinvent himself or remade as you call it. i said he was successful in doing so. there were many before him. the same way there were many other artists before the beatles that were writing their own material but the beatles were the first (artists writing their own materials) to achieve that kind of success. they did few covers too.

yes, i agree. The Beatles is the most successfull in reinventing themselves. amazing that they are still doing it even when two of them are dead. hey, they are my favorite band of all time. you're talking to the choir leader here.

yes, Elvis wrote some of his material and sang others' as well. the material that got him noticed was his.

i agree on Madonna. I don't particularly like her but I respect her in terms of music and image marketing, she was and is a genius. i'm not a fan of her music though.

as for the MTV, again, i didn't say Michael Jackson was the first. The Beatles actually did it way before when they stopped touring and decided to make a movie based on their music and send it out. their mtvs were also ahead of its time.

i will let the manufactured image comment slide because i know that his a highly debatable thing. people could interpret what is manufactured or not in different ways. some may have more knowledge on how the music labels and the influence they have on the market than others. i will just say that as long as the artist is writing his or her own music, i will have more respect of that artist than others who didn't or don't.

so, if you will read what i said carefully, our comments are probably complementary.

__________________

real love letters to exes

FETCHER.

It's inevitable that once an artist that big dies he becomes more popular. It always happens.

__________________

My Journal.
Last.Fm if your interested...