Urban Hat€monger ?

I noticed you never answered the question I posed a while back

Would YOU allow your kids to sleep in his bed.

What's that got to do with anything. It's not like we're discussing some obscure soul/funk act here.

__________________

arX

you're discussing a popular and versatile soul/funk artist.

and ironically, the overwhelming majority of the discussion isn't even about the music.

Urban Hat€monger ?

So ?

You don't need to be a fan of any genre to comment on one artist , you just have to have listened of the artist being discussed.
Which , let's face it isn't difficult when it's Micheal Jackson considering every song he puts out gets wall to wall coverage

Well whose fault is that?
If you act like a total oddball people will comment on it regardless of what music you put out.

__________________

arX

to answer both your questions: i never said otherwise - it's just how it is.

as in:


here you don't have as many fans of soul/funk/r&b/disco/'urban' roots who'd appreciate an artist in his/her niche genre. just like in urban boards you throw out a name like Van Halen and they'd rip it apart saying he has 'no soul' trying to compare to Jimmy. it's just mass ignorance everywhere on specific subjects outside their niche, and i don't give a toss if that sounds uppity, lol.

this also happens a lot in even some dedicated artist fansites, who only indulge in personal **** and forget why they became fans of the music in the first place.

and if you're not a fan, constructive criticism can be awe-inspiring to read as long as you know what you're on about. even though i don't like comparing artists, sometimes you can objectively break-down their art.


of course they will, and they do - that's my point. it's gossip talk. and i'm saying it's overshadowing the music talk, which is ironic in a board dedicated to music, but expected.

go to Okayplayer, SOHH, Soulstrut, or something like this and you'd get deep discussion into the art of pop cats like Mike, Prince, Stevie or Marvin, alongside the more obscure ones you referred to.

just how it is.

Urban Hat€monger ?

You're going from one extreme to the other. You're assuming that just because someone listens to something from a genre that they're not really familiar with that they'll slate it and make uninformed opinions.

Being knowledgeable about a genre may make your opinions more informed , but it doesn't make it any more valid. You can go ahead and claim mass ignorance all you like but you've been here one day , you can't possibly know the listening habits of every person who's posted in this thread just by post history. There are plenty of bands I listen to that I don't talk about on here for the simple reason there would be little interest in them , I might mention them in passing occasionally but that's all.

I'm sure if he actually made an effort to make something interesting rather than the overproduced over sentimental pap he's been putting out for the last 20 or so years people might start talking about his music. That's if they can get over him admitting to sleeping with children in his bed that is.

__________________

arX

what i said is a very realistic generalisation. you'd be fooling yourself to think that we live in euphoria where anywhere near the majority know enough of and appreciate or even respect most genres/artists equally.

i'm sure in your 4-year and 10,000 post journey through this board you've come across an awesome amount of muppets who try to conclude objectively on any given artist/genre with blatant minimal knowledge on what they're droning on about.

the overwhelming majority of us, if not all, have a limited niche in the universe of music. to try and be objective on all aspects of it is fake.


and how does that argument revoke his work in his prime?

it doesn't, hence why many folk still talk about it.

Urban Hat€monger ?

No , what you said is that nobody on this forum has a worthwhile opinion because our soul/funk forum isn't the busiest.
I know people do what you say. I said your going from one extreme to the other , I never said what you said is false.Just that your taking a very narrow view of it.
But that was never in question or anything to do with the point I was making.



Because you need to pull your head out of the sand and realise something.
A large majority of this forum is under 20 years old. Like I said earlier Jackson hasn't made anything worth listening around 20 years, Maybe if he made some music that actually appealed to these people instead of constantly releasing middle of the road dross and relying on his back catalogue people might start talking about his music again. As far as they are concerned Jackson has never put out a decent record in all the time since they've been born , so when they see a guy who's repeatedly on the news for sleeping with children why would they talk about his music?

__________________

arX

i never did, mate. and certainly didn't mean to imply. what i said:

Quote:

it's always a tough crowd when discussing Michael Jackson without the masses indulging in tabloid perceptions and corny celeb-obsessed culture talk or even getting into irrational comparisons (see Prince vs. Jackson) all of which only proves further their music-dyslexia complex. but it's an even tougher crowd when you do it in a joint where the Soul/Funk section constitutes less than 1% of the forum's discussion.

and by this i mean that the probability of finding a healthy and constructive artistic discussion regarding Jackson's work would be narrowed down considering the show of the lack of soul/funk fans around here. and judging by a lot of the responses in this thread, they are clearly more narrow-minded than you're claiming me to be - it's these responses that prompted me to take that dig.


i'm 21, does that mean i only just started appreciating the history of art before my time? at 16 i was flipping Roy Ayers with 2-step garage.

i don't buy that argument unless you're telling me the average age in this joint is 13.

i've come across too many young music lovers who are fans of material beyond the marketed fluff put out by today's labels (or Disney) and before their time - actually all you hear on the net is bitching over how ****ed up our current industry is. a common issue is kids growing up listening to their parents' tastes and actually digging the music. and many others at the least can recognise and respect the foundational work which led to the inspiration of today's music (be it mainstream or 'underground'), otherwise why the toss would you be on a dedicated music board, lol.

i'm willing to take another intelligent guess and say that the young demographic you're referring to here are mainly fans of bands and acts who were in their prime from before our time.

jackhammer

Are you going to post anything else other than your MJ hero worship? Music is about being open to many genres and opinions. You seem to display neither of these properties.

__________________

arX

not on this board, son. i lurked until i saw a familiar name, and now i've gotten myself into a pretty decent debate.

care to contribute constructively instead of pretending to know what i worship and how closed-minded i am to music?