you have to remember most classical works have gone through a lot of permutations to make it more accessible, certainly Mozart didn't write his pieces for a "modern" orchestra, it would've probably been more raucous back then

and Stravinsky's Rite of Spring even incited a riot at its premiere, now that's rock n roll

The way the audience receives older works is definitely different now to how they would have 300 years ago and that is part of my point. And whether something is more conventional or more rebellious doesn't really matter to me, both can be great.

07/06/2011 10:31 pm
 

I personally think that most of Paul McCartney is all corn and cheese whiz.

Michael Jackson had some diversity in his lyrics, at least.

This gives reason to rectify that "Michael Jackson" is the king of pop. His music alone defines the best definition for (Pop Music) at its Best! Jackson "Is". The King Of Pop.

I thought that "Blood On The Dance floor", shows the sophistication his music had reached to a new level musically. Even the Video itself was very well Produced. Jacksons music at this time of "Blood On The Dance Floor" is the best of "Jackson" in my opinion.

It always seems a bit pretentious to me when people talk about the importance of lyrics, most people don't remember lyrics to songs much and they listen to songs for the music and not the lyrics anyway. And Michael Jackson was very retricted in the styles he used as well as the relatively short period over which he wrote most of his main music.

^ Lyrics do matter and Paul McCartney was a better lyricist than Michael Jackson.

If there was no one to help either with creating a song, Paul's song would definitely be better than Jacko's. Michael could not create a song by himself anywhere near what they sound with Quincy Jones as a producer and a studio band. What instrument have you ever seen Jacko play on stage, :confused: even now and then Madge straps on a guitar on stage, so in that respect she has a leg up on Michael JAckson. Paul McCartney at least plays his own instruments, (bass, guitar, piano, drums) and because he was a musician writing & playing his own songs the creation process was his own more so than Jacko who relied on others. The point Michael Jackson isn't the musical genius people want to make him out to be.

the ex-Wacko Jacko was credited on "maracas" on an Off the Wall demo

What I mean is that people can inflate the importance of lyrics, it's not the same as poetry (which I also like). The music is the main thing, as long as the lyrics don't interfere with the music by being really silly and bubblegum. Certainly for some to say Michael Jackson writes amazing lyrics is a gross exaggeration. Wanna be Startin Somethin for instance is pretty much nonsense lyrics.

I think Dr.Pepper is the king of pop.

Actually, I think the lyrics are what people remember most. Have you ever heard anybody sing the actual music? No, they sing and remember the lyrics to certain songs.
(And you're right, poetry is good, Walt Whitman is a favorite)

Wanna Be Startin' Somethin may not be a great song lyrically in your opinion, but songs like Black or White, Smooth Criminal, Man in the Mirror, Dirty Diana, and Billie Jean all have amazing lyrics.
Paul McCartney is responsible for the absolute corn and cheez-whiz that is Ebony and Ivory, most of the rest of Paul's solo work is very similar in its cheez-whiziness. Personally I think John was the better songwriter out of the two of them anyway.