Can Michael Still Write Good Songs?

[Cinnamon234]

I'm glad u guys are having fun here.

But seriously i pose the question. CAN MJ STILL BLINK? I mean he hasn't made a good BLINK in YEAARRRS. I wonder why.

Can you stop already? I know you're trying to be funny or whatever, but If you have nothing constructive to add, then please don't even bother replying.

 

[Superstition]

No cinnamon, you just don't like them, but all of the songs I mentioned have extremely good melody and ARE memorable. "Beautiful Girl" is unfinished, but it has one the greatest melodies I've ever heard, and amazing harmony. "TWYLM" has amazing vocal arrangments and melody, "Speechless" is orchastral, beautifully arranged, and also has amazing melody. "TLC" has one of the strongest melodies of all of Michael's songs. You may not like it because of what it's about, but it's a brilliant piece of music.

Agreed.

I actually love "The Way You Love Me". Definitely a mushy song, but the end is pretty cool when he's doing his little "chik-a" thing.

All the songs you mention, I listen to. I don't enjoy them as much as others, but I definitely agree he knows his melodies and orchestration. That's why even though I don't care much for "The Lost Children", I still appreciate the Irish-feel and the vocals in the chorus. Really creative and cool.

 

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

Right. You don't have to like the songs, but as long as one recognizes that they are indeed very high quality pieces of music, that's all that matters.

Let me just add, I forget when he wrote it, but "In The Back" is genius. The way he arranged the strings and the horns and just the overall atmosphere is incredible, as well as the way he layered and arranged the background vocals.

 

[jaydom7]

I think the poster makes a great point. There is no doubt MJ at one time was a great songwriter and wrote some great classic songs, but can he still do it in this era? That's a good question considering his last couple of albums. With the exception of Scream in 1995 he has not wrote a hit since then and the tracks he wrote for invincible are not even in the top 4 best songs on the album.

Butterflies
Break of Dawn
Heaven Can Wait
Whatever Happens

I have to agree with you! Mike hasn't written a great dance song in a long time. His best were "Don't Stop 'til you get enough" and his faster songs from Thriller like Billie Jean and "Wanna Be Startin' Something" It's been almost 20 years since Mike has written a big song by himself that became a hit.

 

[jaydom7]

No cinnamon, you just don't like them, but all of the songs I mentioned have extremely good melody and ARE memorable. "Beautiful Girl" is unfinished, but it has one the greatest melodies I've ever heard, and amazing harmony. "TWYLM" has amazing vocal arrangments and melody, "Speechless" is orchastral, beautifully arranged, and also has amazing melody. "TLC" has one of the strongest melodies of all of Michael's songs. You may not like it because of what it's about, but it's a brilliant piece of music.

I think she's referring to bonafide hit songs that actually make the charts. Songs like those would never be played in today's radio format

 

[J5master]

Can you stop already? I know you're trying to be funny or whatever, but If you have nothing constructive to add, then please don't even bother replying.

2 posts get u all worked up like this? 2 posts out of 3 pages? Hm. Well if u dont like my posts leave them be and don't reply to them.

My contribution was an answer. It means it's a NO BRAINER if he can still write good songs. I'm sorry if u don't like the humor...but if u don't like it, leave it alone.

I really dont understand why people gotta be so dang hostile on this board. My god.

 

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

I think she's referring to bonafide hit songs that actually make the charts. Songs like those would never be played in today's radio format

A song not being a hit and not having a dance composition doesn't mean it isn't a great song and anyone who thinks so has their head stuck up their ass. (Not referring to anyone in this thread, just in general) Especially in today's enviornment of "hits". If your song isn't a hit, that probably means it's a good song.

 

[DenisRS]

Cinnamon234:

How are you determining which songs Jackson wrote are "truly" great and which not?

Artistically, Morphine is one of the strongest music pieces created ever, not only among Jackson's works. It was released 11 years ago, not "almost 15". The matter whether you or I find this piece convenient and ear likable is completely irrelevant to its multilayer sophisticated complexity, actual artistic value and author self-expression level. This is art is not the kind of YANA type of "pop music", there could be no comparison.

"Speechless" is artistically strongest slow love song Jackson ever composed and produced. It is even more epic than "Liberian Girl", which also had original artistic rendition and one of the strongest melodies created ever among all kind of composers in all times.

So let's not mix likes/dislikes with actual music greatness.

 

[DenisRS]

As to meaning of "great song" in hit sense, then "Speechless" could be worldwide multimonth hit. Back in 1992, according to memoirs of project participants, no one expected that slow paced but divine-epic song "I will always love you" will such huge hit, one of the biggest songs of all time.

I am not saying that this would be necessary scenario for "Speechless", if the song was released, but commercial potential for that kind of music still could be huge.

As well as with "I will always love you", "Speechless" is ultimate hymn to love of epic scale, produced in one of the strongest melodies ever created. Even though there is difference: Jackson's "bird soul" (remember "Dancing The Dream -- Poems and Reflections") is a quieter and shier one, so "Speechless" is more delicate.

 

[arXter]

So let's not mix likes/dislikes with actual music greatness.

it seems you're mixing likes/dislikes/personal tastes with sweeping factual claims.

that is not to undermine the songs in question (or support whatever views i may have), but let's not go off stating what is 'true greatness' in such a factual manner. and certainly not on such basis as "multilayer sophisticated complexity" that could very well just be a bunch of noise to some other listener or pundit thinking simplicity is key, for example. or as another e.g., re: YANA, may view simple, common and catchy melodies as some sort of ingenious creation. i guess you're not a fan of Macca.

and just what is "actual artistic value"?

there are too many criteria and individuality involved for trying to factually review what truly makes a particular piece of art great. i guess most music listeners would go by its popularity as a strong indicator (which would make for a more logical evaluation), though even i would strongly disagree with such a criterion.

point is, there is no such thing as "actual music greatness" when trying to reason with factual undertones.

 

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

Denis basis his determinations off of technical elements in the song. He is simply saying that some of the songs he mentioned are actually, technically, unique and innovative and are artistically strong compared to what has been before created, based on how Michael incorporates certain elements, his arrangements, how he layers things, etc... He actually has an incredible technical understanding of music and has written evaluations of Michael's work which are exteremely interesting.

Just saying those songs mentioned aren't "great" while giving no reason other then to say you think it sucks is kind of silly. You don't have to like it, but I truly fail to see how anyone could find the melody on songs like "Speechless" or "Beautiful Girl" or any of the others weak.

 

[arXter]

Denis basis his determinations off of technical elements in the song. He is simply saying that some of the songs he mentioned are actually, technically, unique and innovative and are artistically strong compared to what has been before created, based on how Michael incorporates certain elements, his arrangements, how he layers things, etc...

please re-read my post since this has no bearing on what i was saying lol art is a mystery that will never be solved - what you may perceive as "artistically strong", many others would see it otherwise - unique doesn't always mean "great". i actually share many of your's and Denis's tastes here, but not so as to the manner of reasoning i responded to.

Just saying those songs mentioned aren't "great" while giving no reason other then to say you think it sucks is kind of silly.

i agree.

You don't have to like it, but I truly fail to see how anyone could find the melody on songs like "Speechless" or "Beautiful Girl" or any of the others weak.

that's art.

 

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

It just seems a lot of people fail to recognize these songs as good or great, not based on any sort of technical scale, but simply because it doesn't appeal to them. But songs like "Beautiful Girl", which cinnamon said was one of Michael's worst songs, as though it were a fact, is incredibly melodic. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean the song itself is weak or has nothing to offer.

The only way you can determine whether anything is of quality or not is by comparing it to what has already been created, and using those in place standards. Otherwise, there's really no basis to call anything "art". You need standards.

 

[arXter]

Otherwise, there's really no basis to call anything "art".

or equally, you can call anything "art". i don't know if we may mean the same thing, but i partly base my tastes on relativity as opposed to standards. i really have no time (effort) to delve into the core of what makes me tick (i'm not sure i actually fully know what it is), but i'll repeat my views that

1. there's no factual nor objective basis for reviewing art
2. there's no such thing as "actual artistic merit" or "artistically strong"

and a new point to yours above: everything in relation to why art moves us is, in essence, technical.

it's all a big soup of subjectivism.

The only way you can determine whether anything is of quality or not is by comparing it to what has already been created, and using those in place standards.

even if that was the case, it wouldn't justify objective comparisons between works of art. i could tell you that John Cage's 4' 3'' is a thought-provoking masterpiece, and you may just think of it as 4mins33secs of silence - but neither of us could make an objective assessment as to why it's either genius or 4mins of life wasted.

 

[benscarr]

I don't think Michael was too focused on being totally creative during the Invincible recording sessions with writing, composing and arranging his own songs. During that period Michael I presume he was still mainly focused and raising his children.

History shows the majority of Michael greatest songs from 1979-97 were written, composed and arranged just by Michael with no collaborations.

It's true that in recent years the only songs Michael without collaborators have been ballards, not dance songs. And I do wonder what type of up tempo dance songs Michael can/will write in the 2000's. That's something I don't feel can be questioned until Michael releases a song that is a dance song. But I personally think Michael can still write great dance songs.

 

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

Of course he can still right up-tempo music. The entire notion that he can't is absurd. If he can write ballads, he can write dance music. One of his strongest areas is his percussion and beat sections. He's more focused on ballads lately is all, or mid-tempo tracks because that's his true love, per his own admission.

Some people just don't like that kind of music and that's the only reason they think his latest output isn't any good, not because the songs themselves aren't great.

 

[xo_lola_xo]

I'm sorry but this thread is sooo pointless and ridiculous! I've only read like the title and half of the 1st post but OMG...

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

Umm, I dont see why not and we'll find out when the new album hits.

 

[MJJChichi]

OK, maybe what we are really thinking/asking is, can Michael still write his own 'hit song' ?? I think that is actually what we are thinking ... I could be wrong but that seems to be the distinction between the past songs , that seem to classify as 'good'...opposed to the ones that are being argued as 'still good songs'.

Since this discussion is really going nowhere but in a circular motion ...
Let's simply be honest and ask it. Can Michael still write his own, commercially successful song ??

 

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

Well in todays enviornment, good songs seem to wallow at the bottom of the charts while complete sh*t hits number one, so... maybe he can't write hits anymore, and if that's the case, thank god, lol.

 

[Cinnamon234]

2 posts get u all worked up like this? 2 posts out of 3 pages? Hm. Well if u dont like my posts leave them be and don't reply to them.

My contribution was an answer. It means it's a NO BRAINER if he can still write good songs. I'm sorry if u don't like the humor...but if u don't like it, leave it alone.

I really dont understand why people gotta be so dang hostile on this board. My god.

J5 I love your posts most of the time and agree with them most of the time, you express yourself very well, I just didn't see the need for the comments and mockery. I really don't think I was being hostile towards you either.

 

[Cinnamon234]

For the people complaining that this thread is pointless, like I said don't waste your time replying if you don't like it, it's that simple. I don't go into threads I don't like just to say it's pointless.

Groove theory is pretty dead anyway and I don't see too many people trying to start discussions, so how about not complaining and start interesting threads yourselves instead of whining and complaining about this one?

Of course he can still right up-tempo music. The entire notion that he can't is absurd. If he can write ballads, he can write dance music. One of his strongest areas is his percussion and beat sections. He's more focused on ballads lately is all, or mid-tempo tracks because that's his true love, per his own admission.Some people just don't like that kind of music and that's the only reason they think his latest output isn't any good, not because the songs themselves aren't great.

Well that's true and again , I am not questioning all of Michael's talents, there's no doubt he can still sing and dance very well. He's proven that recently enough, but I was just very undrewhelmed with the songs he wrote/co-wrote on "Invincible". It seemed to me that he had lost his confidence in his ability to write because there were so many co-writers on many of the songs on the album. That wasn't the case with his previous albums, he never needed 5 people to help him write one song. If most of the songs, especially the uptempo ones, were actually good though, I wouldn't complain but most of them weren't. In the past however, most of the best songs on MJ's albums have been the one's that he's written himself which is why I was dissapointed with songs like "The Lost Children" and "Speechless" (which was basically "You Are Not Alone" part deux).

Michael seems like he's in a better place these days than he was during "Invincible" era though, so i'm looking forward to seeing what he comes up with on the new album.

 

[MiaaiM]

OK, maybe what we are really thinking/asking is, can Michael still write his own 'hit song' ?? I think that is actually what we are thinking ... I could be wrong but that seems to be the distinction between the past songs , that seem to classify as 'good'...opposed to the ones that are being argued as 'still good songs'.

Since this discussion is really going nowhere but in a circular motion ...
Let's simply be honest and ask it. Can Michael still write his own, commercially successful song ??

I actually think he can - but nowadays it's not easy writing a commercially succesful song. We have all seen absolut crap hit number 1 on the charts and then we have seen some of Michaels materpieces not being acknowledged on the charts.
Perhaps that's also why Michael decided to remake Thriller with some of todays commercially succesful entertainers as Fergie and Akon. A clever move from him IMO.
But I have to say that my favourite songs from Michael are the ones he wrote himself - one day, I hope he will give a damn about the public, about the album being commercial and about the critics - and just write and produce an entire album by himself.

 

[mistermaxxx]

he can still write but can he write songs that challenge his creativity as a Stranger in moscow? and can be just write songs without working with the latest hot Producer or this or that? the key is Motivation. Mj to me was his strongest when he was either working with randy jackson or had a Quincy Jones challenging him. He has composed some tight things in post co produced quincy Jones era, but the writing has been hit and miss and replaced with more Grooves and beats. jury is out.

 

[DenisRS]

WBSS21 is correct: there is set of technical/quantitative parameters that exists independently of whoever's likes/dislikes. For example, for "Morphine" Jackson uses the structure for the first time: two absolutely different, but imprescriptible compositions in the one. Industrial rock, new electric guitar timbres are combined with neo-classic, complex parties for a grand symphonic orchestra ("grand" by academic meaning, not middlebrow's: there is piano among instruments). Compositions also contains advanced poetic images, multi-layer sense.

There is no possibility to say anything of this about "YANA". However, this it totally irrelevant to matter of personal tastes. In general, much more people will like "YANA" more than "Morphine".

Note that in naming technical/quantitative parameters for a composition there is no room for whatever taste/subjective terms like "inspired", "brilliant", "dull" or anything else that most of so-called "music critics" use.

 

[DenisRS]

arXter and other interlocutors: if you will have some time, you can read few researches -- those are basically structuralistic approach towards the whole phenomenon of a creative personality on the example of Michael Joseph Jackson, with universal methods of objective comparative analysis offered.

1. "What is voice? Why Michael Jackson is probably the best composer ever":
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=496847&postcount=1

2. "Michael Jackson's personality structure":
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=501074&postcount=59

3. "Michael Jackson's kinds of activity classification":
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=502863&postcount=82

4. "Alternative HIStory analysis":
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=498143&postcount=38

5. "Concise resume on Mr. Michael Joseph Jackson":
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=497183&postcount=17

6. "THE LIST OF RECORDS CONCERNED TO MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON"
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=536533&postcount=130

The latter two are not related directly to music so are given as example of "technical" approach towards phenomenon.

 

[Superstition]

Very interesting to read, but most likely created by a very, very smart Michael Jackson fan.

Case in point:

Voice is not an instrument to bring sense into music. Voice is an instrument of music. Michael Jackson discovered the true meaning and scale of fully bringing this into the art. There were other artists, who had poor pronunciation of words in their songs, but the leap, the discovery of wide use of the described technique as true scale, unlimited, not casual, systematic concept belongs to Jackson.

I'm not really sure it's fair to call that bit of info "subjective". In fact, it seems like nothing more than well-worded favoritism. It's an arguement I'd certainly buy, but wouldn't take it as gospel in any way, shape or form.

 

[DenisRS]

In short, when comparing personality, you take his/her profile and dissect it according to "kinds of activity classification". There are weights for different levels of creative processes and by number of such processes artist uses with taking weights into account you will get concrete aggregate number for each person you try to analyze.

Then you put it in bigger scale and use "personality structure" to include into consideration other two major factors: socio-cultural influence, which measured by numbers such as sales, ratings and so on, and lesser quantitative psychological/personal qualities branch. For simplicity, that latter branch can be excluded since it does not really related to phenomenon of artist, when you try to compare several of them between each other (contrary to creativity and socio-culturological branches, which are both necessary).

So with filling in all of information with weights and coefficients one can compare two artists without dealing with whatever personal likes/dislikes. And you will get result that, for example, Paul MacCartney is objectively bigger socio-creative phenomenon than Britney Spears, for example. You will get that not because you loke MacCartney, but because the aggregate figure you got for him would be the way bigger than for Spears.

The same comes to songs: if you dissect them as it shown in deeper layers of creativity (as shown in research "Personality structure") you can fill the fields:

5) Work "Earth Song" =
text/poem +
sound +
scenic performance +
mini-film.

6) Sound of "Earth Song" =
structure +
rhythm +
performance +
melody +
arrangement +
timbres.

7) Structure of "Earth Song" sound =
first part: the overture +
second part: the development +
third part: the culmination +
forth part: the relaxation, main theme in canonic performance
(classic 4-part symphony structure).

In items 6 and 7 there are detailed analyses of "Earth Song" sound parts (see concise one in "Alternative HIStory" article \\\reference\\\).

So you expand each branch of this structure and fill in everywhere if certain aspect of work/song exists or not, if it is new to this artist or not, and so on.

Thus you can compare "YANA" and "Morphine" or "Earth Song" by counting quantity of new/existing subparameters for each. Eventually there will be figure that will tell you that no matter how anyone can like it or not "Morphine" is work of greater self-expression degree and creativity than "YANA".

Please notice, of course, that there is no way to determine objectively "truly" good and just "good" songs unless there will be some conditional/arbitrary number to differentiate two.

Also, it is important to note that there is technique to determine relative strength of the melody -- part is analyzed on the matter of dispersion of tones with time intervals taken into account, as well as repetitiousness of tones and harmonic tonality. With that, it can be said that melody for the song "D.S." is weaker than "Earth Song" objectively. However, computer programmed rendition of that kind of analysis is subject of universities' research and is not accessible to common public yet.

Of course, this methodology is not absolute and in some cases one can cheat it with harmonic tonal parts that do not constitute melody, but all other ways are fit to be evaluated as stronger melody than actual average quality melody. But if this method used on actual songs, it works.

 

[DuranDuran]

OK, maybe what we are really thinking/asking is, can Michael still write his own 'hit song' ?? I think that is actually what we are thinking ... I could be wrong but that seems to be the distinction between the past songs , that seem to classify as 'good'...opposed to the ones that are being argued as 'still good songs'.

Since this discussion is really going nowhere but in a circular motion ...
Let's simply be honest and ask it. Can Michael still write his own, commercially successful song ??

Well if that's the problem, Mike's working with the wrong people. He should hire Soulja Boy & Hannah Montana instead.

 

[DenisRS]

Quote:
Voice is not an instrument to bring sense into music. Voice is an instrument of music. Michael Jackson discovered the true meaning and scale of fully bringing this into the art. There were other artists, who had poor pronunciation of words in their songs, but the leap, the discovery of wide use of the described technique as true scale, unlimited, not casual, systematic concept belongs to Jackson.
I'm not really sure it's fair to call that bit of info "subjective". In fact, it seems like nothing more than well-worded favoritism. It's an arguement I'd certainly buy, but wouldn't take it as gospel in any way, shape or form.

Unless you or anyone else can find whatever artist who used all concrete named extents of controlling voice in a variety of his/her composed songs, there is no way to deny in essense the paragraph you quoted. However, there is disclaimer at the bottom of that research:

Considering the above-stated analysis and all the experience of listening to current music from rave to dodecaphony, it could properly be considered that Michael Jackson is one of the best composers ever, maybe the best (we can not assert this formally, because in all strictness we must analyze all the thousands of composers known and unknown, living currently in different countries of the world, or that lived in the past.)

Denials like mentioning seemed "favoritism" do not constistute concrete arguments. Here only that quality of argumentation is needed since the research is not a random impressionistic/emanational essay but academic dissection of concrete extents of artists self expression, voice centered in this case.