HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
The funny thing is that while these ignorant fools on the Internet accuse MJ of "ripping off" this or that, those same artists whom he supposedly "ripped off" had great respect for him. Fred Astaire was in awe of his dancing. Gene Kelly praised him. James Brown too. So obviously these artists understood the difference between a rip off and inspiration and did not mind to be inspired by Michael. They understood this is how art works from generations to generations and the same way as they were an inspiration to Michael they too had their own inspirations - they would be the first to admit that and only people who are ignorant about art would find fault in such an inspiration. You can tell the difference between rip off and inspiration. Someone who copies (or rips off) just repeats the same things, does not add anything new or exciting, does not elevate the old move to another level. Someone who is inspired takes an old element and makes it his own, puts it in new context etc. Just like that article by Gene Kelly's widow said:
Though Gene appreciated when people paid tribute to his work, he never relished literal renderings. He preferred, instead, to see artists take his steps and ideas and turn them into something new. Referring to the role of the artist, he said, "If he just follows the leader and accepts what's been done before, naturally, that can be brought to a very high skill. But if he wants to change it in some way and do it differently, then it jumps up to the major league."
To Gene, Michael Jackson was one who made this leap. His movements were derivative, yet he transformed the many borrowings into a new and exciting art form.