Latest on MJJC

Curiosity: Michael a poor musician

MJJOS

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
187
Points
0
Location
Cork, Ireland
Hi there,

I am sure this may have been discussed before but I would have very little recollection of it, and recent events brings this to mind.

With the release of Michael, I have been reading many reviews of the work completed on it. I certainly believe it has faults, and I have never been one to just award a good sounding track 10/10. I try to get a whole picture of what people think, to get a full pictures of the positves and negatives.

Reading through most professional reviews, most critics are just scathing of Michael's music since BAD, the music with no Quincy involvement.

Some people think the new album is better than the "awful" Invincible, which I love.

I generally feel that most critics just jump on the bash MJ bandwaggon as a force of habit, without giving much serious thought th his music, so normally, I go to the normal people, you and me, who review, on the likes on Amazon, who seen to be somewhat better and not so serious.

I straight away, set a reviews filter to one star reviews and read through them. I am of a firm belief, that nothing deserves a one star review, unless it is the worst thing to hit the history of humanity, even bad things may have some good points.

Alot of one star reviewers are silly and also just spread hate on MJ. My question relates to the reviewers that seen to talk about the musical content.

I am not a musician, I know nothing about music except for my own ability to like and enjoy music, so it always interesting to see some reviewers pick apart songs piece by piece, and point out some content of songs, that they think are just awful, and make for awful music. I have seen critism of the "harmonic melody" of his music for example, and alot of stick about his vocal capability.

Since I know very little about all this, does anyone with this knowledge, understand these critisms? I was wondering are they fair, true, or just opinions? So what I am asking is, does anybody here know alot about why Michael's music is received so poorly by some, and could they elaborate on why?

Thanks very much.
 
"I have seen critism of the "harmonic melody" of his music for example, and alot of stick about his vocal capability."


His 'critics', or amateur analysts or whatever, should just know some of Michael's songs and their disrupted flow, so to speak, accurately reflect the particular song's nature or subject and the emotions they produce. "Heartbreaker" gets to the madness and power of circumcision, that of a broken heart, or of his. "Threatened" - the same, the stops in the music or stutters are a reflection of panic. "Morphine" depicts quite a demonic state of being evil because of being under the influence of something dark, a drug, the song may sounds even scary. His screams and grunts in songs, again, reflect sincerity from the heart, being seriously upset, hurt, destroyed, and yelling against the injustices. His less vocalized words in certain songs, with clenched teeth, evoke the same passion and fight. He delves into the deep of his being for this, and it takes strength and courage to release what's in there the way he does. But not impossible, it's just very logical and human and realistic, but quite a few critics aren't, I shouldn't say human, but logical and realistic, not much.

These are a few examples...
 
Last edited:
I have the feeling most of these critics don't even know what they are talking about. As if they'd deliberately plug their ears to anything Michael did after 1990.

Most notably those who think Michael's career ended in the 80s and he hasn't done anything significant since. Really? There are several all time classics on Dangerous and the following albums as well! Songs like Who is it or Earth song are compositions of a genius! (IMO Who is it his best song ever, yes, better than Billie Jean.)

Critics generally just don't seem (or want to) get Michael. They are doing this to him since Thriller. Even Thriller got bad previews.... I don't know how much is it bias, racism, politics, snobism or just genuine cluenessness. But look at how Michael is perceived within the music industry! He has admirers and fans from rock musicians to hip-hop artists even to classical musicians! When he died all jazz musicians were playing his music in New Orleans! So he seems to get a lot of admiration and praise from fellow musicians. That says it all about what a musician he was! Who cares about what bitter critics say? IMO most of the time they are paid to give a certain opinion anyway. And the media never liked Michael, and especially not since he dared to criticize them and call them out on their practices.
 
MJJOS said:
Hi there,

I am sure this may have been discussed before but I would have very little recollection of it, and recent events brings this to mind.

With the release of Michael, I have been reading many reviews of the work completed on it. I certainly believe it has faults, and I have never been one to just award a good sounding track 10/10. I try to get a whole picture of what people think, to get a full pictures of the positves and negatives.

Reading through most professional reviews, most critics are just scathing of Michael's music since BAD, the music with no Quincy involvement.

Some people think the new album is better than the "awful" Invincible, which I love.

I generally feel that most critics just jump on the bash MJ bandwaggon as a force of habit, without giving much serious thought th his music, so normally, I go to the normal people, you and me, who review, on the likes on Amazon, who seen to be somewhat better and not so serious.

I straight away, set a reviews filter to one star reviews and read through them. I am of a firm belief, that nothing deserves a one star review, unless it is the worst thing to hit the history of humanity, even bad things may have some good points.

Alot of one star reviewers are silly and also just spread hate on MJ. My question relates to the reviewers that seen to talk about the musical content.

I am not a musician, I know nothing about music except for my own ability to like and enjoy music, so it always interesting to see some reviewers pick apart songs piece by piece, and point out some content of songs, that they think are just awful, and make for awful music. I have seen critism of the "harmonic melody" of his music for example, and alot of stick about his vocal capability.

Since I know very little about all this, does anyone with this knowledge, understand these critisms? I was wondering are they fair, true, or just opinions? So what I am asking is, does anybody here know alot about why Michael's music is received so poorly by some, and could they elaborate on why?

Thanks very much.
Click to expand...

that's what makes those critics illegitimate.
 
Critics and their opinions have been a great source of amusement for me since the day I read the story of an artist successfully suing a magazine because its critic had savaged his album AND HAD NOT EVEN HEARD IT. LOL!

The critic based his 'opinion' on the work the artist had previously released.
 
I know a good bit about musical theory. I know what most musical terms mean. I've been playing piano for about 7 years. I can't find any objective criticism of Michael's music since music isn't really an objective thing in my view. It's all a matter of opinion. If someone really likes something, how can it be universally bad? If someone really hates something, how can it be universally good? Music is there to be enjoyed, and you either enjoy it or you don't.

Here's some technical points about his songs. He uses some very complex chords in some songs that I find difficult to learn as a piano player. His time signatures are generally simplistic but fitting for the kind of music he does. Childhood is actually a good example of one of his more complex songs. Because there are no drums, the timing is very tricky and there are some nice discords such as the 'no one understands me' part. Also, his ability to write music with his one mind and voice alone makes him very naturally talented as he doesn't need an instrument to be inspired.

As for criticisms about his vocal ability, I've never heard such criticisms, but they are particularly unfounded as demonstrated by his amazing vocal warm-up recordings. Michael was a serious and experienced singer who knew the best techniques and how to use them. If someone doesn't like his voice, that's different. That's a matter of the person's taste rather than Michael's ability.
 
I know a good bit about musical theory. I know what most musical terms mean. I've been playing piano for about 7 years. I can't find any objective criticism of Michael's music since music isn't really an objective thing in my view. It's all a matter of opinion. If someone really likes something, how can it be universally bad? If someone really hates something, how can it be universally good? Music is there to be enjoyed, and you either enjoy it or you don't.

Here's some technical points about his songs. He uses some very complex chords in some songs that I find difficult to learn as a piano player. His time signatures are generally simplistic but fitting for the kind of music he does. Childhood is actually a good example of one of his more complex songs. Because there are no drums, the timing is very tricky and there are some nice discords such as the 'no one understands me' part. Also, his ability to write music with his one mind and voice alone makes him very naturally talented as he doesn't need an instrument to be inspired.

As for criticisms about his vocal ability, I've never heard such criticisms, but they are particularly unfounded as demonstrated by his amazing vocal warm-up recordings. Michael was a serious and experienced singer who knew the best techniques and how to use them. If someone doesn't like his voice, that's different. That's a matter of the person's taste rather than Michael's ability.
 
I hope I am able to post intelligently on this thread!
Just looking at the post thread title..............
Michael a poor musician? and again ??????????
Just how exactly is the King of Pop a poor musician? :doh:

This aside, I think I know what you are implying.
Michael ''heard'' songs in his head. He heard how he wanted it to sound and made a way to find it until he finished it! :yes:
He was a channel to have music flowing from him.
Just because he didnt create music by sitting at a piano doesnt make him any less of a musician! :wub:

For a 'poor' musician he sure did well! :D
lmao at this post!:clapping:
 
Last edited:
What annoyes me most is how some people (mainly snobby people who have played an instrument for several years) will say that MJ is not a real composer because he doesn't sit down by a piano or strum away on a guitar to compose his songs.

Composing music and playing an instruments don't always go hand in hand. Someone could be the world's greatests multi instrumentalist and still be a crap songwriter.

Michael had a fantastic ear for music and he knew exatly what he wanted and he used his voice to accompish this

and yes the voice IS an instrument
 
Dark Artist;3146323 said:
I can't find any objective criticism of Michael's music since music isn't really an objective thing in my view. It's all a matter of opinion.

Here's some technical points about his songs. He uses some very complex chords in some songs that I find difficult to learn as a piano player. His time signatures are generally simplistic but fitting for the kind of music he does. Childhood is actually a good example of one of his more complex songs. Because there are no drums, the timing is very tricky and there are some nice discords such as the 'no one understands me' part. Also, his ability to write music with his one mind and voice alone makes him very naturally talented as he doesn't need an instrument to be inspired.
Click to expand...

What you said about Childhood it's true, thanks for your post :)

analogue;3147586 said:
What annoyes me most is how some people (mainly snobby people who have played an instrument for several years) will say that MJ is not a real composer because he doesn't sit down by a piano or strum away on a guitar to compose his songs.

Composing music and playing an instruments don't always go hand in hand. Someone could be the world's greatests multi instrumentalist and still be a crap songwriter.

Michael had a fantastic ear for music and he knew exatly what he wanted and he used his voice to accompish this

and yes the voice IS an instrument
Click to expand...

I know! His talent is something they just can't deny. If they're real musicians, they would know that Pavarotti only sang, but he was still a musician. John Lennon couldn’t read a single note, but he still is considered a musician.

“Don’t worry, be happy” by Bobby McFerrin it’s a song that doesn’t need instruments, how do they think they composed it?

The only talent that's probably messing with the “Musician” definition in MJ’s case is maybe, his dancing skills.

I find out that this is what most people or musicians think, their automatic thinking is: “if you can dance, you can’t be a musician” As ridiculous as it sounds, people really believe that, is in their subconscious. :doh:

But the truth is he was not only a good dancer but an amazing choreographer LOL. :lol:

So maybe the question is "could he do everything?" and I think he really could :yes:
 
I think you could compare it to math. Some people learn it one way, while others learn it in a completely different way. There's no right or wrong way to go about it as long as you get the same result. Just like there's no right or wrong way to go about being a musician. Michael used his voice as an instrument and look at what great songs he created.
 
If anyone of these critics succeeds in writing not just one, but several songs, that people can hum and sing around the world- then, and only then I will attempt to "listen" to such nonsense.

Maestro has a rare gift- what "bad" musicians writes music such as "Who is it".
He picked up lovely, beautiful melodies when they flew up to him, they can all go turn green in their envy.

Bad musician my you-know-what.

He was always underestimated- intellectually and musically. Always. I'm also quite convinced that Michael knew enough to master certain instruments he wanted/needed to master. He never felt the need to try and convince some sort of critic for argument's sake. Good on him. Maybe they should check the CD booklets, there's more than enough "evidence" throughout the years.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, they're irritated 'cause they can't comprehend him. What's out of their limited sphere of understanding, what's out of their own world (not the real world Michael that Real sang about in his songs) is deemed lunacy. He had this big thirst for knowledge, too, and awareness, which may have added to these people's bafflement. He never had enough time to perfect all he wanted to, and that's the case with all knowledge-thirsty people who find their safety and ecstasy in knowing, as well as their shelter from the storm, who feel guilty when sleeping for a few hours, instead of keeping awake and more alive. Aware of a lot. He wanted to keep his restless mind/heart busy, it was an imperative for his survival, also, when menacing thoughts and emotions arised - being alone with your thoughts and feelings is slow murder. These critics should know this when hurrying to label him an addict of drugs.

Funny how virtually no critic these days analyses today's 'music' and many so-called musicians, just because they produce a few tracks (not gonna comment on their quality) and can play one or more instruments. It's the same with people who Can sing: their voice and all the technique and pathos don't matter if its real soul and skill to handle a heart are missing. It just has to sound right, and Michael did..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top