Latest on MJJC

December 26 - 28, 2008: From LeslieMJHU site Shaffel's case dismissed and other news

elusive moonwalker said:
theres a post on youtube of what someone is claiming is a instrumental from new music. just saw it when flicking through.whether it is who knows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6io062DfAQ&feature=rec-HM-r2
Click to expand...

I know it is NOT becuase the same guy uploaded another crap song
with vocals claiming it is MJ and definantley isnt - I HATE when
they do that :( here is the other song he uploaded stating it is MJ
NOT MICHAEL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yulA_LY6-9I

They do this all the time on Youtube use fake songs & Michaels name
to get views and comments - pisses me OFF

This guys name is Matthias Salak
 
Last edited:
I know it's so annoying yeh
They use michael's name just to look good....one of my biggest pet hates! *makes angry face*
 
Nobody is hating on Chris Brown, they're just saying he ain't that good as an artist. Nobody called him ugly or nothin'.
 
every artist people here complain about mj makes money off of so it's really no big deal. but it's sad to see people saying he's not even an artist just b/c his last name isn't jackson.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
That's not why I don't call him an artist. I don't call him an artist because his talent is lacking, lol.
Click to expand...

wow I disagree with your opinion although
you are welcome to have it .

I believe Chris has talent - he is still very young
He can sing well and also dance well
he is very talented - but he is not MJ

I enjoy many of his songs
and I like to watch him dance
he is also very cute :)

I want to know weather I should take you serious or not :cheeky:
may I ask who do YOU like as a talented singer and dancer
besides MJ ? or are you saying there is no talent
 
lacking compared to whom? jesse mccartney. timberlake? usher? omarion? cuz those are his PEERS in his age group and he outshines them all.

now against astaire and kelly and jackson and brown and wilson, yea he's not there YET. give him time. they said the same a bout mj too, but we just weren't around to remember
 
Did I say he didn't have talent? I said he was lacking in talent, meaning he's not very talented. He can dance, but nothing exceptional, and his voice is below average. If you want to compare him to today's pop stars, you could find any number of kids off the street who are better at everything Chris does. He's not special.

But beyond that, since you asked and since everyone seems to think because I don't find the Chris Brown's, Usher's and Justin Timberlakes of the world particularly talented that I don't find anyone but Michael talented, I find James Brown to be very talented, I find Prince to be very talented, as for people who can dance and who make Chris look like a joke, besides Michael, Fred Astaire, Bob Fosse, Eleanor Powell, Sammy Davis Jr., Ann Miller, etc... I just have a very high standard and people like Chris don't impress me... at all. That doesn't mean I hate him. It just means I don't regard him highly when it comes to the field's of singing and dancing.

Chris ain't ever gonna be on that level Katie. He doesn't have the right build and has bad line and his voice isn't gonna get much better.
 
Last edited:
mike's voice was better when he was younger....there i said it.....

his dancing was a mix of his idols. sorry but i reckon chris is too young to know of kelly or astaire or to even care about them. he has mj and brown....and well, mj is a mix of brown so he has mj times two.

and im not talkingabout the timberlakes and ushers of the world and thekids on teh street. cuz the jackson 5 wasn't thebest group on jackson street. they just wanted it MORE.

in the industry that's popular right now, breezy is the best. jester is not a good singer. he cannot dance. it's too choreographed u can see him counting. usher is pathetic....

chris, he can freestyle and make it look good. what other artist can do that these days? janet tried it in concert and it was a mess.....the kid has talent, he has an amazing voice, and he'll only get better provided he keeps his nose clean.

brown and wilson fans said the same thing about mj....his 'ows' from stevie wonder, his spins from wilson, his scatter feet from brown but he made it his. and that's what chris has to do cuz all mike did as a child was mimick.

as an ADULT he made it his. give him time. u ain't gotta buy his albumsbut i would appreciate some respect since he is an artist and seems like a decent cat which is more than i can say for timberlake and usher
 
Usher can sing Chris under the ground and so can Justin Katie. Saying Justin can't sing is false. He can't dance for shit. I'll give you that. Usher is more talented then both of them and Usher's shown more respect to Michael then Chris ever has.

Michael's voice is in it's peak. You think he's lost his range but he hasn't. He's styling his voice.

Chris has a shitty voice with no range and it sounds like a whine fest when he opens his mouth. It's not steps that make you a good dancer either Katie. It's how well you execute the steps. I'll tell you exactly why Chris isn't a very good or even a good dancer, but just okay at best. He has no grace and his lines are sloppy. So he can free style? Big deal. You know what free styling is? It's randomly doing steps which you already know how to do. There's no such thing as making steps up on the spot. Not unless you want it to look like total trash.

Chris isn't to be taken seriously Katie. It's not disrespect to air an opinion on his artistic merit. Disrespect would be to call him ugly or dumb or some personal insult. But commenting on his artistry is just that and nothing more. If you don't like it of course you don't have to read it, but there's no rule that says we can't do that.

Chris is the best compared to Jesse McCartney and the like? And that proves what? Not a thing considering how weak the industry's main acts are today. Chris doesn't stack up to anything of substance and that's my only point.

You can compare him to Michael all you want and say how Michael was a rip off artist when he was ten and all of that. But the truth is, Michael had already developed his own style by the time he was in his mid teens and Chris is already near 20 and he's just ripping Michael more and more heaveily then he did when he first came out. That doesn't even bother me. I just don't think he's very talented.

And another thing that should be remembered is that everyone gets steps from somewhere. James Brown got half his steps from Cab Calloway and he didn't invent the mashed patatoes, now referred to as the James Brown shuffle. The steps you perform and where you get them from doesn't matter at all. Michael didn't invent hardly any of the steps he does. But he performs them better then anyone has ever before and in a unique and original order and style. That's what's special about him. What's more is that his style is more heavily influenced by jazz dancing and people like Bob Fosse and Astaire then James Brown and that's a fact. The only steps he does that Brown also did are the mashed patatoes, once in a while, and another step which I don't know the name for, and a few others. But his overall style is jazz influenced mainly.

Chris is common in how he dances. He does basic street dances, crumping, some popping, some locking, but there's nothing distinctive about his style and there's nothing distinctive about his talent. There's kids all over the place, the same age, who perform the steps as well and better then him, and in the same style.

Fred Astaire worked with Bill Robinson and learned how to tap from him and other places, but he exectued the steps better then Bill and that's why he's better. Like I said, steps don't matter, it's how you execute them that does, and Chris is just a sloppy ass mess with bad lines and no grace.

And the Jackson's made it out of Gary because they had Michael. Without him they weren't the best maybe, but with him they were. With him, they had a unique talent whereas every other group had nothing unique at all.
 
Last edited:
I'm just trying to figure this one out, Wannabe. Not disputing your statement, nor am I totally agreeing with it either:

"Michael's voice is in it's peak. You think he's lost his range but he hasn't. He's styling his voice."

Have I missed something, has Michael put out some music recently except for the Akon song that you are basing your statement upon? Anything is possible, be it for the best or worst, but to make such a definitive statement leaves me wondering what you're basing things upon, except perhaps historically.

He could be better, the same, or not quite at the same point he was a year, 2 years, or 10 years ago. What have I missed over the last couple of years that you've heard that I haven't? And I'm honestly asking this because I'm not really understanding how you're judging things at this point in time without new music to make that broad statement.:scratch:
 
Okay, based on general scientific fact, that the male voice reaches it's peak between the ages of 35 through 55, I'm saying Michael is in his vocal prime, and based of course off of what we heard from "Invincible", and the songs he recorded in 2004, ala "The Way You Love Me" and "We've Had Enough". Now of course, you may be correct that Michael's lost some of his voice since that time, which is possible given what he's been through, though there is similarly zero evidence to say he's lost any of his voice since that time and the probability that he has is less likely then the opposite, being that we know Michael takes care of his voice.

So while I can't say factually that NOW his voice is in it's peak, statistically and based on his most recent recordings, I'm saying more probably it is. He sounded great on "Hold My Hand", even though it wasn't much of a display.

But saying his voice isn't as good as it was when he was younger is errouneous if we're talking about Michael's vocal performances from the last 7 years or so, which I assume we are as the statement that his voice isn't as good as when he was younger was stated as fact. When people think range, they don't count the lower ranges either. It's a known fact that in the 90s, Michael's range expanded due to his ability to hit lower notes while still retaining his higher registers. The lower range is as important as the upper. Also, the quality of his voice is superb, rich, dynamic, and full, his control remains as strong as ever, and of course his unparalleled timing and emotive ability. His vibrato remains tight, from what we've heard as well.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Okay, based on general scientific fact, that the male voice reaches it's peak between the ages of 35 through 55, I'm saying Michael is in his vocal prime, and based of course off of what we heard from "Invincible", and the songs he recorded in 2004, ala "The Way You Love Me" and "We've Had Enough". Now of course, you may be correct that Michael's lost some of his voice since that time, which is possible given what he's been through, though there is similarly zero evidence to say he's lost any of his voice since that time and the probability that he has is less likely then the opposite, being that we know Michael takes care of his voice.

So while I can't say factually that NOW his voice is in it's peak, statistically and based on his most recent recordings, I'm saying more probably it is. He sounded great on "Hold My Hand", even though it wasn't much of a display.

But saying his voice isn't as good as it was when he was younger is errouneous if we're talking about Michael's vocal performances from the last 7 years or so, which I assume we are as the statement that his voice isn't as good as when he was younger was stated as fact. When people think range, they don't count the lower ranges either. It's a known fact that in the 90s, Michael's range expanded due to his ability to hit lower notes while still retaining his higher registers. The lower range is as important as the upper. Also, the quality of his voice is superb, rich, dynamic, and full, his control remains as strong as ever, and of course his unparalleled timing and emotive ability. His vibrato remains tight, from what we've heard as well.
Click to expand...

Okay, no argument either way, just thought maybe you've heard something that I haven't to make an opinion upon.
 
Naw, just basing it off of what I know and weighing probability, lol, and countering an argument that says based on what we've heard over the last few years that Michael's voice isn't what it once was.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
theres a post on youtube of what someone is claiming is a instrumental from new music. just saw it when flicking through.whether it is who knows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6io062DfAQ&feature=rec-HM-r2
Click to expand...


I kinda doubt is Mike.... even if it's sounding good... But the intro is vagulelly known to me, is like a clasical piece already existant, too bad I could not put my finger on it yet... Damn is sounding so known to me. LOL

the bit is trying to mimick Michales' and this is it. A simple mix of some lil piece with a beat.
 
Last edited:
who cares about science? mj sounded better when he was younger and that's my fact.

as for justin singing, he cannot do it well. his falsetto is not a good one, clay aiken can reach better notes than timber but aiken can't dance. so i stand behind my assertion.

if u wanna c if someone is a good singer, listen to a song in a capella....if it sucks, they can't sing. and i've yet to hear a timberlake song in acapella sound good unless it was w/ his old group.
 
He can sing Katie. He ain't world class, but he's got a better voice then Chris, and you know I can't stand Justin. His falsetto is mind numbing, that's true, but I can't even imagine what Chris' sound's like since his voice in natural range is ear bleeding.

Anyway, a good singer is more talented then an average singer/dancer any day.

You may prefer Michael's voice when he was younger, but technically he's in his prime and to a lot of other people they like his voice better now, saying it's richer, etc... Personally I think it's about equal, but whatever. Technically, he's at his best.

People like to dismiss technical ability as being important, but it helps to determine things and measure things. Not everything can be based on emotion or feeling. It should be a blend of fact and feeling.

A dancer with feeling but lacking in technical ability can only be okay, while a dancer who is technically perfect but with zero emotion can only be so good too. But a dancer who is both technically sound and emotive can be considered great. Same thing applies to singers, etc...
 
Last edited:
That's not why I don't call him an artist. I don't call him an artist because his talent is lacking
Click to expand...

Right, he is not an artist because an artist creates things. Chris Brown is a performer. That is what he is. He has written songs, he has danced very well compared to his comtemparies, like Usher, Justin, Jesse, etc. He is a talented young man and dare I say it, he has star power. The way he can get those young girls losing their minds reminds me of the old school performers from back in the day, including MJ. He is not a good singer, but he is not bad either. He is young and he needs to work on many things. If he wants to take his music seriously, he needs to write his own songs, create things and produce his own CDs. I think it is unfair for MJ fans to compare him to Mike because Mike is a rare artist/performer/entertainer. There is nothing wrong with Chris loving and idolizing Michael, but when he copies him everytime, it becomes annoying. It is also annoying when MJ fans always downplay someone's talents because it does not match up to Mike's. Typing long essays/college thesis about how Chris is not like MJ is so 2008. Let it go, please.
 
truth is MJ sings just as good as he ever did, but different in style.
i've heard his acapella.

perhaps money is the best teller. his greatest moments come now..and during thriller.

less than stellar talent in all phases can't last as long as MJ has lasted, amongst such a large concensus of people, to be the biggest selling artist of all time.

i mean..we have jazz masters who are pro musicians who are successful chart toppers, comparing MJ's current voice to other musical instruments. not only the instruments, but the instruments as played by the fathers of jazz.

chart topping Jazz trumpeter, Chris Botti, for example, compares Michael's current singing voice to the trumpet of Miles Davis.

so, MJ's current voice is the best in the business. as it was when he was little.
 
Last edited:
Bee said:
Right, he is not an artist because an artist creates things. Chris Brown is a performer. That is what he is. He has written songs, he has danced very well compared to his comtemparies, like Usher, Justin, Jesse, etc. He is a talented young man and dare I say it, he has star power. The way he can get those young girls losing their minds reminds me of the old school performers from back in the day, including MJ. He is not a good singer, but he is not bad either. He is young and he needs to work on many things. If he wants to take his music seriously, he needs to write his own songs, create things and produce his own CDs. I think it is unfair for MJ fans to compare him to Mike because Mike is a rare artist/performer/entertainer. There is nothing wrong with Chris loving and idolizing Michael, but when he copies him everytime, it becomes annoying. It is also annoying when MJ fans always downplay someone's talents because it does not match up to Mike's. Typing long essays/college thesis about how Chris is not like MJ is so 2008. Let it go, please.
Click to expand...

Performing artist. Putting on a good performance IS creating something. It's creating emotion.

I only wrote a long post because some people took issue with what I said and so I thought it only fair to back up WHY I feel the way I do about Chris. I don't want to comapre Chris to Michael. It's other people doing just that that I take issue with and I then say why the comparison SHOULDN'T be made. Get it?
 
soso deaf said:
now against astaire and kelly and jackson and brown and wilson, yea he's not there YET. give him time. they said the same a bout mj too, but we just weren't around to remember
Click to expand...
Sorry but that was never said about Michael (at least not with anyone with crediability in the music biz (and yes, I been around to remember). Michael was always known as a "stage stealer". To me, I think it is unfair to compare these artist to Michael. I think Chris, Usher, JT are good in their own way but they are no Michael Jackson nor should anyone expect these guys to be. It is unfair to compare on both side. It underminds Michael achievements and it is too high expections for the other guys.
 
sorry but yet it was....my dad grew up watching those question mj and then accept him once he showed himself to be an innovator....

as for justin, he does not have a good voice. he can sing if there's bass, other backing vocals, or a fast tempo song...other than that, he cannot do well. he requires a lot of fine tuning in the studio.

chris has a natural voice. i call it a church voice. watch this christmas to get an understanding of what im say ing.

chris can dance, he can freestyle, he's amazing w/ his moves. he's a dancer, usher and jt are performers....u can tell they 're massively choreographed....marty kudelka is a dancer, he's jt's choreographer....he's got what jt doesn't and that's style and flow. he can freestyle on the dance floor and you'd never know it was freestyle.

justin on the other hand is about as akward as my mother at the mall. unless he's told what to do, what to wear, how to act, and what to sing, he doesn't have a clue. he's too busy bringing sexy back. he's an image, a brand name. but i don't see longevity with him, i honestly don't.
 
soso deaf said:
sorry but yet it was....my dad grew up watching those question mj and then accept him once he showed himself to be an innovator....

as for justin, he does not have a good voice. he can sing if there's bass, other backing vocals, or a fast tempo song...other than that, he cannot do well. he requires a lot of fine tuning in the studio.

chris has a natural voice. i call it a church voice. watch this christmas to get an understanding of what im say ing.

chris can dance, he can freestyle, he's amazing w/ his moves. he's a dancer, usher and jt are performers....u can tell they 're massively choreographed....marty kudelka is a dancer, he's jt's choreographer....he's got what jt doesn't and that's style and flow. he can freestyle on the dance floor and you'd never know it was freestyle.

justin on the other hand is about as akward as my mother at the mall. unless he's told what to do, what to wear, how to act, and what to sing, he doesn't have a clue. he's too busy bringing sexy back. he's an image, a brand name. but i don't see longevity with him, i honestly don't.
Click to expand...
Like I said, "no one with music crediablity" has ever said that about Michael. I grew up with Michael as well during his time and has been a fan since 1975. I have NEVER heard musically people say this when it comes to MIcheal's talent; on the other hand, I have heard very seasonally people say this about these other guys. even Madonna does not get too much credit musically but she get credit for being a woman who knows how to market herself. Everyone knew Michael was going to be great (this is why some even said even back then Michael Jackson and the Jackson 5 or Jacksons). Michael always stood out. If anyone said it, it was no one with much substance for their opinion to matter and for most people to take serious.
 
terrell said:
Like I said, "no one with music crediablity" has ever said that about Michael. I grew up with Michael as well during his time and has been a fan since 1975. I have NEVER heard musically people say this when it comes to MIcheal's talent; on the other hand, I have heard very seasonally people say this about these other guys. even Madonna does not get too much credit musically but she get credit for being a woman who knows how to market herself. Everyone knew Michael was going to be great (this is why some even said even back then Michael Jackson and the Jackson 5 or Jacksons). Michael always stood out. If anyone said it, it was no one with much substance for their opinion to matter and for most people to take serious.
Click to expand...

Hmm...Imma agree with you. I have never heard of anyone, with or without musical credibility question Michael's talent or abilities...especially when he was starting out as a kid...unless you count the ppl who thought he was a "little person" masquerading as a child becuz he was SO talented for his age?

However, there may have been some questioning when he got older becuz of the whole "child star" trap. Maybe some ppl DID question whether he could last beyond that; those years just before leaving Motown and before Destiny hit? From my point of view, I think it was clear by the time OTW came around, Michael had made the transition and would be around in his adult years...but of course, I'm extremely biased. :lol: Then again, the proof of what came after OTW spoke for itself.

I DO think some ppl "may" question his abilities now becuz, again, he's going thru a "transitional" phase imo...from adulthood to mature adulthood...and then there were some years of lip-synching on tour (valid reasons for it aside) and erm....other whatnot...altho I think he proved on Invincible that he can still "sing" with songs like Butterflies and Speechless and YRMW, etc... That album really brought his voice back on the majority of its songs, IMHO. Not a lot of chanting and...gruff/gritty stuff...altho I know some fans enjoy that style. Anyway, I think even haters will admit that back in the day, if there was any questioning of MJ's abilities, it was very very little. It's the one thing they WILL give him credit for...if nothing else. pfft.

Thanks to all for posting news and mentionings. :flowers:
 
wendy2004 said:
Hmm...Imma agree with you. I have never heard of anyone, with or without musical credibility question Michael's talent or abilities...especially when he was starting out as a kid...unless you count the ppl who thought he was a "little person" masquerading as a child becuz he was SO talented for his age?

However, there may have been some questioning when he got older becuz of the whole "child star" trap. Maybe some ppl DID question whether he could last beyond that; those years just before leaving Motown and before Destiny hit? From my point of view, I think it was clear by the time OTW came around, Michael had made the transition and would be around in his adult years...but of course, I'm extremely biased. :lol: Then again, the proof of what came after OTW spoke for itself.

I DO think some ppl "may" question his abilities now becuz, again, he's going thru a "transitional" phase imo...from adulthood to mature adulthood...and then there were some years of lip-synching on tour (valid reasons for it aside) and erm....other whatnot...altho I think he proved on Invincible that he can still "sing" with songs like Butterflies and Speechless and YRMW, etc... That album really brought his voice back on the majority of its songs, IMHO. Not a lot of chanting and...gruff/gritty stuff...altho I know some fans enjoy that style. Anyway, I think even haters will admit that back in the day, if there was any questioning of MJ's abilities, it was very very little. It's the one thing they WILL give him credit for...if nothing else. pfft.

Thanks to all for posting news and mentionings. :flowers:
Click to expand...
Exactly. I also think due to Michael's achevements that he set the bar too high and the expections into orbit for these other acts nowadays. but again, Michael always was given props. Michael was called a miget (a man who are being portrayed to be a boy who could sing like that). In Michael's day, that was rear to see a child with a voice like that. Of course he grew up, made great music and then became a megastar. Again, his talent has never been questioned by people of "crediable" music skill (sorry but I am not talking about haters who want to bash him. Some peoole degrade you just for the fact of being "too big'. I knew someone who said Whitney Houston could not sing; however that person was just a hater of Whitney and serve no "crediable" music skill to judge Whitney. Who cares about people like that). Even look at the title "King of Pop". these idoits can say "self proclaim" all they want; however, you have never heard any of them say that Michael does not deserve it. that is what I am talking about. When Bobby Brown was called King of R & B by Whitney, everyone shook their head as to say "what the @#$%".
 
terrell said:
Like I said, "no one with music crediablity" has ever said that about Michael. I grew up with Michael as well during his time and has been a fan since 1975. I have NEVER heard musically people say this when it comes to MIcheal's talent; on the other hand, I have heard very seasonally people say this about these other guys. even Madonna does not get too much credit musically but she get credit for being a woman who knows how to market herself. Everyone knew Michael was going to be great (this is why some even said even back then Michael Jackson and the Jackson 5 or Jacksons). Michael always stood out. If anyone said it, it was no one with much substance for their opinion to matter and for most people to take serious.
Click to expand...

I agree.. even hating Rollingstones.. gave him credt for his vocals...and Jill Scott.. who is a great singer in her own right..even emphasized the greatness of Michael's voice...
 
It doesn't matter to me that people said the same trash about Michael. Bitter James Brown fans maybe, but people who are objective knew the truth about Michael. My dad, who grew up with James Brown and hated, absolutely hated the Jackson Five, knew Michael was a better singer and dancer then James Brown. And my dad is a James Brown fan. But he always knew. I'm not dissing Chris or saying he sucks because I'm intimidated by him. I'm critisizing him artistically because I'm looking at his talent from an objective persepctive and I'm finding massive fault with what he can do compared to the greats in any of the respective fields he performs in.

Chris really has a lame voice, lol. Like he isn't heavily helped by studio magic? Come on now. His range is highly limited, he has incredible trouble staying on key, and the quality of his voice is just whiney. JT can outsing him. JT sucks, but his voice isn't as bad as Chris'. I already said JT can't dance and I've said that since forever. Chris can dance but it's nothing special. He's got awkward, long limbs which don't help his lines at all, and he's clumsey and inaccurate. He has no grace. Without grace and without clean lines, you might as well be nothing. Again, free styling is doing steps which you already know or have worked out but simply thinking to do them at random. If you watched anyone, and I mean anyone try to make a step up on the spot, it wouldn't look good at all. That's bs and a misconception about free styling. Everything, technically, needs to be worked out beforehand unless you're simply going to be moving in time to the music, moving rhythmically. But any steps of any sophistication or complexity are steps which the dancer already knows how to exectue. It doesn't matter how many steps you know, or how many steps you can do. All that matters is how well you pull them off.

You've got to have fluidity, you've got to be clean, you've got to have speed, you've got to have grace, and you've got to have timing. All rhythm is is timing and everybody count's. Whether by numbers or by the sound of the beat, it's all counting. Some dancers have great rhythm (timing) some don't. Michael has incredible timing.

But asthetics is the most important in dance. What you look like. If you have clean lines, good extention, if you're accurate and fast and fluid and rhythmic. Chris is neither accurate or graceful and he has bad lines. There's kids who can dance just like him at the local high school. That's what Chris is. A high school act.
 
Last edited:
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
It doesn't matter to me that people said the same trash about Michael. Bitter James Brown fans maybe, but people who are objective knew the truth about Michael. My dad, who grew up with James Brown and hated, absolutely hated the Jackson Five, knew Michael was a better singer and dancer then James Brown. And my dad is a James Brown fan. But he always knew. I'm not dissing Chris or saying he sucks because I'm intimidated by him. I'm critisizing him artistically because I'm looking at his talent from an objective persepctive and I'm finding massive fault with what he can do compared to the greats in any of the respective fields he performs in.

Chris really has a lame voice, lol. Like he isn't heavily helped by studio magic? Come on now. His range is highly limited, he has incredible trouble staying on key, and the quality of his voice is just whiney. JT can outsing him. JT sucks, but his voice isn't as bad as Chris'. I already said JT can't dance and I've said that since forever. Chris can dance but it's nothing special. He's got awkward, long limbs and he's clumsey. He has no grace. Without grace and without clean lines, you might as well be nothing. Again, free styling is doing steps which you already know or have worked out but simply thinking to do them at random. If you watched anyone, and I mean anyone try to make a step up on the spot, it wouldn't look good at all. That's bs and a misconception about free styling. Everything, technically, needs to be worked out beforehand. It doesn't matter how many steps you know, or how many steps you can do. All that matters is how well you pull them off.

You've got to have fluidity, you've got to be clean, you've got to have speed, you've got to have grace, and you've got to have timing. All rhythm is is timing and everybody count's. Whether by numbers or by the sound of the beat, it's all counting. Some dancers have great rhythm (timing) some don't. Michael has incredible timing.

But asthetics is the most important in dance. What you look like. If you have clean lines, good extention, if you're accurate and fast and fluid and rhythmic. Chris is neither accurate or graceful and he has bad lines. There's kids who can dance just like him at the local high school. That's what Chris is. A high school act.
Click to expand...

Well said and agree with other posts you've stated as well.

I dunno why fans revert back to wack comparisions like this that need no attention. I find it ridiculous to compare artists like Michael to the medicore mainstream of today. Its not interesting at all to discuss because their isn't no comparision. But you pretty much summed up my view on the matter.


I don't understand why people ALWAYS say your "hating" or "you just want to be negative" when you criticise another artist ARTISTICALLY. If the singer is wack or can't dance or is overrated Ima say the truth no matter or negative it may sound. Its JUST critiscism. Which I as a consumer and apart of the masses have every right to express. Folks just need to accept other people's views and not bash them because they don't agree with them.

But the issue of these artists compared to Michael are long old and tired....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top