I'm talking about the art, not his life. Also a little constructive criticism is good for everyone. Example, saying "The seems a little weak, maybe it would be better if it this way it would be a little more effective" is MUCH better than going "That sucks! Go die in a closet."
Yeah, but if you feel strongly about something you should be able to express yourself as well. A good artist should be able to take criticism and utilize it well. Also, no one should feel that they should be quiet and just let whomever do whatever, especially when you , genuinely, feel that something is wrong or could be improved upon.
Well no one should be forcing anything on anyone, but he said, himself, that he didn't mind the suggestions. It was still up to him whether or not to utilize it.
now your post is the true meaning of paralysis by analysis.
sorry we have to agree to disagree. there just comes a time when there are certain artists that you shouldn't volunteer your info upon. Michael was that artist. no matter how strongly you feel about 'constructive criticism', this wasn't the place for it. people put their spin on 'constructive criticism' all the time. it's a sliding scale. and giving advice on how an artist should handle it, is unnecessary here, in the case of Michael. plain and simple. he was the genius. the fact that he might have asked for something is not the issue here. a lot of people took advantage of his mild manner. and i wasn't talking about his life. i was talking about the music. if you're not walking in his moccasins, it's not your place to say how he should handle 'constructive criticism.' the words 'constructive criticism' are as misused as the word 'love'.
in the case of Michael, i'm not pulling punches. this was the place to honor the musician, and put aside your strong need, based on how you might strongly feel about what you think is weaker than it should be, musically. there were plenty of 'professional critics' in Michael's time, who thought they were the authority on what is 'slighgtly weak' and could use 'improvement'. Michael had intuitive sonic ability. that is a very very rare gift. it's rarer than gold. to recognize such a thing is the honorable thing to do. it's the humble thing to do. it's the right thing to do. Michael was very gracious. and it's worth repeating. people took advantage of that. musically.
i think it's worth making the comparison here. if you have a drill seargent in the army, you don't question him. even if you feel strongly about something.
the gift is the gift in this instance. his intuitiveness shouldn't be questioned.
he is the most successful artist of all time. because he made the final decisions. some things you just don't question. and i have nothing to gain from this. i'd like to have his talent, but i don't. i'm just willing to recognize what is. i could be envious. cus it's not my talent. and feel the need to tell him what's what. but, instead, i think it's thing to do. to recognize.
and even then, with any songwriter...over analysis of a song..over fixing it...in reality, those have been the nature of the destruction of songs.
songwriting and producing are elusive arts. but most artists will tell you, if they are successful..overdoing 'improvements' in songwriting and producing, can kill a song.
so many times, Michael said that.
the reality is, if a person feels strongly to improve upon an artist who was the best selling...in reality, that is arrogance.
Robin Gibb said that Michael feared the idea of doing his latest tour, because of the overbearing criticism he knew he would receive. and i am talking musically. that was the trouble with this whole thing. and the crux of the tragic ending of the Michael Jackson saga. what was said about his life in general was just the additional horror.
what i think you're not recognizing is, that the more successful his craft was, the more people felt the need to criticize it. that's truly the pinnacle of never being satisfied. it was clear it would be a place of no escape for him. and people make the mistake of thinking that they can somehow control their 'little bit' of 'constructive criticism', when in reality, they wanted a blank cheque that they could sign, criticism wise. it's NEVER a little constructive criticism. there's no such thing. when people say that, the 'improvements' they feel the need to make, never end.
this really sheds light into this most unfortunate thing about the whole Michael Jackson saga. people see only in their universe, and think they're only adding a little constructive critique, and that's all MJ had to have. they don't see that in reality, they were piling onto mountains, and miles of criticism. and again, i'm just talking about the music.
in a better and perfect world, this stuff wouldn't happen. so, while i see now, the problem won't be solved..
we just have to agree to disagree.
you would think i would give this kind of vote of confidence to something about myself, in life. why would i want to step back and give it to somebody else?
but here is the right thing to do. recognize when somebody else is all that. if anything, it's good for your own self growth to give due props to another, other than yourself. in the end, as 'karma' would go...it could only benefit you in the future.
but in the end, i just have to recognize. and step back. there is that saying that goes, success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.
in other words, if it's a volkswagen, i'll ignore it. but the better the car is, the more i feel i should put my stamp of improving it upon it.
if it's a mercedes benz, somehow i think i can improve upon it.
that's a bad attitude to have.
i just feel like this whole thing is about the Invincible album, which people spoke much criticism about. but Michael said, it's about the end of the story, not how it begins.
people are used to the idea of how Thriller got all the fanfare, and that that is the machinations of how an album should sell. they don't see that Invincible was selling quietly, througout the criticism storm. and then was voted best album of the past decade by a magazine that hated Michael. the vote came yeaars later. after his death.
so it was a matter of patience, evidently. leave things as they are. step back.
Michael knew.
after all, he was the genius.
