Michael and classical music

I am also quite sure that Michael would have educated himself more than we are aware off. Dude owned a HUGE library, took private lessons he wanted, visited art galleries that nobody knew about and so forth.

He spent something like 30 years with the same vocal coach- I'm quite sure that somebody who says he loves the Nutcracker SUITE, says that for a reason...

People always underestimate him in certain areas. Maybe he wasn't able to physically write down a symphony on sheet music- but not for a single second am I thinking that he wouldn't know how a symphony is structured, which would be more to the point.

Many made the mistake of underestimating Michael...:cheeky:
Somebody who knows how to write a killer bridge and 'knock it out of the ballpark' background chorus knows something.

Leonard Bernstein isn't just friends/admiring anybody. People forget that many, many "classic serious" musicians very much look up to him- those that don't let "music genre" stop them.
 
The bodyguards -those writing a book-wrote they heard a lot of new music when they worked for him.
People who worked with him in the studio said he did things noone else did and they learned a lot from him.

Did they release that book yet, or set a tentative date for its release?
 
thats what i heard too, that he was going to make a classical album, as well as an all dance one, and a spanish one!
 
Probably 'lazy' was kinda wrong word. I don't know what is the right word then. I just meant that if he would have worked harder to learn the music theory I'm sure he would have created even more and even more unique stuff because he was so melodic and hugely talented musically. Many classical composers lacks the melody because they base their stuff mostly on what they know about the theory. But if you combine everything you have and could have you can go even higher level. You can make almost everything then and just let musicians play it. It wasn't like that with Michael even thou he sung many stems. He very rarely arranged everything because you just have to write some notes too. I think learning chord structures (in addition to learning the sheet music of course) is the base to reach the next level. Even if you sung then stuff, by learning theorically what you have done gives you just more, and more ideas too, it's just a plain fact you can't deny.
 
I have a personal theory on why Michael and other creative people don't study music theory and things like that. It's because for some people, learning those things can change your creative flow, make you second guess an idea.

Some of the best singers never took a lesson........


just my :2cents:
 
Probably 'lazy' was kinda wrong word. I don't know what is the right word then. I just meant that if he would have worked harder to learn the music theory I'm sure he would have created even more and even more unique stuff because he was so melodic and hugely talented musically. Many classical composers lacks the melody because they base their stuff mostly on what they know about the theory. But if you combine everything you have and could have you can go even higher level. You can make almost everything then and just let musicians play it. It wasn't like that with Michael even thou he sung many stems. He very rarely arranged everything because you just have to write some notes too. I think learning chord structures (in addition to learning the sheet music of course) is the base to reach the next level. Even if you sung then stuff, by learning theorically what you have done gives you just more, and more ideas too, it's just a plain fact you can't deny.

There are a lot of musicians who can't read music, Paul McCartney being one of them. Also, considering that Michael had been working in the business for over 40 years, you would think he would learn something at some point, especially since those at Motown said that he was in the studio with them asking them a whole bunch of questions. He, at least, had to have some kind of basic knowledge of music theory in order to do what he did. Ultimately, no one knows how much music theory knowledge he may or may not have possessed. Nor, does anyone know what was going on during his work process so calling him 'lazy' is being highly presumptuous, that is unless you worked with him.

I find it funny how people who never had anything to do with him want to call him 'lazy' or question his abilities as a musician when you never hear that from any of the people he worked with. At all. I have never come across one story or account where someone called him 'lazy'. 'neglectful,' and/or etc. Nope, just music critics and fans who never met or worked with MJ. Knowing this how can some people complain about how the tabloids and media make awful statements and presumptions about something they don't have full knowledge of and then do the same thing?

Ultimately, MJ was working as a musician since way before a lot of people here were born. Not saying he was perfect, but I respect and trust the decisions he made in terms of his artistic career. He made his decisions based on what he thought was made Michael Jackson happy rather someone else.
 
More details on instrumental album Michael Jackson started before his death, and his love of classical music

July 10, 2009 --- TV and film composer and conductor David Michael Frank may have been one of the last persons to collaborate with Michael Jackson on an artistic project. The pop singer’s untimely death left that project in an uncertain state. Initial reports suggested that Jackson planned to do an album of “classical music” he had written; the pieces were to be orchestrated by Frank. Actually, Frank says, the pieces were closer to film music and would have gone into an all-instrumental album had Jackson lived. The Baltimore-born Frank, interviewed by phone in California, gives an account here of his experience with the King of Pop:

Four or five months ago, I received a call from Michael Jackson’s longtime personal recording engineer, Michael Prince, who told me Michael was looking for someone to arrange some music for orchestra. I thought it was going to be for the tour he was going to do. For the next month or two, he would call, saying, ‘Michael Jackson says he’s going to call you.’

At the end of April, another Michael, Michael Jackson’s personal assistant, called me and asked me to come the next day at 10 a.m. and asked me the make and model of my car. I drove to the Holmby Hills home. I drove up to the front door, and was met by an assistant who told me to go inside. I was met there by a woman dressed like a housekeeper, but with a white turban on her head. She said, ‘Michael Jackson will be with you shortly.’ About two minutes later, he came down the stairs. I was reluctant to shake his hand because I had heard that he was concerned about germs, but he immediately stuck his hand out and gave me a very firm handshake. He was very skinny, but not the least bit frail. He was wearing a suit and a hat. He was going to rehearsal later for the tour. He said, ‘You look familiar.’ I told him a long time ago I worked on a TV tribute to Sammy Davis, Jr. at Shrine Auditorium [that he had participated in]. I told him I had met him briefly there.’ He said, ‘I never forget a face.’

He told me, ‘I have three projects going on simultaneously.’ One was the tour that the whole world knew about. The other two I believe no one knew about. One was to be an album of pop songs. Then he said, ‘The other one is that I want to record an album of classical music’ — what he called classical music.

He said he listened to classical music all the time; it was his absolute favorite. I was impressed with the pieces he mentioned: Aaron Copland’s Rodeo, Fanfare for the Common Man and Lincoln Portrait; Leonard Bernstein’s West Side Story. I mentioned Bernstein's On the Waterfront. Then Michael mentioned that he loved Elmer Bernstein's film music, too, and he specifically mentioned To Kill a Mockingbird. I realized that almost all the classical pieces he mentioned are childlike, very simple and pretty, like Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf and Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker Suite. He also mentioned Debussy several times, specifically Arabesque [No. 1] and Clair de lune. He was very soft-spoken when were talking about music, but when he got animated about something, he was very changed. When he mentioned how he loved Elmer Bernstein, and I said I liked the Magnificent Seven score, Michael started singing the theme very loudly, almost screaming it. He said, ‘I’m making a CD.’ Then his son, Prince Michael, came in, and Michael asked him to find a CD player. Paris found one and brought it in with Prince. Michael played the CD. It was very pretty music. He said, ‘But a section is missing.’ He played a second piece. And he said, ‘But a section is missing, too. But I can hum it to you.’ I asked if there was a piano in the house, and he said there was one in the pool house. We headed out there, but Michael stopped when he saw the dog was outside, soaking wet from being in the pool. He didn't want us to get splattered. It was kind of funny. Michael got another assistant to hold the dog while we went to his pool house. I sat at the piano and Michael hummed the missing part of one of the pieces. I had taken a little digital recorder with me and asked if I could record him. He was in perfect pitch. I tried to figure out chords to go with it as he hummed. He said, ‘Your instincts are totally right about the chords.’

We talked about classical music some more. I played some Debussy pieces. Michael seemed very happy and I think he felt very comfortable with me. He mentioned Leonard Bernstein again, and I played some of West Side Story. He told me he had met Bernstein once and that Bernstein had said he was a big fan of Michael’s. Back in the house, whenever he’d go from room to room, you’d hear, ‘I love you, Daddy.’ ‘I love you, Paris.’ They all seemed pretty normal and happy.

Michael was very anxious to get the pieces orchestrated and record the music with a big orchestra. I suggested we record it at the Fox, Sony or Warner Brothers lot. I asked if he could have someone call me to discuss the budget and he said he would take care of it. When I left there were several fans outside the gate. [Later] I talked to Michael on the phone. He asked me how the project was going and I said I was waiting to hear from someone so we could set the deal. I suggested we could record the music in London while he was doing the show there. He liked the idea. He again brought up Arabesque. I laid the music all out on my computer and started on the orchestrations.

Finally, a week before Michael died, his manager, Frank Dileo, called and asked me for an email with the budget and an electronic mock-up of the music, the costs of orchestration. Now I have no idea what’s going to happen with this. I’m hoping the family will do something to get this done. I will not bring it up [with them] until after what I think is an appropriate time.

My guess is that each piece would be seven to ten minutes long. [Each one] is more substantial than a song. It’s very pretty music. One piece had an Irish quality about it. I suggested that we could use a Celtic harp. The pieces sound like pretty film score music, with very traditional harmony, and definitely very strong melodies. One of them was a little John Barry-ish, like in Out of Africa -- that kind of John Barry score. I could hear [in my head] sweeping strings and French horns in unison.
I told Michael I was going to use one of Leonard Bernstein’s batons I had bought at auction when we did the recording. I knew he would have gotten a big kick out of that. I guess I still will use that baton if I ever get to conduct the music.

Source: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/ent...c/2009/07/more_details_on_instrumental_a.html
 
I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry right now. And I'm not sure if "lazy" is the right word in any of this.

First of all especially many classical composers are the furthest from lazy, they are not thinking in terms of 5 chords for an entire song.

Secondly there is such a thing as 'creative agony' and I'll apply that term carefully here.
'Creative agony' SUCKS, my friend. It means standing in front of your own creation in your head and ears- and fighting like a drowning man in the ocean to find a way to translate that into "physical reality" that others somehow (hopefully!) can hear.

And that's when the freakin' agony sets in- because what you see and hear is not quite yet of this earth, they are impressions, visions, thoughts, emotion that you try to bring into a more dense physical world.

Michael luckily didn't have to fight the fights that same of us fight- armed with a computer (orchestra), some midi input and a mic you try to capture just a fraction of what's in your head.

And 'creative agony' can have so much of a 'this just fu**ing sucks' factor that your measurable output seems little to some. Because you become so obsessed with just one piece, that it takes you forever. You want it to be perfect, so you work on month after month after month.
And sometimes you're close to clicking the God damn "erase" button because it can be a hard birth.

I remember I wrote one song last June and I literally wrote it down in one big swoop, just like Michael said, it literally "came to me" in it's entirety.
It's written- but getting it anywhere near to a stage so that others can catch a glimpse of it- that is the really hard part. Not the writing.

Anybody that writes music often runs through the world with snippets, fragments and entire sections in their head, it doesn't mean you're lazy.
That is where the restlessness, the insomnia can also come from. You don't stop creating, many artists don't stop creating- and when they can't get it "out" of them because somebody literally has drained their energy, because external factors are causing them not to be able to focus on their creations- that is when it becomes very difficult.

Michael always said he never stopped creating, he described to Bashir that in his head the creation never stops, he told Ortega he's up channeling and is has nothing to do with being lazy. He most definitely took the obsession with detail to a new level- and when he was able to work without these idiots ruining his life, he obviously created like a mad man. Look at 'Ghosts'- imagine all that being stuck in your head...


I agree with everything. And as an artist myself, visual artist, I got to say there's one rule - the more creativity ( quality ), the less the quantity.

From here comes the impression of 'laziness'

As for the artists very prolific with tones of creations, many of those are resembling each other, even in cases as Mozart. Many pieces are very alike sounding.... I adore those pieces, but got to recognize something unites many of them. For example the Requiem and the rest of religious messes and pieces, some of those choirs and harmonies are all so alike.... Like repeating repeating all these through many pieces, finally culminating with the Requiem masterpiece.

In Mike case, Mike was not so prolific in the recorded and ended pieces, but those pieces are very different one from another. A Billie Jean, an Earth Song, Speechless, Monkey Business? Very different all of them... There's only one Billie Jean, one Who is it, one Earth Song.... those harmonies are not repeated in other Mike songs.

Now that's Mike "laziness"... Very alike with Leonardo Da Vinci as a painter... How many works he did?

( I am sorry if I am not too eloquent... I am so tired at this hour... I feel I cannot explain how I would wish.... too hard for me being not native English and tired at this hour... )
 
I am also quite sure that Michael would have educated himself more than we are aware off. Dude owned a HUGE library, took private lessons he wanted, visited art galleries that nobody knew about and so forth.

He spent something like 30 years with the same vocal coach- I'm quite sure that somebody who says he loves the Nutcracker SUITE, says that for a reason...

People always underestimate him in certain areas. Maybe he wasn't able to physically write down a symphony on sheet music- but not for a single second am I thinking that he wouldn't know how a symphony is structured, which would be more to the point.

Many made the mistake of underestimating Michael...:cheeky:
Somebody who knows how to write a killer bridge and 'knock it out of the ballpark' background chorus knows something.

Leonard Bernstein isn't just friends/admiring anybody. People forget that many, many "classic serious" musicians very much look up to him- those that don't let "music genre" stop them.


YES. I am sure he knew of this. Look at Earth Song, Speechless, Childhood... the answer is there!

And maybe even knew notes and didn't bother to do use them.
 
It had been a while since I read that article, but wow! I really really hope Sony gets to work on this album of classical music. Especially sinces this guy has all of Michael's recordings and was ready to orchestrate them!!!
 
I have a personal theory on why Michael and other creative people don't study music theory and things like that. It's because for some people, learning those things can change your creative flow, make you second guess an idea.

Some of the best singers never took a lesson........


just my :2cents:

Some of the best singers never composed anything. And I wouldn't call Michael a "singer"... To me he was a songwriter and a performer.
 
There are a lot of musicians who can't read music, Paul McCartney being one of them.

:lol: Yeah, and you can hear it. Why on earth you take PMC as an example in the first place?! :) Just because some Beatles songs are famous? Many songs solely by Paul McCartney would have been much better with better harmony. And John Lennon was the guy behind most of the Beatles songs even thou they credited together. He knew much more about the harmony and stuff. And, Beatles songs became famous mostly because of the time they were released and because of the time in the pop culture that was just beginning. Later many of them wouldn't have been big hits imo, at least in that form.
 
:lol: Yeah, and you can hear it. Why on earth you take PMC as an example in the first place?! Just because some Beatles songs are famous?

Probably, because he is one of the most famous examples? There are others as well.

Many songs solely by Paul McCartney would have been much better with better harmony. And John Lennon was the guy behind most of the Beatles songs even thou they credited together. He knew much more about the harmony and stuff. And, Beatles songs became famous mostly because of the time they were released and because of the time in the pop culture that was just beginning. Later many of them wouldn't have been big hits imo, at least in that form.

Whether I like his work or not is really beside the point. If anything I think that just as Quincy Jones's work with MJ is overrated, I would go so far as to say that George Martin's work with the Beatles is HIGHLY underrated.
 
Probably, because he is one of the most famous examples? There are others as well.



Whether I like his work or not is really beside the point. If anything I think that just as Quincy Jones's work with MJ is overrated, I would go so far as to say that George Martin's work with the Beatles is HIGHLY underrated.

Why do you think Quincy Jones' work with Michael is overrated? It was all about those jazzy chords Quincy came up with. Arrangements of those MJ eras are almost perfect and it was mostly about Quincy. Because he just knew about chords and stuff. (And there were also other "educated" musicians.) You really can't try everything harmony-wise if you don't know about it. Because you have to know about the chord structures and it helps when you know about how they progress.
 
Some of the best singers never composed anything. And I wouldn't call Michael a "singer"... To me he was a songwriter and a performer.

That he was both a singer, songwriter and performer doesn't it make him less lazy?

Regarding your previous post stating that many composers were lazy - I don't consider Amadeus Mozart lazy, or Chopin, Beethoven, Schubert - they were all very prolific...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top