Latest on MJJC

Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
I just saw this album guide by them: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/michael-jackson/albumguide

Two stars for Dangerous? Really? WTH? :doh:

And the writer then goes on about Heal the World and Gone too Soon as songs which are characteristic of the album. Not even mentioning any of the lot stronger tracks. I wonder if he even bothered to listened to the album. The rest of their reviews is just pretty predictable - the only MJ album worthy of 5 stars being Thriller, and Invincible "of course" being utter crap with one star. I'm not even surprised about that one any more (despite of its obvious unfairness, I'm kind of used to that by now) but that now they are trying tear down Dangerous as well, I'm really shocked.

Just compare this to Madonna's album guide: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/madonna/albumguide

Two five star albums (Like a Prayer, The Immaculate Collection), no one star album. Erotica which was the contemporary of Dangerous gets four stars. I know we have Madonna fans here so don't take it in a wrong way please but putting Erotica above Dangerous is just plain ridiculous IMO. Couldn't expose Rolling Stone's anti-MJ bias more. I mean when a magazine gives an album like Like a Prayer more stars than the still greatly influential Off the Wall, there is something fundamentally wrong with that. Or when Erotica gets twice as many stars as Dangerous...

I guess I shouldn't care, Rolling Stone always hated MJ since Off the Wall (now they praise that album but back them they did not want it credit either), but still it's shocking to see such unashamed bias.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

That's... lol. For me, Madonna is worse than Michael, he's more respected and loved. :angry:
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

You know, I don't want to bash Madonna, but when something like Hard Candy gets four stars and Dangerous two then that is clearly a WTF moment. And even though Invincible is my least favorite album of MJ it's definitely not a one star album. Not in an album guide that gives albums like Hard Candy four stars...
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

Don't know why this is shocking. This has been discussed on here before and has been concluded that Rolling Stone always had a bias against Michael. Post-Thriller, they never had anything positive to say. And I'm pretty sure they crapped on BAD despite the commercial success of that album.
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

WhoIsIt89 said:
Don't know why this is shocking. This has been discussed on here before and has been concluded that Rolling Stone always had a bias against Michael. Post-Thriller, they never had anything positive to say. And I'm pretty sure they crapped on BAD despite the commercial success of that album.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm just shocked how they can crap on Dangerous of all albums so much! I mean if they gave it 3 and a half or four stars I probably would not have said anything (even though in my book it's a five star album). But TWO? That's just such an obvious anti-MJ bias that it's not even funny any more. Then they give some really crappy albums four-star reviews... In fact, initially RS gave Dangerous four stars as well. I guess they decided to crap on it since then. Looking at the note at the end of the article some of it comes from RS's 2004 album guide. From a time when it was "in" to trash and bash Michael with everything they have. This was also the period they declared Justin Timberlake the New King of Pop... Truly ridiculous.

Post-Thriller, they never had anything positive to say.
Click to expand...

Actually even pre-Thriller... There was that letter they sent to MJ's management about how Off The Wall was not worthy of a cover story...

I guess they only praised Thriller because with everyone doing it they really could not do anything else. Now they praise OTW and I would have nothing aginst their 4,5 stars for that album if I couldn't see that then Madonna's Like a Prayer gets 5 stars...
 
Last edited:
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

Rolling Stone is a white rocker magazine. Michael was always going to pay for being the first black artist to be played on MTV. I remember when Michael's autopsy got released a writer for rollingstone said Michael was under weight and was in really bad health. Totally wrong and when you go to the extreme of lying about something that everyone and their Mother can see it is a lie then you are not even worth my time. And let us not forget this is the same magazine that said Michael had a fake nose. So
 
Last edited:
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

:ranting"Dangerous" 2 stars? Are you fricking kidding me!? They are so gonna get burned for that and saying so much lies about Michael. Screw Rolling Stones!:ranting
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

Rolling Stone is for white rock music snobs
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

They are probably racist. Although I don't know how they review other black artists, but yeah it's definitely clear they got something against MJ and can't set it aside to write a decent review.
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

What!? Dangerous is my favourite album, that's total bulls*** right there! And invincible only getting one star!? That's also a load of - as well!
From the Dangerous review:
For most of the album, brittle rhythm tracks back a singer who sounds almost unhinged with fury and suspicion, only calming himself to sing about death in "Gone Too Soon."
Click to expand...
...What? I'm really questioning if they've even bothered to listen to any of the album at all if they can use the word "most". I also like how they haven't even mentioned "Black or White", despite it being one of the key songs in the album. Where is the angry, brittle rhythm in that? What about "Remember The Time"? "Keep The Faith"? "Will You Be There"? I could go on... Sure, there were some songs where anger was an emotion, but certainly not a full blown "unhinged" screaming rage. In Dangerous, MJ approached many other topics he hadn't touched in the other albums and (imo) that makes Dangerous an advancement rather than going backwards.

...They didn't even give any proper reasons why Invincible got such low ratings. The only real explanation was:
But three decades after he had first charmed the world, his old suavity was gone, and all that was left was grim calculation.
Click to expand...
Again, what? MJ was always charming, still in Invincible. There was no "grim calculation". How can you say there's no charm in "You Rock My World", "Butterflies" or, even more so, "Speechless"? They didn't mention the other aspects in the album either, like the songs all only had one theme. Ridiculous.

Clearly bias, no real arguments to their stars, I disagree with most of the others as well. Off The Wall deserves 5 stars as well, imo, and so do the others. Bad and HIStory should get at least a 4 but they haven't even awarded it that. Horrible. Heck, in my personal opinion almost all of the albums there got lower than they should have.
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

Remember Randall Sullivan? He was a Rolling Stone writer for decades--this is exactly where they are at. A**holes.
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

It gives me the impression those assholes are just racists to Michael, I've read other articles where they praise Quincy Jones, also saying Michael made better records when he had QJ as producer. Which is totally false, Dangerous and HIStory are far better than the 3 previous ones, even Invinsible is better than Off The Wall for the simple fact Q didn't leave Michael to be in charge.
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

tumblr_mh9a4jdtm71rhk2w1o2_250.gif
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

Rolling Stone stopped being relevant decades ago. They're still living on their reputation from the 60's/70's. But yes, they do have a major bias against Michael. They're "tribute" issue was pathetic. For some reason the general publics image of Michael does not include "great artist/musician". Same thing with Elvis after he died. This can be changed (as it was eventually with Elvis), but it takes smarts, dedication, love and passion for the artist by those in charge of presenting their work to the public.
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

Dangerous album: 2 stars, This Is It album: 4 stars! I guess this is supposed to be a joke
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

All of Michael's albums deserve at least four stars, not being bias myself but anyone who appreciates good music can tell Michael's albums were always fine pieces of work, screw them. As some said here, they're stuck in the 60/70s white rock scene. They couldn't spot good music outside of that sphere even if it slapped 'em in the face
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

maviefly said:
Dangerous album: 2 stars, This Is It album: 4 stars! I guess this is supposed to be a joke
Click to expand...

Oh, that's because TII contains Thriller era songs, I guess... You know how these close-minded people always say that album (and maybe OTW) is the only good music he ever created.

On the other hand the Michael album got three stars from Rolling Stone. While Dangerous is two stars, HIStory and BOTDF are three stars, Invincible is one star... a joke indeed.
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

MjsLovelyOne88 said:
As some said here, they're stuck in the 60/70s white rock scene. They couldn't spot good music outside of that sphere even if it slapped 'em in the face
Click to expand...

I think that these white rock magazines should stick to critiquing and reviewing rock music. Maybe they are good at that, but I think they do not understand some other genres very well. But unfortunately they pretend they do.
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

DangerousSC said:
What!? Dangerous is my favourite album, that's total bulls*** right there! And invincible only getting one star!? That's also a load of - as well!
From the Dangerous review:

...What? I'm really questioning if they've even bothered to listen to any of the album at all if they can use the word "most". I also like how they haven't even mentioned "Black or White", despite it being one of the key songs in the album. Where is the angry, brittle rhythm in that? What about "Remember The Time"? "Keep The Faith"? "Will You Be There"? I could go on... Sure, there were some songs where anger was an emotion, but certainly not a full blown "unhinged" screaming rage. In Dangerous, MJ approached many other topics he hadn't touched in the other albums and (imo) that makes Dangerous an advancement rather than going backwards.
Click to expand...

I know. That's what I was thinking as well: did this person even listen to the album?

But three decades after he had first charmed the world, his old suavity was gone, and all that was left was grim calculation.
Click to expand...

But then they are giving four star reviews to some utterly calculated albums by Madonna and others...
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

respect77 said:
I think that these white rock magazines should stick to critiquing and reviewing rock music. Maybe they are good at that, but I think they do not understand some other genres very well. But unfortunately they pretend they do.
Click to expand...

For some reason rock music is always ranked higher than other styles of music (With maybe the exception of classical music), and it's not just rock magazines who do this. Lots of people in the general public see rock music as being artistic, deep and meaningful and look at other styles (especially pop) as shallow, dumb and manufactured.

I read an article listing the top 50 greatest songwriters of all time and surprise surprise the top 10 was nothing but rock acts
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

analogue said:
For some reason rock music is always ranked higher than other styles of music (With maybe the exception of classical music), and it's not just rock magazines who do this. Lots of people in the general public see rock music as being artistic, deep and meaningful and look at other styles (especially pop) as shallow, dumb and manufactured.

I read an article listing the top 50 greatest songwriters of all time and surprise surprise the top 10 was nothing but rock acts
Click to expand...

That's just cause people have a tendency to be sheep, the unwritten rule of society is that rock is the best, stemming from media ages ago, and so a lot of people just go with it regardless of weather or not it's their personal view out of fear of being judged over something as petty as that. As a musician, in my humble opinion musically at least rock has absolutely nothing on pop in any measurable perceived form of 'sophistication' or writing 'skill' and is about the same level in general. Do we have 4 chords on a synth, or do we have them on a guitar? (a very oversimplified example i know, but it illustrates the point). Under my definition of being an artist, Michael was every bit as much of one in many ways a lot more so infact than the majority of the artists behind your average rolling stone 5* album, someone who was extremely passionate about their work and would go the extra mile to ensure it met his standards, wasn't interested in rushing it out to buy the next year of partying. Lyrics are their own ball game and i know they are important in songs and mean a lot to many people, but to get lyrically snobby like a lot of rock fans do is ludicrous this thing is called MUSIC and that lies first and foremost with melody, rhythm and harmony.

These people know nothing really though over at Rolling Stone and similar publications, they don't understand the mechanics of music like they like to imply, they just dress it up in pretentious metaphor to push their pathetic agendas. Music snobbery really needs to go away, it's so childish.
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

MJultimatemusiclegen said:
That's just cause people have a tendency to be sheep, the unwritten rule of society is that rock is the best, stemming from media ages ago, and so a lot of people just go with it regardless of weather or not it's their personal view out of fear of being judged over something as petty as that. As a musician, in my humble opinion musically at least rock has absolutely nothing on pop in any measurable perceived form of 'sophistication' or writing 'skill' and is about the same level in general. Do we have 4 chords on a synth, or do we have them on a guitar? (a very oversimplified example i know, but it illustrates the point). Under my definition of being an artist, Michael was every bit as much of one in many ways a lot more so infact than the majority of the artists behind your average rolling stone 5* album, someone who was extremely passionate about their work and would go the extra mile to ensure it met his standards, wasn't interested in rushing it out to buy the next year of partying. Lyrics are their own ball game and i know they are important in songs and mean a lot to many people, but to get lyrically snobby like a lot of rock fans do is ludicrous this thing is called MUSIC and that lies first and foremost with melody, rhythm and harmony.

These people know nothing really though over at Rolling Stone and similar publications, they don't understand the mechanics of music like they like to imply, they just dress it up in pretentious metaphor to push their pathetic agendas. Music snobbery really needs to go away, it's so childish.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. A lot of times when I read music criticism it's full of nicely worded metaphores and adjectives but when you look behind those the real content is shallow and often showcases a lack of understanding for that type of music. Just because someone is good with words that does not make him a good music critic. And in Michael's case there is also an intentional close-mindedness - especially towards his post-Thriller works.
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

I think that because Thriller was so big people just wanted Michael to make clones of that album for the rest of his career. When Bad came out i read that a lot of people were disappointed because it wasn't ''Thriller part 2'' and in an interview at The World Music Awards in 2006 Michael was asked if he was gonna make ''Thriller 2''

But then if Michael did make all his albums after Thriller sound like Thriller then he would be criticized for not being original. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

I read years ago that the guy who runs this magazine makes the final decision about who gets into the Rock and Roll hall of fame and who does not. I am sure having to put Michael into the R&R hall of fame was like have driving nails through his eyeballs. R&R hall of fame is a joke BTW
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

Justthefacts said:
I read years ago that the guy who runs this magazine makes the final decision about who gets into the Rock and Roll hall of fame and who does not. I am sure having to put Michael into the R&R hall of fame was like have driving nails through his eyeballs. R&R hall of fame is a joke BTW
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I didn't know Jann S Wenner was one of the people deciding who is going to be inducted.
I can imagine him trying to do anything to stop it happening, luckily there were other people not just him.
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

I'm also annoyed by their constant bias about MJ
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

Let's not belittle rock. I love rock music. Michael Jackson is almost the only artist whom I like who is considered "pop" even though he was more soul r&b. I don't really fancy much pop apart from MJ and I do even less these days' pop. Compared to 80s the POP these days is BS in my opinion.
But I agree, I can't see how they are capable of reviewing other music genres. And I also can't see how Dangerous can get 2 stars and Invincible 1 star, I'd give them no less than at least 3. I'd rate Justin Bieber and Nicki Minaj with 1 star instead. Although if MJ is 2 stars then those should be -2.
 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

Rudolf said:
Let's not belittle rock. I love rock music. Michael Jackson is almost the only artist whom I like who is considered "pop" even though he was more soul r&b. I don't really fancy much pop apart from MJ and I do even less these days' pop. Compared to 80s the POP these days is BS in my opinion.
But I agree, I can't see how they are capable of reviewing other music genres. And I also can't see how Dangerous can get 2 stars and Invincible 1 star, I'd give them no less than at least 3. I'd rate Justin Bieber and Nicki Minaj with 1 star instead. Although if MJ is 2 stars then those should be -2.
Click to expand...

No one here is belitting rock. I love rock music. I just have a problem with the rock music snobs who belittle other styles of music. Cause fans of rock music seem to be the biggest music snobs ever. I know that not ALL rock fans are like that but from my own experience a good number of them are

Not all pop music is shallow, dumb and manufactured and not all rock music is deep and meaningful. There's good and bad in both styles
 
Last edited:
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

I love his all albums... But especially Dangerous. I'm crazy about sound with this album. Kicks, snares, rhythms..

Who Is It (who has a song like this)
Jam (still fresh)
Dangerous
Will You Be There
Heal The World
Remember The Time
Why You Wanna Trip On Me
Black or White
Give In To Me
She Drives Me Wild
In The Closet
Can't Let Her Get Away
Gone Too Soon
Keep The Faith

Just push the play button and finish it :) You cant stop to listen... If all albums 5 stars, this is 6 stars.

Michael is more better than any rocker... Give In To Me - Dirty Diana - Beat It... If he wanted, he could sing / compose everything. But rockers can't make pop like Michael did - Smooth Criminal, Billie jean, Bad, Speed Demon...




 
Re: Rolling Stone's anti MJ bias really pissed me off once again

I didn't see anyone belittling rock. We just said just because something is rock music it's not automatically superior. That's not belittling it. To me even 3 stars would be an insult to Dangerous (to me it's definitely a 5 star album). Especially in an album guide which gives albums like Madonna's Hardy Candy four stars. Heck, Lisa Marie Presley's first album got 3 stars and her latest 2 and a half stars... That's how big of an insult this 2 stars is (or even 3 stars would be)! Not to mention the one star for Invincible. They are insulting Michael in totally delibarete ways IMO. It's ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top