Latest on MJJC

Soulfulness

helena22

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
1,521
Points
0
Location
South Korea
I'm wondering if y'all notice the same thing. When I watch all these clips of Jackson5 and The Jacksons days or read about those times, I see some people say "He (MJ) used to be soulful" or "He had more soul during those days". Then, I feel like responding that he's always been soulful with his music no matter which era you pick out of his entire career. At the same time I think they seem to have a different concept of soulfulness from mine.

What do you think??
 
i think the majority of soul fans who say this simply mean that he made (was made to make) more "classic" soul music in the particular genre associated with Motown's prime etc. which obviously had its own sound and so can be classified as such.

after maturing and moving on to fusing other styles together, even trying out things completely outside of r&b/soul, i know of many heads who disregard his other albums because of that. they're the same ones who'd argue that Stevie isn't a soul musician because of his fusions - ironically the very thing that made him an iconic pioneer.

there was a thread recently on another forum asking if Mike was "still a soul singer". and you guessed right that many people have different definitions of what "soul" is - is it one genre in a specific period in time? a style or "feel"? or an expression? etc.

the evolution of music has always been about fusing different styles together throughout the years, and soon maybe we'll realise that the barriers we put between these genres are nothing short of 'musical prejudice'.

Mike is and has always been one of the most 'soulful' beings to have graced a pen and a mic.
 
arXter said:
i think the majority of soul fans who say this simply mean that he made (was made to make) more "classic" soul music in the particular genre associated with Motown's prime etc. which obviously had its own sound and so can be classified as such.

after maturing and moving on to fusing other styles together, even trying out things completely outside of r&b/soul, i know of many heads who disregard his other albums because of that. they're the same ones who'd argue that Stevie isn't a soul musician because of his fusions - ironically the very thing that made him an iconic pioneer.

there was a thread recently on another forum asking if Mike was "still a soul singer". and you guessed right that many people have different definitions of what "soul" is - is it one genre in a specific period in time? a style or "feel"? or an expression? etc.

the evolution of music has always been about fusing different styles together throughout the years, and soon maybe we'll realise that the barriers we put between these genres are nothing short of 'musical prejudice'.

Mike is and has always been one of the most 'soulful' beings to have graced a pen and a mic.
Click to expand...

lmao - in other words they became too popular for them?

did they mention that Curtis Mayfield, Marvin Gaye, Sam Cooke etc... where not this or that.

category crap!
 
yeah i remember watching a documentary about soul music in America and some Chicago based soul singer.. forgot her name, kept on making jabs at Motown because it wasn't "real soul" in her opinion....she just appeared so bitter, it was sad.

There is no theory. You have only to listen. Pleasure is the law. I love music passionately. And because l love it, I try to free it from barren traditions that stifle it. It is a free art gushing forth — an open-air art, boundless as the elements, the wind, the sky, the sea. It must never be shut in and become an academic art. - Claude Debussy

that quote is for the music snobs out there, lol. :p
 
arXter said:
i think the majority of soul fans who say this simply mean that he made (was made to make) more "classic" soul music in the particular genre associated with Motown's prime etc. which obviously had its own sound and so can be classified as such.

after maturing and moving on to fusing other styles together, even trying out things completely outside of r&b/soul, i know of many heads who disregard his other albums because of that. they're the same ones who'd argue that Stevie isn't a soul musician because of his fusions - ironically the very thing that made him an iconic pioneer.

there was a thread recently on another forum asking if Mike was "still a soul singer". and you guessed right that many people have different definitions of what "soul" is - is it one genre in a specific period in time? a style or "feel"? or an expression? etc.

the evolution of music has always been about fusing different styles together throughout the years, and soon maybe we'll realise that the barriers we put between these genres are nothing short of 'musical prejudice'.

Mike is and has always been one of the most 'soulful' beings to have graced a pen and a mic.
Click to expand...
Preach!!!!!!!!:clapping:I dig your post from start to finish! The last sentence is a great way to wrap it up.
 
While reading arXter's post again...and giddyup's as well, I get the impression that those people think "being cross-over or getting more popular like, on worldwide level=soullessness or losing soulfulness." IMO, it ain't right to think that way. I doubt they really allowed MJ's music speak to them, without any preconceived opinions. Or if they did, they just didn't feel the soul and never connected it to their inner being.
 
"Who Is It" does not sound like a classic soul song, yet when MJ did the acapella on Oprah, if you had never heard the original before, wouldn't you consider that soul or, at the very least, a catch little R&B ditty? Certainly not a pop or borderline-rock song? MJ's voice and his music is and has always been rooted in soul/R&B. He is an R&B artist in my mind, always has been.

Funny how a rock artist can bring a black gospel choir in to do backing on their tracks but still be a rock artist, but as soon as an r&b or soul artist brings in an electric guitar or mixes it up they've lost their soulfulness. Rubbish.
 
Superstition said:
"Who Is It" does not sound like a classic soul song, yet when MJ did the acapella on Oprah, if you had never heard the original before, wouldn't you consider that soul or, at the very least, a catch little R&B ditty? Certainly not a pop or borderline-rock song? MJ's voice and his music is and has always been rooted in soul/R&B. He is an R&B artist in my mind, always has been.

Funny how a rock artist can bring a black gospel choir in to do backing on their tracks but still be a rock artist, but as soon as an r&b or soul artist brings in an electric guitar or mixes it up they've lost their soulfulness. Rubbish.
Click to expand...
Props!:clapping:I appreciate every single sentence you wrote:yes: They don't know better and don't even know what and who they're talkin bout! MJ's music has always been soulful period and not only that, he is a soulful person.
 
Soul isn't a genre, it's what you convey musically and/or in your voice. Michael can be sining a song as straight up pop as "The Way You Make Me Feel" or something like "Heal The World" and it doesn't matter, because the expression in his voice makes it sound like a real story, like he's retelling something that actually happened. That's soul. It's not a genre, it's not something which can be labled or put in a box. It's whether a singer can make you feel or not, and at that, no one is better then Michael.
 
arXter said:
i think the majority of soul fans who say this simply mean that he made (was made to make) more "classic" soul music in the particular genre associated with Motown's prime etc. which obviously had its own sound and so can be classified as such.

after maturing and moving on to fusing other styles together, even trying out things completely outside of r&b/soul, i know of many heads who disregard his other albums because of that. they're the same ones who'd argue that Stevie isn't a soul musician because of his fusions - ironically the very thing that made him an iconic pioneer.

there was a thread recently on another forum asking if Mike was "still a soul singer". and you guessed right that many people have different definitions of what "soul" is - is it one genre in a specific period in time? a style or "feel"? or an expression? etc.

the evolution of music has always been about fusing different styles together throughout the years, and soon maybe we'll realise that the barriers we put between these genres are nothing short of 'musical prejudice'.

Mike is and has always been one of the most 'soulful' beings to have graced a pen and a mic.
Click to expand...




right on the money
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top