Even though I TOTALLY disagree. It still proves my point that SEVEN TEDDY RILEY CUTS make up half of the dangerous album. Jazz, Rock, country, R&B, it doesn't matter. It's ALL Teddy's input and production, with MJ of course lol.
Actually if we look it at your way that should give MORE credit to Riley. That a producer who specifies in a more urban sound was able to craft all these genres, with Michael's vision of course.
But you mention rap...which were on Teddy's NJS cuts. Gospel and Rock? Two tracks which Teddy didn't produce. But again, 7/14 cuts which make up the backbone for Dangerous are produced by the man lol. 7/14 in my opinion are NEW JACK SWING inspired cuts or based on it's foundation.
This discussion has become pointless. I seem to be repeating myself and it's not gonna change the fact that sadly some people blindly hate a person that they won't give credit where it's due.
If it was ALL Michael then I don't know why he even bothered working with producers. He should have done all his albums by himself. I mean Prince does that right? smh...
I'm using your quote of somebody else's post, but am referring to what you said about my entire latest post before this one as missing whatever point you were trying to make.
the general points being made here aren't really irrelevant or missing the point. You're going by number of tracks on an album. I'm going by impact just one song can have on two people who have nothing in common with each other, and Michael's ability to bridge the gap. I'm saying that Michael could write a song that those who are about 'street cred' and those who are not, can both appreciate, and that does aim at your point about Michael losing touch with 'street cred', even though, even you said he had a 'foot' in the street. Why agree with critics who say he 'didn't have it' and admit he did have it at the same time, just for the sake of argument?
Number of songs is a non issue, here. To me, the song quantity(as opposed to quality) is as much a non issue as the age of the producer determining his impact, and talent, as far as you are concerned. And, disagreeing with you shouldn't connotate hate of Teddy Riley. Because I never said I hated him. I don't know him. I liked the collaboration with Teddy Riley for Dangerous. But your original point, even with you disagreeing with yourself, was that Michael 'didn't have street cred'. The reality is, that was never the case. That's my point in a nutshell. MJ worked with Teddy. It was wonderful of him to do so. But you were giving the impression(to me), frankly, that MJ would not have survived, musically, without him(the thing his harshest critics were into doing). Whatever you were saying, it's just hoped that you aren't giving the harsh impression MJ's critics were trying to give. That's all.
And you saying that the street cred thing is universal? I could never relate to it, and there are others like me, so it's not. The world of street cred was as far from me as the east is from the west, but as soon as Michael put his hands on 'Remember The Time', I jumped on it. That's IMO universal. Michael. He takes your world, and my world and joins them together. That's all I'm saying. Someone else has a world that another artist can't reach, Michael puts his hand in it, and both worlds join. Universal implies all encompassing. Maybe your neighborhood doesn't want to look at my neighborhood, musically, but Michael comes in and your neighborhood is ok with him and so is mine. And then, hopefully, because of Michael, our neighborhoods take a second look at each other.
That's what makes Michael's genius special.
But critics would like me to think Michael was just...out of touch.
I don't know that anybody could really be off topic here, when the giant perception still being discussed here is whether or not, Michael was, at any time, irrelevant. That's the gist here.
Yes, Michael, like many other artists, worked with other producers, and it's wonderful.
But, what critics fail at, by using MJ as a constant basis for their comparisons, and put downs of him, is that the critics, themselves, unwittingly prove he never loses relevance. They're unwittingly announcing he's always the standard bearer. Not the other producers. Michael.
I just don't like it when critics take an innocent collaboration between Michael and another great producer of the time and use it against Michael. I like reiterating Michael as THE producer.
If you'd look over this forum you'd see I'm giving props to all kinds of musicians and producers, so it's not about me hating on someone who isn't Michael Jackson.
All cred is is credibility...getting someone to believe in you. Why shorten the word to seperate? I remember a video of Elton John having a song strong enough to get cred-ibility on Soul Train. The song was 'Bennie And The Jets'.
Michael, on a larger scale, had the street cred, the rock cred, the world cred, the universal cred, from the start. so people from all walks wanted to work with him. To me, that's the mark of a strong producer.(Yeah i believe Elton John was a great producer the moment he put out that song i mentioned).
I just think it's worth saying who THE producer is, and put cred where cred is due.
