Latest on MJJC

The Beatles, Elvis and Michael Jackson

I had always thought that it was the manager that stole it since Elvis did'nt seem to have control over his music or anything. (Like many singers today) I agree with everyone who said queen was underrated. They damn sure are.
 
redcrush said:
You do know that some musicologists consider all modern music 'pop music' right?
Click to expand...

You believe that all of the modern music made on this earth is popular or ascribes to any other context of "pop"?

That's a rhetorical question. Pop acts like the Beatles, Elvis and Michael Jackson were by far no fundamental pillars to the evolution of genres outside of their realm.
 
Last edited:
arXter said:
You believe that all of the modern music made on this earth is popular or ascribes to any other context of "pop"?

That's a rhetorical question. Pop acts like the Beatles, Elvis and Michael Jackson were by far no fundamental pillars to the evolution of genres outside of their realm.
Click to expand...

Just telling it like I heard it.
 
arXter said:
You believe that all of the modern music made on this earth is popular or ascribes to any other context of "pop"?
Click to expand...

Many critics use "pop" term to devide all the music we're talking about from classic, orchestra music, opera, etc: pop = masscult
 
That's my point; Pop does not equate to simply modern music but, as you say, "masscult."
 
I think that the Bee Gees are one of the greatest bands of all time
 
Bee Gees, Queen etc are good, of course they are; but Elvis, Beatles and Michael Jackson provided the great stepping stones of music. They changed the world and if music could be put in a graph format then they are the artists that can be plotted before the big spikes.

I'd rarely play myself a Beatles or Elvis track but only an idiot would doubt their importance even if Elvis is an anomoly in terms of his actual musical input.
 
redcrush said:
You do know that some musicologists consider all modern music 'pop music' right?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't consider zydeco, polka, bluegrass, thrash, tejano, blues, jazz, tropical, or bossa nova "pop" music. Pop just means whatever is popular on mainstream Top 40, and none of those are played on Top 40 stations.
 
DuranDuran said:
I wouldn't consider zydeco, polka, bluegrass, thrash, tejano, blues, jazz, tropical, or bossa nova "pop" music. Pop just means whatever is popular on mainstream Top 40, and none of those are played on Top 40 stations.
Click to expand...

According to them it's like this:

There are 3 main musical genres:

Classical
Traditional
Pop(ular Music)

I'm assuming that anything that doesn't fall into those first two categories would be considered 'popular music' since it's still meant for mass consumption.
 
Tony R said:
Bee Gees, Queen etc are good, of course they are; but Elvis, Beatles and Michael Jackson provided the great stepping stones of music. They changed the world and if music could be put in a graph format then they are the artists that can be plotted before the big spikes.

I'd rarely play myself a Beatles or Elvis track but only an idiot would doubt their importance even if Elvis is an anomoly in terms of his actual musical input.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Tony R said:
Bee Gees, Queen etc are good, of course they are; but Elvis, Beatles and Michael Jackson provided the great stepping stones of music. They changed the world and if music could be put in a graph format then they are the artists that can be plotted before the big spikes.

I'd rarely play myself a Beatles or Elvis track but only an idiot would doubt their importance even if Elvis is an anomoly in terms of his actual musical input.
Click to expand...

i don't get it. why do people say an artist is of great importance, but they hardly pick up one of their songs and play them?

lol..that's why i don't go by what critics and others say i'm supposed to feel. the only way i say an artist is great, is if i pick up their music and play it. a LOT.

and..lol..i only do that with one of the three acts, here.

and deciding to call people names, if they don't go with 'the way you're supposed to feel', is disrespectful.
 
144 said:
i don't get it. why do people say an artist is of great importance, but they hardly pick up one of their songs and play them?

lol..that's why i don't go by what critics and others say i'm supposed to feel. the only way i say an artist is great, is if i pick up their music and play it. a LOT.
Click to expand...

Is something only good when you like it? Isn't it possible to recognize something as being good even though it may not strike your fancy?
 
redcrush said:
Is something only good when you like it? Isn't it possible to recognize something as being good even though it may not strike your fancy?
Click to expand...

no. i can't fathom that. i always thought music was subjective. otherwise it's like letting people tell you how to feel. music is interpreted as different things to different people. a person shouldn't be considered an outcast, if they don't go with 'the program'.
 
144 said:
no. i can't fathom that. i always thought music was subjective. otherwise it's like letting people tell you how to feel. music is interpreted as different things to different people. a person shouldn't be considered an outcast, if they don't go with 'the program'.
Click to expand...

I don't really like war films, but if I do sit through one, I can still you tell if it was good or not. A good film is still a good film despite it being in a genre I don't like. I do agree that you shouldn't have an opinion on something if you haven't experienced it yet, whether it be positive or negative. That's the same thing as saying that all of MJ's post 80s work sucks w/o even bothering to listen to any of it.
 
redcrush said:
I don't really like war films, but if I do sit through one, I can still you tell if it was good or not. A good film is still a good film despite it being in a genre I don't like. I do agree that you shouldn't have an opinion on something if you haven't experienced it yet, whether it be positive or negative. That's the same thing as saying that all of MJ's post 80s work sucks w/o even bothering to listen to any of it.
Click to expand...

but i shouldn't have to force myself to sit through anything. that's not my job. i guess we come from two different places. if i can't sit though it, it's not good, to me. i shouldn't be penalized for not being able to sit through something. what's good to one person is trash to another person. one person may go in a museum and wonder why another person put a high price tag on a painting. the danger is putting people in certain classes, if their opinion is not the status quo. and that's not right. there's something for everyone, and there's something not for everyone.
 
144 said:
i don't get it. why do people say an artist is of great importance, but they hardly pick up one of their songs and play them?

lol..that's why i don't go by what critics and others say i'm supposed to feel. the only way i say an artist is great, is if i pick up their music and play it. a LOT.

and..lol..i only do that with one of the three acts, here.

and deciding to call people names, if they don't go with 'the way you're supposed to feel', is disrespectful.
Click to expand...

Because it's having the sense to realise how great or important something is despite the fact that it may leave you tepid sensually. Much like, as a straight man I can see how incredibly good looking David Beckham is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top