kasi;3209387 said:
I think i know why Michael doesn't recieve the same respect as Beatles, Presley or even his "rival", Prince. First of all, Michael was not a musician. So the fact that he didn't play any musical instrument combined with the fact that lots of his songs were written by other people, immediately makes people think that his success was because of the others involved, that he had nothing to do with the creative process.
[...]
That's why you see that few people cite Michael as their influence, while Stevie Wonder, James Brown, or even Prince are frequently cited as being influence to a lot of musician and artists. Well, the last three have the benefit of being musicians,have writen their own matterial and have produced and amazing amount of music that is acclaimed by critics and pubblic. Michael is acclaimed for the record sales but that has nothing to do with the quality and the importance of the artist or his music. Personally, the record sales don't matter at. If the music is not good, it will not last and the artist will be forgotten.
[...]
They were always questioning his ability to writte songs, pointing out that without Quincy Jones,Michael would have been a nobody. But when the allegations came, it made their job easier. I think that Michael knew that too. I remember reading somewhere that he had ones wondered why people didn't take him seriously as they did with Prince.
[...]
These are the reasons why i believe that Michael doesn't get the respect that he deserves. What surprises my thought, is the fact that Elvis Presly was an artist that hadn't written any of his matterial. Other people were writting his songs and he would sing them.Νevertheless, people seems to overlook this while Michael's career is scrutinise about anything. Strange.
Do you share these views too? Because they are based on a lot of misinformations. For one, Michael DID write his most important and most popular songs! When I did a poll on another website a few months ago among fans about their very favourite MJ songs, about 6-7 in the top 10 were written by Michael - and solely by him.
And Quincy Jones has only ever co-written one song for Michael, P.Y.T., which he wrote with James Ingram. (The original, more groovy P.Y.T. was written by Michael and Greg Phillinganes).
At least you know that Elvis didn't write his music at all. So there goes your theory about why he is more respected than Michael. Artistically there's no rational and valid explanation to why Michael is not respected as much as Elvis. I think artistically he is clearly superior to Elvis.
As for how many cite Michael among their influences, you seriously need the take around if you think that's only "few" artists....
chanel05;3209496 said:
i think the argument that he is somehow "less than them is invalid". i personally think that if he didnt break records with his music, then we wouldnt hear any of this crap. you can change any of the three out(mj, stevie,prince.) n i bet they would have treated them the same way. its okay for them to take over r&b and have great success in that genre.... but you cant cross into the pop world and reign over that and arguably have a better success than anybody that came before you. thats just how i see it. as long as you stay in your lane or "your place".. fine but once you leave that... then OH NOOO!!! we got a problem. N thats how i see it
I agree!
twinklEE;3210610 said:
Guess you Greek people are something else then (by the way don't mess up the economy again cuz, the rest of us are tired and fed up of bailing ur asses out), cuz honey I been living in Europe on and off and let me tell you no one under the age of 50 give rats about the Beatles and Elvis no more. I happen to have Greek friends who live in Athens, and surprisingly none of them ever claimed what you are claiming now. Ain't no way that Elvis and Beatles 'popularity' 'increased' in these past two decades, in which boybands, eurodance, and bubble gum pop ruled the first decade, and R&B and hip hop the second decade.
I can bet my life that most of the kids under 20 won't even be able to name any members of the Beatles besides Paul McCartney and John Lennon.
[...]
Few people citing Michael as their influence? You been living under a rock the past decade? ALL the current stars who're between 25 and 35 have been citing him, and only him as their prime source of inspiration since the late 90s. Like I said, there is a limit to everything including exaggerating and lying, next time you decide to make a subjective, -totally based on your personal feelings and opinions post,- remember this lil advice.
One more thing, Prince, now I love Prince, he's a fine artist, but dude hasn't been relevant or popular in mainland Europe for nearly 20 years.
^^ This.
The Beatles and Elvis will always be icons (as well as MJ), but as a European I can't say their popularity increased here in the past two decades. In my country I can hardly hear Elvis songs played on the radio - only when there's some new cover version out, such as "A little less conversation". They play a little more Beatles - at least those stations which play nostalgia stuff, but it's not like people are crazy about them. I would say here in my country, which is an Eastern European country, radios play a lot more Michael Jackson, than Elvis or Beatles.
kasi;3213133 said:
Off the topic here but i want to say it. I don't have anything against Prince and i respect him for the thousand records that he has produced and the billion musical instruments that he plays etc etc but i had noticed that Prince too had plastic surgeries and that he also at some point became so pale that he reminded me of Michael. Did anyone said anything about him? Did the media or people treated him the way they treated Michael. Hm let me see... No.
Here is an early photo of Prince. I don't know if his skin turned lighter or it's just the lighting why he seems darker here, but he definitely had nose job.
No problem, of course, like Michael he has the right to change if he was unsatisfied with his looks. However in the light of this it's a bit funny, and hypocritical, what he sang in one of his songs:
"But it ain’t nothing if it ain’t fun
My voice is getting higher
and Eye ain’t never had my nose done
That’s the other guy… "
ginvid;3218071 said:
I am going to have to ask you guys to stop with all of this. It is grossly off topic. However, if someone wanted to make a thread about the role race played in MJ's career then by all means, please do so.
Oh, and Travis, I hate to break it to you, but they are correct IMHO. i am not going to condescend to you and act as if you do not know anything. I am not sure of the extent of your knowledge of blacks artists in America. But, all through history, white Americans have thought of black Americans as something of a side show act. Meaning they had no problem using blacks for entertainment. So, your argument that black music is what is popular now is not valid and it is not what the posters are speaking about. There is a very real difference between marketing black people and allowing a black person to be a free agent. MJ was leagues above the black artists that are out now in any genre particularly with the fact that he was inclined on a business level when it was NOT popular in the industry for people to do so.
And the fact that he bought the most beloved Beatles catalogue, a white group, sent all kinds of people up in the air. Then add to that some perceived anti' semitism and you have a recipe for a very powerful white run industry to try to bring down a man that they had lost control of. They don't care about celebrating Beyonce or Nicki Minaj because those people are no threat and they ultimately control them.
But MJ was a star on another level and when you cannot be controlled you become a liability. So in order to lessen what that liability is able to accomplish you have to tear them down. That is what they have been plotting and trying to do for years. A person can be as popular as they want to be, but in the eyes of the industry, at the end of the day you are still just a black man. To give up power is diffcult. To give it up to a black man is abyssmal. Mj's vitiligo was the best thing for the industry individuals. Because their first line of offense was to separate MJ from his core supporters of black people. And brainwashing people with the idea that he hated blacks and hated himself because he was black worked so well that you even have fans still repeating this nonsense as if they don't have the means to better educate themselves, and even more so by being on an MJ board. I find it really difficult to explain sometimes to white people what blacks still have to go through on such a deep level. It absolutely saddens me when people use the date as their proof of why blacks do not suffer as much anymore. I think sometimes the race card is played too much; but, that is not the case here. It is VERY much applicable to MJ. They will never want to put a black man above their beloved white icons. I don't care. This is the truth.
But look at me, I have gone way off topic. I will now follow my own advice. I will get back on topic (I actually think there is a thread already about MJ and race in the LTAM forum).
Anyway, thank guys.
I agree 100%.
I think the unfair treatment of Michael comes down to a lot of factors. His race being one, but of course not alone that. You are allowed to be black and successful. But black and successful AND powerful (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony/ATV_Music_Publishing_artists ) AND a threat to white icons such as Elvis and the Beatles? Well, by the example of Michael (and he is the only example we can cite, because he is the only one who got there) that is still now allowed.
When Kasi wrote MJ is not as respected as others because people think he didn't write his music and wasn't the creative force behind his art, that explanation is not a good one, because then you can ask: why do people think so, when it's obviously not true? Someone must have fed them with this false information and give them this false impression. When articles refer to "We are the world" as a Lionel Richie-Quincy Jones song, doesn't that make you wonder? They do this to Michael very systematically.
Michael made his mistakes too. I think he should have never gone to Oprah, Diane Sawyer, Bashir and the likes and talk about his private life. In this regard he should have taken a leaf out of Prince's book who never talks about his private life in public. The moment Michael started to talk about that in big interviews that distracted from his music and helped the media to make him a "tabloid caricature" instead of letting the focus be on his art. I think this distraction is really the reason why Michael is not taken as seriously as a musician as others, if it's true he isn't taken as seriously, not that he is musically or artistically inferior. In fact, I think he is probably one of the most multitalented artists who have ever lived. Who else can sing AND dance AND write songs AND make great choreographies AND be a great visionary in terms of videos etc. on the level as Michael did, all at once? This all takes a great amount of creativity and genius. But most of Michael's creative achievements are unfortunately overshadowed by the persona that the tabloid media created for him. I think this is the real reason why he doesn't get the credit he deserves as an artist.
