Latest on MJJC

Why don't critics get Michael Jackson?

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Reading the thread about Michael's Grammy nomination and thinking of how he rarely ever got nominated after Thriller and most of the time he got bad previews for his albums (even for Thriller in some cases!), it made me wonder why critics never seemed to get Michael?

It's strange because - the public adored him, his albums were great hits, all among the best sellers of all times. Albums like Bad and Dangerous were described as "flops" by some critics, but it's just BS, since all those albums were among the best sellers of all times. Let's put it into a perspective: Both Bad and Dangerous sold more than anything that Madonna has ever released! And she is considered a huge, huge star, right? History sold 20 million - and that after child abuse allegations (how many artist's career would have survived that?). Invincible sold 10 million - and that with close to zero promotion.

OK, big sellers are not always good. I get it. But besides the public adoring him, Michael always seemed to draw a lot of admiration by other artists as well. He basically could work with anybody in the business because any artist he called would be there in a minute just to work with Michael Jackson! He had admirers from rock musicians to hip-hop artists. And those people certainly understand music!

So the public loves him, fellow artists admire him - what made it so hard for the critics then to "get" Michael Jackson?
 
I think critics have a natural leaning to be skeptical to any big seller.

Plus, the global thinking is :"after a huge success, what can you do next?" probably MJ himself had that question in his mind at some point of his life.
The other theory is "jealousy" or "racism"

I think is a mix between all of those reasons.
 
Music critics generally have a habit of not knowing what the hell they're talking about. Especially when it comes to Michael.
 
Because he was too real for them, too raw. He started criticizing the media pundits, the music industry, the justice system and drew more and more attention on the plight of the children and the world. He started shouting out his innocence and critics want to do precisely the opposite of that. He started advocating more and more for children's rights. He started displaying more agression and used more 'craziness' into his music and maybe his videos, a reflection of the crazy world he witnessed. And critics don't like other critics, especially those who're as sincere and strong as he was. They don't like people fighting back, like it happened with Sony. He was just too real for them and they deemed him crazy because of that. They don't get his profoundness, 'cause they're shallow and fake.
 
Last edited:
Alma said:
Because he was too real for them, too raw. He started criticizing the media pundits, the music industry, the justice system and drew more and more attention on the plight of the children and the world. He started shouting out his innocence and critics want to do precisely the opposite of that. He started advocating more and more for children's rights. He started displaying more agression and used more 'craziness' into his music and maybe his videos, a reflection of the crazy world he witnessed. And critics don't like other critics, especially those who're as sincere and strong as he was. They don't like people fighting back, like it happened with Sony. He was just too real for them and they deemed him crazy because of that. They don't get his profoundness, 'cause they're shallow and fake.
Click to expand...

That, my friend, is the TRUTH!
 
Alma said:
Because he was too real for them, too raw. He started criticizing the media pundits, the music industry, the justice system and drew more and more attention on the plight of the children and the world. He started shouting out his innocence and critics want to do precisely the opposite of that. He started advocating more and more for children's rights. He started displaying more agression and used more 'craziness' into his music and maybe his videos, a reflection of the crazy world he witnessed. And critics don't like other critics, especially those who're as sincere and strong as he was. They don't like people fighting back, like it happened with Sony. He was just too real for them and they deemed him crazy because of that. They don't get his profoundness, 'cause they're shallow and fake.
Click to expand...

:clapping:
 
Generally speaking there not much difference between a music critic and a tabloid. They want what sells, not the truth. And dissing is what sells.
Just like happy people dont make good stories, human beings dont like to see others happy, or succesful. Maybe the comparison with their own life is not comfortable.
And u know what? I think everyone loved Michael's music, so they had to sound different. They didnt care if it was for a good reason or not. When everybody likes someone, just say u dont, they will all want to know why. And buy ur crap.
 
I also think most critics and journalists are naturally cynical people and no cynic can really get Michael. I remember a part from a book I read long ago. It was about my favourite Formula One driver, Michael Schumacher. And in one scene he was traveling somewhere with a journalist or something. And Schumacher insisted on playing Michael Jackson's Heal the World in the car. And the guy kind of mocked Schumacher for it afterwards in an interview he gave. He said later something along the lines: 'It's something that 14 year old girls would want to listen to, but oh well, we don't like racing drivers because of their taste in music.'

OK, this guy wasn't a music critic, but it just shows how cynical people just can't get a song like Heal the World. They say it's cheesy or something. It would be from many artists, however the thing why such songs suit Michael is that when he sings them you know it comes from his heart! And if someone means songs like that then there is nothing cheesy or 14-year-oldish about them any more, then they carry very important and universal messages! People are just afraid to look too sentimental!

The other thing I remember is that recent critic about Vision when the critic slagged down the whole DVD but at the end noted that his 7-year-old son likes it though. Well, that's because the son's judgment is not yet blurred by cynicism.

OK, maybe I didn't make much sense, LOL. But I think cynicism is another factor.
 
respect77 said:
I also think most critics and journalists are naturally cynical people and no cynic can really get Michael. I remember a part from a book I read long ago. It was about my favourite Formula One driver, Michael Schumacher. And in one scene he was traveling somewhere with a journalist or something. And Schumacher insisted on playing Michael Jackson's Heal the World in the car. And the guy kind of mocked Schumacher for it afterwards in an interview he gave. He said later something along the lines: 'It's something that 14 year old girls would want to listen to, but oh well, we don't like racing drivers because of their taste in music.'

OK, this guy wasn't a music critic, but it just shows how cynical people just can't get a song like Heal the World. They say it's cheesy or something. It would be from many artists, however the thing why such songs suit Michael is that when he sings them you know it comes from his heart! And if someone means songs like that then there is nothing cheesy or 14-year-oldish about them any more, then they carry very important and universal messages! People are just afraid to look too sentimental!

The other thing I remember is that recent critic about Vision when the critic slagged down the whole DVD but at the end noted that his 7-year-old son likes it though. Well, that's because the son's judgment is not yet blurred by cynicism.

OK, maybe I didn't make much sense, LOL. But I think cynicism is another factor.
Click to expand...

this is so true.
Besides, I think critics appreciate something when it's "dark" when it leaves you without hope for this life.

That's when they think something is "good", it has to be "dark" for them.:doh:
I wonder when all this began. Since when they have to worship the darkness in art, to consider themselves "smart" :no:
 
critics get michael. they just can't stand him cus they're jealous. it's like a regular guy envying a hot guy, and never admitting he's hot, because of his own shortcomings. or one girl not wanting to see the other hot girl in the same black dress. michael is like the really hot guy or hot girl in the black dress.
 
Maybe they didn't like him because he showed how redundant the music critic role is..no-one in the wider world really takes much notice of them do they? (Most people won't like / dislike a musical style just because a critic tells them to) And I guess if you have a high sense of your own importance that's not going to be popular.
 
Maybe because he was black, successful and a force to be reckoned with and with all that being said, they wanted to do everything anything to tear him down mentally and physically but he kept doing his thing. I don't care if critics get Michael Jackson and especially at this point.
 
He is so much bigger than them....He's bigger than life....so whatev..
 
Most critics are frustrated wannabes. They bitterly resented a mega talent like MJ who dared to deny them access.
Critics are powerless anyway.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top