Shawn1814 Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 No, it means it's not well-known nor timeless. It's dated and it stayed in the 80's. The end. The same can be said for the song he wrote for Diana Ross. No, it's not. :sigh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Now you have added that a genius have to have written memorable songs for other artists on top of your already untenable criteria? Wow. Once again our friends bach and beethoven are looking shaky as a genius duo! All you're doing is taking bits of what I said and blowing it out of proportion. I'm saying that a 'musical genius' should have the ability to create music solely for their self and should be able to do the same for others. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 well i'm of them...Dangerous is my favorite MJ album...but my response was just to what Blatin said about the complexity of his songs...while I feel like Thriller is not his best album, I do feel that as far as the music is concerned (when I say music i'm talking about the things people would consider to be "genius-like), his work with Quincy Jones is his best...Teddy Riley's work on Dangerous was just Teddy doing typical Teddy aka Teddy jackin Prince and Jimmy and Terry for beats (yes that was a little Teddy Riley shade lol) I think "Dangerous" and "HIStory" will be more respected as the years pass...I don't think that's gonna happen with "Invincible" though. lol I also think people give Quincy to much credit for Off The Wall - Bad. I don't think opinions will change on that though..and I'm not downplaying Quincy, I'm just saying I feel people give him almost full credit for the music produced during that time. Michael just passed on, and it's actually "cool" to like him and his work again. I mean before he died, you couldn't even have a thread existing like this because it would become convoluted with talk about his life and people's opinions of it...now that he's gone, it seems people can actually focus on the work again. Which is why I think appreciation for him as artist and not just "Michael Jackson" the entity (if that makes sense) will grow over time... No, he didn't. The sounds that had on his albums were used by other artists at the time. He even used his own sister's sound but the public is too far up his ass to see that. He didn't write memorable songs for other artists. Yes he did. Michael Jackson had sound that was all his own, and people have emulated it since his success...and no I'm not talking about singing. He did write memorable songs for other artists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidfresh832 Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 All you're doing is taking bits of what I said and blowing it out of proportion. I'm saying that a 'musical genius' should have the ability to create music solely for their self and should be able to do the same for others. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp. And all you are doing is adding more and more criteria to make anyone elses argument negligible, but you are also voiding your own arguments in the process by making SO MANY different criteria that your argument is untenable itself. Thus the caveman analogy. I am not at all suggesting that you are flat out incorrect in your estimation that MJ is not a musical genius. As we have just gone through our little examples and opinions it leaves us with what should have already been pretty clear that it is a completely subjective thing. And all we can basically do is back up our opinions to that sunbjective criteria. Which I am confident I have done and explain yourself to others who do not necessarily have to agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escapade Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Bottom line: Michael Jackson is a musical genius and numbers back him up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Yes he did. Michael Jackson had sound that was all his own, and people have emulated it since his success...and no I'm not talking about singing. He did write memorable songs for other artists. IMO, taking others sounds and popularizing it doesn't make one a musical genius. Tbh, I just see MJ as a genius performer and master at using his talents (voice and dance). No, he didn't. You really need take your head out of his ass. There's nothing memorable nor timeless about 'Muscles' and 'Centipede'. Both songs stayed in the 80's. Where they should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock & Roll Hall of Game Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 so emotion makes him a musical genius? I'm trying to get a feel for what you all think here...this is a no shade/no judgment zone *cough* Game aka Shade thrower extraordinaire*cough* lol... i'm honored mama Bottom line: Michael Jackson is a musical genius and numbers back him up! numbers = genius.... that being said...Britney Spears is a MUSICAL GENIUS... and Mariah Carey... tho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 And all you are doing is adding more and more criteria to make anyone elses argument negligible, but you are also voiding your own arguments in the process by making SO MANY different criteria that your argument is untenable itself. Thus the caveman analogy. I am not at all suggesting that you are flat out incorrect in your estimation that MJ is not a musical genius. As we have just gone through our little examples and opinions it leaves us with what should have already been pretty clear that it is a completely subjective thing. And all we can basically do is back up our opinions to that sunbjective criteria. Which I am confident I have done and explain yourself to others who do not necessarily have to agree with you. I'm not adding any criteria. I'm stating things I expect out of a modern day musical genius. The things I've stated are simple tasks that a musical genius can in fact do. I would us examples but this thread would just turn into a shitty mess. Also how am I voiding my own arguments? The "caveman analogy" is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Yes, it's all subjective. There are certain artists I find to be musical geniuses that others might not see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock & Roll Hall of Game Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Yes he did. Michael Jackson had sound that was all his own, and people have emulated it since his success...and no I'm not talking about singing. He did write memorable songs for other artists. didn't MJ's "sound" derived/was inspired by James Brown? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Bottom line: Michael Jackson is a musical genius and numbers back him up! Numbers ≠ musical genius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn1814 Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2yHzXneIj8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock & Roll Hall of Game Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 i believe* a musical genius can take their own life experiences... and turn em into enjoyable songs that OTHERS can relate to... MJ failed at that * - just my opinion.. all other opinions still count.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock & Roll Hall of Game Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2yHzXneIj8 i never heard that song Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn1814 Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEZsGjtsnJY&feature=related Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 i believe* a musical genius can take their own life experiences... and turn em into enjoyable songs that OTHERS can relate to... MJ failed at that * - just my opinion.. all other opinions still count.. IMO, a musical genius can rebound from all the scrutinizing by the public and put their talents to use and have people listening to their music again. A certain has done that. I wonder why MJ couldn't or maybe he was scared? Idk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidfresh832 Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 I'm not adding any criteria. I'm stating things I expect out of a modern day musical genius. The things I've stated are simple tasks that a musical genius can in fact do. I would us examples but this thread would just turn into a shitty mess. Also how am I voiding my own arguments? The "caveman analogy" is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Yes, it's all subjective. There are certain artists I find to be musical geniuses that others might not see. Seriously? You add something new the "mystery" genius should have or have done anytime someone brings a point up. Clearly you must see you are doing that? And creating a genre alone with no help of others or other producers is now a simple task?. Color me impressed You just did it again, now a genius has to rebound from scrutiny? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzebabe Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 I think "Dangerous" and "HIStory" will be more respected as the years pass...I don't think that's gonna happen with "Invincible" though. lol I also think people give Quincy to much credit for Off The Wall - Bad. I don't think opinions will change on that though..and I'm not downplaying Quincy, I'm just saying I feel people give him almost full credit for the music produced during that time. Michael just passed on, and it's actually "cool" to like him and his work again. I mean before he died, you couldn't even have a thread existing like this because it would become convoluted with talk about his life people's opinions of it...now that he's gone, it seems people can actually focus on the work again. Which is why I think appreciation for him as artist and not just "Michael Jackson" the entity (if that makes sense) will grow over time... Yes he did. Michael Jackson had sound that was all his own, and people have emulated it since his success...and no I'm not talking about singing. He did write memorable songs for other artists. I don't know if I feel people give Quincy too much credit...I mean, I understand what you are saying, but I also feel that people think MJ's musical quality fell off greatly after Quincy Jones...I can see their point on that, as I too feel the same way, even though my favorite album isn't a Quincy Jones album...the reason why I don't feel like Dangerous and History will be viewed differently down the road, Dangerous especially, is because Dangerous was one of those albums that was good, but it was MJ's RN1814 (that's kinda harsh, but it kinda was)and people have mentioned it in the past, but because it's MJ no one will come right out and say it...I can't remember where I read the article, it was quite sometime ago, but it was basically saying that MJ and Teddy was on Jimmy and Terry's nuts with that album and basically conforming to what was hot(of course not in those exact words lol) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock & Roll Hall of Game Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 IMO, a musical genius can rebound from all the scrutinization by the public and put their talents to use and have people listening to their music again. A certain has done that. I wonder why MJ couldn't or maybe he was scared? Idk. MJ hasn't rebounded at all.. his last hit album was 1995* he was clearly scared after Janet outsold him* * - US figures only Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 IMO, taking others sounds and popularizing it doesn't make one a musical genius. Tbh, I just see MJ as a genius performer and master at using his talents (voice and dance). No, he didn't. You really need take your head out of his ass. There's nothing memorable nor timeless about 'Muscles' and 'Centipede'. Both songs stayed in the 80's. Where they should be. I see a "musical genius" as someone who composes music that influences the present, the immediate future, and is examined for years after the fact. I believe Michael fits into that... Both are memorable, both were hits, and both were composed by the individual in question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrietta. Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2yHzXneIj8 So the genius Janhova was playing the instruments for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock & Roll Hall of Game Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 I see a "musical genius" as someone who composes music that influences the present, the immediate future, and is examined for years after the fact. I believe Michael fits into that... Both are memorable, both were hits, and both were composed by the individual in question. i think u just made up that definition to fit MJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Seriously? You add something new the "mystery" genius should have or have done anytime someone brings a point up. Clearly you must see you are doing that? And creating a genre alone with no help of others or other producers is now a simple task?. Color me impressed What am I adding? I stated what I felt a musical genius can do in my first post to you. I've been stating that through these pages. I haven't added anything new. For a musical genius it's a simple task. I'm sure you know what the term 'musical genius' means, right? It's the same as saying a 'genius' can work out a difficult equation in their head without a calculator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn1814 Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 So the genius Janhova was playing the instruments for it If you listen to Wanna be starting something you can hear how he wanted each instrument to sound so he did it with his voice.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzebabe Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 Bottom line: Michael Jackson is a musical genius and numbers back him up! everybody dishing out intelligent opinions, whether others agree with them or not, and your ass comes in my thread talking about numbers??? this is exactly the shit I was trying to avoid...don't do it this here evening Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrietta. Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 If you listen to Wanna be starting something you can hear how he wanted each instrument to sound so he did it with his voice.. I just listened to that "Working Day & Night" demo...that's too much MJ for me today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.