EphraimAdamz Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 u can't compare today's music with MJ MJ's not the only person blind people and non-English speaking listeners, listened to... and how does a deaf person listen to music? :blink: And? I'm not saying that its solely the reason for his genius. I'm not saying that MJ is the only musical genius either. But since this is about MJ it's his cultural impact, dance impact, stage impact, music composition and production, his historical knowledge and knowing where music before him came from, vocal ability, and fashion. All these things are a part of music for the era in which MJ lived. Just because all of these tools were not available 100 years ago does not make him less of a genius. Every generation adapts in reflection of their environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EphraimAdamz Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 so you can't hear a song on the radio and take it as is, you require a visual to determine the genius of the material? I already said I feel that its the MANY things that make him a genius. But u seem set on your views so......... *grabs fleshlight* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 I don't see how being a MUSICAL genius has anything to do with fashion, stage and dance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 so you can't hear a song on the radio and take it as is, you require a visual to determine the genius of the material? You basically just summed up how people view MJ's music. There needs to be visual there.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzebabe Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 And? I'm not saying that its solely the reason for his genius. I'm not saying that MJ is the only musical genius either. But since this is about MJ it's his cultural impact, dance impact, stage impact, music composition and production, his historical knowledge and knowing where music before him came from, vocal ability, and fashion. All these things are a part of music for the era in which MJ lived. Just because all of these tools were not available 100 years ago does not make him less of a genius. Every generation adapts in reflection of their environment. what does it not being 100 years ago have to do with anything? you are the only one who has that criteria...again I ask, do you need a visual to determine the genius of musical material? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzebabe Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 I already said I feel that its the MANY things that make him a genius. But u seem set on your views so......... *grabs fleshlight* NO, you set your own views...we are not talking about many things...we are not talking anything other than music...I don't care if you think he was a genius on stage, I don't care if you think he was a genius in a video...do you need a visual to determine the genius of his musical material? can you just sit and and listen to s song of his that he has not performed and that he does not have a video for and say it's genius? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Dude, I'm not speaking about how fast he releases music. R. Kelly could've flopped and been banned from every radio station known to mankind but he wasn't because the music he created appealed to listeners so Clear Channel kept adding his music to stations. The fact that he released music so fast could've kicked him right in the ass. It's not really a good thing that he did. Tbh, It was like playing Russian Roulette with his career. When did I say 'musical genius' shouldn't only concern his body of work? You're reading way too much into it. I simply stated that MJ hasn't released music since 2001 and his public image took another hit in 2005 but he couldn't refer to his body of work to sway the public's view of him back onto his music. I don't see how what I'm talking about is any different from the discussion at hand. If he was a 'musical genius' as you believe why couldn't he make the public love him again for being one with his music? Michael didn't attempt to sway the public opinion...he was busy trying to recover from that horrific time in his life. That was the focus...healing. ...and the music that he did ultimately work during that time wasn't released because of his death. as for his previous body of work, as I've stated before with bzebabe Michael's celebrity is so entwined with "the artist" that most can't separate the two...which makes having a conversation like this difficult because it's convoluted with issues that has nothing to do with the topic. Which is what you see happening after his death, people are actually acknowledging the body of work again. So again, in this case one subject can't be discussed in the same context as the other...because they are totally different issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EphraimAdamz Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 what does it not being 100 years ago have to do with anything? you are the only one who has that criteria...again I ask, do you need a visual to determine the genius of musical material? No, but answer this for me honestly.... when u close your eyes and listen to a song... u never see anything? You get no sort of mental/visual response out of music what so ever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzebabe Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 No, but answer this for me honestly.... when u close your eyes and listen to a song... u never see anything? You get no sort of mental/visual response out of music what so ever? your mental and visual is not the same a music video or a performance...there are songs I think are genius that have no video and no performances to go along with it...that fact does not make the material less or more genius...if you have a connection to a song mental response is there...what does that have to do with a stage show or a video? you said in MJ's case his musical genius has to do with everything from his video's to his shows...that implies that those things are necessary to determine the genius of his material Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angela Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 No, but answer this for me honestly.... when u close your eyes and listen to a song... u never see anything? You get no sort of mental/visual response out of music what so ever? I think Michael was at his height was a genius in painting a visual for his songs via music videos; in a way, it really helps to enhance a song. But there's something to be said out of being able to create your own mental image just from listening to the music itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EphraimAdamz Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 If dance moves and visuals have no connection to the music itself then explain to me why do infants smile when they hear certain songs? How do you explain toddlers dancing to songs when they have never seen a music video or their parents dance? So yes I agree that those music videos and performances arent everything, but to say they have no connection to the music itself is just bogus to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EphraimAdamz Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 your mental and visual is not the same a music video or a performance...there are songs I think are genius that have no video and no performances to go along with it...that fact does not make the material less or more genius...if you have a connection to a song mental response is there...what does that have to do with a stage show or a video? you said in MJ's case his musical genius has to do with everything from his video's to his shows...that implies that those things are necessary to determine the genius of his material Well then by your standards there is really no other way to measure ones music genius except by popularity. And we all know how that turns out..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Michael didn't attempt to sway the public opinion...he was busy trying to recover from that horrific time in his life. That was the focus...healing. ...and the music that he did ultimately work during that time wasn't released because of his death. as for his previous body of work, as I've stated before with bzebabe Michael's celebrity is so entwined with "the artist" that most can't separate the two...which makes having a conversation like this difficult because it's convoluted with issues that has nothing to do with the topic. Which is what you see happening after his death, people are actually acknowledging the body of work again. So again, in this case one subject can't be discussed in the same context as the other...because they are totally different issues. He won't let you separate the two because as a business man he intertwined his celebrity with his artistry. And you're acting as if what I brought up is totally out of left field when it's actually a good point. Maybe, you just refuse to answer the question because you're aware that it will only highlight how MJ isn't a musical genius. Also stop acting like MJ made deep and meaningful music that needed the help of musicologists to figure out. It's not that deep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzebabe Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 If dance moves and visuals have no connection to the music itself then explain to me why do infants smile when they hear certain songs? How do you explain toddlers dancing to songs when they have never seen a music video or their parents dance? So yes I agree that those music videos and performances arent everything, but to say they have no connection to the music itself is just bogus to me. again, that is not what I said...there is a difference between hearing a song and being able to dance to it while creating your own visual, than needing a visual to determine the greatness of the music...if you hear Billie Jean, you want to Moon Walk, however, you should be able to appreciate the music as is if you consider it to be so genius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzebabe Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 Well then by your standards there is really no other way to measure ones music genius except by popularity. And we all know how that turns out..... Now how the FUCK did you come to that conclusion???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EphraimAdamz Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 can you just sit and and listen to s song of his that he has not performed and that he does not have a video for and say it's genius? Yes. His music just.... moves you. But u have to admit those videos and performances are some nice icing on the cake. I am fans of other people who I think have made some genius music for our time. Timbaland Prince Aerosmith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzebabe Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 I think Michael was at his height was a genius in painting a visual for his songs via music videos; in a way, it really helps to enhance a song. But there's something to be said out of being able to create your own mental image just from listening to the music itself. exactly...I don't know where his comprehension skills went...I asked a simple question, do you need a visual to determine musical genius? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzebabe Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 Yes. His music just.... moves you. But u have to admit those videos and performances are some nice icing on the cake. I am fans of other people who I think have made some genius music for our time. Timbaland Prince Aerosmith but we are not talking about icing on the cake... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EphraimAdamz Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Now how the FUCK did you come to that conclusion???? Because music is objective, so really the only way to measure it is for as many people as possible to hear the song with a majority rule vote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EphraimAdamz Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 exactly...I don't know where his comprehension skills went...I asked a simple question, do you need a visual to determine musical genius? No I don't need it, I'm way past him being a musical genius though. He's already a visual genuis to me on top of that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzebabe Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 No I don't need it, I'm way past him being a musical genius though. He's already a visual genuis to me on top of that so why did it take you so damn long to answer that question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 He won't let you separate the two because as a business man he intertwined his celebrity with his artistry. And you're acting as if what I brought up is totally out of left field when it's actually a good point. Maybe, you just refuse to answer the question because you're aware that it will only highlight how MJ isn't a musical genius. Also stop acting like MJ made deep and meaningful music that needed the help of musicologists to figure out. It's not that deep. What you brought up is a good topic, yes. In relation to this topic, no it isn't. His life has nothing to do with judging his creative body of work... Obviously all celebrities are intertwined with their work, that's nature of entertainment industry as we know it. HOWEVER, when and if you want to have a serious discussion about that person's body of work, and their creativity as an artist specifically, you should be able to separate the artist from the celebrity and his/her life. I am saying for many, including yourself, it is difficult to do this when the subject is Michael Jackson because the topic becomes mixed with issues that are meaningless to the subject of a creative body of work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzebabe Posted November 28, 2010 Author Share Posted November 28, 2010 What you brought up is a good topic, yes. In relation to this topic, no it isn't. His life has nothing to do with judging his creative body of work... Obviously all celebrities are intertwined with their work, that's nature of entertainment industry as we know it. HOWEVER, when and if you want to have a serious discussion about that person's body of work, and their creativity as an artist specifically, you should be able to separate the artist from the celebrity and his/her life. I am saying for many, including yourself, it is difficult to do this when the subject is Michael Jackson because the topic becomes mixed with issues that are meaningless to the subject of a creative body of work. so you don't beleive that people have a legitimate reason to beleive his music dumbed down after he stopped working with Quincy Jones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 so you don't beleive that people have a legitimate reason to beleive his music dumbed down after he stopped working with Quincy Jones? I'm not saying that at all, if that's what you took from that post.... I don't know if I would use the word "dumbed down" but I can see why someone would truly believe the music wasn't as good when he worked with Quincy. Michael changed his style after "Bad" along with the New Jack Swing, there were other stylistic changes, imo. So I can understand why some (who are exclusively judging the body of music) would appreciate his time Quincy over his later material. However, I don't agree with that though...but to each his/her own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 Post count. 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.