afrocentricity
Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,424
Someone posted it before, Stevie Wonder.
Bob Marley?
Marvin Gaye?
There's probably a list somewhere anyway...
Someone posted it before, Stevie Wonder.
I'm putting them all together to display to you the indelible mark made by him - a mark that shall outlast that of The Beatles and Presley, in my opinion.
They do make the music more important because of the association. His songs means so much more because of associated dance moves and performances. His music may not have been as groundbreaking at that of Presley, The Beatles or Dylan but he rode a modern tsunami to become more iconic (in my opinion) - T.V. and the internet. There will be a living memory of his performances - performances that are absolutely incomparable and iconic.
Bob Marley?
Marvin Gaye?
There's probably a list somewhere anyway...
Still living is the prerequisite, though.
How 'bout the Strolling Bones?
I'm not sure if zombies count as living.
Did he actually write his own music, though? Fair play if he did, but popstars often don't. In that case, whilst he was certainly a man whose music reached far and wide, I'm not sure he can personally be credited a "genius" for it.
He wrote most of it himself.
Still living is the prerequisite, though.
You get my point thoughThere's more than Stevie Wonder left alive.
And that's only that generation - the next generation of musicians are still too young for the real "legends" to stand out.
I'd hazard that in twenty/thirty years, people might look upon the RHCP or Eminem in a similar light (though not quite as grand, perhaps).
There you go moving the goal posts
Fair enough, Tina Turner?
I'm impressed then.
As others have echoed in this thread: I didn't care much for the man. It's sad when anyone dies, but I don't personally feel any different now he's dead than I did when he was alive. Musically, though, the man touched millions (maybe even billions) of people, and his legacy will live on for a long, long time.
Yeah but the original question surrounded phenomenons, the Stones are clever and got in at the right time, I'd put their success down to Jagger's tactical nous more than musical genius. Stevie, like MJ, was a child prodigy of exceptional talent.
I don't agree. All modern music stems from the Beatles. And that includes Michael Jackson.
ABBA then.
A few things occur to me regarding this thread.
First off, people should feel however they want about this (true). But there are a few posters in here who have set the high water mark for their own behaviour in this thread (true). I'm not sure some of them will prove so sensitive when someone they don't admire dies (irrelevant - we're talking 'impact' and 'importance' now), and there'll be a few on here to remind them. If some of you lot want to hear nothing but good things about him I'd steer clear of the media in a few days time-they'll rake over all the old ground again (i bet they don't! On this point... i'm willing to wager a big bet on the following... the next Michael Jackson documentary makers shall be going off the back of popular empathy, that - now - is clearly felt towards him, and make 'sensitive', humanistic documentaries about him. You watch - Diana MKII.)
Then there's the out-of-court settlement in the Jordan Chandler case. A lot of people are ignoring the fact that Jackson's insurance provider both negotiated and paid the full settlement, against both he and his legal advisers wishes (according to many articles on t'interweb). He may be guilty, he may not. But settlements aren't always an admission of guilt, and all of those saying they wouldn't pay a penny might feel differently if they were being accused like that, and their family hounded.
As for reasons the parents might accept the money-there are a few. Not wanting the child to be subject to cross-examination, not dragging the affair on longer than necessary, and of course, money. Who knows which (if any) it was in this instance.
I doubt any of us will know what genuinely happened. Clearly the bloke was troubled, and engaged in some pretty inappropriate behaviour, but maybe he was that naive (not sure I believe it, but you never know).
A well-rounded analysis.
We don't know. None of us will know. I don't think this makes him any less of an entertainer though and that is how he will be remembered. We shouldn't make assumptions based on limited and fragmented knowledge though.
Seriously only Dylan and Prince on that list are in his league as musical geniuses. The rest are miles behind.The most important and influencial pop performing artist for me.
I wouldn't class him as a musical genius like Bowie, Bob Dylan, Prince, Kate Bush. But neither is he a Madonna style fraud. He's produced enough spectacular music to be considered a great.
I think you may have missed my original point/it wasn't clear. There are posters in here who have set their own high water mark as regards their behaviour, or righteous indignation in some cases. They now have to live up to their own lofty standards. Whether they will afford the same respect, and unwillingness to hear anything negative about someone they are not so enamoured of is another matter. I reckon not. In fact, I'll bet some of them will be equally as guilty of the sorts of comments they're up in arms about in this thread. I won't be the one pointing it out, but I reckon it'll happen.
As for the media coverage-once he's buried or whatever he's chosen, there will be lifetime retrospective pieces done by every relevant media outlet in the world. Of course some will anoint him St Michael, but I don't think that will be universal. It would take an extremely brave reporter to gloss over the unsavoury/salacious facets of his life, when they formed such a big part of who he was.
That first bit sounds terribly like a euphemistic death threat from a subversive maniac.
We'll see.
![]()
Seriously only Dylan and Prince on that list are in his league as musical geniuses. The rest are miles behind.
I think you may have missed my original point/it wasn't clear. There are posters in here who have set their own high water mark as regards their behaviour, or righteous indignation in some cases. They now have to live up to their own lofty standards. Whether they will afford the same respect, and unwillingness to hear anything negative about someone they are not so enamoured of is another matter. I reckon not. In fact, I'll bet some of them will be equally as guilty of the sorts of comments they're up in arms about in this thread. I won't be the one pointing it out, but I reckon it'll happen.
As for the media coverage-once he's buried or whatever he's chosen, there will be lifetime retrospective pieces done by every relevant media outlet in the world. Of course some will anoint him St Michael, but I don't think that will be universal. It would take an extremely brave reporter to gloss over the unsavoury/salacious facets of his life, when they formed such a big part of who he was.
No, Bowie is...It depends entirely on your predeliction of course...But Bowie is to most I would imagine
I think you may have missed my original point/it wasn't clear. There are posters in here who have set their own high water mark as regards their behaviour, or righteous indignation in some cases. They now have to live up to their own lofty standards. Whether they will afford the same respect, and unwillingness to hear anything negative about someone they are not so enamoured of is another matter. I reckon not. In fact, I'll bet some of them will be equally as guilty of the sorts of comments they're up in arms about in this thread. I won't be the one pointing it out, but I reckon it'll happen.
As for the media coverage-once he's buried or whatever he's chosen, there will be lifetime retrospective pieces done by every relevant media outlet in the world. Of course some will anoint him St Michael, but I don't think that will be universal. It would take an extremely brave reporter to gloss over the unsavoury/salacious facets of his life, when they formed such a big part of who he was.
and on his 'talent', I think in terms of fame and celebrity he is Elvis, and probably unrivalled ... but for me many were as talented ... like Stevie Wonder ... for me Dylan and Bowie have/had more talent ... but I'm not going to defend this at all here, just my view for perspective.
Also I disagree with all modern music stemming from the Beatles. That a sleeve note eulogy if I ever heard it. That is a discussion I'd like to have but not in this thread.
Do it!
I will, I promise, just not now ... I'll PM you! You'll miss nothing!
There's absolutely no way this thread deserves to be immortalised in the classics.
Genuine question.
Purely in terms of his music, was Jackson as important and influential as some of the other names listed in the last few posts?
I don't think so at all but that might just be my personal taste and I'd be interested to hear thoughts from some of the musos amongst us.
Just to reiterate this point...
The U.S. congress paused today...
The individual - although moderately histrionic - said that he was 'honoured to have lived through Michael Jackson'; this point is pertinent if you have ever sung, danced or just listened to Michael Jackson's music. It is incredible, and has brought so much 'joy' to the world, the man is a genius.
There isn't a fag paper between Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley and John Lennon. Yet, moreover, i think Michael Jackson's worldwide appeal is far greater - and probably still expanding - than either of those two. His music breaks boundaries even for individuals that don't know the words.
I'm surprised that people can't quantify this. Very surprised.
Eminem isn't all-encompassing.