Jump to content

Fifteen Minutes of Fame


August1991

Recommended Posts

News lied to me...ok, he's the third best selling artist of all time. He isn't going anywhere. None of the others above him or the group has.

Also, I'd check back with that list in the next year or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Smallc I never heard anything in the news that he was the best selling artist of all time. He did, however, have the best selling album.

Thriller is the sixth studio album by American recording artist Michael Jackson and the best-selling album of all time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thriller_(album)

Edited by capricorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afraid you are off the mark as most industry and cultural experts will tell you. Elvis and Jackson achieved both fame and notoriety. An early death almost assures a certain fame for these type of artists.
Elvis may have been a bit bizarre, like Jackson, but he didn't hurt anybody. Jackson did, and deeply.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mozart died in the 1790s, but his music is still available on bittorrent.

In 200 years, in 2210, will anyone listen to the Jackson Five, even as a period artefact?

In 2210, I suspect that people will know the opening notes of

however, as we do over 200 years after Mozart's death. And KV622 will be as plaintive, lonely and famous in 2210 as it is now.

----

Fame is transient, but we can all offer a gift to the future.

I suspect you're right about Mozart v. Jackson. I hope Jackson goes down with whoever was responsible for creating Megan's Law in fame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between Mozart and Jackson is Mozart created music. Jackson created entertainment.

Jackson's songs by themselves are hardly inspiring. What made him popular was his showmanship and how it meshed well with music video culture which had just exploded in the 80s.

What this means is Mozart's music performed by someone else is still worth hearing.

Jackson's music performed by someone is a cheap copy that will never compete with the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's correct, but because of the world that we live in, his music can live on in audio and in video. There's no reason to think that his name will be disappearing.
You mean the world where we are now drowning in audio and video content at our finger tips?

Jackson's name will live on as the posterboy for eccentric stars. His music will be a secondary footnote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What this means is Mozart's music performed by someone else is still worth hearing.

Oh COME ON.

Mozart is the bubble gum of classical music. It's about as complex, or arguably less so than Michael Jackson's music (not that Micahel's is overly complex).

listeen to Mozarts symphony 41, one of his better works. It's simple, repetitive yet catchy. Mozart was the rolling stones of classical music: simplee, catchy, appeal to the masses yet nothing earth shatteringly complex or layered in it's presentation.

If you're gonna criticize Jackson music in isolation, fine. But to hold up MOZART as an example off comparitively more brilliant is a crock. I'd say the two had alot in common, actually. Both personally and professionaly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

listeen to Mozarts symphony 41, one of his better works. It's simple, repetitive yet catchy. Mozart was the rolling stones of classical music: simplee, catchy, appeal to the masses yet nothing earth shatteringly complex or layered in it's presentation.
The operative word in your critiques is "music". Take away Jackson from his music and there is nothing left. He was an entertainer - a very successful one - but he did not produce music that will stand on its own.
If you're gonna criticize Jackson music in isolation, fine. But to hold up MOZART as an example off comparitively more brilliant is a crock. I'd say the two had alot in common, actually. Both personally and professionaly.
Composing music for an entire orchastra takes considerably more talent than composing a single voice melody backed by by a drum line and synth. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The operative word in your critiques is "music". Take away Jackson from his music and there is nothing left. He was an entertainer - a very successful one - but he did not produce music that will stand on its own.

I disagree. Billie Jean is a classic. To name just one.

Composing music for an entire orchastra takes considerably more talent than composing a single voice melody backed by by a drum line and synth.

Oh really? The same basic premise of composing holds for both a pop song and a symphony. Both have a "hook". Both have buildup and resolution (with the exception of Wagner and some of his ilk).

Each has leaqd melody components, usually represented by the violins, woodwinds or brass in orcheestral performances and usually by lead guitars, piano or lead vocals in pop music.

Each has a bass and rhythm section or "backbone" representeed by low horns such as trombones or tuba, bowed double bass or timpani in orchestra, and usually represented by a drumset, bass guitar and various percussion instruments in pop music. (incidentally, playing the drum or bass part for "The Way You Make Me Feel" is infinietly more difficult than playing the double bass or tympani parts for symphony).

Each creates ambeince or "bed" midrange components living at 400hz to 2.4 khx on the EQ usually represented by viola, mid range horns such as french horn, as well as cellos and usually representeed by back up vocals, piano, synth or rhythm guitar tracks.

It's really the same principals arranged and performed by different instruments.

I have studied and performed all types of music for years and onee thing that annoys me is classical music snobs who seem to think that their type of music requires some greater understanding or skill than does pop. It's simply not necessarily true. Many times the reverse is actually the case, depending upon composer or performance.

Now throw JS Bach into the argument and I might begin to agree with you. As far as complexity, Mozart was the rolling stones. Bach was Rush, but more pleasing to the ear.

Edited by JerrySeinfeld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have studied and performed music for years and onee thing that annoys me is classical music snobs who seem to think that their type of music requires some greater understanding or skill than does pop. It's simply not necessarily true. Many times the reverse is actually the case, depending upon composer or performance.
I frankly think that there is alot more going on in most of Mozart's compositions than what you pretend Jerry but let's go with your own snobbishness and say that Mozart was just another pop composer. Indeed, that was kind of my point above.

And two hundred years after Mozart's death, people are still humming his tunes and downloading his music. OTOH, many, many other people or musicians, tremendously famous in their era, are now totally forgotten.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mozart is the bubble gum of classical music. It's about as complex, or arguably less so than Michael Jackson's music (not that Micahel's is overly complex).

listeen to Mozarts symphony 41, one of his better works. It's simple, repetitive yet catchy. Mozart was the rolling stones of classical music: simplee, catchy, appeal to the masses yet nothing earth shatteringly complex or layered in it's presentation.

To me, simplicity is brilliance. My best legal briefs are ones that anyone can understand.

That is also Mozart's genius. Being dense as Mahler and Wagner were does not make the music ingenious, just pompous.

Stravinsky's "neo-classical" period had it just about right, as did Mozart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I frankly think that there is alot more going on in most of Mozart's compositions than what you pretend Jerry but let's go with your own snobbishness and say that Mozart was just another pop composer. Indeed, that was kind of my point above.

And two hundred years after Mozart's death, people are still humming his tunes and downloading his music. OTOH, many, many other people or musicians, tremendously famous in their era, are now totally forgotten.

Hey man, you're kind of making my point - ie. the talented aren't always the remembered.

Ask persons on the street who Tom Waits is and 7/10 won't know. But they all know who Britney Spears is.

If your standard for greatness is mass appeal, throw Jackson in with Mozart and "Lethal Weapon 2".

Listen, my post was related to putting Mozart up on a pedastal above Jackson. To me their musical abilities rival eachother - as do their lives.

Child musical prodigy turned whacko.

Anyway, taste is taste. But I'm entiotled top my opinoin and you can't change is because someone happened to be around longer.

BTW Ray Vaughn is also a better guitar player than Hendricks. Deal with that ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....If your standard for greatness is mass appeal, throw Jackson in with Mozart and "Lethal Weapon 2".

Listen, my post was related to putting Mozart up on a pedastal above Jackson. To me their musical abilities rival eachother - as do their lives...

Jackson was none of these things.....more like Sinatra....Davis Jr.....Astaire....Elvis.

Mozart never made young girls swoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jackson was none of these things.....more like Sinatra....Davis Jr.....Astaire....Elvis.

Mozart never made young girls swoon.

Mozart was a girl - a very ugly girl - did you not know that? Jackson - well he was a girl also---at least old me percieved him as at least an it. Saw James Brown live in a small venue --- and Little Richard in a tiny club..now there was a guy who knew how to apply make up without cutting off his nose..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mozart was a girl - a very ugly girl - did you not know that? Jackson - well he was a girl also---at least old me percieved him as at least an it. Saw James Brown live in a small venue --- and Little Richard in a tiny club..now there was a guy who knew how to apply make up without cutting off his nose..

Right....but Brown and Little Richard were a different approach entirely....kinda like Stax Records instead of mainstream Motown...."race music" vs. Pop. Prince picked up on this and competed with Jackson...he lost...even though Prince is more of a musical genius.....who learned from Louis Jordan, Sly Stone, and funk bands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right....but Brown and Little Richard were a different approach entirely....kinda like Stax Records instead of mainstream Motown...."race music" vs. Pop. Prince picked up on this and competed with Jackson...he lost...even though Prince is more of a musical genius.....who learned from Louis Jordan, Sly Stone, and funk bands.

Yes Prince was better - Jackson knew what a good funk base line was--- sorry - Quincey knew what funk was..now it was the dance bass riff that opened the door for Jackson. What I find bothersome is that they call Elvis the "king" ........the guy wrote one tune - that's it - copied every last black move..he was the king of theft.. If you listen to Jacksons tunes - they are really not singable - unless you are some fanatic group of fans from Japan and have sat down for 40 hours to learn to mimic the melody...he was a great dance man - but if you look at the videos - all is cut and edited - the editor was the choreographer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point being - bass makes you dance - drums keep meter...I have seen poor musical units sound great with a hot and talented bass player-- the second you hear the bass line - you are cool - and you want to move...Jackson was all persona and his stage show was a series of one pose after another === and he had this vibrato that showed a controled and calculating vocal style...in time he will disappear into oblivion - how smart could he be...some say that Krut Cobain was brilliant - that dumb junky was not a success - because he is dead - and so is Jackson - success is dying in your bed an old man..with a very very long career behind you. Yes he was like Elvis - a phoney. He was an illusion. Perhaps there is a space now for someone real to emerge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...