Larrok

(Y)(Y)(Y)(Y)

Cappio, look, if you ask me Michael Jackson, in the realm of '80s "chart pop," was the best. But being the best in that field doesn't seem to me to be synonymous with genius... Especially considering what the competition was?

Sorry, but if I'm listening to a record, I'm listening to music; dancing isn’t part of the record but rather part of the show. If Jackson's records sold so much, it’s because that music was associated in the collective imagination with his stunning dance style, visceral, astonishing, etc. The music itself wasn’t innovative (but I don’t expect it to be), it wasn’t original (the arrangements might have been, but expressively it was absolute zero), yet it was catchy and produced excellently.

no thanks lucumine, I don't need you to tell me about it, and just to be clear, I also listen to a ton of incredibly famous artists. Cappio, you're right about the term avant-garde; the ability to sing and build a melody is commendable, but to be considered a musical genius from an expressive standpoint seems excessive to me.

Gustavo, you didn't understand the meaning of my sentence. I didn't say it was a bad thing, but if listening to those 3 artists who are among the most famous and mainstream in history means having an open mind, then what about someone who listens to pure avant-garde along with ACDC? How is their mind? Wide open?

For me, the talent he had was 99% in dancing and showmanship. Musically, I don't consider him a genius; fusillo, aridaje, I couldn't care less that Miles Davis covered a Jackson piece. This doesn't change my opinion in the slightest about the artistic value of either one. Because I am simply me and Miles Davis was Miles Davis. Everyone thinks with their own head. But there are things that I consider objective from my point of view. And one of these is that musically "20 random seconds of 'Bitches Brew' are worth more than all of Michael Jackson's life."

But I don't give a damn about what others say, I think for myself and I won't be influenced by the media, rankings, or celebrity interviews. Period.

Ah well, if Renato Zero and Massimo Ranieri said it, then we can trust it… goodness me, what a shame… having an open mind means listening to Deep Purple, The Beatles, and Michael Jackson at the same time? Crikey! Then I can't imagine what it means to have a closed mind… And then, have funk and soul ever been niche genres? The further spread of these genres, or should I say sub-genres of Rhythm & Blues, is due to several artists before Jackson, and if he sold more than everyone else it's due to many factors, including his immense talent in dancing, Quincy Jones' production and arrangements, his self-constructed image to appear as an extraordinary character, and other things, among which, however, I don't see the musical genius that so many attribute to him. Didn't Hendrix, James Brown, and Miles Davis have the same media impact? And who the hell cares? Twenty random seconds of "Bitches Brew" are worth more than Michael Jackson's whole life as far as I'm concerned. And anyway, regarding Madonna, she also had a crazy media impact, and in the last 10-15 years, it was significantly higher than Michael Jackson's. The media impact has zero value to me if the content of what you communicate is mediocre.

brat12, surely God at 67 is better than Ozzy at 60. At least he still sings decently and isn't a zombie barely standing... that said, apart from the Tesla, there wasn’t a single band that interested me this year at the Gods.